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
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
seede of man but formed and conceaued of the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin in the which manhod of Christ the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth corporally As for those places where Christ sayth Poore men shall ye haue with you always but me ye shall noâ—… haue And he is rysen he is not here And whiles Christ blessed his Disciples he went from them and was caried into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father vntil the end of the world with such like they â–ª are not to be conferred with these words This is my body because they speake of a naturall being of Christ and not of such a being as is peculiar vnto the Sacrament of Christes supper Neither is it possible that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉 should impugne yâ— other sith Christ hath ordâ—…ed both the Church did 〈◊〉 always both together Christ ascended into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father and leauing vs the beleefe thereof as a chief article of our faith Christ made his own supper saying This is my body and commaunded his Apostles and their succâ—…s to make the same saying Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore neither the making of Christes body neither the belefe thereof can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father Agayne sith nothing is impossible to God albeit that which imploietâ—… coÌ„tradiction in it self be therefore impossiple because it repugneth to the truth it self which is in God it is not possible to God yâ— yâ— body of Christ should both be in heauen after one visible sorte and in the Sacrament after a mysticall sorte It were in dede impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heauen and not to be in heauen Or to be in the Sa crament and not to be there in the same respect but to be in heauen and in the Sacrament or to be in many places at once that maketh no 〈◊〉 but onely sheweth an allmighty and infinite power in him who worketh it Of this minde all the Church of God hath bene hitherto and therefore it hath beleued as well the sitting of Christ at his Fathers râ—…ht hand in heauen as the reall presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar Yea it hath beleued the one because of the other For in so much as Christ is so almighty as to sit at the right hand of God he is able to performe his owne word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar And therefore in the sixte of S. Ihon when he spake of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood which he wold geue he also declared that he wold goe vp into heauen in his manhood where he was before in his Godhead And that thing he spake as S. Cyrillus hath noted to declare that he was God and therefore able to worke that which he spake of in so much as his words were spirit and life For this cause Chrysostom cryeth out ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem Qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodnes of God He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same very momenâ—… of tyme is touched with the hands of all men and deliuereth himself to those that wil receaue and imbrace him Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur Seme these things to thee worthy to be despised neglected Sacra nostra non modò mira esse videbis sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia Thou shalt perceaue our holy things not only to be wonderfull but also to excede all wondringe and astonyng of the mynd Yf then we vnderstand that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lords supper and no contradiction at all to any other partes of our belefe we may be sure that none other article of our crede doth driue vs to miscredit the reall presence of Christes body and blood in his owne supper And therefore where we dispute of his last supper we must examine yâ— meaning of yâ— words which were spokeÌ„ there according to other places of yâ— Scriptures which belong vnto yâ— last supper The places apperteyning to Christes last supper according to the interpretation of ancient doctors are these the later part of the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn the supersubstantiall bread in the 6. of S. Mathew and the supper it self in the 62. of S. Mathew in the 14. of S. Marke the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapiter of the first epiâ—…le of S. Paule to the Corinthians in the 5. to the Ephesians in the 2. chapiter of the first epistle to Timotheus in the 13. to the Hebrewes in the 2. 13. and 20. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles In all which places other if there be any like we finde much to conâ—…e the reall presence but nothing to leade vs to a siguratiue meaninge These wordes which be in S. Iohn the flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quickeneth my wordes be spirit and life be declared in the former booke when we disputed of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn ¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament for that it semeth in many places to be called bread euen aâ—…ter consecration and that aswell in S. Iohn as in S. Paule and in the Actes of the Apostles noman I say ought vppon this slender argument to change his belefe otherwise grounded vpoÌ„ so plaine scriptures the faith of yâ— Church so generally receaued but rather he ought to lern the cause why the body of Christ is most iustly called bread in this SacrameÌ„t The custome of speaking in holy scriptures came chefely from the Hebrew tonge wherein the old Testament was writen as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paule to the Hebrewes were The residue of the Apostles and Euangelistes albeit they wrote in Greeke they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their wordes Bread in the Hebrew tonge his called Lehem and commeth of the verbe Laham whyche signifieth to â—…ate so that al which man may eate is meant by the Hebrew worde Lehem as wel bread as flesh or fruytes in so much that sometyme it signifieth only flesh as the Hebrew Doctors haue noted out of the sixte and seuenth chapiter of Iob. Now yâ— Apostles and Euangelistes writing also in Greeke haue put for the Hebrew word Lehem the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that translated the scriptures into latin haue turned it into panis and we in our vulgar tonge name it bread by which meanes it cometh to passe that the Greeke Latine and English worde must be takeÌ„ in holy scriptures
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
spirituall eating is not euill but it lacketh some truthe How so because the whole man is not fed For faith feedeth bue the soule and yet the name of feeding is proper to the body and thence is transferred to the soule that feeding therefore is not fully true which eateth not that in the mouth which it eateth in the harte whereas the true supper of Christ is meat in dede and drink in dede and must be the eating of that in our body which our mynde and soule doth eate So sayd Leo the great of Christes supper Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur For that is taken in the mouth which is beleued in fayth The reall flesh of Christ is beleued in faith therefore the same real flesh must be eaten with mouth And what other cause can be deuysed why allways from the beginning of the world to this day eating by mouth hath beâ—…e ioyned to the highest sacrifices and chefe kind of worshipping of God that euer was vsed what meaneth the â—…ating of the Paschall laâ—…be of Manâ—… of shew bread wheateâ—… meale and all such offerings as were in the law Could not God haue inueuted an other waye to haue occupied his people in seruing him but only by eating and drinking Surely the meaning of all those diners and suppers and feasts were to shew that in tyme to come the same Messias that they loked for 〈◊〉 in whom they beleued should so truly come for our sakes into the earth that he should come also into our bodies to dwell by his flesh caten in vs that we might dwell in him Neither let this seme a laughing matter to thee good Reader For sith Christ was born to vs and geuen to vs as Esaie saith he sought not his owne commoditie but ours and perceauing that in paradyse the whole nature of man was ouercome of the deuill specially by cating with mouth of the fruit which was forbiddeÌ„ him As against the deuill persuading Eua to disobaye God he sent the arâ—…hangell Babriell to persuade the blessed virgin Marie to consent to his will as against that appletree he planted the crosse of our redemption as for yâ— disobedience of Adam him selfe came to be obedient euen to death right so for the apple of the forbiddeÌ„ tree 〈◊〉 eaten he gaue him selfe the fruit and apple of the crosse which is the tree of grace lawfully and medefully to be eaten and his blood to be drunken Bibimus sayth S. Cyprian de sanguine Christi ipso iub eÌ„te vitae aeternae cum ipso per ipsum participes animalis vitae peccata quasi sanguinem impurum horrentes fatentes nos per peccati gustum â beatitudine priuatos damnatos nisi nos Christi clementia ad societatem vitae aeternae suo sanguine reduxisset We drink of the blood of Christ him self commanding being partakers of euerlasting life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of bare natural life as vnpure blood and graunting ourselues to haue ben depriued from blisse and damned through the taste of sinne except the clemencie of Christ had brought vs again to the fellowship of euerlasting life by his blood S. Cyprian setteth the drinking of Christes blood against the taste of syn which man fell into by tasting vnlawfully the apple which was forbidden to be tasted of The like phrase also Prosper Aquitanicus hath vsed who firsâ—… declareth our fall by eating and drinking and afterward our arising again by eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. Concerning our fall thus he writeth Liberum ergo arbitrium id est rei sibi placitae spontaneus appetitus vbi vsum bonorum quae acceperat fastidiuit vilescentibus sibi felicitatis suae praesidijs insanam cupiditatem ad experientiam praeuaricationis intendit bibit omnium vitiorum venenum totam naturam hominis intemperantiae suae ebrietate madefecit Free will therefore that is to saie yâ— voluÌ„tarie appetite of the thing which pleased it being ones 10thsome of the good things which it had takeÌ„ and without regard or care had to the aydes of his own blessednes hauing bent his impoteÌ„t gredines to the triall and experience of disobedience and preuarication drank in the poyson of all vices and drowned the whole nature of man with the drunkeÌ„nes of his intemperance Thus was poison drunk in Let vs now coÌ„sider whence helth maie be recouered Inde priusquam edendo carnem filij hominis bibendo sanguiuem eius lethalem digerat cruditatem labitur memoria errat iuditio nutat incessu neque vllo modo idoneus est ad illud bonum eligendum â–ª concupiscendum quo se sponte priuauit Thence it commeth that man faileth in memorie erreth in iudgement wauereth in his going neither is he by any meanes mete to choose and desier that good thing whereof he depriued himself of his own accorde before that by eating the flesh of the sonne of man by drinking his blood he digest the deadly surâ—…et which he toke As therefore the apple that Adam did really eate against the commandement of God doth make vs all yâ— were in his body at that tyme gilty of disobedience and the children of wrath so the reall eating of Christes flesh according to the worthy eating thereof which Christ commanded doth make vs all free from the pain of euerlasting death and the children of grace and glorie But as euery man did not eate the prohibited apple in his own person and by his own act but by the act of our father and mother and as being in them and of them so it is not nedefull that euery man in his own person eate the flesh of Christ which is geuen vs in the Sacrament to be eaten but it is absolutely nedefull that some or other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body maie be one perfitly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with them who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse and truly rising from death to th' intent it might be truly eaten of vs without any corruption or perishing therof Thus we find that the supper of Christ can not in any wise consist of eating the flesh of Christ by faith and spirit alone But we that is to saie some of the mystical body that are of lawfull age must eate it to saluation as the apple was eaten to damnatioÌ„ And because before Christ was incarnat we had no apple to damnatioÌ„ he toke flesh and went of his own accord to death that thence we might plucke the apple of life and the fruit of the wood of life which preserueth vs to euerlasting ioyes For as Gregorius Bishop of Nyssa brother to S. Basil doth teache the medicine must be according to the poyson which we
not to geue vs a drinking in stede of a solemne feast In comparyson of this banket all fayth is impeâ—…t For we eate the ende of our belefe All vnderstanding fayleth in so much as more is in our mouth then we are able to comprehend in our wyt or mynde All spirituall gyfts are inâ—…erlour because the flesh is present which triumpheth ouer death and ascending into heauen sytteth at the right hand of God thence distributing gyfts vnto men We haue the cause of all 〈◊〉 present and letting it go shall we chiefly commend the feast for â—…ertayn spirituall effectes In respect of Christes reall substance thy supper O Caluyn is but a mere sauour of swete meates Geue me the flesh of Christ and take thou the sauour of it But alas the sauour hath alredy kâ—…lled thee â–ª so much the lesse I wonder if thou art wery of the flesh it selfe In setting forth our damnation in old Adam thou lackest neither diligence nor eloquence thou hast therin set foorth the lumpe of perdition the seuere doctrine of induration the impotent weakenes of the wounded man to helpe forward his owne destruction But when thou commest to Christ the new Adam he hath a sâ—…ly pore vnknowen and vnsene cumpanie fewe children a cold supper small offering of sufficient grace his baptisme is with thee lyke a marke set vpon shepe that sheweth somewhat and worketh nothing his Church hath no externaâ—… sacrifice no priesthod no one chief shepherd in earth no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saâ—…ts by the way of praying to them or for yâ— soules departed no reall ioyning vâ—…iting with Christes flesh and blood in the holy mysteries What is this but to preferr euill before good the deuill before God shadowes before truth vice before vertue and the power of darknes before the kingdom of light It is no eating now as S. Paule sayeth of our Lords supper for euery heretyke taketh a supper of his owne before hand making Christes supper to geue place to hym And that I maye speake nothing of so great change of communions as hath bene in England Luther saith that Christes words be proper and that his supper is bread and flesh wyne and blood as though the immortall flesh of Christ must be eaten with materiall bread How do mortal things agree with immortal in one banket Carolstadius supposeth that Christes words be proper but that he touching hym selfe on the brest sayd Take bread and wine this is my body which I touche as though it were a supper mete for Christes making if he only shewed his body to his Apostles which euer was in their sight not suffering them to eate thereof Zuinglius said the bread and wine were only figures of Christes body and blood geueÌ„ to our bodies to represent to our harts tâ—…e death of Christ. And that the words of Christes supper were figuratine only by which reason the supper of the Paschall lambe was better then the supper of Christ because the dead flesh of an vnspotted lambe was more apt then bread and wine to shew the death of Christes innocent flesh wich is the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Calâ—…in added to Zuinglius bare figures an efficacie of feeding by faith and taught the words of Christ not so much to be figuratiue as words of promise which being heard with faith cause that the minde by faith eateth of Christ sitting in heauen a mete supper for such a deuiser who setting the men that should be fed vppon earth kepeth the meate wherof they should be filled in heauen promising them who consist also of bodies mortal and corruptible that they shall fede vpon immortall meat in their soules such an eating were good for Angels I denie not but it is not the supper that Christ made to corporall men for his farewell when he said Take and eate this is my body and Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood Taking with our bodies is more then beleuing in our soules eating yâ— body of Christ is more then signifying the eating of his body The meate is the body of Christ the drinke is the blood of Christ. Beleue and thou hast it in harte before thou commest to the table But come to the blessed Sacrament of the altar and thou hast it in thy mouth and body Bothe is better then one Christ hath 〈◊〉 and fullfilled all maner of iustice he made both body and soule redemeth both fedeth both rayseth both crowneth both He doth not now diuide the hand from the harte the mouth from the minde the figure from the thing the token from the truth That he sayth he doth that thou beleuest in heauen thou receyuest at his table in earth yea earth is heauen to thee saith Chrysostom through this mysterie make his gift no lesse then he nameth it leste for vnthankfullnes thou be giltie of iudgement He that beleueth his plaine wordes is on the surer syde The Corinthians fault concerning the supper of our Lord was partely for that they came to it after they had eaten their own supper and vndoutebly so doe heretyks They first deuise with them seâ—…ues what supper they will allow to Christ and then they come to his supper entending to conforme it to their formeâ—… deuise Partely the 〈◊〉 were reproued of S. Paule for eating and drinking alone without making their meate common to the poore Euen so the heretiks eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ only by the measure of his own faith which hath diuerse degrees in euery man and therefore it maketh euery man eate Christ after his own faith only Whereas the supper of Christ is equall and common to all as S. Cyprian S. Hierome and Theodorite witnessed before wherein he geueth oâ—…e 〈◊〉 one blood one person to all that come without any respecte concerning the meate and substance of the supper although not without discerning the diuerse merites of the geastes It is the honour of him that maketh the feast to haue the meate most bouÌ„tifull and most reall howsoeuer the weak stomaks of euill men are able to beare it Wilt thou yet see more plainly how liberall Christ is in his supper All that he hath he geueth for he geueth his own selfe indifferently to euery man that sitteth at his table be the nian riche or poore good or bad The 〈◊〉 of this feast at his table is the maker of the feast him selfe Who sayeth so Uerily he that caÌ„not lye Who after that he said My flesh is meate in dede douted not to add moreouer He that eateth me shall liue for me doing 〈◊〉 to vnderstand that by eating his flesh we eate himself The same thing teacheth S. Hierom a man worthy to be credi ted as well for his own great learning as for that tyme wherein he liued and the faith wherof in his writing he witnesseth S.
