theyr charitie and theyr coÌ„slict against the deuill the world and the flesh is lost They were more miserable then any men For they liued more hardly in this life then any of our age doth and yet all is loste They were idolatours they worshipped a false God they are condeâ—…ned for euer This could not S. Paule abyde this he accoÌ„pted for wonderfull absurd that a man who is called to the faith and baptized in Christe who doth his best to serue God with all his hart and thought that he should be condemned for beleuing that which al men preached all taught all professed For surely the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine was beleued through out al the Church in so much that Caluin Decolampadius Zuinglius Luther Wyelefe yea Berengarius did once euery of them with al theyr scholars beleue the said reall presence For they were baptized and christened al to be made members of that member of faithfull men all which did beleue that Christ in the Sacrament of his last supper had lefte to them vnder the formes of bread and wine his owne body and blood Whiles theÌ„ they were made by baptisme of that Catholike company them selues also had the same Catholike belefe and no marnayle sith all they being baptized when they were infantes and therefore hauing no actuall fayth of theyr owne must nedes haue only that faith which the Church had whereof by baptisme they were made members but the whole Church East and West belened the reall presence of Christes body so that when Beringarius began to say otherwise he was reproued of al the Preachers of yâ— age he was condemned by three Councels of Bishops kept at Rome and Uercels in Italy and at Tours in France He was impugned by Algerus LaufraÌ„cus Guiâ—…undus and afterward by Rupertus Petrus Cluniacensis and other excellent Clerks of that tyme. The faithful Princes and people abhorred him and to be short no man beleued his doctrine except that he changed his old faith to take a new of Berengarius For if any other man in the whole Church before Berengarius had openly taught or beleued that Christ was â—…ly by a figure in the Sacrament then could not he only haue bene made râ—…cant nor had not bene accompted the father and first open preacher of that faith Againe if the Princes and people had bene of his belefe they had surely done as the princes and people of our tyme who beleue the doctrine of Berengarius dayly do They had throwen doune altars ouerthrowen Churches denyed all outward Priesthod changed Bishops into superintendents Priests into ministers altars into tables yâ— chaste clergy into the vnlauâ—…ul mariage of â—…otaries they had not preserued the Sacrament of the altar for soden necessities they had not adored the flesh of God and man vnder the form of bread and wine they had not bene content with one kind at the holy coÌ„munion one 〈◊〉 should not haue said Masse without an other to receaue the communion with him the sacrifice of the Masse had not bene applied to the liue and dead monasteries chantries chappels had not bene so fast erected and to speake breifly al that now is mislyked had bene then misliked if the princes and people of that age had thought as Princes and people such as nowe folow 〈◊〉 his doctrine doe thinke For it can not be otherwise but that the same fayth will bring forth the same workes as one manner of tree bringeth forth alwaise the same manner of fruit But if it be euid ent to all men that fyue hundred yers past and vpward euen to yâ— daies of Constantine the great vnder whom Christ was openly worshipped Churches monasteries altars chappâ—…lles were built if Priests were estemed the body of Christ reserued and adored it Masses were in vse and in price euery where and said for the liuing and the dead out of all controuersie neither Bishops who kepte Councels against Berengarius neither preachers and doctours who taught and wrote against him neither princes and people who did and folowed the contrary effect to his doctrine none â–ª I say of al the Christian men aâ—…â—…ublikely professed Bâ—…rengarius opion which was to deny the reall â—…ce of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar So that only those whome Berengarius seduced began then first to thinke as he did wherâ—…by two things are manifest the one that Beringariâ—…s went from the doctrine of all the Church and from that fayth wherein he was baptized An other that for so doing he was a seducer and false teacher to whome none of the Apostles successours who for that tyme ruled the Church gaue any commission to preache such doctrine And yet how could he preache if he were not sent or how could he be sent sith no man would authorise him to preache that doctrine yâ— conâ—…rary wherof him selfe beleued Therefore of such false preachers as Berengarius was God said by the Prophete Ieremie I sent them not and they ranne For if God seâ—…t him he can shew his commission he can name yâ— meane wherby he was sent he caÌ„ bring forth what successour of the Apostles willed him to