are infected withall His discourse is to long to write it all in this place so muche as apperteineth to my purpose I will translate into English Quemadmodum qui per insidias venenum hauserunt caetera As those that by 〈◊〉 haue drunk in poyson doe by an other medicine put out the strength thereof and like as the poyson so the medicine must goe into the bowels that by meane of them help maie be spread throughout the whole body euen so is it to be don of vs. That seing we haue tasted poyson wher with our nature is dissolued we maie receaue a medicine whereby that nature of ours is gathered together that the infection of the poyson maie be expelled by the contrarie and holsome strength of the medicine What medicine is this None other beside that body which is declared to be aboue death and the cause of our saluatioÌ„ For as a litle leauen saith the Apostle maketh the whole lump of dow like to it self so that body which is made immortal of God entring into our body doth transferre and change the whole into it self For as if a pestilent thing be mixed with a holsom thing it maketh it hurtfull so the immortall body maketh all that wherein it is receaued of the like nature immortal But it can not enter into the body except it be mingled with the bowels by meate and drink Itaque necessarium est vt natura nostra quoad eius fieri potest vim salutarem intra corpus admittat Therefore it is necessarie that our nature as much as lieth in it do receaue that healthfull strength within the body And seing none other thing beside that diuine body of Christ hath receaued such grace to heale our sicknes and seing it hath ben shewed it can not be our bodies should attein to immortality vnlesse they be ioyned with the immortall body and so obtein incorruption it is to be consydered how it maie be brought to passe whereas that one body continually through the whole world is geuen to so many thousands of faithfull men the whole maie become euery mans for his part and 〈◊〉 tarie whole in it felf Consequently Gregorius goeth forward to shew how that 〈◊〉 be and he sheweth it to be brought to passe whiles bread and wine wherwith Christ was nourished in this mortal life and the which by the power of altering and 〈◊〉 were daily turned into his flesh and blood be now also in his holy Sacraments turned by the consecration of his blessing and by his words into his own body and blood For by that meanes he proueth it possible that Christes whole body should both be geuen to euery man a part and yet remain whole in it self But hereof we shall speak an other tyme. All that apperteined to my present purpose was to declare out of S. Bregorie of Nyssa who liued about twelue hundred yeres past that syth Christ hath made his body and blood in the blessed Sacrament of the altar a medicine against that poyson which AdaÌ„ first and in him all we tooke by tasting the apple against the commandement of God it is not only profitable but 〈◊〉 that as the poysoned apple entred in at Adams mouth and was not only receaued by faith spirit and vnderstanding but by hand tong iawes and was digested into his bowells and so poysoned all his flesh blood whereby the flesh that we tooke of Adam was also 〈◊〉 and poysoned and our soules vnited to that infected flesh were also infected euen so yâ— medicine which is the body and blood of Christ made of bread and wine must not only be receaued by faith spirit and vnderstanding neither only the figure of it must be receaued in at our mouthes and so be 〈◊〉 into our bowels but the body of Christ it self must come to our bodyes and it must be receaued as really into them by our mouthes as euer the apple came into the mouth of Adam Who euer heard that when a mans body was really poysoned it should be sufficient to think vpon a certain true medicine and to receaue withal the figure or signe therof into his body not at all touching and receauing really the medicine it self And yet surely they that teache the body of Christ to be 〈◊〉 into our bodies only by bread and wine the figures therof and into our soules by faith and spirit doâ—… manifestly tell him that is bodily poysoned that it is enough for him to think in his mind vpon mithridaâ—…icum or some other medicine and to receaue the token thereof into his body Such is the physike and yâ— diuinitie of the Caluinists Before that Adam had tasted of the apple he was gâ—…tie of death in the sight of God concerning his own person and soule in so much as in his hart he consented to taste thereof at his wyfes request For he did not taste it so hastely but that he first intended so to doe yea S. Augustine saith it is not to be thought yâ— deuyll should haue throwen doune Adam except a certain pride had ben first in his mynde But when he tooke the apple into his mouth to the eating whereof his hart had allready yelded then had he brought the inward disobedience into the outward acte so that he was inexcusable not only before God but in the sight of angels of his wife and of all creatures his hands his eyes his mouth his throte and stomack was now wytnes against hym Thence came the dredfull necessitie of death to all the children of Adam it was the tasting of his flesh which made all our flesh so farre gilty That polluted body could not beget innocent children with vncleane sede Well Christ is the second Adam which taketh away this obligation and bond of death that lay on our neckes and he taketh it away nâ—…t by force but by iâ—…stice changing and recompensing all that was before done amysse For the corrupt generatioÌ„ which we haue by the sede of Adam he geueth vs a new byrth in the Sa crament of water and renuing of the holy Ghost in which baptism our soule only is not cleansed but our body also is washed For the fruyt of death which Adam did â—…ate as well in mouth as hart he hath geuen the apple of lyfe as well to be eaten in our mouthes as in ouâ—… haâ—…tes so that as the olde Adam caryed a wytnes of damnation for hym and his posteritie in all his membres so doth the new Adam with his children cary the witnes of lyfe in all their membres They haue God and man not in hart alone but also in a Sacrament yea in their â—…ands in their mouthes in their bodyes and become one with the flesh of Christ which they eate as the apple which Adam did eate became one with his flesh This was the supper that Christ came to make not to gâ—…ue bread and wyne not to make figures and shadowes
agreed for all scâ—…iptures call it the body and some doctours call it a signe But if these thinges can not both be true together awase with signes awaie with tokens let the worde of God be heard which saieth This is mâ—… body This is my blood Is it reason we obeie men or God If both stand in one degree men keping them selues vnder God let both be obeyed But if men draw from God he is more worth alone then all the men of the world What 〈◊〉 we now Will the sigâ—…e of the body and the body it selâ—…e stand together or no If not let the signe of the body which is not in scripture geue place let the body it selfe which is often times found there tarie still If the signe and the truth can not stand together the Sacramentaries must nedes be condemned who denie the truth which is in the scripture and preferre the signe before it which is not in the scripture If the signe truth doe both stand together yâ— Sacramentaries onlesse they repent be condemned because they denie the one part of yâ— twaine For they denie the true presence of Christs body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine In what case stand these defenders which still be in state of damnation whatsoeuer be concluded true We verely teach and beleue the figure and the truth to stand together the supper of our Lord to be the signe of Christes body and to be his owne body The weaker part is the signe the greater is the truth But both doe not only stand together in one Sacrament but farther more the true nature of euerie Sacrament of Christ is to haue both that is â—…aie to haue oue certaine truth one certaine signe of the same truth The truth is hidden vnder the signe the signe is witnes of the truth Which thing once being declared you shall see the vaine doctrine of this Apologie with what kind of worthy Schoolâ—… the English Church is nowe gouerned to the greate 〈◊〉 and destruction of Christian soules Pardon me good reader if I stand somewhat long vpon the name of a Sacrament for in that word lieth hidden all the poyson of the Sacramentarie doctrine ¶ That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament GEue diligent care good Reader to the doctrine folowing Because as it is most true and profitable so is it somewhat hard I will shew that suche a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must nedes haue the same truth present whereof it is the Sacrament or holy signe The naturall sonne of God tooke naturall flesh of the virgin Marie to th' intent he being oâ—…e persone and there in hauing his humane nature common with men and his diuine common with God might by that meanes reconcile man to God againe His diuine personne staied in it the nature of man his manhod partly couered the diuine nature from the eyes of mortall men partly by maruelous signes and workes shewed the same to the faith of 〈◊〉 men Liâ—…ewise man consisteth of two parts of a soule inuisible and of a visible body The soule ruleth and gouerneth the body And the body sheweth to others by outward tokens what the soule thinketh and inwardly worketh Christ therefore intending to leaue certayn holy mysteries vnto his Church thereby to 〈◊〉 to her the fruite of his passion and death as well for regard of his owne selfe in whose personne two natures were vnited as for regard of vs who coÌ„siste of body and soule made the sayd holy Sacramentes to be of a dubble sort and nature so that the one part thereof might appere to the senses the other should lye priuie and only be seene by faith But as the outward workes and doctrine of Christ were vndoubted testimonies of the inward Godhed really present so the outward signe which is in the Sacraments is a most euident witnesse of the inward grace which they worke really present in them Aâ—…ter this sort Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme that we might be newly borne and regenerated of water and of the holy Ghost as him selfe sayd to 〈◊〉 For the outward wasshing of the body in the naâ—…e of the Trinitie is an euident signe that the holy Ghost at the same instant by the meane of the word and water inwardly wassheth yâ— soule from synne Therefore S. Paul sayeth God hath saued vs by the wasshing of water and of the renewing of the holy Ghost The which holy scriptures S. Augustine embracing sayeth Aqua exhibens forinsecus Sacramentum gratiae spiritus operans intrinsecus beneficium gratiae regenerat hominem in vno Christo ex vno Adam generatum Water geuing outwardly the Sacrament or holy signe of grace and the holy Ghost working inwardly the benefite of grace begetteth man againe in one Christ which was begotten of one Adam Water is the outward signe Grace is yâ— inward benefite The outward water which wassheth the body is the signe of the inward grace which is wrought vpon the souâ—…e Here thou seest good Reader the signe of a thing and the thing it selfe to agree so well that the one is alwayes depending of the other Much lesse doth one of them hinder the other Except any man will say that Christ was not God in dede because his works were tokens signes of his Godhead which were a detestable saying Likewise the supper of Christ is both a signe of his body also his true body A signe outwardly the true body inwardly A signe by yâ— sound of words when it is first made a truth by the inward working of the holy Ghost by the meanes of the words of the censecration For as when the Priest spâ—…inkleth or dippeth the child in water saying 〈◊〉 wass he the in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost At the same moment the holy Ghost wassheth the soule of the person baptized Right so when Christ or any lawfull Priest in his name taking bread blesâ—…ing duely sayeth This is my body making in those words an euident token of his body â—…eally present at the same instant the holy Ghost worketh inwardly the true substance of Jesus Christ really present vnder the forme of bread The outward pronouncing of the words ouer bread and wine is the Sacrament or holy signe that maketh and sheweth Christes body and the inward 〈◊〉 ning of the substance of bread into Christes reall body is the grace which is at the same tyme inuisâ—…bly wrought Thus in holy Scripture the signe of body and the true body stand so welâ—… together that both are true because one is true The which doctrine S. Chrisostom confessing writeth Sacerdotis oreverba proferuntur Et Dei virtute proposita consecrantur gratia Hoc est ait corpus meum hoc verbo proposita
by it selfe aâ—… also being one of those things which doth principally declare the saith of the whole Churche in this behalfe For no man would adore the body of Christ in the Priestes hands or vpon the altar if it were not really present there The Chapiters of the sixth Booke 1. The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the Prophet Dauid in the Psalm 21. 2. Item of the Psalme 98. 3. It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatry to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar 4. The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the new Testament 5. That the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ dyd honour the body blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar 6. The adoration of the body blood of Christ is proued by the custome of the Priestes and people of the first six hundred yeres 7. The reall presence is proued by the doctrine consent of the auncient Fathers 8. Item by the faith of the people 9. That no man can be coÌ„demned for beleuing the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine ¶ The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the Prophete Dauid OF this adoration due to the body of Christ the holy ghost forewarned vs by the Prophete Dauid in that psalme which Christ him selfe hanging vpon the Crosse declared to be literally ment of him selfe and that as well concerning his death whch he suffered for vs as also concerning the memory of the same death which he instituted in the night wherein he was betraied Christ therefore hauing she wed in that psalme the cruelty of Iewes in killing him most humbly asketh of his Father through his manhod that his soule may be deliuered by resurrection from the mouth of yâ— lion promising or vowing therewithal that he will open the name of God vnto his brethren and praise him in the middest of the congregation And when I cried vnto him he heard me If God hath fauorably heard Christ as there can be no doubt but he hath Christ is bouÌ„d by his own promise to praise his Father in a greate Church therefore saith he will doe so adding thereunto I will render or performe my vowes in the sight of them that feare him By what meane wil he performe them It foloweth immediatly Edent pauperes caet The poore shal eate be silled and they that seeke him shal praise the Lord theyr hartes shall liue for euer all the endes of the earth shall remember and be turned to the Lord. All the families of the Gentils shall adore in his sight Because the kingdome is the Lords and him selfe shall beare rule among the nations All that be fat on the earth haue eaten and adored al they that goe doune into the earth shall fall doune before him 1. Christ then â—…or his resurrections sake 2. made a vow to praise God 3. in the great Church of all nations 4. the performance whereof should be stablished by the meanes of eating filling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worshiping â—…ose that after baptism by yâ— grace of God are preserued froÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar 〈◊〉 be filled 〈◊〉 praise God for euer Eating is the acte of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirituall 〈◊〉 is the heauenly effect thereof the praising of God is the fruit of the 〈◊〉 For we 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 are filled to the end we should praise God for euer 〈◊〉 that after 〈◊〉 fall into greate 〈◊〉 partly they so fal that they rise 〈◊〉 and then they remember in yâ— memory of Christes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his last supper is that Christe died for them and so the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 forceth presseth them by penance to returne Partly they so fall that they care not to returne to God but lye wallowing still in their synnes yet they departe not by 〈◊〉 or infidelity out of the Church but kepe stil the bare belefe of Gods truth without performing his â—…dementes Such men eate worship but because they wil not remeÌ„ber be 〈◊〉 to God but come to the table of Christ vnworthely they are not filled by their eating But there are two other kinds of men who sometime haue bene of Christes church but now are not of it of which two the one doth eat and not worship because it beleuâ—…th not the thing eaten to be the flesh of God such are the Zinglians the other doth neither worship nor eate which are the vnfaithfull Iewes who are not only departed from the Catholike Church but also froÌ„ yâ— coÌ„fession of Christ our true Messias of whom S. Pâ—…ule saith we haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle Christ being absent in the visible forme of his body sitting therein at the right hand of his father ruleth his Church reigâ—…eth in it not as the vnfaithfull Iewes thought he would haue done by exâ—…ising violent inâ—…isdiction and subduing the bodies of men by force but he reigneth in yâ— hartes through faith charitie which he geueth vs. This inuisible reigning among visible men requireth for conuenient maâ—…tenance thereof an inuisible kinde of presence concerning the person of the king bâ—…t yet visible concerning the forâ—…ies of bread and wine to theâ—…d his members may know where to worship him For as his Church is visible through the bodies of them whose soules do inuisibly serue him so his body is visible through the formes of bread wine vnder the which it lieth inuisibly distributing the frutes of his death and resurrection All this eating adoring filling raigning and praysing doth chieâ—…ly belong in this place to the Sacrament of Christes body and blood Through those mysteries Christe the bread of life is really eaten wee are filled with grace God is praised in good works reigneth in our hartes we bowe downe to his body and worship him for our maker our King and our Lord. And that this interpretation is not of mine owne making it shall nowe appere S. Hierome vpon those wordes vota mea reddam I wil render my vowes which I promised saith Vota Christi natiuitas vel passio vota Ecclesiae opera bona vel mysterium corporis sanguinis mei offeram cum his qui in eius timore haec celebrant The vowes of Christ are his birth or passion the vowes of the Church are good workes or els I will offer saith Christe the mystery of my body and blood with them who celebrate these thinges in his feare First S. Hierome taketh the vowes of Christ to haue bene the promises that he made to be borne or to die but afterward he geueth an other sense which is more agreable to the letter For Christe had spoken before of his passion
the remembrance of Christes death As the birth of Christ was a true birth but most miraculous withall so is the Sacrament of the altar a true signe and therefore his true body and blood by the great miracle of turning the substance of bread wine in to them This is yâ— signe that Christ made in his last supper This is such a signe as is withall a secret miracle For it is a miracle not shewed to 〈◊〉 but only to the faithfull For as the birth of Christ is a 〈◊〉 to the faithfull only who beleue Christ being God and man truly to haue bene borne of a virgin withouâ—… sede of man by the almighty power of the holy â—…host Right so the suppâ—… of Christ is a sigâ—…e of his body 〈◊〉 blood to the faithfull only who beleue the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine to be â—…urned into his body and blood without 〈◊〉 or corruption by yâ— only 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 oâ—… Chrisâ—… Who sayd after bread taken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my body and this is my blood Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Behold the making of Christes body â—…nd blood â—…or yâ— remembrance of his death that is the signe we speake of This was the memorie or the remembrance whereof Dauid sayd Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors miserator Dominus eseanâ—… dedit timentibus se. Our mercifull graciouse Lord hath made a remembrance of his maruelous works he hath geuen meate to them that feare him And think we that a remembrance of maruelous things is made of God without a miracle S. Cyprian saith the bread to be made slesh Omnipotentia verbi By the allmighty power of the word S. Augustine calleth it Mirabile sacrificium A maruelous sacrifice S. Chrysostom crieth out o miracle o the goodnesse of God he that sitteth aboue with the Father in the self same moment of tyme is touched with the hands of all men If thou ask how it is made saith Damascene it is enough for the to heare that it is made by the holy Ghost euen as our Lord made for him self and in him self a body out of the virgin Mother of God And we know no more but that the word of God is true strenghtfull allmighty Eusebius calleth it Admirabilem exitum oraculi a maruelous euent of the oracle S. Bede nameth it a sanctification of the holy Ghost that can not be vttered by speache The like words haue S. Baâ—…ile S. Gregorins Nyssenus S. â—…ieront Nicephorus This much I thought good briefly to say concerning yâ— manner how the blessed Sacrament of the altar is a signe token figure mysterie remembrance Euery word whereof expounded according to the Gospell and to the state of the new Testament doth proue the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder yâ— foormes of bread and wine It is a Sacrament which outwardly signiâ—… that which is inwardly wrought It is a figure coÌ„teyning the truth figured It is a signe mete for the institution of Christ whose signes are miraculous it is a secret token knowen only to them that beleue It is a remembrance of Christes death by the presence of the body which died What shall I say more It is the body and blood of Christ couered from our eyes reueled to our faith feeding presently our bodies and soules to life euerlasting ¶ 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 THere is a great difference betwen a figure of Rhetorike and a Sacramentall figure made by Christ. The Rhetoricall figures consist in words or sentences the mysticall figures of Christ consist in deeds secret workings Those sometymes sound one way and meane an other way These meane and sound always one thing but they shew it one way and doe it an other way Those chiefly serue the eares of mortall men These chiefly serue the harts of faithfull men Those were found by men these were instituted of God Christ sometime vsed figures of Rhetorike because in taking the nature of man he addicted him selfe to vse the kind of speakiÌ„g which men obserued But now Christians vse yâ— mystical signâ—…es of Christ because he that toke their nature left vnto them the vertue of his almightie Godhead Let noman therâ—…ore think when yâ— supper of our Lorde is called sometime a figure that a Rhetori cal figure is meant it is not so A mystical figure a secrete knowlege a priâ—…ie watch word is vnderstanded by the name of a figure as if Christ should say to his Apostles folowers Let this be a token betwen you and me betwene one of you toward yâ— other that when a faithfull man is washed with water and in the meane tyme it is said ouer him I Baptize the in the name of the Father and of the sonne and of the holy gost straight all synnes are forgeuen him And he is of my flock and receaued into my fold Lett it be again an other couenant or signe betwene vs. When my Apostles or those which are made Priests by them say ouer bread this is my body and ouer wine this is my blood hauing the intent to blesse and geue thanks and to make a remembrance of my death that my body and blood are really present vnder the formes of bread and wine accordingly as my words doe sound These are mystical signes priuie tokens and secret figures to be kept only among the faithfull and not to be published to infidels For as men by vse of speaking haue agreed to transferr certain words from their most proper signification to an other figuratiue custom euen so Christ hath transferred certain natural things to an other mystical vse which is now called in some Fathers by that name of holy signes or figures or tokens or which is most common of all by the name of sacraments or mysteries See good reader to what myserie we are growen He that commeth late from his grammar where he lerned certain figures of construction or he yâ— beginneth his Rhetorik where he more depely entreth into the treatise of tropes and shemes when he readeth in a two peÌ„ny booke the place alleged where it is said in Tertullian this is my body that is to saie the figure of my body he iudgeth owt of hand that Tertullian meaneth a figure of Rhetorik and Decolampadius Caluin or Peter Martir is a mete Scholemaster for him to expound what kind of Rhetorical figure it is verely saithei metonymia or synecdoche Again wheâ—… thei heare S. Augustine affirm that Christ gaue a'signe of his body thei think he meaneth such a signe as is set vp at an ale howse or wine tauern that Doctors meane a peculiar signe and token miraculously instituted by Christ which conteyneth geueth to the faithfull the truthe which it betokeneth This kind of signes and figures concerning the substance of
the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes Here is the Sacramentaries argument I eate bread and drinke wine in token of Christes death resurrection therefore he is dead and risen I pray you Syr how doth this argument hold What affinitie hath bread and wine with the death and with the resurrection of Christ But if bread and wine be turned into the same body blood of Christ which died and rose againe which wrought all the miracles done in this world Then is the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ in dede it selfe set before the eyes of our faith Because as Chrisostom teacheth Hoc idem corpus cruentatum caet This very same body bloudied perced with yâ— speare gaue as it were out of a spring fountaynes of blood healthfull to the whole world And the selfe body God aâ—…anced vnto the highest seate the which body also he gaue to vs both to th' intent we should haue it and to the intent we should eaâ—…e it But what speake I of S. Chrisostom This sayeth Christ is my body which is geuen for you And againe the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world How ofte so euer sayeth S. Paul ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he comme So that the hauing of the death and resurrection and all yâ— miracles of Christ before our eyes at Masse tyme riseth chiefly of yâ— thing which is the body of Christ. And secondarily of the things which are done about that his body The consecrating the offering the eating of the selfe same body which wrought these miracles which died and rose againe those facts I say in that thing shew his death and resurrection All other wayes of setting the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence of Christ is painting and shadowing in comparison of this liuely representation O how many sayeth S. Chrisostom say now adayes I wold see the soorm shape of Christ I would see his very garmentes and shoowes Ipsum igitur vides ipsum taÌ„gis ipsum comedis Lo thou seest him selfe thou touchest him selfe thou eatest him selfe Non quòd corpus illud sayeth Damascen è coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the body of Christ came downe from heauen but because the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. See now good Reader whether the Apologie say more truly that the signe or token of Christes body and blood the body it selfe not being made present vnder the soâ—…nes of bread and wine as it teacheth doe more effectuously set before our eyes that death and resurrection and all the miracles of Christ or els whether the incarnation life death and resurrection of him be not better and more according to the word of God set soorth by the Catholikes who teach that the substance of bread and wine is changed into that body and blood of Christ to th' end the death and resurrection of the same body might be effectually remembred So teacheth S. Cyrillus in these words Prebet Christus nobis carnem suam tangendam c. Christ geueth vs his flesh to be tou ched that we might beleue assuredly that he hath in deed reised his temple For that the communion of mystical blessing is a certayn confession of the resurrection of Christ it is proued by his own words For he distributed the bread after it was broken saying This is my body which shal be geuen for you for the remission of synnes Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore the participation of that mysterie is a certain true confession and remembrance that for our sakes and for vs our Lord both hath died and is reuiued and through that filleth vs with diuine blessing Let vs therefore flee infidelity after the touching of Christ and let vs be found strong and stedfast being far from all doubtfulnesse Thus far S. Cyrillus Who alludeth in that place to S. Thomas the Apostle And as S. Thomas touching the syde of Christ cried out My Lord and my God euen so S. Cyrillus teacheth that we touche the body of Christ when we come to the holy communion For as vnder the visible flesh of Christ his Godhead lay priuie but yet was truly present and had assumpted his flesh into one person euen so vnder the visible foorm of bread the flesh of Christ is really present in the holy mysteries and therefore we touch that flesh when we touche the foorm of bread as S. Thomas did touche the Godhead when he touched the flesh of Christ. For in eche place we touche not either the Godhead or the flesh visibly but by the meane of that thing wherein it is truly present That thing I say receaued of vs doth make his death and resurrection to be remembred Hath not he all that euer Christ did presently before his eyes who hath Christ him selfe present But take Christ awaye and afterward it is a foolish dreame to talke how his deeds be set before our eyes by bread and wine The apparence of bread is the token that Christes body is here to be eaten And the similitude of wine doth shew that his blood is here to be drunken But the true shewing of his death life and resurrection ariseth of that truth which is vnder those foormes When I eate the body that died I shew the death of it because no sacrificed flesh was euer eaten before the host was offered But we eate really the body of Christ therefore our fact crieth that Christ is dead We eate his body aliue hauing the blood and soule in it therefore our fact crieth he is risen again Thus the Ca tholiks reason Let him that hath coÌ„mon sense iudge who goeth nere the truth of the Gospell the Sacramentarie or the Catholike ¶ Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body TO th' intent we should geue thanks for his death and our deliuerance and that by often resorting to the Sacramentes we should continually renew the remembrance thereof These men presuppose we haue a signe or token left vnto vs in bread and wine to geue thanks withall We haue in deed a token but this token though it were made of bread and wine is not bread and wine For Christ in his last supper tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Behold the token wherein Christ both him selfe gaue thanks and would vs to geue thanks in the same The making of his body for vs is the thanksgeuing for his death and for our deliuerance Ipso genere sacrificij sayeth S.