seruice and orders of the Apostles them selues If Caluin had that spirit he were farr from hearesy But now see what spirit Caluin hath Thus he writeth in this matter Immediatly after the words which I rehersed in the 〈◊〉 of this chapiter thus he writeth His rationibus constat repositionem Sacramenti c. It is euident saith Caluin by those reasons the reseruation of the Sacrament which some men presse to th end it maie be distributed extraordinarily to the sick to be vnprofitable For either the sick shall receaue it without rehersall of the institution of Christ or the minister together with the signe will ioyne the true explication of the mysterie If the institution of Christ be not spoken of it is an abuse and a fault If the promises be rehersed and the mysterie be declared so that they who shall receaue maie receaue with fruit we nâ—…de not dowt this to be the true consecration To what purpose then is the other whose strength reacheth not so farr as to come to the sick But you will saye they that doe so to wit that reserue the Sacrament haue the example of the old Churche Fateor I graunt but in so weighty a matter wherein errour is not committed without great danger nothing is more safe then to follow the truthe it self Hytherto Caluin hath reasoned who putteth the whole streÌ„gth of the Sacrament of Christes supper in promising and preaching therefore if any where preaching and promising be not vsed in the geuing of the Sacrament he calleth it an abuse and fault And seing the primatiue Church euen whiles the Apostles were â—…liue did by the witnesse of 〈◊〉 reserue the SacrameÌ„t so long after consecration as to send it to such Bishops which might come to strange dioceses out of an other prouince and seing the deacous vsed to carie it in the tyme of Iustinus Martyr who liued within a hundred yeres of Christes death to those which were absent Caluin I saie perceauing the vse of all Apostolicall Churchs to stand against him will seme to conâ—…ute them all with this fond reason Either the sick and absent persons for all is one concerning this matter shall receaue that which was consecrated in the Church without a new rehersall of these words This is my body And then it is an abuse saith Caluin a fault he calleth it an abuse which the scholars of the Apostles vsed or â—…ls saith he the words shal be ioyned with the signe and it is a true consecration And then saith he the first consecration made at the Church was in vain concerning the sick and absent men But the second is good which is made by preaching and rehearsing the words of promise to the sick persons I haue most faithfully behersed the opinion of Caluin But let vs now examine why it is an abuse and fault to deliuer to the sick or to the absent persons the holy hoste which was consecrated in the Churches without a new rehersall of Christes words why is that an abuse who told Caluin it was an abuse or a fault For south his own mind gaue him so his wisedom thought so his grauitie said so his blasphemonse penue wrote so But other cause reason or scripture he bringeth none for it â—…e first 〈◊〉 that the consecration of Christes supper consisteth in saying to the people This is my body which is geuen for you And proneth it not at all but graunt him once his dream consequently he inferreth that if such an hoste whereupon the words of consecration were once dewly pronouÌ„ced be afterward geueÌ„ to him that heaâ—…d not those words of promise because he was sick or absent if the â—…ost I say he geuen without a new rehersall of the words it foloweth that it is an abuse Yea but some Papist will saye the old Churche did so For now he calleth the primatiâ—…e Churche the old Churche I graunt saith Caluin But it is better yet to follow the truthe it self Why 〈◊〉 doest thow only know what the truth it self is we allege the old Church to proâ—…e that the truthe 〈◊〉 Christes gospell doth stand for vs and to proue that consecration is not made by preaching and by the hearing of the people but by the vertue of Gods word which spoken ouer the elements of bread and wine saith by the one This is my body making it so And by the other This is my blood making it so We saye these words make the body of Christ vnder the form of bread and his blood vnder the form of wine For our saying we bring the gospell where â—…t is writen this is and this is When other 〈◊〉 the gospell we shew that the Apostles and their successours practised this which we beleue For they all vnderstode by these words directed to brcad and wine that the body and blood of Christ was really made vnder the formes of them How proue we that Because if once the words had ben spoken by a Priest vpon those elements the things consecrated were afterward kept and caried as a most holy sacrifice to men abâ—…ent as the which things coÌ„teined really within them the body blood of Christ. Why els should they be caried to others that were absent A 〈◊〉 maye say that when they came to the absent persons the words were again rehersed First that appereth not in Iustinus or in Ireneus of whom the one sayth the 〈◊〉 was sent to straâ—…gers the other saith that the things consecrated which were receaued of the present Christians the same were caried to the absent How is the Eucharist sent if it be no Eucharist vntill it come to the stranger and then be made a new Or is it 〈◊〉 to iterate the consecration of any Sacrament Hath Caluin lerned so farr Did the first consecration lack â—…ertue so that an other must be made or the first be repeted Last of al the Deacons caried the Eucharist who possibly could not reherse the words of consecration This is my body and this is my blood And yet if they were words of promise preaching the Deacon who may 〈◊〉 and in preaching may 〈◊〉 yâ— spiritual seeding of our soules might also reherse those words But from the Apostles tyme to this day it was neuer heard that â—… Deacon might consecrate the body and blood of Christ. For noman is able to doe any more then wherevnto he is lawfully called But no Deacon hath the power to coÌ„secrate geuen him And that his name sheweth which is to say a 〈◊〉 or a waiter on For he waiteth vpon the Priest at Masse and is not as yet promoted to the office of 〈◊〉 Seing then the Deacons caried the Eucharist and they could not say the words of consecration doubâ—…lesse they that receaued it of their hands receaued neither words of promise nor of preaching but they receaued that blessed body and blood of Christ which was coÌ„secrated before vnder the foormes of bread wine This faith
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
the supper of our Lord a Sacrament dare you geue these things a name which is not in the word of God What warraÌ„t haue you for that dede you will say Ambrose and Augustine calle them so I replie Peter and Paul doe not call them so At other times and with other men I will stay vpon the authoritie of Ambrose and Augustine ' whom as I ought to do I reuerence for men of excellent vertue and learning But yet they were men as you are wont to saie they might erre they might be deceaued At this time we haue appealed chiefly to yâ— holy scriptures and out of them we must ground all our talke and next vnto them we will heare what the Fathers saye I saie that neither the old testament nor the new calleth the supper of our lord a Sacrament Therefore the Apologie that so calleth it goeth from the assurance of the word of God to the good and â—…audable inuentions and traditions of meÌ„ which them seiues 〈◊〉 when they lilte And yet the said Apologie so calleth it a Sacrament that vpon that only word the auctors thereof grounde all their doctrine Thence it hath to be a signe to be a token to be a badge a seale a paterne a counterpaâ—…e Thence all the figuratiue doctrine ryseth Thence it commeth that the reall body and blood of Christ is denied to be vnder the formes of bread and wine Shall now so much as Christ hath plainely spoken of his body and blood so much as his Apostles and disciples haue preached and writen in that behalfe shall now all this be ouerthrowen by an vnwritten veritie Are these the men oâ—… God who fâ—…ee from S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn S. Paul to Augustine and Ambrose Will the Apologie allowe that dede If it will not why hath it done so it selfe If none but prophetes and Apostles had written where had they found two Sacramentes where had they readen that the supper of our Lord is a signe and token They make much a doe about the word of God till they haue gotten credit among the ignorant and then they quite lead theÌ„ from all the word of God To you I speake good Christen readers that haue the true loue of the word of God 〈◊〉 in your hartes to you I speake geue not ouer S. Maâ—…hew S. Iohn S. Paul for Ambroâ—…e and Augusâ—…ine 〈◊〉 not ouer Christ who is God and man to haue the opinion of what sâ—… euer â—…ottor and Father in causes of belefe Some men in comparison of others be of greate authoritie But in comparison oâ—… God all men be nothing at all God saieth this is my body Now what so euer man or angell from heauen tell you this is not the body of Christ but only a figure of it beleue him not but let him be â—…cursed to you Shal we not be well occupied if we leaue yâ— plain worde of God and come to see whether Ambrose and Augustine teach two Sacramentes or mo then twaine S. Paul teacheth Matrimonie to be a Sacrament And yet shall we goe from him to Ambrose and Augustine to see whether it be one or no Was euer such a vile practise heard of as to brag of scriptures to boast of holy write to crie vpon vs for comyng to the worde of God and nowe that we are come thither to call vs from all Prophetes and Apostles yea froÌ„ Christ him selfe to Ambrose and Augustine Is this the waie to the holy scriptures Can this fault be excused Can this hypocrisie be tolerated To winne to you the itching eares of the inconstant multitude to get you the applause of licencious libertines in yâ— pulpit you call to yâ— word of God and when you haue gotten them within your nettes you teach them out of Ambrose and Augustine Yea would God ye did so at the least And although it be alitle out of mie way if to detect falshod can euer be out of a mans way yet what if now we proue that ye deceaue them also by fathering that vpon Ambrose and Augustine which they neuer wrote 〈◊〉 thought ¶ That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two Sacraments DOe they teache but two Sacramentes only What if they taught two especially yet if they do not deny the other your proof is none But let vs see Doe they approue no more then twaine What if besydes these twaine which you haue named I bring within the compasse of one chapiter two moe out of S. Augustin as plainly named of him as possibly can be Where then will this Apologie reâ—…t Bonum igitur nuptiarum per omnes gentes atque omnes homines in causa generandi est in fide castitatis quòd autem ad populum Dei pertinet etiam in sancti tate Sacramenti caet The good sayeth S. Augustine which riseth of mariage through all nations and all men consisteth in yâ— cause of begetting children and in the faith of chastitie And in so much as appertaineth to yâ— people of God it consisteth also in the holynes of the SacrameÌ„t through which it is vnlawfull yea though diuorse come betwen to marie an other whiles her husband liueth not so much as for the very cause of bringing foorth of children which though alone it be the cause why mariages are made yet the band of mariage is not loosed vnlesse the husband die albeit yâ— thing folow not for which the mariage is made Much like as if to bring the people together some of the clergie should be ordered or consecrated with holy orders for although the meeting of the people do not insewe yet Sacramentum ordinationis the Sacrament of geuing orders abideth in them that be ordered And if for any fault any man be remoued from the office he shall not lacke the Sacrament of our Lord which is once put vpon him although it remaine to his damnation In these words S. Augustine hath shewed that amoÌ„g Christian men there are two other Sacramentes of Priesthod of Matrimonie besides baptisme and the Eucharist And eche of them so greate and so strong that they can not be loosed and taken awaie but only by death of the partie although the chief cause â—…asse why the Sacrament was geuen I could bring if nede were an other notable place out of S. Augustine where he nameth together the water of baptim oile the Eucharist and the imposition of hands S. Ambrose like wise confesseth moe Sacraments then Baptim and the Eucharist Cur baptizatis si per hominem peccata dimitti non licet In baptismo vtique remissio peccatorum omniuÌ„ est Quid interest vtrum per paenitentiam an per lauacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent Vnum in vtroque mysterium est Sed dices quia in lauacro operatur mysteriorum gratia Quid in paenitentia Nonne Dei nomen operatur Why art thou baptized if it be not lawfull synnes to be forgeuen
haue power to make that thing whereof Christ spake then the token was true and the outward signification of the words agreeth with the inward effect and working of them For which cause we say that Christ in those words instituted a Sacrament of holy orders For he gaue vnto his Apostles at that tyme by those words the order of Priesthod The holy signe of this Sacrament is the pronouncing of these words Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me The inuisible grace wrought therein is the power which the Apostles toke to make the body of Christ. Euen so As sone as these words This is my body and this is my blood are duely spoken straight the body and blood is made present If indeed it be not present here is no Sacrament at all Note well what I say here is no true signe at all but an hipocriticall and fonde Imagination of a thing the truth whereof is not so as the word soundeth and therefore the sigâ—…e is false Neither will it helpe any thing at all if one say that Christ spake figuratiuely For a figuratiue speache can not be an euideÌ„t token of any thing except it be such a figure as through the custome of speache hath now obteined some easy and knowen 〈◊〉 among all men that vse the same language as when by the name of a cuppe we meane the drinke in it or by the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen we meane authoritie to bring men to Christ and God or by opening the mouth we meane speaking which kind of speache though it be called figuratiue for some respect yet in dede it is all one with proper speach because vse and custome maketh euery speach propre Otherwise a very figuratiue speach signifieth no certain thing vntill it be plainly vnderstanded And consequently no figuratiue speach can be a Sacrament or a holy signe of an other thing For a signe is euer plaine euident and able to instruct as being according to the iudgemeÌ„t of S. Augustine the thing which besides the shew it maketh to our senses causeth an other thing to come to our knowledge But a figure not made common by vse is obscure darke vncertaine as all ridles be vntill they are opened So that if Christ saying This is my body had meant this doth signifie my body and in dede is not so truly no Sacrament had bene made as I will shew hereafter because no euident token had bene geuen of any thing It can not be called an euident token when I may more truly veryfie the contradictorie then that which is spoken For if the Sacramentaries teach wel it is a truer token to say This is not my body then to say This is my body But this is my body caÌ„ neuer signifie to me by any figure of â—…hetorike this is not my body For doubtlesse as long as I am not driuen to thinke this is not my body or to thinke of an other thing as of trees stones water bread wine or any like thing which is cleane diuerse in nature from Christes body which to do after the name of body once heard out of Christes mouth is allmost impossible so long it may still be a signe to me that it is Christes body And seing it can neuer come to passe that I hearing Christ say This is my body can exclude the thought of his body from my vnderstanding will I or nill I This will be to me either a falshod or it will be the Sacrament or signe of his body If it be so then seing the Sacrament and holy signe must nedes be true the body must likewise be truly present for so the token doth report If when I heare Christ say This is my body I must stand musing and diuising how is may be taken vnproperly and signifie a certayn betokening without a true being surely because all ignorant men studie they neuer so long are able to conclude no such thing for that no such example cometh to their minde and they are not exercised in scriptures as diuines be thereby it will folow that Christes words shall signifie one thing to