fed at Christes supper with bread and wine that is not in the word of God where it is sayd Eate This is my body The Apologie semeth to say that our bodies be not noâ—…rished with the body and blood of Christ for it assigneth body and blood to our soules as our bodies are fed with bread and wine But Christ gaue his body to noâ—…rish our bodies also And therefore sayd Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you That is as Cyrillus expoundeth it In corpore vestro in your body And therefore on the other syde Christ sayd he that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting and I will reyse him again in the last day Ego sayeth Cyrillus Id est corpus meum quod comedetur I will reyse him that is to say my body which shal be eaten Reysing belongeth to the body which falleth into putrefaction by death As therefore the body is reysed by Christes body so the body liueth in the state of grace by Christes body and such life is by spiritual nutriment which is receaued of the flesh of Christ really present in vs. For which cause Tertullian confessed that not only our soule but also our body seedeth vpon the body and blood of Christ to th' intent our soule may be made fat of God Likewise Ireneus writeth that our flesh is nourishâ—…d of the body and blood of our Lord. We may now see what errour they fall into who assigne the body and blood of Christ to our soules and bread wine to our bodies whereas there is no substance left of bread or wine but euen our bodies feede vpon Christes body as Ireneus Cyrillus and Tertullian haue sayd ¶ Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries AFter the Apologie had spoken of communion vnder both kinds and of transubstautiation of which points as yet I speake not it returneth again in a confuse manner to the matter of the reall presence and thus it sayeth And in speaking thus we meane not to abase the Lords supper or to teache that it is but a cold ceremonie only and nothing to be wrought therein as many falsely slaunder vs we teache If they that pluck down altars and other ornaments of Christes supper if they that call the blessed Sacrament of the altar by so vile names as you and your scholars haue done be not of your number if they be not your derelings if they lerned not that coÌ„tempt of holy things and the denyall of the vnbloody sacrifice of you if they first persuaded not the licenciouse youth and faithlesse companie of men and wâ—…men in EnglaÌ„d rather by blasphemous names geuen to the Eucharist then by any word of God which you stil pretend and neuer allege then let it be thought that you meane not to abase the Lords supper But if you did set all the players and minstrels in the realme a work with such scoffes as your brotherhead inuented against the blessed body and blood of Christ I feare me you be not slaundered when you are sayd to teach it to be but a cold ceremonie sith you doubt not to call euen in this Apologie yâ— honour done to it the worshipping of bread whereas it is in deed the worshipping of the true body and blood of Christ. Wel you teach not that nothing is wrought or made in the supper Then by like you teach that somewhat is wrought there I wold fain see what it is which you teach to be wrought in the sup per. For where you say that Christ geueth him self in his supper that we may eate him by faith You teach a work of Christ in geuing him self a work of ours in eating him but not any thing wrought or made in the supper it self For the supper is that meate which is prouided to be eaten at the table of Christ. There you confesse bread and wine to be taken But seing you teache the same things notwithstanding he speaketh otherwise of them yet to tarie bread and wine stil I can not perceaue what substanciall thing you teachâ—… to be wrought in the supper concerning the matter of the supper which is bread and wine Now concerning the body and blood of Christ which you graunt to be geuen by faith I trow you teache not any thing to be wrought a new and made therein sithens they be impassible and therefore can not haue any thing made in them what is it then which you teache to be made in the supper Either bread and wine is the supper or the body and blood of Christ or both together For nothing els is there mentioned Bread and wine you say remayne still as they were before concerning their substaÌ„ce Then I say nothing is wrought in them The body and blood of Christ can haue nothing wrought in their substance because that wherein somewhat shal be made must suffer of that which worketh it therefore glose the matter how ye will you teache not any substanciall thing to be wrought in the supper of Christ except you call the geastes them selues the supper And then I weâ—…e they must be eaten vp of some body in so much as euery supper is prouided to be eaten We teache the substance of bread and wine to be made the substance of Christes body and blood And that is yâ— true work made in the supper of Christ where the mutable creatures are turned into the immutable substance of Christ. which work sith you deny bable what you wil you teache nothing to be wrought in the supper of Christ. ¶ The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature FOr we affirme that Christ doth truly and presently geue his owne self in his Sacraments in Baptisme that we may put him on and in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite and may haue euerlasting life by his crâ—…sse and blood Heare ye not how they affirme that Christ presently geueth his own self wold not a maÌ„ thinke they meant honestly and truly But sith they can make the words of Christ figuratiue when they lyst wonder not if they require their own words to be taken figuratiuely They meane not that Christ doth geue him self presently to our bodies and soules as is requisite to the presence of the flesh and blood of man why then vse they such words Uerily because they see the Scriptures so playne the Fathers and Councells so manifest the â—…aith and practise of the Church so euident for yâ— reall presence of Christ that in no wyse they may confesse any other thing then they doe And yet on the other side being fully determined to sticke to their desperate opinion that we really neither eate nor drinke vnder forme of bread and wine
true bread not because it was not a signe of true bread neither because who so deuoutly receaued it should not be deliuered froÌ„ euerlasting death of God but because it selfe had not in it any thing which being corâ—…ally taken â—…ight saue a man otherwise good from euerlasting dâ—…ath whereas the true bread which the Apostles toke into theyr hands through Christes gift was that very â—…esh which by the power of the Godhead whereunto it is annexed kepeth our soules that they dye not by synne and râ—…eth out bodies to liue for euer S. Augustine sayth Dominus sinit Iudam accipere inter innocentes disipulos quod fideles nouerunt preciuÌ„ nostrum Our Lord suffereth Iudas to take among the innocent disciples our price which the faithful know See what kind of taking S. Augustine speaketh of surely of that which was common to Iudas and which was made with hands See what Iudas toke precium nostrum our price Is bread and wine our price We are then derely bought in dede But if the reall substaÌ„ce of Christes body and blood be only our price when Christ sayth take he meaneth take yâ— real substance of my flesh into your haÌ„ds that thence it may come afterward vnder your harâ—…s ¶ The sixtenth circumstance of eating CHrist sayd eate ye once only and he sayd it of that one thing only which he deliuered to his Apostles corporally and they so toke it but Christ meant they should eate it as wel in soule as in body as wel by faith as by mouth For he had sayd before worke ye the euerlasting meat which the sonne of maÌ„ wil geue you and he declared the worke of God to be this that they should beleue in Christ who is the bread of life and who said his flesh to be meat in dede â–ª therefore when Christ sayd eate this is my body he meant eate bodily that I geue you and eate it also spiritually because it is a heaueÌ„ly kind of bread and a meate which neuer perisheth Neither doth the verbe eate by this meane stand vnproperly because â—…ating belongeth naturally both to the soule and to the body but yet concerning the cause of eating principally to the soule as the which alone geueth power to the body to eate and concerning the meane of eating principally to the body as the which only hath conuenient instruments to receaue corporall meat For neither a dead body can eate at al neither a soule which lacketh a body can eate properly Now when the soule and body may both not only eate but also be nourished by the eating that is the truest eating which can be deuised Christ then in saying eate meaneth eate ye as ye are men who consist of soules and of bodies eate in both and feede them both together For this is my body which hath in it the Godhead corporally dwelling Eating this you eate a food both spirituall and corporall This feedeth the whole man this is it which TertulliaÌ„ saith Caro c. The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ that the soule may also be made fat of God Note the perfit eating the flesh is fed and yâ— soule is made fat The Catholiks vpon this ground beleue the flesh which must be eaten spiritually to be vnder the form of bread which is eaten really and that Christ saying to a reasoable man eate this is my body saith by the reason of that kind of meat which he nameth eate in body and soule my body The SacrameÌ„taries teache a dubble substance to be eaten in a dubble maner of which yâ— one is present corporally yâ— other absent they teach bread wine to be eaten drunken corporally as things present but the flesh of Christ only to be eaten spiritually as a thing absent in his own substance they diuide the work of our bodies from the worke of our soules But the word eate ye can not be so meant sith it only pointeth to yâ— which the disciples had taken into theyr hands none other literal meaning can be of this word eate eating by faith hath no part in Christes supper neither is at al commanded if the thing eaten be not in the haÌ„ds of the Apostles ¶ The 〈◊〉 circumstance of these words this is my body I Wil speake of these wordes not al that may be sayd but rather no more then the nature of one circumstance among so many as Christ vsed in his supper will conueniently beare who taking bread after blessing and thaÌ„ks geuing sayd this is my body If yâ— meaning be this bread is yâ— signe of my body he gaue thaÌ„ks for the institution of a bare signe for so I must needs call it seing bread remaining still in his owne nature can neuer be any more then a bare signe so long as it is not the body it self which it doth signifie For euery figure image token whiche differeth in substance from his originall is always bare and naked in respect of that truth which it 〈◊〉 hath not the same in it selfe So was Christ a bare maÌ„to the Ebionits because they denied yâ— substaÌ„ce of God to be in him howsoeuer they extolled him otherwise 〈◊〉 Christ come theÌ„ to leaue naked bare signes to his Church and is he so glad of that promotion that he thanketh his father for it was this the ioy he had of eating the new passouer wherein he would geue vs only bread and wine mixed with water in â—…ede of bread wine herbs and flesh which were geuen vnder the law of Mâ—…yses is not his outward gift at the least desaced by this doctrine Uerily seing with thanks geuing Christ ioyned this is my body presenting in effectuall words that whiche his hart intended before to consecrate vnto God we must no more say that he instituted a bare figure of his body in these wordes then that he presented a bare signe in his hart when he gauc thanks For who can think that Christ who had said by God and by his Prophet Dâ—…uid Sacrifice and offring thou wouldest not but thou hast framed me a body meanig that none other sacrifice pleased God beside his vnspotted fleshe who can thinke that he now expresly naming that his body yet presenteth to his father bread wine only as figures signes of his body and blood and that he gaue thanks for them â–ª Melchisedech ended the mysterie of his bread and wine in the blessing of Abraham him self and doth Christ after bread wine taken end his blessing only in a figure of the sede of AbrahaÌ„ that whereof Moyses said this is the bread which our Lord hath geueÌ„ you to eate was in dede a more excelleÌ„t bread then he could name and â—…oth Christ name more then is really present Surely the signe of Christes supper is so bare if that which he pointeth vnto be not in dede his body yâ— in words he geueth greater 〈◊〉 to God his Father then in his dedes For
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
and geue him self present in thâ—…e mysteries or no You graunt he doth be these mysteries in heauen or in earth I suppose they be in earth Then say I your words import thâ—…t Christ geueth him self present in the earth How then doe you straight way inferre by a therefore that we are bid lift vp our harts to hâ—…nward because he is there by whom we must be 〈◊〉 fed If you meane he is both there and here you say very wel buâ—… thâ—… you graunt his body to be at once in diuers places at the least by yâ— way of SacrameÌ„tall being Except you will say his body is not in these mysteries and then he geueth not him self present For his body is the chefe thing whereof this Sacrament is named Neither we are flesh of his flesh in those mysteries where his flesh is not present to be ioyned with ours You say that Christ geueth him self present yea so farr present that we know certainly we are flesh of his flesh and yet you bid vs goe to heauen because he is there of whom we must be ful fed As though his mysteries were not in earth in which you graunt he geueth him selâ—… present If any spark of grace remaine in you consyder that God hath geuen you ouer into a lewd vnderstanding into a blind hart in to palpable darknesse Ye wold set God and the deuill together ye wold reconcile your fond hearesie with the healthfull Gospell of Christ you wold seme to confâ—…e with Christ yâ— he geueth him self present in these mysteries with S. Paul that we are flesh oâ—… Christes flesh and yet withall you will ioyne your own repugnant assertion that the body of Christ is only in heauen and consequently not in these mysteries which are in earth The longer you stand in this repugnance the more you shame your selues I haue not spoken this for any other cause but to stirr vp your minds by words of sharp warning which S. Paul biddeth vs vse to heretiks thereby to prouoke some such as haue regard to their soules to repent in tyme and to persuade them selues that they are not able to geue a new exposition of Christes supper which may stand with the old Gospell of Christes Church The body of Christ is the meat of his supper For thereof he sayd Take eate this is my body If then Christ geue him self present in these mysteries he geneth his body present If his body be present how say ye we must lift vp our harts to heauen there to be ful fed Is not Christ him self being present able to feed vs full How is it then that we must goe vp to heauen to be ful fed But let vs farther consyder your discrete discurse It is said in the preface of the Masse Lift vp your harts which words you interprete as though it were sayd your meat is in heauen and not vpon the holy table This argument I maruail if any man be able to answere The people are warned before coÌ„secration to liâ—…t vp their myndes to heauen Therefore the body of Christ is not really present on the alter aftar consecration As much to say as Before the incarnation of Christ the Prophetes and Patriarchs called and cried to God them selues and also exhorted the people to praie for the coming of Christ therefore when he was come he was not true God and true man in earth We crie Lift vp your harts before the body of Christ is made as beseching God we may haue his body made for vs. when it is made we lift the body it self vp to be adored and worshipped of the faithfull people as hauing then obteined our desier and that because it is the true body of true God And yet euen after consecration and after the body is really present it might wel be sayd lift vp your harts to heauen where by lyfting vp we should meane nothing ells but that the faithful men should not geue them selues to wordly thoughts of the earth of mony of flesh but list vp their minds to thinke of euerlasting ioyes Againe by naming heauen we meane not to denye yâ— real presence either of God in the whole earth or of Christ on the altar but only to shew that we should looke for another worlde and yâ— life thereof This argument might haue become a tinkar better then a diuine and least of all it could become a superintendent who ought to haue knowen that yâ— Church is yâ— kingdome of heauen and therefore the kingdome of God is within vs that to consyder what Christ worketh in his Church and for her sake is also after one sort to lift vp our hartes to heauen last of all he ought to consyder that S. Chrysostom writeth Diddest thou not promise yâ— Preist when he cryed lift vp your minds and hartes and saidest thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries the Lamb of God is offred for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fyre floweth from the table See what lifting vp of harts was to the old Fathers It was to acknowlege the mysteries vpon the table to beleue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to deny the real presence of Christ. That is in deed a homely lifting vp of harts to lift the body and blood of Christ cleane from the altar and holy table Such lifting away becometh theues Hitherto these men brought neither any euident authoritie of Scripture thereby to fortifie their opinion nor any sentence of auncient Father coÌ„cerning the question of the reall presence And now I pray you see what worshipful geare they bring We say in the Masse lift vp your harts before yâ— body is sanctified and made present therefore it is not made present at all We say grace before the meate is set vpon the table therefore none at all is set there This is the stuff of them that boast so much of the Gospell This is my body is forgotten which is fower tymes repeted twise of two Apostles and twise of two Euangelists Yet is that forgotten and lifting vp of harts which came of the good inuention of Godly Fathers but yet from men it came that is called in for a witnesse against the truth of the Gospell And yet euery man thinkeththey bring nothing but the pure word of God for their false doctrine ¶ What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. ANd Cyrillus sayth that in the receauing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Here is the second authoritie alleged against the reall presence of Christes body and that I warrant you full strong Grosse imaginations must be put awaye in receauing the mysteries therefore Christ spake not properly nor truly when he sayd This is my body Are we not now happy to haue such fine preachers who can shew the beleuing of that which Christ sayth
caet Let vs heare our Lorde verily not saying this of the Sacramente of baptisme but saying it of the SacrameÌ„t of his holy table whither no man cometh well vnlesse he be baptised except ye eate my flesh and soforth S. Augustine here declareth the precept of eatinge Christes flesh which is in the sixt of S. Ihon so to appertein to the SacrameÌ„t of his holy supper that it apperteineth not in suche sorte vnto baptisme And yet if by eating his flesh he meant only beleuing in him and the receauing of grace or the vnitie of Christes mysticall body then truely those wordes except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man should belong first to baptisme where we are vnited first and incorporated vnto Christ 〈◊〉 But S. Augustine â—…meth a difference betwene baptisme and the Eucharist by these wordes in so â—…uche as he saith God spake of the one not of the other But yf he spake of spirituall vniting vs to Christ withouâ—… the Sacrament of his owne supper then he rather spake of baptisme then of his supper whiche S. Augustine him selfe denieth Therefore S. Augustine meant that Christ in S. Ihon literally promysed the gift of his supper but yet to them only that were baptised And for yâ— cause he geueth a reason why this gift whiche is proper to Christes supper is applied to the infants which are baptised his reason is quo nâ—…mo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit to the Sacrament of which holy table no man cometh duely without he be baptised yâ— which reason also he brinketh another where for the same purpose If the Sacrament of his holy table be taken for the thing and general effect of that SacrameÌ„t as some expound S. Augustine then the reason alleged is false for some man yea all men that are worthely baptised in the very baptisme come to the thing to the grace and to the geuerall effect of Christes holy table because they come by baptisme to the vnitie of his mysticall body whiche is a generall effect wrought in the Sacrament as wel of baptism as of Christes table as S. Paule saith we are one bread one body all that receaue of the one bread But if we take the thing or effect of Christes table for the speciall effect rysing thence whiche is the nourishing and mainteyâ—… of life â—…ing that effect being spoken of in S. Ihon doth infâ—… of 〈◊〉 that the ordinarie caâ—…se of the same effect is also spoken of â–ª which is the blessed Eucharist For euery effect presupposeâ—… necessary cause But the cause without whiche we can not ordinarily maintein oâ—…r spirituall life is the Sacrament of Christes supper He therefore sayinge except ye eate my flesh ye shal not haue life in yâ—… meaneth exceptye coâ—…â—…helye to the Sacrament of my supper ye shall not kepe and preserue lyfe in you For that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habere doth in holy scripture signifie not onlye the firste obteining of a thing but also the keping and vse thereof S. Hierom hath well noted against Iouinian vppon those words of S. Paul Vnusquisque habeat vxoreÌ„ suam let euery maâ—…haue and hold his wife I make â—…o doubt but al men of iudgement will confesse that when a Sacrament is instituted of Christ for a speciall purpose that purpose dependeth ordinarily vpon that Sacrament alone and although Christ be able otherwyse to saue â—…en 〈◊〉 yet we can not warrant that he will saue him who being of lawfull age doth abstein voluntarily from the Sacrament of his holy table Thus muche I haue said concerning S. Augustines mynde 〈◊〉 whose workes I neuer saw one syllable why to think that he would the literall sense of the sixth of S. Ihon to â—…long only to spirituall eating But I haue sene very muche and haue alleged and shal hereafter allege many places out of him wherein it apâ—… most clerely that he meant otherwyse S. Basil is also brought foorth who saith that Christ in those wordes except ye eate my flesh c. calleth his whole mysticall coming fleshe and blood But what of that is not therefore that saying verisied also of the Sacrament of his last supper whiche who so receaueth worthely he is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ of his 〈◊〉 of his preaching of his passioÌ„ â—…tion ascension and of al the rest his doings and saings so that it is a very good sense to say except ye beleue that the soâ—…e of maÌ„â—…ath done and taught in fleshe except your seluâ—… by his grace 〈◊〉 and kepe all his commaundements ye shall not haue lyse in 〈◊〉 but S Bastil knewe right wel that the chief Sacrament left by Christ was the institution of his last supper and therfore that SacrameÌ„t is a singular peece of that which Christ in these words commaundeth vs to beleue and to performe and for that cause in the place where S. Basil purposely disputeth of the holy Sacraments he declareth all the later parte of the sixth of S. Ihon to appertein specially to Christes supper Their reasons are aunswered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Ihon. THe first reason which is brought to shew that Christ in S. Ihon promysed not properly the Sacramente of his holy table is grounded vpon this negatiue proposition because there is no mention made of bread and wine which are the matter and elements wherof his supper is made As though he might not promise the thing which shoâ—…ld be made in his banket vnlesse he named that whereof it should be made A man may be inuited to a pastie or tart or some lyke confection although it be not tolde him of what stuf it shal be made â–ª it skilled nothing for yâ— multitude of men to know the order of â—…king his banket which thing was committed to the Apostles alone But it skilled much for them all to know what kynd of food they should receaue Againe the matter of any sacrameÌ„t is not more necessary then the forme of worâ—… which is vsed therein But when Christ sayd except a man bâ—…â—…orne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he can not enter into the kingdome of heauen He shewed not by what wordes the water whiche washeth should be made a sacrament to our vse profite Therefore if this kind of reasoning be good he spake not at all of baptisme to Nicodeâ—…us whiche is a false conclusion In â—…ede it foloweth wel Christ in S. Ihon speaketh neither of bread nor of wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs by his wordes in that Chapiter to receaue vâ—…der both kinds â–ª but onely bindeth vs to receaue that thing which is his flesh and blood vnder whatsoeuer kind we receaue it But to say that he speaketh notat all of his fleshe in respect of the sacraâ—…nt of the altar that is not true â–ª as I haue proued before An other argumente of theirs is that Christe speaketh
last supper he sayd This is my body which is or shal be geuen for you thereby geuing vs in his supper a far better meale then he gaue to Moyses or Elias euen so in this place when he promiseth to geue vs the bread which is his flesh for y◠world he meaneth not that we shall haue no more then Iacob had but that our meate is such as also is the propitiation for the synnes of the whole world By which words it is shewed y◠our meat is also an externall sacrifice and not that it is only a spirituall food receaued by faith and charitie Concerning that daily we may eate y◠bread which Christ promiseth it is not against the Sacrament of his supper which is left to be our daily and supersubstantial bread Either because we may come daily to it or els because being receaued at certaine tymes it always tarieth with vs by some spirituall effect which the Sacramentall receauing worketh in vs. And as the absolutiō which we receaue of the Priest at certain tymes causeth a continual Penance in vs through all our life so a Sacramental receauing of Christes body causeth a cōtinuall eating of him by spirit Now Christ so meant to haue his flesh eaten spiritually that the ordinarie cause of that feeding should consist in the Sacrament of his last supper for that Sacrament mainteineth our spiritual life as S. Paule teacheth The last reason of the contrarie part is thus foormed Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tary in him and him to tary in vs. But that is not alwayes the effecte of the Sacramentall eating for as S. Paul sayeth a man maye eate Christes body in the Sacrament of the altar vnworthely and to his damnation Therefore say they Christ speaketh not in S. Ihon of sacramentall eating but only of that eating by faith and charitie whereby we maye liue for euer For answere to this argument thus I saye Sacramentall eating must be considered two waies as all the other workes of God towardes men maye be considered one waye is to consider it in that nature vertue and effect which God for his part putteth in the Sacrament An other is in that abuse and imperfection which man wickedly committeth about the holy workes of God Who can doubt but that Christ came into the world to saue men vt saluetur mundus per ipsum that the world maye be sayd by him as for condemnation it was not brought in by Christ but by Adam and Eue our first parents and by our owne wilful synnes ad misdoinges And yet the holy scriptures witnes that Christ is the sauour of death to many and the stone whereat they stomble not through any fault of his but because they vse their freewil to the worse part with whom he hath to do Euen so cometh it to passe in the blessed Sacrament of the altar Christ geueth it only to this end that we by eating thereof maye tarie in him and he in vs. For as Isychius hath well noted Sanctificationis causa non autem contaminationis proposuit suum mysterium Christ hath set foorth his mysterie to sanctifie and not to spott vs. As he geueth faith to th' end it should worke by charitie and not to th' end it should lye dead and vnfruitfull And in dede so should all men tary for euer in Christ if they did eate this Sacrament as they ought to do If nowe they will profanely come vnto it without contrition and confession of their synnes and absolution of the priest that is not the sault of the Sacrament which is geuen to make vs dwel for euer in Christ but it is their fault who abuse the gift of God to their owne hurte and losse This thing wel weighed I answere that alwaies the effect of Sacramentall eating on Christes behalfe is the tarying of vs in Christ and of Christ in vs. And S. Paul saying that some receyue it vnworthely and to their damnation speaketh not of any effect rising of the Sacrament it self but only of a negligence and impietie which standeth on their part who come to the rea◅ flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament as if it were common bread and wine only halowed by the deuout praiers of man whereas in dede it is changed in substance by the mightie power of the word of God Let it therefore stand for a truth as it is a most vndoubted truth that Christ in the sixth chapiter of S. Ihon doth prophecie of his last supper promising to geue in it his own flesh to be eaten as the which is meate in dede and for his part he promiseth that it shall haue a perfit effect albeit we sometymes through ma lice withstand his goodnes This meaning is not only true in it self but it is confirmed also by S. Augustine who declaring that a thing good in it self may be vnpro◅itable to him y◠vseth it euill after he had shewed that to be so in light which hurteth sick eyes and delighteth the whole eyes and in the law in which although the Iewes were yet they abused the same at the length he cometh to our very purpose saying Quid de ipso corpore sanguine Domini vnico sacrificio pro salute nostra quamuis ipse Dominus dicat nisi manducaueritis caet What say we concerning the very body and blood of our Lord the only sacrifice for our saluation Not withstanding that our Lord him self sayth Except a man eate my flesh and drink my blood he shall not haue life in him self doth not yet the same Apostle teache euen this thing to be made hurtfull to them y◠vse it euill For he sayth Whosoeuer eat eth the bread and drinketh the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. What cā be plainer then these words of S. Augustine Who thought that argument which I haue answered to be nothing worth at all affirming the Apostle S. Paule and Christ in S. Ihon to speake of one and the same body or flesh of Christ as it is geuen in the Sacrament of his last supper And truly they doe no small iniury to S. Augustine who by any meanes wold father vpon him this opinion as though he taught Christ in S. Ihon to speake only of a spirituall eating by faith and charitie whereas he neuer gaue any sufficient token of that meaning but expresly teacheth the contrarie as all the other Fathers doe The reason which moued some men to think that S. Augustine meant so was for that he speaketh much of spiritual eating and of the vnitie of Christes Church But that eating is also made and best of all made in the mysteries of Christes supper when they are worthely receaued as Christ wold allways haue them to be receaued If any other argument remain by this which is already said it may be easily sene