fed at Christes supper with bread and wine that is not in the word of God where it is sayd Eate This is my body The Apologie semeth to say that our bodies be not noâ—…rished with the body and blood of Christ for it assigneth body and blood to our soules as our bodies are fed with bread and wine But Christ gaue his body to noâ—…rish our bodies also And therefore sayd Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you That is as Cyrillus expoundeth it In corpore vestro in your body And therefore on the other syde Christ sayd he that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting and I will reyse him again in the last day Ego sayeth Cyrillus Id est corpus meum quod comedetur I will reyse him that is to say my body which shal be eaten Reysing belongeth to the body which falleth into putrefaction by death As therefore the body is reysed by Christes body so the body liueth in the state of grace by Christes body and such life is by spiritual nutriment which is receaued of the flesh of Christ really present in vs. For which cause Tertullian confessed that not only our soule but also our body seedeth vpon the body and blood of Christ to th' intent our soule may be made fat of God Likewise Ireneus writeth that our flesh is nourishâ—…d of the body and blood of our Lord. We may now see what errour they fall into who assigne the body and blood of Christ to our soules and bread wine to our bodies whereas there is no substance left of bread or wine but euen our bodies feede vpon Christes body as Ireneus Cyrillus and Tertullian haue sayd ¶ Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries AFter the Apologie had spoken of communion vnder both kinds and of transubstautiation of which points as yet I speake not it returneth again in a confuse manner to the matter of the reall presence and thus it sayeth And in speaking thus we meane not to abase the Lords supper or to teache that it is but a cold ceremonie only and nothing to be wrought therein as many falsely slaunder vs we teache If they that pluck down altars and other ornaments of Christes supper if they that call the blessed Sacrament of the altar by so vile names as you and your scholars haue done be not of your number if they be not your derelings if they lerned not that coÌ„tempt of holy things and the denyall of the vnbloody sacrifice of you if they first persuaded not the licenciouse youth and faithlesse companie of men and wâ—…men in EnglaÌ„d rather by blasphemous names geuen to the Eucharist then by any word of God which you stil pretend and neuer allege then let it be thought that you meane not to abase the Lords supper But if you did set all the players and minstrels in the realme a work with such scoffes as your brotherhead inuented against the blessed body and blood of Christ I feare me you be not slaundered when you are sayd to teach it to be but a cold ceremonie sith you doubt not to call euen in this Apologie yâ— honour done to it the worshipping of bread whereas it is in deed the worshipping of the true body and blood of Christ. Wel you teach not that nothing is wrought or made in the supper Then by like you teach that somewhat is wrought there I wold fain see what it is which you teach to be wrought in the sup per. For where you say that Christ geueth him self in his supper that we may eate him by faith You teach a work of Christ in geuing him self a work of ours in eating him but not any thing wrought or made in the supper it self For the supper is that meate which is prouided to be eaten at the table of Christ. There you confesse bread and wine to be taken But seing you teache the same things notwithstanding he speaketh otherwise of them yet to tarie bread and wine stil I can not perceaue what substanciall thing you teachâ—… to be wrought in the supper concerning the matter of the supper which is bread and wine Now concerning the body and blood of Christ which you graunt to be geuen by faith I trow you teache not any thing to be wrought a new and made therein sithens they be impassible and therefore can not haue any thing made in them what is it then which you teache to be made in the supper Either bread and wine is the supper or the body and blood of Christ or both together For nothing els is there mentioned Bread and wine you say remayne still as they were before concerning their substaÌ„ce Then I say nothing is wrought in them The body and blood of Christ can haue nothing wrought in their substance because that wherein somewhat shal be made must suffer of that which worketh it therefore glose the matter how ye will you teache not any substanciall thing to be wrought in the supper of Christ except you call the geastes them selues the supper And then I weâ—…e they must be eaten vp of some body in so much as euery supper is prouided to be eaten We teache the substance of bread and wine to be made the substance of Christes body and blood And that is yâ— true work made in the supper of Christ where the mutable creatures are turned into the immutable substance of Christ. which work sith you deny bable what you wil you teache nothing to be wrought in the supper of Christ. ¶ The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature FOr we affirme that Christ doth truly and presently geue his owne self in his Sacraments in Baptisme that we may put him on and in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite and may haue euerlasting life by his crâ—…sse and blood Heare ye not how they affirme that Christ presently geueth his own self wold not a maÌ„ thinke they meant honestly and truly But sith they can make the words of Christ figuratiue when they lyst wonder not if they require their own words to be taken figuratiuely They meane not that Christ doth geue him self presently to our bodies and soules as is requisite to the presence of the flesh and blood of man why then vse they such words Uerily because they see the Scriptures so playne the Fathers and Councells so manifest the â—…aith and practise of the Church so euident for yâ— reall presence of Christ that in no wyse they may confesse any other thing then they doe And yet on the other side being fully determined to sticke to their desperate opinion that we really neither eate nor drinke vnder forme of bread and wine
washing hath a farther and higher end then only to cleanse the body That speache therefore wherein Christ commaÌ„deth his flesh to be eateÌ„ is figuratiue not that we should denye the true eating of his flesh but because that eating is referred to a greater purpose then to the feeding of the body for Christes flesh is meate in dede that is to say is eaten in dede as I shal proue vpon that place but it is not eaten only that it should be corporalâ—…y receaued but to th end we should partake of the spirit and godhead which is in it and so by the merit of that flesh really present in vs obteyn life euerlasting with it now from what a worthy meaning wold these figuratiue Gospellers bring the words of our sauiour whose hard harts I beseche God to mollify that when they heare the truthe their stomake do not kendle to maynteine their old fashon beâ—…ore they haue well loked about them rather choosing to confesse a fault and to amend it then to make a new synne by myssexcusing the former fault ¶ Christes slesh being meate in dede must nedes be really receaued into our bodyes HE that wil know exactly why the flesh of Christ is called meate in dede must put before his eies three thinges The first is that the Iewes hearing Christ say he wold geue them his flesh asked how he could geue it to be eaten The second is that although Christ answered not directly to their captious how and vnsaythful question yet he sayd the eating of his flesh to be necessary for them as without the whiche they could not haue life and profitable as whereby they shold haue euerlasting life that not in their soules only but also in their bodies for so much as he wold reise them vp in the last day after whiche two things well pondered the third is to marke that Christ confirmeth all these former sayings of his by suche wordes as geue a reason of them for my flesh saith he is meate in dede and my blood is drinke in dede as if he had sayd wonder not yâ— my flesh geueth you life euerlasting reiseth vp your bodies for it is meate in dede that is to say it hath truly in dede those proprieties which any man wold wish for in true meate Two thinges may be considered in meate the one that it is trulie receaued into the body of that liuing creature for whose vse it is appointed the other that it is receaued as a medicine whiche may preserue vs against death for meate is neither properly attributed vnto the feeding of the sowle but only by a metaphor and an vnproper speache neither is it worthy to be called true meat if it gene not a true remedie against death there fore when Christ saith My flesh is meate in dede he meaneth thus my flesh bothe shal be receaued into the verie bodies of my people and shall geue life euerlasting as well to their bodiâ—…s as to their soules â–ª the whiche interpretation S. Chrysostom maketh writing thus Quid significat c. what meane these words my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is truly drinke either it meaneth that flesh to be the true meate whiche saueth the soule or els he speaketh it to confirm them in the former wordes Nâ—… obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scirent omnino necessariuÌ„ esse vt corpus comederent that they should not thinke him to haue spokeÌ„ in parables darkely but that they should know it to be by all meanes necessary to eate his body thus far S. Chrysostom By whiche interpretation Christ geueth a reason both of his first wordes wherein he sayd the bread which I wil geue is my flesh and of the second when he sayd he that eateth my flesh hath life euerlasting for my flesh is meate in deede both in that respect that it shal be geuen to you as true meate is wont to be deliuered to them who truly take and truly eate it and also in that respect that it nourisheth truly as true and eâ—…erlasting meate ought to nourishe he that denieth any one sense of the twaine deuieth one veritie of the ghospell he that graunteth both senses must needes graunt that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truly the signe of flesh because he spake not obscurely nor in parables as S. Chrysostom affirmeth and yet it is an obsâ—…nre saying to put flesh for materiall bread or eating for beleuing it is a parabolicall speache if when flesh blood eating and drinking is named yet we shal â—…derstand that bakers bread must be eaten and wyne drunken and Christ must be loued beleued vppon these parables neither Christ thought of nor the Fathers knew If Adam had not synned the opinion of ancient doctors is that notwithstanding his body consisted of contrarie elements by whose continual fight and battail it should naturally haue drawen to corruption and dissolution yet through the maruelouse grace of God saith S. Augustine his body shoâ—…lo haue bene far from disseases from old age from death from all corruption by tasting of the wood of life whiche was in yâ— middest of paradise Tanquam caetera essent alimento illud Sacramento vt sic fuisse accipiatur lignum vitae in paradyso corporali sicut in spiritali hoc est intelligibili paradyso sapientia Dei de qua scriptum est Lignum vitae est omnibus amplectentibus eam So that other meates in paradise were to nourish Adam corporally the word of life was also in stede of a mysterie or Sacrament to th' end the word of life should be vnderstanded to be after such sort in the corporal paradise as the wisedom of God is in the spiritual paradise which is atteined to by only vnderstanding the which wisedom of God as it is writen thereof is the wood of life to all that embrace it As now the wood of life which should haue preserued man froÌ„ incorruption was to be bodily tasted of and yet to worâ—…e a Sacramentall and spirituall effect in preseruing mans body aboue al course of a corrutible nature so is it meant that Christes flesh which is in dede the wood of life should be a SacrameÌ„t vnto vs by the corporall eating and spiritual working thereof for bothe these canses together it is called meate in dede Take a way yâ— corporall tasting of Christes body and charitie â—…aith hope or any like vertue is proportionably in his degree meat in dede or drinke in dede as the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is For all those vertues coming from God feed vs in dede to life euerlasting therefore haue that second proprietie of trut meat which is to nourish for euer But they haue not yâ— first proprietie which is to be receaued after an external maner into our bodies To this externall maner Christ had also respect when he â—…ayd My flesh is meat in dede or
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
Iudas saith Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat to whom Christe himselfe gaue bread the whiche bread was to be betraied See the bread that Christ gaue it was not euery bread not the substance of coÌ„mon bread but euen that bread in substance which was betraied for vs to death For Christ is bread geuing himself to Iudas he gaue the same bread that was betraied except any other thing was betraied for vs beside Christ. I might surely bring a maruelouse number of suche testimonies all which declare the name of bread whiche is attributed to the body of Christ after consecration not to signifie materiall or wheaten bread as it was before the blessing and pronouncing of the words but to describe that meat that food that true Manna which is only the flesh of Iesus Christ eaten vnder the forme oâ—… common bread And that kinde of bread is neuer named without an article or pronoune ioyned with it Whereby the excellency of the bread is witnessed the difference of it from common bread It is called in S. Mathew supersubstantiall bread in S. Iohn the bread which is flesh and in S. Paul the bread which who so eateth vnworthely he is gilty of the body of Christ which is as much to say as that kind of bread is the body of Christ. ¶ The presence of the body and blood of Christ in his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old Testament FRom Adam to S. Iohn Baptist all the faithfull people of God was both in continuall expectation of the coming of Iesus Christ partly foreshewed in dedes by holy figures and pagents partly foretolde in words by the spirite of prophecie what should afterward be done by Christ him self and be obserued in his kingdom the church After which sort the brasen serâ—…ent betokened the death of Christ and Ionas his resurrection The figures by the way of doing commended the same truth to the eyes which the prophecies by the way of speaking dyd set forth to the eares Which two senses are the chief meanes whereby we atteine to knowledge in this life And because both figures and prophecies are obscure darke and vnpleasant vntill they be fulfilled I thought best not tâ—… speake of them before I had declared the true meaning of that gift whiche Christ made at his last supper Now it remaineth yâ— we briefly conferre the one with the other shewing that sense of Christes wordes which the Catholiks defend to be agreable to suche old shadowes figures prophecies as apperteined to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar For to the Iewes as S. Paul affirmeth all things chanced in figures And Christ saith all things must nedes be fulfilled which are spoken of him in the law Psalmes and Prophetes ¶ The figure of Abel ABell the first shepherd Priest Martyr and perpetuall virgin made a sacrifice of the first begotten of his flocke and of the fat of them which God shewed him self to accept by sending down fier from heauen Abel then hauing first offered him self vnto God vnder the shape of other thinges afterward went forth to be offered in his owne person and shape being â—…aiterously put to death by his brother Cain with a deadly â—…ripe of a wodden club or stake whose blood the earth opening her mouth receaued into her bowels and from thence it cryed to God The prince of shepherdes the chief Priest greate martyr and witensbeaâ—… to al truth the flower and garland of all virginitie is Iesus Christ God and man whose flocke the faithful men are The first begoâ—…eÌ„ and fatte of them is the flesh and blood which Iesus â—…oke of the virgin Marie which flesh and blood he first offered to God by wil and affection when he toke into his hands bread and wiâ—…e within a certaine parler vpon mounte Sioâ—… where he did eate the Paschal lambe with his Apostles And God shewed him selâ—…o to accept that intent of the sonne of man by working with the consuming fiex of his Diuinity that marucilouse grace which turned the substance of bread and wine into yâ— substance of Christes own flesh and blood And from that place Christ went forth ouer the brook of Cedron to be offered in his owne person and shape betraied by Iudas and put to death vpon the wood of the crosse by his own brethren the Iewes whose blood the Church called forth from among both Iewes and gentils with al due honour receaueth into her mouth bowels whence it geueth a better crie then the blood of Abell did from the earth where it lay Abel vnder the sigâ—…e of his Lambes did by will and affection consecrate the same truth of his body and soule to God which at yâ— tyme of his death he actually rendred and gaue vp into the handes of his maker And surely if he had bene able to haue made the substance of his owne body anâ—… soule present in his owne handes when he offered he would much more 〈◊〉 haue offered it then yâ— dâ—…ad flesh of lambes which he vsed for a signe of 〈◊〉 For who would content him selfe with a barâ—… signe if he weâ—…e able to offer the truth it selfe He was not of such power as to change the lambes into him selfe thereby working that in his haudes outwardly which his hart inwardly offered But yet he shewed his desier to haue a change made in that he slew yâ— laÌ„bes taking from them theyr former substance to thinâ—…t by consecration they might obteiâ—…e a more holy and sacâ—…ed being God also looked vpon his gifts as wel accepting the mind of his Priest as the maner of his doing But that which lacked in Abel who was faine to shew outwardly the consecration of his owne hart by a thing of an othere substance that thing Christ fulfilled making the same substance of his owne flesh present in his hands which he dedicated to God in his hart For taking bread and blessing he sayd This is my body Abel offered his gift before he went forth into the field where he was â—…aine The Sacramentaries deâ—…e Christ to haue offered his giftes in his last supper before hâ—… went forth to his passion Abel contented not him self with the former substance which his lambes naturally had They teach that Christ contented him self with the former substance of bread wine Fier â—…rom heauen inâ—…amed the external giftes of Abel They deny yâ— fier of the word of God to swallow vp the substance of bread and wine which Christ toke Abel consecrated his own body and blood as farre as he was able vnder the outward signe of his lambes They deny Christ to haue consecrated his owne body and blood vnder the formes of the bread and wine which he toke although they must nedes confesse that both Christ was able really to do it and by yâ— way of blessing to haue sayd this is my body
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in meam commemorationem in the accusatiue case the true English whereof must be for the remembrance of me Christ sayd make this thing for the remembrance of me that is make my body which is geuen for you to thend my geuiug of it for you vpon yâ— crosse may through that your fact and doing be remembred This is the true meaning of Christes words For so doth S. Paule expoimd them to the Corinthians where after he had declared the history of Christes supper of purpose teachig vs what is meant by the remembrance of him thus he writeth As ofte as ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice ye shall shew our Lordes death vntill he come Lo the shewing of our Lordes death is the kind of remembrance for which Christ willeth his body to be made eaten his blood to be made and â—…runken Wherefore saying make or doe this for the remembrance of me he sayth this much Take bread blesse saying this is my body breake geue eate and all to this ende that my death may be remembred vntill my second coming Here we learne that the remembrance whereof Christ speaketh is the shewing of his death and that not by word only but by dede and facte and by making and doing For the making of Christes body by chaunging the substance of the bread into the substance of his flesh is a marâ—…ilouse shewing of his death For as his death was the dissolution of the soule from the body so his soule which as S. Ambrose noteth is vnderstanded by the blood is shewed vnder the form of wine his body is shewed a part from it vnder an other form of bread I doe not say that either the body is without soule and blood or the blood without flesh and soule but I say the shewing of the body vnder form of bread and of the blood vnder yâ— forme of wine in â—…che of which whole Christ is conteyned is the shewing of his death and also of his resurrection For at the death in dede the soule and body were a sonder and at the resurrection they came againe together Euen as now in figure and shew they are a sonder not withstaÌ„ding that in truth they are together But if the bread and wine remayned in their old nature still taking only the name and signe of Christes body blood Then should nothing be made for the remembrance or to shew our Lords death whereas he sayd Make this thing for the remembrance of me That is sayeth S. Paule for the shewing of my death the which death is yet fâ—…rther shewed when the same body in a signe is broken and geuen to be eaten the blood drunken For then as Christes flesh was in dede broken vppon the Crosse so it is in shew signe broken first in the Priests hands vnder forme of bread and next in his or their mouths who communicate with him by eating and chewing of it And likewise yâ— blood is powred or shedde into his or their mouthes vnder the forme of wine as it was in dede shed vppon the Crosse and as in dede Christ there deliuered his ghost into his Fathers hands But if the breade and wine were not changed into the body blood of Christ then that body which at all were not so much as in signe and shew broken because it were not present and that blood whiche were not so muche as in apparence apart from the fleshe or shed into the mouthes of the receauers could not shew our Lords death at all whereas Christ would his own death to be shewed by the making of his own body and blood with the signes of breaking shedding parting and dissoluing Thou seeâ—… now good Reader how the kind of remembrance which Christ required to he had of him is not only nothing at all against the reall presence of his body and blood yea rather it is so singularly set forth thereby that without the presence of the body blooâ—… it shal be somewhat hard to deuise what memorie at all here can be of Christes death Most sure it is that though mans wit may deuyse much yet can it neuer inuent so perfect a meane to make the death of Christ be remembred as if his own self be present to warne vs thereof If it hath chaunted to any man whiles by manly fighting he hath delyuered his frind from perill of death to take some great wound in his owne face tell me on thy conscience is there any way more effectual for that wounded man to put his frind in remembraunce of that fighting then if him self come with the skar in his face to his frinâ—…s presence and sight Is it not more then if he sent an hundred letters an hundred tokens and messengers to warne his frinde thereof Euen so fareth it with Christ at this tyme who fighting for vs vppon the Crosse whiles he delyuered mankind from the bonde of death toke a wound which made him geue vp his ghost Can therefore a more vehement remembrance be stirred vp in our harts then if the same Christ offer him self present to vs with â—…he skar vpon his face Thou wilt I think graunt that nothing would moue vs or make vs more vehemently remembre the death which he tooke for vs. But thou wilt say that Christ now coÌ„meth not before vs that we see him not Well Sir First you graunt that the remembrance of Christes death is nothing at all hiudered by the presence of his body why then sayd you before if the Sacrament of the altar be a remembrance of Christ it is not Christ him self Why sayd you that the remembrance of a thing must uedes differ from the thing it self And now you see and confesse that Christ present with the resemblance of his woundes should make you best remember his death Beware hereafter of this kind of reasoning Christ made a resemblance of his death at his supper therefore it is not his own body That argument is not good yea rather this is good Christ made a perfecte remembrance of his death therefore his own body is geuen to put vs in mind that he died for vs. Now let vs returne to that you said Christ was not seene of vs. If he were seene your faith should be of small merite besyde that you could not receaue him into your body after that visible quantitie wherein he walked vppon the earth He therefore that died for you hath now geuen you the substance of his naturall flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine Where he is as verily present as if you saw him or touched him For I trow you vnderstand that eye sight is not necessary to make a thing present Otherwise blinde men were in euill case and to them nothing should be present Which seing it is not so the body of Christ is not therefore the lesse present because you see it not But if it may please
death of that holy thing which is eaten for a liuing and sensible creature is not vsed to be eaten without it be depriued first of his life Therefore Theophilact sayth Quinta vesperi fecit Dominus coenam caet Nemo enim quicquà m edit nisi prius mactatum fuerit The fift euening which was on Maundy Thursday night our Lord made a supper and â—…ayd to his Disciples Take and eate for this is my body And so because he was of power to lay down his soule it is euident that he then sacrificed him self from that tyme wherein he deliuered the Disciples his body For no man eateth any thing vnlesse it be first killed Thus we see that the reall presence of Christes flesh to th' end it may be eaten is the consequent whereby S. Paule proueth the shewing of Christes reall death Who perceaneth not that it is a good argument to say I eate in a Sacrament Christes reall flesh thereâ—…ore he is 〈◊〉 dead Doth it not follow well in the discourse of reason I drink the true blood of Christ therefore Christ hath truly shed his blood Or doth any faithfull man at the table of God eate the flâ—…sh and drink the blood of that thing which is not yet dead and offered in a sacrifice This argument of S. Paule they make vtterly voyde who say that we eate a figure and not the truth of Christes substance for then should Christ be shewed figuratiuely dead as he should be figuratiuely eaten Neither could it folow that because Christ is eaten by faith in a figure therefore he is already dead in truth it self but only that he is dead in a figure or in bare name without the truth of death as yet presently shewed When the Paschall Lamb was eaten the Lamb was truly dead but as the Lamb was the figure of Christ and not Christ did it thereof follow that it was only shewed in a figure that Christ sometyme should dye and not that in dede he was dead But now that he is dead in dede and so dead that his death is shewed true by the eating of his own body and by the drinking of his own blood vndoubtedly as truly as â—…uer that same Paschall Lamb was killed which was eaten so truly is the same body of Christ dead which is eaten and therevpon it wil folow that by eating the flesh of the man that dyed that maÌ„ is shewed to be dead in dedâ—… Wherefore S. Ambrose sayth vpon this place Quia enim mor te Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are made free through the death of our Lord being mindful thereof we in eating and in drinking flesh blood signifie those things which were offered for vs. Lo the very fact of eating flesh and of drinking blood shew the things that were offered to death for vs That is to say shew the flesh and blood of Christ as dead Damascene in that pleasant history of Iosaphat maketh the King Auenite to demaunde of certeyne Eremites why they caried about them that bones of dead men to whome they answered Ossa ista munda caet we cary about with vs ô King these cleane and holy bones representing the death of these maruelousemen whose they are and bringing our selues in minde of their exercise and of their conuersation beloued of God and flyring our selues to the like zeale And afterward the bones of dead men cause the remembrance of death to them that are a line Here we see many commodities which the blessed reliques of Sayntes do bring to good men Among other things they cause vs to remember the vertues of them whose bones we reâ—…erently kept And for as much as Christ did shew his charity chefely in dying for his enemies we haue no greater thing to remember by the presence of his body theÌ„ the same louing death of that body But if the bare presence of dead bones make vs remember that Saynts that be with God whose bones they were how muh more doth the eating of Christs body both make vs remember his death and shew it to our eyes being eaten after such sorte as this body is eaten This kinde of reasoning which S. Paule vseth is called of the logicians A consequentibus when by those things that are put for true and follow an other thing is proued to haue necessarily gone before As for example we may reason thus This woman is brought a bed therefore she hath companyed with a man in so much that reason declareth that no woman by the course of nature caÌ„ haue a childe except she lye before with a maÌ„ Now as if the bringing a bed be but in a shadow thereof no true cumpany with a man may directly be inferred euen so at this time if by eating yâ— body of Christe we shew Christs death and yet we do eate the body of Christe only in a shadow then may it not be inferred hereof that Christ is shewed to haue dyed truly in dede but only in a shadow Such as yâ— Consequent is where vpon we reason such antecedent may be inferred thereof If yâ— ConsequeÌ„t be reall true perfyt yâ— Antecedent is shewed to haue bene like If the Consequent be imperfyt figuratiue or sayned the Antecedent is not thereby shewed to be true If two persons are maryed together it may be well inferred that they consented together but if their maryage be â—…ained to say made vppon a sâ—…afold in the way of playing some Comedy or enterlude then is the coÌ„sent also sayned If the maryage were true the consent was true Christe made his last supper chefely to haue it a remembrance of his death and therefore he sayd Hoc facite in meam commemorationem doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me S. Paule hauing before declared how this thing may be made by the preistes of the new Testament for the remeÌ„brance of Christ in declaring that Christe toke bread brake and sayd this is my body he sheweth afterward how the sâ—…me body may be eaten by the common people for the remembrance of Christes death saying As often as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this chalice ye shall shew our Lords death vntill he come so that yâ— consecrating of Christes body by priests and the eating thereof by all Christian men is the shewing of Christes death Here I would know whether Christ instituted this Sacrament to shew his death as past in dede or els past in a bare shadow If to shew it in a bare shadow theÌ„ two absurd sequeles may seme to be employed One is yâ— it may shew Christes death as well to come as already past An other is that if it be past it is rather shewed to haue bene a figuratiue death theÌ„ a true death For as the eating of vnleauened bread vnder the law were
and found a man in figure not in substance that is to say not in flesh Thus did the Marcionite reason out of the word of God it selfe to proue that Christ was not true man as M. Iuel now because the Fathers name the figure of the body would disproue the true body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t But what answereth â—…rtullian Quasi non figura caet as though the figure and likenes and shape be not also ioyned to the substance So say we the figure whereof we dispute is ioyned to the substance of Christes body so that yâ— body signe of the breade make both but one perfite Sacrament or mysticall figure And that I will proue yet more plainly out of this very place of Tertullian who speaketh moste literally of bread as it was an old figure of Christes body whereof in Hieremie it was said let vs put the word of the â—…rosse into his bread to wit vpoÌ„ his body Christ theÌ„ fulfilling the old figures fecit panem corpus suum made the bread his body as Tertullian saith If he did so it could not tary bread any longer For as ayer being once made fier tarieth no more ayer so can not the bread whiche is made Christes body be any longer the substance of bread This grouÌ„d being put whiche is most true and it is expressed in Tertullian himselfe goe you forward and say this is the figure of my body as long as you wil yet the ground of that figure can not be the substance of bread sith it is made alredie the body of Christ and consequently the substance of Christe it selfe being made of the substance of bread and mystically conteined vnder the forme of bread is that figure of Christe him selfe walking visibly and suffering death where of Tertullian speaketh By this meane the worde is fastened into his bread as Hieremie said because his bread and his body is all one Iuel After consecration saith S. Ambrose the hody of Christ is signified San. S. Ambrose doth speake of that signification whiche is made whiles the Priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum this is my body Our Lord Iesus him selfe saith S. Ambrose crieth out this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named an other kind after coÌ„secration the body is signified The which place wel vnderstaÌ„ded doth vtterly ouerthrow your figuratine opimon For S. Ambrose presseth vpon the signification óf these words this is my body and this is my blood The body saith he is signified the blood is named by mouth and this signification is made when Christ or his minister doth consecrate by these heauenly words Now immediatly before he said Quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur What say we of the selfe consecration of God where the self words of yâ— Lord our Sauiour do work Now put together M. Iuel The words of our Sauiour do signify his body blood and yâ— selfe words doe worke verily them selues caÌ„ worke none other thing then they signifie therefore the wordes of our Sauiour which doe signifie Christes body and blood doe worke and make the same body and blood That is the signification whereof S. Ambrose speaketh The which his meaning when you dissemble you shew your selfe to be an enemie of the truthe Iu. I am oppressed with the multitude of witnesses San. As for these witnesses that say the Sacrament is a figure be no witnesses to your belefe because they proue your intent as well as if a man would proue by solenâ—…e witnesses that I had no soule because I hauc a body For whereas a Sacrament consisteth of two parts of an â—…uisible grace and of a visible signe whereas the inuisible grace of the Sacrament of Christes supper is the substance of his body made present to vnite vs to him and the visible signe thereof is the form of bread whosoeuer nameth that Sacrament a signe or a figure whether he meane both the grace and the signe or the signe alone certeinly he nâ—…er meaneth to deny the substaâ—…ciall presence of Christes body which is the chefe part of the same Sacrament Iu. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steede of the things signified San. It is more a miserable bondage and death to exponud the things them selues for the signes as you doe S. Augustine meaneth of such a kind of signes when â—…ither the thing that appeareth to be signified is not at all true according to the letter as when God is said to be angrie or to repent or els wheÌ„ the thing signified is absent in substance as it was in the old sacrifices which yet the Iewes estemed as if they had bene the truth As therefore he that being athirst if he come to the yuie bush it selfe goe no further he should thereby neuer the more be filled with drincke so if a man come to an vnproper or to a bare signe he is miserably deceaued as those are who come to you for holy orders who were not your selues laufully ordeined Bishopes But as if a glasse of wine staÌ„d in the window to signifie what kind of wine is to be sold he that cometh to that signe may quenche his thirst because the substance whiche is signified to be sold is also there conteined so he that cometh to yâ— holy signes instituted by Christ he shal haue the truth of the signe really present and really geuen to him He that commeth to baptime is in dede borne by the vertue of that Sacrament and â—…e that commeth to our Lordes table shall â—…ate by his mouth therein the bread of life really present ¶ That the supper of Christe is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries HArding The Sacramentaries hold opinion that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament but in a figure signe or token only Iuel M. Harding vniustly reporteth of vs. San. I must say to you in this case M. Iuel as S. 〈◊〉 said to the Arrians who called Christ Dominum the Lord but yet denied him to be God Dominum licet nuncupes dominum tamen esse non dicis quia tibi ex communi genere potius familiari nomine quâm ex natura sit Dominus Albeit you name him Lorde yet you meane him not to be the Lorde Because he is a Lord to you rather by a commoÌ„ kind and a familiar name then by nature Euen so pretend what honorable opinion or doctrine you list of Christes supper as long as by nature and substance you thinke not that externall gift to be his body which him selfe called so you rather 〈◊〉 it by a better name then meane it to be any better thing then a bare signe and figure Ebion although he denied Christes Godhead yet as Epiphanius telleth he
geue Whereas the Sacrament was not yet deliuered but was only commended and set foorth in words vnto the Iewes when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh 2. Iâ—… commendare were Latine to geue yet it should haue bene translated I haue geuen 3. For viuificabit M. Iuel readeth viuificat it doth geue life for it shall geue life He was â—…oth to haue any commendation past or any geuing of life to come For he wold so vnderstand Christes words that the gift the quickening might be present lest it should apperteyn to the supper Whereas the commendation of the gift was past in those words I wil geue and the geuing of life to come verily because the Sacrament should then geue life when it should be receaued These are miserable shifts to saue your selfe from subscribing Iu. We haue a spirituall mouth a spirituall tast eyes eares as Basill Leo Origen Tertulliá say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the mind not of the belli to beleue in him that is to eate the liuing bread therefore Christes meaning is spirituall and not reall San. What grosse ignorance is this to thincke that the reall preseÌ„ce of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t hindereth my spiritual mouth tast eares eyes faith or minde All these muste goe together Christ tooke his body to bring to our bodies the meate whereof our soule might spiritually eate It is the fondest kind of reasoning in the world by one truth to denie an other seing both staÌ„d together Is my faith the lesse because Christ was bodily seen in earth How is then my spiritual feeding the worse because the foode of life is in my mouth Doth not Tertullian say the flesh is fed with the body blood of Christ to thend the soule may be made fat of God Iu. M. Harding wil say eating with mouth and grinding with teeth is a worke spiritual And so he is a good proctour for the Ca pharnaites San No that hâ—… will not say except the meate be so eaten that the manner of eating it be so cleane and spirituall that although it enter into the mouth yet the â—…aith both may and doe worke vpon it by adoration and participation as it chanceth in Christes supper And therefore Christ said work the meat which perisheth not which the sonne of man wil geue you And he meaneth work it by soule by beleuing and in body by eating And the Prophet Dauid saieth They haue eaten and worshiped This vnderstanding neither yâ— Capharnaites had nor the Sacrmentaries haue therefore they grind now common bread with their teeth whereâ—… they shal bitterly gnash if they repeÌ„t not yâ— soner Iuel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who sayth to vnderstand carnallie is to vnderstand plainly as the things be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing els San. We vnderstand not so For we seing the forme of bread thinke vppon the body of Christ which is vnder it Therefore S. Chrysostom is not against our euasion Iuel S. Augustine sayeth the saying of Christ is a figure or maner of speache San. What you meane by your maner of speache I can not tell S. Augustine vseth not those words But except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man is in dede a figure and the speaking thereof is figuratiue because it was not meant that a maÌ„ should be visiblie eaten as flesh is eaten at common tables But yet that he should be really eaten Albeit the maner of eating be figu ratiue as we know And therefore when Christ had consecrated the bread into his body and sayd this is my body that speache was not figuratiue because as the truth of the body was to be eaten so the maner of the eating it was determined And theâ—… all was plain to good beleuers but not to Iudas and his companions who beleue no more then they see bodily S. Augustine then calling those words except ye eat my flesh figuratiue referreth the figure to the maner of eating But not to the substance which is to be eaten For els if by no meane the flesh of Christ might be eaten it should not be eateÌ„ by faith But if it may be so eaten it may be eaten by mouth also in that pure maner as it is geuen vs. Iuel The figure commaundeth vs to be partakers of Christes passion San. It had bene more truly translated that we ought to communicate with Christes passion Communicare is to partake in the fullest maner that may be And how can you possiblie communicate better or more fully with Christes passion then to eate worthely the self body that suffered Whereof S. Paule sayeth How oft so euer ye eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he come That is the communicating whereof S. Augustine speaketh Iuel And with comfort and profit lay vp in our memorie that Christ hath suffred death for vs. San. The perfit laying of this matter in our memorie is with Penance loue to eate the thing which is made for the remembrance of Christ. Thence cometh power to liue through or for Christ so really as he liueth through or for his Father with whome he is one thing and nature Of this whole saying of S. Augustine I haue intreated more fully in my 3. b. the. xiiij Chapiter Iuel This therefore is Christes meaning and the very eating of his flesh San. Not this which you meane But this it is M. Iuel as I haue told you The whole man must eate as well in body as in soule because the whole is taken and assumpted of Christ the whole is incorporated by Baptism the whole redemed by death and the whole shal be crowned with glorie therefore the true eating is to eate that meate which of it selfe coÌ„sisteth of body soule and Godhead to eate it I say in body soule and spirite and not by faith only Iuel The Capharnaites vnderstoode Christe grossely of éating with teeth that whiche Christe spake spiritually and so would M. Harding teache the people San. D. Harding 〈◊〉 no more then he toke of Christ and of the Euangelists It is no grosie thing vnder the form of bread to eate the bread of life The Capharnaites went no farther then to theyr teeth and belly But we make the teeth to serue the mind also That of Origenes S. Dierom S. Augustine maketh not againste vs. Iu. Tertullian saith the Capharnaites thought his speachâ—… was hard and intolerable as though he had determined to geue them his flesh verily and in dede to be eaten with theyr mouthes therin saith Tertullian stode theyr erroure San. You know they thought not of eating it vnder the forme of bread For S. Augustine saith in Christes person Quis modus sit manducandi istum panem ignoratis Ye know not what waie there is of eating this bread Therefore the
Whiche thing he muste doe not only by preferring the holie scriptures before the wrytinges of whatsoeuer men but also by expoâ—…ding the same according to the greatest authoritie that may be founde in that kinde The greatest authoritie among meÌ„ must nedes be in the whole Catholike Churche of Christe the piller and establishment of truthe whose consent in the interpretation of Gods worde because wee can not knowe by the handwryting of euerie particular member for knowledge is not in all persons we therefore muste not so muche seke after the bookes as after the workes and practise of all faythfull nations to knowe by what meanes they expounded Christes Gospell For as the holie Ghoste instructed alwayes theyr hartes wryting his lawes in them so by theyr conformable deedes we lerne what he inspired to theyr hartes As therefore it is most necessarie to conferre one part of holy scripture with an other for the right vnderstanding of both places euen so it behoueth to ioyne with that conference the vse and custome of the people of God To make this matter the playner by an example the Apostles are willeâ—… to teache all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Now shall this precept be vnderstanded For some thinke that teaching before baptisme is so necessarie that no creature ought to be baptised whiche is not first taught Others thinke both necessarie but yet teaching to belong firste to suche as are able to be taught and baptizing firste to suche as are able to be baptized and not yet readie to be taught And because infautes may be baptized before they can be taught they thynke that Christe meant to haue teaching goe before baptisme in men of discretion and baptisme before teaching in children whose parents aske baptisme for them Whiche later vnderstanding is proued to be more agreable to the meaning of Christe not by the order of his wordes but by the vse and consent of all nations whiche are the spouse of Christe For in euerie age and countrie of Christendome children are brought to be baptized by theyr frindes and the Bishops or Priestes of those countries haue alwayes baptized them So that we haue two great and necessarie poyntes expounded in the precept of baptisme by the custome of the Churche The one is that children maie be christened before they are taught theyr beleefe the other that suche children oulie maie be Christened whose parents or frindes aske baptisme for them But if any Iew or Gentil doe liue among vs who wil not haue his child Christened the Apostles by that fame 〈◊〉 of Christ haue no authoritie to baptize suche a childe Whiche thinge is proued because the Church of God hath no suche custome The same strength whiche the practise of Christian men is nowe sene to haue in baptisme is also founde to be no lesse in other Sacraments For likewise al faithful countries haue asked the Sacrament of consirmation for their baptized children and all Bishops haue geuen it oynting and confirming them in the name of the 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby declaring how the holy Ghoste is geuen to the late baptized by the imposition of handes of the Apostles 〈◊〉 all faithfull 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adored the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration They haue desyred that holy sacrifice to be made and offered for them all Priestes Bishops and Primates haue said masse and allowed that deuotion of the layemen Wherby it is proued that those wordes of Christ This ys mie bodye and This ys my bloode are to be taken properly and not figuratiuely in so muche as the holy Ghost by the vse of all the people of God hath expounded the whole meanyâ—…ge of Christe Therfore whosoeuer teacheth a figuratiue vnderstanding of those words he goethe syrst from the autoritie of the gospell where yt ys 〈◊〉 sayed This is my body Next he 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of the whole Churche whiche so earnestly beleued these wordes and thâ—…effecte of them that she adored the body of Christe present vnder the forme of breade and acknowledged yt to be offered to God vnbloodely for the obteyuinge of the sruites of Christes death Thirdlie he must nedes 〈◊〉 concluded singular and prowd who had rather leane to his owne iudgement or to the iudgement of a fewe lyke him self then to trust either God or his whole Churche And wheras certayne men are wont to saye that the holy Fathers and faythfull people of the first six hundred yeres after Christ did vnderstande the wordes of his supper otherwise It is Good Reader to to palpable and to muche assected a blindnesse not to ponder and wâ—…igh howe vnsensibly that is spoken All men of neuer so meane witte iudge thinges vncertayne by those that are most certayne not contrariwise leauinge that whiche they euidently knowe and measuringe yt by a rule cleane obscure or throwghly withowt the coÌ„passe of their reache Christ in that dreadfull night wherin he was betrayed 〈◊〉 nowe 〈◊〉 the mysterie of owr redemption after breade taken and blessing 〈◊〉 and gaue and sayd This ys my body Hereof S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. 〈◊〉 beare wytnesse Neither may auie man dowt therof who loketh for saluation by 〈◊〉 Agayne whosoeuer is of lawfull age and hath but the vse oâ—… his eyes and eares can tell that in the Catholike Churche all men 〈◊〉 the real body of Christ vnder the 〈◊〉 of that bread which was blessed by the Prieste These two principals no man aliue may deny 〈◊〉 no man is able to deny that 〈◊〉 three hundred and fiftie 〈◊〉 paste it was decreed by 4. 70. Bishops in the great Councell of 〈◊〉 kept at 〈◊〉 that the body and blood of Christ are trulie contayned vnder the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine the substance of bread and wine being changed into the body and blood of Christ by the power of God The same thing is in effect tawght in the Councells kept afterward at 〈◊〉 at Constance at 〈◊〉 at Trent Fowrthly before those Councells 〈◊〉 was condemned by three other Councells and by the preachers and lerned men of that age wherein he 〈◊〉 and therfore he 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 which now 〈◊〉 mayntayned in England No poynte of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor may be 〈◊〉 denied Wee haue then the wordes of the gospell plaine the worshipping and adoration of the Christians plaine the authoritie of diuers generall Councells exceding plaine These all be thinges so knowen and certayne that our aduersaries cannot say they are not so Albeyt they say they should not be so Well they yet graunt we haue the wordes of the gospell the vse of the Church these nyne hundred yeares and the authoritie of generall Councels of whom I 〈◊〉 on the other side what gospell what Church what Councels they haue First they can bring no gospell where yt is
The common Bible turneth In the remembrance of me A thing may be done best in the remembrance of a man when the man is first remembred and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him But Christ meaneth not so he meaneth to haue this thing to witt his body made to this effect that his death may be remembred and so his words do sound Doe and mâ—…e this thing for the remembrance of me to bring men into the remembrance of me For when my body is made by the Priest and listed vp to be adored and all the peple taught to bow doune to the body of Christ and to come with pure consciences to receaue it then Christ is remembred by reason of his body made and so the scripture is fulfilled which saith Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me But the Sacramentaries wold haue nothing made in Christes supper But they wold haue bread eaten and wine druncken which is not able to make Christ to be remembred so effectually and with such contrition confession and satisfaction as he requireth to be remeÌ„bred withall For he seeketh not as the ZuingliaÌ„s imagine a remembrance in words alone but much more in dedes The remembrance of him is the following of his Crosse and death by penance by humility by confessing our synnes to his ministers and taking absolution of them and all this kind of remembrance ariseth by the making of Christes body whiles men are persuaded they may not come to so preciouse a thing without confoorming of them selues to the death of Christ. In translating S. Paule there are other faults not of so greate weight as these others but yet which should haue bene more diligently translated as where the Greek readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CoÌ„municatio sanguinis Christi coÌ„municatio corporis There the common Bible turneth The partaking of yâ— blood of Christ the partaking of yâ— body Whereas it shuld be translated the coÌ„municating of the blood of Christ and the communicating of the body Communicating is more then partaking albeit the old Latin text in the later place doth reade participatio partaking But that excuseth not the Sacramentaries who pretend to correct it allwaies by the Greek and now whereas the Greek readeth twise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin once communicatio the English agreing throughly with neither oâ—… both turneth twise partaking The communicating of Christes body and blood is when it self and all thing that is in it is made common Partaking is when part therof is taken But because after his resurrection Christ can be no more diuided the partaking of his blood is the communicating of it not by the force of the meane but by the dependence of the thing For as he that hath anie part of God must nedes haue all God because God is a nature whole euery where without any parts therof so he that hath any peece of Christes body and blood hath the whole body and blood because it is unmortal and can no more die Yet if it might be diuided it might also bye so that although partaking must in this argument 〈◊〉 stand for communicating yet the SacrameÌ„taries haue shewed their spite against S. Paule in translating it after the worst maner they could 〈◊〉 after S. Paul saâ—…th we being many are one bread because we all partake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should be Englished of the one bread For such strength hath y◠〈◊〉 article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soâ—…time the common Bible turneth the Greek article into that But here it was not for the purpose of the Sacramentaries that it should be meaned so S. Paul meaneth one certain bread of liâ—…e wherof we partake to shew that he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the one bread to witte of the bread which hath no fellowes of that bread who said I am the bread of life and the bread which I wil geue is me flesh If so manie faults be found without curiouse serching which I haue not vsed in so sinal rome iudge good Reader in what case their soules be who take the word of God at these mens handes iudge whose Gospell they haue deliuered to the simple people in English Uerily their own and not the Gospell of Jesus Christ. ¶ The state of the question betwen the Lutherans Zuinglians 〈◊〉 and Catholikes concerning the Sacrâ—…ment of the altar TO th'inthent thou maiest good Reader the better vnderstand to what point and mark the whole disputation shal be 〈◊〉 I will briefly declare how diuersly the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath beâ—… set forth in our dayes From the beginning of yâ— Christian Churche vntill yâ— yere of our Lord 1517. all yâ— on the earth professed openly Christes Catholike faith did beleue as well in the Breke as in the Latin Church the reall presence of Chrisâ—…es body blood vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration dewly made This faith of theirs was preserued by the delyuery from hand to hand of that docâ—…rine euen sithens the beginning of Christes Church and was mainteined by the preaching and writing of the lerned Fathers and protested by the godly honour which all Christen people gaue to the said Sacrament at the time of masse or otherwise Well it might be that sâ—…me one in his harte thought amisse of that hely mystâ—… and that some 〈◊〉 in corners also conspired against the truthe thereof as 〈◊〉 and some other like as now â—…ull many maie be suspected to think that Christ is not the sauiour of mankind 〈◊〉 as â—…o Christian this daie teacheth openly and in expresse 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 is not y◠〈◊〉 of the world so did no man in open 〈◊〉 with the autoritie or toleration of any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preache write or professe that the body of Christ was not present in the Sacrament of the altar if the Priest had once 〈◊〉 the solemne benediction which our lord Jesus commanded On the other syde if in the first six hundred yeres the Christians had beleued as the Lutherans or Zuinglians now doe he that had first begunne to haue taught yâ— real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine must haue ben at that tyme noted reputed for an 〈◊〉 he must haue ben conuinced by som generall or proninciall Councell kept either in the 〈◊〉 Church or in the west the Preachers and Doctours of that age should haue writen against him It is not possible that all the whole Church which to that day had beleued the mysteries that be consecrated vpon the altar to be â—…more but holy bread and wine to be only tokens of Christes body absent in substance to be neither a sacrifice 〈◊〉 nor the reall body and blood of Christ should 〈◊〉 through all nations change the Catholike and vniuersall belefe without any trouble or tumult at all without any contradiction or disputation yea without any man at all knowen or euer
heard of that should first commend vnto them this new opinion of nine hundred yeres old Is it credible that so many thousand millions of Christen men as were in the Church at the end of the first six hundred yeres beleuing the one yere those halowed things vpon the altar to be still bread and wine should the next yere after alltogether in all countrâ—…es and languages fall 〈◊〉 prostrate or 〈◊〉 or at the least bow to the very same things as to the true body of their maker and sauiour which before they had ben taught to haue ben vnreasonable and vnsensible creaturesâ—… And did they al this thing without any guide or preacher who might will them so to doe Or did all the Preachers in 〈◊〉 at onâ—… moment change their mind 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Or did som few go through the sower parts of the world and without resistance of any man preache that new 〈◊〉 Were all the pennes of all the writers of histories so tyed that 〈◊〉 of them all was able once to write any one mans name who after the six hundred yeres 〈◊〉 taught first second or third or at any tyme that change of belefe through out Christendom Was that heretiâ—…ke alone so almighty that noman durst write his name neither whiles he liued nor when he was departed out of this life If the man were vnknowen at the least why hath the sect no speciall name Was there not one lerned man in the whole Church of God either willing or able to resist that fury of new doctrin in the matter of Christes supper If none were lerned enough to conquer it by preaching or disputing or writing at the least wise wold none do bis best to sett 〈◊〉 a bare historie of that tragedie Or who euer hath writen that the whole Church chaÌ„ged her saith in this matter So many Councells haue ben kept in all ages and countries so many heâ—… names and opinioÌ„s who were but in priuie corners haue ben of late 〈◊〉 left writen to vs as Bogomili VValdenses Petrobusiani Pseudoapostoli Begardi Beguinae with such like and could this main heresie of Christes reall preseuce ouerrunne the whole Church so far that fifty yeres past and vpwards no small chapell can be named in the wide world where Christes supper was made without adoration of his body and blood as present vnder formes of bread and wine and yet 〈◊〉 noman vpon the earth be found in the space of eight hundred and fiftie yeres to leaue in monumeÌ„ts of histories when that heresy began or by whom it was promulgated or what name was geuen to it Did Satan in those eight hundred yeres so strongly oppresse Christ that his gospell was cleane darkned and his kingdom lost Did hel gates auaile against the whole Churche Did the rock it self 〈◊〉 Did yâ— holy Ghost 〈◊〉 to teache yâ— people of God all 〈◊〉 I think it wil be sayed that the Bishops of Rome did preache commend set foorth and mainteine that 〈◊〉 But they must shew which Bishop first began and who writeth it of him and by what meanes he was so 〈◊〉 obeyed that no resistance in the world is read to haue ben any where made against him And yet surely he neuer lacked eâ—…emies in the cast Church The truth is that all the Bishops of Rome yea all the Catholike Bishops of the whole world lerned of Christ this to be his reall body and this to be his blood And this faith dured from the last supper of Christ in all faithfull men without any denying or direct 〈◊〉 therof vntill Berengarius began to teache otherwise It was in dede 〈◊〉 indirectly by Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus and all those that thought Christ to haue had no true body of his own Again by Arrius and Nestorius who taught the body of Christ to be the body of a man Arrius because Christ was not equal in substance with his father but a creature only Nestorius because he had two persons one of God an other man therfore seing this was his humane body Nestorius wold it not to be the body of yâ— sonne of God But directly yâ— reall presence of Christ in this blessed Sacrament was not impugned vntill Berengarius about fiue hundred yeres past began to sow in the field of the Churche the corrupt sede of false doctrine concerning that question But his owne 〈◊〉 and the three Councels gathered straight against him at Uercelles Tours and Rome do rather shew what and how constant the Catholike 〈◊〉 was of old time in that behalfe then any thing help and 〈◊〉 the opinion of those men who now adayes endeuour to establish a new inuention of their owne The Church therefore as I said beleuing most 〈◊〉 that Christ gaue his owne reall flesh and blood in the mysteries of his last supper taught consequently the meane of making present that blessed body to be not the comming downe of Christ from heauen but the changing of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his 〈◊〉 and blood by the almighty power of 〈◊〉 word spoken by a Priest with such minde and 〈◊〉 as that solemne 〈◊〉 required This â—…hange wherein the whâ—…le subsâ—…ance of brâ—…ad and wine should by the 〈◊〉 of Christ be so mightely conuerted into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 for vs and into that holy bloud which was shed for vs on the â—…rosse must of 〈◊〉 be a dreadfull and propitiatorie sacrifice as well by reason of the body of Christ sacrifiâ—…ed once to death which is now made 〈◊〉 as for the cause and finall end why it is made present For Christ sayd at his 〈◊〉 This is my Lody which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembraunce of me If it be at the tyme of consecration geuen for vs 〈◊〉 by the commaâ—…dement of Christ who can deny but it is a sacrifice and that we take greate profit and aduantage by that gift Upon this ground the Christen people were taught to esteme this holy sacriâ—…ice abouâ—… all other externall â—…inds of worshipping God in this life Thence came so goodly biâ—…ding of so many Churches so riche decking of altars so great foundations of â—…hanteries in 〈◊〉 so much estimation of Masse that some came to the holy order of Priesthod not for 〈◊〉 but for welth And some other went into monasteries rather for case then for 〈◊〉 to serue God All which became thâ—…ough ouer much ease lacke of the feare of God negligent in their office dissolute in their behauiour ignorant in good lerning and which in that vocation is most filthy of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 couâ—…touse And the moe that in such sorte vnworthâ—…ly presumed to those holy prosessions the greater anger of God theâ—… synfull doing prouoked against them selues The people on th' other side seing the vnhonest liâ—…e of certaine religiouse persons and Priestes and how vnreâ—…erently they handled the diuine seruice sell in hatred
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.