one man and an other to an other To some learned men after some conference they may signifie by the waye of coniecture the betokening of his body To others who coniecture that Christ pointed to his own person when he sayd so they will sound otherwise But to the simple and ignorant who can not so put matters together they will signifie allways the reall presence of his body Uerily the twelue Apâ—…tles were very simple ignorant and as the scriptures call them 〈◊〉 without lerning neither was their mind opened to vnderstand the scriptures at yâ— tyme. And yet I dare say they knew what they did receaue wherefore they toke the words of Christ literally as they sounded to them Now seing these words This is my body signified the body of Christ it will insewe that seing Christ maketh allways a true signe to them it was the truth of Christes body Marye to Ihon Caluine who is more deeply lerned and who studieth ful sore to make and proue Christ a lyer it may well be they will sounde otherwise O Lord to what case are these signes and Sacramentes brought if according to some menne they shall sound one way and to others an other way And yet the truth of them standeth chiefly wholy dependeth vpon the signe which they make As though all other men being able to make their last willes with wordes plaine enough thou Lord alone haddest neither vtterance nor witte nor mind nor remembrance to make a token of thy inuisible work And yet the Apologie sayth that the Eucharist is an euideÌ„t token of the body and blood If the token be euident all men do quicklie vnderstand it why then striue we vpon an euident matter Call wemen children to ask of them what token yâ— words of Christ make I warrant you they will not say that is doth stand to betoken nor body for figure of body That kind of tokens is not very euident to them But in deed the token of Christes body is euident by his own words and therefore the truth which he doth betoken to be present is really present for as his token is most euident so is it most true Christ after his resurrection gaue power to his Apostles to forgeue and retaine synnes This thing was the institution of the Sacrament of Peuance Let vs there see the Sacrament or holy signe of this giâ—…t whose synnes ye forgeue sayeth he they are foregeuen them And whose ye retaine they are reteyned 〈◊〉 in those words a signe of remission of synnes be instituted suâ—…ely when that signe is made by a Priest duâ—…ly absoluing the peniteÌ„t his synnes are in deed remitted For loke how much the words doe signifie to men of common vnderstanding so much is geuen by them How proue I that
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
chalice of blessing to be the communicatiâ—…g of Christes blood according as Christ said He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. Leo the great sayth we ought so to communicate with our Lords table that we doubt nothing of the veritie of his body and blood seing he sayd Except ye eat the flesh c. Theodoritus speaking of the holy mysteries ioyneth with the words of the supper these also The bread which I wil geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world Isychius shewing that the penitent person may eate the bread whereof Christ sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh ioyneth there with all the words of S. Paul Let a man proue him self and so eate Declaring both sayings to belong to one mysterie Theophilact vpon these words The bread which I will geue witnesseth that Christ manifestly telleth vs in this place of the mysticall communion of his body Damascenus declaring that Christ sayd This is my body and not the figure of my body bringeth for the same purpose Except ye eate the flesh c. Prosper Aquitanicus ioyneth these words Except ye eate the flesh c. with these except a man be born again of water to shew that the Sacraments of Christ doe geue vs grace and not oâ—…r own works which goe before baptism As therefore S. Cyprian and S. Augustin applie those two sayings to two seuerall Sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist so must we think that Prosper doth who most diligently folowed S. Augustine Proco pius Gazeus writeth yâ— these words except ye eate my flesh c. Typum mysteriorum quae sub ipso latent continent conteine the foorm of the mysteries which lie priuie vnder it Eucherius teaching that Christ feedeth vs with the nourishmeÌ„ts of the healthiull mysterie saith that he distributeth to euery man a â—…ake of that bread which came down â—…rom heauen and geueth life to the world Cassiodorus saying that Christ did coâ—…secrate his body blood in geuing of bread and wine proueth it because him self sayd Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Primatius shewing how the chalice of blessing is the communicating of the blood of Christ bringeth our Sauiour his words in S. Ihon saying he that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him S. Bede folowed in all points S. Augustin whose words he reciteth both vpon S. Ihon vpon S. Paule And therefore we nede not doubt but he is wholy of yâ— same mind Angelomus vpon the first booke of the kings reciteth S. Ihon in the same sense Haimo vpon S. Paule intreating of the Sacrament conferreth S. Paules words with the sixth of S. Ihon. S. Bâ—…rnard although he say the eating of the flesh of Christ to be the folowing of his painful conuersation in suffering voluntarie 〈◊〉 for his sake yet well knowing that Christ spake literally also of an other kinde of eating he saieth that Christ did speake of penance in a figure that is to saie couertly as rather including penance vnder the wordes which he named then expressely naming it Vnde hoe designat illibatum illud altaris sacramentum vbi dominicum corpus accipimus wherefore that pure Sacrament of the altar where we take our Lords body betokeneth so much Behold the true and literall meaning of Christes wordes is to haue his flesh eaten in the sacrament of the altar But that eating importeth a folowing of Christ in his painful conuersation For as that forme of bread saieth S. Bernard is seene to enter into vs so let vs knowe that Christ thorough that conuersation which he had in earth eutreth into vs to dwell by faith in our hartes Whereby we maie perceaue that S. Bernard vnderstandeth the sixth chapter of S. Iohn so literally of the sacrament of the altar that thereupon he buildeth a couert and a figuratiue preaching of penance Euthymius noteth that Christ did not say I do geue my flesh but I wil geue because he minded to geue it in his last supper Nicolaus Methonensis hauing first rehersed the wordes of the Gospell this is my body straight expoundeth all the chapter of S. Iohn thereof shewing the profit which we take by this Sacrament Samonas after the wordes of the supper declared as not betokening a figure or image affirmeth Christ to haue said in other places the same thing and straight reciteth the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn I omitt here Petrus Cluniacensis Guimundus Algerus Lanfrancus S. Thomas de Aquino Albertus Magnus Dionysius the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra a great number of late writers which all agreed vpon the same vnderstanding of the sixth of S. Iohu But what speake I of these Fathers one by one not only the Councel of Trident hath taken witnesse for the Sacrament of the altar out of S. Iohn but also the seuenth kept at Nice and the first kept at Ephesus doth allege against Nestorius the heretike for the presence of Christes person in the SacrameÌ„t the wordes of S. Iohn his gospell Yea the whole west church readeth the same gospell of S. Iohn when it celebrateth the feast of corpus Christi daie And surely wheÌ„ the Church kepeth any feast whereof there is mention in the gospell according to the letter it alwaies chooseth to reade that part where the feast is literally mentioned It wold therefore be very absurd sith S. Mathew S. Marke and S. Luke haue written so distinctly the historie of Christes supper to leaue them all and to reade the wordes of Christ in S. Iohn if the same wordes had any other sense more literall then that which belongeth to the supper of Christ. So that I trust there is no possible cause of doubting to a sober man but that the wordes of Christ in this chapiter maie literally and according to the first and chief meaning of them be brought to declare what we ought to thinke of his bodily presence in the Sacrament of his last supper But if any man be not fully satisfied therein let him reade the processe folowing and he shal haue lesse cause to doubt any more in this matter ¶ Answer is made to their obiections who teache out of the holy fathers that the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spiritual eating FOr their opinion who think the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn to speake only of the spiritual and not of the worthy sacramental eating of Christes body the authoritie of certaine fathers is alleged who are thought somtimes to expound the wordes of this chapiter partly of belefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth by the sacramentes of baptisme and of penance But it maie seme a sufficient answere to that obiection if we saie first that so many fathers do not expound the wordes of Christ in the sixth chapter of S. Iohn of any other one
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
for his gift proueth the reall presence of his body and blood in the SacrameÌ„t of the altar euen as God the Father gaue hun reall fleshe and blood at his incarnation CHrist for the meate whiche he promysed to gene in his last supper alleaged his diuinity as who shoulde plainly say wonder not that I promise you suche a thing of so greate difficulty and miracle for I am God His wordes are these worke saith he to the multitude of the Iewes not the meate which doth perish but that which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you for him God hath signed that is God the father hath printed his diuine substance vppon him by eternal generation or hath oynted him with the oile of gladnes aboue al others because his humane nature is vnited to the godhed whereby he is able to do as much as his father It is not to be thought that Christ would haue alleged his equall auctoritie with his Father for a gift which were not of equall truth and of equall power with that which his Father is sayd to gene But his Father gaue him not only the vertue and 〈◊〉 of flesh but reall and natural flesh and blood at his incarnation thereâ—…ore God the Sâ—…nn 〈◊〉 to geue vs the same 〈◊〉 â—…ral fâ—…sh in his last supper For which cause he doth immediatly declare both God his Fathers gift and his own 〈◊〉 his Fathers gift he say 〈◊〉 My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen for it is the bread of God whiche cometh downe from heauen and geueth life to the worlde But what breade is this I saith Christ am the bread of life I am the liuely bread which came downe from heauen â—…ow we haue lerned that God the Father gaue Christ his Sonne from heauen when he sent him to take the flesh of man which flesh assumpted oâ—… the word is also by vnion to the word made the bread of life Christ therefore hauing shewed his Fathers gift and that him self is the bread of liâ—…e cometh to shew his own bread which he wil geue saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The brief discourse of yâ— who le doctrine is this work the meate which tarieth for euer which the Sonne of man wil geue you for this Soâ—…ne of man is equall with God his Father whose naturall image he hath printed in him God the Father hath geuen his Sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life Therefore God yâ— Sonne being equall with his Father wil geue vs the same true flesh of the Sonne of man as meate yâ— shall tarie with vs to life euerlasting But his Father gaue him â—…o the world not only in faith spirite but in real and substancial flesh Therefore God the Sonne by the drift of all his talk doth signifie that he wil geue in his supper whereof he speaketh not in spi rite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the 〈◊〉 same real and substanciall flesh First he sayth he wil geue that meate which shal tarye to life euerlasting Secondly that he is able to doe so as one signed of God his Father Thirdly he sheweth what bread and meate his Father hath geuen him that is to say the true flesh wherein â—…e spake to that preseÌ„t multitude of men Fourthly he sayth yâ— breade that he wil geue is his fleshe Last of all who so cateth it hath life euerlasting Doth not all this goe to proue that as he bad them work the meate which tarieth for euer and shewed him sefe concerning his 〈◊〉 to be made that meate sent from God his Father so he is able to geue them that meate which his Father gaue him and sayth he wil geue it them to the end they eating it may liue for euer he tarying in them and they in him And yet is not that his reall and substanciall flesh which he promiseth Or did he not perform in his supper that which he pro mised If he can not be false of his word we haue in our Lords supper where he perfomed this promise the reall and substancial body of Iesus Christ as truly as euer his Father gaue him reall and substancial flesh in this world And consequently we haue it not only by faith and spirite but in truth and substance This plainly is the discoâ—…rse of Christ him selfe who by his Godhead assureth vs of the gift of that incorruptible meat which is his flesh Whereupon S. Hilarie sayth that no man douteth of yâ— veritie of Christes flesh in vs except he deny Christ to be true God ¶ Seing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith spirit only suffiseth not but it self also must be really eaten GOd sent his Sonne who is by nature the bread of life as hym self hath witnessed to take flesh for vs that in his flesh he might geue vs the same diâ—…ine nature which is the 〈◊〉 bread of life Therefore when Christ had sayd The Sonne of man will geue you the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting straightways he sheweth in one word three causes of yâ— his promise For God the Father sayeth he hath signed this SoÌ„ne of maÌ„ that is to say he hath geuen him hys owne substance concerning the diuine nature of Christ and concerning his humane nature he hath shewed his will by hym as by a seale of his owne hand Farthermore he hath assigned hym to bring vs this meate which tarieth to life euerlasting The verb Signauit he hath signed may signifye the printing of the same forme and ymage which the originall seale hath as S. Cyrillus hath noted in this place also it may stand to shew or confirme a thing by witnes of seale as Theophilact expoundeth it Orels to assigne or appoint a thing to some certain effect and purpose as S. Chrysostome and Eâ—…thymius take it God the Father signed Christ after the first sort by geuing him his own nature And after yâ— secoÌ„d sort by shewing him through miracles wrought in his flesh to be his own Sonne And last of all in appointing to haue his will done most perfitly and executed by him as Christ him self said It is my meate to doe the wil of him that sent me According to this last sense it was the wil of God that Christ should geue vs the euerlasting â—…eate which naturally is his Godhead and by the mysterie of the incarnation it is his flesh And to signifie so much Christ sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate because my Father hath signed me to this purpose The whiche sense S. Chrysostome followeth in the first place of his interpretation writing thus Signauit hoc est misit qui hunc vobis
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