to an other wax doth make one thing of twain which is the similitude made here by S. Tyrillus What like ioyning to that other similitude of the leauen can be if no leaueÌ„ that is to say no benediction or no flesh of Christ be receaued into vs which may draw vs to it What mingling together is made of things that be so far distant as heauen and earth If you say faith and spirit doth ioyne mingle knitte Christ to vs and vs to Christ and make vs to tarie in him and him to tarie in vs either you geue a cause of yâ— ioyning which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ or els you correct his cause and put a better If the faith spirit whereof you speake shal stand with Christes cause it must be such faith as doth concurre with the eating of his flesh For he now sayd not he that beleueth in me tarieth in me but he yâ— eateth my flesh tarieth in me Therefore though ye beleue neuer so wel yet your present tarying in Christ is not assigned to faith but vnto eating Faith is necessarie to worthy eating and coÌ„sequently to our tarying in Christ. But not euery ground which is necessarie to a thing is by and by yâ— cause thâ—…reof Or though it be one cause it is not the only cause In the former part of this chapiter saith had his due commendation But now Christ speaketh of eating his flesh and saith it maketh vs tary that is to say to be ioyned to him wholy and to be mingled with him as well in body as in soule which thing can not be otherwise then through that we eate his flesh substantially He that leauing that eating of Christes flesh staieth vpon feeding by faith alone correcteth the cause assigned by Christ and also depriueth vs of that naturall tarying in him whereof he now intreateth ¶ We are made one with Christ by natural participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his Father hath assumpted our nature into his own person HE that eateth Christes flesh tarieth in Christ and receaueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirit only but also by natural participation of his flesh which thing Christ declareth by this example As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue for the Father also he that eateth me shal him self liue for me But Christ liueth not for his Father by faith at all because he seeth his glorie face to face nor yet by the meane of spirit alone as we take spirit for deuotion or els for spiritual gifts and qualities but he liueth for his Father hauing his Fathers whole substance really present in him self therefore we that eating Christ liue in like maner for him must haue his whole substance really present in vs and so must we receaue life not by faith or spirit alone but by taking the flesh of life it self into our bodies and soules Thus veriâ—…ic Christ doth meane That we may reache to the true ground of this comparison it behoueth we lerne first how Christ liueth for his Father and then we may vnderstand how we receauing his flesh worthelie shall liue also for him Christ hauing two natures in one person may be sayd to liue for his Father according to either of bothe natures As God he liueth for his Father for that he is eternally begotten of him to whom the Father geâ—…eth his whole nature substance life glorie so that uo diâ—…ference is betwene the Father and the sonne but that the sonne is begotten of the Father and the Father is altogether vnbegotten and without any relation to a farther beginning This order wherein the sonne otherwise equall God 〈◊〉 his Father doth yet alwaies refer his generation and life to an euerlasting beginning is the cause why Christ as God liueth for his Father the which interpretation S. Hilarie S. Basile S. Chry sostom and S. Augustine doe confesse may well agree to this place Christ as man liâ—…eth for his Father because his Father sent him to take flesh whose flesh being of it self neither able to geue life euerlasting nor to haue it in his own nature yet for the word wherevnto it is vnited in one person both hath life and geueth life now the word is naturally one God and one life with the Father this second sense doth better please S. Basile S. Augustine and S. Cyril although they allow the former also but this second sense doth more agree with those words sicut misit me pater as my Father sent me For the sending of Christ was the taking of flesh at his incarnation bothe senses agree herein that both life is really and corporally dwelling in Christes flesh through the Godhead and the Godhead is naturally with Christ through that he is the sonne of God the Father Two things are to be noted in this comparison the one is the real presence of life the other is the hauing of it by gift and by relation to a farther cause or beginning For as Christes flesh liueth for the word of God to whom it is really vnited and the word of God liueth for the Father whose whole substaÌ„ce it hath really receaued by generation without beginning of tyme so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ hauing the substance of his flesh really present with him and thereby partaketh life euerlasting This verie sense Christes words haue both by the conference of the text it self and also by the interpretation of S. Hilarie who by this scripture confuteth the Arrians that sayd Christ to be inferiour to his Father not to be equall God with him To mainteine the which heresie they brought foorth a similitude of vnitie which is made in holy scripture betwene God the Father Christ and vs affirming Christ to be one with his Father as we are one with him but sayd they we are one with Christ only by will and consent therefore Christ is one with his Father only after the same sort to which argument S. Hilarie answering turneth it vpon their own heads in this wise Viuit ergo per patrem quomodo per patrem viuit eodem modo nos per carnem eius viuemus omnis enim comparatio c. Christ then liueth by his Father and as he liueth by his Father after the same maner we shal liue by his flesh for euery comparison is presumed to be made according to the forme and concept of our vnderstanding to thintent the matter whereof we intreat may be so perceaued as the example geueth which is proponed This truly is the cause of our life in so much as we haue Christ abyding by flesh in vs who consist of flesh and he shall liue through him by such condition as he liueth through his Father Yf we then liue through him naturally according to flesh that is to wit hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can he but haue naturally the Father
The supper of our Lord SET FOORTH ACCORding to the truth of the Gospell and Catholike faith By Nicolas Saunder Doctor of Diuinitie with a confutation of such false doctrine as the Apologie of the Churche of England M. Nowels chalenge or M. Iuels Replie haue vttered touching the reall presence of Christe in the Sacrament MANHV What is this The figure Exod. 16. This is the bread which our Lord hath geuen you to eate The prophecie Prouerb 9. Come eate my bread drink that wine which Ihaue mixed for you The promise Ioan. 6. The bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The performance Matt. 26. Luc. 22. He gaue sayiÌ„g take eate this is my body which is geueÌ„ for you The doctrine of the Apostles 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break is the coÌ„municatiÌ„g of our Lords body The belefe of the Church Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit Both our Lord hath professed we beleue it to be flesh in dede The custome of Heretiks Tertul. de Resur car The contrarie part reiseth vp trouble by presence of figures LOVANII Anno domini 1566. CVm Regiae Maiestatis priuilegio sub 20. mâ—…sis Augusti anni 1565. permissum esset Nicolao Saundero Anglo sacrae Theologiae Doctori vt 〈◊〉 in scriptum The supper of our Lord set forth according to the truth of the Gospel c. imprimere posset posteaquà m prodiisset liber quidaÌ„ a duersus CatholicaÌ„ fideÌ„ quâ—…m D. Nicolaus defendisset anglicè conscriptus quem etiam confutandum sumpsit renouato Priuilegio concessum est eidem Nicolao vt ei vnâ cum confutatione contrariae doctrinae suum librum typis mandare ac impunè distrahere liceat Datum Bruxellis 22. Decembris Anno Christi 1565. S. de la Torre Approbatio sex priorum librorum AVthor ipse huius voluminis Nicolaus SauÌ„der sacrae Theologiae Professor eius est apud nos fidei vt sine aliquo metu tutò posset euulgari estque praeterà à multis Anglici idiomatis sacrae Theologiae peritissimis perlectum qui illud meritò plurimum coÌ„mendarunt Cunerus Petri Pastor Sancti Petri Louanâ—… 7. August Anno. 1565. TO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF ouâ—… Sauiour Iesus Christ vnder the foormes of bread and wyne all honour praisc and thanks be geuen for â—…uer IF he that mainteneth a right good cause yet partly for feare of the deceits and suttiltie of his aduersaries partly for mistrust of his own knowledge and memoric dare not appere in iudgement without his aduocate or proâ—…tour with 〈◊〉 seing yâ— sending foorth of a booke into yâ— light of yâ— world is yâ— dangering to haue it suÌ„moned to so manie courts as it shal be brought into howses yâ— appering before so manie iudges as be readers thereof what aduocat and proctour yea rather what Doctor and Patrone am I constrayned to seek who do not only set foorth mie book to be readen of whatsoeuer English man but also write of suche a matter as being of most weight is most diligently examined in these our dayes and wherein I am sure to find as wel the Lutherans as the Zuinglians though vtterly dissagreing betwene themselues yet against me not only agreing to be seuere iudges in the reading but also to be cruel aduersaries in their iudgement Which seing it is so let noman wonder that I not mistrusting anie whit the vniuersal cause of the Catholiks but misdoubting mine own wit and the shamelesse shifts of our aduersaries haue chosen to dedicate this work to yâ— mysteri of thy glorious body and blood Lord Iesu Christ to 〈◊〉 those that now take vpon them to misiudge yâ— manifest effectuall words of thy blessing and thanksgeuing pronounced by thâ—…o in thy last supper making a figuratiue speache of a proper and whereas thy true body and blood itself worthie of all honour is through thy godhead made really present teaching not withstanding for their parte the substance of bread and wine still to remain and therefore an idol to be falsely â—…et vp and worshipped by the Catholiks to th'inteâ—…t I saie those false teachers maie either through thy grace be conuerted from thâ—…r misbelefe whereof I most humbly beseche the or els if they wil stubbâ—…nly persist in their detestable opinion maie euen presently be confounded with the maiestie of thy name whose glorie they oppâ—…gne For what can be more dishonorable to thy goodnes then if it maie be truly reported that the wisedome of god did institute his chief Sacrament in such words the which either being true and not beleued should bâ—…rden our consciences with infidelitie or being earnestly beleued and yet not conceaâ—…ed in proper speache should bring vs into manifest daâ—…nger of idolatrie sith no faithfull man beleuing this to be thy body as thou hast said it is can abâ—…teine from the singular worshipping of that singular fotestole of God Now soeuer it be with other men I adore thee my God and lord really present vnder the formes of bread and wine after cousecration dewly made Beseeching thee of pardoÌ„ for my synnes by the same propitiatorie sacrifice of thy body and blood which being made once with bloodsheding vpon the crosse causeth the fruits therof to be daily applied in that cleane and vnbloody sacrifice of the masse To this great mysterie of thy real presence I dedicate these my paines as to the most vndoubted fountain cause and supporter of them In this faith I was baptized and made a member of thy mystical body in the hope to mainteine this 〈◊〉 miâ—… parents and frinds did set me to schole in the vehement loue and affection thereof I haue written this rude and simple work And to whom should I refer the praise and thanks for it but vnto the alone Or of whom shuld I craue the protection thereof but of thee seing thou only art a meet patrone for the defence of any booke which only art alwaies present wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shal be examined To the honour therefore of thy body and blood I offer this poore mite of my simple vnderstanding thy mercifull gift whatsoeuer it be trusting thou wilt not suffer neither the truthe of thy gospel to be long vnrestored in the desolate I le of pitifull England nor me thy poore seruant through 〈◊〉 or naughty liuing to perish euerlastinglie AMEN The Contentes of the first Booke 1. The preface to the Reader 2. Notes concerning the translation of holy scripture in this argument 3. The state of the question 4. What the supper of our lords is according to the belefe of the Catholiks 5. What it is according to the doctrine of our aduersaries 6. A speciall errour of Caluin concerning the vvords of Christes supper is confuted The preface to the Christian Reader WHo so will auoyd the danger of pride of schisme and of hearesie he hath no greater helpe therevnto in this world then to mystrust his owne iudgement and to followe the authoritie of greater wisdome
word diâ—…ersly euen when Christ â—…seth the self same word to shew therby the similitude of yâ— matter Is propter Patrem for the Father and yet is propter me not for me but by the meanes of me A man maie liue by his meanes that is absâ—…t whom also he neuer saw But he can not liue for him who is not with him yea so with him that his whole life is mainteined through him For here Christ meaneth by liuing for me such a kind of life as men haue by liuing for and because of the meate which they 〈◊〉 As therfore noman is able to liue through that meate which is absent and as when the meat causeth vs to liue it is truly and really in vs euen so when Christ saith He that eateth me shall liue for me he meaneth him self to be really eaten of him who liueth through that he eateth Christ. This helpe toward the Catholike faith the Sacramentaries thought to make nothing by saâ—…ifying the holy scripture Thirdly Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum The true English were He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer The Bible doth English it He that eateth of this bread It is true to saie he that earcth of this bread shall liue for euer and it was saied before of Christ. But though it be true in his place yet it is not the true sense of this place For here Christ speaketh by the waie of promise of sacramental eating and he is so eaten in the Sacrament that we both eate him and of him We eate him because he is bodiâ—…y prâ—…sent vnder the foorm of bread We eate of him because we take vertue and increase of liâ—…e of him he yet tarieth whole Of him we maie eate also without the Sacrament by beleuing in him and keping his commaundâ—…ments But himself we properly eate only vnder the foorm of bread of which eating Christ now spake But because the Sacramentaries wold haue no difference betwen eating Christ eating of Christ as who beleue Christ really neuer to be eaten vnder the form of bread therfore they haue corrupâ—…ed the text putting of this bread where they shuld haue left out of and haue said He yâ— eateth this bread this bread I say which before Christ called his own â—…lesh and his own self He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Other smal faults in translating S. John I will not now stand about Lett vs passe vnto the supper of Christ. S. â—…athew writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CuÌ„accepisset Iesus paneÌ„ et gratias egisset fregit et dedit discipulis et ait The true english is Iesus hauing taken bread geueÌ„ thanks or blessed braâ—…e gaue to the disciples and said The common Bible readeth Iesus tokâ—… bread and when â—…e had geuen thanks he brake it gaue it to the discâ—…ples The holy scripture saith not that Jeâ—…us brake it neither that he gaue it but that he brake and gaue For Iesus toke in dede wheaten bread but hauing 〈◊〉 aâ—…d gâ—…uen thanks and saied the words of consecration This is my body he made fâ—…om of the 〈◊〉 of bread the subsâ—…ance of his body because he said This is my body â—…nd he is not wont to saie 〈◊〉 Thiâ—… 〈◊〉 which when Jesâ—…s toke was bread is after the words pronoâ—…ced the body of Christ and consequently that which was taken is made his body whiâ—…s it is changed by the power of God in to his body and therfore the substance of bread is no more present For which cause the scripture saied not fregit eum dedit eum as the English Bible hath he brake it and gaue it but he brake and gaue withowt it for he brake the forme of bread which remained and he gaue his body which by his word he made The words of S. Mathew do not all stand in order as it shal be shewed hereafter in so much as Christ said the words of consecration as it is more like before he brake the Sacrament or gaue to his Disciples But the Sacramentaries who wold the word of Christ when he said This is my body to be voide to be figuratiue to be a word of promising and not of performing do saie falsely that it is not in dede the body of Christ but bread stil as it was before to maintein that heresie they corrupt the text sayng Jesus toke bread and brake it and gaue it Again in S. Mark say they he brake it and in S. Luke he brake it last of all in S. Paule he brake it 〈◊〉 tymes putting the particle it which is neither in the Breke nor in the Latin â—…ble S. Luke and S. Paule after the consecration of the body of Christ witnesse that Christ sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc facite The trewest Englishe were Make this thing â–ª The sullest do and make this thing The common Bible readeth in S. Luke This do 〈◊〉 S. Paule This do ye And that which is most abominable of all in the second tome of yowr hoâ—…lies in the homilie of the Sacrament of Christes body it is translated Do ye thus So that in two wordes thre faults be committed the one thaâ—… facere is here Englished to doe whereas it standeth not for that only but also to make which is yâ— cheefer meaning of yâ— twaine as I proue hereafter And therfore either both significatioÌ„s of doing and making or the more principal which is of making owght to â—…aue beÌ„ expressed Moreouer hoc this thing is turned this only without adding therunto the name of thing and that to thâ—…nd noman should think yâ— a substaÌ„tial thing were wiâ—… to be made but only that a qualitie were dâ—…d For they wold haue the words of Christ to meane Doe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so do this Wheras he meaneth Make this thing whâ—… I haue mâ—… This thing I saye wherof you heard me saye This ys my body as though he 〈◊〉 make this my body But the Sacramentaries without all 〈◊〉 haue corrupted yâ— gespell because noman should think of 〈◊〉 any thing least by asking what thing it were he should 〈◊〉 that the body of Christ is commanded to be made In so much that in those homilies where they pretend to teache the word of â—…d they report the commandâ—… of Christ saying Do ye thus â—…a what 〈◊〉 do ye thus 〈◊〉 bread and 〈◊〉 it and 〈◊〉 it and make no more a doe but doe ye thus O trusty go 〈◊〉 O blasphemouse tongs Did Christ say 〈◊〉 ye thue He sayâ—… Doe and make this thing Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur hoc sacite This is my â—…ody which is geuen â—…or you doâ—… and make this thing â—…tt vs go forward It 〈◊〉 in S. Luke and in S. Paule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In meam comme morationem The true English were for the remembrance of me or to th' end I may be remembred
heard of that should first commend vnto them this new opinion of nine hundred yeres old Is it credible that so many thousand millions of Christen men as were in the Church at the end of the first six hundred yeres beleuing the one yere those halowed things vpon the altar to be still bread and wine should the next yere after alltogether in all countrâ—…es and languages fall 〈◊〉 prostrate or 〈◊〉 or at the least bow to the very same things as to the true body of their maker and sauiour which before they had ben taught to haue ben vnreasonable and vnsensible creaturesâ—… And did they al this thing without any guide or preacher who might will them so to doe Or did all the Preachers in 〈◊〉 at onâ—… moment change their mind 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Or did som few go through the sower parts of the world and without resistance of any man preache that new 〈◊〉 Were all the pennes of all the writers of histories so tyed that 〈◊〉 of them all was able once to write any one mans name who after the six hundred yeres 〈◊〉 taught first second or third or at any tyme that change of belefe through out Christendom Was that heretiâ—…ke alone so almighty that noman durst write his name neither whiles he liued nor when he was departed out of this life If the man were vnknowen at the least why hath the sect no speciall name Was there not one lerned man in the whole Church of God either willing or able to resist that fury of new doctrin in the matter of Christes supper If none were lerned enough to conquer it by preaching or disputing or writing at the least wise wold none do bis best to sett 〈◊〉 a bare historie of that tragedie Or who euer hath writen that the whole Church chaÌ„ged her saith in this matter So many Councells haue ben kept in all ages and countries so many heâ—… names and opinioÌ„s who were but in priuie corners haue ben of late 〈◊〉 left writen to vs as Bogomili VValdenses Petrobusiani Pseudoapostoli Begardi Beguinae with such like and could this main heresie of Christes reall preseuce ouerrunne the whole Church so far that fifty yeres past and vpwards no small chapell can be named in the wide world where Christes supper was made without adoration of his body and blood as present vnder formes of bread and wine and yet 〈◊〉 noman vpon the earth be found in the space of eight hundred and fiftie yeres to leaue in monumeÌ„ts of histories when that heresy began or by whom it was promulgated or what name was geuen to it Did Satan in those eight hundred yeres so strongly oppresse Christ that his gospell was cleane darkned and his kingdom lost Did hel gates auaile against the whole Churche Did the rock it self 〈◊〉 Did yâ— holy Ghost 〈◊〉 to teache yâ— people of God all 〈◊〉 I think it wil be sayed that the Bishops of Rome did preache commend set foorth and mainteine that 〈◊〉 But they must shew which Bishop first began and who writeth it of him and by what meanes he was so 〈◊〉 obeyed that no resistance in the world is read to haue ben any where made against him And yet surely he neuer lacked eâ—…emies in the cast Church The truth is that all the Bishops of Rome yea all the Catholike Bishops of the whole world lerned of Christ this to be his reall body and this to be his blood And this faith dured from the last supper of Christ in all faithfull men without any denying or direct 〈◊〉 therof vntill Berengarius began to teache otherwise It was in dede 〈◊〉 indirectly by Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus and all those that thought Christ to haue had no true body of his own Again by Arrius and Nestorius who taught the body of Christ to be the body of a man Arrius because Christ was not equal in substance with his father but a creature only Nestorius because he had two persons one of God an other man therfore seing this was his humane body Nestorius wold it not to be the body of yâ— sonne of God But directly yâ— reall presence of Christ in this blessed Sacrament was not impugned vntill Berengarius about fiue hundred yeres past began to sow in the field of the Churche the corrupt sede of false doctrine concerning that question But his owne 〈◊〉 and the three Councels gathered straight against him at Uercelles Tours and Rome do rather shew what and how constant the Catholike 〈◊〉 was of old time in that behalfe then any thing help and 〈◊〉 the opinion of those men who now adayes endeuour to establish a new inuention of their owne The Church therefore as I said beleuing most 〈◊〉 that Christ gaue his owne reall flesh and blood in the mysteries of his last supper taught consequently the meane of making present that blessed body to be not the comming downe of Christ from heauen but the changing of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his 〈◊〉 and blood by the almighty power of 〈◊〉 word spoken by a Priest with such minde and 〈◊〉 as that solemne 〈◊〉 required This â—…hange wherein the whâ—…le subsâ—…ance of brâ—…ad and wine should by the 〈◊〉 of Christ be so mightely conuerted into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 for vs and into that holy bloud which was shed for vs on the â—…rosse must of 〈◊〉 be a dreadfull and propitiatorie sacrifice as well by reason of the body of Christ sacrifiâ—…ed once to death which is now made 〈◊〉 as for the cause and finall end why it is made present For Christ sayd at his 〈◊〉 This is my Lody which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembraunce of me If it be at the tyme of consecration geuen for vs 〈◊〉 by the commaâ—…dement of Christ who can deny but it is a sacrifice and that we take greate profit and aduantage by that gift Upon this ground the Christen people were taught to esteme this holy sacriâ—…ice abouâ—… all other externall â—…inds of worshipping God in this life Thence came so goodly biâ—…ding of so many Churches so riche decking of altars so great foundations of â—…hanteries in 〈◊〉 so much estimation of Masse that some came to the holy order of Priesthod not for 〈◊〉 but for welth And some other went into monasteries rather for case then for 〈◊〉 to serue God All which became thâ—…ough ouer much ease lacke of the feare of God negligent in their office dissolute in their behauiour ignorant in good lerning and which in that vocation is most filthy of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 couâ—…touse And the moe that in such sorte vnworthâ—…ly presumed to those holy prosessions the greater anger of God theâ—… synfull doing prouoked against them selues The people on th' other side seing the vnhonest liâ—…e of certaine religiouse persons and Priestes and how vnreâ—…erently they handled the diuine seruice sell in hatred
euery man as he was most riche so he made hast to take his owne meale neglecting to call other poore men to it S. Paule mislyking this custome in them sheweth that Christ did other wise who communicated his supper to all his Apostles equally For as S. Cyprian saith Aequa omnibus portio datur An equal porcion is geuen to all men And S. Hieroine sayeth Christi corpus aequaliter accipimus We take the body of Christ equally And Theodorite sayeth All men are indifferently partakers of our Lords supper At this time we chiefly consider that Christ hath a supper of his own as yâ— Corinthians had one of theirs And it is our question what Christes supper was If we shall beleue the holy scriptures 〈◊〉 toke bread wine when he had geuen thankes he said This is my body which is geuen for you and this chalice is the new testament in my blood By which words we are informed the supper of Christ to be his owne body blood geuen vnder yâ— signes of yâ— bread wine whâ—…re vpoÌ„ he gaue thaÌ„kes turning by his almighty power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood The Sacramentaries take the wordes of Christ to be spoken figuratiuely and therefore they put bread and wine to remaine in their olde substance sayng we are 〈◊〉 by faith with the body and blood of Christ. Leauing other argumentes for other places we now only deâ—… whether the name and nature of a supper be more agreable to our belefe or to their meaning Whether is more like that Christ made his 〈◊〉 supper to his Apostles of the substance of common bread and wine or of his owne reall body and blood When a man departeth from his frends taking his leaue with a banket it is lyke that his banket shal be according to his habilitie full of deinty dishes and costly cates specially if it be published before and long tyme loked for as Christes banket was The which Melchisedech had prefigured more then two thousand yeares before 〈◊〉 had foreshewed it shuld contein al that might be delectable to the taste Dauid had called it a table prouided by God Salomon a table set forth by the wisedome of God whereunto poore men in spirit and the fooles of the world were called Elias lying hidden at the Torrent of Laryth was sed by crowes that brought him bread and flesh euery euening Christ in a parable describing the great supper made at the mariage of the kinges sonne which him self was telleth of oxen and other satlings kylled and made readie for that purpose And now shal we suppose that the sonne of the king of heauen making a parting supper unto his best beloued and the pillours of all his Church doth geue them ouâ—…wardly at his farewel none other deâ—…uties besides common bread and wine sanctified in vse only and not 〈◊〉 in substance A 〈◊〉 before he had 〈◊〉 with the same Apostles the paschall lambe and rising from that table as being the table of Moyses rather then of Christ he 〈◊〉 his Apostles feere to make them meete â—…or a greater mysterie And sitting doune againe he toke bread and wine not as the dishes of his banket but as matter and stuff wherof he wold make his owne supper For it is to be well weighed that this banket is called our Lords supper that is to say made and ministred and â—…ornished by Christ himselfe He now did not send S. Iohn S. Peter to prepare his supper as he sent them to make ready the Paschall lambe Christ in his owne supper is the prouider and maker of it He taketh bread and wiâ—…e into his holy handes inteÌ„ding lyke a most conning workeman of simple and litle stuff to make the greatest and finest feast that euer was hard of It is a great glorie in the profession of cookery to be able to make of one kinde of stuff as for example of egs alone sixtene or twenty diuerse dishes But to doe that feate much labour many spices and sauces great compositions and mixtures are required Christ in stede of all those shyfts vsed blessing working words of thankes geuing which were so sure to worke their intent that some men haue doubted whether he gaue thanks first because he forsaw the whole purpose out of hand should be obtained as him selfe wished or else which is more probable whether the very working of the feate were not the selfe thankes geuing for the worke For his blessing and thankes geuing was the sayng ouer the bread This is my body and ouer the wine This is my blood By the vertue of which wordes his body and blood being made of the creatures of bread and wine as well were a thankfull sacriâ—…ice them selues to God euen vnder the forme of bread and wine as Christ also in his visible foorm hauing wrought this worke did praise and thanke his Father for such an excellent effect The which body and blood his Aposâ—…les eating drinking were made partakers of the greatest baÌ„ket that euer was made in earth For the better vnderstanding wherof it maye please the reader to repete in his minde how God in the beginning adorned this world first with angels and heauenly spirits Secondly with the heauens them selues Thirdly with the elements of fyer ayer water and â—…arth And as the angels occupie the highest place so doe the heauens with the lights and starres in them occupie the second place the foure elements are beneth them When 〈◊〉 were come after this sorte from the highest order of 〈◊〉 to the earth which is the lowest element of all then it pleased the wyâ—…edome of God to make as it were a reuolt of all things and to returne his creatures from the bottom of the earth vpward againe towards him selfe He therefore made the â—…arth to bring sorth grene grasse with all such kind of things as haue animam vegetatiuam that is to saye as liue and are quick by the strength which they haue in them selues to grow and encreace of which kinde all herbes springs and trees be Aboue those in a higher degre were byrdes fishes beasts which haue a life sensitiue being able those that be perfit to moue from place to place Last of all God made man who hath not only the vegetatiue power and sensitiue in his soule but also reason and vnderstanding In whose body are the vertues of the foure elements with the 〈◊〉 of the heauâ—…ns in whose soule is free will and power to gouern agreable to the nature of angels and of heauenly spirits For which cause this creature hath bene worthely called euen of the Christâ—…n Philosophers 〈◊〉 a lytle world for that he alone hath in him all the degrees of creatures both liuing and without life both sensible and reasonable and therefore he is called in holy scripture Omnis creatura â—…ll creatures Now when the sonne of