say we then This is my body which is geuen for you are they words of promise or no I answere Words of promise may be taken for suche as make a promise or els for suche as haue a promise made cōcerning them Those who beleue in God as Isaac did are named in holy scripture the children of promise not of that promise which themselues make to God but because through the grace of God which he promised before to Abraham in his blessed sede Iesus Christ they are made his chil dren And in that sense This is my body which is geuen for you may be called words of promise in so much as they fulfil at Christes supper the promise made before at Capharnaū When Christ sayd work the meate which the sonne of man will geue you and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh Again these words which is geuen for you at the tyme of Chri stes supper might stand to signifie which shal be geuen for you and so the old Fathers did reade them and the Latin copies of S. Paule haue so at this daye But the◅ the promise was to be consydered concerning the death of Christ which was to come and not concerning his supper which was present Caluin speaking of Christes supper as it is a supper saith this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise and that not because they are iustified concerning a former promise made at Capharnaum neither concerning the death which is now past but because they make a promise of Christes body to be spiritually eaten at his supper For he saith those words were not spoken to the bread wine but vnto the disciples to whom Christ pollicetur promiseth the communicating of his body and blood Also he saith the promises are offered to the faithfull together with bread and wine Moreouer let vs vnderstand saith he these words to be a liuely preaching which maie shew his efficacie in the accomplishement of that it promiseth First these words be a breif collation or sermon Secondly they promise the cōmunicating of Christes ◅ody Thirdly they being receaued of the faithfull bring forth in them that effectual eating of Christ which they promise Last of al he saith Take eate is the commandement like vnto Inuoca me call vpon me This is my body is the promise like vnto Exaudiam te I will heare the. I am the longer in shewing his mind because I feared it might be thought of wise men a great slaunder to faine so folish an opinion vpon a man taken for wise and lerned For it semeth an extreme madnesse to affirm that those words which shew a thing really present and bid vs take the same are notwithstanding words of promise At the transfiguration of Christ it was said this is my derebeloued sonne in whom I haue delighted heare him But who was euer so mad as to think that Christ was promised in those words and not rather shewed present Likewise when Christ said to him that had the palsey take a good hart sonne thy sinnes are forgeuen thee we beleue his sinnes were presently forgeuen him and not only a promise made that hereafter they should be forgeuen A promise lacketh many conditions which the performance hath A promise beginneth the bargain the perfoormance endeth at the least some part of it A promise consisteth in bare words the perfoormance besyde words hath dedes also ioyned A pr◅ mise belongeth to the time to come the performance to the tyme present A promise maie be differred to a certain daie or suspended with conditions the perfoormance must ◅edes be altogether without delay And how can these words Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise which neither speake of the time to come but of the present neither begyn but end the couenant nor consist in bare talk but also in reall dedes nor haue any condition or delay annexed but haue all things presently said signified made and deliuered If this is my body make to y◠hearers a promise of a spirituall communicating then seing those words were spoken to Iudas one of the twelue and are daily spoken to euil men without any condition or exception it maie seme that a spirituall communicating is promised to them which possibly can not be so For how can light and darknesse agree But if Caluin saie these words promise the body of Christ only to the faithfull I aske whether those words be writen in the supper of Christ or no If they be not writen how dareth Caluin supply them It is not said this is my body to you only that be faithfull as Caluin vseth falsely to interprete those words But it is absolutely said This is my body whosoeuer take it and eate it whether he take it by faith to his comfort and to euerlasting life or in deadely sinne to his iudgement and death For as God the Father said This is my derebeloued sonne and as thereof it foloweth that the person then shewed and pointed vnto by y◠voice was y◠sonne of God in dede whether euill men had to doe with him to whom he was y◠sauour of death or good men to whom he was the sauour of life right so this is my body was said of one certain thing then blessed be the man y◠cometh to eate it good or bad And as this is my derebeloued ◅ne are no words of promise but of a diuine witnes ◅oward Christ euen so this is my body promise not but witnesse and make presently the thing shewed to be in dede Christes body If this is my body doe promise the body of Christ yet this must nedes shew where the thing is whereunto it pointeth the body of Christ which is promised is also pointed vnto and the sense is I will geue you this thing to eate which is my body and by that meanes the eating is promised and the body is pointed to but the pointing can be directed to none other sensible thing but vnto that which semeth bread therfore that is affirmed to be Christes body and is promised to be geuen vs as meat bu◅ bread is not naturally the body of Christ therfore it is made his body And consequently Caluin who will haue these words to promise the ◅ing of Christes body by faith must nedes confesse that they make the same body in dede to th'◅nd the promise of eating that body which is so directly pointed vnto maie be fulfilled Howbeit Christ said not I will geue you my body but presently geuing said take eate this is my body But seing Caluin teacheth this that is pointed vnto still to remain bread I see not how those words which as he saith point vnto bread can withall promise the body of Christ. For the proposition is simple and affirmeth but one thing and that thing doth concerne the substāce as we beleue of Christes body as he saith of bread so
that none other thing can 〈◊〉 inferred vpon those words then what thing this is as we saie or what thing this bread doth signifie as the Sacramentaries teache Admit now it were expresly said this bread is the signe of Christes body which sense is salsely ascribed to those words by the Zuinglians yet it wold not follow therevpon that the body of Christ is promised to our soules but only that by this bread we are brought to remember Christ. Now as for eating it is commanded and not promised Caluin had the cheif property of an heretike which was to be singular And therein he delighted so much that albeit he was determined not to tarie in the faith wherein he was Christened yet he wold neither goe to Luther who first withdrew himself from vs nor to Zuinglius whose sect he fauored rather but he wold make a religion of his own And therfore he deuised a new sense of Christes words Affirming This is my body not to be spoken to the bread as both Catholiks Lutherans and Zuinglians after diuers meanings doe confesse but to be words of preaching made vnto the people that stand about the Priest and that these words promise the body of Christ to al that beleue his death and resurrection as verily as that bread is really eaten into their bodies and yet neither be the words conceiâ—…ed in the manner of promising neither do they speake of faith or death or of the resurrection of Christ or of eating bread Is not this a strang sense to pick out of these words This is my body as if it were said Masters beleue that Christ is dead and risen again and then as this bread is eaten of your bodies so certainly shal you fede of his body in faith spirit Did â—…uer any man heare of such a 〈◊〉 Hoc This doth signifie and shew to Caluin the bread which must be eaten at the supper of Christ and pointeth also to a spirituall food which is promised Est Is doth stand both properly for the present time in yâ— it is a signe of Christes body at the tyme of speaking and also vnproperly for the tyme to come in that it is a promise of his body to be eaten spiritually Corpus meum My body doth signifie to him the signe of my body taken by mouth and the streÌ„gth or vertue therâ—…of that shal be taken by faith and spirit Put together This bread which you bodily eate is the signe this thing which I promise that your soules shall eate shall be the streÌ„gth or efficacie of my body and yet he addeth farther of his owne to them that beleue Christes death and resurrection This is the sermon which Caluin saith was made at Christes supper Wherein euery word must signifie at once two or three things and one verb in one tense must signifie two tymes and the same word body must signifie two proprieties and yet neither of them both properly For whether body stand for signe of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of bread it standeth vnproperly or whether iâ—… stand for efficacie of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of the communicants it standeth vnproperly whereas the proper signification thereof is to signifie the substance of Christes body If we presse him out of S. Paul and out of the Fathers that euil men eate the body of Christ then he will answere they eate the signe of his body without promise or efficacie If we saie that good men eate the body of Christ he expoundeth it in such sense that they first haue it promised them â—…ate both a certain pledge bodily and in their soules a spirituall efficacie thereof O crafty deuiser If thou canst thus deceaue a sort of miserable and either vnlerned or vngraciouse men thinkest thou to deceaue God or to escape his terrible iudgement Agree at the last how euery word shal be so taken that thy interpretation maie be like it self Let not the same word be now a signe now a pledge now a promise now an efficacie now again no efficacie no promise no pledge but only a signe We beleue that euery word standeth properly And that both euill and good receaue one and the same substance of Christes body But as one medicine receaued of two diuerse complexions worketh not one effect so the good men haue a good effect by eating worthely the body of Christ the euill haue condemnation by eating it vnworthely Thus we take the word body for the reall substance of the body the verb est is we take properly because it is in dede Christes body when the words are spoken This we saie doth finally point to the substance of Christes body as then prâ—…ently made vnder the foorm of bread In our interpretation there is no inconstancy no impropriety no changing of significations in the same words no bare promising of a thing to come bâ—…t a present perfoormance If any man aske by what scriptures I conuince Caluin I wold first â—…now by what scriptures he proueth his lewed interpretation Shall he speake a thing without scripture beside all truthe and reason and shall not we be credited vnlesse we conuince him by scripture Howbeit let vs forgeue that iniurie and confute his fond â—…pinioÌ„ by the word of God Caluin saith This ys my body be words of promise against which saing thus I reason S. Paule intending to shew that God was not bound to the carnall Iewes because they were the childern of Abraham by flesh but that rather he wold reward them who were the children of Abraham by faith and spirit declareth Isaac to haue ben the child of promise because the Angell said to Abraham Secundum hoc tempus veniam erit Sarae filius I will come according to this tyme and a sonne shal be vnto Sara out of which words S. Paule proueth a promise How so Promissionis enim hoc verbum est For this word or saing is a word of promise which word is that Veniam I will com filius â—…rit a sonne shal be as if S. Paule said wil shall be words of promise For when a speache is conceiued for the tyme to come with 〈◊〉 circumstance that it maie appere the speaker meant to warrant the thing spoken it maketh a promise If I will come and 〈◊〉 sonne shal be are words of promise I am come and a sonne is be words of perfoormance and that is also conâ—…irmed out os the word of God Where it is writâ—…n the Lord visited Sara as he had promised and fulfilled the things which he spake and she conceiued and brought foorth a sonne at yâ— tyme wherein god had foreâ—…old 〈◊〉 that which was before in S. Paul named a promise is â—…ow called also a foretelling or prediction For albeit euery prediction be not a promise yet euery promise is a prediction and a telling before hand so that we haue in the word of God that a promise telleth a
suum appellat He calleth the bread his body But we can not call a thing except we speake vnto it Therefore when Christ called the bread his body he spake vnto the bread as if he had said to the bread be thou my body For as it is all one in Christ to saie let thy synnes be forgeuen and thy synnes are forgeuen so it is one to saye concerning a certain bread which was taken Let this be my body or this is my body with whatsoeuer words the mind of Christ be vttered out of question it is allwaies fullfilled But among all kind of vtteraÌ„ce none is more plain to vs then when a thing is clerely aâ—…rmed to be this or that for then it is made plain to vs not only that God wold haue it so or wisheth it to be so but that really and in dede it is so Christ calleth bread his body Therfore Caluin saith falsâ—… when he affirmeth that Christ speaketh not to the bread to th' end it might be made his body You will say calling is not making yeas for foutâ—… in God in Christ in those whom Christ willeth to call one thing and make thereof an other thing in all them calling is making Men call a thing by the name of the former nature but God in calling any thiâ—…g or in willing it to be called by a new name changeth the former nature and maketh it to be as he called it And therefore when the Prophet 〈◊〉 wold signifie that the gentils and panims should be turned to the faith how doth he vtter that matter Saith he not in the person of God Dicam non populo meo populus meus es tu I will saye to that which is not my people thou art my people Dicam I will saye it And trow ye his saying is not don Yes it solloweth immediatly Et ipse dicet Deus meus es tu And the people it self shall say thou art my God which thing the people could not saye except in dede it were conuerted and made the people of God from the people of infidelity And therfore S. Paul him self expoundeth this place of Osoe by the word of calling and 〈◊〉 Vocabo non plebem meam plebem meam I will call that which is not my people my people erit in loco vbi dictum est eis non plebs mea vos ibi vocabuntur filij Dei And it shall come to passe in the plate where it hath ben said to them ye are not my people there they shal be called the sonnes God After which sort when Christ hauing taken bread and blessed said This is my body That saying was the calling of that which was before Non corpus Christi not the body of Christ. Corpus Christi the body of Christ. In this sense S. Ambroise saith Ante benedictionem verborum coelesâ—…m alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aliud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur Et tu dicis Amen hoc est verum est quod os loquitur mens interna fateatur Quod sermo sonat affectus sentiat Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named an other kind after consecration the body is signified himself saith or nameth his blood Before consecration it is named or sayd an other thing aâ—…ter consecration it is called blood and thou 〈◊〉 Amen 〈◊〉 is to saie it is true That which the mouth speaketh let the inward mind cousesse that which the speache soundeth let the harâ—… think Here we lern by S. Ambrose that the naming signisying or calling bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is both 〈◊〉 â—…uident signe that Christ spake to bread and wine otherwisâ—… then Caluin said and also the making of them to be in dede so â—…s they are called and signified also he sheweth yâ— custome of yâ— primatiue Church to haue ben that immediatly before communioâ—… when yâ— Priest said the body of Christ the people vsed to answer Amen it is true it is in dede his body And as the word body soundeth and as our confirmation thereof soundeth so he requireth vs to beleue confesse and think certainly there is none otheâ—… thing sounding to our eares besyde the name of body Likewise Tertullian hauing witnessed that Christ called the bread his body witnesseth also that he made the bread which was taken and distributed to the Disciples his body Fecit panem corpus suum He made the bread his body in saying This is my body that is to saye the figure of my body But neither calling nor naming noâ—… saying nor the being of a figure stoppeth any thing yâ— reall truthâ—… of Christes body the Sacrament is the figure of Christes body because it sheweth his death vntill he come as S. Paul saith But as Christ is the figure or print and form of his Fathers substance and yet also his substance in dede euen so the Sacrament is a figure of Christ and Christ in dede Christ as an other person beside his Father so is he the figure of his substance But otherwise in truthe he is throughly the same substance euen so as the Sacrament is another maner of Christes presence so it is a figure either of his visible body or of his death But concerning the truth of substance all is one Thus without all controuersy the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 â—…ords standeth vpright And his naming signifying figuring calling is the making of a thing to be that which it is named bi him signified figured or called He hath said the things are made Ther can be none more grosse more vile more blasphemous opinioÌ„ then to think yâ— Christ is a bare man â–ª that his word is like our word or his figures and Sacraments like our figures or like the figures of the old law Looke what oddes is betwen God and man so much beleue thou to be also betwen his naming or his figures of the new Testament and all other figures His figures contein the self same substance which they expresse in figure signe or name whereof God wylling I will intreat more hereafter It is at this tyme to be coÌ„sydered yâ— seing the SacrameÌ„t of Chri stes supper is the remeÌ„brance of that great sacriâ—…ice made by his death vpoÌ„ yâ— crosse It self also must nedes partake that nature whereof it is the remembrance consequeÌ„tly it must be certeinly beleued to be a true sacrifice as that of the crosse was In euery publike saâ—… ther is a thing offered vowed vnto God the act which offereth voweth it apperteiueth as wel to the thing 〈◊〉 by the meane of doing sumwhat about it as vnto God to whom the oblation is theifly dedicated As therefore when a lamb is sacrificed hands are layed vpon the lambs head the lamb is killed burnt or eaten and all that while God in the lamb is honoured prayed vnto blessed thanked
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
cause we doubt not to commit it to Gods word And that no man maie suspect we take the words of the Apologie to short that we expound them to hardly that we seeke aduantage vpon small occasion I will bring foorth their owne words which they haue more fully writen in an other place of the same Apologie concerning this matter We do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of godly and of faithfull men and such as are endued with the spirite of Christ. These felowes do teach that the very body of Christ maie in very dede and as they terme it really and substantially be eaten not only of wicked and vnfaithfull men but also it is horrible to speake it of mise and dogges Whether mise and dogges maie in some sense eate the body of Christ or no it is not worth while to discusse for so much as the Catholikes kepe the body of Christ so warely that neither mouse nor dogge maie come nigh to it But as yâ— Arrians threw downe the body and blood of Christ and trod thereon with their filthie feete and as the Donatists brake the chalices which as Optatus saith caried the blood of Christ so the Sacramentaries of England haue taken out of the holy pixes and troden vnder their prophane fecte the blessed body of Christ they haue sold broken and abused to filthy ministeries the chalices which haue holden Christes blood If the wicked men be able to pollute to tread on and to defile as much as lieth in them the body of Christ A thinke that to be worse then if mise and dogges did eate it Not that the immortall body of Christ can take any harme at all But yet a terrible damnation is reserued to them who being able to do it no hurte shewe not withstanding their vnsatiable malice against the highest mysterie of our redemption tredding vnder foote the sonne of God counting the blood of the new testament prophane and vnholy Leauing therefore this question we returne to the principall matter coÌ„fessing our selues to teache that the wâ—…ked men â—…ate in dede really the body of Christ in our Lords supper Thus we teach not only because the greater part of the Fathers haue deliuered so vnto vs but also because thus we learned of Christ. Who after bread taken hauing blessed gaue to Iudas one of the twelue bidding him take eate saying This is my body A worse man then Iudas I think is not lightly heard of Which amoÌ„g other things causeth vs to beleue that be the man neuer so euill yet if he take and eate after consecration and benediction he taketh and eateth really and in dede the body of Christ. Which vnworthy receauing of so precious a thing although it mislike Christ as all synne doth yet as he permitteth synne for the goodnes which he worketh by the occasion thereof so he thought it lesse euill that euil men should eate his body then that his Sacraments by any our infidelity should be made void or that the gift of his grace should be vncertaine For Christ in the institution of his SacrameÌ„ts dependeth not vpon our faith or vertue but vpon his owne mercy and truth Wherefore when so euer by a lawfull Priest intending to execute the ministerie commaunded by Christ it is dâ—…ely sayd ouer bread and wine This is my body and This is my blood Christ would it so to be as the wordes declare and who so euer receaueth that kind of food receaueth the body of Christ. whether well or â—…uill that dependeth vpon his worthy or vnworthy eating If any man eate vnworthely then will Christ complaine of him as he coÌ„plained of Iudas For straight after the deliuery of the blood he sayd as S. Luke doth witnesse and S. Augustine hath noted the same to pertaine to the Sacrament Veruntamen ecce manus tradentis me mecum est in mensa But yet see yâ— hand of him yâ— betrayeth me is with me on the table As if he had sayd You see what loue I shewe to you by geuing mine owne body to be eaten mine owne blood to be drunken in this my last supper this only greueth me that a very deuill doth eate drinke these preciouse giftes together with me and you Except our new brethren will say Iudas to haue bene a good faithfull man I see not but they must coÌ„fesse that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ deliuered to them Which thing S. Paul most euidently confirmeth of all euill Christians saying Therefore who so euer shall eate this bread or drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shall be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Doth not he that speaketh of vn worthy eating coÌ„fesse a true eating True I say in nature of the thing eaten but vnworthy coÌ„cerning the effect of grace ensewing And yet doe not euill men who receaue the body of Christ vnworthely eate really the same body It is written in the booke of the Machabees that King Antiochus hauing slaine foure score thousand within three dayes entred also into the holy Temple Et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa contrectabat indigne contaminabat And taking in his wicked hands the holy vessels he handled or touched them vnworthely and defiled them I aske whether it doth not folow Antiochus touched vnworthely the holy vessels therefore he tou ched the holy vessels If that argument be good it is like to say an euil man doth eate the body of Christ vnworthely therefore he doth eate yâ— body of Christ. Or did not Adam and 〈◊〉 eate of the â—…uit of the tree because they did eate the same against the commaundement of God For these defenders seme to make an vnworthy eating no eating Whereas if it were no eating it were not an vnworthy eating Perhaps they wil say S. Paul writeth not that synners wicked men eate the body of Christ vnworthely but that they eate this bread vnworthely Uerily S. Paul speaketh not of bakers bread in yâ— place But hauing shewed that Christ taking bread after thanks geuen sayd This is my body straight he inferreth that as often as this bread is eaten the death of Christ is shewed therefore who so eateth this bread vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body of our Lord. This bread is one certayn kinde of meate or foode for so bread in the holy scripture doth signifie which food before was declared to be the body of Christ. And S. Paul doth so warely describe this kind of bread that he putteth both an article and a pronoune to it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if it were said in English who so eateth vnworthely this certayn kinde of bread For so the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth â—… certayn bread spoken of before But then foloweth besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most vehemently restraineth that certayn bread
good faith to haue a good charitie to examine him selfe goeth before the supper eating by faith and spirit is a thing required to come worthely to the supper But when we once come thither we all eate one thing one meate one foode one body whether we come worthely or vnworthely euen as all that are sprinkled with water in the name of the Trinitie are baptized in one and the same Sacrament of baptim whether they be good men as Cornelius was or â—…uill men as Simon Magus was For Simon Magus was baptized of Philip yâ— deacon But as it may appere by that is tolde in the scriptures and gathered by the Breke and Latine Fathers he came not worthely to that Sacrament but faynedly as one that hoped to make gain of his faith And yet he had that baptisme which as S. Paul sayeth is but one But he had not the vertue of that one baptisme which is the remission of synnes I trust by this tyme the defenders nede not boast of their doctrine neither vpbraid vs of ours because they teach that only good men haue yâ— body of Christ deliuered to them And we teach that euill men also eate really the true body of Christ. We haue I suppose declared the word of God to stand in our side and seing their doctrine must be tried by the word of God I tell them it is tried and sound to be false and forged except they can proue Iudas to haue bene an honest man For surely that he receaued the body of Christ it is the mind of S. Cyprian S. Hierom S. Chrysoâ—…om S. Augustin S. Leo S. Bede Theodoritus Sedulius 〈◊〉 Euthymius yea it is so farre the common opinion of all men that vpon that example this â–ª conclusion is grounded that we can not remoue 〈◊〉 euill man from the commu nion excepthy order of law we may coÌ„uince him Quia nec Christus Iudam a communione remouit Because Christ did not remoue Iudas from communion Howbeit we stand not in this doctrine vpon the person of Iudas only but also vpon the generall doctrine of S. Paule who teacheth euery euill man to be gilty of the body of Christ for eating that bread vnworthely ¶ The auncient Fathers teach that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. YEa but say they we do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of Godly and faithfull men Seing the holy scriptures are proued to stand on our side it were great marueile if the auncient Fathers did make for you They are not wonte to be contrarie to the word of God But what a miserie is this what a seducing of the people The word of God is pretended the auncient Fathers be named and not one syllable brought forth out of either both concerning this question But as before we brought holy scriptures so let vs now allege the auncient Fathers Origen sayeth Those who come to the Eucharist without examining cleansing them selues are lyke to men sicke of an ague who presuming to eate sanorum cibos the meates of whole men doe hurte them selues Whereby we may perceaue he iudgeth the meate of Christes supper which is proâ—…ded only for whole men yet to be truly but not profitabâ—…y eaten of them who are burdened with great synnes Basile asketh what a man shall say of him qui otiose et inutiliter edere audet corpus et bibere sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi Who dareth in vayne and vnprofitably eate the body and drinke the blood of our Lord Iesus Christ If a man eate in vaine and to his disprofit yet he eateth in dede and as S. Basile sayeth he eateth the body of Christ. Chrysostom writeth thus If those which spotte the Kinges purple be no lesse punished then those that cutte it what wonder is it if those who take the body of Christ with an vncleane conscience haue the same punishment which they haue who pearced him with nailes Behold as it is one purple still whether it be spotted or cutt so is it the same body still whether it be pearced with nailes as the Iewes haudled it or taken with an vnclean conscience as euill Christians order it S. Cyprian in manner of purpose answereth those obiections which might moue any man to doubt how euill men may doo receaue so good a thing as Christes owne body is The Sacramentes sayeth he for their part can not be without their proper vertue Neither doth Gods maiestie by any meanes absent it self from the mysteries But albeit the Sacramentes permitte them selues to be taken or touched of vnworthy men yet those men can not be partakers of the spirit whose infidelitie or vnworthynes withstandeth such holines If by the mynd of S. Ciprian the Sacramentes can not lacke their owne proper vertue come good men or euill to them one substance is alwayes geuen but the euill can not receaue the spirit or grace thereof because they are vnworthie of such a benefite S. Hierome Opponis mihi Gomor Mannae vnam mensuram Et nos Christi corpus aequaliter accipimus Thou laiest vnto me the one measure of Manna called Gomor and we take the body of Christ equally One as well taketh it as an other but as it there foloweth Pro accipientiuÌ„ meritis diuersum fit quod vnum est According to the merites of them that receaue that which is one is made diuerse The Sacrament is one in it selfe yet to one it is made yâ— cause of goodnes when he taketh it worthely to an other the cause of euill when he taketh it vnworthely There also S. Hierome sayeth that Iudas dranke of the same cuppe whereof the other Apostles dranke but yet that he was not of the same merit S. Augustine sayeth Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam DiaboluÌ„ furem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos quod norunt fideles precium nostrum Our Lord him selfe beareth with Iudas he suâ—…th a deuill a theefe and the seller of him selfe to receaue among the innocent Disciples our price which the faithfull knowe If any thing besydes that body of Christ may be our price then S. Augustine might meane that euill men receaue an other thing But if our price be vndoubtedly that body of Christ which by death redemed vs Iudas receauing our price receaued the very true body and substance of Christ. In an other place he writeth Eundem cibuÌ„ sanctuÌ„ alios manducare digne alios indigne Some eate worthely some vnworthely the same holy meate Beholde the meate is the same Whether the euill receaue it or the good And because the Apologie though it name no Father at all yet it maie haue some pretense of certain wordes which are in S Augustine it is to be weighed diligeÌ„tly that Christ hath as well a mystical body as a true naturall body The mysticall body of
Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
cause thereof We are coupled to Christ by eating that flesh of his which he deliuereth to vs. But Christ deliuereth it not only spiritually but also with his hands saying Take eate this is my body As therefore yâ— deliuery is real and not only spirituall so is the eating reall and the coupling reall I haue proued this thing in other places folowing Here it is 〈◊〉 to say this much against the bare words of the Apologie ¶ That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God VVE do acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament yâ— is to say an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the body and blood of Christ. Besides the former vaâ—…t of the word of God already brought foorth to the reproche of the Catholikes also the Apologie aâ—…tle before these words witnessed that yâ— auctours abâ—…tours thereof gaue thanks to God for the light of the Gospel raysed to them which they might allwayes haue before theyr eyes as a moste certayne rule to which all doctrine of yâ— Church ought to be called for his triall And within lesse than 〈◊〉 lines after the same Apologie cometh to denie our Lords supper calling it a Sacrament that is to say an 〈◊〉 token of the body and blood of Christ. What mâ—…ers Hauâ—… you in the holy Scriptures that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament or a signe of yâ— body and blood of Christ From the beginning of 〈◊〉 to the later ende of tho â—…ocalips you finde â—…t our Lordes supper so called Christ in S. 〈◊〉 calleth it yâ— mâ—…e which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not but 〈◊〉 into lâ—…e 〈◊〉 He saieth yâ— bread which he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he will 〈◊〉 â—…or yâ—â—…se of yâ— world He 〈◊〉 it the 〈◊〉 and the blood of the sonne of man meate in dede and drinke in dede his flesh and his blood the eating of him the bread which who so eateth shall liue for euer In S. Mathew and in S. Marke his body and his blood of the new testament In S. Luke his body whiche is geuen for vs and the chalice which is the newe testament in his blood which is shed for vs. In S. Paul the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the coÌ„municating or partaking of Christes blood the one bread yâ— table of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord the body which is broken for vs the chalice which is the new Testament of his blood the eating of this bread and drinking of this chalice So many names are geuen in so many places of holy scripture to this blessed Sacrament and it being no where called a signe or token yet the Apologie which thanketh God for yâ— holy scriptures aâ—…d will trie all doctrine by them in the chief question of our age goeth quite from all holy scriptures and sayeth the Eucharist or the Lordes supper is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. What is the matter that in wordes you make so much of holy scripture and in dede so litle What Apostle what Euangelist what Prophete or Patriarke taught our Lordes supper to be a signe or token S. Paul threateneth damnation to him who vnworthely eateth it and he calleth vnworthy eating not only the contempte thereof or lacke of faith but euen the omitting to proue or examine him selfe before he eate our Lords body And that because he maketh no difference betwixt it and common meates And come you with a new doctrine affirming that we receaue not our Lords body into our bodies but an euident signe and token thereof you 〈◊〉 no authoritie no rule no triall of matters belonging to faith but only the holy Scriptures and immediatly ye breake your owne rule in so much as the holy scriptures call the supper of our Lord his body and blood and you teach it to be an euident token of his body and blood If you kepe not your owne rule whom can you binde to kepe the â—…aine Ye will aske me perhaps whether the Lordes supper be not a Sacrament if a Sacrament then also a signe and token I aunswere ye that prescribe rules of beleuing to the world ye that wil haue all thinges iudged and proued by that touchestone of Gods worde ye that for pretense of folowing the gospell haue stirred vp so greate strife through all Christendome must not talke with vs with if with and with conditions and peraduentures But ye must bring forth the word of God for that ye say Although the supper of our Lord were neuer so much a Sacrament surely to you it were none because ye cannot proue out of the word of God where it is so named To vs it is both a Sacrament and a sacrifice A Sacrament because we are so taught by tradiction from the Apostles A sacrifice because Malachie the prophet in the person of God expressely saieth In omni loco sacrificatur offertur nomini meo oblatio munda â–ª quia magnum est nomen meum in geÌ„tibus In euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed and offered to mie name because my name is greate amonge the gentils There is absolutely no pure and cleane oblation besides the sacrifice of Christes body and blood whiche was offered to death not in euery place but without the gate of Hierusalem alone and the same is at this daie vnbloodily offered in the masse in euerie place where so euer among the gentils the name of God is 〈◊〉 called vpon Thus both we and you maie proue the â—…upper of our Lord to be a sacrifice but that it is a 〈◊〉 â–ª we can proue because our forefathers delyuered such a doctrine to vs You can not proue the same seing you will not be bound to folow vnwritten traditions If you flee to the Church for naming it a SacrameÌ„t the church hathe seuen Sacramentes But ye in this present Apologie acknowledge only two properly to be rekoned vnder yâ— name for so many saie you do we find deliuered and sanctified by Christ and allowed of the olde fathers Ambrose and Augustine Concerning the deliuery of Sacraments by Christ ye might haue found in the word of God ConfirmatioÌ„ Actor 8. Penance IoaÌ„ 20. Extreme vnction Iacob 5. Priesthod Luk. 22. Matrimonie Eph. 5. And not only Baptim and the Eucharist But what kind of talk is this to say that S. Ambrose and S. Augustine allow that workes of Christ was not the deliuery and consecration of Christ of sufficâ—…ent autoritie except Ambrose and Augustine had approued it I thoâ—…ght Ambrose and Augustine should haue bene allowed by the scripture and not the scripture by them I stand with you vpon the autoritie of the word of God proue me thence that these two are Sacramentes alone yea proue that thei are so named at all what gospell calleth baptisme a Sacrament What holy write nameth
iudgement they are the chefe among all signes And as the same Doctour saith in an other place Signum nisi aliquid significet noÌ„ potest esse signum A signe except it signifie sumwhat can not be a signe Now that which doth not signifie a thing at all can not by signifiyng make and work that thing which it doth not signifie Take these fower words This is my body Neuer a one of them doth signifie washing Therefore if a maÌ„ washing an other with the mind to make him a member of Christes body should saie This is my body out of doute that man washed with those words should not be baptized What is the cause Washing was vsed the minister was present with intent to baptize some words also lacked not but yet because those words lacked which might signifie washing in the name of the Trinitie he was not baptized If then the words of Sacraments must signifie that which shal be made these words This is my body spoken by any Priest shall neuer make the signe of Christes body Because they doe not signifie any figure or signe thereof Ou the other syde If they be in dede figuratiue as the Zuinglians affirm them to be they shall not make the body of Christ because they say Christ meant not so but only meant a figure to be made in bread and wine Behold to what case we are now brought We haue striued so long about the words of Christ whether they be proper or figuratiue that now they are proued to make nothing at all if they be figuratiue For they make not the body of Christ because if they be figuratiue they meane not to make it They make no figure of the body because they name and signifie no figure And that which they do not signifie they by signifying can not make Foâ—… their whole institution vse nature and commoditie is to signifie to shew foorth to betoken make plain the mind of the speaker That which words doe not signifie they do not work That which they work not is neuer don by them But these words This is my body and this is my blood signifie no figure no signe no token for so muche as they signifie an other thing therefore they work no figure they make no signe they leaue no token And then haue we no Sacrament at all made because none is made without suche words as may signifie that which is made and wrought If any man saye Christ may meane a figure and signe and by his meaning these words This is my body may work a figure oâ—… his body I answer if Christ wil work by his meaning who can forbed him seing he is almighty And if he will work without any words who caÌ„ gainsaye him But then his words work not And why then are they deliuered to vs as the chief instrument to work withall Why sayd he Hoc facite Doe and make this thing why are they rehersed in euery Masse and communion Why doe the auncient Fathers teache the bread and wine to be consecrated by them Why may not Baptism be made by other words then by those which Christ instituted Surely to say that these words This is my body make a figure of his body because Christ wil haue it so is to say that Christ will not hane words necessarie to the making of his SacrameÌ„ts Or it is to saie that he will haue a thing wrought by words to work the which they be vumete instruments as if a man wold take a saw to plane timber withall a beetil to cutt down a tree Christ being the word of God hath geuen that honour to words of men but yet to such as are appointed by him self that they should principally among instrumentall causes work and make his Sacraments Next vnto words he chose maruelous conuenient things wherewith they should concur The things to be most agreable to th â–ª effect which they are sett to work all men agree It is conuenient for water to washe for bread and wine to concur to the Sacrament of the Altar as meetest to nourish for oile to serue in ointing at the vse of other Sacraments And now hath Christ erred in chosing his words hath he 〈◊〉 body to signifie the figure of his body To whom doth it signifie after that sort Surely not to all men as it is eâ—…ident not to all Christians as it maie appere in that we hearing it said that Christ had a mans body or walked in a mans body or that our bodies shall rise at the later daie in all these phrases we take not the name of body for a signe and figure of a body but we take it to meane the true substance of flesh and blood How then shall the word body be taken only in the supper of our Lord for the signe and figure of body Wher is that rulâ—… readen Wher is that secret reueled â–ª For dowtlesse if it were true it were of it self a mysterie and an vnwont acception appointed by Christ and it had neded to haue ben registred in the Scriptures or in the holy Fathers or at the least to haue ben deliuered to vs by tradition But who teacheth that body standeth to signifie the figure of body many Fathers saie the words of Christ are plain manifest true and effectuall but no man telleth vs of such a strange taking of the words body and blood noman witnesseth them to be taken for the figures of body and blood and no maruail For no man knew that iuterpretation They knew that the true body of Christ geuen after such a sort vnder the foormes of bread and wine was a figure of the self same body either walking visibly vpon the earth or suffering death vpon the crosse or sitting now at the right hand of his Father or intending to come to iudgement They could tell that a thing present in a secrete maner is a token a signe and a watch word to all the faithfull of an open maner either past or to come in the same thing By this meanes they confessed the Sacrament to be the figure of Christes body and blood but they knew no such figure as the SacrameÌ„taries haue deuised they neuer could tell of Synecdoche or of Meronymia they knew Sacramentall and not Rhetoricall figures Mysticall and not Poeticall holy and not prophane Let him therfore that will haue any thing at all made by Christes words acknowlege them to be proper to signifie sumwhat and to make that they signifie which is the true body and blood of Christ. ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. WE doe acknowlege the Eucharist to be a Sacrament wherein is sette after a manner before our eyes the death of Christ and his resurrection and what soeuer he did here in his humane body The eating of common bread and drinking of common wine is but an homely maner of setting