quod sumitur This is my body this I say whiche you take So that by his 〈◊〉 this pointeth not finally to that wheaten bread whiche Christe tooke neither to any doing of his but to yâ— body of Christ whiche he made by his words at the holy altar and table and which the Apostles tooke afterward at the handes of Christ. Howbeit if any man be so hastie that he wil not tary the speaking of fower words to know what particular finall substance the pronoun hoc this doth point vnto but will nedes knowe what it meaneth as sone as it came out of Christes mouth vntill the last word be pronounced I answere that by the circuÌ„stances which are about and concerne the dedes and words of Christ it may be wel sayd that the pronoun this beside his generall signisication whiche is declared before doth here also particularly betoken euen from the beginning of Christes words to the end this thing which is to be eaten or drunken and so doth it declare as well the beginning of the words which belong to wheaten bread whose cheefe vse is to be eaten as the progresse which tendeth to a supper the substance whereof is eating the end which is the bodâ—… of Christ made present to be eateÌ„ So this doth truly always signifie this food or eateable substance of which particular pointing and signification I shall haue occasion to speake more at large hereafter when I come to confer yâ— holy scriptures together which belong to the supper of Christ. ¶ The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of Christes words to be figuratiue HEreof the Sacramentaries make no small boast that Christ sayd this chalice is the new Testament in my blood It can not be denyed say they but the name of chalice is figuratiuely put for that whiche is in the chalice Why may not therefore other words in the supper be also figuratiuely taken Masters it foloweth not because one word is euidently siguratiue that therefore another word must be also figuratiue except one reason be in both words Which in our case is cleane contrary and that for diuerse causes for all men that is to say as well Catholiks as Protestants and Sacramentaries confesse the word chalice to be figuratiue and thei are compelled so to doe because if we take the name of chalice properly we must confesse sith Christ sayth this chalice is the new Testament in my blood that a material cup of wood glasse or siluer is the new Testament or yâ— cause of our synnes to be forgeuen which no reasonable man will so much as dream of Seing then we are constrained by force of reason to say the chalice to stand for that which is in the chalice and no like reason presseth vs to think the like of the verbe est is or of the noun corpus body or of the noun sanguis blood the example which moueth vs to graunt a figure in the one word kepeth vs from suspecting any figure in the other words which are nothing like Secondly whereas S. Luke and S. Paul named the chalice S. Mathew and S. Marke speake not of it geuing vs to vnderstand that the meaning of Christ was only to make and shew the blood of the new Testament which was in the chalice As therefore the holy Ghost prouided for a sufficient declaration of thaâ—… word which was in dede figuratiue so leauing the verbe est is and the nounes body and blood still in they proper significatioÌ„ without mention of signe or figure it hath sufficiently witnessed that they were to be takeÌ„ as they did naturally sound to the common â—…ares of men Thirdly although the word calix a cup or chalice were at the beginning appointed to signifie chefely that vessel which holdeth liquour meâ—…e to be drunk yet by common vse of speaking which is farre the chefe gouernour in the vnderstanding of wordes we being at the table meane by the cup that which is in the cup. in so much yâ— if a maÌ„ sitting at the table bid yâ— cup be geuen to another no seruaÌ„t is lightly so rude as to geue a stranger the cup without drink in it now when words are as commonly vsed in theyr siguratiue sense as in theyr natural then eche way the sense is proper enough in so much as the vse of speaking is equal to the first propriety of the word Fourthly seing Christ sitting at the table in the sight of his Apostles taking the cup of wine mingled with water blessed gaue thaÌ„ks saying not only the chalice or a chalice but this chalice or this cup is the new Testament in my blood it could not be that any dout could rise to his Apostles through naming that chalice which the Apostles them selues knew to contein a certen liquour but that notwithstanding maruelouse great dout wold haue risen to them and to al Christians if he should haue vsed est for significat and body blood for the signe of body blood for so much as they could not coniecture any other meaning of these words then they did outwardly sound For it is no common vse of speaking but only both seldom vsed and not vnderstaÌ„ded but by great doctors and interpreters who know and discern tokeÌ„s of things to be called sometyme by the names of the things them selues Fifthly when with a figuratiue worde an other is immediatly ioyned which doth expound the figure the whole speach is ra ther to be accompted proper then figuratiue for so much as the weaker part yeldeth always to the stronger euen as in 〈◊〉 when one noune adiectiue serueth two substantiues of diuerse genders we make it agree with the masculin as with the more worthy gender When Christ sayd to S. Peter I will geue thee the keies he spake figuratiuely coÌ„cerning the name of keies but if we marke that he ioyned thereunto the keies of the kingdom of heauen and yet again what soeuer thou bindest or loosest in earth and so foorth by these words the former speache is made plain as if it were not figuratiue at all right so when he sayth this chalice is the new testament in my blood yâ— naÌ„ing of the blood is so plain a declaration how the name of chalice is taken that al is one as if it had bene said this is my blood of yâ— new testament which is in the chalice See then for Gods sake how farre the figuratiue naming of yâ— chalice is froÌ„ any figuratiue naming of the body or blood As to yâ— chalice such words were ioyned which did shew the name to bâ—… figuratiue so to the body and blood such were ioyned as forbid vs to think the like of them not only because Christe sayd This is my body my blood which surely were enough to proue that I say because the body and blood of Christe waâ—… not figuratiue but true and naturall but also because to
the naming of Christes body it is ioined in S. Luke The which is geueÌ„ for you And to the name of the cup the which is shed for you Last of all the naming of the cup or chalice was prouided of God for a maruelouse declaration and setting foorth of the reall blood of Christ made within it For whereas the new preachers bid vs list our mindes to heauen to receaue yâ— blood of Christ by faith spirit and vnderstanding as though it were not present at Christes own table the holy Ghost knowing that afterward such false reachers should arise prouided that the words of Christ should not only be reported This is my blood of the new testameÌ„t as S. Mathew S. Mark write but also as S. Luke S. Paul haue penned theÌ„ this chalice is the new testament in my blood this cahlice that is to say the thing câ—…nteyned in this chalice to the intent we should be sure that the said blood was euen within the compasse of this chalice and not only apprehended by saith and spirit so that euen the word chalice although by exact accompt of grammer it stand figuratiuely yet by common vse it signifieth the liquour in it and that liquour is expresly named the blood of Christ and that blood is declared to be present in the very chalice ¶ That the words of Christes supper be proper though many other be figuratiue and vnproper VUhy these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood can not be like the other where Christ is sayd to be the dore the way the true viue and Iohn Baptist to be Elias or the rocke to be Christ it shal be more particularly declared in the last chapiter of the booke Nowe it shall suffise to say that they were neuer taken to meane as they seme to stand therefore the general consent of al Christians taking them for figuratiue is an euident cause why they must be confessed to be figuratiue And that vninersail consent is of more importance then the proper signification of the words But on the other syde yâ— words of Christ in his last supper haue not only no such vniuersal iudgement and consent against them but rather they always haue bene taken to be meant of the presence of his own body blood accordingly as they doe sound Again none of all those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like yâ— which Christ sayd in his supper This is my body For partly they do name two seueral natures as Thâ—… Baptist Elias wheras these words this is my body name but one partly they speake not of any certeine thing as Christes body or if they doe so yet they point not to it as to a thing present A dore and the doore is not this dore this doth expresse a great deale more theÌ„ a or the. A dore is meant generally of any dore the dore of a certein dore spoken of before but this dore pointeth preseÌ„tly to yâ— dore whereof he speaketh Christes wordes were directed to one thing only which is made shewed together when yâ— Godhead maketh yâ— which by his maÌ„hod he pointeth to saying this is my body so that in dede in al scripture there is no like speach to that which Christ vsed in his last supper much lesse any like is figuratiue and least of all that it selfe can be proued figuratiue while it is compared with other speaches Let all the Sacramentaries shew where that proposition is figuratiue whiche first instituteth and maketh any thing and presently pointeth to the same saying this is this or this is that as it is sayd this is my body and this is my blood For whereas it is sayd in Ezechiel this Hierusalem it is nothing like because it was sayd rather by the occasion of expounding a parable then at the doing or making of any thing by him that said this is Hierusalem But Christ when he made his supper and instituted his chefe Sacrament said of that whiche was in his hands this is my body What ignorance then is it to say these words be vnproper because other words from which they differ be vnproper ¶ It is shewed by the circumstaÌ„ces of Christes supper that he made his reall flesh and blood present vnder the formes of bread and wine and consequently that his words are proper NExt vnto the proper signification and common sense of speaking the circumstances of the talke are to be considered of which kinde of handling matters belonging to diuinitie S. Augustine geueth vs a lerned rule writing thus Solet circumstantia illuminare sententiaÌ„ cum ea quae circa scripturam sunt praesentem quaestionem contingeÌ„tia diligenti discussione tractantur The circumstance of yâ— scripture is wonte to geue light to the meaning thereof when those thinges which are about the scripture to wit which goe before and folowe after concerning that which is presentlie in question are diligentlie examined by this rule we haue nowe to consyder about the supper of Christ and about the meaninge of dedes wordes there in who spake or did when where to whome vppon what occasion how and in what maner what were the words for what cause to what effecte or purpose he spake or did with suche like respectes For I wil at this tyme so examine the last supper to proue thereby the reall prensence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine that I will shew euery part thereof whether it consiste in dede or in worde to helpe much rather then to hinder any thinge the catholike belefe of the sayd reall presence and consequentlie that no reason at all should either sufficientlie or meanly moue any man to thinke the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue or vnproper and truly whether the wordes be proper the body and blood which they signifie as present must nedes be present or els whether the body and blood be proued present yâ— wordes which signifie so much must nedes be proper ¶ The first circumstance of Christes last supper is to consyder who made it THe maker of the supper is almightie as being the naturall sonne of God so that no man may discredit his wordes for lacke of power to bring them to passe The same Sonne of God was sent of his Father to take mans flesh to th' end he might in that flesh bring vs the euerlasting meate of the diuine substance Neither came he in flesh to bring vs the meate of his Godhead in faith and spirit only for so the Godhed was eaten â—…y Abraham Moyses Dauid and other 〈◊〉 men 〈◊〉 not so plentifully before the incarnation of Christ but Christ â—…me not only to make vs beleue the better in God but also to make our weake bodies and imprisoned sonles partakers of his Godhed by a better and higher meane then by our faith alone â—…or our faith is receaued in measure but the
〈◊〉 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
come from God and belong to causes of religion And yet in them as euery thing is most obscure so are words more necessarie for the opening of it All mysteries by their very name pretend a secret and an obscure knowlege Among all the mysteries which were lest vnto the Church by Christ none hath obteined that name so peculiarly as the Sacrament of Christes supper whereupon it foloweth that words are most necessarie of all for the declaration of that Sacrament therefore noman ought to wonder that with so many dedes of sitting down at yâ— table of eating the paschal Lamb of washing the Apostles fete of raking bread and wine of blessing thanksgeuing breaking geuing words at the length be ioyned which may shew plainly the meaning wherevnto all those dedes tend Let vs not therefore follow the Sacramentaries in this behalf who looke only to this that Christ toke bread and will not consyder his promise going before his present performance in geuing that which he promised his blessing and his words Wherein he plainly sayth This is my body But because bread was taken and still bread is tasted and seen doâ—… and say Christ what him list they will trust their eyes and not his word But S. Mathew S. Marke S. Paule 〈◊〉 that Christ did these things sayd S. Luke writeth he did them saying All meane that saying is a principall part of the supper And that not without a cause For whereas dedes may haue many and diuerse interpretations as it appeareth by the figures of the law except words be ioyned withall to make them certein and plaine we shall not know how to vnderstand the dedes and therefore we can not tell how to beleue them For this cause S. Chrysostom sayd that whereas Christes words ought in al things to be more credited then our senses yet he addeth Quod praecipue in mysterijs faciamus the which thing let vs do specially in the mysteries Ponder then I pray you whether Christ did expound one parable by an other For the dedes of his last supper 〈◊〉 to me vndoubted parables Who could tell what the taking of bread meant after supper or to what end the blessing and geuing of thankes wolde goe except Christes own words had interpreted his mysticall doings For whereas all Christes doings are our instruction it can not be denied but when he toke bread blessed gaue thanks brake and gaue those dedes were a certein aduertissement or dark lesson to his Disciples Of the which some vnderstode more some lesse according as they had grace and wit Now the words of Christ come to these dedes as it were a plain exposition added to an obscure parable And yet shall we think that the words also are paraâ—… Shal we say the thing that is spoken to geue more light bringeth more darknesse Or did the comment of Christ nede again an other comment He did certain things and to shew what he did He sayd this is my body If these words be 〈◊〉 it had bene better he had sayd nothing but only doâ—… this for the remembrance of me For by that meanes we might haue done as he did and so haue referred obedieÌ„tly the meaning of the dede to his wisedom But he in words expounded the secrete meaning of the dedes sayd This is my body What reason can now excuse vs why we should not rest in the authoritie of the speaker sith he spake as an expositour or interpreter of his own doings This reason alone ought to persuade any man But now I will bring a greater Not only the interpretatioÌ„ of Christes dedes dependeth vpon his words but also the whole substance of them For he being the word of God hath ordeined that no Sacrament shal be made without words Yea that words shal be the chief part of euery Sacramâ—…t This appereth in baptisme where the washing with water is the lesse part and the pronouncing of the words is the chefe part Hereof I haue spoken before and haue declared out of S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustine that yâ— Sacraments haue their verie chese being through words As therefore water breade wine and oile whiche are the inferiour elements and the baser part of the Sacraments be most commonly knowen and most easily gotten so the words which are the higher part of the same Sacraments must be such as be most common easy For euery Sacrament is a signe euery signe is to geue knowledge of a thing whiche otherwise had bene secrete Now if the token it self be secrete what knowledge can rise thereof Seing therefore Chriâ—… making a Sacrament said this is my body we must think either no signe at all to haue bene made or els we must beleue the wordes as they sound outwardly ¶ The fiftenth circumstance of taking SEing Christ willed all the twelue Apostles among whom Iudas also was to take that one thing which he gaue we must vnderstand such a taking as may agree to 〈◊〉 nolesse then to the other Apostles Againe whatsoeuer taking be vnderstanded it must appertein to corporal appreheÌ„sion whereof only Christ sayd take 〈◊〉 thing therefore which was taken either was 〈◊〉 bread being a bare figure of Christ or the body of Christ vnder the form of bread For in bothe these ways Iudas might take that which all the other toke As for any effectual signe whereof Caluin vseth to brag no man corporally toke sith it is clere that Iudas toke none such yet it was sayd to him no lesse then to the other take Nâ—…w if the Apostles toke only a bare 〈◊〉 of Christes body Christ gaue no more with his hands but a 〈◊〉 signe 〈◊〉 they â—…oke that which he gaue but Christ was not sent to geue bare signes which thing was thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the old lawe therefore it being false that he gaue a bare signe it must nedes be true that the Apostles toke at his haÌ„ds his own body vnder the form of bread Neither will it serue here if a â—…cramentarie say yâ— Christ gaue spiritually more â—…heÌ„ bare signes and likewise that yâ— good Apostles toke more spiritually for if we speake of spirituall gifts they wanted â—…ot in y◠〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and of the old law Abraham beleued God and it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to instice Elizeus receaued the dâ—…bble spirit of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beseching God to restore him y◠〈◊〉 of his 〈◊〉 to strengththen him with his chefe spirit doth 〈◊〉 that both he had once the holy Ghost and loked again for greater comfort of him Seig then the good men always receaued â—…pirituall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwene Christ and the old law doth not stand only in â—…all gifts receaued in the soule but in this that Christ in his maÌ„hod which he toke for that purpose left vs such coâ—…poral meanes and instruments of grace as might work also vpon our soules And therefore Christ denyed 〈◊〉 to be the