are infected withall His discourse is to long to write it all in this place so muche as apperteineth to my purpose I will translate into English Quemadmodum qui per insidias venenum hauserunt caetera As those that by 〈◊〉 haue drunk in poyson doe by an other medicine put out the strength thereof and like as the poyson so the medicine must goe into the bowels that by meane of them help maie be spread throughout the whole body euen so is it to be don of vs. That seing we haue tasted poyson wher with our nature is dissolued we maie receaue a medicine whereby that nature of ours is gathered together that the infection of the poyson maie be expelled by the contrarie and holsome strength of the medicine What medicine is this None other beside that body which is declared to be aboue death and the cause of our saluatioÌ„ For as a litle leauen saith the Apostle maketh the whole lump of dow like to it self so that body which is made immortal of God entring into our body doth transferre and change the whole into it self For as if a pestilent thing be mixed with a holsom thing it maketh it hurtfull so the immortall body maketh all that wherein it is receaued of the like nature immortal But it can not enter into the body except it be mingled with the bowels by meate and drink Itaque necessarium est vt natura nostra quoad eius fieri potest vim salutarem intra corpus admittat Therefore it is necessarie that our nature as much as lieth in it do receaue that healthfull strength within the body And seing none other thing beside that diuine body of Christ hath receaued such grace to heale our sicknes and seing it hath ben shewed it can not be our bodies should attein to immortality vnlesse they be ioyned with the immortall body and so obtein incorruption it is to be consydered how it maie be brought to passe whereas that one body continually through the whole world is geuen to so many thousands of faithfull men the whole maie become euery mans for his part and 〈◊〉 tarie whole in it felf Consequently Gregorius goeth forward to shew how that 〈◊〉 be and he sheweth it to be brought to passe whiles bread and wine wherwith Christ was nourished in this mortal life and the which by the power of altering and 〈◊〉 were daily turned into his flesh and blood be now also in his holy Sacraments turned by the consecration of his blessing and by his words into his own body and blood For by that meanes he proueth it possible that Christes whole body should both be geuen to euery man a part and yet remain whole in it self But hereof we shall speak an other tyme. All that apperteined to my present purpose was to declare out of S. Bregorie of Nyssa who liued about twelue hundred yeres past that syth Christ hath made his body and blood in the blessed Sacrament of the altar a medicine against that poyson which AdaÌ„ first and in him all we tooke by tasting the apple against the commandement of God it is not only profitable but 〈◊〉 that as the poysoned apple entred in at Adams mouth and was not only receaued by faith spirit and vnderstanding but by hand tong iawes and was digested into his bowells and so poysoned all his flesh blood whereby the flesh that we tooke of Adam was also 〈◊〉 and poysoned and our soules vnited to that infected flesh were also infected euen so yâ— medicine which is the body and blood of Christ made of bread and wine must not only be receaued by faith spirit and vnderstanding neither only the figure of it must be receaued in at our mouthes and so be 〈◊〉 into our bowels but the body of Christ it self must come to our bodyes and it must be receaued as really into them by our mouthes as euer the apple came into the mouth of Adam Who euer heard that when a mans body was really poysoned it should be sufficient to think vpon a certain true medicine and to receaue withal the figure or signe therof into his body not at all touching and receauing really the medicine it self And yet surely they that teache the body of Christ to be 〈◊〉 into our bodies only by bread and wine the figures therof and into our soules by faith and spirit doâ—… manifestly tell him that is bodily poysoned that it is enough for him to think in his mind vpon mithridaâ—…icum or some other medicine and to receaue the token thereof into his body Such is the physike and yâ— diuinitie of the Caluinists Before that Adam had tasted of the apple he was gâ—…tie of death in the sight of God concerning his own person and soule in so much as in his hart he consented to taste thereof at his wyfes request For he did not taste it so hastely but that he first intended so to doe yea S. Augustine saith it is not to be thought yâ— deuyll should haue throwen doune Adam except a certain pride had ben first in his mynde But when he tooke the apple into his mouth to the eating whereof his hart had allready yelded then had he brought the inward disobedience into the outward acte so that he was inexcusable not only before God but in the sight of angels of his wife and of all creatures his hands his eyes his mouth his throte and stomack was now wytnes against hym Thence came the dredfull necessitie of death to all the children of Adam it was the tasting of his flesh which made all our flesh so farre gilty That polluted body could not beget innocent children with vncleane sede Well Christ is the second Adam which taketh away this obligation and bond of death that lay on our neckes and he taketh it away nâ—…t by force but by iâ—…stice changing and recompensing all that was before done amysse For the corrupt generatioÌ„ which we haue by the sede of Adam he geueth vs a new byrth in the Sa crament of water and renuing of the holy Ghost in which baptism our soule only is not cleansed but our body also is washed For the fruyt of death which Adam did â—…ate as well in mouth as hart he hath geuen the apple of lyfe as well to be eaten in our mouthes as in ouâ—… haâ—…tes so that as the olde Adam caryed a wytnes of damnation for hym and his posteritie in all his membres so doth the new Adam with his children cary the witnes of lyfe in all their membres They haue God and man not in hart alone but also in a Sacrament yea in their â—…ands in their mouthes in their bodyes and become one with the flesh of Christ which they eate as the apple which Adam did eate became one with his flesh This was the supper that Christ came to make not to gâ—…ue bread and wyne not to make figures and shadowes
Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
them consist of two parts as I sayd before Of things and of words the things are diuers as for example water bread wine oile and suche other The mystical words coming to suche things as Christ hath appointed make vp the whole Sacrament So that the things are like stone tymber iron wherâ—… withall a man will build or make somewhat the words are like the order and foorm which the Carpenter will set the stuff in The things are confuse vntill the words determine them particularly to this or that vse Therefore S. Paule saith that Christ sanctifieth his Church Muâ—…dans eam lauacro aquae in verbo vitae Cleansing it with the wasâ—…ng of water in the word of life What is that word of 〈◊〉 â—…erily whereof Christ sayd goe teache all nations Baptizing them in the nanse of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost This is the word which geueth life to him that is duely wasshed Of this word Christ sayd Iam vos mundi estis propter sermonem quem locutus sum vobis Now ye are clean for the words sake which I haue spoken to you S. Augustine demandeth why Christ sayd not ye are cleane for the Baptim wherewith ye are wasshed but rather ye are cleane for the word which I haue spoken to you sauing that euen in wa ter it is the word that cleanseth Detrahe verbuÌ„ quid est aqua nisi aqua Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Take away the word and what is water but water The word cometh to the matter and the Sacrament is made S. Angustine calleth the thing or stuff whereof the Sacramâ—…t is made Elementum Which is to say a materiall thing that serueth for a beginning whereof a farther mysterie may be made when the word appointed by Christ cometh to it The Grecians vse to call those things especially in the supper of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things put or set before the Priest who must consecrate them with the word of God The element therefore whether it be water oile bread wine or any other thing that Christ appointeth is the weaker and infer riour part The word is the more chief and principal Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae saith S. Augustine vt corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo Non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Whence hath water this great vertue that it should touche the body and wasshe the hart but that the word causeth it not only because it is spoken but because it is beleued For in the â—…er e word the souâ—…d which passeth awaie is one thing and the vertue which remaineth is an other thing Now haue we thre things consydered by S. Augustine in a Sacrament the lowest is the element which in baptun is water the higher is the word which again is coÌ„sydered in two respects in one as it is spoken and so being ioyned with the element it maketh the substance of the Sacrament and passeth awaie in the other as it is beleued of him that receaueth the Sacrament and so it worketh in him a grace vertue and effect of the Sacrament If now the word be it that both chefely maketh and effectuallie establisheth the Sacrament it can not be douted but that Christ gaue the greatest diligence of all in assigning the solemn words of his blessed Sacraments For the words appointed by Christ to the making of his Sacraments are so stronge that althoughe the minister be neuer so éuil a man yet as S. Augustine saith God sanctifieth his Sacraments Ad verba quae procedunt ex ore homicidae At the words which come foorth of the mouth of a mankiller And again he saith Deus adest Sacramentis verbis suis per qualeslibet administrentur God is present to his Sacraments and words by whatsoeuer maner of men they be ministred In so much that if at the tyme of celebrating both the geuer and receauer haue don vulaâ—…fully saith S. Augustine Non tamen pro non dato habebitur Yet the Sacrament shall not be accompted as not geuen For seing the word was once spoken and ioyned with the element the substance of the Sacrament was made though it lacked his effect Whereof it foloweth that the SacrameÌ„tal words bring foorth a secret strength for their own part albeit neither the minister nor the receauer be of such worthinesse as they owght to be of In ipso aquarum lauacro saith S. Chrysostom verba Dei sunt quae nos generant In the verie washing of the waters they be the words of God which begett vs. Which thing sith it is so the words of Christes Sacraments doe not depend vpon the vnderstanding either of the minister or of him that receaueth the Sacrament but they haue a sufficient vertue in them selues whereby they may worke It is enowgh that the minister doe as the Church vseth to doe in such cases This intention being kept the words will bring the rest to passe Or if a maliciouse Priest baptize a child with the mind to make him a Lutheran or an Anabaptist shall that child by that intention be made an heretâ—…ke No verily For so much as the words of Christ wherewith he is baptized make him a member of his mysticall body not incorporating him to any other felowship Qui fuerit superbus minister cum diabolo computatur sed non contaminatur donuÌ„ Christi The proude minister saith S. Augustin is accompted with the deuill but the gift of Christ is not defiled To come somewhat nere our purpose S. Ambrose doth by name witnes what strength Christes words haue in making his supper Sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum The words of Christ make this Sacrament Antequà m consecretur panis est vbi verba Christi accesserint corpus est Christi Before it be consecrated it is bread when the words of Christ are come to it it is the body of Christ. Hoc ait Sacerdos est corpus meum Hoc verbo proposita consecratnr S. Chrysostom writeth that when the Priest saith This is my body the things set foorth are consecrated with this word or saying If now it be clere that among many causes which concurre to make a Sacrament one of the chefe is the words pronounced at the same tyme and in the Sacrament of the Altar seing they are This is my body and This is my blood Which are spoken ouer breâ—…d and wine I say these words maie be in no wise figuratiue For by that meanes they shall not only not consecrate the body and blood of Christ but which is more they shall not 〈◊〉 so much as a signe of Christes body and blood For yf words make any thing they make it by signifiyng as the which are not only signes of things but by S. Augustines
iudgement they are the chefe among all signes And as the same Doctour saith in an other place Signum nisi aliquid significet noÌ„ potest esse signum A signe except it signifie sumwhat can not be a signe Now that which doth not signifie a thing at all can not by signifiyng make and work that thing which it doth not signifie Take these fower words This is my body Neuer a one of them doth signifie washing Therefore if a maÌ„ washing an other with the mind to make him a member of Christes body should saie This is my body out of doute that man washed with those words should not be baptized What is the cause Washing was vsed the minister was present with intent to baptize some words also lacked not but yet because those words lacked which might signifie washing in the name of the Trinitie he was not baptized If then the words of Sacraments must signifie that which shal be made these words This is my body spoken by any Priest shall neuer make the signe of Christes body Because they doe not signifie any figure or signe thereof Ou the other syde If they be in dede figuratiue as the Zuinglians affirm them to be they shall not make the body of Christ because they say Christ meant not so but only meant a figure to be made in bread and wine Behold to what case we are now brought We haue striued so long about the words of Christ whether they be proper or figuratiue that now they are proued to make nothing at all if they be figuratiue For they make not the body of Christ because if they be figuratiue they meane not to make it They make no figure of the body because they name and signifie no figure And that which they do not signifie they by signifying can not make Foâ—… their whole institution vse nature and commoditie is to signifie to shew foorth to betoken make plain the mind of the speaker That which words doe not signifie they do not work That which they work not is neuer don by them But these words This is my body and this is my blood signifie no figure no signe no token for so muche as they signifie an other thing therefore they work no figure they make no signe they leaue no token And then haue we no Sacrament at all made because none is made without suche words as may signifie that which is made and wrought If any man saye Christ may meane a figure and signe and by his meaning these words This is my body may work a figure oâ—… his body I answer if Christ wil work by his meaning who can forbed him seing he is almighty And if he will work without any words who caÌ„ gainsaye him But then his words work not And why then are they deliuered to vs as the chief instrument to work withall Why sayd he Hoc facite Doe and make this thing why are they rehersed in euery Masse and communion Why doe the auncient Fathers teache the bread and wine to be consecrated by them Why may not Baptism be made by other words then by those which Christ instituted Surely to say that these words This is my body make a figure of his body because Christ wil haue it so is to say that Christ will not hane words necessarie to the making of his SacrameÌ„ts Or it is to saie that he will haue a thing wrought by words to work the which they be vumete instruments as if a man wold take a saw to plane timber withall a beetil to cutt down a tree Christ being the word of God hath geuen that honour to words of men but yet to such as are appointed by him self that they should principally among instrumentall causes work and make his Sacraments Next vnto words he chose maruelous conuenient things wherewith they should concur The things to be most agreable to th â–ª effect which they are sett to work all men agree It is conuenient for water to washe for bread and wine to concur to the Sacrament of the Altar as meetest to nourish for oile to serue in ointing at the vse of other Sacraments And now hath Christ erred in chosing his words hath he 〈◊〉 body to signifie the figure of his body To whom doth it signifie after that sort Surely not to all men as it is eâ—…ident not to all Christians as it maie appere in that we hearing it said that Christ had a mans body or walked in a mans body or that our bodies shall rise at the later daie in all these phrases we take not the name of body for a signe and figure of a body but we take it to meane the true substance of flesh and blood How then shall the word body be taken only in the supper of our Lord for the signe and figure of body Wher is that rulâ—… readen Wher is that secret reueled â–ª For dowtlesse if it were true it were of it self a mysterie and an vnwont acception appointed by Christ and it had neded to haue ben registred in the Scriptures or in the holy Fathers or at the least to haue ben deliuered to vs by tradition But who teacheth that body standeth to signifie the figure of body many Fathers saie the words of Christ are plain manifest true and effectuall but no man telleth vs of such a strange taking of the words body and blood noman witnesseth them to be taken for the figures of body and blood and no maruail For no man knew that iuterpretation They knew that the true body of Christ geuen after such a sort vnder the foormes of bread and wine was a figure of the self same body either walking visibly vpon the earth or suffering death vpon the crosse or sitting now at the right hand of his Father or intending to come to iudgement They could tell that a thing present in a secrete maner is a token a signe and a watch word to all the faithfull of an open maner either past or to come in the same thing By this meanes they confessed the Sacrament to be the figure of Christes body and blood but they knew no such figure as the SacrameÌ„taries haue deuised they neuer could tell of Synecdoche or of Meronymia they knew Sacramentall and not Rhetoricall figures Mysticall and not Poeticall holy and not prophane Let him therfore that will haue any thing at all made by Christes words acknowlege them to be proper to signifie sumwhat and to make that they signifie which is the true body and blood of Christ. ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. WE doe acknowlege the Eucharist to be a Sacrament wherein is sette after a manner before our eyes the death of Christ and his resurrection and what soeuer he did here in his humane body The eating of common bread and drinking of common wine is but an homely maner of setting
Chrysostom ad iugem nos pro beneficijs suis inuitans gratiarum actionem Stirring vs to geue thanks perpetually for his benefites by the very kind of the sacrifice And shewing farther in an other place what kind of sacrifice it is God sayth Chrysostom did yerely by certain holydays set the remembrances of his benefites before the Iewes Tibi vero quotidiè ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur But he is set before thee daily him selfe lest thou shouldest bee vnmindfull See now by what meanes the death of Christ is renewed Not by tokens wherein he is doubtfully called to minde him selfe being absent for that were a feble token but by these tokens wherein him selfe is made present lest we should forgett his death The body of Christ must be made to th' intent we maye remember his death If you take from vs the making of his body which causeth the vehement remembrance of the death it is afterward a vaine thing to talke of the remembraunce of his death by eating bread and drinking wine For the necessarie meane of necessarie remembrance of his death consisteth in the reall presence of him that died For who can forget his death whose body is daily made worshipped and eaten to the end the death may be remembred But I may right well eate bread and drinke wine not yet remembring thereby that Christ is dead for me ¶ The true resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating that body of Christ which is both true and is true in vs. TO th' intent we being fed with the body and blood of Christ may be brought into the hope of the resurrection and of euerlasting life and may most assuredly beleue that the body and blood of Christ doth in like manner feed our soules as bread and wine doth feed our bodies I omit to say any thing vpon that ouersight wherein the English translation of a body hath left out the word Vero the true body which the Latine edition hath But here the Apologie presupposeth that Christes supper consisteth as wel of bread wine as of body and blood The first two they will haue geuen to the bodies The later twaine to the soules The bread wine they will haue present on the table whence they be deliuered The body and blood they will haue to be receaued from heauen by faith and vnderstanding Against this dreame thus I reason out of the word of God Christ made his whole supper vpon a visible table accordingly as it was prophecied by king Dauid Parasti in conspectu meo mensam Thou hast prepared a table in my sight And by Salomon Sapientia proposuit mensam suaÌ„ insipientibus locuta est venite comedite panem meum bibite vinum quod miscui vobis Wisedome hath set foorth her table and hath spoken to simple men come ye eate my bread and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you S. Paul sayth Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse mensae Daemoniorum Ye can not be partakers of our Lords table and of the table of deuils Put these three together and the sense will be the supper and table of our Lord was prepared and set foorth in the sight of the faithfull that they might thence cate and drinke such as the wisedome of God gaue them at his supper Therefore no meate no foode no banket is to be looked for at his supper but such as is prepared by Christ set foorth vpon his table Otherwise Christ had prepared no supper in the sight of that faithfull as Dauid foretold nor had not set foorth his table as Salomon prophecied nor we had not bene partakers of our Lords table as S. Paul writeth For bread and wine is not prepared of Christ But was before hand made ready by the baker and vintner or by the seruants yâ— brought them foorth The preparing which Christ made was by blessing and conseâ—…ng to make of earthly bread the bread of life euerlasting And hauing made it he deliuered the same to the Apostles and bad them both make and doe that thing If he deliuered not his owne body with his owne handes doubtles they did not eate his body For he sayd in respect only of that which he deliuered take and eate Wherevpon S. Chrysostom sayeth to him that cometh to our Lords table Cogita quid manu capias caet Bethink thy selfe what thou takest in thy hand and kepe it free from all couetousnes and violent robbery Consider againe that thou takest it not only in thy hande but also puttest it to the mouth and after thy hand and tonge the harte receaueth that dreadfull mysterie Thus much S. Chrysostom Let any reasonable man iudge whether he sayeth not that the hart receaueth the same which the hande doth and the hande the same which the hart doth For if the hart receaue it after that hand the hand receaued it before the hart It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries falsely teach bread only in hand and body only in harte But body as well in hand as in harte And none other true body in the harte then was first in the hand and mouth For this cause euer sith we receaued the faith we called this blessed supper The Sacrament of the altar As if we sayd the SacrameÌ„t which is made vpon the altar or vpon the table of Christ. for the table of Christ is an altar as in Malachie it may appere and in an other place by the fauour of God I will declare This name of the SacrameÌ„t of the altar was deliuered to vs with our Christianitie and it is found very ofte in the olde writers namely in S. Augustine By which we are enformed that the consecration and oblation thereof is made not in the hartes of men by words of promising and preaching but vpon the visible altar in the sight of Christian people by yâ— visible Priest who as a publike minister ordeined by God consecrateth the body of Christ by the same power which Christ gaue when he sayd Hoc facite doe and make this thing This is 〈◊〉 table prepared in the sight of Dauid set foorth by the wisedome of God whereof we are partakers when we receaue the blessed Sacrament of the altar At this altar S. Augustines mother desired a memorie of her to be made vnde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis From which altar my mother knew sayeth S. Augustine the holy sacrifice to be distributed whereby the handwriting that was contrarie to vs is put out Behold the sacrificed body of Christ was dispeÌ„sed and geuen from the altar as both S. Augustine and his mother and all the faithfull then beleued Thus thou seest the dreame of the Apologie by the word of God to be blowen away like chaf dust dispersed with the wind The Apologie sayeth our bodies are
throughly tryed as hys He lacked not grace vertue and vnderstanding but he lacked the flesh and blood of Christ Which flesh when it came really into the world when it was crucified and gusshed out streames of blood then the soule of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other Fathers out of prison Wel to end this matter Christ to shew that he wold be in his supper by yâ— nature of his manhed for that cause he named not his person but his flesh his body his blood And S. Paule named his bones as you shall see hereafter Wherefore yâ— talke of his presence by fayth is vnfaythfull yâ— talke of his presence by spirite as thereby excluding his body soule from our bodies and soules is spritish and diuelish A spirit hath no flesh and bones Christ is with vs in the substance of his owne flesh of his owne bones And yet that we might vnderstand that Christ naming flesh blood meaneth not that either his flesh is vnder yâ— forme of bread without blood or his blood vnder the forme of wine without flesh but that vnder eche kinde both flesh and blood and soule and Godhead is he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood taryethin me I in hym That is to say when I promise flesh and blood I name them only to declare plainly that my being in the Sacrament is a being according to yâ— truthe of my humane nature and not as though I were not there in mine owne person for he that eateth my flesh and drynketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him But it I had sayd that I geue my self no more 〈◊〉 false preachers had expouÌ„ded my selfe by my Godhead and by fayth vppon me my simple faythfull people might haue bene deceaued I name flesh body and blood to shew according to what nature I am 〈◊〉 But I am not diuided as though my flesh were vnder one kynde and mie blood vnder the other And therefore I say last of all He that catcth me he also shall lyue for me so that I am altogether in mine owne person vnder eche kynde after coÌ„secration Marke this agayne and agayne and let not the doctrine of Christ him self preteÌ„ded in suttil words deceaue thee any longer Beleue thou the presence of body of blood of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh ¶ It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper ANd we say not this is done sleightly and coldly but effectually and truly The eating of Christ by faith and spirit is no sleight or cold thing But to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly coldly sayd Partly because so much may be done without the supper namely when so euer a man with good faith and charitie doth meditate vpon his gloriouse victorie ouer death synne Partly because it is a cold thing to 〈◊〉 men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to geue their bodies none other meate then corruptible bread and wine as you teache whereas Christ did forbid vs to work the perishing meate at his banket How can yâ— be worthely called yâ— supper of Christ which a man may make at home without coming to the table of Christ As though it were not for his honour to haue a singular kind of supâ—… of his owne Euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne howse with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither wil Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled And is not that which may be done at priuate mens tables coldly and sleightly done in comparison of that great sacrifice of the true Melchisedech who by his blessed word turneth the substance of the bread and wine into that body of his which died and into that blood which was shed for vs ¶ By eating we touche the body of Christ as it may be touched vnder the foorm of bread FOr although we do not touche the body of Christ with teeth and mouth yet we hold him fast and eate him by faith by vnderstanding and by the spirit These men haue lost their wits through malice As who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which eating shal be without touching the meate that is eaten with teeth and mouth For in the supper of Christ it is a detestable heresie and an intolerable ignorance to say that Christ saying Take and eate did not meane taking by hands or mouthes and eating by teeth and mouth Taking and eating is not without touching Christ sayd Take and eate this is my body therefore he sayd in effect touche my body with your teeth and with your mouth Neither doth it skil that his body is immortal and impassible for though it be not perished by the eating yet the eating and tou ching is not therefore false but so much the truer by how much the meate receaued is the more profitable cueÌ„ to our bodies And as we are sayd truly to kisse the Kings knee when we kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined euen so in touching the accidents of bread and wine we touche the body and blood of Christ which is coÌ„teined vnder them For which cause S. Chrysostom sayd 〈◊〉 we doe not only see we doe not only touch but we eate and fasten our teeth in yâ— slesh of Christ thereby noting and teaching the vndoubted presence thereof vnder the foorm of bread Which foorm we see we touche we eate we chaw and by that meanes we doe these things to the body of Christ vnder that foorm not perishing the body one whit For the same cause S. Cyrillus speaking of the blessed Eucharist sayeth of Christ Praebet nobis carnem suam tangendaÌ„ vt firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit He geueth vs his flesh to be touched that we might beleue assuredly that he hath truly reised his temple that is to say his own body Christ geueth vs his flesh to be touched and yet doe we not touche it But how do we touche it Uerily as S. Thomas touched the Godhead of Christ. For as in touching his flesh he confessed him to be God because the Godhead lay hid in that flesh right so when we touche with teeth mouth the forme of bread in the holy mysteries we confesse that we touche thereby the flesh which lieth hid vnder that forme and yet the Apologie denieth vs to touche the body of Christ with teeth and mouth And whereas it sayeth we hold him fast by faith that is true also but it is not the whole truthe for as S. Thomas the Apostle did beleue vpon the Godhead of Christ and withall touche the flesh wherein it dwelt corporally euen so we beleue the presence of his body and