Chrysostom ad iugem nos pro beneficijs suis inuitans gratiarum actionem Stirring vs to geue thanks perpetually for his benefites by the very kind of the sacrifice And shewing farther in an other place what kind of sacrifice it is God sayth Chrysostom did yerely by certain holydays set the remembrances of his benefites before the Iewes Tibi vero quotidiè ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur But he is set before thee daily him selfe lest thou shouldest bee vnmindfull See now by what meanes the death of Christ is renewed Not by tokens wherein he is doubtfully called to minde him selfe being absent for that were a feble token but by these tokens wherein him selfe is made present lest we should forgett his death The body of Christ must be made to th' intent we maye remember his death If you take from vs the making of his body which causeth the vehement remembrance of the death it is afterward a vaine thing to talke of the remembraunce of his death by eating bread and drinking wine For the necessarie meane of necessarie remembrance of his death consisteth in the reall presence of him that died For who can forget his death whose body is daily made worshipped and eaten to the end the death may be remembred But I may right well eate bread and drinke wine not yet remembring thereby that Christ is dead for me ¶ The true resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating that body of Christ which is both true and is true in vs. TO th' intent we being fed with the body and blood of Christ may be brought into the hope of the resurrection and of euerlasting life and may most assuredly beleue that the body and blood of Christ doth in like manner feed our soules as bread and wine doth feed our bodies I omit to say any thing vpon that ouersight wherein the English translation of a body hath left out the word Vero the true body which the Latine edition hath But here the Apologie presupposeth that Christes supper consisteth as wel of bread wine as of body and blood The first two they will haue geuen to the bodies The later twaine to the soules The bread wine they will haue present on the table whence they be deliuered The body and blood they will haue to be receaued from heauen by faith and vnderstanding Against this dreame thus I reason out of the word of God Christ made his whole supper vpon a visible table accordingly as it was prophecied by king Dauid Parasti in conspectu meo mensam Thou hast prepared a table in my sight And by Salomon Sapientia proposuit mensam suaÌ„ insipientibus locuta est venite comedite panem meum bibite vinum quod miscui vobis Wisedome hath set foorth her table and hath spoken to simple men come ye eate my bread and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you S. Paul sayth Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse mensae Daemoniorum Ye can not be partakers of our Lords table and of the table of deuils Put these three together and the sense will be the supper and table of our Lord was prepared and set foorth in the sight of the faithfull that they might thence cate and drinke such as the wisedome of God gaue them at his supper Therefore no meate no foode no banket is to be looked for at his supper but such as is prepared by Christ set foorth vpon his table Otherwise Christ had prepared no supper in the sight of that faithfull as Dauid foretold nor had not set foorth his table as Salomon prophecied nor we had not bene partakers of our Lords table as S. Paul writeth For bread and wine is not prepared of Christ But was before hand made ready by the baker and vintner or by the seruants yâ— brought them foorth The preparing which Christ made was by blessing and conseâ—…ng to make of earthly bread the bread of life euerlasting And hauing made it he deliuered the same to the Apostles and bad them both make and doe that thing If he deliuered not his owne body with his owne handes doubtles they did not eate his body For he sayd in respect only of that which he deliuered take and eate Wherevpon S. Chrysostom sayeth to him that cometh to our Lords table Cogita quid manu capias caet Bethink thy selfe what thou takest in thy hand and kepe it free from all couetousnes and violent robbery Consider againe that thou takest it not only in thy hande but also puttest it to the mouth and after thy hand and tonge the harte receaueth that dreadfull mysterie Thus much S. Chrysostom Let any reasonable man iudge whether he sayeth not that the hart receaueth the same which the hande doth and the hande the same which the hart doth For if the hart receaue it after that hand the hand receaued it before the hart It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries falsely teach bread only in hand and body only in harte But body as well in hand as in harte And none other true body in the harte then was first in the hand and mouth For this cause euer sith we receaued the faith we called this blessed supper The Sacrament of the altar As if we sayd the SacrameÌ„t which is made vpon the altar or vpon the table of Christ. for the table of Christ is an altar as in Malachie it may appere and in an other place by the fauour of God I will declare This name of the SacrameÌ„t of the altar was deliuered to vs with our Christianitie and it is found very ofte in the olde writers namely in S. Augustine By which we are enformed that the consecration and oblation thereof is made not in the hartes of men by words of promising and preaching but vpon the visible altar in the sight of Christian people by yâ— visible Priest who as a publike minister ordeined by God consecrateth the body of Christ by the same power which Christ gaue when he sayd Hoc facite doe and make this thing This is 〈◊〉 table prepared in the sight of Dauid set foorth by the wisedome of God whereof we are partakers when we receaue the blessed Sacrament of the altar At this altar S. Augustines mother desired a memorie of her to be made vnde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis From which altar my mother knew sayeth S. Augustine the holy sacrifice to be distributed whereby the handwriting that was contrarie to vs is put out Behold the sacrificed body of Christ was dispeÌ„sed and geuen from the altar as both S. Augustine and his mother and all the faithfull then beleued Thus thou seest the dreame of the Apologie by the word of God to be blowen away like chaf dust dispersed with the wind The Apologie sayeth our bodies are
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
substance And it is so truly made and the Lamb so truly prosenâ—… that he is offered not in hart alone but euen outwardly of the Priests not by shedding of blood as vpon the crosse but vnblodely as it becommeth the cleane oblation of the new Testament whereof Malachie did prophecie That sacrifice which Priests offer can not be but present for they offer with their hands moâ—…thes and other externall members of their body After that the sacrifice is made the faithfull people who stand by doe partake with the altar which could not be except a perma neâ—…t substance were made by consecration The Lamb is vpon the table He is offered there by yâ— Priests It foloweth in the Councell We take truly the precious body and blood We take it and truly take it That is to say in deed really and bodily For the truth of Christes body and blood is not an imaginarie or fained truth it is not a thing conceaued only as a man might conceaue in his mind men flying in the aier it is not only beleued or hoped but he in naturall existence and among external things hath as true a body and blood as any creature hath a substance of his owne The true taking of the which precious body and blood is the taking of it in suche a truth of subsâ—…ce as it self hath And because it is true in yâ— thing it selfe the taking of it is in the thing it self The taking of that which sâ—…andeth before vs on the table is by instrument of our bodyes therefore it is deliuered according to the same external truth by the corporall ministerie of yâ— Priests So that all is truly and externally done by the iudgement of this auncient councell Wel we truly taking them beleue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some bookes read of our resurrection For as our redemption was by the â—…ame body and the same blood really wrought vpon the crosse so hauing them selues present vpon yâ— holy table and truly taking them we take the sure witnesses and euident tokens of our redemption But if the things which stand vpon the holy table were in substance bread and wine how could they be the tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeme vs Or did they rise from death for vs It is the body and blood of Christ which redemed vs and which arose from death and the self same body and blood are now made present to vs offered vnbloodely for vs to shew in fact and dede our redemption already wrought by them and to distribute the fruits of yâ— Crosse by none other thing so much as by the same body and blood that redemed vs. For least we should assigne any part of our saluation to any other creature besydes to the only body and blood of Christ he made the selfsame body both the price wherewith he redemed vs and the token and dispensour of the redemption It was proued before that if these things be the tokens of our redemption instituted by the expresse words of Christ then they are the things them selues which they betoken because they are mysticall tokens of the new Testament But they are here not as redeming vs new and therefore as tokens of yâ— old redemption that no man should thinke Christ to die again or should doubt as S. Chrysostom hath noted of his death already past or of any maner prices of our redemptioÌ„ to be payed then one or that it hath any other token left thereof in the holy mysteries besydes it selfe For it was so worthy a truth and raâ—…som payed for vs vpon the Crosse which was able to be painted worthely or set foorth to the remembrances of the faithfull by none other image then such wherein yâ— truth might be set foorth after an other sort more mystical concerning the manner But no lesse true then the thing which died was concerning the substance Who so is faithfull and humble is now able to vnderstaÌ„d how the shew of bread and wine standeth with the truth of body and blood present on the holy table How the vnbloody sacrifice is made of the Priests whiles by pronouncing the words of God they turne the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of Christes body and blood how we both truly take the precious body and blood of Christ coÌ„cerning the substance of them vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet beleue them to be tokens instituted of Christ of our redemptioÌ„ betokening the price paid by making present the body and blood which payed it Was not this a worthy place for the Apologie to allege But I warrant you it alleged the weakest part therof leauing out the situatioÌ„ of the Lamb of God on the holy table The vnbloody sacrifice made of Priests the true taking and receauing of the pre cious body and blood Only bread and wine which are named to shew the formes within the which the body and blood are them they name as a great matter to further this new broched heresie But he is a faithfull trier and examiner of auncient Fathers who faithfully citeth the whole place neither adding nor diminishing which honest dealing we may not looke for at these defenders hands ¶ That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iaies ANd as Chrisostome writeth wel we say that the body of Christ is the carcas and we must be the Egles that we may know that we ought to flye highe if we will come to the body of Christ. For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes It is a weake stake that these meÌ„ wold not take hold of being now plunging for life vnder the water S. Chrysostome so plainly expoundeth his owne meaning immediatly where he speaketh of the carcas and of the Egles that I can not sufficiently wonder at the impudeÌ„cie of him who allegeth this place For the alleger wold haue the wordes taken as though the body of Christ were not vpon the altar But we only shold by faith ascend into heauen whereas S. Chrysostome speaketh of going in to heauen by good life also and not by faith only His words are these The body of our Lord is through death become the carcase for vnlesse he had fallen we had not risen Christ vseth the name of Egles to declare that it behoueth him who shall approchevnto his body to seeke for high things and not to medle with the earth nor to be draweÌ„ down or crepe vnto earthly matters which are a low but to flee allways vp to higher matters And to behold the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eye and the mind quick of sight for this is the table of Egles and not of Iaies Hetherto S. Chrysostome Who first sheweth why the body of Christ is called the carcase Not because it is without life but because it once hath died for
or nothing els is here called the signe thereof If the maÌ„hood be the signe surely the maÌ„hood is now promised and is deliuered euen to Iudas at his last supper which being so I graunt it to be a most true â—…se yâ— Iudas did eate such a signe of Christes flesh as his owne substance is But if the Sacramentaries will needes haue materiall bread meant by these words The bread which I will geue besydes that they take that word otherwyse then it is taken in all the talke which apperteineth to yâ— true bread which came down â—…rom heauen I wil confute that grosse error an other way also Christ ioyneth together two diuerse tenses the future and the present Dabo I will geue and est it is aâ—…ing that the geuig of his bread is to come but the substance or being oâ—… the same bread which he wil geue is presâ—…nt for he sayd not yâ— bread which I will geue shal be my flesh but is my flesh And yet if the word bread did stand for materiall bread and the word flesh for yâ— signe and figure of fleshe as some doubt not falsely to teache or it the 〈◊〉 is oâ—…d stand â—…or the verbe signiâ—…icat which mâ—…aneth to betoken or to signifie theÌ„ Christ euen by our aduersaryes interpretation should haue sayd the bread which I will geue shal be my flesh and not as he now said is my flesh For seing that Christ spake these words one whole yere before his supper as by the ghospell it maie appere if the bread whiche he said he would geue should only betoken his flesh and not be his fleshe in dede then were it falsely spoken that the same bread now presently is his flesh for if the bread it self he not yet made yea perhappes not so much as the corne thereof in the grounde and certainly not yet blessed of Christ how is it possible that the bread which now is not can be now a signe or token of Christes flesh That which is not it self can much lesse be a â—…oken of an other thing but that which Christ sayd he wold geue was extaÌ„t in substance at that tyme when he spake and at that present instant when he spake For he sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh as I say is now is at this moment wherein I speake But the materiall bread that I will take into my hands turne into my flâ—…sh is not as yet extant any where Or if it be it is not a token vntill I blesse But the bread that I will geue is euen now my flesh As much as if Christ sayd that which I will geuâ—… at my last supper howe so euer it seme coÌ„mon breade and appeare in the forme of bread which forme and figure is to come and therefore I say that I will geue it hereafter yet the substance that shal be conteyned within that forme of bread that sub stance which is the being and essence of my gift whereof now I speake that substance is now present in your eyes What substaÌ„ce is that Forsoth the substance of my flesh For as the forme of brâ—…ad is to come and the substance of my flesh is here present in me so by the forme of bread I say I wil geue it but concerning the substance thereof I say it is my flesh I say not it shal be lest you should thinke I meante to make such a giâ—…t of my flesh the substance whereof were to come rather then present But I say it is my flesh For within the forme of that bread none other sub stance shal be then that which you see here which is my flesh so that these words the bread which I wil geue is my flesh are as much to say as I will geue you the substance of my flesh to eat And that the word flesh doth here signifie the substance of Christes flesh Tertullian hath witnessed almoste fourtene hundred yeres past Who disputing against those heretiks that confounded the flesh and the soule of Christ taketh vpon him to declare that they are two distincted natures Of yâ— soule of Christ it was sayd Anxia est anima mea vsque ad mortem my soule is sorowfull to death of his flesh Panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi caro mea est The bread which I shall geue for the life of yâ— world is my flesh Quod si vna caro vna anima illa tristis vsque ad mortem illa panis pro mundi salute saluus est numerus duaruÌ„ substantiarum 〈◊〉 genere distantium excludens carneae animae vnicam speciem If the flesh be one and the soule an other yâ— soule sorowâ—…ui to death the flesh bread for the saluation of the world the number of two substances differring in their kinde is safe excluding the one kind of a fleshly soule If in this disputatiâ—…n we might expound flesh for the signe of flesh and being for the signe of being Tertullian by this place had not proued a reall substance of flesh sith a signe of flesh is not the substance of flesh but now as in this saying my soule sorowfull the word soule standeth for the substance of the soule so in this the bread which I will gene is my flesh the word flesh standeth for the true substance of Christes flesh Seing then Christ promiseth to geue the substance of his flesh it must nedes be that he fulfilled his promyse vndonbtedly he hath geuen vs in dede the true substance of his flesh in his last supper when he sayd Take and eate this is my body that is to say as now I haue prosâ—…d the substance of my body Thus it is proâ—… first that these words belong to the Sacrament of Christes supper Next that the word bread 〈◊〉 â—…eth Christ him self the bread of life Thirdly that if it were exâ—… for common bread yet euery way the sense should serue to proue of 〈◊〉 the true gift of Christes substance in his last supper ¶ A farther declaration of the reall presence of Christes bo dy blood taken out of the discourse of his â—…wn words concerning the different eating of him by fâ—…ith and the reâ—…auing of his fleshe and blâ—… in the Sâ—…amente of the â—…ltar MAruaile not good Reader that I stand long about a little The strength of the word of God is so greate that a fewe syllables of his can not be sufficieÌ„tly expounded by a great many bookes of any mortall maÌ„s making for God spake but one and yet Dauid heard two things to wit the power and mercy of God Whereby are vnderstanded the two hole bookes of the old and newe Testament Now I wil goe forward to shew you the plaine differerence that Christ him selfe hath set forth in this Chapiter betwene eating of him by faith and eating of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar For these two are not one as our new preachers goe about against the worde
the elements of bread and wine the SacrameÌ„t is made what is that Sacramente we say it is the making present in a miraculouse sorte the true body and blood of Christ. Our aduersaries say it is the appointing of bread and wine to be a figure of Christes body and blood through the remembrance of his death For our belefe I bring S. Augustines authoritie who saith except ye eate my flesh are words figuratiue and out of it thus I reason The â—…ating of Christes fleshe and the 〈◊〉 of his blood being reall 〈◊〉 which must be performed in Christes supper yet being called 〈◊〉 good 〈◊〉 siguratiue 〈◊〉 must nedes 〈◊〉 the sigures of somwhat the 〈◊〉 dedes words being referred to the supper os Christ 〈◊〉 nedes betoken somewhat as they are there 〈◊〉 But the eating of flesh in Christes supper can betoken nothing at all 〈◊〉 his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof may be the 〈◊〉 of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of 〈◊〉 that in Christes supper the 〈◊〉 of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drunken It is not sayd of Christ except ye eate bread drinke wine Of those elemeÌ„ts he in the promyse of his supper made at Capharâ—… speakethnot one syllable for which cause we must not aske at this time what they figure signisy in Christes supper because nowe there is no mentioÌ„ of theÌ„ except any man be so frontike as to say that yâ— flesh of Christ is here made yâ— figure of bakers bread his blood yâ— figure of wine whereupon it would folow that y◠〈◊〉 blood as being 〈◊〉 of these dead 〈◊〉 were worse and baser then the elements theÌ„ selues for euery figure is some way or other behind the truth which it figureth If then we must leaue of the consyderation of bread and wine if likewise no respect must now be had of the words of consecration which are not yet spoken os what other thing can these 〈◊〉 ratiue words except ye eate my flesh signifie in Christes supper but this except ye eate my flesh in that mysticall and wonderfull maner which I will geue it in and to that 〈◊〉 end for the which I being true God wil geue it you that is to say except ye do both take it in the Sacrament and spiritually remember my death 〈◊〉 me thanks for it and conforming your selues to it ye shall not haue 〈◊〉 in you By whiche interpretation Christes 〈◊〉 are figuratiue in so much as they meane neither that maner of â—…ating pâ—…ces of fleshe whiche the Iewes vnderstode noâ—… that end of eating it which they thought vpon mynding altoge ther as S. Cyrillus and S. Chrysostom note the feding of their bellies But if Christes flesh be not present at all whereof is it a figure when it is eaten can that which is not signifie or figure anie thing caÌ„ the flesh which is only figured at the tyme of our eating bread as the Sacramentaries teache be made a signe and figure by eating it if the eating of Christes fleshe be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue For if eating â—…e throughly taken for beleuing and for no eating at all theÌ„ these wordes do not apperteine to the SacrameÌ„tall eating of Christes supper But seing the Sacramentaries teache them to speake of the supper as in truth they doe the eating must so be figuratiue one way that yet it be true another way For if there be no true eating there lacketh a grouÌ„d which may be the figure of another eating that is to say of spirituall communicating with Christes passion If some reall eating must be had to warn vs of that spirituall eating surely that real eating can not in S. Iohn be meante of bread and wine sith Christ neuer named them therefore it is imployed that Christ meaneth except ye eate my flesh so as it is a figure both of my death and may be a cause of your spiritual life ye shal not liue euerlastiÌ„gly Thus doubtelesse did Christ meane thus dyd S. Augustine expound his wordes The Sacramentaries doc erre in making Christes words to be figuratiâ—… only passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely That is to say the Sacramentaries so take this matter as if it were only said the fleshe and blood of Christ be figured signiâ—…ed in his supper as to be spiriâ—…ually fed on But it is not so said only but also the actuall eating of Christes flesh is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating Therefore we eate really flesh one way to signifie another way the â—…ating and beleuing in flesh spiritually And that is proued out S. Ambrose most maniâ—…estly where he saith In edendo potando 〈◊〉 sanguinem for there is the point albeit the Sacramentaries go about to corrupt his wordes by euil distincting of them quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus In eating and drinking the 〈◊〉 and blood we signifie those things whiche were offered â—…or vs. Behold the â—…ating 〈◊〉 doth signiâ—…ie and make a figure of the self same flesh as it was offered for vs. And so doth both Christ S. Augustine â—…ane at this tyme. our Lord coÌ„maunding vs to eatâ—… his flesh doth command vs to coÌ„municate with his passion saith S. Augustine and profitably to remember his death that is to wit he commaâ—…deth both to eate the body which died to eate it worthely to eate it in hart as wel as in mouth to eate it in remembraunce of his loue toward vs as wel as in the SacrameÌ„t to eate it as the Godhead doth quicken it and as it figureth the entring and tarying in his mysticall body the Church This eating of Christes â—…eshe is swete is profitable is not hard not carnall not without a figure or mysterie For to eate without any mystical meaning is only to fill the belly whereof Christ spake not he commanded a figuratiue eating of his fleshe the which figuratiue â—…ating should not take away the real eating of his flesh for that eating whiche is not reall can not be actiuely figuratiue sith euerie figure is made vpon a true ground of one thing done really of another thing meant mystically But the figuratiâ—…e eating importeth a farther thing then to rest in the eating it selfe It is therefore insensibly said of the SacrameÌ„taries that those wordes which naming a certain actuall and real dede as the eating of mans flesh is be â—…iguratiue because the flesh is not really â—…ten But they be in dede figuratiue because the fleshe of that 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 also and vnderstanded to be more then â—…ally eaten for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritâ—…lly eaten also The Sacrameâ—…taries comâ—…ted an otâ—…er foule error in these wordes 〈◊〉 whiles they wil draw this place of S. Iohn to their purpose they are constrained to expound the wordes of Christ iâ—… this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye eate tâ—…e 〈◊〉 of the sonne of man that is to say
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
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
which I wil geue is my flesh WheÌ„ Christ made that promise there was nothing in yâ— who le world whereof the verbe is might be verified in the present tense but only that substance of Christes flesh which he had in his natural body The outward gift of the supper was then to come yet Christ sayd of the substance of his gift The bread which I will geue is my flesh I say not only that it shal be my flesh but I say it is my flesh at this tyme because the substance that I will geue is now present with you although the manner of deliuerance be to come Let vs therefore so expound the verbè is in the supper that it may agree with the verbe is in S. Ihon where it cannot be taken for a bare significatiue being because then there was no signe of his body made Moreouer S. Paule writing after the supper was past doth interprete the verbe is as plainly as can be deuised to signifie a substancial and not an accidentall being for he sayth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes flesh it is yâ— communicating as though he sayd it is so truely Christes flesh that no differeÌ„ce is betwene it and the being or substance of Christes flesh All thing is common betwene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction coÌ„meth betwene these two All this the word communicating doth signifie and more to For the bread which we breake is so farre Christes body that it maketh vs also the body of Christ. The bread which 〈◊〉 breake is so 〈◊〉 distant from being a bare signe that it hath Christes body made common to it by consecration and it maketh Christes body common to vs by communion so that for est is S. Paule putteth communicatio est it is the communicating or the hauing or making common Christes body and blood S. Chrysostom so vehemently presseth the word coÌ„municating vnion whereof the Apostle speaketh yâ— he sayth S. Paule would not leaue so muche as a little difference betwene the men which doe communicate and that which is communicated and yet if that which is communicated were materiall bread it would so much differ from Christ our head and the mysticall body which we are in Christ that it should be an other nature and substance cleane diuerse from it not only not communicating in one and the same meÌ„ber of a mystical body but neither in the whole kind of things which the Logicians call speciem or genus proximum Let vs adde hereunto that if we take est for significat in these words hic significat sanguinem meum the verb shal lacâ—… a noune substantiue to be his nominatiue case And that S. Luke by leauing est to be vnderstanded by common reason doth shew it signifieth properly as men commonly are wonte to vse that verbe Thus much being said for this and is the worde body remayneth to be declared by the conference of holy scripture In S. Matthew it is called supersubstantiall breade In S. Iohn it is called my flesh whiche I will geue for the lite of the world In S. Matthew and Marke my body in S. Luke my body whiche is geuen for you in S. Paule my body which is broken for you or shal be betraied for you the body of our Lord this bread the one bread Likewise concerning the blood it is called the blood of the sonne of man my blood the blood of the new Testament the new testament in my blood The chalice of blessing whiche we â–ª blesse the blood of Christ the blood of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord. Of the body it is said take eate of the blood take diuide among you and drinke ye all of this Of both together it is said to the Apostles make and do ye this thing Of euill men it is said that they eate this breade and drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely not iudging rightly our Lordes body And last of all he that eateth me shall liue for me If now we will expouÌ„d body for the signe of body it will folow that the signe of Christes body was gâ—…n for vs. And when it is sayd He that eateth me shall liue for me it must be expounded He that eateth the signe of me shal liue for the signe of me To conclude as this belongeth not to the substance either of bread or of wine wherewith it can not agree in 〈◊〉 as the verb est is can not stand for significat to signifie least it lack his nominatiue case as the cup shed for vs can not stande for wine shed in sacrifice or els for the signe of blood shed but only for the substance of blood shed on the crosse so corpus body can not stand for a figure or a signe of the body because hoc est corpuâ—… meum datum pro vobis accordingly as the Greeke hath can not be interpreted this is yâ— figure of my body which is geueÌ„ for you â–ª except with Ualentinus Marcion Manicheus it shal be sayd yâ— figure of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. Wherefore I may boldly coÌ„clude that stubburnly to defend that the words of Christes supper are Grammatically or Rhetorically figuratiue coÌ„cerning the substantial parts of the chefe propositions is extreme ignorance in the rules of Grammar and of Logicke palpable blindnes in the studie of diuinitie and a malice inexcusable at the day of iudgement if the party repent not Now on the other syde conferre Scriptures whether Ihon Baptist be Elias it is euident that it is not so There was betwene them in tyme aboue fiue hundred yeres Ihon Baptist was killed Elias liueth yet The Angel sayd by Ihon Baptist He shall goe before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Elias He sayd not in truth and person And Ihon Baptist being asked whether he were Elias or no answered plainly Non sum I am not It is plaine enough that Ihon Baptist is not Elias in person but only in like office and function Thus you may see good Reader what oddes is betwene those places which our aduersaâ—…s wold haue like and wold make you beleue that these words This is my body be no more properly spoken then these He is Elias The like may be sayd of the rock which meaneth two diuerse natures â—…se geuing water as it is described in the bookes of Moyses and well knowen to be neither Christ by nature neither by coÌ„neâ—…on of any rok into Christ. For neither Christ euer sayd of the rock This is my body neither did he commaund vs to say so What shall I say of that vnsensible obiection that God dwelleth not in Temples made with mans hand For we now speaking of the body of Christ speake not of the dwelling which belongeth to God but of that which belongeth to his humane nature which it self also is not a Temple made with the hand of man or begotten by the
not born is made I say Therfore hoc facite signifieth make this thing 〈◊〉 sayth Inefficabili operatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traÌ„sformatur etiam si nobis videatur panis although it seme bread to vs it is made an other thing or transformed by an vnspeakeable working 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after this sorte If the word of God be liuely and of efficacy and all things what soeuer it wold it hath made if it sayd Let light be made it was made let the firmament be made and it was made If the 〈◊〉 be establyshed by the word of God and all the vertue of them by the spirit of his mouth if heauen and earth water fier aier and all the decking of theÌ„ and man himself a lyuing creature spred and made common euery where were made perfecte with the word of God If God the word him self of his owne wil was made man and hath vpholden and staied in his own person flesh without seed of maÌ„ out of the most pure and 〈◊〉 blood of the holy virgine is he not able to make bread his own body and wine and water his blood He said in the beginning let the earth bring forth 〈◊〉 spring to this day reyne being made it bringeth forth springs holpen and strengthned with the commandement of God God hath sayd This is my body and this is my blood and make this thing for the remembrance of me Et omnipotenti eius praecepto donec veniat efficitur and by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made 〈◊〉 he come Marke whether Damascene doth not ground all his authorities vppon making and the authoritie of Christes supper vpon these words make this thiÌ„g 〈◊〉 expouÌ„ding these words Hoc facite sayth Hoc inquit nouum mysterium non illud vetus make this new mysterie sayth he and not that old Haymo sayth Hoc facite id est hoc corpus sanctificate sanctifie this body that is to say make holy and consecrate this body 〈◊〉 Archbysshop of Cantorbury although he sheweth first that by this word Hoc facite eating and drinking for the remembrance of Christes death is commamded to al Christians yet declaring also a farther sense of yâ— same words he sayth Aut corde vos qui Sacerdotes estis hoc facite quod ego 〈◊〉 feci id est calicem vini consecrate vt 〈◊〉 sanguismeus hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemorationem vt in hoc facto sitis memores mei eorum quae pro vobis passus sum Or els ye that are Priests make that which I haue now made that is to say consecrate the chalice of wine that it may be made my blood make this thing for the remembrance of me and of those things which I haue suffred for you 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople sayth that the holy Ghoste maketh the mysteries by the hande of Priestes and toâ—…g Nicolaus Methonensis sayth the body and blood of Christ to be those thinges quae hoc ritu perficiuntur which are made peâ—…fit with this ryte If sanctificare efficere panem corpus Christi panem facere corpus Christi vinum sanguinem if consecrare operari diuinissima fieri eucharistiam facere panem corpus Christi conficere corpus Christi ore conficere oblationem Christi conficere paneÌ„ calicem mysticum fieri panem sui ipsius corpus facere nouum mysterium sacere corpus effici corpus hoc sanctificare coÌ„secrare calicem vini vt fiat sanguis Christi If al these phrases and kindes of speache can not be â—…nglished by doing but only by making and yet the aucthority and commandement that any Priest hath to make the body and blood of Christ commeth only from these words Hoc facite it must nedes be confessed that these words do signifie much more make this thing then doe this Otherwise we should not make the body of Christ at al whereas S. Iames Dionysius Areopagita S. Iustinus S. Ireneus Tertâ—…llian S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Augustine Theophilaet Euthymius Haimo Damascene Germanus Methonensis yea al the whole Church doth say with one accorde that Priestes doe make and are commanded to make the body of Christ. Is it now possible that the body of Christ which is thus made froÌ„ of wheaten bread by yâ— coÌ„mandement of God him self should not be for al yâ— present with vs vnder the form of the same bread If when the word was made flesh in the virgins wombe it was present with vs not only by saith and spirit but dwelt really in the world being conuersant among men and was sene in earth likewise when the body of Christ is made from of the creature of bread by the Priests mouth in the vertue of Christes word it is present with vs not only by faith and spirit but in deede and trâ—…th it self it dwelâ—…eth not only among vs but euen within vs as meate dwelleth in him who receaueth it weth a sound stomake and digesteth it well For seing Christ hauing taken bread and blessed sayd this is my body and â—…ad his Apostles make this thing bread is in such sorte made his body yâ— when y◠〈◊〉 of the words is past the body of Christe remaineth still according to the distinction of S. Basill as the work which was wrought by yâ— sayd words and it is receaued of the faithfull people vnder the form of bread to nourish theyr soules and bodies to euerlasting life ¶ What these words doe signifie For the remembrance of me that they much help to proue Christes reall presence vâ—…der the formes of bread and wine IT may be some man will say I deale not honestly â–ª for Christ sayd not only make this thing which I haue most pressed vpoÌ„ but he added other words thereunto which declare that a figure should be made and not his true body For he sayd do this in the remembrance of me If it be a remembrance of Christ how is it Christ him self The remembrance of a man differeth from the man him self Thus much if any man say against me I feare nothing but I shall satisfie him concerning my doing if now I shewe that the words of remeÌ„brance whereof he taketh holde doth much more help my saying theu his Which that I may the better perform I besech him to remember that Chist said not hoc agite in coÌ„memoratione mei doe this in my remembrance or in remeÌ„brance of me but hoc facite in meam commemorationem which signifieth as wel to make as to do this thing not only in but rather for the remembraÌ„ce oâ—… me and yet so haue these words bene commonly Englyshed and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 as though he had said only hoc agite doe this not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite which is both doe this and make this thing Again as though he had said in mea commemoratione in the ablatiue case in the remembrance of me and not 〈◊〉