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 reason brought sor proufe that thâ—…y are really ment to be that which they are called wheÌ„ they are named together with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if there be not euident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 theâ—… proper meaâ—…ing naturally they are included Thus when it is said The word was Gâ—…d the word was made flesh there was much grasse in that place the â—…onne of man shal be three days in the haâ—…t of the earth John was in 〈◊〉 those particular substances really to be that which they are named but if it chaunce otherwise we aske why it doth not signifie â–ª as it should chiefly doe Which being so we must seeke the reason why these words I am the true vine doe not signifie Christ 〈◊〉 self to be yâ— substance of the true vine whiche thinge the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 someth to import But as the truthe is when Christ sayth I am the true vine he can not meane I am the substance of a vine for if he were so he were not Christ. Because the substance of Christ who is God and man differeth wholy 〈◊〉 the substance of a vine But Christ prâ—…eth of him self I am this or that â—…fore we are compelled so to expound his words that his 〈◊〉 may stil be saued He sayth not I am changed into a vine or I am made a vine the which words 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â–ª of being with the losse of the former Being but 〈◊〉 sayth I am the true 〈◊〉 wherein somwhat is rather attributed or geuen to his former substance â–ª then any thing taken from it and much lesse the former substance it self is wholy taken away If then it repugne to the nature of Christâ—… wordes that he should in theÌ„â—…e thought to 〈◊〉 spoiled of his 〈◊〉 by which words his substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 nedes find oâ—…t some other way of expounding those words then â—…o aâ—…e that â–ª Christ is the substance of any materiall vine Seig then these two substâ—…es for so in word they seme to 〈◊〉 although in deâ—… they can not so be ment seing I say these two 〈◊〉 substances â–ª Christ a vine can not either be wholy one whiles they be diuerâ—… or be wholâ—… 〈◊〉 whilâ—… 〈◊〉 be said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise man auoiding as nigh as may be all absurdity seeketh out such a meaning that both natures may remayne still 〈◊〉 concerning their differeÌ„t substances and that they may coâ—…municat and agree in some â–ª â—…uality which is common to â—…th The which consyderation made al the lerned Fathers in these phrases of speache I am the dore I am the way I am the true vine the rock is Christ â—…on Baptist is Elias and in such like to shew what coÌ„dition qualitie or propertie was common betwene these natures without any surmise at all that any transubstantiation could be meant in those words in all which propositions the verb sum es fui doth stand to signifie an accidental and not a substantiall agreement betwene diuerse natures substances But it is far otherwise when Christ hauing taken bread saith after blessing This is my body for in those words two seuerall natures are not ioyned together and thereby affâ—…ed still to be the substances they were before It is not sayd This bread is my body No Enangelist no Apostle no Disciple reporteth Christes words in that sorte such additions comme from Luther from zwinglius from Decolampadius from Caluin but not from S. Matthew S. Mark S. Luke or S. Paule The true Apostles of God by the inâ—…inct of the holy Ghoost were so far from the minde of saying this bread or this wine that they did put the pronoune this in such a gender as neither could agree to bread nor to wine whereof I haue spoken sufficiently before The proposition then being such as nameth one substance only and that moste particular there is no cause why the verb est is ought not to stand in his moste proper and vsuall signification verily to signifie this one thing which was knowen to haue bene bread by Christes word to be the substance of Christes owne body which if it be once graunted it will necessarily folow that this which is the substance of Christes body is not also common bread because those natures were not at any time appointed to be together in any one proprietie of person If it be not common bread and yet it doth seme so it will insew that the substance of yâ— bread is changed into Christes owne substance which is really present vnder the forme of common bread Thus I haue shewed cause why the verb est is doth signifie otherwise in this is my body then in these words I am the true vine by reason of which proper vnderstanding of the verb substantiue transubstantiation is of necessitie inferred For as when I heare it reported for certeine that Peter who was in the morning at Douer was seene the same night at Calis I doe thereby vnderstand that Peter passed ouer the sea not because so much was spoken but because it foloweth vpon that which was done Euen so when I reade that Christ in his supper toke bread and sayd after blessing Take eate this is my body I vnderstand the bread which by nature is not Christes body by blessing and speaking to be made his body and consequently to be changed from his own substance into the substance of Christes body None of all which things can be reasonably applied to the other words I am the true vine For which reason I conclude that whereas in euery proposition three parts are either expressed or imployed the one which goeth before the verb the other which foloweth after and yâ— verb it self euery one helpeth to proue transubstantiation in these words This is my body and euery one hindereth the proufe of the same transubstantiation in the other words I am the true vine So discrete a chalenge M. Nowel made in comparing these two sayings together But who can looke for better stuffe at his hands sith he hath forsaken the notable wisedom of the Church of God and taketh Caluins dreame to be Gods word Hitherto M. Nowell I haue shewed the true meaning of euery word of the two propositions by you alleged But now I haue such confidence in the cause of those Catholikes whom you 〈◊〉 Papists that I will graunt you for farther disputations â—…ake euery thing to be otherwise then it is in dede Let vs imagine that Christ were not God and therefore might be changed in substance that the true vine were a certeyne particular vine â—…eueral from Christ into the which a real change might be made that the verb sum I am did stand to signifie a being in substaÌ„ce and not in qualitie alone yet these words I am the true vine wold not proue as well a transubstantiation as This is my body for that transubstantiation wold be better proued in all doutes moued therevppon which were the more semely
vine or els a vine which for his fruit bringeth foorth veritie and truth Now such an addition doth rather detract sum what from the naturall and very vine whereof M. Nowell speaketh then help it any thing For which cause he should not haue had such a rule with vs as he thinketh if it were sayd This is my true body sith the word true might haue ben taken for the effect or frute proceding from his body which wold not haue bene so much for our purpose as when it is sayd This is my body which is geuen for you Thus euery way M. Nowell is deceaued in his construction And no wonder sith he buildeth not vpon the rock planted by Christ in the Catholike Church but vpon Caluins new inuentions which are more feble then the sands them selues M. Nowell ¶ Christ saith Ego sum panis I am bread and yet no transubstantiation of his body into bread Why should these words Hoc est corpus meum this is my body more transubstantiate bread into his body HOw long will you continew in falsifying the holy Scriptures M. Nowell When shall a man find you to deale vprightly Where is it writen I am bread Where sayeth Christ those words Uerily if he had sayd them yet you may know he meant him self to be bread only by a similitude or Metaphore as it was expounded before in the words I am the true vine And therefore I am bread could import no transubstantiation for seuen causes * 1. The bread he speaketh of is no certayne or limited substance * 2. Christ can not be personally changed for that he is God * 3. The verb sum I am being ioyned with two natures cleane distant doth always signifie a like condition or propertie and no identitie of substance * 4. It were a change made for yâ— worse such as Christ vseth not to make * 5. It wold be yâ— harder to be proued because the thing whereinto the change should be made is not pointed vnto as present * 6. It had bene a change the like whereof had not bene vsed before * 7. It was neâ—…r taâ—…ght nor beleued in the Church But in these words This is my body * 1. The body is certayne * 2. The bread taken is a creature made to be changed * 3. The verb est is doth not stand betwene two diuerse substances but betwene the pronoune and his only noune substantiue * 4. The change is for the better * 5. It is better to be proâ—…ed because it poynteth presently to the thing made * 6. Bread was before changed into Christes flesh whiles he eating bread liued thereby * 7. The Church beleued the Fathers taught and the Generall Councels decreed the change of the bread into Christes body It had not bene haâ—…d to haue answered thus if Christ had sayd I am bread But phy vppon that impietie of yours M. Nowell who in so few words commit so many faults You reporte that Christ sayd I am bread and therein you falsify the word of God It is not sayd any where I am bread For what call you the saying of Christ It is writen Odiui omnem viam iniquitatis And again Omnem viam iniquaÌ„ odio habui I haue hated euery way of iniquitie I haue hated euery vniust way Were it now truly reported that God had sayd I haue hated euery way And thereof to conclude that noman may either walk by the high way or walk in the path of God because God hath hated euery way After the like maner doth M. Nowell reporte the words of Christ who sayd twise I am the bread of life And once he sayd I am the liuing bread Now cometh M. Nowell and leaueth out the genitiue case in the two first sayings and the participle in the last and the article in both and affirmeth that Christ sayd I am bread In dede M. Nowell these words be found as likewise we find I haue hated euery way but it is no small sacrilege to allege Gods word leauing out any essentiall part thereof And specially when the word left out is so ioyned with the rest as yâ— genitiue case is ioyned to the noune which it foloweth or as the participle is ioyned to his noune substantiue It had bene bad enough to haue sayd in our tong which hath articles I am bread of life for euen so the article â—… the had bene left out because it is writen I am the bread of life or I am the liuing bread And not I am bread But to leaue out both the article the and the genitiue case of life or the participle liuing and to argue vppon that false ground that Christ is not transubstantiated into bread it is so dissolutely done that it may warne you M. Nowell of your owâ—… blindnesse of hart and of yâ— blindnes of all such other falâ—…e preachers as you are Who through what other great synnes I can not tel but certeinly through schisme are so wonderfully forsaken of God that you see not now not only what his true meaning what his worde and Ghospell â–ª what the moste syâ—…cere faith of his Church is but you see not that which naturall Philosophers which men of common reason which children in yâ— Catholike Church see You see not the dependence betwene the pronoune adiectiue and his noune substantiue but referre hoc to panis and hic to vinum you see not how the nominatiue case agreeth with his verb but in expounding Hic est sanguis meus for hic significat sanguinem meum you leaue the verb without a noune substantiue to goe before him which is not so when we say Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood taking the verb substantiue est is properly For sâ—…ing here is in all but one substance named the pronoun hic this is so referred finally to the blood alone that yet we do not construe the words saying this blood is my blood but we make the last determination of the pronoune this to rest only in the substance folowing And so as long as the substance is vnnamed the noune substaÌ„tine to the pronoune is vnknoweÌ„ as in Hic est filius meus haec vidua erat hoc est verbum fidei but strayght vpon the naming thereof the proâ—…oune is ruled in case gender and number of his noune substantiue which coâ—…eth after the verb. But when you haue expounded the words of Christ by hic sinificat sanguinem meum when al the speache is fully ended your pronoune of the masculine gender of the nominatiue case findeth no noune substantine at all with whom he may rest but styl is without his due construction You turne the nounes corpus and sanguis from the nominatiue case into the accusatiue You diuide the relatiue quod which from his antecedent corpus body in that you make him repete but halfe the signification of his antecedent You diuide the