when it is sayd ouer the bread of Christ him self This is my body This grosse imagination maketh Christ a lyer as Cyrillus hath witnessed And now came our Apologists and bring those wordes against the Catholikes as though they had a grosse imagination who thinke and teach the wordes of Christ to be true to worke that they speake when soeuer they belong to any Sacrament And therefore the substance of bread and wine to be turned into that substance of the body and blood of Christ the formes of the same bread and wine remaining as veyles and cortaines to couer the sayd flesh as well because our faith should haue merit as because our eyes be not able to see that gloriouse mysticall kind of presence The which consecrating of Christes body is an vnblody sacrifice wherein God is put in mind of the death which redemed the world Euery part of that Sacrament hath in it whole Christ euery kind alone is sufficiēt to norish him to saluatiō who worthely eateth it And yet both kinds together must be cōsecrated to shew the death of Christ. This belefe hath no grosse imagination in it as shall appeare in all the worke folowing ¶ What the first Councel of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper ANd the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greek of some doth expresly forbid vs that we should not basely occupy our minds about the bread and wine set before vs. The words of the Nicen Councell whereof the Apologie spea keth are these Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa caet Again here also in the holy table let vs not basely attend the bread and cup set before vs but lifting vp our mind let vs vnderstand by faith That Lamb of God which taketh away the synnes of the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sitū esse to be put and laid on that holy table incruente a sacerdotibus immolatum to be vnbloodely sacrificed of the Priests and that we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verè Truly and in deed taking his own precious body and blood doe beleue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause we take not much but litle that we might know we take not to fill vs but for holynesse In these words many things are affirmed of the blessed Sacrament of the altar euery of the which doth proue or helpe to proue the real presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread and wine First the Councell sayeth the bread and the cup to be set before vs vpon the holy table bidding vs not basely attend or consyder them What other thing can these words meane then to warne vs ▪ that we should not looke to the natural appearing or shew of the bread and of the cup but to a greater vertue which lieth priuie vnder their formes Therefore begin we to collect that the bread and the wine which stand vpon y◠holy table kepe not any more their old nature substance but contein vnder their old formes the new substance of Christ. For if they remained as before consecration they were materiall bread and wine then we nede no warning to put away base considerations of them sith by that opinion we are bound to beleue earthly bread and wine to be still bread and wine and to be nothing bettered in substance Then as concerning the vse of them so long as y◠blessed word of God which is the form of the Secrament is ioyned with any element which remaineth still in his old nature so long y◠word and the element make a mysterie But when the word or form is ended the Sacrament is ended as the which only worketh and hath grace annexed to it whiles it is in the vse whereunto Christ hath appointed it So long as the Priest whiles he washeth is saying I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost so long y◠baptim is a doing and working when the wordes be ended the Sacrament is ended For seing y◠promesse of forgeuenesse of synnes is geuen to the washing in y◠name of the Trinite when that is done the promesse is sinished for that course The councell of Nice speaketh of the bread and of the cup after consecration after that it was sayd ouer thē This is my body and this is my blood which wordes are the form of that Sacrament For the councell speaketh of the being and standing and of cōsyderig these things vpon the holy table not only whiles y◠wordes are spoken but still afterward vntill they be receaued If then both the wordes of the Sacrament be past and yet y◠councell say we must not basely attend the bread and the cup that are vpon the holy table It geueth vs to vnderstand that the wordes did not only come to the elements of bread and wine to make them a Sacrament after the commen sort of making which is in baptim in confirmation in holy orders and in penance but also that the wordes did worke some reall thing vnder y◠formes of bread wine which remaineth still as long as y◠sayd formes signes remain For this cause the councell sayd we ought not basely consyder the bread and cup for that more was vnder the shew and colour of them then our eyes could tell vs. What must we then doe We must resort to a higher master then our eyes are we must lift vp our mind we must vnderstand not by loking seing but by faith Whether must we lift our mind To heauen That is not euill but the councell sayth an other thing We lifting vp our mindes must vnderstand by faith Then the lifting vp of our mind is the renouncing of our senses the cleauing to our faith We must beleue that which we can not see What must we beliue That the Lamb of God is vpon the holy table Which Lamb He that taketh away the sinnes of the world On which table On the holy table whereon that standeth which semeth bread and wine How is y◠Lamb there He is put layed situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of an other thing For of such a situation the councell speaketh so we must beleue of it Now put this geare together and thus the councell sayth Consyder not basely that bread and cup which standeth before you For although it seme that which nature made yet we must lift vp our mind and vnderstand by faith that thing or substance which is standing on the holy table how so euer it appere bread and wine to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world Now we see what is base and what is high Bread and wine is base Body and blood is highe That must not be consydered because the substance thereof now hath ceased to be This must be beleued because it is made present in
of eatinge him by faith and therefore saith this is the worke of God that ye should beleue in him whom he hath sent He that beleueth in 〈◊〉 shall not hunger but there be some of you whiche beleue not so that the eating is the beleuing and the not beleuing is the not eating Christ in dede speaketh of belefe which is very necessarie and euen the foundation as S. Cyrillus noteth of his last supper but he speaketh also of a farther act whiche is to build vpon the foundation of faith the working of the euerlasting meat that he wil geue â–ª and to work not onely by faith but lykewise by eating and drinking and therefore as he chalengeth belefe to his godhead so doth he say that we muste eate his fleshe and drinke his blood according as he is the sonne of man Thus may we consyder in Christes wordes a dubble kind of eating the one is called maÌ„ducare ex hoc pane to eate of his bread the which bread Christ is the other is manducare hunc panem to eate this bread by faith we eate of Christ by his last supper we eate Christ. By eating of him we partake some effect of grace froÌ„ him By eating him we receaue his whole flesh blood soule and godhead into our bodies As therfore Christ willeth vs not ouly to eate of him but also to eate him self so besyds the eating which is by faith he geueth vs to vnderstand there is another eatinge proper to his last supper described in S. Ihon. The third argument of theirs is that Christ was the bread of life presently when he spake to the Iewes For he sayd I am the bread of life or the liuely bread which am come downe from heauen my father doth geuâ—… you yâ— truâ—… bread from heauen Therefore Christ was presently the bread of life yea rather he was so when he was incarnate firste of the virgin for euen then he came down from heaueÌ„ but how can this stand together if his words be applied to his last supper which was not yet instituted Christ through his Godhead was the bread of life to vs all for euer and straight vpon his incarnation he was the bread of life through his manhod and so continued stil at the tyme when he spake to the Iewes and after that visible and corporall sort he was to be eaten by faith not corporally But he saâ—…d also worke the meate which the Sonne of man wil geue you and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh This gift which Christ sayth he wil make differeth in tyme and maner from the gift which his Father doth presently make so that as he is the bread of life by faith so he wil be the bread of life by corporal participation which second gift is fulfilled in his last supper which he him self now promiseth For no reason can be shewed why Christ should say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift theÌ„ to eate him by faith alone The which eating by faith sith it was lawful euen at the same instant wherein he spake he wold not say I wil goue of any spiritual eating therefore he spake of the Sacramental geuing which he intended to make at his last supper Against this last saying of mine Caietane or some other of his opinioÌ„ wil pretend that Christes gift whereof he speaketh in S. Ihon was in dede to come but yet not meant of his last supper because it was the gift of him self to death vpon the Crosse which he meant And therefore he sayd the bread which I wil geue is my 〈◊〉 for the life of the world signifying that the gift which he wil make shal be such as shal redeme the world Which gift was only performed vpon the Crosse was partaken always of the old Fathers and may be dayly howerly partaken of vs. Which points doe not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes â—…upper This argument although it were wittily deuised yet it is insufficient and for many causes First becausâ—… Christ spake of a meate which he wold geue euen vnto our bodies and not only vnto our soules And that may â—…ppeare to be so as wel for that he ordeined the miracle of multiplying fiue loaues to be an introduction to this talke the which loaues were corporally eaten as also for that he shewed him self to be the true bread which would fulfill and excede â—…anna the figuratiue breade of the Iewes and therefore S. Cyrill saith that Christ saying my fleshe is meat in dede maketh a distinction betwene the mysticall benediction and manna â–ª for manna dyd not geue life euerlasting but by the blessing of the mysterie saith S. Cyrill we take the verie sonne of God Nowe seing manna was eaten of the Iewes both spiritually of the iust men and also corporâ—…llye of all the Israelites Christ who sayd his father to geue presently the true bread and promysed that him selfe would geue hereafter his flesh to be eaten which is â—…ate in dede dyd shewe the spirituall eating of manna to be presently fulfilled by his fathers gifte whereby he toke fleshe and that the corporall eating shuld likewise be hereafter fulfilled in his last supper Whiche being wel consydered it is plain that Christ when he speaketh of a gift which he will make doth speake of suche a kind of gifte as the miracle of fyue loaues as the figure of manna as the name of bread and nature of eating requireth But his death vpon the crosse is not the fulfilling of manna in that respect as manna was eaten either corporally or spiritually It is in dede the cause of all our feeding both in spirit and body the fontain of all our sacraments the welspring of al grace Bâ—…t we seek a similitude of things which are spoken together an agreement of one matter with an other Manna was a sacrameÌ„t onely and not properly a sacrifice and therefore it being eateÌ„ betokened the gift of Christ which he wold make in his supper wherein the true manna shulde be sacramentally eaten For which cause after Christ had said the bread which I will geue is my flesh he both commanded his flesh to be eaten shewed the profit of eating it and concluded in this wise not as your fathers haue eaten maÌ„na be dead he that eateth this bread shall line for euer If now we must eate that which he wil geue we must eate it after the rate as manna was eaten albeit yâ— thing eaten is far better surely the gift promised must be of a thing that shal be geuen to vs in a supper and not yâ— shal be made for vs vpoÌ„ the Crosse. for noman as it is alleged out of Origines eateth properly the flesh of Christ as it was crucified In so much that S. Hierom distincteth expresly the flesh of Christ whereof Christ speaketh in S. Ihon from the respect
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
was healed Her body also touched his manhod and her body was likewise cured Seing then it is writen This is my body and all men beleued it once as well as the other articles of our faith Seing that beâ—…eif is so honorable vnto God so mete for Christes coming and loue toward vs and so profitable vnto vs that the contrarie assertion shall lack the like holy Scriptures and the like belefe of the Church the like honour of God the like loue of Christ and the like profite of our soules There can be no reason alleged hereafter why we should oâ—…ce geue audieÌ„ce to him that pretendeth to proue the body of Christ not to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine For what thing possibly can excede these causes before alleged Moreouer all â—…igures were inuented partly for lack of proper words partly for the pleasantnes of speaking Christ surely lacked not words to shew that he gaue bread for a signe of his body if in dede he had done so For sith Zuinglius and Caluin had words to signifie their opinion in this matter it could not be but that Christ was able to haue spoken that which they speake If then he spake not figuratiuely for necessity our new brethern must proue that he spake figuratiuely for his only pleasure but how can they know that S. Augustine biddeth vs nolesse beware that we take not a propre speache for a figuratiue then that we take not a figuratiue speache for a proper The rule to know the one from the other is this Vt quicquid in sermone diuino c. that what soeuer in the woord of God can be properly referred neither to the honestie of manners nor to yâ— truthe of faith thou maist know to be figuratiue Yf nowe these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood may be referred to the truthe of faith in so muche as all men haue beleued the body of Christ to be geuen in the Sacrament of the altar not diminishing thereby their faith in any other article by S. Augustins iugdement these wordes be not siguratiue For certeinlie they be not only nothing against the honestie of maners as good men vnderstand Christes presence vnder the form of bread but rather the strong belefe of them maketh al men more honest in life whiles they come with great feare to so dreadfull mysteries therefore it followeth yâ— they be not of necessitie figuratiue of necessitie I say because there is no repugnance in saith or good maners why they may not be proper whiche notwithstanding a man for his pleasure might vse his wordes in a figuratiue sorte when he neded not â–ª but who so affirmeth so muche beside that he breaketh S. Augustins rule he casteth himselfe in greate daunger of prouing yâ— whiche hangeth of an other mans pleasure What argument haue our new brethern to proue that it pleased Christ at this tyme to speake vnproperlie what ground in the word of God can their opinion haue how can they be sure that they erre not in their indgement when we reade that God is angry or sory or that Iohn Baptist is Elias or that the rocke is Christ we say they are siguratiue speaches because they can not be proper Anger falleth not in God nor sorrow the rocke for that reason is not Christ in person and nature because it is a rocke for by nature they are seueral thinges and suche as do not stand together the like might haue bene thought in this Sacrament if Christ had sayd this bread is my body and this wine is my blood but he foresaw greate cause why he wold not say so For he wold by his worde so make his body and blood of bread and wine that when the substance of his body and blood should be present the substances of bread and wine should not remain of this we are sure because besyde the faith of the whole Churche the proper signification of the words inforceth so much as now it shal be declared ¶ That as all other so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly vutill the contrarie doth euidently appeare WHat meaning words ought to haue we iudge most directly by the proper signification and common vse of them For if the contrary do not appeare al words must be taken in that meaning aâ—…d sense which the vsual custom of speaking and writing hath geuen them Otherwise all things are confounded and the profite which cometh of words is lost Neither any man shall know what an other meaneth neither how to make his own bargaine or last will and Testament Certè peruersissimum est sayth Tertullian vt carnem nominantes animam intelligamus animam significantes carnem interpretemur Omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quà msunt amittere quod sunt dum aliter accipiuntur si aliter quà m sunt cognoninantur Fides nominum salus est proprietatum Truly it is a most ouerthwart thing that naming the â—…esh we should vnderstand the soule and signifying the soule we should expound it the flesh all things shall be in danger to be otherwise taken then they are and whiles they are otherwise takeÌ„ to loose that they are if they be named otherwise then they are The faithfull naming of things preserueth their proprieties By these words of this auncient Doctour we may iudge how foule a thing it is that hearing the body of Christ named we should without any reasonable cause expound it the figure of his body And hearing the blood of Christ named we should expound it the signe of his blood As well when he is named the Sonne of God we may expound it the image of the Sonne of God And so we open a gate to all heresie we take away all certeintie of speache and make the holy Scriptures subiect to euery mans filthy lust pleasure We must therefore kepe euery word in his own nature and in his knowen signification except it be manifest vnto vs that the speaker meante otherwise Doth not naturall reason teach vs so much Sayth not Marcellus the same being taught only by coÌ„mon wisedom and iudgement Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet quà m cum manifestuÌ„ est aliud sensisse testatorem We must not otherwise depart from the significatioÌ„ of the words but when it is manifest yâ— the testatour thought an other thing In which rule if we rest all the world well knoweth that when Christ said This is my body and This is my blood the words both by theire propre signisication and by the present vse of all speakers and writers do importe the reall presence of Christes true body and blood For neither the pronoun This pointeth to a thing absent neither the verb is can be said of that which presently hath no true being neither the noun body vseth to be verisied of a shadow figure or token of a body neither when Christ sayeth
This is my body any faithfull man doubteth but that both Christ had a true naturall body which he might geue and is able to make his word true vseth to vtter no falshood And whereas Christ sayd after bread taken This is my body it is geuen vs to vnderstand that by his word he maketh that particular substaunce of bread which was taken into his hands to be his own body what cause can now be brought why we should forsake these knowen significations and seeke out other more strange The law of nature wold vs to rest in the names which we find Iradition also maketh for the same interpretation And surely these are that chief rules to know that meanig which any words may haue Epiphanius in this matter hath a notable rule saying Omnia diuina verba non habent opus allegoria sed prout se habent accipienda sunt Speculatione autem indigent sensu ad cognoscendam vniuscuiusque argumeÌ„ti vim facultatem Oportet autem traditione vti non enim omnia a diuina Scriptura accipi possunt All the words of God nede not an allegorie or a figuratiue meaning but they are to be taken as they be They require in dede a diligent obseruation and vnderstanding that the strength and power of euery matter proponed may be knowen wherein it behooueth to vse tradition For all things caÌ„ not be gathered out of the diuine writing Here is the first place geuen by Epiphanius to the naturall takiÌ„g of words for al things be not figuratiue though many be To know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consyderation and auncient tradition helpeth much Well of other helpes hereafter Now let this be graunted that the first rule of all maketh for the Catholikes Which is that euery word and speache as long as the contrary is not manifestly proued is to be taken as it commonly doth signifie According to the which rule these words of Christ This is my body and This is my blood affirme the reall presence of Christes body and blood as now it shal be shewed ¶ The proper signification of these words This is my body and This is my blood is that the substance of Christes body and blood is couteyned vnder the visible formes of bread and wine WHen the Paschall Lamb was eaten and the Disciples feete washed Christ by taking bread into his hands declared him self to be disposed to vse it for some one purpose or other by blessing and thanksgeuing ouer it we are informed he wold make some diuine mysterie of that bread And when he began to make the mysterie saying this is and ended it adding thereto my body we lern by the two first words this is that his mysterie consisteth not of bread and of his body but of one substance only which was declared to be so really intended as well in his mind as at his tongs end that hauing once named what it was to wit my body no maÌ„ aliue might doubt but either he both in word and dede made a false signification which is with all true Catholikes a thing without al possibilitie or els that it was in dede so as his words of blessing and of saying This is my body witnessed And for asmuch as his word affirmed this to be his body and his dede of taking bread and of blessing shewed his words to be directed vnto yâ— which was in his hand or lay before him which was bread before it must nedes be that the pronoun this so shewed to his Apostles the thing already subiect vnto their eyes that much more it serued to teache their vnderstanding verily this which appeared to them bread to be in substance at the ending of the words his own body Therefore we teache the pronoun this to serue both to the eyes and to the vnderstanding of the Apostles to their eyes in pointing to the foorm of bread which they saw to their vnderstanding in teaching that substance which was present vnder that they saw to be his own body streight when it was so named And in so much as the same forme of bread tarieth after coÌ„secration which was there before the pronoun this doth allwayes direct their eyes to one and the same forme of wheaten bread which was there when Christ tooke it first and also it insinuateth to their vnderstanding that they must looke by the nonn that foloweth the verb to know what proprietie or substance that visible thing hath And seing the noun which cometh after is not the name of a qâ—…alitie or proprietie but the name of a substance and of such a substance as before was not present Without all question these words This is my body haue according to the proper custom of speache this meaning The substance which is conteyned vnder this forme of bread and vnder the accidents the which I shew you is the substance of my body Whereof it foloweth that the same thing is no longer the substance of bread and consequently therevnto that the substance of the bread is by the word of Christ changed into the substance of his body And likewise when Christ sayd This is my blood the sense is The substance which is conteined vnter the forme of wine which you sensibly perceaue to be in this cuppe is my blood or is the substance of my blood Which interpretation is so true that Christ hath forced vs to seeke it out in causing S. Luke and S. Paule to write This chalice is the new Testament in my blood For of necessitie we must interpret these words This chalice that is to say the thing conteined inthis chalice is my blood As therefore This in na ming the chalice doth serue to shew the place compasse within which I must looke for that substance which afterward is defined to be the blood of Christ euen so this being spoken of the bread which was taken into Christes hands doth first point vnto the eye within what circuit or quantitie the mind shal seke for that substance or proprietie which afterward the mouth of Christ wil declare and when the name is once heard it sheweth it to be that substance of Christes body Out of which discourse we may gather two conclusions The one that this beginneth most naturally with the sense of man The other that it with the rest of that speache informeth the vnderstanding of more then the eye saw To the sense it sheweth yâ— outward formes to the vnderstaÌ„diÌ„g it sheweth prâ—…cipally the inward substaÌ„ce vnder those formes Now looke by how many degrees the inward substance doth passe the outward formes and the end of the talk doth passe the beginning thereof by so many the pronoun this rather apperteyneth to the substantiue body wherein it endeth then to the formes within the which it goeth about to shew an invisible substance Which being so Hoc this is in Latin of the neuter gender because the noune
〈◊〉 of Godhed dwellech corporally in Christes flesh so his flesh râ—…ally eaten of vs with due faith charitie is a maruelouse instrument to geue vs the euerlasting meate and to ioyne vs most 〈◊〉 to the spirit of God Marke well that concerninge the eating God by saith and minde we approue it as a speciall good thinge but we say farther that God came in flesh to be eaten in flesh of them that consist of flesh And therefore hauing sayd my Father geueth you the true bread from heauen and I am the bread of life which hitherto is meant to be eaten by faith he also goeth forward promising an eating to come herafter that is to say in his last supper and thereof saith the bread which I will geue is my flesh and he that eateth me tarieth in me The same Christ commeth in his owne person to performe yâ— former promise not saying only beleue ye in God and in me as I teache you but saying and doing that is to wit taking blessing geuing and saying take eate this is my body which is geuen for you 〈◊〉 this only pointe were depelie pondered it semeth to me that the almightie speaker so sent so promising and so doing ought to be of suche aucthoritie that nothing should staye vs to beleue that externall thing to be his body whereof he sayd this is my body Let vs now adde hereunto the wisedome the prouidence the truthe and the goodues of yâ— speaker who wold not of purpose blind his owne spouse with siguratiue wordes both of promise and of performance and yet the one ioyned with the other and the person who both speaketh and doth well considered make to men of reason suche persuasion of a proper speache that no sufficient cause is lefte why to presume those wordes to be figuratiue Of this first circumstance Eusebius Emissenus writeth Ad cognoscendum percipiendum sacrificium veri corporis ipsa te roboret potentia consecrantis Let the very power of him that consecrateth it strengthen thee to know to perceaue the sacrifice of the true body Again recedat omne 〈◊〉 ambiguum qui auctor est muneris ipse etiam testis est veritatis Let al doutfulnes of insidelity depart he that is the authour of the gift is him self also the witnes of the truthe ¶ The second circumstance may be to consyder the tyme when the supper was made THe tyme of speaking was the nyght before Christ departed out of this world at what tyme men are wonte to speake most plainly And S. Paule himself noted that circumstance saying our lord in the night that he was betrayed toke bread c. For when the howre of death draweth nere men vse manifestly to shew their last wil without al figures tropes as nighe as the matter will suffer And how much more wold the wisedom of God vse wordes warily in this case specially seing S. Augustin witnesseth that he gaue this Sacrament after supper when his passion was at hand to thintent the highnes of the mysterie might the better sticke in the hartes and memorie of the disciples whereas otherwise the Churche is taught by the holy ghost to receaue this Sacrament fasting for the honour saith S. Augustine of so great a Sacrament Let vs now a litle weigh with our selues whether any good and discrete man knowing his parting hower out of this world to be at hand will speake of purpose such words of ordeining matters to be done after his death the which words he foreseeth wil cause his heyres either to synne greuously if they obserue theÌ„ plainly as they should or els to haue an inward dissensioÌ„ if some affirme them to be plaine others denying and 〈◊〉 them â—…o be figuratiue for if Christes words be in dedt figuratiue the Catholiks synne both in teaching the contrarie and in adoring Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and 〈◊〉 which thing they are constrained to doe by the force of the words and then they are giltie of 〈◊〉 who possiblie can find no cause why they should not beleue their master so speakig and doing as he spake and did and thus lieth the â—…ander vpon Christ himself but if the words be in dede plain then Christ is purged and the only sault is in them who will not beleue I think it far the better to beleue the wonderfull discretioÌ„ of Christ â—… so 〈◊〉 him to mistrust the infidelite of wicked men ¶ The third circumstance concerning the persons who were at the last supper THe hearers were his twelue Apostles who should instructe yâ— who le world of that which they lerned of Christ in this very busines whereof we talke and so they did neuer leauing in any peece of all their writinges or preachinges that Christ leste a figure of his body without the very truthe thereof conteined in the Sacrament of the altar To the same Apostles it was geuen to know and vnderstand the mysteries of the kingdom of heauen whereâ—…ore it is very iueredible that the greatest mysterie of the whole Church was either hidden from them by Christ or by them hidden from vs. Yet it can not be denied but it is in some part hidden if that words which report it be figuratiue and parabolicall for parables are spoken as Christ himself witnesseth out of Esaias the Prophet so that men hearing doe not vnderstaÌ„d in hart the things which are spoken Thyrdly the Apostles were those who taried with Christ at Capharnaum where he promised his flesh and blood therefore if Christ had then spoken figuratiuely to the people yet now at the least he should and wold haue declared the matter more plainly and so he did in dede not verilie adding any word which might shew his former talke to haue beue figuratiue conceruing the substance of flesh to be eaten the substance of wine to be drunken but only teaching the maner of geuing them his flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to be figuratiue and mystical because they are not geuen to fill the bellie but to fede the soule not so much for the fleshes sake which we 〈◊〉 as for yâ— spirit Godhead which replenisheth that flesh of Christ. ¶ The fourth circumstance concerning the ending of the old passouer and the making of a new THe occasion mouing Christ at his last supper rather then at any other tyme to say ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my blood was the setting and placing of the new Paschal Lamb in stede of yâ— old For least his Churche should be without a mysticall sacrifice called according to the law of Moyses a passouer that is to say a sacrifice betokening our passing ouer the sea of synne and our 〈◊〉 to the Land of grace and life which we looke for as sone as the old Lamb was eateÌ„ and the tyme come that shadowes and figures should be fultilled by
the death of Christ the true passouer and the true Lamb of God Straight way he began to make this new Sacrament in stede of the old Paschall Lamb that the Churche of Christ might haue a new oblation which should conteine really the true Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world For as Leo the great sayeth Vetus Testamentum consummabat nouum Pascha condebat he ended the old Testament and made a new passouer As therefore the old Paschall Lamb was really present and really eaten so much more the true passouer Iesus Christ in yâ— banket which him self instituted is really present to be really eateÌ„ except we shal say yâ— his â—…ew banket is lesse true and really then the old was or that the old being an vndoubted figure of the new did not by the eating thereof declare that the new Paschall Lamb Iesus Christ should be also eaten not only by saith which kind of eating Christ both Moyses and Phinees had but euen externally vnder the forme of bread the which kind of eating Christes flesh the old Fathers had not because the law brought nothing to perfection but we haue it because the truth is made by Iesus Christ who deliuered vs his own flesh to be eaten really and in dede ¶ The fyfth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper AS the ending of the old ceremonie moued Christ to institute a new so the ioye which he tooke of that change was so great yâ— he could not forbeare but sayd to his Apostles Desy derio desyderaui hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum antéquaÌ„ patiar I haue desired with desire to eate this passouer with you before I suffer And as S. Chrysostom witnesseth he did really receaue the mysteries at his supper to incourage his Disciples to receaue them without all scruple or feare Neither doth it skill to my purpose whether the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb or to the nâ—…w If they be referred to the new alone Christ desireth only to eate his own body with his Apostles But Christ could not eate it by faith deuotion sith he had it present in a better maner then so therefore by shewing him self desirouse of eating it and by his owne eating it we learn that it is his own reall substance not only an effectuall sigâ—…e thereof And it is not to be wondered that he will gladly eate his own flesh namely in such an vnspeakable mysterie as him self hath prepared because thereby as S. Chry sostom writeth he encouraged his Apostles not to be afeard therâ—…of And why should not Christ doe that thing for our great profite seing that other men haue often tymes eaten their own flesh euen in a grosse manâ—…r either for hunger or for anger or phansie without doing so great good to them selues or to any other as Christ in this fact hath done to all his Churche Or is it more straunge to eate his own flesh in so miraculouse a maner as it is present in then voluntarily to geue the same flesh to shamful death for our sakes Marke that I say Christ did eate his own flesh not as butchers and cookes dresse it but in so pure a sort as Angels feede on it by hauing it really present with them and yet in so true a sort as men receaue meat into their bodies For herein man eateth Angels foode in that he eateth the same spirit of God in Christes flesh the which feedeth the Angels really in heauen Now for Christ to eate his own body in truth of substance after that Angelicall maner it is no absurditie at all But for him to eate it by faith it were a thing cleane impossible And to eate it in abare figure without saith it were to lack the chief point that is requisite to the worthy receauing of the Sacrament If the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb the 〈◊〉 yet is all one because it is certein he desired not to eate the old Lamb for the Lambs sake but only for that it was the last eating of the Lamb as the which was out of hand to be taken away and to haue the flesh of the true Lamb of God geuen to the faithfull in stede thereof In either of â—…oth ways the desire and ioye of Christ was not finally for eating the Paschall Lamb wherein according to the Prophets words he had no delight but for the eating of his own passouer which can be none other thing besyde his own flesh Therefore Tertullian expounding this matter noteth well Indignum esse vt quid alienum concupisceret Deus How it were vnsemely that God should desier any thing which were other then his own With whom S. Chrysostom agreing writeth Non solummodo Pascha sed hoe in quo cum praeterijsset figura peracta erat veritas Christ desired not simply a passouer but this passoner wherein the figure being passed ouer the truth was celebrated And as he sayeth in an other place Wherein he wold deliuâ—…r the mysteries and new things vnto vs. Lo that which Christ desired was the truth it self to wit his own substance because it being vnited to yâ— Godhead was the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure and that substance is the meate of Christes supper and not only the eating thereof by faith ¶ The sixth circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament WHereas Christ through all his life had loued his Church he both continued that his loue euen to the last end of his life and spent his own life for the same loue and most euidently shewed that his loue the night before his passion first by wasshing most humbly his Apostles seete and then by geuing his own body and blood vnto them in so much that the said Sacrament is thereof called Signum vnitatis vinculum charitatis The signe of vnitie and the bond of charitie Whereof S. Chrystom writeth thus Christ hath mingled him self together with vs hath tempered his body into vs to th end we may be made one â—…rtein thing as it were a body ioyned to the head ArdeÌ„ter enim amantium hoc est For that is a point of them who loue feruently the like he saith also vpon S. Paul Seing now loue was one of the causes which moued Christ to institute this holie Sacrament let vs coniecture by that circumstance whether it be more like yâ— he leaft a peece of wheaten bread for a signe of his loue or els left the best greatest iewel he had to wit his own substance vnder the form of bread to witnesse yâ— same excessiue loue towards vs. I thinke it more then probable that sithens he was able to geue the substaÌ„ce of his own body to vs by turning bread into it and hauing taking bread said after thanks geueÌ„ this is my body I think it more then probable that his great loue