you to beleue Christ that sayd This is my body and this is my blood the remembrance of Christes death shall no lesse worke in your mind by reason of your faith theÌ„ if you sawe with your bodily eyes yâ— self same body of Christ which is vnder the forme of bread For faith is that to ChristiaÌ„s which eye sight is to infidels You must consyder that Christ geueth this Sacrament only to them that being already Christened professe to beleue him in all things He now telleth yâ— this is his body and this is his blood If you beleue him not you haue denyed your faith and are become an infidell But yet ye may repent recouer your old faith againe If then you beleue him now tell me what his bodily presence doth hurte the remembrance of his death or contrarywise what hinderance cometh to the memory of his death by the bodily presence Doth not one helpe the other and so helpe that no lyke helpe can be deuised by all the world Doth not his blessed body as it were crye vnto thy hart Behold here it is that suffred al the scorues scourges nayles thornes speare and death for thee And yet come our new preachers and crye O good people Christ called bread his body by a figuratiue speache and that appereth because he sayd doe this in my remembrance In my remembrance I say It is therefore no body but a remembrance of his body Is not this gaye diuinitie Is not this trew dealing 〈◊〉 Gods people Are not these preachers worthy of Bishopriks and the contrary teachers worthy of chaynes Haue they not found a fresh remembrance to put the fruyt of Christes death out of all remembrance Whiles the faithfull people beleued the body of Christ to be present they came with that preparation with that circumspection with that humble and contrite hart vnto this blessed Sacrament that in all their lyfe after they were the better They died vnto sinne and mortyfied them selues to comme worthely to this high banket and by those meanes they so wel remembred Christes death that they practised it in their owne flesh and printed it in their hartes And this was a great cause why Christ himself wold put the nature and substance of his body vnder the forme of bread to the intent he might so be remembred of vs that for feare of comming to this dreadfull Sacrament vnworthely we might conforme our selues to his death by contrition confession and satisfaction For besides the pauges of bodily death none other thing in the world maketh vs so fruitfully mindefull of Christes death as the Sacrament of the altar And this to be one peece of the remembrance which Christ wold haue to be made in our hartes S. Basile doth witnesse Oportet igitur accedentem ad corpus sanguinem Christi in commemorationem ipsius c. He that cometh to the body and blood of Christ must not onely be cleane from all filthy spot of flesh and sowle that he eate and drinke not to his damnation but also he must euidently shew the remembrance of him who died for vs and rose again in mortifying himself to synne and to the world and to himself so that he may liue to God in Christ Iesu our Lord. This great lerned and vertuouse man putteth our mortification for a peece of the remembrance which is made of Christes death and resurrection And in dede the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament the belefe thereof in vs causeth vs to mortifie our selues lest we come vnworthely to such high mysteries But now Christ is so well remembred in bread and wyne that neither synnes be confessed neither amendment mynded neither faith exercised neither charitie vsed Is this the remembrance which Christ wold haue of his death Men of woorship and honor when they see death at hand prouide to haue a goodly tumbe built Whereby their memories may be preserued as long as it is possible And the Egyptians wisely considering how the life is very short and the tyme of being in the graue exâ—…eding long did bestowe much more cost vppon their tumbs then vppon their houses Thinking it best there to buyld most surely where they should dwell longest Christ for his part refused not an honorable burying and a gloriouse sepulcher Which to this day standeth at Dierusalem But yet sith he tooke his body for mens sake only he chose his longer memorie and perpetuall sepulcher to be rather in the body hart of man then in the bowels of the earth Rising therefore the third day from death he left no more his body in the earthly sepulcher But the night before he died he had instituted such a memorie of his death as became the sonne of God For such a one in dede no man were able to make His memorie is to haue bread turned into the substaÌ„ce of his body and wine turned into the substance of his blood and the same to be receaued of vs To th' intent we might be turned into Christ dwelling in him for euer Hereby his death is shewed vntill he come to iudgement at the end of the world As the noble Actes which other men haue done be writeÌ„ vpoÌ„ their sepulchers so in this memorie of Christ his acts are daily shewed and rehersed Then his incarnation is betokened most mystically when bread is made flesh as the worde was before made flesh and that incarnatioÌ„ is represented in outward shew also by singing of the Angels Hymne Glory be to God in the highest Then the going before of Ihoâ—… Baptist is expressed by reading of the Epistle Then Christes preaching is represented by singing of the Gospell Then the faith of his Apostles and Disciples is betokened in pronouncing the Crâ—…de or articles of the faith Then the supper of Christ is made with no lesse authoritie then himself instituted it Then his Crosse is shewed by making the signe thereof vppon the holy mysteries Then his death is inuisiblie wrought vnder the formes of bread wine by turning their substances into him self and shewing them as if the body were diuided from the blood Then the fruit thereof is sowen in the hartes of the faithfull people by geuing them the grace to feare him to loue him to come penitentlie vnto him and to be made one with him Then the resurrection is outwardlie shewed because the seuerall formes of bread and wine eche of them conteine whole Christ vnder them Then the body is adored which suffred for vs. Then Christ is glorified for the redemption of all mankinde Then thankes be geuen to God blessing to the people and prayer is made for all the world This is the memorie of Christ whereby his name is greate among the Gentils as Malachias did prophecie And this is the gloriouse sepulchre which Esay spake of this is the memory whereof Dauid saith Our Lord hath made a memory of his maruailons doings Now is it likely that al
this cost is bestowed vppon a peece of bread and wine Two kindes of sepulchers we reade to haue bene alwaies this day to be in vse the one is where the body lieth present and that is properly the place of buriall the other when the body is absent and only a token of it is erected and this later kinde is called Caenotaphium a voyd monument without hauing the body in it Iudge good Reader whether it be more semelie sith Christ wold this Sacrament to be made for his remembrance that it be a void monument without hauing the body in it or els a sepulcher truly conteining his body within it whose name it beareth specially seing himself sayd of this tumb and sepulcher This is my body and this is my blood The body is named of the Greekes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say of yâ— buriall or sepulcher as though the soule were buried therein as the carkase is put in the sepulcher And yet it is much more apt to call the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar the sepulcher of his passion because in it is buried yâ— who le vertue of that gloriouse sacrifice and thence it is applied and dispensed to the faithfull S. Chrysostom also called the body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carkase because it is present after the same rate as it was dead in the sepulcher not in dede without soule and life but yet without sensible mouinge as Epiphanius also hath noted The holy Martyrs whose death was of great price in yâ— sight of God haue leaft their bodies behinde them to our comfort neither haue they yet receaâ—…d the second robe of their flesh Deo pro nobis melius aliquid prouidente vt non sine nobis consummarentur God prouiding some â—…etter thinge for vs to the intent they should not be made throughly perfect without vs. euen as the Fathers of yâ— old Testament of whome S. Paule speaketh had not the reward of their faith vntill some of the new Testament were ioyned to them S. John the Eâ—…angelist although his carkase appered not yet he was not vnremembred because manna flowed out of his monument abundantly as Abdias hath witnessed And now shall Christ leaue a void memorie without his body or without Manna in it Are the reliques of the blessed Martyrs profitable vnto vs and is not the flesh of Christ who is Lord of all Martyrs more then necessary for vs It was mete that Christ should arise with body and soule because he is the first fruites of all them that arise from death But he now sitting at the right hand of his Father had before instituted a memorie wherein bread and wine should be conuerted into the substance of his body and blood that thereby we might both haue his body him selfe not lack it For so it becommed all iustice to be perfectly fulfilled in his person I trust by this tyme it appeareth that the remembrance of Christes death is maruelously set foorth by the reall presence of his body and blood Seing then the sayd remembrance is yâ— end why the Sacrament is made it is a better kind of reasoning to affirme that so profitable a meane as the body blood of Christ is for the remembrance of his death was not omitted by Christ then to teache that because it is a remembrance therefore it is not the body of Christ. Specially sith Christ sayd This is my body For when the thing which is intended is the more furthered by taking the words properly then figuratinely as wel the proper nature of the words as the scope of the whole matter compelleth vs to take them as they naturally and vsually sounde without any â—…arther circuition or seking of figures Si resâ—… icias sayth Origenes ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit Dominus Hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemoratio nem Inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat hominibus Deum If thou looke to that remembrance whereof our Lord sayd Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Thou shalt find that this is the only remembrance which may make God mercifull to men Mark this propitiatorie kind of remembrance S. Augustine also declareth by conferring the Sacrament of the altar with the facrifices of the law how it is the remembrance of Christ saying In isto sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit In this sacrifice a thanksgeuing and a remembrance is of the flesh of Christ which he offered for vs and of the blood which the same God did shed for vs. Therefore in those olde sacrifices it was figuratiuely signi fied what should be geuen vs But in this sacrifice it is euidently shewed what hath now bene geuen vs. In those sacrifices it was before hand shewed that the sonne of God should be afterward kylled for wicked men But in this he is shewed to haue bene allready kylled for wicked men By this writer whether it were S. Augustine or as others think Fulgentius the whole nature of the remembrance which we kepe of Christes death is shewed wherein the death is in dede past and absent but the body of him that died is present But in the old sacrifices neither the death neither the body was preâ—…ent but only a shadow of both Therefore those sacrifices are a figuratiue signification as Fulgentius sayeth But the Sacrament of the altar is an euident shewing Marke the wordes of Fulgentius and you shall see two words of the old law answer vnto other two of the new law By the old sacrifices he sayeth siguratè significabatur it was figuratiuely signified By the new sacrifice euidenter ostenditur it is euideÌ„tly shewed Looke how much difference is betwene shewing signifiyng betwene euidence and figures so much is betwene the old sacrifices and the new Yet if vnder forme of bread the body were not and the blood vnder the forme of wine surely the olde did better shew Christes death then this for there was flesh to shew flesh and blood to shew blood The blood was both in dede and in shew also shed and in dede separated from the flesh and poured vpon the altar and the flesh in dede eaten by them that made the offering Therefore our sacrifice doth not passe that in shewing outwardly the maner of Christes death but in euideÌ„t shewing that which died In euident shewing I say vnder the forme of bread and wine which shewing is called euident not for the seing but for the certeyntie of the place and circiut within the which we know by Gods word yâ— flesh and blood of Christ to be vnder the same forme because Christ him self shewing to vs the foorm of bread sayd This is my body What nede I to bring the Fathers one by one sith the whole
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
Lateran which was kept aboue three hundred yeres past seing M. Nowell for his parte could not bring foorth one reasonable creature that euer surmised any transubstantiation in these words I am the true vine were not cause shewed why these words I am the true vine did not as well proue a transubstaÌ„tiation as these words This is my body S. Paul thought it a sufficient prouf of resurrection to say If there be no resurrection our faith and our preaching is in vaine But that can not be so as S. Paule concludeth therefore likewise the faith of all Christendom these three hundred yeres together was a cause why a transubstantiation should be proued by the one words much rather then by the other M. Nowell ¶ Is not this as plainlie spoken and as pithily I am a true or a very vine as this is my body IT were small pleasure to me M. Nowell to impugne your words against whose person I haue no quarell were it not that you are wold be accoÌ„pted a teacher in yâ— realme of England which kinde of men as it is moste necessarie when by lawfull commission it preacheth the Ghospell which it hath taken of the Apostles and their successors so is the same moste perniciouse wheÌ„ it preacheth a Ghospell of his owne framing otherwise vnderstanded then they tooke it of their Prelates vnder whome they liued before they departed froÌ„ yâ— fold of Christ who appointed S. Peter to be yâ— generall sheperd of his whole flock in earth in whose chaire the Bishops of Rome sit by lawfull succession Is it then so plainly and so pithily spoken M. Nowell I am a true or a very vine as this is my body If the words I am a true vine or a very vine be as pithy as those of Christes supper without controuersie they must as well institute a Sacrament of a true and of a very vine as Christ at his supper did institute a Sacrament of his owne body and blood For words a like pithy must work an effect of like pith otherwise if yâ— words of the supper do work that which the words of a true and very vine do not work you haue spoken falslie in affirming that it is as pithily sayd I am the true vine as this is my body Before Christ came in to the world he made diuerse figures of his last supper as that of Melchisedech of the Paschall laÌ„b of manna of shew brâ—…d of wheateÌ„ meale of such like was there likewise so many figures made to prefigure that he wold be a verie vine When he was come into the world he promised at CapharnauÌ„ that the bread which he wold geue was his flesh Made he the like of geuing any vine to vs or of making himself a very vine When the houre of sacrificing the Passouer was come he sent S. Peter before to prepare the passoner which was but the shadow of his supper Did he likwise make a certeyne banket or any like matter be prepared for him which might be the shadow of himself in any such respect as he is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did eate the passouer with all the twelue a mysticall number as it may well appere in the holy 〈◊〉 one of yâ— which was departed â—…rom him before that he sayd I am the true vine He protested his desier to eate this passouer but not so to eate or to be made any vine He washed his Apostles feete immediatly â–ª before his supper wherein he said This is my body but not immediatly before that he said I am the true vine He sate at the table when he said This is my body which was the place whereupon he wrought his mysterie but he rose and went out of the place before he said I am the true vine And so lacked the circumstance of that table whereof Dauid and Salomon had prophecied To make his supper he toke bread but he toke nothing at all to make thereof a vine Therefore there is a more reall ground of the one then of the other He blessed at his supper he did not so when he said I am the true vine and yet surely yâ— words wherewith blessing is ioyned are thereby the playner He gaue thankes there but not here which is a token that the mystâ—…rie of his body was the greater He brake there but not here whereby the very vine lacked a notable cerimony concerâ—…ing yâ— represeÌ„tation of Christes death He gaue there but not here because in his supper the cheif gift was externall and geuen by Christes hands to theyr bodies and hartes He sayd there and also he did those other things as S. Luke râ—…orteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying wherein he doth vs to vnderstand that Christ at his supper as well did as sayd for he toke he blessed he brake he gaue saying to wit his saying and doing went together one made the other plaine but wheÌ„ he said I am the true vine he did nothing els whereuÌ„to his words could apperteyne so that the dede might geue light to the word At his supper he bad his Apostles take â–ª not so in speaking of yâ— true vine because they had already the gift of being the braunches of him the true vine At his supper he bad them eate â–ª not so in the other place for yâ— he prouided no externall meat vnder the forme of auy vine as he had prepared his owne flesh vnder the form of bread At his supper he sayd This is my body where one substance only is named and yet that by Christes doing and speaking is vnderstaÌ„ded to be verified within the cumpasse and form of that which once was knowen to haue bene the substance of bread but in these words I am the true vine two substances are named of the whiche one is only a proper and peculiar substance the other is taken vnproperly and is no reall substance distincted from Christ. There the words passe from the worse to the better from that which was bread to the body of Christ here they passe from the better to the worse from Christ to the name of a vine There is in the former part a demonstration by pointing to this thing really present here it is only described to be the true vine but no such creature is shewed or brought foorth There such words are added which restraine the name body to that true body of Christ which died for vs here such words be added which declare the true vine which is spoken of not to be a natural vine but a parabolical vine for it is said afterwad As a branche can not beare fruit of it self vnlesse it tarry in the vine so neither ye except ye tarry in me See the ods M. Nowell This is my body Which body which is deliuered for you to say this is mine owne substance the
participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geuen froÌ„ the signification of his noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body You supply in S. Luks Greeke words the verbe est is by common vse when you haue it present you cast it out again or expound it not according to yâ— common vse of speaking which forced you to supply it but according to an vnproper meaning very sildom vsed not vnderstanded of any meane lerned man You teache by necessarie ineuitable sequele of your doctrine a figure of Christes body that is to say material bread to be sacri ficed for vs. You teache the wine to be in the cup and yet Christ saith the cup to wit that which is in the cup to be shed for vs. You diuide the noune substautine from his genitine case sanguis from testamenti vitae from panis you cut of the article you mysseÌ„glish many things as I haue noted before These be faults into which a Grammarian should not fal yet you are so blind that you see them not For so I rather think of you theÌ„ that you of purpose chose to be Heretiks and to be damned persons What might a man doe to bring you home You wrote not passing twenty lines together of this blessed Sacrament in this place and yet sâ—… into what grosse 〈◊〉 you be fallen If your whole booke were so particularly skanned euery leafe is full of such like faults But because it wold passe all measure of writing if in a great volume euery line should be thus staid vpon therefore al things euery where be not nor can not be so particularly examined but surely all be as fond as vayne as false To returne to my chefe purpose Christ is yâ— bread of life according to his Godhead and manhod and is to be eaten of by faith as it is often times said in S. 〈◊〉 But he is also to be eaten iâ—… his humane fleshe and to be drunken in the substance of his naturall blood not onlie by faith but verè trulie â–ª that is to saie he is to be taken at the mouth and so cometh to oure hartes and mindes which is the waâ—… of eating him at his last supper The which way by that meane of eating fulfilleth the figure MaÌ„na In respect whereof Christ calleth him self not dead food as yâ— was but the liuing bread not without power to quicken as that was 〈◊〉 the bread of life which can geue life to him that worthily 〈◊〉 it Not a 〈◊〉 breade as Manna was but the true bread â–ª not geuen from the 〈◊〉 as Manna but from heauen and the bread sayth Christ which I wil geue is my flesh This bread of life M. Nowel is the euerlasting meat which the sonne of man promised to geue and at his supper he doth geue it euen as he is the sonne of man to wit by the instrument of his manhod verily by his own handes and by his corporall deliuery made to the twelue at his last supper The preface of the fift Booke ALmighty God knowing the reall presence of his Sonnes flesh vnder the forme of bread to be a thing so farre aboue the whole course of nature that no vnderstanding of man was able to atteine vnto it did at the least so fortifie the same by his holy wordes put in writing and by the continuall practise of the Church that who so listeth to beleue may haue more then sufficient grâ—…nd to bâ—…ld his faith vpon That I may now omitte other proâ—…es how plainly doth S. Paul speake in this matter whose words are the more earnestly to be weighed for so much as S. Augustine a man much â—…nuersant in the Epistles of this chosen 〈◊〉 affirmeth him to dispute according to the Apostolike maner more plainly Et magis proprie quam figurate 〈◊〉 qui and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely Which thing I wish the Reader to haue always in his minde depely consydering that if Chrâ—…s body 〈◊〉 not really present â—…o 〈◊〉 hath spoâ—… more â—…ely 〈◊〉 S. Paul be â–ª cause he alone hath writen more of the last 〈◊〉 it selfe then any other holy writer But 〈◊〉 he vseth for the most part to speake properly we must not in this myâ—…y alone take his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chapiters of the fyfth Booke 1. The reall presence of Christe is proued by the blessing of the cup of his blood 2. Item by the name of breaking and communicating 3. Item by the one bread which maketh vs all one body 4. Item by the conference of al those wordes together 5. It is shewed how vve are one body in Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the like example vvhiche S. Paule vsed concerning the Ievves and Gentils 7. Item by the kind of shewing Christes death 8. Item because euill men eate this bread vnvvorthelie 9. Item because euill men are gilty of Christes body and blood by eating and drinking it 10. Item because they discerne it not in their doings from other meates 11. Item because no figure can make a man gilty of Christes body vvithout speciall conempt except it be the truth and the figure together 12. Last of al the real presence is confirmed by the frequent repetition of the body and blood of Christ. ¶ The real presence of Christes body and blood is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christes blood where of S. Paule speaketh S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians of the Sacrament of the altar in this manner The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communicating of the blood of Christ as though he sayd there is no doubt but that the chalice which we blesse maketh vs partake the blood of Christ. This aduantage we haue by conference of those holy scriptures whiche speake of one matter that one place geueth light to the other S. Mathewe reherseth how Christ taking the chalice said This is my blood of the new testament S. Luke sheweth that he said This chalice is the new testament in my blood S. Paule addeth thereunto The chalice of blessing which we blesse is the communicating of Christes blood A blessing in holy scripture is either a praising of a thing or it is the geuing of a benefite thereunto It is certaine that the chalice as long as it hath nothing but wine in it can not deserue any praise because a thig without life is not apt to receaue praise It remaineth then to 〈◊〉 what benefite is bestowed vppon the liquour in the chalice The Sacramentaries wil say that it is made holy wine of coÌ„mon wine and sanctified bread of common bread which sanctisying is a blessed action and by that holy signification wherevnto it is apointed a certaine holines is geuen to it which may be called a blessing This were very wel said if it had bene only said generally of yâ— chalice that it is the chalice of blessing which we blesse but the blessing that S.
his mysteries to naked names shall enioye his glorie no more really then they allow him a reall truth in his blessed Sacraments ¶ The reall presence is proued by the example which S. Paule vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentils SAint Paule intending to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking with the Gentils at their false and vaine sacrifices vseth in that behalf this kind of argument Whosoeuer doth eate or drink that which is offered vp in sacrifice he is made one with the oblation it self and with it to whome the things eaten and drunken are offered This proposition he proueth by example of the ChristiaÌ„s who by partaking of the bread which we breake and of the chalice which we blesse which are the communicating of Christes body and blood are made one bread one body because they partake all of the one bread The like is sene also in the carnall Iewes among whom they that eate the oblations or things offered thereby were partakers of the altar to wit of the sacrifice and of the worshipping of God to whom it was offered Therefore if the Corinthians wold also partake of the meate offered to ydols it must follow that they should be partakers of the ydolatrie For although the dead ydoll be no true God nor any thing at all wherewith they may communicate yet a societie is ioyned thereby with the deuils who reigne in those ydols Therefore as ydolatry it self so the eating of the meates offered to ydols is to be auoided Out of this discourse it is proued that the Christians Iewes Gentils eche of them haue a God true or false eche of them offereth an externall sacrifice to him eche of them vse to partake of the things offered and eche of them communicated among them selues The meat offered and eaten of the Iewes was the flesh of such cleane beasts or such other oblations as were allowed by yâ— lawe of Moyses The meate offered and eaten of the Gentils was such as their superstition had receaued To one ydol a shepe was offered to another an oxe The meate offered and eaten of the Christians is described of S. Paule to be the bread which we breake which is the communicating of Christes body and the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the communicating â—…f Christes blood The vnitie rising thereof is to be one bread one body because all partake of the one bread Uppon which ground it may be wel built that the meate partaken at Christes supper is the body and blood of Christ wherein we passe and ouercome the Iewes Gentils who had other earthly oblations but none of them had this foode which came down from heauen For as S. Paul sayeth We haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle But surely they might eate bread and wine who serued the tabernacle therefore the meate of Christes supper is not bread and wine but the bread of life and the blood of Christ. And whereas the Iewes had certeyn obseruancies of eating this and of leauing that meate or that the Leuits should eate this and the Priest that and the laye people an other meate S. Paule counselleth them to stablish their hart with grace and not so carefully to obserue the old law which commaunded so many differences of meate How beit if it be a good thing to haue some meates reserued for the Priests which the common people may not eate as the Iewes think then sayeth S. Paule we Christians also haue an altar to wit a thing offered vnto God and that so preciouse that the very Priests and Bisshops who serue in the tabernacle may not eate thereof That meate is as Theodorite sayth Hostia rationalis diuina A reasonable and diuine sacrifice as Sedulius writeth yâ— altar whence we partake the body and blood of Christ as Theophtlact witnesseth the vnbloody sacrifice of the body which quickeneth This then being the meate of our altar it foloweth that this meate is no lesse present vppon his holy table then that which the Iewes or ydolatours did eate was present at their sacrifices But that which they did partake was really present anâ—… receaued into their mouthes therefore likewise 〈◊〉 flesh is really present and is receaued into our mouthes The meate of the Iewes and of the Gentils was made one natural flesh with the partakers thereof therefore we likewise are made one naturall flesh with the meate of Christes tabâ—…e But herein is the oddes that their meat was turned into their flesh because it was weaker then their own nature but our flesh is turned without losse of his owne substance or proprietie into the nature of Christes flesh because it being the flesh which is dwelt in by the Godhead is stronger then our nature Again as the Iewes and Gentils by eating meates offered vp are made one body among them selues by coÌ„formitie of wil and mind alone because the meate was not able to tary in his own nature and to draw them vnto it so contrariwise we that eate Christes body are made really one flesh with Christ amoÌ„g our selues because as S. Cyrill declareth Christ suffereth him self to be no more diuided but kâ—…ping his owne flesh whole he gathereth all vs into it And seing we all that eate Christ are made naturally one with Christ we are also one among our selues For they who are one in any third are withall one among them selues Thus the meate of Christes table hath more truth in it then the meate of the Iewes or Gentils had according to the Catholike doctrine ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kind of shewing Christes death QVotiescunque manducabitis paneÌ„ hunc calicem hunc bibetis mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat How often so euer ye shall eate this bread and shall drinke this chalice ye shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come Shewing may be either in word alone or in dede alone or in both together S. Paul speaketh in this place of that shewing which is by dede alone for eating and drinking is a kind of doing But not the eating of euery bread and the drinking of tuery chalice doth shew Christes death except it be this bread eaten that chalice drunken whereof S. Paule had sayd in Christes person a litle before This is my body which is broken for you and this cup is the new Testament in my blood The eating and drinking of â—… sacriâ—…iced body and blood doth euidently shew the death thereof as the which should not be eaten and drunken if it were not already consecrated by death vnto God For who doth eate the flâ—…sh of any creature whiles it yet liueth and hath blood in it Or how can blood be drunken in a cup if it be yet in the veines of the body The nature of the fact is such that it presupposeth the immolation and sacrifice and
the faith of that eater neuer so great did not shew Christes death past but only to come so this eating of common bread in our Lords supper doth not by the eating inferre the death of Christe to be past but rather as being to come For euery shadow belongeth to a truth whereof it is the shadow and is 〈◊〉 vntil the truth it self come but when the truth is ones present the shadow is no more a bare shadow but a shadow fylled with the truth But by the Zwiâ—…glians opinion the Sacrament of Christes supper is common bread without any reall truth made or wrought abowt it therefore it is a figure a shadow and an imperfyt worke whereas if yâ— truth of it were come it should not be only a shadow but should haue a truth vnder the shadow Thus we may perceyue that the eating of common bread for a figure of Christes death with neuer so greate a faith doth not so much by the eating shew his death past as to come hereaâ—…ter Agayne were it graunted that by reason of the faith of the eater it shewed the death past yet because it sheweth it in a simple figure it may seme that it is past in a simple figure whereby this Sacrament aâ—…ter the interpretation of our new preachers is no sufficieÌ„t meane by the dede it selfe to shew that true death which Christe suffred for vs vppon the crosse and yet S. Paule saith that by eating this bread we shew the death of Christe that is to say we shew him to haue died by eating it I say For now we speake not of preaching the Ghospell not of remembring the articles of our crede nor of other vndoubted wytnesses whereby it is proued that Christe hath died for vs. We speake of S Paules argument who â—…aith by eating this bread we shew Christe to haue dyed for vs. which argument is none is vayne is rather agaynst the faith then with it if the bread that we eate be not the reall flesh of Christe But if we once confesse that we eate the subsâ—…aÌ„ce of Christes natural body drinke the substance of his naturall blood then doth it follow inuincibly that Christe is dead for vs. It followeth I say by the order of Gods words for no flesh is eaten whiles the beast liueth whose â—…lesh it is as it is written Carnem cum sanguine non comedetis ye shal not eate the flesh with the blood in it or any member cut from the liue beast whiles the blood yet remayueth in it Agayne the order of religion as wel vnder the Patriarkes as vnder the law of Moyses sheweth that no beast was eaten Sacramentally before it was kylled and offred From the sacrifice of Abâ—…lto to the comming of Christ certeinly Christ is really dead for vs and being his true fleshe that we eate we shew his true death â–ª and we shew it past and not to come Neither let any man say that Christ in his last supper gaue his fleshe before he died for he dyd not that before his death was at the very point to be fulfilled The Iewes began their feastes on the euening tyde couÌ„ting the day from Son set to the next Son set according as it is writen A vespera in vesperam celebrabitis Sabbata vestra from euening to euening ye shall kepe your holy days Christe therefore kept his supper the mauÌ„dy thursday at night after Son set when yâ— goodfryday whereon he dyed was now begon when he was already solde vnto the Iewes and all things prepared for his death so that he came to the geuing of his flesh as men do come in their death bed to dispose what shal be done after their death willing this mystery to be made for the remembrance of him And as it may appere in the actes of the Apostles after the 〈◊〉 of Christ and comming down of the holy Ghost the ChristeÌ„ mâ—…n begaÌ„first to kepe coÌ„tinue this at which time they shâ—…wed him both dead rysen sitting at his Fathers right haÌ„d in heauen And surely as well S. Iames in his liturgie as Damascen expounding these wordes of S. Paule whereof we speke â—…aieth Mortem filii hominis annunciatis resurrectionem eius conâ—…itemini â—…onec veniat ye shew the death of the son of man and coÌ„fâ—…sse his resurrection vntil he come Thus by eating this body we shew Christes true death by eating it being in it self aliue we shew also yâ— which folowed his death which was his resurrection and ascension Bâ—…t by a figuratiue eating we should not shew his true death and much lesse his true resurrectioÌ„ for as the death is shewed by eating the body which died so the resurrection of the said body is shewed by eating the body which died now is a liue the death is shewed whiles the body is vnder the forme of bread and the blood a part vnder the forme of wyne as though they were styll a sunder The resurrection is shewed whiles vnder eche forme whole Christ is conteyned Therefore we eate Christ more then in a figure and more then by faith and spirit we eate him in dede whereby it followeth that he is dead for vs in dede we eate him aliue without impairing or diminishing any part of him whereby it foloweth he is rysen from death and remaineth immortall Now let vs heare how S. Chrisostom alludeth to the same reason who speaking os Christes last supper writeth in this maner Quando id proposituÌ„ videris dic tecum Hoc corpus cae When thow seest that body set before thee say with thy self This body nailed and beaten was not ouercommed with death This body the â—…onne seing crucified turned away his beames Through it also the vele of the temple was torne and the rocks and the whole earth shaken The self same body made bloody wouÌ„ded with a speare gusshed out in founteines of blood water healthsome to the whole world Seest thou after what sorte Chrysostom talketh of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar â–ª Seest thou by what means he there sheweth the death of Christ This body saith he was nailed wounded perced with a spere It is then the reall body that sheweth the reall death of Christe and that sheweth it not only when we remember that Christ dyed when we thinke of his resâ—…rrection and ascension but though no man think of his death yet the very eating of this very reall body sheweth his death to men to Aungels to God The dede I say and fact of eating sheweth him to be dead whose fleshe is eaten euen as the blood of Abel cried to God from the earth where it lay and as the body of Christ in heauen by his only presence maketh continual intercession to God the Father for vs alwaies putting God in minde of his death and of our saluation ¶ The real presence is proued by the illation which S. Paule maketh concerning the