Paule speaketh of is named specially also the communicating of Christes blood A generall blessing geueth a general benefite as when we say our Lord blesse you God send you good speede the right hand of God blesse this meate the holy Ghost sanctifie this wine and make it to be a remembrance of Christes bloodsheading These like wordes be blessings hallow or sanctifie the thing blessed as S. Paule saith the creatures to be sanctified by the word of God and praier But when a speciall blessing is geuen a speciall sanctifiyng must folow As when God blessed the 〈◊〉 Benedixitque eis dicens Crescite multiplicamini replete aquas maris and God blessed them saying Increase and multiplie and fyll the waters of the sea this special kinde of blessing worketh a speciall benefite vnto the creature which is blessed â–ª and it worketh euen that which the word signifieth â–ª who doubteth but by these words of Gods blessing increase and multiplie the fisshes toke the vertue of increasing and multiplying which before these words they had not for this kind of blessing gaue them this kind of benefite Seing then Christ blessed the chalice saying This is my blood of the new testament out of doubt he gaue it really this vertue to be the blood of the new testament Tell me no more that Christ willed it to signifie his blood for I tel you out of yâ— word of God what soeuer words haue bâ—… spoken belonging to any creature by the way of blessing they haue wrought that which they did signifie But Christ said in the way of blessing â–ª This chalice is the new testament in my blood Therefore he made by that blessing his blood within the chalice Bring me no more of those paltry examples I am a dore I am a vine the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias the holy Ghost is a doue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that sort I 〈◊〉 in one word to al that none of these were spoken by God in the way of blessing The 〈◊〉 saieth not that Christ blessed any certaine vine saying this is Christ or This is my body â–ª He sayd many thinges without blessing and he blâ—…ed sometymes without speaking But when blessing words are â—…oyned we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens and bare sigâ—…s but working and making that which is said For if they promise a thing to come they worke by the way of causing the promyse in due tyme to be fulfilled as when a soâ—…e was promysed to Abraham by the Aungell of God If they be spoken as betokening a present verbe they presently worke the thing betokened Let no 〈◊〉 deceaue thee good Reader There is a dubble blessing spoken of in S. Paule there is the chalice of blessing and the chalice which we blesse The chalice of blessing as S. Chrysostom saieth is that which wheÌ„ we haue before vs we prayse God with admiration and horrour of the vnspeakeable gift but it is not the chalice of blessing vntill we haue blessed it The blessing whiche maketh it the chalice of blessing is that we speake of and that is the blessing whiche is made by the wordes of consecration as I haue said before Therefore S. Chrysostom wryteth thus vpon this place of S. Paule Cùm benedictionem dico Eucharistiam dico dicendo Eucharistiam omnem benignitatis Dei thesaurum aperio magna illa munera commemoro When I say blessing I say the Eucharist and in saying the Eucharist I open all the treasour of the goodnes of God and I make rehearsall of those great gifts But least any cauill should be made as though the wordes of 〈◊〉 were not the words of blessing heare what S. Ambrose aâ—…th of this Sacrament Quantis vtimur exemplis vt probemus non hoc esse quod natura formauit How many 〈◊〉 vse we to proue that it is not yâ— thing whiche nature made but that which blessing consecrated Lo that which conâ—…eth is blessing But what blessing After yâ— S. Ambrose had bronghâ—… many examples to shew what strength blessing had at the last he concludeth Quòd si tantùm valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur If the blessing of man was of that power that it changed nature what say we of Gods own consecrating where the self words of our Lord Saniouâ—… do worke Marke good Read er blessing consecrating and the words of our Sauiour working is all one matter And yet againe to make it playner S. Ambrose saieth Nam Sacramentum istud quod ac cipis Christi sermone conficitur for this Sacrament which thou receauest is made with the wordes of Christ what the words be he telleth him self Vide omnia illa verba Euangelistae sunt vsque ad accipite siue corpus siue sanguinem inde verba sunt Christi Behold al those are the words of the Enâ—…ngelist vntill we come to this word take either body or blood from thense they are the wordes of Christ. Yf blessing be that which consecrateth both blessing consecration be made with the words oâ—… Christ his words he those which folow the word take yâ— words which folow be these This is my bodie and This is my blood who perceyueth not yâ— these only are the words of blessing Then we blesse the chalice when we consecrate when we say This is my blood of the new testament when we blesse saying the wordes of blessing in Christes mysteries then we make so much as our words do signifie For which cause S. 〈◊〉 concludeth that yâ— chaâ—…ce which we blesse is the coÌ„municating of the blood of Christ. In saying which we blesse he sheweth the cause why it is Christes blood In saying it is the communicating of Christes blood he sheweth both yâ— effect wrought by blessing which is yâ— presence of the blood of Christ and the cause finall why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the sayd blood was shed for the remission of synnes If the â—…halice after blessing had no blood in it how did it communicate to vs the blood of Christ S. Chrysostom geuing the literall sense of these woordes writeth thus EoruÌ„ auteÌ„ huiusmodi est sententia Quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit et illius sumus participes of these wordes this is yâ— meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side aâ—…d thereof we are pà rtakers He affirmeth S. Paul to say that both yâ— blood which flowed from Christes side is in the chalice also that we are thereof partakers But yâ— blood whereof we are partakers by the confession of yâ— Sacramentaries is yâ— naturall blood of Christ therefore the natural blood of Christ is coÌ„teined within yâ— chalice And consequeÌ„tlie
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
of Christ made vnder the forme of bread and wine that is called any earth not because Christ hath any moe then only one body and one blood and one earth which is to be adored but because that one earth is in many places after the sorte I said before to wit vnder many formes of bread That is it which S. Augustine saith when thou bowest thee or doest cast thy selfe prostrate before any flesh of Christ in what soeuer Church house or place in what soeuer altar pix or table where soeuer thou fallest doune prostrate before the Sacrament of the altar adore it so that thou remember the flesh is to be adored for the persons sake whose flesh it is By this place it is inuincibly proued that it was the custome of all Catholike people in S. Augustines tyme to be prostrate to bow doune and to adore the blessed Sacrament of the altar But that should neuer haue bene suffered in Afrike no more then now it is suffered in England except the real substaÌ„ce of Christes flesh had bene certainly beleued of all men to be present vnder the formes of bread and wine Therefore be thou assured as those yâ— now sorbid thee to adore the Sacrament of Christes supper doe not beleue the flesh of Christ to be really present vnder the form of bread wine so they who willed all Christians vnder paine of syn to adore the earth flesh whiche they receaued before that they recâ—…aued it did vndoubtedly beleue the reall presence of Christes â—…lesh vnder the visible formes of bread and wine This was the faith of the first six hundred yeres which dured from the Apostles tyme till this our daies and yet dureth in all Catholike countries ¶ It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatrie to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar MAny things are to be abhorred which are in these our daies taught againste the truth of the Gospell yet neuer was any thing so maliciously inuented so blasphemously vttered so foolishly mainteined as to say that it is idolatrie to worship with godly honour the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar For that saying presupposeth externall idols not to haue bene taken away by the comming of Christ whiche is against the expresse word of God It presupposeth also that idolatry should be mainteined among Christians them selues not only in groâ—…es hilles and corners but euen openly in the middest of the whole Church by publike doctrine and vniuersall practise which neuer chaunced no not among the Iewes And which is most abominable of all it presupposeth that Christ who came to end and ouerthrow all idols and specially those which were made by hand of man now him selfe should geue occasion why his own people should worship bakers bread and wine of the grape and that this idolatry should be committed by pretense of his owne word yea that it should be done vnto him selfe in his owne mysteries falsely and wickedly if by any meanes Christ may be falsely adored Can there yet a more lewd and foolish pointe be added to this opinion Yea verily They that teache the worshipping of the Sacrament of the altar to be idolatry say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping they teach also the Bishop of Rome to be Antichrist whiche Antichrist is well knowen to impugne by al meanes the honour of Christ. And yet they confesse that both only Christe made and instituted the same Sacrament and that the Bishop of Rome him selfe worshippeth the same Thus at the length it commeth about that Antichrist finding this great mystery made by Christ setteth it vp to be worshipped of others and him selfe worshippeth the same all together pretending the honour of Christ and yet intending thereby as they say to debate his honour Who euer saw a doctrine so euill hanging together Antichrist as S. Paul saieth aduersatur is an aduersarie that is to say he is one that setteth him selfe against Christ and aduaÌ„ceth him selfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he doth sitte in the temple of God shewing or boasting him selfe as if he were God Behold Antichrist setteth him selfe against Christ and much lesse would he be content as the Pope is to call him self the vicar of Christ or seruant of his sernants Againe Antichrist is aduanced aboue all that eyther by nature or by deceite of the Deuill is worshipped His pride is so great that he wil not only disoaine to bow to any externall ydoll for that coÌ„meth of a superstitious feare and pusillanimity but also he will not yeld to God him selfe When S. Paul saieth he is aduanced aboue all that is called God He meaneth aboue all false Gods who are Gods by name and not in truth As Iuppiter Mars Uenns Minerua were So that we are assured by the expresse worde of God that Antichrist shall set vp no ydoll besydes his own selfe He shall say him selfe to be God and shall shew false signes miracles able to deceiue those wicked meâ—… who disdayning the felowship of the knowen Church and the saith of their fathers thinke them selues able to plant a new faith according to the vnderstanding whiche they conceaue of Gods worde That is the chefe way for Antichrist to preuaâ—…le if the preaching of nine hundred yeres and the saith of so many Christian countries may be dispised and consequently a new religion sought out at the deuising whereof ye may be sure yâ— deuil is president of the couÌ„sel To come to our purpose Antichrist is aduanced by him selfe aboue all idols therefore he shall set vp no idoll besides him self And consequently if the Pope be Antichrist he setteth not vp any idoll besides him selfe But our aduersaries confesse the Pope to set vp the body and blood of Christe to be adored of all men and him selfe to adore the same herefore the Pope is not Antichrist You will say he may be a limme of Antichrist although he be not Antichrist him selfe I answere euery lymme of Antichrist is like his head and the rest of the body whereof he is a lymme Antichrist is he that professeth him selfe an aduersary to Christ and goeth about to diminish his honour But the Pope professeth him selfe to haue all his whole honour of Christ and geueth all the whole honour he can deuise to Christ. He worshippeth the Sacrament of the altar because it is the body of Christ. He reuerenceth the signe of the Crosse because it is signe of Christ. He praieth to the Saints which are now in heauen because they are members of Christ being assined they heare his praier in Christ theyr head with whome they make one body Those are the lymmes of Antichrist who can abyde neither the godly worshipping of Christes body nor the reuerent vsing of his holy Crosse nor
〈◊〉 tasted to euery man according to his owne will in the mouth of the faithfull euen so it is to be iudged conceâ—…ing the receauing that Sacrament of the altar into euery Christians mouth For both one man for honours sake dareth not take it euery day an other for honours sake dareth not once to take it in any day As Manna would no lothsomnes so this meate will no contempt For the Apostle for that cause saith it to haue bene vnworthely receaued of them Qui hoc non discernebaÌ„t a caeteris cibis vendratione singulariter debita Who did not discerne this thing or make a difference of this thing from other meates by a worshipping singularly 〈◊〉 For straight when he had said he eateth and drinketh damnation to him selfe he said moreouer Non diiudicans corpus domini not discerning our Lords body the which appereth sufâ—…iently in all that place in the first epistle to the Coriâ—…thians if it be diligently marked Thus far S. Augustine whose wordes I haue rehersed the more fully to thintent by the whole argument the Reader might the better iudge his minde His answer in effect is the honour of the Sacrament is the thing chefely to be attended which sith it is honoured both of him that for honours sake doth receaue and of him who for honours sake doth not receaue eche of theÌ„ auoideth the contempt thereof and sufficiently putteth a difference betwene it and other meats which difference being not put was the cause that some Corinthians did eate this meat vnworthely Note well good Reader what I shall say for this place is marueilouse notable First S. Augustine speaketh euidently of the Sacrament of Christes supper and of Sacramentall receauing 2. He signifieth that this Sacrament must not be dishonoured by any meanes nor despised in minde or fact 3. By dishonouring or despising he meaneth the omitting to geue it due honour in thought or deede so that by all meanes the honour thereof must not be neglected or left vndone 4. We must striue to honour this Sacrament but whether it be done by this or by that meane it skilleth not so it be honoured 5. It is a kind of honour done to it sometyme to receaue it into our mouthes for honours sake sometyme for yâ— same honours sake not to receaue it Put these two notes together and it must nedes be that he meaneth the honouring of that thing which is receaued into our mouthes Then the honouring of yâ— SacrameÌ„t is the honouring of that which semeth bread and wine but if it were in dede the substance of bread and wine he would ueuer exhorte vs to be so carefull how to honour a mere creature were it neuer so greate a signe But let vs yet goe forward 6. The Sacrament which is taken into our mouthes is also called a kind of meate cibus ille that meate 7. It is that kind of meate which the Apostle would to be separated for honours sake from other meates 8. What call ye separating for honours sake He answereth it was a fault not to seperate it veneratione singulariter debita with a worship singularly due 9. what is a worshipping singularly due but such a worshipping of which sorte there is but one For that is singular which is alone and which hath no fellow 10. Such a worshipping that only is which is due to God for as he hath no fellow in nature so he hath no partaker in honour and worship Therefore the SacrameÌ„t or that meat which sometimes for honours sake we receaue into our mouthes and sometymes for honours sake we absteine from that selfe same substaÌ„ce is to be honoured of vs with a singular duety of worshipping or with a worshipping due in a singular manner that is to say with godly honour I seke not hereby to declare only that S. Augustine is of the mind to haue the Sacrament and the meate receaued into our mouthes to be worshipped with a singular duety but much more to shew that he affirmeth S. Paule to meane so For the fault of the Corinthians was not to discerne this meat with a worshipping singularly due For if they had worshipped it as it ought to be worshipped they would not haue taken it in their mouthes without they had first prepared them selues for the receauing of such a meate so singularly to be worshipped What figuratiue interpretation wil now serue Is not Sacramentum honorare good latine Is not the English of it to honour the Sacrament Is it not plainly said cibum illum discernere à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita to discerne that meate from other meates by a worshipping singularly due Is that a worship which may be geuen to any creature which is not vnited to God The meat in yâ— mouth must be so honoured therefore that in the mouth is yâ— real substaÌ„cial natural body of Christ. The Sacrament must be honoured therefore the substance therein conteined is the body of Christ. Otherwise shall we think that S. Augustine who so diligently always disceâ—…eth yâ— kind of worshipping God shal we think that he wil haue material bread to be discerned and separated froÌ„ meates by a worshipping singularly due Did that greate Clerk so litle vnderstaÌ„d what singular worship was that he gaue that name not only to holy men or to the iust Angels but euen to the vnsensible creatures of bread and wine No no. S. Augustin neuer doubted nor none of all the faithfull but that the SacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar was to be adored with godly honour euen by the doctrine of S. Paule because it conteineth vnder the formes of bread and wine the natural substance of Christes body and blood It is worthy to be remembred that S. Augustine vseth in this place the word Sacramentum for the substance of Christes flesh 〈◊〉 vnder the signe of bread otherwyse he would neuer haue taught that eyther the substance of materiall bread or the forme thereof ought to be honoured For honour can be geuen to no vnreasonable creatures If this kind of vnderstanding the word Sacrament be wel consydered many places in S Augustine otherwise very hard wil be much the easier to perceaue Last of al what should it meane yâ— S. Augustine saith yâ— Sacrament may be honoured by our absteining sometimes from receauing it into our mouthes It Were surely no honor done to God if we should at any moment absteine to fede vpoÌ„ him in faith or spirit Why is it then some honour to his SacrameÌ„t not to be receiued in certaine cases Was it not counted a vertue in yâ— CenturioÌ„ wheÌ„ he said him self to be vnworthy that Christ should enter vnder the roof of his house And yet the same Centurion did not refuse to receaue yâ— effect grace of Christes word into his house There is therefore a difference betwene the corporall coming of Christe into our house or body and betwene the