dyd rather geue his reall body vnder that blessed signe of bread then that he would say he gaue vs his body yet in dede gaue vs wheaten bread whiche were lesse then his body Howsoeuer shamefast men are wont to speake modestly to them whom they loue best surely they wil not blush to do most boâ—…tifully for them much lesse may we thinke that Christ louing vs so well spake more then he dyd performe ¶ The vij circumstance of washing the Apostles feete THe Paschal lambe being eaten Christ sate down at the table with his disciples He arose again laid his garments down girded himself with a towel poured water into the basin and began to washe his Apostles fete and to wipe them shewing thereby both his own humilitie also of what a great mystery they should be made partakers For the worthy coming whereunto not only their mind should be tried and purified but also their bodies yea euen the the vttermost parts of their affections should be purged and cleansed For which cause euer sins the Apostles 〈◊〉 as it may appere by the practise of the Churche and by S. â—…ionysius the Areopagite the Catholike Bishops and Priestes haue vsed before they come to coÌ„secrate yâ— dreadfull mysteries to wash the very toppes of their handes What to doe I pray you wâ—…ether because they should come to handle bread and wine then might Christe haue washed his disciples hands as he dyd their fete before they had eaten the Paschal lambe for it was not eaten without bread neither without a cup of wine also if we shal beleue S. Hierom S. Bede and Theophilact who thinke suche a cuppe of wine as the Iewes dranke of after the Paschall lambe to be mentioned in S. Luke And why is not the bread wine which was ioyned with the fleshe of the Paschall lambe it being set also to signifie the same Christ for which the bread and wine of the new testament is appointed as the Protestants teach why is not I say that bread wine as good as this whiche we haue one God made both and both be assigned to shâ—…ow one Christ both oblations both SacrameÌ„ts both be 〈◊〉 of the same men in the same night and place And yet so much 〈◊〉 is betwene the bread and wine of the old 〈◊〉 and that of the new that it was sufficient for the one to be eaten with 〈◊〉 not vncleane but the other 〈◊〉 haue 〈◊〉 the bodies purified for the more worthy receauig thereof 〈◊〉 not because it is bread and wine still but because it is made the 〈◊〉 of life the food of Aungels the body and blood of 〈◊〉 Hence cometh al this preparation hence cometh the difference betwene the old new 〈◊〉 For although they meete inone signification yet in substance the one was earthly the other in substance is heauenly the one published by Moyses the other of Christes own insâ—…utioÌ„ and for that cause yâ— one a bare shadow of the truth the other a truth of yâ— shadow and also couering the â—…me truth in a mysterie ¶ The 〈◊〉 Circumstance concerning the place of the last supper THe place where Christ kept his supper was chosâ—…n appointed not without a miracle by geuing his disciples a strange signe howe to go to an vnknowen house by folowing him that should cary a pot of water into it That house Nicephorus and Damascene write to haue bene about the mount Siou whiche standeth in holy scripture eueÌ„ by the inrerpretation of S. Paule to signify the City and Churche oâ—… God all which things doe portend that some great and vnaccustomed matter shal be done in suche a place so assigned In the house a faier parler was decked and adorned and therem a table at the which Christ sitting downe made thereupon his maundy Of which table for the meats sake whiche should be geuen at it the holy Ghost had before prophecied by king Dauid saying thou hast prepared a table in my sight And by Salomon wisedom hath set forth his table Likewise yâ— table whereuppon the twelue loaues of the shew bread stoode in the tabernacle of the law before the face of God shadowed this table of Christes supper whereat the twelue Apostles sate before the face of Christ our Lord he being the bread of life and geuing to euery of them a loaf vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteyned Christ then making his supper vppon this table and thence distributing his meate vnto the Apostles doth vs to vnderstand that whatsoeuer he feedeth vs withall either in spirit or in body at his supper is reallâ—… present vppon the very boord wherevppon he did eate For Christ at this tyme is not talking in parables not disputing in the synagoge not preaching in the teÌ„ple â–ª he is in a house in a parler at a boord shewing thereby where his banket is exhibibed where it is serued and whence it is receaued We are not now occupied in spirituall praicr alone but also in corporal eating and drinking If the euerlasting meate of Christes supper be only spiritual and only receaued in mind by faith let the howse be thought only to be spirituall the parler to be spiritual and the boord to be spiritual Let vs deny that any of these things were natural and real but if all the rest be confessed real seing al they are prouided for the meates sake which shal be eaten from the table what an impudent folly is it to say the body and blood of Christ whiche only is the euerlasting meate of this banket are taken neither in hand nor in mouth nor be not at all vppon the material boord whence Christ visibly deliuered them to his Apostles own handes bidding them take and eate ¶ The nyntenth circumstance of the taking bread and wine OUr sauiour sitting doun at the table toke bread and the cup of wine and he tooke it who neuer touched the thig which he did not sanctifie because vertue went forth of him euen by touching his garments Moreouer it is to be thought he toke such bread as the presâ—… feast of Caster which was beguÌ„ne might suffer Unleauened I meane and such as presently was vpon the table at the eating of yâ— Paschal Lamb. The which surely was already figuratiue bread it was already a token of Christ and already was partakeÌ„ of the disciples Shall we think then that Christ goeth about to do that which was already done No no this 〈◊〉 of his goeth to an other end as we shall perceaue anon Thirdly by taking bread and wine into his hands Christ meaneth vs to looke for the mystery that shal be made within the forms of those cratures which he toucheth He now pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would only consecrate somewhat in theyr breasts as Caluin dreameth he taketh bread and wine there we must seeke the first work of his supper Last of al by this kind of
taking bread wine he putteth vs in mind of that great Priest Melchisedech who brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham As therefore Melchisedech toke bread and wine to offer them first vnto God next to communicate AbrahaÌ„ with them so doth our true king of rightuousues intend to offer to God and his Father the present bread and wine which he taketh And because the thing sacrificed is to be changed one way or other euen in substance from the former nature which it had as being sometymes killed sometymes burnt and sometymes eaten when Christ as the high Priest of God for so it appeareth in the end toke bread wine he toke them to offer coÌ„sequently to thange them in the most perfit maner that euer could be deuised as who is the most perfit Priest And into what substance shall he chaÌ„ge them but into the sede of Abraham his own body who came to fulfil the law and gather all things into him selfe and so to bring them again vnto his Father For which cause S CypriaÌ„ sheweth that as Melchisedech first brought foorth bread wine that so the blessing might duely be celebrated about Abraham so Christ fulfilling the truth of the prefigured image offered bread wine suum scilicet corpus sanguinem that is to say offered his own body blood This great mystery could not be throughly haÌ„dled in a whole booke much lesse I am able to coÌ„clude it within the cumpasse of a circumstance it is now sâ—…icient to touch the chefe points of so long a matter ¶ The tenth circumstance of blessing OUr chefe Bisshop did not only take bread and wine but he blessed also Benedictio blessing is as it were a blessed saying and because God sayth and it is done in him blessing is doing and in Christ who is both God man blessing is most properly of all a doing by the meane of saying or signifiyng for not alwayes when he blesseth he nedeth to speake but if he blesse as man he maketh at the least some outward token of the good dede which he is about either by lifting vp his eyes or hands to heauen or by making the signe of the crosse or by speaking certeine words Howsoeuer it be it caÌ„ not be well imagined that blessing should be in God or in Christe without a doing otherwise it should not differ from a simple saying yea it should be the saying of mâ—…n rather then of God But now it is called the blessing as if we should say a beneficiall saying which in God always importeth a doing In this place it sheweth also what intent and purpose Christ had For whereas Christ might haue spoken in the way of exhorting or of prophecying or of threatening or of comforting when it is writeÌ„ he blessed and sayd we may learne that he speake in the way of doing of working of bestowing some real benefit and of geuing vertue and strength vnto his word for that effecte which being so we can not now with any pretense of honestie imagine that those words are in the substantial parts of them 〈◊〉 at the prononcing whereof the Gospell hath rehearsed the word and vertue of blessing For as a figuratiue saying is an imperfect speache and therefore lesse then a common kind of speaking so is blessing farre more theÌ„ any speaking and therefore a true doing What repugnance then were it to say that Christ blessed at such tyme as he not only did no great miracle but also did lesse then the ordinary nature of speaking requireth For ordinarily men vse proper words Well that blessing in this place is to be referred to the words This is my body and this is my blood it is the doctrin of the most auncient fathers For S. Ambrose calleth this mystery benedictionem verborum coelestium the blessing of the heaueÌ„ly words and S. Cyrillus commonly nameth the blessed Eucharist benedictionem Christi or mysticam benedictionem the blessing of Christ or the mysticall blessing The like doth S. Chrysostome writing vpon S. Paule Now for so much as blessing standeth here beâ—…wene taking of bread and saying this is my body the which bread and body caÌ„ not be truely verified of the same thing at once the blessing so declareth the working and making present of Christes body that it doth intimate withal the bread to be changed into his body For as all blessing doth geue some benefit so when a creature taketh a benefit it is châ—…ged into a better state For which cause both S. Gregorie of Nyssa and S. Ambrose atâ—…ribute the chaunging of the nature of bread and wine into Christes body and blood to the vertue of his blessing It would paâ—…e yâ— describing of a circumstaÌ„ce and become a whole booke if I should prosecute any of these matters so largely as the thing would beare which at this tyme I may not doe ¶ The eleuenth circumstance of gening thankes GOd blesseth his creatures in bestowiing some benesite vpon them and the creatures blesse God by praising and rendring 〈◊〉 vnto 〈◊〉 Blessing thereâ—…ore in a diuerse sâ—…se is coÌ„mon to God and man but thanksgeuing is the proper duety whiche man oweth to God As Christ by blessing at his supper shewed his intent of changing bread and wine to a better nature then they before had so by geuing thanks he declarerh his change to appertein to the honoure of God and that after such speciall sort in this Sacrament that the whole mysterie taking thereof his name is called as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse Eucharistia that is to say the geuing of thanks Whereas thanks be geuen by words alone or dedes alone or in both together it can not be denied but those are best thanks wherein most excellent dedes are ioyned with most true and reall words And who can dout but it is a more worthy dede to make present the body of Christ vnder the form of bread yâ— God may thence be glorified thanked then to make bread stil taryiÌ„g bread to be an effectuall signe of Chistes body Who can dout but the words of thanking are more true which say this is my body and meane the same then those which name yâ— body of Christ meane the figure of his body The Chatholiks beleue that Christ gaue thanks to his Father with moste true words and with most perfit dedes in so much that we deny any perfiter worke to be any where done vpon any creature in the whole world then that was wherein Christ wrought his body present vnder the form of bread to thend it should be a sacrifice of thanksgeuing to God And consequently we confesse with S. Ireneus eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt corpus esse domini that bread wherein thanks were geuen to be the body of our Lord. And therefore he addeth iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia it is not now common
the body Looke what place corpus did occupy the same figura corporis must nedes occupy And therevppon it foloweth that the pronoun hoc must be ruled by the noun figura likewise the relatiue quod and it must follow the verb est and goe before the verb datur And so the sense is Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my body the which figure is geuen for you Thus the SacrameÌ„taries haue brought vs not only â—…o a figuratiue presence of Christes body but also to a figuratiue death and sacrifice thereof I know they will say that albeit by the noun corpus body they vndcrstand figura corporis the figure of the body 〈◊〉 they wold not the relatiue quod which to be ruled by the noun figura but by the genitiue case corpus body As if it were sayd this is the figure of my body the which my body is geuen for you This shift will not serue because after that sort the noun substantiue corpus body is takeÌ„ two ways that is to say first vnproperly and then again properly Unproperly when it standeth for the figure of Christes body properly when it is sayd to be geuen for vs. Now seing that noun substantiue is but once named in all how so euer it is taken at one tyme it must be taken likewise at the other tyme for so much as it is not twise repeted but once only mentioned This sayeth Christ is my body which is geuen for you I ask how ye take the word body which is but once named in the whole sentence If ye take it to stand for the signe of Christes body mark well that you take it vnproperly And remember that you euer continew in taking it vnproperly after the same sort therefore if it be Christes body vnproperly it is geuen for vs vnproperly If it stand for the signe and figure of Christes body when it is ioyned with the verb est is how can it but stand for the same signe and figure when it is ioyned with the verb datur it is geuen Can the relatiue quod take half of that signification which was in his noun substantiue and lay asyde the other half You say corpus doth signifie two things to wit the figure of Christes body beit so Then the one peece of the signification is in the noun figure the other in the noun body To which word so consisting of two parts when a relation is made that relation can not respect the oâ—…e half of the word and neglect the other half But howsoeuer the word is taken so must the pronoun relatiue quod repete him again In this is my body say you the body standeth for the signe of Christes body therefore say I in these words which is geuen for you it must nedes be vnderstanded the which signe of my body is geuen for you And seing they say yâ— this pointeth to bread it followeth that bread is geuen for vs. This later sense is so blasphemous that the very Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists and Anabaptists abhorre from it therefore they ought likewise to abhorre from the former sense where they take the noun body for a figure of Christes body For doubtlesse as they take yâ— word in the one place they must nedes take it in the other sith it is one simple proposition hauing but once in it the word body This thing is yet more plainly sene in the Grâ—…ke text where S. Luke writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is to say word for word as â—…igh as our tonge may attein to the phrase This is the body of me geuen for you Or rather presently geuen for you And yet more expresly this is my body the same body I say which is presently geueÌ„ for you Two of the which Greek words can hardly be expressed in the Latin tong The one is the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which being of the present tense hath no like in Latin answering to it But we are constrained to put for it these two words quod datur which is geuen The other is the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which repeteth again yâ— noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body Geuing an vndoubted witnes that the thing geuen for vs is the same body which is pointed vnto and affirmed to be present This is my body This is the same body I say which is euen presently deliuered to be sacrificed for you But in Greek all this sense is without any other verb sauing the verb substantiue est is As if it were sayd in Latin Hoc est corpus meum datum pro vobis this is my body geuen for you In which proposition corpus is the noun substantiue to the participle datum And therefore one and the same body is both pointed vnto vnder yâ— forme of bread and presently geuen that is to say offered to 〈◊〉 sacrificed on the Crosse and to be pearced and crucified the next day for vs. I require and humbly beseche him yâ— thinketh me to be deceaued in this point â–ª as he loueth God and his neighbour to shew me wherein I misconstrue these words or by what meanes the argument which I now make for the reall presence of Christes body may be possibly auoided For it semeth to me that noman of good conscience who will not wilfully be damned is able to auoide but that Christ affirmeth this which he pointeth to really to be the same substance of his body which was betrayed and offered vpon the crosse for vs. He that sayth this is a figure of Christes body sayeth a figure of his body to haue bene geuen for vs. I can deuise no maner of escape besyde wilfull malice It may be some ignorant man will say that the noun corpus body standeth not for the signe of Christes body but that the verb est is rather standeth for the verb significat doth signifie and so the sense to be this doth signifie my body and so the noun body standeth still properly who so maketh any such obiection vnderstandeth not that it is all one to say this doth signifie my body and this is the signe of my body therefore either of both being confuted both are confuted for the cause why the verb est should be resolued into the verb significat must nedes come from the word corpus body sithens this doth therefore signifie the body because it is made the signe of Christes body But if it be not the signe thereof surely it doth not signifie it in so muh that this proposition hoc significat corpus meum being resolued into this hoc est significans corpus meum as the rules of good reason and of the arte of logik require the word which apperteined to the signe shal be found à parte praedicati rather then à parte copulae that is to say it shal be found that the reason of signifieng con sisteth in the
noun body rather then in the verb est is for which cause Oecolampadiâ—…s admitted aswell the one as the other making no difference whether est is stand for significat to signifie or corpus body for signum corporis the signe and figure of yâ— body so that the reall presence might be taken away But as I haue now proued out of the word of God seing yâ— body is pointed vnto which died the true substance it self died for vs the true substaÌ„ce is pointed vnto vnder the form of bread and so pointed vnto that none other coÌ„struction of those words can be made for if corpus body doth not stand properly when it is ioyned with the verb est is it is not possible that it standeth properly as it is the noun substaÌ„tiue to the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or as it is antecedent to the relatiue quod which In dede if Christ had sayd expresâ—…ie this is the figure of my body it might wel haue folowed the which body is truly geuen for you for of the two antecedents the relatiue might haue bene referred to the next But now there is but one antecedent in all and it is taken vnproperlie as the Sacramentaries say therefore in that vnproper signification it must be antecedent to the relatiue folowing all the grammarians in Christendom can find none other construction of these words If the Sacramentaries can excuse the matter let them bring it to light ¶ The xix Circumstance of the verb facere to doe or make or to offer sacrifice ALthough the verb facere doth signifie most generally all making and doing yet because the most excellent dede that can be made is to offer a true internal and external sacrifice vnto God therefore it is come to passe that facere in his most principall signification is vsed somtimes to signifie the offering of a sacrifice neither doth it skill whether it stand alone or be ioyned with an other word in the accusatiue or in the ablatiue case for it is the circumstance of dedes and words which principallie make it so to signifie That facere in this place doth betoken the offering of a sacrifice it appereth by al the circumstances of the supper first in that Christ hath now in the fourtenth day of the first moue at euening tyde begonthe blessed sacrifice of his passion next he hath offered the old â—…aschal Lamb the cheef sacrifice of the law thirdly he hath taken bread and wine the materiall parte of the sacrifice of Melchisedech fourthly he blesseth geueth thaÌ„ks externally to God in a fact wherein he consecrateth his own body the only sacrifice of mankind yea farther he so consecrateth it yâ— he douted not to say ouer yâ— bread this is my body which is geuen for you straight vpon which words he addeth hoc facite doe ye or makâ—… ye this thing Whâ—…t other sense now can this verb haue but doe that I haue done who now haue exercised my priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech So did S. Cyprian take this verb facere when he said of this verie matter Iesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster Ipse est sum mus sacerdos Dei patris sacrificium Deo patri ipse primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit Iesus Christ our Lord and our God him self is the highhest preist of God yâ— Father and first hath offered sacrifice vnto God the Father and hath commaÌ„ded the same to be done for the remembrance of him If Christ offered sacriâ—…ice and commaÌ„ded the same to be done he commanded sacrifice to be offered of his Apostles and therefore it foloweth in S. Cyprian coâ—…cerning a priest of the new Testament sacrificium verum plenum tunc oâ—…ert in ecclesia Deo patri si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse he then offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the Church if he so begin to offer according as he may see Christ him self to haue offered If now Christ hath willed his Apostles to offer that which he hath offered it is most certain that Christ offered none other thing in the whole earth besyde his own body the which he toke to offer to God in stede of al other oblations as Dauid S. Paule say therefore that body of his he both offered himself and willed his Apostles to offer it but what soeuer he offered in his last supper he had it in his hands or vpon the table before him and gaue it vnder the forme of bread and wine to his Apostles therefore the reall substance of Christes body and blood was vnder the sayd formes that it might so be offered vnto God according as Melchisedech had before signified This argument were able to receaâ—…e a great deale of matter but it wold be aboue the cumpasse of a circumstance ¶ The xx Circumstance of the pronoun hoc this thing CHrist sayd not only facite doe ye or make ye but hoc facite doe ye make ye this thing The which words as they coÌ„maund bread to be takeÌ„ blessing breaking geuing taking and eating to be vsed and the words of Christ to be duely pronounced so beyond all these things they commaund one speciall thing to be made which is the body of Christ. for none other thing in all the supper can particularly discharge and fulfill those words besyde the body of Christ. As for bread wine they be not commaunded to be made â—…ith they were made before the supper began taking blessing breaking eating partly are not this one thing but manie things partly they be not such as may be in all degrees repeted done so as the precept of doing or making this thing requireth For the taking and breaking of other bread is yâ— doing of a like thing to this whiche Christ hath done not the doing or making this thing But Christ said not sic facite doe so as I haue done but hoc facite do or make this thing If we shal kepe the propriety of Christes words the meaning must nedes be make this body of mine For he sayd this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing which this thing but that only thing whiche was named for none other special thing or substance was named besyde the body of Christ. Hoc is the neuter gender and either it must be referred to the noune cor pus body as to his substantiue which went before and the sense is facite corpus meum make my body and so doth Haimo construe it or els it must stand substantiuely and so it meaneth this thing that is to say the thing which is the body of Christ. I doe not without great cause stand so long about euery litle word I know the tergiuersation of them that missexpound the word of God who altâ—…ough they will soâ—…er be confounded then amended yet
the more particular my reasoning is the more it ought to moue them earnestly to looke to the worde of God and not to contente them selues with the bare shewes thereof For my exposition beside the very order and conference of Christes supper hath for it as auncient a witnesse as Iustâ—…s Martyr is a man within the first two hundred not only within the 600. yeres whose works Robert SteueÌ„s printed in greke at Parise An. Dom. 1551. Thus he writeth The Apostles in their com meÌ„taries which are called gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundement who when he had taken bread geuen thanks said do and make this thing for the remembrance of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est corpus meum That is to say my body Thus I reade the words thus they are vnderstanded make this thing That is to say make my body They that haue translated Iustinus haue turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est whiche words may be Englished as if the cause had bene This is But they also may signify hoc est that is to say For so the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in greke in the way of interpretation or of exposition when the wordes that went before are expounded by the wordes that follow The same phrase is vsed in S. Matthew where after the Hebrew wordes were writen which Christ said vpon the Crosse Fli Eli Lamalabachtami it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is to say my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Therefore albeit the Latins can not distinct betwene hoc est whiche signifieth this is and hoc est whiche signifieth that is to say yet the grecians write the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing Iustinus also hath obserned in the wordes belonging to the blood putting in euery letter The last they write leauing out yâ— last letter of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Apostrophe in pronountiation making one word of both And this sense is proued true by the processe of Iustinus who after that he had said we are taught the meat whiche is consecrated by the praier of the word whiche we toke of Christ to be his body and blood He would proue it to be still so because the Apostles dyd witnesse Iesum sic sibi mandasse Christ to haue geueÌ„ theÌ„ such a precept Hoc facite make this thing what thing my body Now if this thing were not meant to be yâ— body of Christ Iustinus had proued no commandement thereof and consequently no fleshe of Christ present whiche yet he affirmeth most plainly Therefore straight after he had rehearsed the commaundement Hoc facite make this thing he sheweth what thing it is â—…aiyng that is to say my body whereunto we must nedes vnderstand to make vp the full sense make my body or make this thing which is my body Therefore as well by the force of the letter of the Gospell as by the authoritie of S. Iustinus these words can be verified of no signe or figure nor by any other way theu by that we make the selfbody of Christ which always is this thing because it always tarieth one and the same in number person whereas the taking of bread and breaking or eating it is alwais such anotherthing but neuer this thing ¶ the xxi Circumstance of the words in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me THe finall cause of instituting this new passouer was to make the remembrance of Christes death which so effectually and profitably for vs could be made in nothing els as in the same flesh that died for vs and being made therein it forceth vs by al meanes through the presence thereof to remeÌ„ber him whose flesh it is If now he that hath a busines to doe will those the beast meanes he can to bring it to passe if Christ came into the world to redeme vs by his death and if in beleuing and folowing that death our life consist seing no meane possibly can be deuised so effectuall to make vs remember and partake his death as if the thing which died be it self made present with vs and it self deliuered to vs a wise man may easibly iudge whether Christe hath not rather leaft his own body to vs for an vndoubted token of his death seing his words doe sound so theu that he hath leaft a peece of bread and a litle wine which neither be spoken of in the deliuery of the mysticall tokens nor be aptâ—… enough to worke the matter for which they are sayd to be least Therefore S. Chrysostom shewing the difference betwene other figuraâ—…iue remembrances and this truthe sayth Tibi quotidie ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur Christ is euery day him self put before thee least thou shouldest forget him Note that Christ him self in this Sacrament is a remembrance of him selfe dying for vs euen as Manna was kept in the taberâ—…le of God to be a remembrance of it self Kepe it sayth God Vt nouerint filii Israël panem quo alui vos in solitudine That the children of Israel may know the bread wherewith I fed ye in yâ— desert So likewise the self body of Christ is kept as it were and preserued in the tabernacle of this blessed Sacrament that we may know by that knowlege which is meete for faithfull men that our Lord hath died for vs. ¶ The xxij circumstance of these words Drink ye all of this AFter the cup was taken and thanks geuen Christ gaue to his disciples and sayd bibite ex hoc omnes drink ye all of this In S. Luke it is sayd take and diuide among you By these words Christ meaneth literally that all the twelue should drink of that one cup and S. Marke witnesseth this precept to haue bene fâ—…illed saying Et biberunt ex illo omnes and all drank thereof This interpretation S. Dionysiâ—…s the Areopagite confirmeth saying that one chalice was diuided among them all And as S. Lyrillus witnesseth Circumtulit calicem dicens bibite ex hoc omnes He caried about the chalice saying drink ye all of this By carying about he meaneth all the twelue to haue receaued the drink out of that one cup in order Christ then would that his twelue Apostles should al drink of the same cup. The reason why he wold haue it so foloweth For sayth he this is my blood as if he sayd I haue conserated this cup only and none other therefore drink yâ—… all of this For if two or three of the twelue should haue drunk vp all that was in that cup either Christ must haue consecrated the cup again or the rest must haue receaued a drink not consecrated But it is not the wil of Christ that one Priest should coÌ„secrate in one Masse any more then once eche kind of the Sacrament because Christ died but once and then he onght to consecrate both kinds together because Christes blood and