vnworthy eating and drinking of euill men WHen S. Paule had said As oft as ye shall eate this bread and drink the cup of our Lord ye shall shewe our Lordes death vntill he come he goeth forward saying Therefore who so eateth this bread drinketh the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our Lordes body and blood How doth this senteÌ„ce hang vpoÌ„ yâ— former how coÌ„meth it in with â—… Therefore but because in the former sentence S. Paul said by eating this bread we shew Christes death And for as much as we shew it in that self thing which dyed for vs therefore he that eateth vnworthely such a meate wherein by the substance which died he sheweth Christes death he is gilty of our Lordes body none otherwyse then if he had betraied it as Iudas did For the same body that Iudas did by a false kisse geue to death we eate vnder the forme of bread to shew the same death If then Iudas were gilty of Christes natural body for geuing it vnworthely to death we are gilty of the same naturall body when by eating it we shew vnworthely the same death But if we had not present the same real flesh which Iudas hetraied our vnworthy shewing could not be like his vnworthy doing al the strength of S. Paules reasoning is only grounded vpon the real presence of Christes body the vnworthy shewing whereof he now speaketh is the vnworthy â—…ating And for so much as eating is a corporall action which is done by the instruments of teeth and mouth S. Paule doth vs to vnderstand that euil men might touch and haue in their mouthes yâ— bread and drink of our Lord. But his bread and his drink is of him â—…elfe affirmed to be his body and blood therefore S. Paule confesseth that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ in theyr mouthes But that they could not doe except the body and blood were vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore he teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine Saith not S. Paule whosoeuer eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of our Lord vnworthely Then this bread and the cup of our Lord may be eaten and drunken vnworthely But what Speaketh he of eating by faith or of drinking by spirit No verily for such eating and drinking can not be vnworthely made You wil say it is bread and wine whereof he speaketh If it were so why doth S. Paule name it this bread â–ª For 〈◊〉 the pronoune this doth shew a thing present to some sense or other and seing when S. Paule wrote these wordes he being absent in body from the Corinthians could not shew them any thing by any corporal actioÌ„ of his it remaineth that yâ— thing whereunto this doth point was named in the epistle of S. Paule which he worte to those faithfull men and also that it went not long before as the which otherwese might be of vncertaine vnderstaÌ„ding What is it then which went before Christ toke bread and after thanks geuen said Take eate this is my body whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of the body of our Lord. If this bread point vnto that whereof Christ said This is my body S. Paule meaneth to shew his faut whosoeuer eateth the body of our Lord vnworthely and thereby he grauÌ„teth euil men to eate Christes body which they can doe by no meanes except that be Christes body which they take into theyr â—…outhes The Sacramentaries will obiect againste me that Christ ment the signe of his body which truly can not be so For seing S. Paule named no signe as this can not point to that which was not named so it must point only to the thing named before But the thing before named was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance ¶ The reall presence is proued because vnworthy receauers are gilty of Christes body and blood WHo soeâ—…er eateth this bread or drinketh the cup of our Lord vnwortehly he shal be gily of yâ— body blood of our Lord. A man may be gilty either for doing an euil deede or for leauing a good deede cleane vndon or els for doing a good dede in an euil manner Here S. Paule maketh the vnworthy receauer gilty for eating this bread and drinking the cup of our Lord vnworthely which is to say for doing a good deede after an euil manner his dede is eating which thing he so reaâ—…ly doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drink damnation to himself But no man is gilty of doing more theÌ„ he actually doth therefore the vnworthy receauer who for eating and drinking is gilty of the body and blood of Christ doth eate and drink in deede the same body and blood of Christ whereof he is gilty The Sacramentaries imagine S. Paule to haue said He that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christes supper refuseth to eate by faith the body of Christ sitting in heauen is gilty of not eating Christes body Who euer heard of such a toy what iote of all the scriptures which appertein to Christes supper haue they left vnwrested vntorne or vndefiled what sentence clause or word haue they left in his naturall meaning If S. Paule and the foure Euangelists were not theÌ„ selues men of sufficient discretion who might consider how nedefull it were to vnderstand wel the mysteries of Christ yet surely in repeting one matter oft it would at the least chance vnto them that they should haue told vs some one syllable which might haue made for the Sacramentary doctâ—…ine if it had bene true But now whatsoeuer they speake doth destroie vtterly and ouerthrow theyr fond assertion And that I may for this tyme go no farther what caÌ„ be answered to this place of S. Paul he that eateth a very good thing vnworthely is pronounced gilty therefore his present fault consisteth in the euill manner of his eating For to eate vnworthely is to eate in deede but not to eate after a good manner No man by eating in an euill manner can be gilty of that which he doth not eate in that euill manner and yet the vnworthy receauer of this bread is pronounced gilty of Christes body and it is ment of his naturall body Therefore this bread which he doth eate vnworthely is the reall and naturall body of Christ. If a man had done neuer so heinouse a robbery yet thereby to condemne him of adulterie it were an euideÌ„t 〈◊〉 although the paine due to adultery be lesse then that which is due to robberie But now to condemne a man for eating the body of Christ who did eate only the figure of it that were much more vniust for that his paine increased aboue the measure of his fault Let it be neuer so great a fault to eate the holy bread vnworthely yet if that holy bread be
not in dede a man it shall neuer be the fault of eating mans flesh to eate that bread vnworthely S. Paule saith not only he is gilty who eateth this bread but he is gilty of the body of Christe Howe can that be except this bread which he eateth be the body of Christ â–ª If this bread be his body seing it stâ—…ll appereth bread we must confesse that the body of Christ is really present vnder the forme of bread And truly that is the cause why S. Paule nameth it this bread for yâ— word sheweth him to meane the bread coÌ„secrated at yâ— altar that bread which that Priest froÌ„ thence deliuereth yâ— bread which that people receaueth at the Priests haÌ„d Whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of Christes body because that substance of this bread is that substaÌ„ce of Christes natural body made geueÌ„ vnder that forme of bread If it were not so the eater of this bread could not by his eating be gilty of Christe s body Otherwise the talke of S. Paule would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthely the kings garment is gilty of murdering his person I am loth to heape vp in this place yâ— manifold witnesses of the auncient Fathers whose wordes I haue partly touched also before concerning that euill men eate Christes body Now it shall suffise to shew that they make the same sequele of S. Paules wordes whiche I do for they shew the vnworthy receauer to be gilty of Christes body because he inuadeth the body of Christ and not because he eateth wheaten bread Theodoritus expoundeth these words whereuppon we dispute after this sort Illud autem caeâ—… These words he shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord signifie this much That as Iudas betrayd him and the Iewes theÌ„ selfes insulted and rayled shamfully and sclanderously at him so these shame defile him who take his most holy body with vncleane hands put it into a polluted and vnchaste mouth Lo the taking touching and eating vnworthely Christes body maketh them gilty as Iudas and the Iewes were gilty of Christes death Yea Haymo saieth It were better for him who cometh with mortall sinnes to this Sacramente neuer to haue knowen the way of truth then to goe backward and to do worse then an infidell Primasius faith He despiseth Christ and his body as the Iewes dyd who cometâ—… to it without trying of his own conscience Sedulius besides that common similitude of Iudas and the Iewes vseth another saying If no man dare put it into a filthy cloth or vessel how much more ought he not to put it into an vncleane harte Note good Reader that the self same Sacrament is put in the cloth or vessel which is put in the harte It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries blaspheme breade and wine that is put into a cloth and vessell after consecration and body and blood that whiles the body eateth breade and wine is in hart receaued The same thing is in the harte which is put in the vessell wherein the Sacra ment is kept S. Hierome vsing the same similitude of a cloth or vncleane vessell declareth farther that as Ioseph did folde the body oâ—… our Lord in a cleane sheete so must we receaue him with a cleane coÌ„science Dâ—…u menius declareth the fault of the euill men to be in that they touche the body of Christ with vncleane mouth and impure hands saying that as Iudas betrayed Christ and the Iewes did violently runne vppon him euen so they do shame to him Quòd sanctissimum ipsius corpus manibus impuris suscipiunt veluti tunc eum Iudaei tenuerunt execrando admouent ori Who doe take with impure hands his most holy body none otherwise then the Iewes at that tyme helde him and doe put it to theyr cursed mouth Theophylact sayth of the blood of Christ Qui indignè hunc hauserit nulluÌ„ ex eo fructuÌ„ adeptus frustra ac temerè Christi sanguinem fudit He that drinketh the blood vnworthely he hath shed in vayne rashly the blood of Christ. taking thereof no fruit And again The cause why euil men take no fruit saith Theophylact is not through the nature of that mysteries as the which both haue life in them and geue life but it chauÌ„ceth through the vnworthines of them that come to them who take hurte by them nonc other wise theÌ„ as the sonne is wont to hurte them who haue sore eyes Theophylacte meaneth that as it is oue sonne which shineth to whole aud to sore eyes but yet the sore eyes through their owne defecte take hurt thereof and the whole eyes take good so the mysteries are one to the good and to the bad concerning their owne nature being as he saith always of that nature both to conteyne life and to gene life But the fault why life is not takeÌ„ cometh of the vnworthy receauer We haue now harde that euill men receaue the same true body of Christ which the good men do receaue but not to yâ— same profit because they haue not wel prepared them selues We must not then thinke that euer any auncient Father was of this mind to say that euill men haue in their mouthes only bread and wine and the good men eate only the true body of Christ. That heresiâ—… is as farre from the opinion of the Fathers as it is farre from the truth of the Scriptures S. Chrysostom saith he will suffer his own blood to be shed rather then he will graunt the moste holy blood of our Lord to an vnworthy man Doth not he meane that he hath our Lords blood in his own hand at the tyme of celebrating the mysteries and that he will not deliuer the same to a knowen euill man S. Cyrill noteth that it is not sayd in vaine of Iudas Exiuit continuò he went foorth by and by Timet diabolus benedictionis virtutem ne sintillam in animo eius accenderit The deuill feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kendled a spark of grace or of repentance in his minde S. Augustine hauing spoken of Iudas who gaue him self to the deuill Non malum accipiendo sed male accipiendo not by taking an euill thing but by taking it in an euill maner concludeth generally of all euill men Corpus enim sanguis domini erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit for it was the body and blood of our Lord euen to those to whom S. Paule sayd â–ª he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self It were easy after this sorte to allege a very greate number of yâ— olde Fathers but our aduersaries well knowing that we our selues beleue that the euill men albeit they receaue the substance of Christes body yet they doe not receaue the grace and vnitie
for which it is geuen abuse maliciously the words which S. Augustine speaketh of the effect of Christes body against the reall substance thereof But what speake I of the iniury done to S. Augustine sith they haue done so great and manifold iniuries to the word of God it self ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kynde of discerning our Lords body LEt a man examine him self and so eate of that bread and drink of the chalice for he that eateth and â—…nketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self not discerning our Lords body That is to say not putting a difference betwene it and other meates The not making of this difference may rise vpon mysbeleâ—…e as when a man thinketh that Christ was not able to make the bread his body or that his flesh is vnder yâ— forme of bread apart from his blood An other sorte of men may so contenme Christes body that he will not worship it although he beleue it to be present But S. Paule speakâ—…th not of those desperate men who through their special malice be gilty of Christes body before they come vnto it 〈◊〉 they are the more gilty for touching it really He speaketh of them who oâ—…it to examine them selues in so much that S. Augustine writeth thus of this very mater De his erat sermo caet â–ª when the Apostle sayd this thing the talk was of them who did receaue the body of our Lord indiscretely and negligeÌ„tly as if it were any other meate And againe If the negligeÌ„ce of the guest be touched with reprofe with what punishment is he vexed who sold the maker of the feast Here S. Augustine doth witnes that S. Paul speaking of vnworthy receauers did meane them who for negligence omitted to proue and examine them selues comming to the supper of our Lord as if they came to a prophane supper S. Chrysostom and after him Decumenius accompt the fault of the Corinthians to haue beue the dispising of the poore men because S. Paul sayd in the same Chapiter Ye put those to shame who haue not goodes of their own Theodoretus sayeth besydes that some of them were ambitious others also did eate the things offered vp to Ydols one had maried his own mother in law these were the faultes of the Corinthians and not any speciall contempt of hart namely against these holy mysteries According to which sense the Prophet Malachie doth say that the offering of polluted bread vppon the altar of God was the despising of him and S. Hiâ—…rome there sayeth Opera peccatorum despiciunt mensam Dei the workes of synners despise the table of God Seing then S. Paule speaketh of such fault and contempt of the Corinthians as riseth of their negligence and for the lacke of discretion this kind of giltines can not come only of the mind it self whose iudgement is rather vpright but it cometh for so much as the fault is committed about that thing wherein the body and blood of Christ is really conteyned For whereas an iniury done may either touch our body or estimation and when we will persecute the same reason and law wold we should specially describe the kind of iniury least we doe wrong to him whome we burden falsly with a more greuouse kind of fault then he hath done seing S. Paule doth by name burden the vnworthy recâ—…auer of this Sacrament with being gilty not only of Christes worship or name wherewith in other places he burdeneth other great synners but with being gilty of his own body and blood with which fault he neuer 〈◊〉 any other then the vnworthy receauers of this blessed Sacrament or yâ— Iewes who layed 〈◊〉 hands vppon Christ at his death it must nedes be yâ— such a coÌ„municant receaâ—…eth Christes owne naturall body so offendeth Christ not only in his name or in his estimation but also in his naturall flesh blood Moreouer seing when he warneth him to beware of doing this euil dede he biddeth him only put a 〈◊〉 betwene Christes body and all other meates it is euident that none other meate is here present besyde the body of Christ. Otherwise he should haue sayd Non dijudicans panem vinum figuram corporis Domini Not discerning bread and wine the signe of Christes body But now he only sayeth not discerning the body of our Lord. And yet it is much more to be noted that S. Paule nameth not any other meates but only he nameth the body of our Lord shewing thereby yâ— we must discerne it not only from other meates but from al other creatures in the world As if he sayd he that eateth vnworthely considereth not whose body he cometh vnto For as S. Chrysostome sayeth The receauer nedeth to consider nothing els but only qui sit propositus who is set foorth Et magnitudinem propositorum and the greatnes of the things set â—…oorth If the body were not present we ought rather to consider who is in heauen and where the truth of this image is then who and what is set before vs. Which as the Sacramentaries falsely teache is bread and wine but as the holy Scriptures and Fathers affirme it is the substance of Christes body ¶ No â—…igure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently gilty of Christes naturall body IN all this question of vnworthy receaâ—…ing the holy mysteries the chief refuge of the Sacramentaries is to say that seing the bread eaten and the wine drunken are the figures of Christes body and blood who so taketh them vnworthely he is gilty of the body and blood them selues which those figures doe signifie This pretensed excuse of theirs I will now consâ—…te God willing When a man by wilful contempt doth breake or defile yâ— image of a great Prince it is reputed all one as if he had stryken the Prince himself not because the dede is one but for that his will is thought to be no lesse vttered against the Prince by his demeanure toward the signe then if he had 〈◊〉 touched the Prince him self But S. Paule speaketh not of any such matter in this place as who maketh his argument rather vppon yâ— reall fact it self â—…hen vppon the wil or mind of the doer Neither doth he reason vppon presumption surmise or any like far fet interpretation but absolutely pronounceth him to be gilty of Christes body who eateth this bread vnworthely Therefore he ment not that the image or figure of Christes body was eaten but the true substance thereof He spake not now only of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing of not examining a mans self â–ª and of despising the poore Secondarily they that say the signe image or figure of Christes body is abused must shew wherein that figure doth consist Figures and images be either externall or internall Those be iudged by the eye these by the vnderstanding Those are
most commonly made by act these by nature or grace No manifest externall signe is made in Christes supper sufficient to shew or to expresse his body and blood outwardly vnto our eyes albeit some likenes and similitude be kept outwardly betwene the figures and the things figured otherwise as S. Augustine reasoneth they should not be Sacraments or holy signes But as Epiphanius well noteth of this Sacrament Videmus quòd non aequale est neque simile non imagini in carne non inuisibli deitati non lineamientis membrorum hoc enim est rotundae formae insensibile quantum ad potentiam We see that this thing he meaneth the Sacrament of Christes supper is not equall nor like either to the shape in flesh or to the inuisible Godhead or to the proportion of his members for this thing is of a round forme and vnsensible concerning the power of feling or mouing Seing then the things consecrated vppon the 〈◊〉 be not so like Christes nature person that thereby they may be in dede his image in any parte of their outward shape it appereth that the figure made in them is not so much seene in the outward forme as it is to be sought for in some inward vertue of them Internall figures be either naturall or typicall The Sonne is a naturall image or figure of his Father and the serpent lifted vp in the desert was a mysticall image of Christ. There is likewise no mere natural image of Christ in his last supper because there is nothing which procedeth from him by the way of birth or of generation and yet a certein proportion is kept in the Sacrament of Christes supper with this kinde of figure also Typicall signes be dubble some of the olde lawe which did signify as it were in a shadow yâ— truth absent in substaÌ„ce which was to come in Christ others of the new Testament which doe euidently geue vs the truth it self which they by visible â—…ormes both signify and conteine Those of the olde law are called in S. Paule vmbra futurorum bonorum the shadow of the good things to come these of the new lawe are named ipsa imago reruÌ„ the self image of the things of which matter I haue spoken before at large The supper of Christe belongeth to the new Testament the chalice whereof is the new Testament in his blood Therefore the figure which is made in Christes supper is ipsa imago reruÌ„ The self image of the things as also Baptisme conteyneth really the grace of regeneration which it geueth to him that is worthely baptized There is an image and a self image The image may be of a thing whose substance is absent as it chaunceth in all artificiall images The self image is it which hath the truth ioyned with yâ— image or els which is an image rather through that self substaÌ„ce which it hath common with the truth then in his outward resemblance Such an image is Christ of his Father and Christes supper of him self Hauing after the rate of artificiall and external figures by breaking of the bread a resemblance of the naturall flesh broken with nailes and scourges but much more hauing the proprietie of a naturall image in being that substance whereof it is the figure And whereas it hath the properties of â—…the kind of images or figures yet it is neither of both but farre passeth both therefore is called not only a typicall figure such as those of the old law were nor only a mystical figure of yâ— new Testament as other Sacraments of Christes Church are but it is called singularly the Sacrament of Sacraments the perfection and the vnbloody sacrifice which who so receaueth vnworthely he is worthy to be gilty of no lesse punishment then the thing is great which he 〈◊〉 He is gilty of the sacriâ—…iced body of Christ because he really eateth it But if it were the image of a truth absent in substance as the figures of the old Testament were the negligent eating thereof could by no meanes make a man gilty of violating Christes body partly because no image of the old law did by eating it make any man gilty of laying 〈◊〉 hands vppon Christes body and yet they were all figures of his body partly because any other Satrament of the new law should likewise make vs gilty of missordering his body For as bread and wine doe signify the spirituall nourishment which Christ geueth to our soules right so Baptisme doth signifie the spirituall birth which we receaue of Christ in our soules But seing it is a thing neuer heard of that either Manna or the shew bread vnworthely eaten or baptisme vnworthely taken made any man gilty of Christes own body and blood certeinly there is some other heauenly substance vnder the forme of bread and wine then either Manna or the shew bread had or baptisme now hath He that did eate Manna vnworthely might be gilty of contempt disdaine lothsomnes or negligence according as his fault was wherewith he did eate it but the thing eaten made him not gilty of Christes body and blood Otherwise the Iewes must haue prepared and examined them selues euery day least they should haue committed a new synne against the body of our Sauiour which as it is a thing not readen of so it had required more perfection in the law then now is vsed for so much as we receaue our maker perhaps but once a yere surely at the most but once a day whereas they did fede vppon Manna so oft as hunger or custome prouoked them by the space of forty yeres What shal I say more As the Sacrament of Christes body blood is really and in dede it self the bread which through the substance thereof vnited to God is able to make the worthy eaters liue for euer so it is the body whiche through the substance thereof whereunto power of iudging and coÌ„demning is geuen doth make the vnworthy receauers thereof to be damned euen for the only negligence vsed in eating it Death and life comme from the substance of that which is eaten and therein it differeth froÌ„ Manna exceding it so far as the body it selfe is more worth then the shadow thereof whereas otherwise one slesh and blood of Christ were signified by both but not really present in both ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is confirmed by the oft repâ—…rting of the name of flesh body blood eating drinking and such like wordes THat which Ioseph said vnto Pharao concerning that his dreame seene yâ— second tyme was an assured token of Gods will in bringing the matter to passe I may much more â—…ustly allege at this tyme sith touching the real presâ—…ce of his body blood Christe was not content to say it the second or third tyme but he hath by him self or his Apostles and Euangelists repeted it aboue
speaketh in an other place of the same matter Suprà dictum est edent pauperes saturabuÌ„tur hîc verò manducauerunt adorauerunt caet It was sayd before the poore shal eate and shal be filled But here it is sayd all the riche of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his body and blood But they adore only and be not filled also because they folow not For although they eate Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe quia Deus excitauit eum a mortuis c. Because God hath raised him from the dead and hath geuen him a name the which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euery knee should be bowed of heauenly earthly and of things vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes and with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come them selues to the table they eate and adore but yet they are not filled because they doe not hunger and thyrst righteousnes Hitherto S. Augustine who speaketh of eating the body of Christ from the table The riche men come to the table of Christ thence to eate his body There also they adore that which they take from the table and that which they eate And how is it possible but that this worshipping and adoring whereof S. Augustine speaketh must belong to the table of Christ that is to say to his body aud blood which is eaten from his table when the Priest geueth it to vs And yet it might not there be rightly adored if it were not reaâ—…ly present vppon the table And there it can not be present vnlesse it ve vnder the formes of bread and wine which only stand vppon the table Therefore this prophecie as wel proueth the adoration as the real presence of Christes body and blood Is it not a great blindnes in our new preachers that whereas the word of God sayeth euen the riche of the earth haue eaten and haue adored or shal eate and shall adore for so one tense doth stand for an other in the holy Scripture yet they wil haue ye eate and not adore to th' intent ye should be more vnkind thâ—…n those earthly riche men were ¶ The adoration of Christes body is proued again out of the Prophet Dauid THe Prophet Dauid speaking of the Kingdome of Christ which he exercised vpon the crosse by conquering the deuil and synne requireth vs to gene praise to him for it and not only to him but euen to his footestole writing thus Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate scabellum pedum eius quoniam sanctum est Exalte the Lord our God and worship his footestole because it is holy The Hebrew readeth because he is holy It is to be vnderstanded that Christ in one person hath two natures to wit the nature of God and yâ— nature of man Dauid willeth both to be adored and first he speaketh of the Godhead saying Exalte the Lord our God Next after of his humane nature in those words Adorate scabellum pedum eius worship his footestole for Godly honour is due to his flesh also because he is holy That is to say because his person is the second person in the Trinitie where vnto the manhod is vnited And through that vnion the nature of man is worthy of Godly honour The Iewes accompted the footestole of God to be the Arke and temple of Hierusalem toward which they bowed and adored God in their tyme of prayers But aswell the Arke as the Temple were the shadowes of Christes flesh and that not only as he was in the visible forme of man but euen as he is mystically vnder the forme of bread For the Arke did foreshadow the Sacrament of Christes body blood as Angelomus hath noted Sacerdos qui Arcam caet The Priest Oza who touched that Arke with vnaduised rashnes purged the fault of his bolde enterprise with death before his tyme wherein we must nedes consider how much he synneth who cometh gilty to the body of our Lord seing that deuout Priest is punished with death who with lesse reuerence then he ought hastely handled that Arke which was the figure of our Lords body Againe the Arke coÌ„teined Manna in it which was an expresse figure of the flesh of Christ in that respect as it is to be eaten of vs as both Christ him self hath declared in S. Ihon and S. Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians Likewise the Temple was a figure of Christes body according as him self sayd Dissolue ye this Temple of my body and and in three days I wil raise it vp againe The Arke therefore and the Temple being the footestole of God toward which yâ— Iewes prayed did signifie that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heauen whether Christ is entred as into the euerlasting 〈◊〉 and most holy of holies but also in the Sacrament of the altar which is the Arke Temple and â—…essell conteining the self same substance of Manna which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father The holy Prophet Dauid requiring vs to adore the footestole of God requireth vs to adore the flesh of Christ as well in the Arke of the new Testament which is the Sacrament of Christes body as in heauen it self because he that hath ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his Father sayd also in his last supper Take and eate this is my body Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Neither doe I make or first inuent such interpretation but the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres left it vnto me sauing that they expound yâ— footestole to be not only the Arke and Temple of â—…ierusalem but also the whole â—…arth in respect of the Godhead because Esate sayeth Heauen is my seate the â—…arth is the settle of my feete But herein wee may rest in S. Hieromes aucthoritie who vpon this place writeth thus Multae de scabello opiniones sunt caet There are many opinions concerning the â—…orestole what it should be But here the Prophete meaneth our Lords body wherein the maiestie of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a 〈◊〉 How so euer then wee interpret the fotestole concerning the literall and firsâ—… meaning yet the naturall flesh of Christe which he assumpted of the virgin is the spiritual truth wherevnto the Prophete directed his wordes That flesh where so euer it be is the fotestole of God and therefore it is euery where to be adored But as the Arcke deserued a speciall reuerence amonge the Iewes although it was the bare figure of Christes flesh in so much that Oza who touched it rashly died for it euen so the Sacrament of the altar which
wherein the honour may rest for the honour that wee geue to the body and blood of Christ which was taken of the virgine is according to the doctrine of S. Augustine geuen to his holy person who is the naturall Sonne of God and one substance with his Father true God and true man Thus wee saue the truth of the olde Propheâ—…ies the faith of our forefathers the proprietie of Christes wordes in his supper the honour of his Church the glory of his name who gaue no occasion of idolatry neither in worde nor in dede ¶ The adoration of Christes body in the Sacrament is proued out of the new Testament S. Paule speaking of Sacramtal eating saith he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self not discerning our Lords body that is to say not putting a difference betwene it and other meates For S. Hierome S. Augustiue Sedulius and Primasius expound those words in that meaning The difference which is to be made betwene the meate of Christes supper and other meates consisteth in two points in one that the receauer of Christes Sacrament must prepare him self before hand to be apt to receaue the grace of God in which point Baptisme penance holy orders and other Sacraments agree with the supper of Christe For we may not come being of lawfull age to any of those or such like holy mysteries without due disposing our selues to repentance for our synnes and to amendment of our life The second point of the difference betwene Christes supper other things is that in the Sacrament of his supper we must examine our selues euen for the respect of the substance of that meate which we receaue In baptisme we try our selues not for any honour which is due to the water but for the obteyning of the grace which is geuen in that Sacrament But in the supper a farther difference is to be made What is that The very substance which is taken is to be honoured and adored That is it which S. Chrysoâ—…ome sayth Non considerans vt oportet magnitudinem propositorum non reputans muneris magnitudinem He eateth vnworthely sayeth S. Chrysostome Who considereth not as it behoueth the greatnes of the things set foorth not weighing diligeÌ„tly the greatnes of the gift He speaketh not of the effect which cometh by the Sacrament but of the substance of the things set foorth What are they but such as appeare Bread and wine and yet in dede be Christ him self There fore it foloweth in S. Chrysostome If thou doest lern diligently qui sit propositus who is set before thee thou nedest to accompt nothing els Behold the person and substance set foorth is to be considered only Nullius alterius indigebis ratione Thou shalt nede make no accompt of any thing els For out of that substaÌ„ce which standeth before thee cometh the grace and all other effects of worthy eating as if he sayd prouyde to receaue worthely the person set foorth to thee vnder the formes of bread and thou mayest be secure So that the differeÌ„ce properly belonging to Christes supper is to make a difference of this substance from al other substances That is the difference whereof S. Ambrose saith He that will receaue worthely this meate must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood he drinketh in a mystery What other meaning can these wordes haue but that he must iudge him selfe to drinke not wine but blood not the blood of an earthly man but his blood who is God also and that he drinketh his blood in a mysterie to wit not in his owne forme but vnder the forme of wine for he speaketh of Sacramentall drinking of that which is taken by mouth Therefore the very substance which he drinketh must be disseuered from all other creatures Nowe I say he that is willed so to iudge of the substance of this Sacrament as the substance of him who is God ought to be iudged of he is willed to adore the substance of this Sacrament sith his substance ought to be adored who is God For as S. Chrysostom saith the very table to wit the very meate staÌ„ding vpoÌ„ the table is the strength oâ—… our soulâ—… the synewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light lyfe Thus to iudge oâ—… this SacrameÌ„t by adoring it with true â—…oue in it to adore God that is to adore not only in spirite figures as yâ— Iewes dyd adore but also to 〈◊〉 in spirite and truth as Christ said we should do because our SacrameÌ„ts coÌ„teme yâ— truth which they signiâ—…ied â—…ot only signifying our Sauiour as yâ— old SacrameÌ„ts did but also geuing saluatioÌ„ as S. Augusti doth witnesse And for as muche as the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is the Sacrifice of the new â—…aw willed by him to be made for the remâ—…brance of his death we must both in our spirite and in the truth of naturall coniunction be vâ—…ted and made one with the substance thereof and also in the truth of Christes flesh externally consâ—…crated adore God offering him that reasonable and diuine sacrifice to the end we may render and paie the worship of thanksgeuing due for our redemption in none other substaÌ„ce then in the same which redemed vs. For as it is nostrum holocaustum our sacrifice wholy burnt by death of the Crosse so is it nostra hostia pacifica our sacrifice wherewith we both geue thanks for peace made betwene God and vs and also applie to our selues the fruites of that one burnt offerinâ—… truse made vpon the Crosse which was is the propitiation for our synnes and for the synnes of the whole world This kind of adoration proper to the new testament is due to God of our behalf by the Sacrament and sacrifice of Christes body and blood And herein stanâ—…eth all that which the Apostle speaketh of worthy or vnworthy receauing if the true substance of this SacrameÌ„t be vprightly estemed and both outwardly and inwardly honoured And so doth S. Augustine expound yâ— Apostles minde as now it shal appere Ianuarius had asked what S. Augustine thought concerning holy dayes fasting dayes or such like customes of the Church which are diuersly kept in diuerse countries Among other questions it was also moued what were to be more approued whethere to receaue daily the SacrameÌ„t of the altar or els to abstein sometymes To this question S. Augustine maketh answer that neither of them both depriueth the body and blood of our Lorde of honour if eche of them striue who may honour best the moste healthfull Sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honour our Sauiour in maner by contrary meanes the one by receauing him with ioy into his house the other by saying â–ª Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes
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
is suche as betokeneth shewing and lifting vp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly betoken suche a shewing as is made by listing vp It is much to be noted yâ— S. Basil asketh what Saint to wit what Apostle or Euangelist hath left in writing to vs the order of saying Masse and the praiers which therein we vse Non enim iis contenti sumus quorum caet For we are not content with those things whereof the Apostle or Gospel hath made mention but both before and after we say certeine other things as hauing great strength about the mysteries which are taken out of the doctrine which is deliuered without writing The Apostle and Gospel hath only told the substanciall points of the Masse but the rest hath bene left vnto vs as S. Basil saith by secret doctrine yet by the same auctority which gaue vs the substanciall points Well seing that S. Basill speaking of the whole Masse yet nameth it ostentionem Eucharistiae the eleuation and sheing of the 〈◊〉 he geueth vs to vnderstand the eleuation to be next vnto the consecration a most principall parte of the Masse in so much as the whole may be named by it While the bread of yâ— Eucharist was shewed these were and among the Breeks are the words of inuocation Vnus sanctus c. one holy one Lord in the glory of God the Father Amen These words if they did not belong to the holy things which are shewed why are they spoken at that tyme why are they called the wordes of inuocation the words that acknowlege so holy thinges to be shewed and holden vp that they are the only holy and one Lord Iesus who is in equall deitie and glorie with his Father Maximus in his notes vpon S. Dionysius after some other interpretations made vpon the shewing of the diuine mysteries resteth in this that Dionysius meaneth the lifting vp and eleuation of the one blessing which is yâ— of the diuine bread which the Priest lifteth vp saying Holy things for holy men And as it may appeare by Maximus in the primatiue Church the mysteries were twise shewed at the first tyme the diuine bread alone was listed vp and before the communion as wel that diuine bread as also therewithall the chalice Germanus writeth thus Elatio autem in altum diuini corporis repraesentatcrucis elationem mortem in ea ipsam resurrectionem The lifting vp a high of the diuine body doth represent the lifting vâ—… on the crosse and the death in it and the very resurrection After the lifting vp of Christes body and the adoration thereof the holy communion folowed of the which Eusebius Emissenus writeth in this maner Cum ad reuerendum altare salutari cibo potuque reficiendus accedis sacrum Dei tui corpus sanguinem fide respice honora mirare mente continge cordis manu suscipe maximè haustu interiore assume when thou comest to the reuerend altar to be refresshed with the healthfull meate and drink looke with faith vpon the holy body and blood of thy God honour it wonder at it touche it with thy minde receaue it with an inward swalowing The first thing to be noted in these words is that he which is desirous to receaue the blessed Sacrament of Christes body must know where to haue it The second how to take it and last of al how to vse it profitably Concerning the place Eusebius sayth when thou comest to the reuerend altar to be fed with yâ— healthful meate and drink Doing vs to vnderstand that the body blood of Christ which only is our healthful meate and drink standeth vpon the altar thence to be distributed to the faithfull people Concerning the maner of taking the sayd body Eusebius biddeth vs honour it and wonder at it Concerning the profitable vse thereof he biddeth vs take it with our hart and minde for if we toke it with our bodies alone we should rather take it to our damnation then to our profite The English homilies rehersing this place in the secoÌ„d tome haue translated altare the communion and salutari cibo potuque spirituall meates whereas altare is an altar and salutare is healthful But the brethern who 〈◊〉 ouerthrowen altars were loth by naming them to recite their own damnation Eusebius beginneth with the altar as the which is the grouÌ„d of all the rest Upon the altar the healthful meate is consecrated made ready for the faithfull people There it is looked on not by the bodily eye which seeth nothing besyde the outward formes but by faith which is taught the body and blood of Christ to be present vpon the altar vnder those formes There that meate is honoured thence that is taken which refresheth vs. To that meate the receauer sayd Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roof For he that seeth the diuine food lifted vp vnto him and afterward speaketh these words seing he taketh corporally that bread into his mouth and only in respect of that corporall receauing sayth I am not worthy that thou should est enter Doubtlesse he speaketh to the bread it self calleth it his Lord. For none other Lord entreth vnder the roof of his mouth besyde that bread It is lifted vp to receaue it he cometh to it he speaketh it entreth vnder his roof It is therefore a fond preteÌ„se to say those words were spoken to God in heauen not vnto yâ— holy Sacrament Cyrillus of Hâ—…erusalem describing yet more particularly the gesiures of them who receaue the holy coÌ„munion biddeth them to take the King and the body of Christ in the hollow of the right hand saing Amen And to sanctifie their eyes withall vsing all diligence that no crum thereof perish or fal away But what neded that precept if it were the substance of commoÌ„ bread Surely seing no such diligence was vsed in Baptisme we may well perceaue that as because that substance of water doth still remaine it skilleth not where it fall so for so much as no crum of bread must be lost it is not the substance of wheaten bread which is so carefully kept After the communion of the body Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christes blood bowing down saying in the maner of adoring and worshipping Amen Here the right hand receaueth the King surely not by faith which yâ— hand hath not therefore the King of glory was meant to be taken in the hand by meane of the forme of bread vnder which our King Iesus Christ is really present Here is bowing down and adoring at the very instant when the holy communion is receaued As therefore when we reade that the Disciples went back from the place of Christes ascension adorantes adoring we may wel conclude that they adored Christ him self and not only God yâ— Father in him or by him As againe when the Centurion sayd