coming of his grace into our hartes His grace can not come except we first be made mete to receaue it but his body may come to our bodies so may condemne our soules before that we are made mete to receaue it His grace therefore must come first to vs by faith and charitie that we may thereby haue power to receaue worthely afterward his blessed body least if we receaue it vnworthely we take it to our damnation But so great preparation should not be requisite if our bodies receaued none other substance besyde bread and wine for they are of baser degree then eating by faith is But now we may somtime absteine from the Sacrament euen for honour and reuerence whiche we beare to it and yet we may not absteine from eating by faith or spirite Therefore it is a worthier kind of substance which is receaued in the SacrameÌ„t then the grace is which is the effect of spirituall eating And seing it should not be a worthier thing if it were the substance of bread and wine we may be assured the substance of the Sacrament to be that selfe body whereof the Centurion sayd Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roof It is the honour of that body whiche S. Paul and S. Augustine respect and not the honour of bread and wine in so much that the faithfull as well in the Greke as in the Latin Churche haue vsed alwaâ—…s the very same wordes in adoring the Sacracrament whiche the Centurion vsed to Christ. one praier to one Lord the same reuerence to the same God and man ¶ That the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ did adore the body and blood of Christe in the Sacrament of the altar DIonysius Areopagita scholer to S Paule made a praier to the Sacrament of the Altar in these wordes Sed ô tu diuinum sanctumque Sacramentum c. but o thou diuine and holy Sacrament open and display clerely to vs as it were the veyles and clokes wherewith thorough the signes of obscurities thou art couered and fill the eyes of our vnderstanding with suche clere light as may no more be dymmed Thus did that auncient Father pray not to bread and wine ye may be sure but to that blessed body of our Lord which is present in the mysteries Upon whiche place Pachymeres noteth that S. Dionisius speaketh vnto the Sacrament as being a thig which hath sense and life and that worthely For so the greate diuine Gregory saith But o passouer that great I say and holy passouer For that our passouer and this self holy Sacrament our Lord Iesus Christ him self is to whoÌ„ the holy man spâ—…aketh Lo this selfe holy Sacrament is Christ. And as nothing in the world is our great and holy passouer besyde Christ him selfe so this holy Sacrament hath none other substance at all besyde the substance of Iesus Christ who couereth him selfe as it were with the veyles of bread and wine As you haue heard the most direct wordes of S. Dionysius adoring this blessed mystery and of Pachymeres geuing the reason why he did speake vnto it as the which is Christe him selfe now you shal perceaue that all the other Fathers did beleue the same in so much as all men will graunt that they must needes adore that thing which they confessed to be either Christ or God or one in person with the sonne of God S. â—…yprian writing of the Sacrament of Christes supper saith In sacrificio quod Christus est non nisi Christus sequendus est In the sacrifice which is Christ only Christ must be followed It is knowâ—…ll well what sacrifice we offer how we take bread and wine coÌ„secrating them by the wordes of the last supper wherein it was said This is my body and this is my blood doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me This consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is our sacrifice and because Christ is not diuided nor dieth any more but where his body and blood is there him selfe is therefore S. Cyprian saieth Our sacâ—…ifice is Christ. Neither doth he speake of the death and passion where Christ was our sacrifice bloodily but he speaketh of the sâ—…pper of our Lord where we daily sacrifice Christ vnbloodily For he speaketh of yâ— matter of coÌ„secration which he saith must be wine mingled with water and not water alone because Christ made his owne blood of wine mingled with water Now saith S. Cyprian In the sacrifice which is Christ none must be followed but Christ. If our sacrifice be Christ because of bread and wine which we bring foorth the body and blood of Christ is made by his word is it possible that Christe should not be worshipped of S. â—…yprian with godly honour If Christ be so worshipped and our sacrifice be Christ our sacrifice must be worshipped with Godly honour our sacrifice I say because the thing that is made by coÌ„secration is none other besyde that body of Christe which is the price of the world and the only sacrifice for mankinde The same thing S. Ambrose saith euen as expressie of the Sacrament which S. Cyprian speaketh of the sacrifice In illo SacrameÌ„to Christus est quia corpus Christi in that Sacrament Christe is because it is the body of Christe To the same purpose apperteine the words of S. Ignatius calling this Sacrament the bread of God the heauenly bread the bread of life which thing saith he is the flesh of Christe the Sonne of God And of S. Ambrose calling it the nourishment of the diuine substance And of Eusebius Pamphili calling it Sacrificium Deo plenum And againe horroreÌ„ afferentia mensae Christi sacrificia a sacrifice full of God and the sacrifices of the table of Christe making men to tremble and quake And of Cyrillus saying those that receaue those mysteries to be made diuinae naturae participes Partakers of the diuine nature And again corporaliter in nobis Christum habitare participatione naturali that by these mysteries Christe dwelleth in vs corporally and by naturall partaking And of Isychius calling the same mysteries the bread of life panes mysticos viuificantes and mysticall loaues and those which quicken vs to life euerlasting And is it to be thought that Christ that the bread of God of life the diuine substance the sacrifice full of God which maketh men tremble quake that yâ— mysteries which cause Christe corporally to dwell in vs yâ— the nature of God whereof we are partakers by eating that the Sacrament of Christes supper being al this yet should not haue godly honour done to it Did al the Fathers who wrote thus of that mysterie honour and worship it according to their own doctrine and writings If all they and al the rest did professe that which was vpon yâ— table of Christ
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
Epiphanius Who so beleueth not the saying to be true as him self spake it is fallen from grace and saluation Cyrillus Hierosolymitatus Seing Christ him self affirmeth so and sayth of the bread This is my body Who hereafter may be so bolde as to doubte S. Ambrosius Our Lord Iesus him self geueth witnes vnto vs that we take his body and blood Ought we any thing to doubte of his fidelitie and witnesbearing S. Chrysostome Because our Lord sayd This is my body let vs be intangled with no doubtfulnes but let vs beleue and see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Eusebins Emissenns Let all doubtfulnes of infidelitie depart for so much as the author of the gift him self also is witnes of the truth S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Doubt not whether it be true sith Christ sayth manifestly This is my body But rather take y◠word of our Sauiour in faith for seing he is y◠truth he lieth not And againe Let vs take great aduantage by the synnes of other men Geuing stedfast faith vnto the mysteries Let vs neuer in so high matters either thinke or speake that word Quomodo How S. Gregorius Nazianzenus Eate the body and drink the blood without confusion or doubte if at the least thou arte desirouse of life Neither do thou withdraw faith from the sayings which concerne the flesh The same thing S. Hilary Leo Isychius Theophylact Paschasius and diuerse others haue spoken requiring vs not to doubte of the truth of this mysterie and that specially because Christes words make full persuasion and take away al occasion of doubting But if they be figuratiue it is not so for then one may vnderstand this kinde of figure an other that kinde One may thinke it to be a Metaphore An other that it is Synechdoche The third that it is Metonymia The fourth that it is altogether an Allegorie or parable and without all ground of Historie Others doubt not to expound This is my body as if it were sayd in this with this or vnder this or about this my body is Yea from that day wherein the proper and natural sense of those words was denied I thinke neuer any words haue bene more vncertayne and more doubted of then This is my body Yet the Fathers were so farre from this vncertaintie that they counted him an infidell and ◅allen from grace and saluation who so did not beleue them euen as Christ spake them To wit euen so as they sound at the first sight If the truth of Christes body be the reall substance thereof they that intreating of the Eucharist affirme y◠truth of his flesh must nedes meane that his substance is really present in that Sacrament whereof they speake S. Hilarius speaking of the holy mysteries sayth There is left no place of doubting of the truth of flesh and blood Yet surely if the substance of flesh and blood were not present not only some place but the chief place of doubting were left S. Ambrosius It is the true flesh of Christ which we take Doubt ye nothing at all sayeth Leo concerning the truth of Christes body By like he spake to Catholikes for doubtlesse the Sacramentaries doubt so vehemently thereof that they beleue the truth of Christes body to be only at the right hand of his Father Isychius He receaueth by ignorance who knoweth not this to be the body and blood according to the truth Damascenus The bread and wine is not the figure of Christes body and blood God forbid But it is the self deified body of our Lorde The like assertion Theophylact Euthymius and diuerse other Fathers haue They that name the supper of Christ a figure a Sacrament or a remembrance do not therby exclude the true substāce of Christes flesh but they meane to shew that it is present vnder the signe of an other thing after a mysticall and secret maner S. Cyprian The diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it self in the visible Sacrament S. Hilarius We take in dede the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie Lo the flesh the substance of God is present in truth but vnder a signe Ty◅illus Hierosolymitanus Vnder the figure of bread the body is geuen to thee Who now knowing the Sacrament to consist of two parts wil wonder that sometyme it is named of the one and sometyme of the other S. Augustine The body and blood of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which is visibly receaued in the Sacrament be in the truth it self eaten spiritually B◅holde there is a thing in the Sacrament and so really it is there that it is visibly receaued Therefore it is not a spirituall thing only for no such matter is visibly receaued but it is there and thence it must be eaten spiritually and in y◠truth it self That is to say it must not only be taken into the mouth but into the hart also then it shal be life vnto the receauer This thing so receaued in the Sa cramēt must nedes be the body of Christ vnder y◠forme of bread for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually It were to rediouse to allege all that S. Augustine hath writen in this behalf but his other words being conferred with these wil make it plaine that whensoeuer he nameth it a figure he meaneth the truth hidden vnder a figure which is more shortly named a mysticall figure He that allegeth cause why the flesh and blood of Christ is not seen in the mysteries presupposeth albeit an vnuisible yet a most reall presence thereof S. Ambrose sayth it is not seen in his owne forme Vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis To th' end there may be no lothsome abhorring of raw blood and yet that the price of our redemption may work So that by his iudgement the truth of blood is present to worke in vs the effect of Christes death and yet the foorm of blood is not seen because we should not abhorre to drink it Theophylact Although it seme bread to vs it is chaunged by vnspeakable operation Because we are weake and abhorre to eat rawe flesh specially the flesh of a man and therefore it semeth bread but in dede it is flesh If these words can be glosed with a figure then I know not what shall escape the hands of these figure makers They that acknowledge a change of the substāce of bread into Christes body must nedes meane a real presence of that body whereinto the change is made When Iustinus Martyr denyeth vs to take the things consecrated as common bread and drinke shewing also that we haue learned them to be not only sanctified in qualitie but to be the flesh and blood of Christ which is an other substance he doth vs to vnderstand that he meaneth them not to be after consecration the substance of common
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
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
Augustine when he sayeth He will not geue his body in that maner as you thinke As who should say he will geue it one way but not that way as you Capharnaites imagine He will not geue a shoulder to one and a leg to an other But the supper sheweth the maner of the geuing Where bread was taken and after blessing and the words pronounced Christes body was geuen to the mouthes of the Apostles Iuel This is the table for Egles and not for Iayes sayth Chrysostom San. I haue answered your iangling talk of Iayes in my iâ—… booke the. xxviâ—… Chapiter And haue turâ—…ed it vppon your own head Iuel S. 