second Councell of Nice doubted not to say Nemo sanctorum Apostolorum qui tuba sunt Spiritus sancti aut gloriosorum Patrum nostrorum incruentum nostrum sacrificium in memoriam passionis Christi Domini Dei nostri totius suae dispensationis factum imaginem corporis illius dixerit None of the holy Apostles who are the trumpet of the holy Ghost either of our glorious Fathers hath sayd our vnbloody sacrifice which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion and of his whole conuersation to be aâ—… ymage of that body No Apostle no Father hath called this remembrance an image of the body so as it should be denied to be yâ— body it self An unage of the death it might haue bene called but an image of Christes body no Doctor euer called it because it is yâ— truth it self It is the body of Christ made for the remembrance of his death accordingly as Christ said This is my body which is geuen for you make this for the remeÌ„brance of me Shewing my death vntyll I come ¶ Answere is made to the chalenge of M. Nowell concerâ—…ng the difference betwene I am the true vine and This is my body MAster Nowell iu his reproufe of M. 〈◊〉 proufe hauing occasion ministred to speake of these words This is my body about the whiche M. Dorman had sayd that Luther and Caluin did not agree he answereth first they agree both in this that the Papists exâ—…ound them â—…alsely Next he affirmeth that M. Dorman nor all Papists with him shall neuer be able to shew cause why these words Ego sum vitis vera I am the true vine doe not proue as wel a transubstantiaton as hoc est corpus meum this is my body I am M. Nowell one of those Catholiks whom you cal Papists who by Gods grace will shewe sufficient cause why these words I am the true vine doe not proue as well a transubstatiation as This is my body In these words I am the true vine I say not only that there is no transubstantiation but I affirine also that in them there can be no transubstantion at all Whereas in the words This is my body a transubstantiation both may be and is To make the proufe where of plaine it is to be knowen that by the word transubstantiatioÌ„ the change or passing of one substance into an other is meant To haue one substance goe and passe into an other it requireth that two seuâ—…rall substances be first or last really found of which two yâ— one must be extant before it be changed the other must at the least be extant when the change is made though it were not extant before As for example The bread which at his supper Christ toke into his hands was one certaine substance the other was his owne body which he had taken of the virgin Mary Now when Christ sayd ouer the bread which he had taken This is my body we beleue that he changed the bread into his body and we call the passing of the substance of bread into yâ— substance of Christes body transubstantiation This 〈◊〉 we build vppon the deedes and words of Christ. Uppon his dedes that he toke bread and blessed or gaue thanks Uppon his words in that he sayd This is my body we beleue his words to be proper because beside that he spake them in the way of blessing of 〈◊〉 a Sacrament and of commanding his Apostles to make this thâ—…g he also expoâ—…ded them him self as not being only contented to say This is my body but adding thereunto which is geuen for you Uppon these vnfallible grounds we say that the thing pointed vnto is Christes owne substance really present at yâ— speaking of the wordes And seing we know the same to haue bene bread before and that it can not be at once both materiall bread and withal Christes body for that the substance of bread is not vnited to the person of Christ we are constrained to beleue that the bread was changed or 〈◊〉 into Christes body Such a change is not only possible became bread is a creatâ—… able to be changed into Christes owne body but it is also most conuenieâ—…t as well to make the external sacrifice of the new testament for no externall sacrifice is made without a change as 〈◊〉 to make it according to the order of Melchisedch whose oblation began in bread and wine but was ended in blessing Abraham and in pronouncing him blessed to the high Godâ—… the which propheticall figure the true Melchisedech Iesus Christ fulfilling toke bread and wine to begiune his new sacrifice withall but by blessing pronouÌ„cing this is my body he 〈◊〉 his â—…nblody sacrifice in that blessed sede of Abrahams owu body and blood Thus we 〈◊〉 touching these words this is my body both a sufficient cause why transubstantiation may be in them beleued and an vndoubted possibility of the same But concerning the other words I am the true wine alleged by M. Nowel the very first ground of al transubstantiation lacketh in them For whereas in euery transubstantiation two particular and seueral substances are to be graunted one which may be chaÌ„ged an other into which the change may be made in these wordes I am the true vine here is but one particular substance which is Christ him selfe As for the true vine â—…ither it is Christ him selfe and so it is no seueral substance from him whereunto he may be changed or els it is no particular substance at all but only a general â—…ame of a kind of substance which hath in it self no dotermined and proper being For as before Christ spake there was no such vine extant which might be pointed vnto so 〈◊〉 speaking he made no such true vine any where he brought foorth no such materiall thing nay he ment not of any vine or of any other creature vnder the sonne but only ment him self to be that in his own person towards vs his members which the natural vine is towards his branches And therein him selfe to be so much the â—…uer kind of vine theÌ„ yâ— natural vine is because the iuyce which vniteth his members to him the head of his mysticall body is more true and more nigh to the spirit of God which is the truth â—…t self then any material vine can be nigh to his own braunches Seing then transubstantiation can not be made otherwise then by turning oâ—…e materiall substance into an other where one material substance only was found there possibly could no transubstantiation be made Christ in dede is one substance but the vine he spake of was no one particular substance at all It was therefore a great ouersyght to compare these wordes I am the true vine to these This is my body which words were so spoken that by the circumstance of the supper they are vnderstanded to pertein after a sort to two substances to the one
no stomack but ouercometh all their natures that touche him By that meanes it is brought to passe that as 〈◊〉 approching nigh to any thing â—…urneth all that is apt to be burned into it self making it of his owne condition and qualitie yea rather of his owne nature so Christ who is consuming fier turneth into his mysticall body all that worthely eate and drinke his naturall body in the Sacrament of the altar Yf we did eate common bread drinke common wine out of all question both the bread and wine wold be ouercomed of our stomack and by lytle and lytle wold be conuerted into our flesh and blood to norrish them corporally by which meanes neither we should by eating wheaten bread at any time be made one bread neither any of vs should become one with an other For they that differ by reason of diuers persons as diuerse men doe can neuer in any kinde of meate be made one whiles they eate that which is digested into their vaynes and made parte of their persons but only they are able to be made one who eate that which taryeth styll whole and sound in his owne nature styll common to all neuer appropriated to any one but gathereth all them into it self as making one spirituall mysticall body of all faithfull men Yf then we eate a kinde of bread in the holy mysteries and are one bread because we eate of the one bread surely it is no common bread but such a foode and meate as being eaten is not consumed of vs but rather consuming our weaknes maketh al vs that eate it of the same immortall nature with it which none other meate doth absolutely besydes the reall body and blood of Iesus Christ and it so mightely worketh our spirituall vnion that Christ wold his owne body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to be the Sacrament of that self vnitie which it worketh Nothing is more common in S. Augustine then to say that we take in the Sacrament the body of Christ which we are Vos estis in mensa vos estis in calice ye are in the meate ye are in the cup but we are not in the substance of wheaten bread albeit we are after consecration signified by that forme of bread which bread it self was from many graines of corne made one loaf but we are not at all signified by the substance of the bread For so euery bread in the world were the holy signe of yâ— Church of God by that meanes it were much more the body of Christ which thing S. Augustine denieth saying that euery bread and cup is not borne mysticall to vs but it is made mystical by a certeine consecration If then the natural substance of bread suffise not to signifie the body of Christ and the felowship of the elect and yet they be manifestly signified to be one in the Sacrament of Christes supper what other ground must concur to shew them to be in the meate which they receane in the cup whereof they drink The Catholikes haue learned of the auncient Fathers that it is the reall body and blood of Christ which only being vnder the foorm of bread and wine can make vs to be shewed in the meate in the chalice For we are shewed in them because our head Iesus Christ is there within the forme of bread and wine now where the head is there also the members be signified to be specially seing the head is there to gather his members nere vnto him and as S. Chrysostome speaketh to make them as it were one lumpe with him For as many grains of corne are made into one loaf and that loaf by consecration is turned into Christes body the forme of bread stil remaining so many persons are in Baptisme made one mysticall body and that body at Christes supper is againe naturally ioyned to Christes own flesh and by that corporall vnion is mingled wholy tempered with him so that one thing is made of Christe and of his Church ¶ The reall presence is proued by ioyning together all the former wordes HAuing particularly declared how breaking communicating vniting make for the real presence of Christes body and blood I thought good now to coÌ„ferre al these things together The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body because we being many are one bread and one body for we all partake of the one bread Here bread is thrise named and foure things are affirmed of it 1. We breake breade 2. bread is the communicating of Christes body 3. we are one bread 4. we partake of the one bread Seing in all these places the name of breade is put to expresse one and thesame mysteriâ—… it must nedes be ment so that all these sayings may be verified without 〈◊〉 of the one to the other which can be done by no meanes except we take the substance of Christes body vnder yâ— form of bread to be called bread By that meanes the body in respect of the form of bread is conuenieiuly said to be broken By that meanes the substance of the body is the thing coÌ„municated vnto vs vnder the form of bread By the communicating of that substance we are vnited to the one bread and be made one body not only by faith and will as in baptism but by the corporall coÌ„innction of Christes flesh because we partake of that one bread in his own substance whereof we did partake before in certaine effectes of grace proceding from it Thus the breaking distributing of such a bread is the cause of the communicating of Christes body and such a coÌ„municating is the cause of ioyning vs corporally in one body and such an vnion procedeth of the partaking of that one bread in his owne substance And consequently all things agree well together But if we once take the sub stance of common bread to be the thing which is broken neither that substance is the communicating of Christes body because euery bread in the world should by like reason be the communicating thereof for so much as that which is the substance of any thing is in euery particular propriety of the same kind nor we are not all one material bread as it is euident nor we all partake not of one wheaten bread either in baptisme or after Again if the wheaten bread which is said to be the communicating of Christes body be interpreted to signifie yâ— coÌ„municating betwene vs and Christ when it is likewise said of the Apostle we are one bread and one body for it is one verbe and oue noune in both places est there sumus here communicating of one body there one bread and one body here If the bread which is the coÌ„municating of Christes body be the bread which is the figure of the communicating we that are said to be one bread are said to be the figure of one bread Likewise seing we
partake of the bread which is broken if the bread broken â—…e materiall we partake of the material bread and yet the bread whereof we partake is by S. Paule named one bread Therefore we partake of one materiall bread which can not be so For seing the bread is broken it is not still one These and many like absurdities can neuer be escaped except we say as the truth is that the bread broken is the flesh of Christ vnder the form of bread for our partaking is named of taking part of that which is brokeÌ„ but we al that are one patake only of Christ him selfe and be one in him alone and be not one in any materiall bread Therefore Christ is the bread broken by the reason of the form of bread vnder the which he is and the bread coÌ„municated and the bread which we are for that he is the cause of our mysticall coniunction For albeit the mysticall bread and body which we are be in seuerall persons and diâ—…tinct proprieties of men yet the substancial cause of that bread which we are is only found in the person and substaÌ„ce of Christ who is the beginner mainteyner and the end of that our mysticall body from Christ as from the cause of our vâ—…itie the same vnity procedeth to vs in an effect wrought by him But either to make vs one materiall bread or to make it being stil bread in substance to be notwithstanding the communicating of Christes body to vs or to be the bond which holdeth vs together by partaking thereof it is a doctrine which can not hang together And because the matter is of great importauce I will yet intreat farther of this our vnion ¶ Now we are one mysticall body in Christ. THe Church is one body more then one wâ—… First because it is called and holden together with one sâ—…ite of God Next because it is grounded in one faith 〈◊〉 â—…reaching of one true Gospel maiÌ„teined with one hope perfited â—…th one charitic watered with one baptisme of spiritual regeneâ—…ation redemed by one Mediatour ruled by one head 〈◊〉 to one husband ioyned in mariage to one fâ—…esh of Christ rewarded with one essentiall fruition of one euerlasting God The first foundation of this one cumpany which is the house the tabernacle yâ— teÌ„ple of God is the blessed Trinitie of whome by whome and in whome all things are In his diuine spirite we mete and be one not only with the Patriarches Prophets but also we therein be one with the Aungels Thrones and Seraphins in so muche that he vseth them for our ministery who neuer synned or swarued from the way of truth righteousnes Next after God all mankinde putteth his euerlasting confidence in the flesh of Iesus Christ who is the only Mediatour of all men that fell by synne either actuall or els originall there is no saluation in any other man Christ toke really our flesh to make it an iustrument whereby we might be brought again to God Therefore he both offered the same flesh vnto God euen to death and gaue the same flesh to be partaken of vs for the obteining of euerlasting life The partaking whereof is called in holy scripture by the name of eating drinking because although it be graunted to vs by diuers meanes yet the chiefe meane of all is when we eate his flesh and drinke his blood The first and most necessary meane of all is faith without which it selfe in men of lawfull age or without the Sacrament thereof in children none other 〈◊〉 can serue But faith alone though it worke by charitie doth not always â—…uffise because it is conueaient for a corporall substance such as the flesh of Christ is to be partaken by corporall meanes also For seing the corruption of our fleshe was the thing whiche did most incline vs to synne as the sonne of God toke our true flesh without synne to th end by it he might purge our synnes so he instituted diuerse Sacraments in certeine corporal things and in mystical words whereby the grace of his flesh might â—…e applied to our flesh and by that meane also to come to our soâ—…es Against the corrupâ—…ion of our birth he would vs to be washed in water which element his own fleshe had sanctified in the flud Iordan against the tentation of the deuill he coÌ„firmeth vs with the holy Ghost In stede of the custome of synning he geueth vs heauenly nourishement as well in body as in soule By these meanes I say we are one body in Christ of the which faith and charitic are meanes only spirituall the Sacraments are both spirituall meanes through the inward grace corporal through the visible formes of them The meanes only spirituall be neuer changed sith our faith is all one with that of the Patriarches but our Sacraments differ from theirs as whiche conteine the truth whereof the old Sacraments were only the shadow Hitherto it hath bene said that we can not be of the mysticall body of Christ vnlesse we partake his flesh either by faith or by the Sacraments For as S. Augustine writeth Albeit in some the grace of faith be so great that they are now assigned to the body of Christ and to the holy temple of God yet in some it is such as doth not suffise to obteine the kingdom of heauen as in the Cathecumenis as in Cornelius antequà m SacramentoruÌ„ participatione incorporaretur Ecclesiae before that he was incorporated to the Church â—…y paraking of the Sacraments The SacrameÌ„t wherein we are first incorporated to Christ is wel knowen to be Baptim which seing it consisteth of speaking holy words and of washing with the elemeÌ„t of water it is not to be denied but that God worketh our incorporation by corporall meanes also and not by faith a lone And as it is not enough for hauing the nature of a man to be conceaued only except he be also borne so if when he is borne he be not fed he can not long coÌ„tinew a man Therefore as the Sacrament of baptim beginneth the incorporation specially nowe when we al are baptized in our infancy euen so after the we are come to the yeres of discretion an other SacrameÌ„t is requisite to mainteyne vs in the body of Christ which is called the SacrameÌ„t of his body and blood whereof Christ said he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him Now sâ—…ing the sacrament which maketh vs tary in the body of Christ must â—…edes be a corporal thing as baptism was and yet it hath none other nature then that which Christ geueth it he nameth it his own body and blood we ought to confesse that the Sacrament which nourisheth the state of life euerlasting in vs is the body and blood of Christ corporally present that is to say
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
not in dede a man it shall neuer be the fault of eating mans flesh to eate that bread vnworthely S. Paule saith not only he is gilty who eateth this bread but he is gilty of the body of Christe Howe can that be except this bread which he eateth be the body of Christ â–ª If this bread be his body seing it stâ—…ll appereth bread we must confesse that the body of Christ is really present vnder the forme of bread And truly that is the cause why S. Paule nameth it this bread for yâ— word sheweth him to meane the bread coÌ„secrated at yâ— altar that bread which that Priest froÌ„ thence deliuereth yâ— bread which that people receaueth at the Priests haÌ„d Whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of Christes body because that substance of this bread is that substaÌ„ce of Christes natural body made geueÌ„ vnder that forme of bread If it were not so the eater of this bread could not by his eating be gilty of Christe s body Otherwise the talke of S. Paule would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthely the kings garment is gilty of murdering his person I am loth to heape vp in this place yâ— manifold witnesses of the auncient Fathers whose wordes I haue partly touched also before concerning that euill men eate Christes body Now it shall suffise to shew that they make the same sequele of S. Paules wordes whiche I do for they shew the vnworthy receauer to be gilty of Christes body because he inuadeth the body of Christ and not because he eateth wheaten bread Theodoritus expoundeth these words whereuppon we dispute after this sort Illud autem caeâ—… These words he shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord signifie this much That as Iudas betrayd him and the Iewes theÌ„ selfes insulted and rayled shamfully and sclanderously at him so these shame defile him who take his most holy body with vncleane hands put it into a polluted and vnchaste mouth Lo the taking touching and eating vnworthely Christes body maketh them gilty as Iudas and the Iewes were gilty of Christes death Yea Haymo saieth It were better for him who cometh with mortall sinnes to this Sacramente neuer to haue knowen the way of truth then to goe backward and to do worse then an infidell Primasius faith He despiseth Christ and his body as the Iewes dyd who cometâ—… to it without trying of his own conscience Sedulius besides that common similitude of Iudas and the Iewes vseth another saying If no man dare put it into a filthy cloth or vessel how much more ought he not to put it into an vncleane harte Note good Reader that the self same Sacrament is put in the cloth or vessel which is put in the harte It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries blaspheme breade and wine that is put into a cloth and vessell after consecration and body and blood that whiles the body eateth breade and wine is in hart receaued The same thing is in the harte which is put in the vessell wherein the Sacra ment is kept S. Hierome vsing the same similitude of a cloth or vncleane vessell declareth farther that as Ioseph did folde the body oâ—… our Lord in a cleane sheete so must we receaue him with a cleane coÌ„science Dâ—…u menius declareth the fault of the euill men to be in that they touche the body of Christ with vncleane mouth and impure hands saying that as Iudas betrayed Christ and the Iewes did violently runne vppon him euen so they do shame to him Quòd sanctissimum ipsius corpus manibus impuris suscipiunt veluti tunc eum Iudaei tenuerunt execrando admouent ori Who doe take with impure hands his most holy body none otherwise then the Iewes at that tyme helde him and doe put it to theyr cursed mouth Theophylact sayth of the blood of Christ Qui indignè hunc hauserit nulluÌ„ ex eo fructuÌ„ adeptus frustra ac temerè Christi sanguinem fudit He that drinketh the blood vnworthely he hath shed in vayne rashly the blood of Christ. taking thereof no fruit And again The cause why euil men take no fruit saith Theophylact is not through the nature of that mysteries as the which both haue life in them and geue life but it chauÌ„ceth through the vnworthines of them that come to them who take hurte by them nonc other wise theÌ„ as the sonne is wont to hurte them who haue sore eyes Theophylacte meaneth that as it is oue sonne which shineth to whole aud to sore eyes but yet the sore eyes through their owne defecte take hurt thereof and the whole eyes take good so the mysteries are one to the good and to the bad concerning their owne nature being as he saith always of that nature both to conteyne life and to gene life But the fault why life is not takeÌ„ cometh of the vnworthy receauer We haue now harde that euill men receaue the same true body of Christ which the good men do receaue but not to yâ— same profit because they haue not wel prepared them selues We must not then thinke that euer any auncient Father was of this mind to say that euill men haue in their mouthes only bread and wine and the good men eate only the true body of Christ. That heresiâ—… is as farre from the opinion of the Fathers as it is farre from the truth of the Scriptures S. Chrysostom saith he will suffer his own blood to be shed rather then he will graunt the moste holy blood of our Lord to an vnworthy man Doth not he meane that he hath our Lords blood in his own hand at the tyme of celebrating the mysteries and that he will not deliuer the same to a knowen euill man S. Cyrill noteth that it is not sayd in vaine of Iudas Exiuit continuò he went foorth by and by Timet diabolus benedictionis virtutem ne sintillam in animo eius accenderit The deuill feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kendled a spark of grace or of repentance in his minde S. Augustine hauing spoken of Iudas who gaue him self to the deuill Non malum accipiendo sed male accipiendo not by taking an euill thing but by taking it in an euill maner concludeth generally of all euill men Corpus enim sanguis domini erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit for it was the body and blood of our Lord euen to those to whom S. Paule sayd â–ª he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self It were easy after this sorte to allege a very greate number of yâ— olde Fathers but our aduersaries well knowing that we our selues beleue that the euill men albeit they receaue the substance of Christes body yet they doe not receaue the grace and vnitie
twentie tymes to the intent it might at the least wise sinke at the lengthe into some of his disciples minde And how much lesse should I either thinke it long to dilate this argument either the Reader be wery thereof S. Paule sayth eadeÌ„ vobis scribere mihi quidem non pigruÌ„ vobis autem necessarium To write the same thinges vnto you it is not lothsom vnto me but truly necessarie vnto you Euen so Christe for our greate profite always repeted that he would geue meate whiche should not perish a bread which was his flesh And that we should eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood that who so did eate his flesh and drink his blood should haue life euerlasting for his flesh is meate in deede and his blood is drinke in deede who so doth eate his flesh and drinke his blood doth tarie in Christ and Christ in him and he that doth eate him should liue for him and that this is the bread which came doune from heauen an other manner of bread then MaÌ„na was He that doth eate this bread shal liue for euer Thus about tenne tymes we finde that in S. Ihon he said one thing though not in one words Sometyme calling it flesh sometyme blood sometyme him self sometyme this bread sometyme meat Put now here vnto that he toke bread and wine blessed gaue thankes brake and gaue and said take and eate this is my body and drinke ye al of this for this is my blood and make or doe this thing for the remembrance of me Remember farther that three Euangelists wrote the history of the supper in diuerse yeres all after one sort that S. Paule wrote the same adding more terrour to it by shewing that some died at Corinth for the vnworthy receauing the body and blood of Christ with all the rest which the Apostle sayth in that epistle and we shall find that the holy ghost hath confirmed and verified the knowen and litterall vnderstaÌ„ding of the words flesh blood body meat without any figuratiue speache or meaning Albeit God meant not his body and blood to be eaten and drunken after the common vsual manner of eating rosted flesh or drinking raw blood but that we should eate it drinke it vnder the forms of bread wine For which cause he also vsed yâ— name of a certaine kinde of bread A bread I say which came donne from heauen because it is vnited vnto yâ— sonne of God who was for euer equal with his Father in glory nature honour This repeting of one thing so many tymes is a great argumeÌ„t of speaking plainly without all figures or parables This argument to begin wth the weaker the greke author Euthymius maketh who vpon those wordes my flesh is truly meate saieth hoc dixit confirmans quòd non aenigmaticè neque parabolicâ—… loqueretur This he hath said coÌ„firming that he spake not 〈◊〉 either els in the manner of a parable Which obseruation Euthymius borowed of S. Chrysostom who saith that Christ affirmed his fleshe to be meate in dede to confirme his disciples least they should thinke him to haue spoken obscurely in parables But the ofte repeting is of it selfe the confirming and assuring vs that he spake not so Oecumenius also vse th the same reason in a like matter Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quòd non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec iplos exterreat in that he many tymes nameth the body and blood of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man as the Nestorians did falsely teache but the Lord him self and maker of all things to th end he might verily put them in a terrour by these wordes if the ofte naming of Lord did shew it to be the body not of a bare man but also of God how much more doth it shew that it is not the bare substance of bread but the body it selfe of Christ who is our maker S. Basile noteth in the Apostle S. Paule coÌ„cerning this very matter VehemeÌ„tius simulque horribilius proponit ac declarat condemnationem per repetitionem The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemeÌ„tly to the more terrour of the vnworthy receauers the condemnation by repeting it S. Augustine in his booke which he made concerning the working of muncks perceauing that some thought yâ— Apostle to speake figuratinely wheÌ„ he requireth that all men should labour and worke who would eate among other arguments wherewith he disproueth these figurantiue workers vseth this also Neque enim aut vno loco aut breuiter dictuÌ„ est vt possit cuiusuis astutissimi tergiuersatione in aliam traduci peruertique sententiam â—…t is not said in one place or in shorte wordes so that it may be 〈◊〉 and peruerted into an other meaning by yâ— ouerthwarting of neuer so suttle a sophist Thus reasoneth S. Augustine vpoÌ„ the ost repeting of worke of labour of miniâ—…ring with handes prouing thereby that the Apostle meant in dede bodily worke and not only working with mind or tonge But I am assured there is not more in the new testameÌ„t concerning the precept of working with handes then is of the body and blood of Christ of his flesh of the meat which perisheth not of such substanciall bread of taking eating drinking communicating partaking the body and blood of Christ of making the same of geuing breaking and distributing of not discerning it of being gilty for vnworthy eating of true meate true drink oâ—… reising vp him that eateth it of his abyding in Christ and liuing for Christ of the Church and Christ being twain in one flesh of being one bread one body all that partake of the one bread of liuing for euer if any man worthely eate this bread which is the flesh of Christ which he wil geue for yâ— life of that world it is not said in one place neither in short or few words therefore it ought not be drawen into an other meaning then the words do sound â—…y the ouerthwarting of neuer so suttle a sophist To conclude S. Cyrillus writeth in the same sense Non obdurescamus toties a Christo veritatem audientes non est enim ambigenduÌ„ quin summa supplicia subituri sunt qui saepius haec a Chisto iterata non capiunt Let vs not harden our selues hearing the truth so oft of Christ. for it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most â—…reme paines who receaue not these thinges whiche are so many tymes repeted of Christ. The preface of the sixth booke BEcause the adoration of the body and blood of Christe in the Sacrament of the Altar is a matter whiche moste manifestly conuinceth the reall presence of Christ vnder the forme of bread I thought it best to handle it a part