is made S. Mathew then proueth it not neither S. Marke And whereas S. Luke and S. Paule witnesse that Christ said make this thing for the remembrance of me albeit that was spoken to the Apostles yet it is not thereby proued that the successors of the Apostles maie doe it Then cometh he to the later words which M. Iuel citeth Non potest igitur per vllam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cum nec istud in scripturis contineatur It can not therefore be proued by any scripture what can not be proued M. Iuel gâ—…ue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it can not What can not Iuel D. Fisher saieth the carnall presence can not be proued neither by these wordes this is my body nor by any other San. Then you make carnal presence the nomninatiue case to the verbe Potest but D. Fysher spake not thereof The whole speache which foloweth is that whereof he speaketh to wit that either a lay man or a priest shall when he attempteth it make the body and blood of Christ of bread and wine as well as Christ did that thing can not be proued for asmuch as it is not conteined in the scriptures But it followeth after that by yâ— interpretation and practise of so long time the holy gost hath expounded to vs these words Hoc facite make this thing in such wise that the successours of the Apostles may consecrate Christes body and blood How manie enormouse faultes haue you committed here in M. Iuel first D. Harding affirmed these words This is my bodie to teache a reall presence But B. Fisher spake of these wordes Make this thing and not of the words This is my bodie 2. D. Harding spake of the real presence whiche wyll manifestlie be proued if any sacrament at all be commaunded to be made by Christ. D. Fisher spake of this point whether any man had authoritie by the scripture to make any sacrament at al or no. 3. D. Harding spake of Christes wordes B. Fisher of our doinges 4. B. Fisher neuer doubted but that these wordes This is my body when thei were spoken by christ or his Apostles made and proued the re al presence of his bodie and blood But he asketh of heretiks how thei can proue by only scriptures that any man after the Apostles is able to make the supper of Christ not that he douted of the thing it selfe but he asketh for the prouf thereof out of the new testament Now for M. Iuel to cite B. Fishers words leauing out the nominatiue case which immediatly folowed and to supply a false nominatiue case neuer thought of by B. Fysher it is a figure of a man that hath repelled al good coÌ„science and therefore it is no woÌ„der if he haue erred in faith not caring what he writeth so he maie be counted lerned in their eies that know neither greeke nor latin neither verb nor nominatiue case Iuel M. Hardings frendes D. Smith D. Stephen Gardener c. can not agree vppon the termes naturally or sensually c. San. Where is the word of god M. Iuel whereof you boast so much are B. Fysher and D. Smith and D. Gardener your Euangelistes to them now you flie to answere S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule you haue forbidden vs all the fathers of these nine hundred yeres and shall it be lawfull for you to answere the words of the blessed Euangelists by a cauil moued vppon men of our age al who are wel knowen to haue condemned your opinon for heresie and al thes beleue that naturall presence which you impugne And that which you bring concerning the sense of the termes naturallie sensually or so foorth is 〈◊〉 ke moued only concerning the maner of signifying Christes reall presence which is no weighty mater when the real presence it selfe is once agreed vppon Iuel This article cannot be proued by the old doctours as M. Harding graunteth by his silence Sander If it be proued by Christ whome D. Hardinge citeth what nede a better doctour and yet he briugeth also moe doctours then you haue answered to as it shal appere afterward Iuel The question is not of Christes words but of his meaning which must be coÌ„sidered chefely as the Lawiers and S. Augustine saie Christ meant not this to be his bodie reallie Sander S. Hilarie disputing against the Arrians whome he intended to confute by the natural presence of Christes bodie taken by vs really in the sacrament made this preface to his talke coÌ„cerning yâ— words wherein Christ praied that the faithful might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christe in hym Aut fortè qui verbuÌ„ est significationeÌ„ verbi ignorauit et qui veritas est loqui vera nesciuit et qui sapientia est in stultiloquio errauit et qui virtus est in ea fuit infirmitate ne posset eloqui quae vellet intelligi loquutus planè ille est vera syncera fidei Euangelicae Sacramenta neque soluÌ„ loquutus est ad significationem sed etiaÌ„ ad fidem docuit ita dlcens vt omnes vnum sint sicut tu pater in me et ego in te vt et ipsi vnum sint in nobis Either perhaps doth he which is the word not know the signification of the word and doth not he which is the truthe know to speake true things hath he which is the wisdom erred in folish speaking and is he which is the power of such 〈◊〉 that he can not vtter those things which he wold haue vnderstanded he hath spokeu plainlie the true and syncere mysâ—…eries of the faith of the gospel Nâ—…ither hath he spoken only for significations sake but also he hath taught for faiths sake saying thus that all may be one as thou O Father art in me and I in thee they also may be one in vs. If then Christ much more in his last supper spake in such sort that he did not only signifie his minde but also taught vs the faith of the Sacrament what a folly is it to pretend that he spak otherwise then he meant Specially sith in this place we are so farre from any circumstance which may hinder the proper meaning of Christs speach yâ— these words which is geuen for you doe put yâ— matter out of al dout as D. Harding hath told you before and that is further proued inuincibly after this sorte This is my bodie which is geuen for you but my body geuen for you is real substantiall natural therefore this is so This argument can not be answered except ye say the signe of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. For yâ— participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in english geue
affirmed him to rule Angels and al that euer was made by God and his scholars called him a Prophet and the sonne of God whiche notwithstanding for so much as they beleued 〈◊〉 not to be God by nature the Catholiks neuer douted to say that they taught him to be nudum hominem a naked and bare man Right so whatsoeuer holynesse be annexed to bread and wine be it the signe of neuer so great a vertue and efficacie be it called neuer so much the body and blood of Christ yet if it remain stil in the former substance if the truth whiche it is appointed to signify be absent it is bare bread and bare wine a bare token of Christes body and blood Amend your belefe M. Iuell if you will haue vs to amend our termes Iuel We fede not the people with bare figures San. The question is not how ye fede the people by your doctrine but what signe you teache the Sacrament it self 〈◊〉 be whether it be suche a signe as hath present in a secrete manner the truth signified thereby or els whether it be the signe of a truth absent in substance For two kind of signes there are one which by the truth of his own substance considered and well vnderstaÌ„ded doth signifie an other manner of truth belonging to it selfe as when a loaf of bread beinge true bread in substance is set to signifie true bread also but yet in that respect as bread is there to be bought sold An other signe there is where the truthe signified is absent in substance As when an iuy bush doth signifie wine to be sold. This later kind of signes or figures is vtterly naked bare and without the truth which is signified The question is whether of these two kinds of signes is in the Sacrament of Christes supper The Catholikes say the best and richest kind of signes is there because there is Christes body realy present to signifie and as it were by seale to witnesse his owne death and passion You teache the substance of the Sacrament to be still bread and wine but our signe is more worthy of Christes Godhead and more properly a signe or a seale in truth of nature then yours For as S. Hilary and S. Cyrill teache Signaculorum ea natura est caet Such is the nature of signes or of seales that they set foorth the whole forme of the kind of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them selues then those things haue whence they are sealed After this sorte God the Father signed Christ and Christe thereby was the forme the print the signe the figure the image of his Father But as S. Hilarie sheweth Imago authoris veritas He was the image of him whom he represented also the truthe I warrant you M. Iuel you fede the people with no doctrine of any such signe or seale present in Christes supper For you say afterward that the bread is an erathly thing therefore a figure I pray you can bread be other then a bare figure if it â—…il remain earthly and corruptible I say further to you M. Juel and yeâ—… beare no false witnesse at all that your 〈◊〉 be more bare then euerwere any euen in the old testameÌ„t For they at the least wise did in apparence of true fleshe and in true blood shedding foreshewe the fleshe and blood of Christ which should die for vs. Melchisedech likewise had beside his bread and wine the reall body of Abraham present whome he offered to God and in him Jesus Christ his sede But you hauing bare bread and bare wine without any reall flesh at all either present or offered must nedes haue a naked signe and a bare figure such as only Cain had and his brood Iu. We teache that in the ministration of the Sacraments Christ is set before vs euen as he was crucified vpon the crosse and that therein we may behold remission of synnes San. Admit ye â—…ache so then is your sermon better then your Sacrament For a man may looke long inowgh vppon the substaÌ„ce of bread wine before he can picke out of their earthly nature Christ crucified But if that blessed belefe were mainteined according to the truthe of the Gospell which after consecracion worshipped the reall body of Christ vnder the forme of bread theÌ„ the token which conteineth the true body that diâ—…d for vs in it is no bare token but the truth it selfe in substance and a token of the visible manner thereof Iu. We teache that Christes body is verily geuen to vs and that we verily eate it and liue by it and are flesh of his flesh San. How wel you teache it the thing it selfe will trie â–ª but all this proueth not that your Sacrament hath euer the more in it vnlesse you say that you receaue all this vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine A goodly matter your wordes in preaching to heare the which infidels may be admitted shal be better then the Sacraments instituted by Christ. How we are flesh of Christes flesh I haue shewed in the fifth booke the fifth chapiter Iu. Yet we â—…av not the substance of bread and wine is done â—…way or that Christes body is let downe from hâ—…uen or made really present San. That is the cause why your Sacraments are still bare naked For all the rest which you talke oâ—… is told to mens eares but nothing is wrought in the Sâ—…ents As for your nicke naming of things as of doing away bread in steede of changing of letting doune Christes body from heaâ—…en we must pardon you therein It is your grace to raile or rather the lacke of grace in you We teach bread to be changed into Christes body through his power Iu. He must mount on highe saith Chrysostome who so wil reache to that body San. You ouerreached your selfe when you turned accedere to reache â–ª it is to come vnto not to reache For S. Chrysostom spake of coÌ„ming to the holy visible table whiche stoode in the visible Church and meant that who so commeth to receaue thenâ—… the holy meate he must in good faith life climme vp to heauen and not that he should goe thither to receaue the mysteries Ipsa namque mensa For the very table that is to say the meate vpon the table is our saluation and life And againe This 〈◊〉 maketh that whiles we be in this life earth may vs heaueÌ„ to vs. Iu. Send vp thy faith saith Augustine and thou hast taken him San. The place is by you abused and drawen from a misbeleuing Iew to whome it was spoken to the Christian 〈◊〉 See good Reader my second booke xxix chapiter Iu. In deede the bread thaâ—… we receaue with our bodily mouthes is an earthly thing therefore a figure as the water in 〈◊〉 San. The water in baptisme is no figure
vsed the same kind of speach before saying NoÌ„ se tantum videri permittens desyderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desyderio sui omnes impleri Christ permitteth him self not only to be seen of theÌ„ that long after him but also to be touched eaten the teeth to be fastened to his fleshe and all men to be filled with the desire of him Which notwithstanding M. Iuel writeth in the margent of Berengarius his consâ—…on This is an horrible blasphemie not knowing that the denying of this reall presence vâ—…der those formes of bread and wine is that horrible blasphemie whereof he speaketh And not to speake as S. Chrysostome and other holy Fathers haue spoken Iuel Bertram and Ihon Scotus wrote openly against it with the contentation of the world San. Against which it did they write Iuel Against this if it be the Catholike faith Sander Which this Whether against the confession of Bereugarius You say theâ—… were two hundred yeares before hun what then wrote thei against the Catholike faith if they did so howe could the Catholike world be content therwith again where are the words which the world was contented withal thinck you it lawfull to faine or glose what you list Iuel That M. Harding calleth the Catholike faith is in dede aCatholike errour Sander No errour can be Catholike because Christe said hell gates should not preuaile againste his Church And it is a citie built vpon a hill which can not be hiddeÌ„ The rest of your words shall hereafter be proued vayne ¶ Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded HArding The body vvhich vvas before the death thereof thrall and frail is novv spirituall Iu. M. Harding in the end concludeth against him selfe San. You say so but you proue it not Iu. Only Stephen Gardener geueth the world to vnderstaÌ„d that Christ is not yet fully possessed in this glory thus he saith the time of the despensation or seruice of his hâ—…militie remaineth stil vntil 〈◊〉 deliuer vp the Kingdom vnto God his Father Sand. B. Gardiâ—…er dot noth say that Christ is not fully possessed in his glory for his own part that is your addition Again the word seruice was of your putting in least any authority might escape you vncorrupted How be it B. Gardiner semeth to meane no more therein then S. Paule sayd before him witnessing that Christ sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in heauen minister sanctorum the minister of holy thinges for he is yet a minister stil by reason of his mysticall body If it were any part of our principall purpose to stand vppon that matter I wold shew you what holy things they were and how he ministred them by dispensation of his humility during the time of the peregtination of his members notwithstanding his own glory at the right hand of his Father wherein he is fully possessed Iuel To what end allegeth M. Harding the spirituall state of Christs body Eutiches sayd it is changed into the very substance of God which heresie is like M. Hardings if it be not the same Sand. I know not what you meane by burdening D. Harding with the heresie of Eutiches sith the defence of the reall presence is as directly against that heresie as may be for how can the naturall and substantiall flesh of Christ be present in the Sacrament if his flesh were turned into the substance of the Godhead as Eâ—…tiches sayd could that be in the Sacrament which were not in it self Therefore the places alleged out of S. Augustine S. Dionysiâ—…s S. Cyprian and other holy Fathers concerning the truth of Christes humane substance and nature â—…ill remaining and not changed into the diuine substance or els concerning our â—…mitation or likenes of God is wholy confessed of vs. neither doth D. Harding meane by the body deiâ—…ed other then yâ— body immortal spirituall yet so farre aboue our bodies as the vâ—…ion in yâ— person of the naturall sonne of God excedeth our adoption by grace But for so much as you doubted not M. Iuel to burden D. Harding with the Eutichian heresie I will briefly shew that your opinion is far more like vnto it then D. Hardings belefe As Eutiches destroyed the truth of humane flesh in the person of Christ so the Sacramentaries destroye the truth and reall presence of the same flesh in the Sacrament of the altar And yet the old Fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two things of the signe or foorm of bread and of yâ— body of Christ so Christ consisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane But seing the Sacramentaries take away yâ— reall presence from the visible signe of bread they falsifie the argumeÌ„t of the old Fathers and further the cause of the Eutichians For as the Eutichians turned the naturall flesh of Christ into the Godhead so the Sacramentaries turn the Sacramental eating of naturall flesh into mere diuine and spirituall eating which is made by faith alone But as the old Fathers proued against the Eutichians that Christ who truly suffered death could not suffer it in his diuine nature so I tell the Sacramentaries that Christ who â—…aid take eate this is my body can not be taken into our hands or eaten with our mouthes by faith and spirit aloue We must haue such an eating as may proue Christ to haue had reall flesh because we eate by mouth his reall flesh So S. Hilarie proued our naturall vnion with Christes flesh against the Arrians S. Gregorie Nyâ—…sen that Christ had taken true flesh of the Uirgin For how can a thing saith he which hath no body be made meate vnto the body So S. Cyrill proueth that there is but one person because the flesh which we receaue doth geue lifâ—… to our soules and bodies which it could not doe except it were the proper flesh of God who only geueth life Thus M. Iuel may perceaue that his opinion agreeth with the Arrians Ualentiâ—…ians Neâ—…orians Eutichians And the like might be sayd of the Marcionites Manichees Apellians briefly of all those heretikes who denying a reall truth of Christes diâ—…ine or humane nature were always confuted by the Fathers by the reall truth of Christes manhod and Godhead confessed of the Catholikes in this blessed Sacrament Harding S. Hierom shevving tvvo vvays of vnderstanding Christes flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it vvas crucified declareth the maner of eating it only to differ from the maner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iuel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence San. He meaneth both Iuel S. Hierom speaking of the dubble vnderstanding of Christes flesh meaneth that we haue our saluation in Christ eating him and liuing by him not for that his flesh was
mortal only and crucified vppon the crosse but for that it was spiritual and diuine â—…hat is to say the flesh of the Sonne of God San. Your glose M. Iuel is stark naught For whereas S. Hierom rekoneth vp two wayes of vnderstanding one and the same flesh you make such an interpretation which doth coÌ„found those 〈◊〉 vnderstandings For if Christes flesh be called of S. Hieroâ—… diâ—…ine and spirituall because it is the flesh of the Sonne of God theâ—… his flesh was diuine and spirituall vppon the crosse also For euen there it was the flesh of the Sonne of God But he calleth it spirituall one way and crucified an other way therefore his meaning is that it is spirituall and diuine flesh not only for respect of the vnion but vnder the forme of bread where it is present to be eaten in a diuine maner and as if it were a spirit vtterly inuisible and able to be perceaued by no 〈◊〉 aâ—…d yet for all tâ—…at true and reall flesh euen the same substance which was crucified Any other sense you can not applie to the distinction of S. Hierom and whatsoeuer els you bring out of S. Augustine or Angelomus it is not to the purpoâ—… Iuel S. Hieroms meaning is that the same flesh being thus diuine and spirituall must also spiritually be receaued and not fleshly as M. Harding imagineth San. As though D. Harding brought not the distinction of S. Hierom to proue that his assertion is not carnal and fleshly but spirituall and diuine And yet you still call it as you list and huddle vp places of the Manichees and Messalians nothing to the purpose Iuel S. Hierom him self sayth Of this oblation which is marueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawfull to eate but of that oblation which Christ offered vppon the altar of the crosse according to it self it is lawfull â—…or noman to eate That is to say in grosse and fleshly maner San. Who could speake more against your self then you doe now The fleshly maner of eating is to eate flesh visible palpable and corruptible and in that maner as it was vpon yâ— crosse This place brought by you although it be thought to be the saying of Origenes and not of S. Hierom yet confirmeth excedingly the former distinction For the same substance is eaten which was crucified euen as the Hoste or thing offered is one in both oblations but the maner is diuerse Both these places are in dede very like Both name the crosse both name eating Both make a difference betwene the thing crucified and eaten but yet not in substance but in the maner of the presence thereof Iuel By these words S. Hierom â—…weth a great difference betwene the sacrifice that is made in the remembrance of Christ and the very sacrifice in dede that Christ made vppon the crosse San. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one in substance but vppon the crosse it is offered as an oblation wholy burnt and therefore not eaten In the supper it is offered as an oblation to kepe the redemption of the crosse in continuall remembrance and to thank God for the redemption purchased and to make vs partake the fruits of Christes death by eating worthely the body which died But if the thing or substance offered be not one the same what oblatioÌ„ is that M. Iuell which is marueilously made in the supper What is that wherein we remember and shew Christes death Is bread and wine yâ— marueilouse oblation 〈◊〉 they made 〈◊〉 in the remembrance of Christ What marueilouse making can you find in them Except which is the very truth they be made the body blood of Christ That is in dede a marueilouse making a marueilouse sacrifice a marueilouse shewing of Christes death You had lost your wits when you brought foorth this place which maketh so fore all against you Iuel If a man take it fleshly saith S. Chrysostom he gaineth nothing San. It foloweth in S. Chrysostom immediatly what say we then is not flesh flesh yes doutlesse And again these words the flesh profiteth nothing were not spoken of the flesh it self but of fleshly vnderstanding Whereby it is clere that he vnderstandeth fleshly who deuiseth a grosse fleshly maner of eating Christes flesh but not he who saith the flesh it self must be eaten in his true substance if the maner be diuine and spiritual as in our Sacrament it is Iuel It is a figure or foorm of speache saith S. Augustine â—…illing vs to be partakers of Christes passion San. You are taken M. Iuel If you had not brought this place I wold haue brought it for if Christ in S. Ihon willeth 〈◊〉 to be partakers of Christes passion seing that partaking muâ—… be at the lest by faith for it may also be in a more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by faith and Sacrament but seing we must partake of the passion at the least by faith and you say we eate Christes body none otherwise in the supper but only by faith how then can you auoide the place brought by yourâ—…lf ouâ—… of S. Hierom where it was sayd it is not lawful to eate of that oblation according to it self which Christ offered vpon yâ— altar of the crosse Is it not lawful to eate of Christ by faith euen as he hung crucified â–ª will you not then beleue vpon him as he hangeth in that base humble condition I know you will but your eating is beleuing therefore you eate that oblation according to it selfe euen according as it is there spread coÌ„tumeliously handled But S â–ª Hierom saith noman may eate it so therefore he meaneth eating by mouth and not by faith goe on with me M. Iuel but of that oblation which is made maruelously in the remembrance of Christ it is lawfull to eate â–ª and how to eate but by mouth for as lawfull eating standeth against vnlawfull eating so in the one place it is vnlawfull to eate by moâ—…th in the other it is lawful to eate by mouth Therefore S. Hierom speaketh not only of eating Christes diuine and spiritual flesh by faith but euen by mouth also in the Sacrament Iuel S. Hierom calleth the eating of the diuine and spirituall flesh of Christ the remembring that he died for vs. Sand. If that be so then the oblation it self is eaten of which Christ offered vpon the crosse that secundum se that is to say according to it self How is it possible swetely to remember that Christ died for vs and not to eate by faith his very death and the sensible maner thereof but his â—…esh offered ou the crosse though it may be eateÌ„ by faith yet according to it self it may not be eaten in that corruptible foorm and shape And contrarie wise the diuine spirituall flesh is so 〈◊〉 appointed to be 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 Christ sayd my flesh is verily meate therefore S. Hierom speaketh of eating the diuine
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
by diuerse places of your booke Another way the incarnation may be considered according to that nature which is generally common to all men As that thei consist of bodies of soules of reason and of certain accidents The question is whether Christ at his incarnation toke al man kind after such sorte that he is now the coÌ„mon substance of vs all or no. Here I know not what M. Iuel would answer if he were namely put in mind thereof But his wordes draw to the affirmatine sense altogether For he saith Christs body dwelleth in our bodies by his natiuitie whiche saying semeth to haue no real truthe in it except Christ be common man kind whiche is in 〈◊〉 man If he be that vniuersall substance then I see that as reason as life as sense as fleshe and blood are no lesse in one man then in an other so Christe who is supposed to be that generall reason life sense fleshe and blood is supposed likewise to be really in euery mans owne body But this kind of opinion is foolish and vain as it shall appere anon The third way of considering the incarnation is to say that Christ toke not yâ— common substance of al mankind but only the whole particular nature of man so that the 〈◊〉 of God hath assumpted so much into his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as any other 〈◊〉 euer had in his 〈◊〉 and corruptible 〈◊〉 to wit he hath assumpted the mind the 〈◊〉 the body and the 〈◊〉 shape of a true man According to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only is true S. Paul saith that he is not 〈◊〉 to call vs his brethern and that because the children whome God 〈◊〉 to him had 〈◊〉 and blood common among them ipse similiter participauit eisdem and he also likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he toke parte that is to say he toke to himselfe fleshe and blood for his own part as they had the same for their parts And therefore as they had a particular 〈◊〉 and generation so Christ was not gathered or taken generally out of the bodies soules of al men 〈◊〉 he was born of the virgin Marie alone the sonne of Dauid and of Abraham according to the fleshe whiche being so his body was no more really in our bodies by his natiuitie then one of our bodies is in the body of an other man For wheÌ„ we speake of our bodies we speake of that which is particularly proper to euery man in his own persoâ—… and not of that which is common to all mankind But yet certeyn general benefites are deriâ—…ed out of Christes 〈◊〉 euen to euery man Due is that our nature is in him marucilously honoured and auanced in so much that it is truly said man is God and God is man Moreouer S. Cyrillus affirmeth that euery particular man shal rise in his owne body at the later day because of the mysterie of Christes resurrectâ—…on who as man conteined all men in him self But seing they that haue done euill shall rise to be punisheâ—… and that more greuously then death it self is as there S. â—…llus witnesseth and yet sith no damnatioÌ„ is vnto them who are in Christ Iesus we may well say that Christ doth not only not dwell in euery mans body by his natiuitie but also that he dwelleth not in their bodies or soules who either did not partake of his flesh at al by faith or els did vnworthely partake thereof either by Baptism or by the Eucharist or any other way All this notwithstanding M. Iuel will proue that Christes body dwelleth euen really in our bodies by his natiuitie And when all is done it will proue either an heresie or noâ—…ing or a dwelling rather in the whole truth of mans nature assumpted then in any mans body after that sort of dwelling which is properly called reall or substanciall But let vs heare his proof Iuel S. Bernard sayth the body of Christ is of my body and is now become mine San. S. Bernard sayth Corpus Christi de meo est the body of Christ is of mine He saith not of my body as you traÌ„â—…ate it But of mine yâ— is to say of the same kind of stuffe whereof I am Of the same stock and 〈◊〉 of like flesh blood but not of my proper flesh of my proper blood not really dwelling in my bowels or in the partes of â—…y body Again when he sayth 〈◊〉 est and the body of Christ is mine he meaneth it is mino to take commoditie thereof mine to vse mine to 〈◊〉 mine to offer to enioy but not mine through this only condition because it is born but because I am ioyned to it by faith by Baptism by Penaunce and by râ—…auing it into my body at Christes holy table and by such like meanes Iuel A babe is born to vs. San. That is to say to th' end we should take 〈◊〉 by the birth of it But by the only birth it is not really in our bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not only to vs or for vs. Iuel A Sonne is geuen vnto vs. 〈◊〉 Unto 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 in him but not to them who receaued him not For he came into his own and his own receaued him not Iuel S. Basill We are partakers of the word by his incarnanation and 〈◊〉 called all his mysticall conuersation flesh and blood San. We partake him in his nature comming to ours and in ours communicated to him but not yet in our bodies coâ—…ing to his bodie except we also be ioyned to him by som other mean beside his natiuitie Iuel Nyssenus sayth His body is all mankind wherevnto he is mingled San. You haue abused this testimonie turning the due construction of the words â–ª and haue put that before the verb which should haue come after the verb. The true construction is The whole nature of man wherevnto he is mingled is the body of Christ. And he meaneth not the natural body of Christ which he toke of the virgen by his natiuitie whereof you intreate but he meaneth the mysticall body of Christ whereof he said before The subiection of the body of the Church is referred to him which doth inhabitie the body And immediatly before yâ— words 〈◊〉 out by you Our Lord is the life by whome it doth happen to all his body that it is brought to the Father Againe Si Pater diligit â—…lium caet If the Father do loue the Sonne and we all that through faith whereby we beleue in him are made his body be in the Sonne consequenâ—…e he that loueth his owne Sonne loueth also the bodie of his soâ—…e euen as he loueth his Sonne himselfe And we are that bodie Lo we are that bodie He spake not therefore of Christes naturall body Iuel Christ being in the womb of the blessed virgin beâ—… â—…esh of our slesh and bone of our bones San. Of the same kind of â—…sh and
for naught that you talked of a phrase His phrase was such that you were afeard to vse it The Chrism had such vertue of the holy Ghost mingled in it that one who was not of the holy Ghost could not abide to name it No not so much as when he had â—…ede to vse the words of the same sentence to serue his turne Iuel Alexander sayeth the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments San. Yet shall we haue an other Pope I feare me this man wil be come Popish shortlie The world goeth hard with his note booke when he fleeth to these Decretall Epistles for the profe of any thing and specially for â—…atine phrases But one thing I promise you M. Iuel You may better proue Masses oâ—…t of that Epistle yea I goe nere you out of that self senteÌ„ce which you allege then you may proâ—…e any other phrase which shall presently serue your purpose But if you had not lest out the middle words which he speaketh of Masse your brethern wold haue ben so angrie with you for bringing this testimonie that they wold altogether haue misliked your phrase The words of Pope Alexander be these In Sacramentorum quoque oblationibus quae inter missarum solennia Domino offeruntur passio Domini miscenda est In the oblations also of the Sacraments which are offered vnto God at yâ— solemnities of masses the passion of our Lord is to be mingled And farther expounding his own meaning he saith that his passion may be celebrated whose body and blood is made If now as the passion of Christ being absent in quality concerning that Christes body sâ—…ffereth nothing at this present is yet present in his whole value concerning that the felf same substance is here which suffered death for our sakes if I say as the passion is in this wise presentlie mingled with the Sacraments and offered vnto God so M. Iuel wâ—… graunt that Christes body being absent in shape and quality concerning that it is not sene presently in his own foorme is yet present in his whole valuâ—… â—…oncerning that the self same substance is vnder the foorme of bread which walked visiblie vpon the earth if I say M. Iuel will graunt such a presence of Christes body throughe which it may be mingled and really ioyned to vs then the phrases of S. Chrysostom of Alexander shal be somewhat like and he shall gaine nothing at all Iuel â–ª Nyssenus saith S. Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy Ghost San. Which saying of his doth right wel proâ—…e that the gracâ—… of the holy Ghost was really in S. Stephen and not only imputed vnto him euen as Christes body is really mingled with our bodies Iuel Chrysostom meant that we should consyder that wonderfull coniunction which is betwene Christ and vs euen in one person San. This man denâ—…ed hitherto that Christ is really mingled with vs by the reall presence of his body and now he confesseth more then we aske For the coniunction which is made in onâ—… person is much greater then euer any other could be in so much that the ioyniâ—…g of our nature to the Godhead in the person of the sonne of God is the highest mystery that euer was heard of I am not ignorant that S. Paul calleth as well the head of the Churche as all the members by the only name of Christ nor that S. Cyrill saith we are all in Christ and that the common person of mankind was reâ—…ed in Christ nor that S. Paul saith of Christ and the Churche two shal be in one flesh nor that Christ concludeth thereof therefore they be not now twain but one flesh but all this doth not import that Christ is in vs we in him euen in one person For S. Cyprian saith our coniunction with Christ doth neither mingle the persons nor vnite the substances Therefore seing we stand now vpon precise truth of doctrine not writing at pleasure but disputing of a matter in coÌ„trouersie in this case you might haue forborn this your more bold then wise phrase of speache For as Damascene hath well noted whereas the blessed Trinity is one substance and we of one substance and Christ one with God one with vs through his dubble nature yet according to his person which he calleth Hypostasim differt a patre a spiritu a matre â—… nobis Christ in his person differeth from the Father from the holy Ghost from his mother and from vs. And yet M. Iuel will bring vs euen into one person Iuel Leo saith â–ª the body of him that is regenerate is made the flesh of him that was crucified San. Here is the thitd Pope in whose phrase M. Iuel doth solace himself He saith that by Baptism we are made the flesh of Christ and I beleue the same But he speaketh of his mysticall flesh whereof no question is betwene vs and M. Iuel For we only dispute now of Christes naturall flesh which is not in Baptism but only in the Sacrament of the altar Iuel S. Augustine saith â–ª we are made Christ c. and both he and we are one whoâ—…e man San. Albeit the matter be not great yet S. Augustine saith not one whole man as M. Iuel doth â—…nglish it but the whole man for he now speaketh not of any one maÌ„in nuÌ„ber nor of any one singular person but of a mystical body which coÌ„sisting of diuers persons as of diuerse members is made vp perfited into a whole collegiate body but S. Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning him self to euery faithfull man one by one at the tyme of receauing his body into our hands and mouthes as I wil shew anon Iuel As we are by baptism made Christes flesh and Christ in the same sense Chrysostom saith we are made one lump with Christ and Christ hath tempered and mingled himself with vs. San. If we wil without fraude vnderstand the mind oâ—… S. Augustine of Leo and of S. Chrysostom we must not only consider that they speake of our vnioÌ„ and ioyning to Christ but also by what meanes they vtter that their mind S. Augustine speaketh generally of euerie kind of vniting vs to Christ. Leo doth not only saie we are made the flesh of Christ but shewing the meane he saieth 〈◊〉 The bodie of him that is regenerated is made the flesh of Christ. The name of regeneration importeth the meane of Baptism by which we are grafted into Christe S. Chrysosâ—…ome speaketh of an other meane which is the Eucharist But what is that meane Baptism al men confesse to be the wasshing with water in the name of the Trinitie What is then the Eucharist What is the substance I saâ—…e whiche in the Sacrament of the aâ—…ltar worketh our vnion with Christe Is it water No. Is it bread and wine Yea saith M. Iuel No saeâ—… we Now then let vs
is not possible to vnderstand the mingling of two waxes to be other then reall and substanciall For wax hath neither faith nor spirit 3. D. Harding hath alleged fiue or six most plain sentences which may â—…e sene in his booke To none of all which M. Iuel hath iustly aâ—…swered or scant sayd any word reade also S. Cyrâ—…l in Ioan. li. 3. cap. 36. lib. 4. cap. 18. c. Now touching the corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament it is to be vnderstanded that S. Cyrillus calleth the Sacrament of Christes body and blood mysticam benedictionem the mysticall blessing and therefore he exhorteth the faithfull peple to come to receaue it to be partakers thereof as the which putteth away both death and disseases Of this benediction and Sacrament thus he writeth 1. It differeth from Manna because the benediction is verily meate whereas Manna was a figuratiue bread But if the Sacrament conâ—…sted of materiall bread and were not Christs flesh it were no more the true bread then Manna was A litle blessing to wit a litle peece of the consecrated foode draweth the whole man to it Et sua gratia replet and filleth him with his owne grace Therefore the Sacrament hath grace of his own and is no common bread because then it shoâ—…ld not drawe vs vnto it but it should be turned into vs â–ª but nowe the benediction that is to say the Sacrament draweth vs to it therefore it self in his own substance is the flesh of Christ. He declareth the worde of God to be life according to nature yâ— it hath made his flesh able to geue life Et hac ratione facta est nobis benebictio viuificatrix And by this meane the Sacrament is made of power to geue vs life Marke the degrees the life it selfe is first in the sonne of God and afterward in the fleshe assumpted and so is the Sacrament able to geue life how hangeth this discurse but only because he presupposeth it for an vndouted truth that in the Sacrament the flesh of the sonne of God is really present After he had shewed that the Catechumeui can not partake of our mystical benediction he saith The ministers crie with a loud voice to those who come to the mystical blessing Sancta sanctis holy things for holy men Meaning the touching the sanctification of Christes body to agree only to those who are sanctified with yâ— holy Ghoste He calleth the mystical blessing the body of Christ and sheweth that those who come to it doe touch Christ whiche is of necessity vnderstanded by the meane of the foorme of bread vnder the which Christ is But if Christe were not really vnder that forme of bread why are the Catechumeni kept frome it For seing they confesse the faith with a loud voice as there S. Cyrillus doâ—…h witnesse and seing they may by their faith â—…eed vppon Christ in heauen shew me a reason M. Iuel if you be able why he that may eate Christe in faith may not eate the bread as you terme it which is the signe of him Specially sith S. Augustine confesseth that they also had a kind of halowed bread but not yâ— body of Christ geueÌ„ to them We geue this reason hereof because in the Sacrament of the body of Christe his own body is really present whiche is of suche honour that no meane sanctification should suâ—…ise for the admitting therunto And for as much as the Catechumeni who be not yet baptized haue not that grace of the holy Ghost which is geuen in baptism they are not sufficieÌ„tly prepared to receaue this marueilouse sacrifice and dreadfull myâ—…erie whiche you not withstandinge repute so vile that you crum your potage dishes with it sometymes caste that which is left in the cup of your own blessing vpon the ground as I my selfe sawe it done in king Edwardes tyme at a communion in Gloceter shere You make in words muche of it but your dedes do shew your blasphemouse hartes Harding The Catholike fathers sithence Berengarius haue vsed the termes really substancially c. to exclude Metaphores and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion vvith Christ by meane of his natural flesh really though not locally present Iuel These Doctors liued within these three hundred yeres and are such as M. Harding thought not worth the naming San. He named none that were sithens the six hundred yeres after Christ because he saw your impudeÌ„t proclamation to haue bound him to yâ— tyme. But otherwise he neither lacked sufficient witnesses elder then Berengarius nor iudged them vnworthy the naming And because by these your insulting wordes you sâ—…e to loke for some witnesses aboue three hundred yeres olde I will geue you a taste euen of the best that were from the first six hundred vntil the last three hundred yeres after Christ. Within which time many notable fathers haue liued How thinke you by Damascene who saith the bread wine and water is superturally changed by the inuocation and the comming of the holy Ghoste into the body and blood of Christ. And that he proueth because our Lord said this is miâ—… not figure of body but body and not figure of blood but blood Saith not Theophilact that the bread is with secrete wordes by mysticall blessing and comming of the holy ghooste changed into our Lords fleshe saith he not it appereth bread but in dede is fleshe again why doth it not appere flesh because we should not abhor from the eating thereof For if it had appered flesh wâ—… had bene vnpleasantly affected towarde the communion Is there any dout but he who telleth that the bread is changed into flesh and sheweth why yet it doth appere bread and not flesh did verely beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread or is he not more impudent then any haâ—…lot who wil staÌ„d in deâ—…nse that Damascene Theophilact beleued not tâ—…ansubstantiation as we do and yet these two are not only aboue three hundred but also aboue seuen hundred yeres old Saith not Haymo licet panis videatut in veritate corpus Christi est although it â—…me bread it is in truth the body of Christ Saith not â—…igius that after consecration it semeth bread and wine but in truth it is the body and blood of Christ Saith not Paschasius although the figure of bread and wine be hâ—…re yet after coÌ„secration they are to be beleued to be nothing at all but the flâ—…sh and blood of Christ What shall I speake of Lanfrancus Iuo 〈◊〉 Anselmus â–ª 〈◊〉 Algerus Euthymius who were al notable men for lerning and al aboue three hundred yeres old I come to S. Bernard whom you haue alleged manie tiâ—…s in this your work Thus he writeth Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had sone in his manhod but yet