〈◊〉 let vs goe vp with the Lord into heauen into that greatparlar and receaue of him aboue the cup of the new â—…estament â–ª San. Certein men had imagined that Christ should reign corporally in earth a thousand yeres together drinke a new kind of wine who grounded their heresie vpon these words of Christ I say vnto you I will not drinke from hencefoorth of this frute of the vine vntill the day when I will drink it new with you in the Kingdome of my Father S. Hierom calling that 〈◊〉 Iudaicas fabulas Iewish tales therwith declareth what kind of wine we must drink in the Kingdome of God which is the Church saying Si ergo panis qui de coelo caet If then the bread which came down from heauen be the body of our Lord and the wine which he gaue to the Disciples be his blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of synnes let vs repell Iewish fables let vs ascend with our Lord vnto yâ— great parlar spread and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cup of the new Testament Hitherto S. Hierom. whose authâ—… ritie M. Iuel hath abused diuerse ways First you adde to S. Hierom these two words into heauen without cause For it folowed in S. Hierom whither we should ascend coenaculum magnum vnto the great parlar there to take of Christ the blooâ—… of the new Testament aboue that is to say not in the stalenes of the letter but in the newnes of the spirit as it foloweth afterward And yet againe more plainly in regno Ecclesiae in the Kingdome of the Church And last of all Impleamus opus eius Christus nobiscum bibet in regno Ecclesiae sanguinem suum Let vs fulfill his work and Christ will drinke with vs in the Kingdome of the Church his blood Thus it is plaiue that S. Hierome spake not of going into heauen by faith to drink the cup of the new Testament but oâ—… going vp into the great parlar which is the Church and Kingdome of God S. Hierom alluded to the Historie of Christes last supper which was kept in a parlar spread and strawed as it is thought in the mount Syon Let vs goe thither sayth S. Hierom there let vs receane the new wine whereof Christ spake S. Chrysostom also alluded to the same parlar saying yâ— Christ maketh this supper which now his Priests doe consecrate as well as he made that wherein he deliuered his owne banket Hoc est illud coenaculum caet This is that parlar wherein Christ was then with his Disciples Hence he went to yâ— mount of Oliues â–ª which sith it is so it was very euill done of M. Iuel to diuide the verb from his accusatiue case and to put an other â—…oun betwene against all reason grammar and honestie S. Hierom sayd ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum 〈◊〉 vs goe vp with our Lord to the parlar M. Iuel putteth the noun in coelum into heauen betwene As if when a man sayd let vs goe vp to the chamber he wold put an other word beâ—… and say let vs goe vp into the sliple into that chamber For after he had conueyed into S. Hierom his words into heâ—… uen he secondly turned coenaculum that parlar where is that in S. Hierom M. Iuel That was of your putting in to make vs beleue that heauen is the parlar whereof S. Hierom spake Thirdly M. Iuel left out these â–ª words which went immediatly before and shew in what respect S. Hierom spake of going vp Iudaicas fabulas repellamus Let vs put away Iewish fables and so let vs goc vp with our Lord to the great parlar by keping that which Christ instituted and by leauing other fables Fourthly whereas in the same very question it foloweth that not Moyses but our Lord Iesus gaue vs the true bread himself eating and being he that is eaten How can M. Iuel find in his hart to allege this place of S. Hierom against the reall presence For how is our bread more true then the bread of Moyses if at Christes supper we must goe vp into heauen to eate it Might not Moyses eating Manna doe the same How is Christ the maker of the feast and the meate it selfe if common bread be eaten and not his flesh Is common bread the maker of the feast If not the maker of the seast neither is it the meate for al is one saith S. Hierom. Iuel Cyrillus saith our Sacrament anoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the minds of the vnfaithfull in vngodly maner to grosse or flesh cogitations Sand. A man would scant beleue how wickedly this place is abused First these are not the words of S. Cyrill â–ª next he neuer meaÌ„t not so much as by dreame any such thing as M. Iuel doth father vppon him His own words are spoken vpon such occasion Nestorius the Heretike sayd that Christ had two persons and that his â—…hod was not â—…nited 〈◊〉 one person to the sonne of God Against whom S. Cyrill saith in that place proprium â—…orpus dicimus factum esse verbi non hominis alicuius seorsum separatim we say the body of Christ to be made proper of the word that is to say to be the words own body and not to be the body of any man apart or separated Nestorius replied out of Christes words He that eateth my flesh tarieth in me what eate we sayd the heretike the Godhead or the flesh meaning therby to conclude that seing the Godhead can not be eaten with our mouth yet the flesh was really eaten that there was one person of the Godhead an other of the flesh Cyrillus answereth Doest thou then affirm that there is an other sonne and Christ besyde the word coming from God the which hath appered to whoÌ„ alone the matter of Apostleship may be coÌ„mitted Now follow yâ— words corrupted by M. Iuel Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc sacramentuÌ„ pronuncias doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man M. Iuel turneth these words as though S. Cyrillus had set foorth a doctrine of his own without any respect to the heresie of Nestorius but the
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
he applieth the answere made by S. Hilarie concerning the vnion betwene our selues by faith as though he had sayd it of Christes vnion with vs. a matter of great weight is so shamefully belied He writeth things expressly contrary as that by faith Christes body dwelleth in our bodies really and corporally and that Christ dwelleth in vs not really or bodily but because his faith is in vs. Againe what contradiction is it to say all accidentall coniunction is remoued and yet not to graâ—…nt a reall and substantiall coniunction to say the Sacrament is taken with our mouthes and that we vndontedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament and yet that Christes body is not receaued into our mouthes really but by faith only That our coniunction with Christ is called corporall because it is spirituall He vseth a point of so great and shamefull dishonesty as one boy in scholes wold not vse in reasoning against an other Making D. Harding to reason so as he neuer thought os as to say 1. The Capharnaites mistoke Christes words 2. Christ speaketh of his ascension 3. We eate not the flesh that was crucified Uppon euery of which propositions and many suche like he maketh D. Harding conclude ergo Christes body is really in the Sacramâ—…nt Either falsifying the whole argument or leauing out a principall part or putting that in one part which should haue stode in an other And when he hath done his feat then to amend the matter he is wont to come in with a But M. Harding will say cet A man of good conscience and of learning wil rather make his aduersaries reasons stronger and then answere them when they are at the worst then to dissemble the strength of them and only to blere mens eyes with defacing his Aduersaries strong argument by falsifying his proof D. Harding requireth only that men of vnderstanding wil vouthsafe to reade his words againe after M. Iuel hath made his argument and then to consider his vnhonest report a witnesse of his euill conscience He falsifieth the doctours by making them to say more then they do say He putteth into S. Hierom these three words into heauen that whiche doe vtterly change the sense He reporteth that S. Augustine teache th the olde Fathers to haue eaten the selfe same body that is receaued now of the faithful all the which wordes are forged In the words of Cyrillus he did put in these three wordes non aliud quà m He maketh S. Hilarie to say that we are one with Christ by faith naturally He leaueth out certein words of the doctours whiche were of importance touching the principall question The nominatiue case in the B. of Rochesters words conueying in also a false nominatiue case in steede of the true In S. Augustines wordes in one place he left out the genitiue case vnitatis and huius rei and in the same place the verbe praeparatur in mensa Domini In the third place the noune adiâ—…ctiue spiritualem wherein the whole weight of the cause rested in the fourth the ablatiue case in ipso eius corpore constituti In Anacletus he left out Chrismati putting in oleo for it In Alexander he omitted MissaruÌ„ solennia In englishing yâ— wordes of BonaueÌ„ture he left out the adueâ—… essentially In S. HieroÌ„ he left out repellamus Iudaicas fabulas which wold haue shewed whereof he spake In alleging â—…usebins Emissenus he left out three linesin yâ— miâ—…dest ioyning yâ— foormer part with the later He affirmeth Gregorie Nyssen not to speake one worde of the Sacrament and therein formeth D. Hardings argument Christ is borne of the virgin ergo his body is really in the Sacrment whereas Gregorie Nyssen said cleane contrarie Christ is made meate to to the body ergo he was borne of the virgin and thereof D. Harding concluded ergo he was as really made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament as euer he was really borne sithe his being real meate proueth his birth He saith one Iohn Scote and Bertram wrote openly against the real presence with good contentation of the world a more impudent lye was neuer vttered by man He disgraceth S. Hilarie and priuily fathereth vppon him a great blasphemy as though he taught that we are one with God the Father and the sonne in nature of the Godhead whereas his mind was nothing so as I haue declared before He calleth the Fathers wordes spoken in the matter which is in question betwen D. Harding him hot violent rigorouse excessiue therein plainly yelding him selfe giltie that he ought to subsribe as who would not find fault with those three most lerned and auncient Fathers words Hilarie Chrysostome Cyrill vnlesse he clerely saw them to speake vtterly against his doctrin I beseche God to geue him grace to amend these enormouse faults It is better M. Iuel once to subscribe hartely then to be damned for euer Now to leaue M. Iuel and to speake these few words to thee good Christian Reader I chose to speake so copiously of this argumeÌ„t partly because it is the safer way to offend in that side partly because this one questioÌ„ is the ground of a great number â—…oe whiche depend of it For if the body and blood of Christ be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine which thing nowe is most fully proâ—…d there is no doubt of transubstantiation as the which is the most conueâ—…ient way to make the body present Againe wheresoeuer that body is it can not be but a propitiatory sacrifice sith it is the substance once bloodily sacrificed wherein the merite of that sacrifice still remaineth Thirdly seing that body being risen from death dieth no more the whole must nedes be vnder eche soorme and therefore albeit the consecration muste be necessarily made in two kindes to represent the death of Christ where his blood was apart from his flesh yet no lesse merite vertue grace cometh to him who receaueth worthely one kind alone then if he receaued both together Fourthly there can be no dout but the body of the sonne of God both ought to be adored being present for vs may be preserued for our necessity So that all these truthes and many moe depend of this one wherein the reall body of Christ is proued to be present in the Sacrament And seing it is proued present by the word of God as it hath bene declared in the third fourth and fifth bookes seing it hath bene taught to be adored as it is declared in my sixth booke seing it is 〈◊〉 to be taken into our 〈◊〉 mouthes and bodies and to nourish our very flesh to resurrection to be made meate to our bodies which haue neither faith nor spirit but only flesh and bones to receaue
the bread of Christes supper to wit the subsâ—… of his own body is one to all But the eating by faith is not one to all It is the body which is one Therefore 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople writeth Post eleuationem statim partitio diuini corporis fit Verum enim vero tametsi in partes diuiditur indiuiduus insectus in singulis partibus sectorum totus agnoscitur inuenitur Aster the eleuation which among the Breakes was done immediatly before the communion by by a partition of the diuine body is made But truly although he be diuided into parts yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided 〈◊〉 and whole in euery part of the things which are cut what is this to say but that the forme of bread is only broken and the substance of Christes body 〈◊〉 whole vnder euery peece of the sayd 〈◊〉 But what speake I of the Fathers S. Paule sayeth The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body Because we being many are one bread one body For so much as we all partake of the one bread If the bread be broken how partake we all of one bread That which is broken is not according to the course of nature one in number And surely the Corinthians had more then one loaf which was broken among them And yet S. Paule hauing shewed that we breake a kind of bread sayeth Be we neuer so many we partake all of the one bread How is that but because the bread which we breake is no materiall bread but how many loaues so euer there were before after it is once sayd 〈◊〉 them This is my body euery one of them is turned into that one bread which is Iesus Christ. And that bread is distributed vnder the formes of commoÌ„ bread and so is the scripture instified which sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body And therefore that body being one bread it self maketh all vs one bread which partake of that one bread ¶ The xiij circumstance of geuing It is not to be thought that Christ deliuered first the fragmeÌ„ts of bread vnto his Apostles and then sayd the words of consecration for then he had not deliuered them a Sacrament but only had geuen them the matter and element whereof the Sacrament should be made but seing S. Paule saith yâ— bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body we must rather iudge that he had consecrated his body before he brake as who intended by breaking to distribute the Sacrament which was already made And consequentlie as the Sacrament was made being yet in Christes own handes or lying vppon the table before him so it was deliuered with his own hands and by none other way that euer I can reade of vnto his Apostles but Christ had willed them before not to work the perishing but the euerlasting meate which the sonne of man should geue them which he shewed afterward to be his flesh and now fulfilling his promise he geueth the same euerlasting meate with his own hands which could not be so except the sayd euerlasting meate were vnder the form of bread or in the chalice which only the Apostles doe see in Christes hands therefore it is inuincibly proued by the word of God that Christes body which is the euerlasting meate was and is geuen to them that communicate vnder the formes of bread and wine What soeuer is sayd of spirituall meate comming down from heauen as to be a part of Christes supper it is vtterly voyd and without all ground of Christes institution wherein that Apostles are bound to rest vppon that onlye which Christ doth corporally geue and when he is readen to geue the which was done with his hands for vs at the same tyme to looke beyond him as if an other way more might be had then at his own hands it is a horrible blasphemie and a reprouing of his gift as insufficient He sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate the Ghospell saith he gaue at his supper saying this is my body the Catholikes beleue that he theÌ„ gaue the same euerlasting meate which he had promised to wit his own flesh and blood the Sacramentaries say he gaue it not with his own hands I say there is none other way of geuing mentioned in the supper and yet there only was the flesh of Christ to be geuen as the Sacrament it self declareth being called the body and blood of Christ. I allege S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke S. Paule where it is writen that Christ brake and gaue I think our 〈◊〉 will not deuie that gift of his to haue bene made with Christes corporal handes â–ª therein I beleue his promisse to haue bene fulfilled therein the spirituall and euerlasting meate to haue bene deliuered S. Iohn witnesseth that Christ said dabo I wil geue the which is not meant only of a geuing by faith for so Christ had alreadie geuen his flesh to diuerse men but it was meant of geuing by hands after which sort he had not yet geuen now the other fower 〈◊〉 before witnesse that our lord in his supper dedit gaue I say this later word fulfilled the former promise I aske our Sacramentaries what other Ghospell they can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any tyme his promise of geuing the bread which was his flesh and the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting pardon me good reader if in so weightie a matter zeale force to 〈◊〉 out vpoÌ„ these false preachers of Gods word You cruell murderers of Christian soules where is that euerlasting meate geuen by your false glosing which Christ promised and called it his flesh is it not geuen at his own supper where then is it geuen at Christes table by which word shew you that gift if not by the word dedit he gaue if that word shew it that word signifieth a gift of that which was broken mystically deliuered with Christes hands appearing still bread therefore vnder the forme of that bread Christes flesh was geuen which is the meate that tariâ—…th to life euerlasting I speake so earnestly to th' end I might prouoke you to come to the trial of these effectual points in Gods word ¶ The xiiii Circumstance of saying WOrds be somtyme applied to the decking and garnishing of á matter the which without theÌ„ might doe right wel albeit it doth the better through their help But when the thing standeth so that either nothing at al can be vnderstanded without words or the cheife part of the businesse wil be hindered for lack of theÌ„ in that case they are by al meanes as most necessarie so most diligently to be obserued as for example we could know nothing that belongeth to 〈◊〉 matters if God reueled it not vnto vs by his only soÌ„ne by Angels Apostles prophets or other his seruants For this reason those words are moste carefully to be weighed which
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