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
them make that thing as it is written in the Gospel I shewed at 〈◊〉 that I was signed of my Father and equall with him in power they them selues beleue that I made al creatures places times of nothing and now is it doubted how I am able to make my body present vnder the â—…orm of bread in diuerse places Yea to maintaine the better that argument against my allmighty power they say I entred not into my disciples the dores being shut But eyther preuented the shutting of them contrary to the wordes of my Gospell or came in by the window as theues do or by some hole as crepers doe yea any thing is soner beleued then my diuine strength and working Thou hypocrite seing the word of God hath it written foure tymes in the new testament This is my body how comest thou to talke with me of my 〈◊〉 in heauen as though one of my workes were contrary to the other If in dede thou haddest bene humbly perswaded that I were God thou wouldest not measure my allmightie power by thy simple wit Thou art twise condemned first for deniall of a truth and againe for denying it against my expresse word which thou pretendest to esâ—…e and yet pronouÌ„cest it false If the pore mâ—…n say he knew not so much nor saw not the falsehod of that argumeÌ„t and beginne to accuse the salse preachers who deceiuâ—…d him Christ maie well say that he was not deceaued for before those false preachers began their false doctrine he had said This is my body and this is my blood and all the world beleued and taught the râ—…all presence of Christes body blood fiften hundred yeres together What cause nowe haddest thou to beleue a new Gospell and new preachers thereof Forsoth Sir they said the Bishop of Rome had deceaued vs and we heare say he is a very euil maÌ„ therefore we thought he had deceaued vs. If in this case Christ tell him that the Bishop of Rome were yâ— successour of S. Peter and so his vicar hauing promise by him not to erre in faith and yet that he alone taught not that doctrine but that all the Bishops doctors pâ—…ers of the whole Church taught the same from the beginning and that Christ him selfe had sayâ—… the same that all the 〈◊〉 and the Apostle S. Paule had written the same that al faithful 〈◊〉 beleued the same what excuse can he haue who 〈◊〉 Christ the Apostles the Bisshops the Fathers the preachers and the whole Church to followe an vpâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who began his doctriue so amhitiously and proudly who â—…ed so euil died so terribly that his very â—…ominable dealing with great Princes his shamfull 〈◊〉 and horrible death might make any good man wearie to think vpon him much lesse should so many haue folowed him To 〈◊〉 shor â—…wer the pore maÌ„ for him selfe â–ª what he may yet he can not denie but that both Christ said this is my body the Church taught the same and yet he beleued not this to be the body of Christe and therefore is one of them who beleue not without faith which is but one there is no saluatioÌ„ no pleasing of God no part in the kingdoÌ„ of heauen Which thing if they that be aliue will consider they maie returne againe to the Catholike Churche and so be made liuely members of that body whereof Christe is the Sauiour Herevnto is added the seuenth booke conteining a con â–ª â—…utation of the fifth article of M. Iuels Reply against D. Harding concerning the reall presence of Christes body in the supper of our Lorde The preface of the seuenth booke Iâ—…d thought to haue ended my treatise of our Lords supper with such matter as had bâ—…ne set foorth in my former six boks But when I had seen M. Iuels â—…eply against D. Harding and had 〈◊〉 not only contrarie doctrine to that which the Catholike Chruch beleueth vttered therin but also the same vttered with such enormouse misconstruing of the worde of God and with suche abusing of auncieÌ„t writers that it semed expedient to detect the falshod thereof I toke vpoÌ„ me to answere specially to that article whiche did unpugne the reall presence of Christes body â–ª whereof I had intreated And because I could neither well confute M. Iuels â—…ply without some respect had to D. Hardings answere nor conueniently put both D. Hardings and M. Iuels whole wordes in â—…ny booke which alredie was greate enough I was constrained to take such order that neither al their wordes might be at large laied foorth nor the pith of them in any part dissembled Wherein I haue so behaued my selfe that M. Iuel shall haue no 〈◊〉 cause to coÌ„plaine of me For I haue to my knowledge omitted no scripture no authoritie no argument of any force whereunto I haue not aunswered As for yâ— bookes of D. Harding of M. Iuel they being extaÌ„t in most mens handes nede not to be printed again by me How fully M. Iuel is answered the discrete Reader shall iudge when he commeth to the matter This much I will say it was more pain to staie my penne in suche abundance of stuffe as the goodâ—…es of the cause and euill dealing of M. Iuel gaue me then to 〈◊〉 at any tyme what might be 〈◊〉 answered One thing I beâ—…che the Reader to note most diligeÌ„tly that in all this treatise M. Iuel vseth none other meane so coâ—…on to proue his intent as to set one truth against an other As though Christes body could not both be in heauen visibly and in the Sacrament miraculously or as though because the Saâ—…rament is a figure it could not also contein the truth which it sigureth Or because Christ is eaten by faith his body might not be eaten also realy in the Sacrament But this thing is common to M. Iuel with other of his faction Marie to leaue on t the true nominatiue caâ—…e and to put in a false to leaue out the 〈◊〉 word which is the keie of all disputation to conueye wordes of his own which the authour neuer thought of to mispoint mis-english the testimonies of the fathers to 〈◊〉 their meaning that I can not tel whether any man hath vsed so much in so litle a treatise as in this one article of the reall â—…sence â—…e is â—…ound to haue done Neither is it vnknoweÌ„ to yâ— lerned who hath seen his booke yâ— hâ—… hath vsed the like falshod in yâ— other articles also 〈◊〉 by Gods grace the world shal see or it be long In the meane tyme iudg the rest by this which I shall set before thiâ—…e eyes And praie vn â–ª to God yâ— either M. Iuel may see his vnhonest dealing 〈◊〉 him selfe or els that his folly maie be 〈◊〉 to al men to thintent none may perish beside those who will not â—…denour by all meanes to lerne 〈◊〉 folow and to embrace the true doctrine of Christes Gospel and of the 〈◊〉 â–ª tholike Church The
affirmed him to rule Angels and al that euer was made by God and his scholars called him a Prophet and the sonne of God whiche notwithstanding for so much as they beleued 〈◊〉 not to be God by nature the Catholiks neuer douted to say that they taught him to be nudum hominem a naked and bare man Right so whatsoeuer holynesse be annexed to bread and wine be it the signe of neuer so great a vertue and efficacie be it called neuer so much the body and blood of Christ yet if it remain stil in the former substance if the truth whiche it is appointed to signify be absent it is bare bread and bare wine a bare token of Christes body and blood Amend your belefe M. Iuell if you will haue vs to amend our termes Iuel We fede not the people with bare figures San. The question is not how ye fede the people by your doctrine but what signe you teache the Sacrament it self 〈◊〉 be whether it be suche a signe as hath present in a secrete manner the truth signified thereby or els whether it be the signe of a truth absent in substance For two kind of signes there are one which by the truth of his own substance considered and well vnderstaÌ„ded doth signifie an other manner of truth belonging to it selfe as when a loaf of bread beinge true bread in substance is set to signifie true bread also but yet in that respect as bread is there to be bought sold An other signe there is where the truthe signified is absent in substance As when an iuy bush doth signifie wine to be sold. This later kind of signes or figures is vtterly naked bare and without the truth which is signified The question is whether of these two kinds of signes is in the Sacrament of Christes supper The Catholikes say the best and richest kind of signes is there because there is Christes body realy present to signifie and as it were by seale to witnesse his owne death and passion You teache the substance of the Sacrament to be still bread and wine but our signe is more worthy of Christes Godhead and more properly a signe or a seale in truth of nature then yours For as S. Hilary and S. Cyrill teache Signaculorum ea natura est caet Such is the nature of signes or of seales that they set foorth the whole forme of the kind of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them selues then those things haue whence they are sealed After this sorte God the Father signed Christ and Christe thereby was the forme the print the signe the figure the image of his Father But as S. Hilarie sheweth Imago authoris veritas He was the image of him whom he represented also the truthe I warrant you M. Iuel you fede the people with no doctrine of any such signe or seale present in Christes supper For you say afterward that the bread is an erathly thing therefore a figure I pray you can bread be other then a bare figure if it â—…il remain earthly and corruptible I say further to you M. Juel and yeâ—… beare no false witnesse at all that your 〈◊〉 be more bare then euerwere any euen in the old testameÌ„t For they at the least wise did in apparence of true fleshe and in true blood shedding foreshewe the fleshe and blood of Christ which should die for vs. Melchisedech likewise had beside his bread and wine the reall body of Abraham present whome he offered to God and in him Jesus Christ his sede But you hauing bare bread and bare wine without any reall flesh at all either present or offered must nedes haue a naked signe and a bare figure such as only Cain had and his brood Iu. We teache that in the ministration of the Sacraments Christ is set before vs euen as he was crucified vpon the crosse and that therein we may behold remission of synnes San. Admit ye â—…ache so then is your sermon better then your Sacrament For a man may looke long inowgh vppon the substaÌ„ce of bread wine before he can picke out of their earthly nature Christ crucified But if that blessed belefe were mainteined according to the truthe of the Gospell which after consecracion worshipped the reall body of Christ vnder the forme of bread theÌ„ the token which conteineth the true body that diâ—…d for vs in it is no bare token but the truth it selfe in substance and a token of the visible manner thereof Iu. We teache that Christes body is verily geuen to vs and that we verily eate it and liue by it and are flesh of his flesh San. How wel you teache it the thing it selfe will trie â–ª but all this proueth not that your Sacrament hath euer the more in it vnlesse you say that you receaue all this vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine A goodly matter your wordes in preaching to heare the which infidels may be admitted shal be better then the Sacraments instituted by Christ. How we are flesh of Christes flesh I haue shewed in the fifth booke the fifth chapiter Iu. Yet we â—…av not the substance of bread and wine is done â—…way or that Christes body is let downe from hâ—…uen or made really present San. That is the cause why your Sacraments are still bare naked For all the rest which you talke oâ—… is told to mens eares but nothing is wrought in the Sâ—…ents As for your nicke naming of things as of doing away bread in steede of changing of letting doune Christes body from heaâ—…en we must pardon you therein It is your grace to raile or rather the lacke of grace in you We teach bread to be changed into Christes body through his power Iu. He must mount on highe saith Chrysostome who so wil reache to that body San. You ouerreached your selfe when you turned accedere to reache â–ª it is to come vnto not to reache For S. Chrysostom spake of coÌ„ming to the holy visible table whiche stoode in the visible Church and meant that who so commeth to receaue thenâ—… the holy meate he must in good faith life climme vp to heauen and not that he should goe thither to receaue the mysteries Ipsa namque mensa For the very table that is to say the meate vpon the table is our saluation and life And againe This 〈◊〉 maketh that whiles we be in this life earth may vs heaueÌ„ to vs. Iu. Send vp thy faith saith Augustine and thou hast taken him San. The place is by you abused and drawen from a misbeleuing Iew to whome it was spoken to the Christian 〈◊〉 See good Reader my second booke xxix chapiter Iu. In deede the bread thaâ—… we receaue with our bodily mouthes is an earthly thing therefore a figure as the water in 〈◊〉 San. The water in baptisme is no figure
faith at Christes supper came from Christe howe could els any man haue it and it is described in the Gospel how could we els know it But all that he is writen to haue geuen came from his haÌ„ds when he saied take eate therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all as by his gift there made and by the Euangelistes rehersed or his body came then from his owne hands Can you proue that he gaue his body at his supper otherwise then by his own hands where is that writen For though he â—…wel in vs by faith yet no such thing was spoken of at his last supper Answere the Gospel M. Iuel or els blaspheine no more What soeuer was geuen at Christes supper came from the handes of Christ. shew me els an other gift and shew me where it is witnessed He gaue saith the 〈◊〉 said take eate nothing was eaten at his table but that whiche was there taken Nothing was there taken but that which was there geuen nothiâ—… was there geuen but that which Christ prepared and gaue Christ can be knowen to haue geuen nothing but that which the Euangelistes tel haue wâ—…ten They witnesse that he gaue such a tâ—…ing which at the least he called his bodie Now if in that external foode he gaue not his own reall body as you say his body was not eaten at all by the gift of his last supper not so much as by faith If it be so where or when shall his body be eaten by faith but if it was eateÌ„ by faith as vndoutedly it was by the eleuen Apostles who were al cleane as Christ said if that eating of theirs can be proued by the gospell it must be proued by these words take eate but these words were spoken of that visible thing whiche Christ gaue to their mouthes therefore all the eating by faith that can be shewed to haâ—…e bene made at Christes supper depended at that tyme vpon the eating by mouth Therefore the body of Christ which at Christs supper must nedes be eateÌ„ by faith if it shal be eateÌ„ worthelie as it ought to be was in the handes of Christe and thence came to the mouthes of the Apostles and so M. Iuel hath affirmed a proposition directly 〈◊〉 the veritie of the gospel Secâ—…dly the 〈◊〉 teach yâ— we eate Christes body by our â—…thes noâ—… by 〈◊〉 only â—… 〈◊〉 speaking of euil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uing denied Christ yet came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meates 〈◊〉 vp to 〈◊〉 vnto oâ—…r Lords table faith 〈◊〉 modâ—… in dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt quà m cum dominum negauerunt they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more againâ—… our lord with their handes and mouth 〈◊〉 when thei denied our Lord. Consider wel this saying An 〈◊〉 man 〈◊〉 Christ with his tonge before the tyran for feare of death eateth of things offered to idols The same man without 〈◊〉 cometh to Christes â—…able he synneth in both places and that with his mouth 〈◊〉 by denying Christ and by 〈◊〉 polluted meates here by touching and eating â—…ur lordes bâ—…die S. 〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 committed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the more 〈◊〉 â–ª Why so Is there aâ—…ie 〈◊〉 more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deny Christ to communicate with idols How is it then a more grâ—…uouse fault to come without repentance to Christes supper then to deny him both in worde dede Studie M. Iuel as long as you will you shall neuer find any solution wherein you maie 〈◊〉 but only this because he that commeth vnworthely to Christes table toucheth the reall and substantial body of Christ inuading and doing violence as S. Cyprian there saith to our Lords body blood So that the only cause why it is more heinouse to communicate vnworthely then to committe idolatrie or to deny Christ is the substance of Christ which is vnworthely touched Take away the reall substance from the handes or mouth of the receauer and it is not possible that it should be a greater synne to receaue vnworthely a peece of bread theÌ„ to denie Christ in word and to committe idolatrie in dede But as the treason that is committed against the kings owne person is the greatest of all so the greatest synne that can be bodily committed against Christ is the touching of his own substance with a polluted mouâ—…h therefore S. Cyprian beleued our Lord him selfe and the substance of his body to be receaued into the mouth of the communicant S. Chrysostome likewise witnesseth vs to take in our hands in our mouthes to touche to eate to receaue into vs Christes sleshe Is all this done by faith only Pope Leo writeth thus of this matter Ye ought so to coÌ„municate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at al of the truth of Christes body and blood Hoâ—… enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur For that thing is receaued in mouth which is beleued in faith but yâ— true substance of Christ is beleued in faith therefore the true substance of Christ is receaued in mouth Whereupon it foloweth that M. Iuel falsely affirmeth Christ to be eaten by faith only none otherwise Diuerse other testimonies I will bring hereafter as occasion shall serue Last of all S. Cyrill reporteth that a certaine Arrian saied Patet quia corpora nostra non dependent â—… carne Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is euident that our bodies hang not of the flesh of Christ as braunches of the vine Neither is the fruit of yâ— Sainctes bodily â–ª but rather spiritâ—…all therefore the Godhead of the sonne is the vine whereon we depend by faith Thus saied the heretike To whome S. Cyrillus making answere saith because he thinketh vs to be ioyned with Christe by faith and loue and not in fleshe let vs say somwhat herein Doth he thinke vs not to knowe the vertue of the mysticall blessing The which when it is in vs doth it not make Christe to dwell corporally also in vs by communicating of his flesh Here S. Cyrill placeth corporall being against being by faith and loue Christ by communicating of his flesh dwelleth corporally in vs and not by faith and charitie alone and yet our communicating is made by mouth Therefore M. Iuel doth communicate with the Arrian in saying that we eate Christes body by â—…aith only and none otherwise For S. Cyrill of purpose to destroie that heresiâ—… sheweth vs to 〈◊〉 Christ corporally also Iu. We place Christ in the hart M. Harding placeth him in the mouthe San. D. Harding placeth him in the hâ—…rt and mouth you place him touchiÌ„g his corporal presence neither in hart nor in mouth And touching faith in hart only and not in mouth D Harding teacheth the flesh of Christ to be ioyned to our flesh for the increasing of spiritual grace You teach bread to be vnited to our flesh affirming beside the word of God that our bodies eate bread as our soules are fed with Christe D. Harding teacheth the meate of Angels which
eate the same spirituall meate but an other corporall meate they did eate manna we â—…ate an other thing What is that other thing where might we learne the name or nature of it let vs not goâ—… to any other man but to the same blessed S. Augustine who neuer had any fellow in the Church of God for his 〈◊〉 knowledge in holy scripture but the more profound he is the lesse he is able to be vnderstanded at the first sight of those who reade him not â—…o great diligeÌ„â—…e Thus he writeth Quid est manna c. what is manna I am saith Christ the liuing bread which came down from heauen and again It is knoweÌ„ what God had rayrayâ—…ed from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what the Christians take let them blush then because they know it not let them passe ouer by the read sea Let them eate manna that euen as they haue beleued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit himself to them Thus S. Augustine doth teache that Iesus himself is our corporall meate in the manna of the new TestameÌ„t For of corporal meate â–ª now he speaketh of that I say wherein we differ from the old fathers and not of that wherein we communicate with them Christ eaten by faith is their and our meate al in coÌ„mon yea the Catechumeni may so eate of him But Christ neither being receaued into the bodies of the old Fa thers nor now of that Catechumeni who lern their faith is only yâ— corporall meate or true manna of the faithfull baptized which is no lesse really taken into our mouthes vnder the forme of bread then the Iewes did really eate manna fortie yeres together in the desert Iuel Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ in Baptism whiles he findeth that vnity which is signified by the Sacrament therefore the faithfull eate Christes body otherwise then in the Sacrament Sand. Who denieth but that Christes body may be otherwise â—…aten then in the Sacrament But it is not therfore eaten there really That only D. Harding affirmed you proue that he is otherwise eaten but yet that other eating whereof S. Augustine Beda spake proueth the real eating which D. Harding defendeth For if the body of Christ it self were not vnder yâ— form of bread he that is baptized should not partake at all of the Sacrament of Christes supper â–ª because he neither partaketh in Baptism of bread nor of wine but is only made a member of that mysticall body which in the Sacrament is signified And how is it signified let vs heare S. Augustine expounding that vnto vs who speaking of heretiks and schismatiks which are out of the Church saith Non sunt in eo vinculo pacis quod in illo exprimitur Sacramento they are not in that bond of peace which is expressed in that Sacrament The bond of peace expressed in the Sacrament is not only the wheaten cornes molded into one loaf for that bond is in euery loaf and not only in that of Christes supper but the bond of peace is the body of Christ present vnder the formes of bread and wine whereof I haue spoken at large in my v. booke in the v. chapiter ¶ M. Iuel hath not replied wel touching the Capharnaites HArding If Christ in S. Ihon had spoken tropically the Ievves and disciples vvho vvere vsed to figures vvold not haue sayd this is a hard saying Iuel His reason hangeth thus The Capharnaites vnderstode not Christ ergo his body is really in the Sacrament Sander No syr but thus They vnderstode Christ to speake without parables and Christes words appertin to the Sacrament as it was sayd before therefore his body is really in the Sacrament â—…ark the words of the Capharnaites and you shal finde by their answers and by their demands that they vnderstood what Christ promised but beleued it to be a thing either not possible or not conuenient Therefore Christ sayd there be some of you who beleue not He sayd not saith S. Augustine there be some among you who vnderstand not but he told the cause why they vnderstood not there be some among you who beleue not therefore they vnderstand not because they beleue not Iuel He sayd â–ª The bread which I will geue caet of spirituall eating It is the spirit that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith S. Augustine San. There is a spirituall eating without the Sacrament of Christes supper either by faith or by Baptism Of that Christ spake not now because it was not to come but was already geuen at the least concerning faith to all the iust men from the beginning of the world There is an other both spirituall or worthy and also reall eating of the Sacrament of Christes supper it self Thereof he now speaketh promising to geâ—…e it and at his supper he gaue it both really and spiritually that is to say not in a grosse maner but diuinely and miraculously whereof ye may see in my third booke the. xix and. xx Chapiter Iuel Ye shall not eate sayeth S. Augustine with your bodily mouth this body that you see caet I geue you a certeyn Sacrament San. Of this place I haue spoken at large in my vi b. the. iâ—… Chapiter and in my 3. b. the. xiiij Chapiter I will now briefly note the chief points First M. Iuel doth abuse this place because S. Augustine had sayd before that Christ gaue that same flesh to be eaten wherein he walked and which he toke of the virgin Wherevnto M. Iuel hath no regard at all Secondly he taught that it ought to be adored before it was eaten Thirdly he nameth it the Sacrament willing vs to consyder it spiritually Fourthly he nameth it quamlibet terram any earth calling â–ª the â—…sh of Christ earth now in saying that we adore any earth he manisesily declareth that he speaketh of the adoration which is made in diuerse places or altars Whereas otherwise the flesh oâ—… Christ in heaueÌ„ is but one earth in one place These things presupposed all which are in the place of S. Augustine which M. Iuel now allegeth it will â—…olow that S. Augustine meant both that Christes flesh is eaten with our bodily mouth in the Sacra ment and also adored Therefore when he sayth ye shall not eate this body that you see he meaneth ye shall not eate it in suche forme as you see it in such mortall quantitie or in such a corruptible sort But if it should be meant ye shall not eate the substance of my body as M. Iuel taketh it S. Augustines owne words were clean contrarie to them selues for the causes alleged before Besyde this great dissembling of M. Iuel who knew the other words of S. Augustine and yet only wold haue these to be consydered he hath also misordered and misenglished diuerse words 1. He hath translated commendaui I
M. Iuel left out two genitiue cases vnitatis and huius rei which being repeated in S. Augustine maketh all the matter exceding clere S. Augustine affirmeth the felowship of the sainctes to be the body of Christ whereof S. Paule saith we being many are one bread one body The SacrameÌ„t saith he of this body which body is the cumpanie of the elect is receaued frome our Lordes table Huius rei Sacramentum The Sacrament of this thing Of whiche 〈◊〉 M. Iuel saieth of the body of Christ and meaneth the naturall body which sitteth in heauen for M. Iuel said before in the same verie paragraph Christes body is the thing it selfe Christes body is in heaueÌ„ gloriouse subiect to no corruptioÌ„ And he made the bread which is in earth a figure of that body But saith S. Augustin so No douttesse His words be Sacramentum huius rei 〈◊〉 est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi c. The SacrameÌ„t of this thing that is to say of the vnitie of Christes body and blood is prepared in our Lordes table and thence receaued The vnitie of Christes body is not his naturall body but his 〈◊〉 body the Churche whiche before S. Augustine called Societatem Sanctorum the feloship of the holy men Now the Sacrament of this feloship and of this vnion is receaued from our Lords table Therefore we see two things noted of S. Aâ—…gustine the one is the Sacrament it self The other is that thing whereof it is the Sacrament The Sacrament is such a substance which may be either life or destruction to vs because it is the naturall and true body of Christ which being vnited to God can make vs liâ—…e if it be worthely receaued and that by his own vertue which thing manna the Sacrament of the Iewes could not doe and the same being vnworthely receaued destroieth vs for that we touche and violate the reall substance of our maker But the thing whereof that Sacrament is the sigâ—…e is hurtful to no man Why so Because it is the â—…nioying or fruition of that feloship which being not entred into but by vertue and grace can not possibly make any man to be destroied For we can not abuse the vertues them selues All substances we may abuse and God we may offend â–ª but we can not take hurt by faith being faithfull chast humble charitable temperate modest by which vertues we are incorporated to the mystical body of Christ. This thing therefore which is the â—…ffect of the Sacrament being wrought in faithfull men is called in S. Augustine res ipsa the thing it selfe And was called before societas Sanctorum the feloship of the sainctes and straight after haec res this thing and again vnitas corporis sanguinis Christi the vnitie of Christes body and blood This thing is destruction to no man whosoeuer be partaker of it M. Iuel doth most ignorantly I can not tel with what greater malice leaue out huius rei and vnitatis and saith Sacramentum de mensa dominica sumitur The SacrameÌ„t is receaued from our Lords table But S. Augustine said the SacrameÌ„t of this thing that is to say of vnitie is receaued All those wordes huius rei id est vnitatis were left out of M. Iuel The which thing doth clene alter the whole sense of S. Augustine Againe whereas S. Augustine saide the Sacrament of this 〈◊〉 is prepared in our Lordes â—…able 〈◊〉 Iuel left it 〈◊〉 But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much for me to shew to the reader that Christes Sacra ment is not only receaued from his table but also prepared in his table and first prepared before it be receaued Prepared by consecration receaued by coÌ„munion It is not common bread as â—… Iâ—…el wickedly preacheth For that was prepared before we came to our lordes table but Christes Sacrament is prepared in his table it is there first made thence it is receaued Wel if the Sacrament be one thing and the thing of the Sacrament wherof S. Augustine speaketh be the cumpanie of good men what will follow hereof Surely that the Sacrament is the substance of Christes bodie vnder the foorme of bread How so It is not possible that the body of Christ should be excluded 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his holy table but al yâ— is there prepared or els receaued eyther it is the SacrameÌ„t it self or the thing of the Sacrament but Christs body is not now called of S. Augustin the thing of yâ— SacrameÌ„t as it hath ben proued therefore it is called the SacrameÌ„t it selfe But yâ— Sacrament is prepared in Christes table receaued thence therefore Chrâ—…stes body is prepared there receaued thence That which is receaued theÌ„ce appeareth bread that only is prepared by consecration and receaued by communion Therefore vnder that visible foorme the bodie is made present by consecration and receaued into our mouthes by communion Was there not cause trow you why M â–ª Iuel should leaue out the genitine case iâ—…yned with Sacramentum and take it absolutely for a sacrament that is to say for bread And so to make the thing of the Sacrament to be the body of Christ in heauen By such falshods mainteined must be mainteined otherwise it wold fal to the ground ¶ M. Iuel hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh HArding Christ by shevving his diuine povver vvhereby he vvill ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbelefe of the Capharnaits touching the promised substance of his body Iuel Christ maketh mention of his ascension into heauen ergo sayeth M. Harding his body is really in the Sacrament San. You leaue out the omnipotencie of Christ where vppon D. Harding grounded his whole reason and so you play with him the pelting Sophist Iuel If he conclude not thus he concludeth nothing San. He concludeth that the Capharnaites be confounded for their vnbelefe as you also be For seing Christ sayed of his flesh I will geue And the whole stay why the Capharnaites beleued him not was because they knew not his Godhead which was able to doe it by so excellent a meanes as now we Catholikes know that he hath done it and ye will not know when both they and you here that Chrisâ—… is God and will asceÌ„d where he was before you are both confounded as who measure his workes by your own 〈◊〉 reason and not by his almighty word For his words are spirit and life and therefore do work really whatsoeuer they speake Iuel When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shal see that he geueth not his body in suche â—…ort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels sayeth S. Augustine vsing Christes ascension to proue that there is no such grosse presence in the Sacrament San. True it is that Christ is not present to be wasted by eating but yet he is really eaten And that is clerely mea nt of S.