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
Gal. 5. Ephe 5. The Apo logiâ—… brin gâ—…th vâ—… from yâ— holy Scripture to the Fathers The eigth chapiter Aug. dâ—… bono coÌ„ iugal ca. 24. Mariage among ChristiaÌ„s is a Sacrament Priesthâ—… is a Sacrament The substance of yâ— Sacrament tarieth in an eâ—…ill priest remoued from his office Augu. eoÌ„ tra Don. li. 5. c. 20 Ambros. lib. 1. de Paenit cap. 7. SeueÌ„ Sa cramâ—…ts were proâ—… 〈◊〉 yâ— Greeks Latins in yâ— CouÌ„cell of Fâ—…oreÌ„ce Heretikes eâ—…eme nei ther scriptures nor Fatheâ—…s The Apo logie pretendeth scriptures til it may set vp an idol of his own The nynthe chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere The supper of our Lord is a sacrament Dion de Ec. Hier. cap. 3. Maxim in schol Graecis â—…sius acknowledgeth moe SacrameÌ„ts then twaine Ca. 4. 5. 6. de Ecclesiast Hierarâ—…hia The Apo logie is coÌ„ strained to beleue many veri ties vnwriten Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Mark 14 Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 10. 11. The apologie skippeth the writen veâ—… The Apo logie is full oâ—… gloses but not of scriptures Math. 26 Heretikes loue not the gospel Matt. 26. Actor 5. Euery way the SacrameÌ„ 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 The figâ—…re and yâ— truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The. x. Chapiter Ioan. 1. Christ hath two natures in one persoÌ„ Galat. 3. 1. Tim. 2. 1. IoaÌ„ 5. 10. Man consisteth of two parts The Sacraments consist of 〈◊〉 parts Ioan. 3. Mat. 28. Tit. 3. In ep 23. ad Bonifacium The signe and thing signified stand toge ther. Mat. 28. Mat. 26 â–ª Marc 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Homil. de Iudae proditio ne Christ câ—… not instiâ—… a false signe The. xi chapiter Diuerse signâ—…s are in yâ— Euâ—… †1. †2. †3. †4. †1. The Words of â—…tion arâ—… yâ— first signe †2. Christes toke hath in it the truth 〈◊〉 Ioan. 11. 1. IoaÌ„ 5. What a Saâ—…rament is De coÌ„secratione 〈◊〉 2. cap â–ª Saâ—… Luc. 22. If the bo dy be not made the wordes make a fal se token Psal. 58. Facere is to doe and make When the order of Priesthoâ—… was geuè to the Apostles Lucae 22. Matt. 16. A figuratiue speach doth not signifie till it be vnderstaÌ„ded August de doctr Christ. li. 2. ca. 1. This is my body either doth signi fie nothing or it signifieth the body of Christ. Simple men can not vnder stand how the sigâ—…e may â—…e called â—…y yâ— name oâ—… the thinâ—… The Apo stles were simple men Actor 4. If Christes words haue not their first meaning they must sound to diuerâ—…e meÌ„ diuersly The Apo logie is coÌ„ futed by his own sayingâ—… Ioan. 20. words must be taken as they commonly sound The Apo logie falsifieth the words of Christ. The chief words of a SacrameÌ„t must not be vnproper An obscure saying is no sensible signe It is against the nature of an holy signe or sacrament not to signific plain â—…y Antichrist could not take away the whole faith if some part 〈◊〉 not called in â—…oubt beâ—…ore The. xij Chapiter The â—…rgu ment of he â—…es The supper of our Lord is his body â–ª because it is a signe thereof instituted by him self Ioan. 1. August Psal. 73. 1. Tim. 3. 1. Pet. 2. The true conception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 with the signe thereof Lucae 1. Matth. 8. Cleansing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in deed 〈◊〉 the word is 〈◊〉 Matth. 9. 〈◊〉 be forgeueÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sâ—…d 〈◊〉 Christ. Math. 11. Those mi racies were don in deed which were beâ—… Marci 7. The eares were opened 〈◊〉 deed when it was sayd be yâ— opened Math. 13. Parables wâ—… vsed in teachig but not in doing Ioan. 20. Christ rather did theÌ„ taught in his supper 1. Pet. 1. The. xiii Chapiter The wordes of the Sacrament be not figuratiue The Fathers calling yâ— supper of Christ a figure meane not a figure of Rhetoâ—… Epiphanius li. 1. To. 2. Her 30. Esaiae 7. The signes of Christ are miraculouse The Sacraments of Christ are secret tokens The 〈◊〉 of Christes Chur che be geâ—… to the 〈◊〉 therâ—…ore are â—…ble Luc. 22. Psal. 110. Ciprian de coena Domini August in manuali cap. 11. Chrysos de sacerdot lib. 3. Damasc. de orthod fid li. 4. c. 14. Euseb. li. 5. demoÌ„ cap. 3. Beda in hom vidit Iesus c. Basilius in Litur Gregor Nyssen in orat de paschate Hieron in Leui. Nicepho rus lib. 1. cap. 28. The. xiiij Chapiter The â—…rence betwen â—…res of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The figures of Christ are mysticall Matt. 28. Matt. 26. â—…oyes iudge the figures of God to be figures of grammer Heretikes name what figure of grammer it is 〈◊〉 things Mysticall words Ephes. 5. Math. 28. Ioan. 15. In Ioan. tract 80. Elementum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August in â—…oan tract 80. â—…n things in a Sacrament August coÌ„t Donat li. 5. cap. 19. 20. August coÌ„t Ep. Parmen li. 2. c. 12. Chrysost in Epist. ad Roma Hom. 16 August in Ioan. tracta 5. Ambros. de Sacra li. 4. c. 4. 5. Chryso hom de prodiâ—…i Iudae August de dâ—…ct Christi li. 2 ca. 3. August de Magistro The wordes of Christes supper doe not sig nifie a figure of his body If Christes wordes be siguratiue they make nothing at all Words doe all 〈◊〉 they doe by signifying Lucae 22. Math. 28 The word of God hath geuen hoâ—…ur to words Body doth sigâ—…i sie yâ— substance but not the sigure of a body How Christes body is a figure The. xv Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere It is the body of Christ which setteth his death before vs not bread and wine Lucae 22. 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 11 Hom. 83. in Maâ—…h Damascenus de orthod side li. 4. cap. 14. Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 28. Ioan. 20. 1. Cor. 11 The. xvi Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere Lucae 22. Chrysost in Hom. 26 in Math. Chrysostom Hom. 51. in Math. Lucae 22. The. xvii Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 Bread wine was not yâ— table that Christ pre pared Lucae 22. Hom. 82 in Math. The hand toÌ„ ge receaue â—…he same body yâ— the hart doth Why the supper of Christ is called the SacrameÌ„t of the altar Malach. 1 De ciuit Dei li. 10 cap. 6. Lucae 22. Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 August li. 9. confes ca. 13. Math. 26 Ioan. 6. Cyrillus li. 10. c. 13 in Ioan. Tertul. in lib. de resurrec carnis Ireneus aduersus haereses li. 4. c. 34. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apo logie The aunswere By what meanes yâ— Lords sup per is aba sed now in EnglaÌ„â—… The Apo logie nameth yâ— ho nouring of Christes body the worshipping of bread No substanciall thing is wrought in Christes supper by the Sacramentaries doctrine What the Catholikes beleue to be wrought The. xix Chapiter The Apo logie The 〈◊〉 The Apo logie â—…peaketh 〈◊〉 meanerâ—… euill
psal 98. Coloss. 2 Gen. 9. Cypr. li. 3. epist. 3. ad Caecilium Gen. 18. Gen. 27. Gen. 49. Exo. 22. Leuit. 2. Iustin. in Triph. Leui. 24. Leui. 21. 1. Reg. 2. Mala 2. Aug. de ciuâ—… Dei li. 17. c. 5. Luc. 22. 1. Reg. 21 secuÌ„d 70 Aug. in Psal. 33. Ioan. 6. Luc. 22. Psal. 4. Psal. 103. Psal. 22. Psal 110. 3. Reg. 17 3. Reg. 19 Esaiae 62 Hieron ibidem Iere. 11. Zach. 9. Mala. 1. Psal. 77. Ioan. 6. Eccl. c. 3. 5. 8. Eccl. c. 7 Aug. de eiuitate Dei li. 17 c. 20. The best thing vnder yâ— Soâ—… may be eaten and drunken Origin tractatu â—…o in c. Math. 22 The custom of scriptures in coÌ„mending so much bread and wine sheweth that the body blood of Christ should be geuen vnder their formes Eph. 5. Ioan. 17. Now all things are one by the Sacrament of yâ— altar Eccles. 3. 5. 8. Luc. 22. The xiâ—… Chapiter Facere Hoc facere The supper had both doing making Creare Facere Cont. Marc. l. 4 Facere ex aliquo Facere de aliquo De Sacâ—… li. 4. c. 4. Basilius hom 1. in hexame specular Agere Facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ireneus li. 4. c. 32. The pricst hod of the new testament Aâ—… sauing yâ— body of Christ is rather a like thing then this thing Ioan. 13. Psal. 110. A memorie is made Can. 32. â—…acobus in liturgia Clemens li. 〈◊〉 constâ—…ut Apoâ—…ol Cyrillus in Caâ—…a myst 5. Dionys. de eccle hierar cap. 3. The most 〈◊〉 things be made â—…ustin in Apol. 2. Ireneus aduersus 〈◊〉 l. 5 The 〈◊〉 is made 〈◊〉 aduersus Marcionem li. 4. To 〈◊〉 bread his body Amb. de iis qui 〈◊〉 myst c â—… The body is made We make Christes â—…ody because he said make this thing Hoc 〈◊〉 in Epist. ad Heli. The body of Christ is made 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. â—… The priest maketh yâ— holy oblation Chry. de sacerdotio li. 3. Chrys. hom de prodit Iudae Man maketh not Christes body by his own vertue Aug. coÌ„tra Faust. Man lib. 20. ca. 3. Ourbread is made vnto vs mysticall Theoph. in Math. 26. Damasc. de Orth. fide li. 4. ca. 14. Psal. 113. 134. Ge. ca. 1. Psal. 32. God was made maÌ„ Christ ma keth bread his 〈◊〉 body Gen. 1. Euthy in ca 26. Matt. Make this mysterie Ansel. in epist. 1. Cor. c. 11 Make yâ— whiche I haue made Germ. in rerum Eccles. theoria in tract ad eos qui haesi Aâ—… authority of ma king Chri stes body â—…ometh froÌ„ these wordes make thâ—… thing Ioan. 1. Barâ—… 3. Basil ho. 1. in Hex The 〈◊〉 Chapiter An obâ—…tion The aâ—…swere The wordes of Christ were not wet Englished by the Prote 〈◊〉 What the remembraÌ„ce is whereof Christ spaâ—…e 1. Cor. 11 The remeÌ„ brance of Christ is the shewing of his death by fact Ambros. in ca. 11. 1 ad Cor. Christes body and blood made vnder diuerse kinds doth shew and make vs remember his death The reall body with the signes of breakig is the remeÌ„brance yâ— Christ spake of The presence of yâ— benefactour is yâ— best meane to make his good dede 〈◊〉 bred The presence of a man hyndreth not his 〈◊〉 A perfect remeÌ„braÌ„ce requireth yâ— real presence of yâ— thing remembred A thing may be pre seÌ„t though it be not seen The faith of Christ his body is as much to vs as the sight of it The new preachers What kiÌ„d of fruitful remeÌ„bran ce the belief of Christes bodily pre sence did worke Basil. de baptis li. 1. cap. 3. How Christ is remeÌ„bred in eating bread in drinking wine The tuÌ„bs of the Egyptians The body of a faithful man is the tumâ—… of Christ. The monument of Christ. What remeÌ„brance is made of Christ at the masse tyme. Malac. 1. Esaiae 11. Psal. 100 Two 〈◊〉 des of sepulchers Caenota phium Christes remeÌ„braÌ„ce is no void monumeÌ„t The body is yâ— tumbe of yâ— soule Chrys. in 1. Corin. Hom. 24 Epipha in Ancorato Psal. 115. Heb. 11. Abdias historiae Apostol li. 5. 1. Co. 15. Math. 3. The body of Christ is the best mean to re member his death The inteÌ„t of Christ is furthered by taking the words 〈◊〉 Origen Hom. 13. in Leuit. A propitiatorie re meÌ„brance Aug. de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Euidenter osten ditur Mark the difference betwene a figurauue signifying an euident shewing If we had not Christes body present yâ— old shadowes wold shew 〈◊〉 is death better then bread and wine Concil NicenuÌ„ secuÌ„dum In vnblo dy sacrifice in the remeÌ„braÌ„ce of Christ. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Fol. 102. M. Nowels words The aunswere to M. Nowell What traÌ„substaÌ„tiation meaneth 〈◊〉 real substaÌ„ces be requisite to a transubâ—… Two grounds of traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ Breade is not â—…ited to Christ. Leu. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 bread is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christâ—…s body Gen. 14. Psal. 109. Cyp ep 3. lib. 2. The true vine is no particular substance distincted froÌ„ Christ How Christ iâ—… the true vine Ioan. 2. In these words eyther christ is changed or nothing Câ—…rist coÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mala. 3. The bred is 〈◊〉 to change M. Nowels 〈◊〉 assertion Eche part of M. N. propositioÌ„ is against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eche part in this pro position beareth a transubstaÌ„ tiation The obietion The aunswere The signi fication of the verbe Sum es fui how sâ—…nne is said to be God is most properly Exo. 3. Particular â—…ces haue their being next vnto God Ioan 1. Ioan 6. Matt. 12. 〈◊〉 1. Maâ—… 16. Matt. 21. Why the verbe Sum â—…th not â—…gnifie Christ to bâ—… the substanâ—…e of a 〈◊〉 It is against reason to take away Christes subâ—… by words which signifie a vertue thereof Ioan. 10. 14. 15. 1 Co 10. Math. 11. Two sub stances be neither na med nor meant in This is my body This can not be referred to bread or wine The body of Christ is not com moÌ„ bread The consequent whereby â—…substan station is gathered Euery â—…ord of y◠〈◊〉 â—…ropo â—…tions is against 〈◊〉 Noâ—… That is grated for argumeÌ„ts sake which is not true The more semely traÌ„ substantia tion wold be the â—…ter proued The both not shew a thing present 1. Co. 10. Exo. 17. Num. 20 The true vine might be 〈◊〉 to the â—…posties Proufe He proueth best who sheweth the thing moste really present Bread was turned into Christes body whiles he liued In orat Catech. Li. 4. ca. 14. in Ioan 6. in Math. 26 Noman euer tokâ—… any vine or 〈◊〉 to be Christ. TransubstaÌ„tiation 〈◊〉 TransubstaÌ„tiation decreed taught In Apo. 2 2. li. 4. ca. 34. 3. l. 4. coÌ„t Marc. 4. de caen Dom. 5 de ijs qui init cap. 9. 6. hom 60. ad P. Antio The faith 〈◊〉 doctri ne of the Church is a reason of the thing taught 1. Co. 15. M. Nowell Act. 15. Galat. 1. Ioan. 21. Chryso ibidem These words be
very same that is put to death for you but concerning the true vine he saith As the braunche can not beare fruit vnlesse it be in the vine so can not we beare fruit except we tary in him The particles as and so be words of similitude and not of substance Behold how he is a vine by a similitude and by a metaphor by an exaÌ„ple by hauing a like propriety towards vs as the vine hath towards his owne braunches These be other manner of circumstances for the pithy and plaine setting forth of his reall body vnder the form of bread theÌ„ you can bring any to make so much as an apparence that Christ should be a vine And is yet the one with you so plaine so pithy as the other To what case would you bring the words this is my body if your power were to your will S. Iustinus the Martyr calleth them words of praier because they were spoken with thankesgeuing S. Chrysostom words which consecrate the things set forth because they make a Sacrament of yâ— bread and wine S. Ambrose calleth them words of blessing and a speache which worketh because they are spoken with the intent of working that they souÌ„d S. Augustine nameth them a mystical praier of consecrating of vowing or offering because they consecrate vow and offer vnto God the substance of bread and wine to theâ—…d it being accepted of him may be made the body of Christ our only sacrifice wherein the oblations of the new law must end You making these words no more pithy theÌ„ I am the true vine would haue them worke no more then metaphorical words do work which is to say that they teach only a comfortable doctrine but worke no essentiall thing in the substance of bread whiche is set forth to be consecrated Christ after his body was consecrated sayd to his Apostles Make this thing for the remembrance of me but after the wordes of the true vine were spoken he bad no thing to be doâ—… or made for any purpose or effect The making of Christes body was eâ—…r accompted a greate sacrifice as the greeke Liturgies and latine â—…bookes delare but there neuer was hard of auy vine that was in that opinion among the faithfull The words which consecrate Christes blood shew likewise what is to be thought of this is my body but the true vine is not so conâ—…d by any other like consecration annexed The blood is pointed vnto within a cup or chalice declaring the body also to haue bene pointed vnto vnder the form of bread but the vine was not so limited within a certaine place where it might appere to any sense of the Apostles It is called the blood of the new tostament or the new testament in Christes blood the like addition is not made to yâ— true vine The very cup of Christes supper is said to be shed for vs because the blood is conteined in it which was only shed for vs yâ— like is not said of any thing wherein yâ— vine might be conteined The wordes of Christes supper be so playne and so pithy that if we take them not as they sound the pronoâ—…nes hoc and hic shall lacke theyr noune substantiue The verbe est is being once taken for significat shall haue no substantiue at all to be his nominatiue case The noune corpus body being expounded for the figure of Christes body shall not agree with his participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or els the relatiue quod which shall not agree with his antecedent corpus body except we defend a figure of Christ to haue bene crucified for vs. None of all these things compell vs to take these wordes I am the true vine in suche sorte There is no pronoune no Relatiue or Participle which may so restrain the nature of the wordes but that we may take Christes kind of being the true vine for hauing the qualitie of a true vine and not being any vine in a seuerall substance Three Euangelists haue writen This is my body one after an other confirming the propriety of the words but only S. Ihon wrote that Christe said I am the true vine Nowe that is not so plainly said whereof four men write conformably as that which one writeth alone For if an other had writen the parable of the vine perhaps he would haue added other words to haue made it plainer although it be plaine enough already For the honour of these wordes This is my body Churches and Altars haue bene builded where that blessed body might be coÌ„secrated vnder the forme of bread For any vine I neuer thinke the like to haue bene done You your selues allow at the least a square table where this is my body may be solemnly pronounced but not so for these words I am the true vine The body whereof Christ spake hath bene taught to be adored vnder the forme of bread by S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine all the Fathers You are the first M. Nowell who would either a vine to be adored equally with Christes body or els his body to be no more adored in the Sacrament of the altar then a parabolicall vine For to that end your words runne that as wel Christ should be a vine as that whereof he spake in his supper should be his body to say that his body is only present in a parable at Christes supper S. Chrysostom calleth these words I am the true vine a parable and theresore saith Quid vult haec parabola significare what will this parable meane And againe Vide quà m diligenter hanc parabolom exequitur See how diligently he prosecuteth this parable But thought he trow you that This is my body was likewise a parable No no it neuer was his minde For writing vpoÌ„ these words Take eate this is my body and hauing asked why the disciples were not troubled hearing that thing he aunswereth Quia multa iam magna de hoc anteà disseruit because Christ hath disputed of this thing many and great things before Where no dout at al can be but that S. Chrysostom meaneth the the disputation kept at Capharnaum where Christ promised the bread whiche is his flesh affirming his fleshe to be not only true meate but to be meat truely therein shewing that it is meat not only concerning the truth of nourishing but also concerning the mancâ—… of caâ—…ing it vpon whiche place S. Chrysostome writeth that Christe called his fleshe truely meate either because it is the true meate which saueth the soule or to confirme them in his former sayings ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scâ—…rent omnino necessarium esse vt corpus comederent least they should thinke him to haue spoken darkly in parables but should know it to be by all meanâ—…s necessary thaâ—… they should eate his
miraculouse 26. Ye expound to be gilty of Christes body and blood for eating that is to say for not eating or resusing to eate For you teache euill men not to eate the body of Christ which is against S. Paule 27. Ye will not haue Christes supper to be an externall sacrifice but to be worse in that point then the Iewish or idolatours altars and tables who both did sacrifice and also S. Paule compareth Christes table with theirs 28. Ye so expound the shewing of Christes death by eating bread a figure of him that you rather shewe him not to be truely dead because your figure is yet emptie voide which can neuer proue Christes death truely past 29. Ye expound the not making a difference betwene Christes body eaten and other meates in suche sort that ye wil not haue the body present wherein the difference is to be made 30. Ye deny our vnion with Christes flesh by corporall participation which S. Paule teacheth by the example of Adam Eue being two in one flesh 31. Whereas S. Pauie saieth Christe to be so muche better then Angels by how much he had a more excelleÌ„t name theÌ„ they you regard not yâ— name body blood geuen to yâ— mysteries of Christ but affirme them to be still that they were before and therefore not to be that excellent substance which they are named to be 32. In all the scriptures so great and oft mention being made of Christes supper as there is yet no promise can be found made to him who eateth materiall bread and drinketh wine But all the promise is made for eatinge Christes fleshe and drinkinge worthely his blood Therefore you affirm bread to be eateÌ„ and wine to be drunken in Christes supper beside the word of God 33. Although Dauid prophecied of cating and adoring yet you wil graunt no such meat to be geueÌ„ to vs which may be external ly adored 34. Notwithstanding that the prophets teache that by Christes comming al externall idolatrie shal be taken away yet you feare not to say that Christes owne Sacrament bearing the name of his owne body and blood is it selfe an idol which was left with vs to kepe vs from all idolatrie 35. The sonne of man came as to saue so to fede the whole man why then denie you the food of life to our bodies affirming them to eat common bread and to drinke common wine whiles the soule is fed by faith with the body and bloode of Christ 36. If in the Sacrament of the altar we fede vpon Christ by faith alone why is that Sacrament called a supper more theÌ„ baptism where also we must fede on Christ by faith 37. Seing a figure may also be the truth it selfe whereof it is the figure as Christ is the figure of his Father and yet the same substance what reason haue you why you would rather detract this hoâ—…our from Christes Sacrament then geue the same vnto it 38. Christ being equal with his Father made promise to vs of his â—…ne fleshe whiche his Father had geâ—…en Why then denie you the gift of Christ to be as real to vs as his Father gaue him real fleshe 39. How teache you the words of Christ which are spirit life to be notwithstanding figuratiue and consequently deade and voide of al life or strength 40. Because yâ— word of God who was only able to be fed vpon by faith and so was the food of Angels or soules woulde be also the meate of man in respect of the body it toke flesh aâ—…d at his supper sayd to vs take eate this is my body And yet you make him still to be only the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded frome hauing God corporally in vs through the fleshe of Christe 41. To coÌ„clude whereas ye find flesh bodie blood ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking geuing breaking distributing coÌ„municating dâ—…udicating ye expound all those words figuratiuelie as though God by so manie waies repeating those words had not strengthned the coÌ„mon and proper significatioÌ„s of them Let this suffise for this time to shew that you obserue nor gender nor number nor nominatiue case nor verb nor antecedent nor relatiue nor the condition of the maker of the supper nor the nature of the sacrament nor the state and perfection of the Gospel nor the sayings of the prophetes nor the â—…ulfilling of the old law nor the oft repeting of the matters belonging to Christs supper but onlie to serue the eye and the senses deny al the marueilous workes of the new testament yâ— remeÌ„brance of al which this one mysterie is affirmed to be â—…rag no more M. Iuel of our figuratiue expositions sith you haue thus erred in graÌ„mar in Logick in Diuinitie in truth in faith in coÌ„mon sense Iu. If in these words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ ye follow the letter it killeth San. To follow yâ— letter is to take words as thei sound to an inâ—…del as to haue flesh torn in to peeces and so eaten but he that taketh them as Christ in his supper by his fact did expound them doth folow yâ— spirit and not the letter ¶ A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel IVel. S. Augustine sayth The Sacrament of Christes body after a certain phrase or manner or trope or â—…igure of speache is the body of Christ. Sander This place is wickedly abused because it is nakedly alleged and falsely englished whereas it dependeth wholy vpon the words going before which are these Nónne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in Sacramento caet Was not Christ once offered vp in him selfe and yet in the Sacrament he is offered vp for the people not only at euerie feaste of Easter but euerie day Neither surely doth he lye who being demanded Eum responderit immolari Doth answere that he is offered vp For if the SacrameÌ„ts had not a certain likenes of those thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes they were not at all Sacramentes Out of this likenes they take also for the most parte the names of the things theÌ„ selues As therefore according to a certaine â—…anner the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christe the Sacrament of the blood of Christe is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith In these words of S. Augustine it is to be seen euidently that he putteth a difference betwene the thing and the Sacrament of that thing The thing therefore it selfe must be first knoweâ—… and then we shal see how the Sacrament thereof is both like vnâ—… it and taketh the name thereof The thing it selfe in ouâ—… question is Iesus Christ not only so but the true body of Iesus Christe neither only true in substance but euen
true in shape in form in quantitie and qualitie Christ was made man in dede borne in dede he grew and walked vpon the earth in dede according to the true and visible nature and forme of man He suffered death in the same forme and did shed his blood apart from his fleshe Now marke when it pleased him to depart out of this world he woulde haue all these thinges beleued of vs remembred of vs and folowed as our weakenes through his grace might suffer In cōsideration whereof he iustituted a Sacramēt of his own body and blood Of which body Of that which he had taken which was but one The first point of this Sacrament must be saith S. Augustine that it haue a certaine likenes or similitude with Christes own body and blood and consequently that likenes shall make it to haue the name it selfe What is the likenes in the sacrament of Christes supper betwene it and the naturall body of Christ Seeke as long as you are able M. Iuel prie and serche neuer so intierly you shall find the likenes to be in this point specially that the substance of Christes body blood not hauīg any outward image made of them are made presēt vnder the forme of an other thing are so made present that thereby all the highe mysteries of Christes visible body are mystically set before the faith of the true beleuer Christ being the sonne of God was made man by turninge some of the purest blood of the virgin Marie into his own flesh and blood and that was done without the sede of man by the vertue of the worde and power of the whole Trinitie through the ministery of the Archangel Gabriell euen so the purest creatures of bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ and turned into the substance of them not by generation corruption but by the vertue of these wordes This is my body Which thing y◠who le Trinitie worketh by the ministerie of the Priest who is the Angel of Christ. Christ thus borne and hauing walked in his flesh came to die vpon the crosse where his blood was diuided from his flesh the soule from the body but the Godhead taried stil with both right so this sacrament hath the body consecrated vnder one kind the blood vnder an other kind and they are adored of the saithfull a part yet the person which is one whereunto they are vnited and the Godhead in that person causeth the two partes to make but one Sacrament and the whole to be vnder eche kind Thus the likenes whiche is not in form but in substance and in the consecration of true faith betwene Christ him self and this sacrament maketh this sacrament to be called his body blood although in al respectes it be not so Upon whiche ground S. Hierom saith Dupliciter sanguis Christi caro intelligitur c. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstanded two waies either that spiritual and diuine whereof him self said my flesh is truly meate and my blood is truly drinke and except ye eate my fleshe and drinke my blood ye shall not haue euerlasting life or els the fleshe which was cru cified and the blood which was shed with the speare of the soldiour Thus haue we one fleshe and blood in substance consydered vnderstanded two waies and that not falsely vnderstanded as the Sacramentaries imagine but truely and in dede For a false vnderstanding is hated of God This difference and this likenes is also noted in the present words of S. Augustin when he saith Christ was once offered in him self Note the worde in him selfe to wit in his visible shape form and truth as wel of substance as of quātity the same Christ is dayly offered in a sacramēt Are not these S. Augustines words ▪ Christ is offered in him self Christ is offered in a Sacrament is it not all one Christ or is Christe diuided No no al is one substāce but the m◅ner is not al one And farther note very dyligently good Reader that of the two immolations or offeringes the one is referred to the other The one is the signe token figure Sacrament of the other And therfore the one is but once done because it was y◠great immolation which absolutely fulfilled al the law prophets and it was made vppon the Crosse. The other being made in the Sacramēt sheweth kepeth preserueth and applieth daily the fruits of that one oblation but Christ is alwaies one in bothe Now this likenes of the Incarnation and passion of Christ made and represented to the faithfull by the Sacrament of the altar causeth it to be called the body blood of Christ. And therefore S. Augustine concludeth The Sacrament of Christes body according to a certain maner is the body of Christ. M. Iuel englisheth these wordes according to his maner falsely corruptly and ignorantly he turneth Secundum quendam modum after a certaine Phrase or maner or trope or figure of speache True it is that modus doth signifie a maner or meane Again it may be sometime y◠the maner is tropicall or figuratiue but now it is not so meant And that is proued two waies First because S. Augustine saith the Sacrament of the body of Christ according to a certein manner est is the body of Christ. he saith not only it is called the body after a certain manner but it is the body Therefore the manner that that he speaketh of is in the Sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof and not only in the phrase or trope or figure of speache as M. Iuel would haue it Againe the name whiche the Sacrament taketh is geuen as S. Augustine saith according to a likenes which is betwene the Sacrament and the thing it selfe That likenes then must be first in the Sacrament really and afterward in respect of priority of nature though not in respect of tyme the name is geuen Seing then the likenes of things goeth before the likenes of names When S. Augustine saith the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christ according to a certain manner that manner must respect the likenes of the thinges before it respecte the likenes of names Therefore M. Iuel hath erred altogether in translating modum a phrase or manner of speache But first he should haue sought wherein the things were like for in dede the likenes in dinerse things is diuerse In one thing it is in substance as God the Father and his sonne are like equall and one in substance Yet because there is some difference in that they are diuerse persons the sonne is the figure of his Fathers substance according to a certaine manner to wit as he is a diuerse person but not as a diuerse substance In other things the substāce may differ also as the rock and Christe and
his death he sayd to his Apostles hoc facite make this thing Thus we see good cause why this signe should differ from all other signes because a naturall thing was not appointed at the supper to signify Christ but a supernaturall thing was prepared and made there a new to signify his wonderfull death and resurrection Iuel Touching our beholding Christ in the Sacrament S. Augustine saith it woâ—…keth such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord him self present vppon the crosse San. You care not what you heape vp together so it may make a shew S. Augustine there speaking properly of the solemnity of Easter which now in England is wholy takeÌ„ away saith although death shall nomore beare rule ouer Christ yet Anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est the yerely remembrance doth represent that which was done in old time and it worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord present vppon the crosse those signes were externall and as it may appere were made to the senses by preaching and shewing some image of Christ and by creping to the crosse and by such like godly ceremonies as the Church of God hath alwaies vsed at Easter but in our Sacraments as S. Chrysostom saith Omnia quae tradidit insensibilia sunt al things which Christ hatâ—… deliuered are without yâ— cumpasse of yâ— seÌ„ses S. Augustine therefore spake not of yâ— SacrameÌ„t but of other external ceremonies Iuel This is it that Eusebius writeth that the body might be worshipped by a mystery and that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spiritual sort and not fleshly Christ is layed present vpon the table San. Beside that you omitt the beginning of this senteÌ„ce you haue also left out foure lines euen in the middest thereof which doe shew that because a daily redemption such as neuer fainteth did still run on for the saluation of men the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting By which words Eusebius declareth what kind of mystery the Sacrament of Christes body is verily such as offereth vp that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. For as Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father in heauen by his reall presence there maketh continuall intercession in his manhod for vs and causeth the redemption of mankind to be alwaies in his force and strength before God so the mystery which is consecrated according to his institution in earth doth from hence offer and present vnto God the same selfe redemption by the very same substance of flesh which is in heauen To this end Eusebius sayth the Sacrament of Christes body and blood is consecrated and in what sort consecrated The inuisible priest saith Eusebius by secret power turneth the visible creatures with his word into the substance of his body blood and again before yâ— creatures be consecrated by the inuocation of the highest name or power the substance of bread and wine is there but after the words of Christ it is the body and blood of Christ. This was the homily which M. Iuel thought good to alleage that all men might think that there was nothing writen that made not for his purpose Is that no reall presence where consecration is so made that the creatures be changed into the substance of Christes body blood was not the wine really present at Cana into which the water was changed Well consecratioÌ„ is made the creatures of bread and wine are thanged into the substance of Christes body and blood and in that body blood the redemption of mankind is offered to God and is preserued in the remembrance of men and yet all this while that body and blood by M. Iuels verdit is not present The change is made by the word of God yet that word is figuratiue if we may beleue M. Iuel yea but he hath a phrase in store I warrant you to plaiâ—…er this wound Iuel S. Augustine saith you are vppon the table you are in the cup. as the people is layd vppon the table so and none otherwise the Councel of Nice saith the Lamb of God is layd vppon the table Sand. What M. Iuel is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christes body and blood I haue shewed an other where in my v. booke the v. chapiter that euen that our being on the table and in the cup doth proue Christes reall presence For we should not be there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder that forme of bread and of wine wherein we are signified Iuel The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really but these two words truly and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the one doth vtterly exclude the other San. If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh it is all one in speaking of flesh to say truly and fleshly but as concerning the corruplible qualities of flesh so it is not al one If it had pleased your malice to haue denied Christes presence in heauen as you deny it in the Sacrament you might as wel haue mocked all the places brought against you for his reall presence there with this word fleshly as now thereby you mock at his presence in the Sacrament This licenciouse wantonnesse in taking aduantage by a fleshly terme when soeuer you be pressed with a good argument shal get you neuer the more credit among wise men The real presence which we defend in the SacrameÌ„t is not carnall and fleshly but cleane and pure in so much that Angels wonder at yâ— marueâ—…lous vnspekable mystery of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament Yea S. Chrysostom saith Quod angeli videÌ„tes c. That thing at the sight wherof Angels quake because of the brigthnes which shineth out of it therewith we are fed therevnto we are vnited and we are made one body of Christ and one flesh And yet is this a â—…eshly kind of presence M. Iuel Iuel He that eateth most spiritually eareth most truly as Christ is the true vine the true manna and we are veâ—…ily one bread and the Apostles verily the heauens and these are the paschall feast wherein verily the Lamb is slaine San. In comparison of bodilie eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort But a thing both eaten in bodie in spirit as the Sacrament is eaten is farre more trulie eaten both waies then by one waâ—…e alone Again when the name of anie thing affirmed of Christ apperteineth to the true nature of his manhad which he hath assumpted it is to he verified of him not onlie by a metaphor but in verie dede Christ is no naturall â—…ine because he assumpted not that substaÌ„ce to him Likewise he is not Manna