vsed the same kind of speach before saying NoÌ„ se tantum videri permittens desyderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desyderio sui omnes impleri Christ permitteth him self not only to be seen of theÌ„ that long after him but also to be touched eaten the teeth to be fastened to his fleshe and all men to be filled with the desire of him Which notwithstanding M. Iuel writeth in the margent of Berengarius his consâ—…on This is an horrible blasphemie not knowing that the denying of this reall presence vâ—…der those formes of bread and wine is that horrible blasphemie whereof he speaketh And not to speake as S. Chrysostome and other holy Fathers haue spoken Iuel Bertram and Ihon Scotus wrote openly against it with the contentation of the world San. Against which it did they write Iuel Against this if it be the Catholike faith Sander Which this Whether against the confession of Bereugarius You say theâ—… were two hundred yeares before hun what then wrote thei against the Catholike faith if they did so howe could the Catholike world be content therwith again where are the words which the world was contented withal thinck you it lawfull to faine or glose what you list Iuel That M. Harding calleth the Catholike faith is in dede aCatholike errour Sander No errour can be Catholike because Christe said hell gates should not preuaile againste his Church And it is a citie built vpon a hill which can not be hiddeÌ„ The rest of your words shall hereafter be proued vayne ¶ Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded HArding The body vvhich vvas before the death thereof thrall and frail is novv spirituall Iu. M. Harding in the end concludeth against him selfe San. You say so but you proue it not Iu. Only Stephen Gardener geueth the world to vnderstaÌ„d that Christ is not yet fully possessed in this glory thus he saith the time of the despensation or seruice of his hâ—…militie remaineth stil vntil 〈◊〉 deliuer vp the Kingdom vnto God his Father Sand. B. Gardiâ—…er dot noth say that Christ is not fully possessed in his glory for his own part that is your addition Again the word seruice was of your putting in least any authority might escape you vncorrupted How be it B. Gardiner semeth to meane no more therein then S. Paule sayd before him witnessing that Christ sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in heauen minister sanctorum the minister of holy thinges for he is yet a minister stil by reason of his mysticall body If it were any part of our principall purpose to stand vppon that matter I wold shew you what holy things they were and how he ministred them by dispensation of his humility during the time of the peregtination of his members notwithstanding his own glory at the right hand of his Father wherein he is fully possessed Iuel To what end allegeth M. Harding the spirituall state of Christs body Eutiches sayd it is changed into the very substance of God which heresie is like M. Hardings if it be not the same Sand. I know not what you meane by burdening D. Harding with the heresie of Eutiches sith the defence of the reall presence is as directly against that heresie as may be for how can the naturall and substantiall flesh of Christ be present in the Sacrament if his flesh were turned into the substance of the Godhead as Eâ—…tiches sayd could that be in the Sacrament which were not in it self Therefore the places alleged out of S. Augustine S. Dionysiâ—…s S. Cyprian and other holy Fathers concerning the truth of Christes humane substance and nature â—…ill remaining and not changed into the diuine substance or els concerning our â—…mitation or likenes of God is wholy confessed of vs. neither doth D. Harding meane by the body deiâ—…ed other then yâ— body immortal spirituall yet so farre aboue our bodies as the vâ—…ion in yâ— person of the naturall sonne of God excedeth our adoption by grace But for so much as you doubted not M. Iuel to burden D. Harding with the Eutichian heresie I will briefly shew that your opinion is far more like vnto it then D. Hardings belefe As Eutiches destroyed the truth of humane flesh in the person of Christ so the Sacramentaries destroye the truth and reall presence of the same flesh in the Sacrament of the altar And yet the old Fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two things of the signe or foorm of bread and of yâ— body of Christ so Christ consisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane But seing the Sacramentaries take away yâ— reall presence from the visible signe of bread they falsifie the argumeÌ„t of the old Fathers and further the cause of the Eutichians For as the Eutichians turned the naturall flesh of Christ into the Godhead so the Sacramentaries turn the Sacramental eating of naturall flesh into mere diuine and spirituall eating which is made by faith alone But as the old Fathers proued against the Eutichians that Christ who truly suffered death could not suffer it in his diuine nature so I tell the Sacramentaries that Christ who â—…aid take eate this is my body can not be taken into our hands or eaten with our mouthes by faith and spirit aloue We must haue such an eating as may proue Christ to haue had reall flesh because we eate by mouth his reall flesh So S. Hilarie proued our naturall vnion with Christes flesh against the Arrians S. Gregorie Nyâ—…sen that Christ had taken true flesh of the Uirgin For how can a thing saith he which hath no body be made meate vnto the body So S. Cyrill proueth that there is but one person because the flesh which we receaue doth geue lifâ—… to our soules and bodies which it could not doe except it were the proper flesh of God who only geueth life Thus M. Iuel may perceaue that his opinion agreeth with the Arrians Ualentiâ—…ians Neâ—…orians Eutichians And the like might be sayd of the Marcionites Manichees Apellians briefly of all those heretikes who denying a reall truth of Christes diâ—…ine or humane nature were always confuted by the Fathers by the reall truth of Christes manhod and Godhead confessed of the Catholikes in this blessed Sacrament Harding S. Hierom shevving tvvo vvays of vnderstanding Christes flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it vvas crucified declareth the maner of eating it only to differ from the maner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iuel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence San. He meaneth both Iuel S. Hierom speaking of the dubble vnderstanding of Christes flesh meaneth that we haue our saluation in Christ eating him and liuing by him not for that his flesh was
is no lesse required to the substance of Baptism then of the Eucharist But when some things be like and some things be different in two SacrameÌ„ts it is great ignorance to reason from the similitude which one way is betwene them to destroye an other way those points wherein they differ After which sort M. Iuel doth reason ¶ M. Iuel replieth not well touching the authoritie alléged out of the Nicene Councell HArding We behold saith the Councell of Nice the Lamb of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put or layd on that holy table and vve receaue his preciouse body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily and in dede Which is to say really Iuel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greke nor in Tunstal But deuised by M. Harding San. It will not folow that because the common Greke edition or B. â—…unstall hath it not that therefore D. Harding faineth that Greke word It is found in the actes of the Councell of Nice which are not yet all printed but they are extant in diuerse libraries And this place is in many print bookes where commonly they haue the Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated into situm situate or put Your self also in the Apologie did allege certein words out of the same acts of the Councell of Nice Yea you haue done the like euen in this very article therefore you ought not to be angry with D. Harding for doing the same Iuel Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be set or placed nedes sounde a reall presence San. It must nedes proue a real presence of that thing which if it were not present it could not be set vppon the table Or can you haue a capon set and placed vppon your table which is not really present Iuel Christ dwelleth in our hart by faith and yet not really San. No wonder sith a thing may dwel somewhere by faith where yet it is not in dede As Christ was killed in the saith of inst men from the beginning of the world yet not in dede vntill he was nailed to the crosse A being by faith is a lâ—…sse pâ—…ite being then a being really And therefore the fewer and the lesse doth not infer the more and the greater But the Lamb of God is not said to be vppon the holy table by faith but to be sâ—…t or layed there Iuel S. Hierom sayth as often as we enter into the sepulcher we see our Sauiour lying in his shrowd Yet he lay not there really San. Not then truly when S. Hierom entred but he spake in respect of that true place which Christes body had sometyme occupied But if the things vpon the holy table neither be now nor at any time were the body of Christ how sayd the Councell we behold the Lamb placed vppon the holy table Iuel In the Councell of Chalcedon it is demaunded in what Scripture lye these two natures of Christ. it is the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures San. The heretike Eutiches who asked for those two natures in the Scripture asked for very material and reall words which being seen and readen might lead him to these two natures For the words which signifie two natures haue a reall place in holy Scripture and they haue bene at large declared by S. Cyrillus But I pray you syr If a maÌ„ should aske you where you find that Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could you shew a sufficient discharge thereof I think scaut so good as D. Harding can bring for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Once it is not extant in the common booke of the Councels Iuel That word signifieth a naturall situation of place and order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christes body hath not in the Sacrament San. Although Christes body in it self hath not any such extensiue 〈◊〉 locally in the Sacrament yet it hath such a situation as the foorm of bread requireth which suffiseth to declare a reall presence For as his Godhead might be shewed in his manhod he that seeth me seeth my Father so his body is placed vnder the foorm of bread and there may be shewed to a faithfull man Iuel The Councell is plaine that we consyder not basely the bread and the wine that are set before vs. San. He considereth them basely who sayth they remain still in their earthly substance notwithstaÌ„ding that Christ after blessing hath called theÌ„ by greater names whose calling is the making the thing to be that which it is called Iuel It is sayd lift vp your hartes so that there is nothing in the action to be consydered but only Christ. San. It is meant not only to lift them vp to God but also to lift them from earthly thoughts of infidelitie and to beleue that which Christ sayeth and doth in his holy mysteries as S. Chrysostom noteth I haue spoken of this matter at large in my second booke the. xxviâ—… Chapiter Of Egles I haue spoken the second booke the. xxvij Chapiter Uerily the thing made whereof Christ sayd make this thing is to be coÌ„sydered in the myâ—…ries and not only Christ in heauen Iuel S. Ambrose saith it is better sene that is not sene San. Therefore yâ— body of Christ which Christ pointeth vnto saiyng this is my body is better seue to a faithâ—…ull Catholik theÌ„ bread and wine which the vnfaithfull Sacramentarie saith he sâ—…th Iuel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent sor they are tokens of things being one thing and signifiyng an other as S. Augustine saith San. As they be tokens they be one thing signifie an other and therefore the substance of Christes body is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Churche which things vnder the foorm of bread it doth signifie but it is an other maner of thing to wit a body immortal impassible and out of al daunger of corruption how be it S. Augustine disputeth not there of those which are the peculiar SacrameÌ„ts of the Church as your words for the same cause wold seme to signific but generallie of all sigues which commonly differ in substance from the things signified by them But as S. Chrysostom well noteth we must beleue God in al things yet speciallie in the mysteries As therefore wheÌ„ God maketh a signe by water or oile or any other creature we ought to mark not what substance that thing is but what it is set to signifie so when Christ toke bread and after blessing sayd this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing for the remembrance of me we must note that he did not appoint any creature to signifie his body but made a new signe he made I say a signe which might signifie
In whom we liue are moued and haue our being Therefore the words which are called spirit and life are called in effect diuine and almighty Spirit sometyme standeth to signific the words of God as when S. Paule sayth the letter killeth the spirit quickeneth the letter in that place doth signiâ—…ie the law and the spirit doth signifie the words of our Lord as S. Basile doth expound it For Christ our Lord geueth grace to his words that they should not only signifie things as the words of the law did but also make and work the things which they signified The words that be spirit must be vnderstanded spiritually that is to say diuinely and as it becometh the words of him who is God him self whose words haue power in them selues to worke that which they betoken To vnderstand the words of Christ spiritually it behoueth we beleue them first as they sound to humble reasonable men for if we beleue not we shal not vnderstand but if we do beleue then we may be assured as S. Chrysoâ—…tom vppon this place hath writen that they conteine no naturall course but are free from al earthly necessity and from the lawes of this life Which being so when Christ taking bread and blessing saith this is my body we may not say with our selues how can this be so what other body can here be then a peece of bread which mine eye seeth and my tong tasteth If we speake after this sort we call the words of Christ from the spirit of God to the course of nature and of reason and we do not beleue them to be spirituall that is to say diuine and aboue the course of nature but we vnderstaÌ„d theÌ„ carnally loking for no miracle to be wrought by them and yet they are spirit and life able to quicken what soeuer they list they can make bread to be Christes body wine to be his blood they haue power to change natures and to worke inuisibly In a parable it is not nedefull that all things be in dede as the words doe sound but when Christes words are sayd to be spirit and life then it is declared to vs that they partake the nature of his Godhead that they worke a thing aboue our capacitie and make all that which they say Yea but say you shew me the body which they haue wrought I answer they are spirit and haue wrought a spiritual body not such as lacketh the truthe of flesh but such as through the vnion which it hath with the Godhead hath disposed the substance of flesh vnder the form of bread in such sorte as our soules are disposed within our bodies which are vndoubtedlie there but they can not be touched or felt by any sense euen so we beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread and wine because the words of Christ are spirit life albeit no scuse or reason can attein to that highe mysterie Seing then these words of promise the bread which I wil geue is my flesh be spirit and life these words of performance which after bread taken say presently this is my body must nedes be much more spirit and life yâ— is to say of diuine power to worke that which they sound Let now al heretikes ceasse to mock vs of so many miracles as we teache to be in the sacrameÌ„t of the altar for so much as Christ hath witnessed it should be a miraculouse sacrameÌ„t and aboue al course of nature as being made by words which are spirit and life Let them likewise no more abuse the name of spirit to make men beleue that Christ spake not properly sith Christ calleth his words spirit because they be so proper that they come nere to yâ— nature of the Godhead as being his words who is naturally God then the words of men are able to doe and as the Godhead is most immurable and not at al subiect to any change euen so those words which partake most of the Godhead are most vnchangeable and least figuratiue for al figuratiue speaches are changed and abused hauing the name of tropes among the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab eo quod vocabula mutantur a propria significatione in alienam figuratiue speaches are called in greake tropes that is to say chaÌ„ges because yâ— words are changed from their proper significatioÌ„ to an vnproper meaning but God is not changed nor those words be not changed froÌ„ their proper signification which God hath called spirit life but as they partake yâ— Godhead so doc they partake the proprietie of not being changed from their most accustomed meaning proper nature It is a world to see what difference there is betwene yâ— words of Christes Ghospell the interpretation of the false Ghospellers betwene the old Fathers and the new brethern betwene Catholikes Protestants Mark I pray thee good Reader the differences diligently Christ by his incarnation was made to vs the bread of life to the end we might eate his Godhead otherwise then the Fathers had done before the new brethern after the incarnation and supper of Christ wherein we should haue the Godhead geuen vs bid vs beleue vpon Christ in heauen and so to fede vpon him by faith alone as Noâ—… Abraham did Their councâ—…l is not 〈◊〉 in bidding vs sede by saith but where is yâ— Godhead 〈◊〉 by this meanes is that also receaued by faith why so it might haue bene receaued and so it was receaued before Christ was man Where is the food of Angels made the food of man where is the word of God so geuen to me after his incarnation as it could not be geuen before Where is any euerlasting meate for my body Where is the supper which may fede the whole man faith fedeth my vnderstaÌ„ding but my wil affectioÌ„ hath as much nede to be fed my flesh is rebelliouse to my spirit it hath nede to be fed my body was the meane to poyson my soule therefore my soule must haue a medicine which shal be receaued into my body and so be communicated vnto my soule S. Ireneus reproued those heretiks who because men were called in scripture spirituall denied the true resurrection of their flesh as though their spirit only should tary for euer and yet our new brethern where so euer mention is made of spirit or of a spirituall body and flesh so wrast it as though the reall substance of flesh in the Sacrament were by that word denied or diminisshed whereas it is rather increased for so much as that flesh which is spirituall is not thereby the lesse true flesh but it partaketh the more of the spirit And because a spirit once created is by the natural gift of God immortal a spiritual flesh is likewise like to the spirit in that case S. Augustine writeth that after resurrection the body shall no more haue nede of corporal
nourishments because the only spirit shall suffise to nourish it qua causa etiam spiritale erit for which cause also the body shal be spiritual now as after resurrection the spiritual being which our bodies shal haue doth not diminish the truthe of their nature but declareth a wonderful abettering of them in that they be made in maner equal to spiritual substances euen so the body of Christ in his supper is spiritual not for any lack of his true substance vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine but because it is wholy possessed and replenished with the Godhead and is present after the maner of a spirit as being neither sene nor felt nor tasted but only beleued And therefore this blessed Sacrament is worthely called of the Churche at the consecration of the blood yea as I think it is called of S. Paule also mysterium fidei the mysâ—…erie of faith because it secretly coÌ„teineth vnder the formes of bread ond wine the flesh the blood the soule and the spirit or Godhead of Iesus Christ. The which mysterie of faith the Deacons vsed to deliuer to the faithful after consecration as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse and therefore S. Paule willed the Deacons to vse that mysterie of faith with a pure and cleane conscience To be short The Sacramentaries abuse yâ— word of God miserablie when they talk of the spirit and of the flesh of Christ in such sort as they do For Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing meaning only the corruptible flesh of a bare man who is no God The Sacramentaries expound it as if it were sayd it is nothing worth to eate Christes own flesh really but only it is profitable to fede on it by faith Christ sayd it is the spirit that quickeneth meaning the Godhead to make his flesh profitable vnto vs. They take it so as though the spirit alone did qâ—…icken vs at his last supper without eating his fleshe really Christ by naming the spirit reuoketh â—…ot the real gift of his flesh the eating whereof he auouched to be necessarie for vs. They vse it contrarily to proue his flesh to be geuen vs really in his last supper as though he had corrected his former words Christ meant to adde more dignitie and worthinesse to the eating of his flesh then is in other mens flesh because the spirit made it alone quick aliue and profitable They endeuour by the precense of the word spirit to say he wold not geue his flesh to be eaten in dede and so abuse that name to the diminishing of his inestimable gift Christ sayd my words are spirit that is to say of diuine power proceding from God They imagin he sayd my words be vnproper and cropicall or parabolicall as being only true by an allegory Christ meant his words to procede from his own spirit and maiesty and thereâ—…ore to be true aboue the course of nature They expoâ—…nd theÌ„ as if he had sayd you must care my flesh in your spirit only not in very dede Thus they wreast that to the spirit of maÌ„ which Christ said of the spirit of God and vnder this ambiguitie of words they couer theyr poisoued doctrine Christ would vs to vnderstand spiritually the reall â—…ating of his reall flesh because he would geue it vs without losse of his own body without lothsomnes of our stomacks and without remouing from his own place in heauen They apply the spirituall vnderstanding of eating his flesh to take away the real â—…ating of it as though he that vnderstandeth a thing spiritually should not therefore eate that really which he vnderstandeth to be mysticall The substance of Christes flesh eaten is the ground of that mystery figure Sacrament or spiritual vnderstanding which Christ spake of Because he would them to eate his flesh not to fil theyr bellies but to signifie and partake yâ— merits otherwise done in that flesh They taking away the ground of the figure which is Christes fleshe adde of theyr own iâ—…ention bread wine to be the grouÌ„d of this figure and of the spirituall vnderstanding They making Christes spiritual words tropicall and gramatically â—…iguratiue abase theÌ„ beneth yâ— condition of coÌ„mon words For a proper word iâ—… of more dignitie then an improper and meÌ„ for the most part speake properly Christ sayd my words are life meaning theÌ„ to be so proper that they performe whatsoeuer they promise or speake as hauing the propriety of the Godhead which is most far from all figures shadowes and changes They make them dead words For seing the mind of the speaker vttered in plain words is yâ— life of the words the same words vttering the speakers mind obscurely are as dead and without life vntil they be expouÌ„ded What shal I say more they take these words to be figuratiue in such sort that they make theÌ„ inferiour to the common words of mortall men who neuer ligthtly vse yâ— words flesh and blood for the signes of flesh and blood but for the substances of them and muche lesse doe they vse flesh and blood so to signifie bread and wine that the same bread and wine must again signifie Christes fleshe and blood as I haue noted before that the Sacramentaries are constrained to say if they will defend theyr false and 〈◊〉 doctrine the which I praie God they may haue grace to see and to amend The preface of the fourth booke VUe haue shewed what proufes may be brought out of Christes promise at Capharnaum for his reall and corporal presence in the Eucharist it remaineth we nowe declare the same truth by that whiche he performed in his last supper And because the chefe controuersie is whether the words of Christ do meane as they sound or els must be taken otherwise I wil first make it plaine that they ought to be taken properly as they sound to men of common vnderstanding vntill an euident reason be brought why they must be meant vnproperly therewithal I shew that no reason is now to be heard for the vnproper interpretation of them because the tyme of all such allegatioÌ„s is expired more then fiften hundred yeres past for so much as the whole Church is in possession of the proper meaning Afterward I wil proue the proper literall meaning of those words by the circumstances of the supper by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old and newe testament and last of all by the commandement whiche was geuen the Apostles to continue the Sacrament of Christes supper vntill he come to iudge the worlde If in conferring the promise with the performance or by any other occasion I chance to say somwhat whiche was before touched I must aske pardon thereof as who endeuore partly to make al things playne partly to confirme the present matter whereof I speake by such conuenient allegations as for the tyme come to my remembrance Once I am sure it is not a thing affected of me to say the same thing oft albeit either the affinitie
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