preache that doctrine But if he can not doe so he cometh of him self he preacheth without authority and consequently he is a thefe a robber a murdrer and so are all those that folow him â—…owbeit for so much as he recanted it may be well thought that by penance he was reconciled to God again And so may his folowers be reconciled if according to the example of theyr master they will repent It was then the vniâ—…ersall faith of the Church before the tiâ—…e of Berengariâ—…s that Christes body and blood waspresent really vnder the formes of bread and wine which being so if that faith came not to them from the Apostles who taught it them â–ª If faith â—…ome of hearing the word of God preached the whole Church could not beleue that which was not preached If it were so preached either that preaching came by lawfull coâ—…ission and then it was of God and the doctrine good or els it came of priuate 〈◊〉 and it must be shewed who were those vsâ—…pers that preached otherwise tâ—…â—…ey had receaued Or how is it possible tâ—…t it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a priuate vsurping which was generally receaued euery where Or if those that preached the reall presence were men that went by schisme or hereseie out of yâ— Church let yâ— Church and faithfull cumpanie be named whence they went Let vs goe from step to step First six hundred yeres past al the knoweÌ„ faithful on the â—…arth beleued the reall presence as it appered euidently when Berengarius afterward began to teache otherwise For then all preachers prelates and people resisted him both in word and dede as I shewed before Wel then those docâ—…ours and preachers of six hundred yeres old how
came they by theyr beleife Had they it not of those who were aboue seuen hundred yeres past And they againe of theyr forefathers May we not by that meanes go vpward vntil we come to Christ â–ª or where shal we stay whether in the ninth hundred yere numbring vpward how then came that selfe hundred age by this faith If it had it not of the tenth hundred age it muste make a new faith aud then it must haue new preachers and Apostles But what Did they of the tenth hundred age send any man to preache or no If they sent none al the faith must nedes cease at once wheÌ„ all preaching ceased But if they sent also preachers and made Bishops and consecrated Priests as before tyme had bene vsed as it can not be denied but they did I suppose they sent men of their own faith and not of a contrarie belefe It they did so the preachers of the ninth hundred age must nedes preach the same that they toke of their auncestours which was the tenth hundred age And that which I say of the tenth hundred age I meane likewise of the eleuenth and so vpward vntil we come to Christ. For in euery age the Bishops who ruled the Church sent forth preathers and willed them alwaies to preach the same Gospell which they had receaued and in case they did otherwise they corrected them excommunicated and deposed them Thus hath alwaies the faith bene preserued from hand to hand vntill these our daies in so much that neuer no heresie was begun but yâ— man was knowen who began it and much more they were knowen who impugned the heresy and defended the truth For as it may appere by S. Paul heresies must be to thend those that are tried and perfite may be knowen For in al diuisions and schismes the one part beginneth a new trouble the other mainteineth the old order custome he that tarieth in vuitie is a tried faithful man But as I said he that beginneth the heresy is knowen and the place where he preached it and the Bishop or Patriarch is knowen who reproued it and the assemble knowen where it was consâ—…ted and the scholars knowen who â—…ainteined the heresy And aboue al the Churches are most openly knowen froÌ„ which â—…he heretâ—…ke departed When Valâ—…ntinus began it could be said to him thou goest from the knowen doctrine of the Romaine Church of the Corinthian Church of the Ephesian Church and so foorth Let it then be shewed of the Sacramentaries when that heresy of the real presence began which was so riue a huÌ„drâ—…d yeres before Berengariâ—…s published his new doctrine Let them shew where those Churches remained from whiche they deparâ—…d who taught the reall presence â–ª Let one Bishop be named in the whole earth who before that tyme reproued the teachers of the real presence as heretiks in the seueÌ„th eigth ninth tenth eleueÌ„th twelueth thirtenth fourtenth or fyftenth hundred age â–ª What shall I say more iâ—… so plaine a matter â–ª They haue loste their faith their memorie their vnderstanding their common sense that wil haue the teachers of the real presence to be schisma tiks or false preachers or misbeleuers who can neither shewe when they began nor whence they departed nor where nor of whome they were reproued If we be no schisinatikes who teache and beleue the reall presence they must nedes be schismatiks misbeleuers who teache the contrary Yea but say they ye are gone from the Apostles froÌ„ yâ— auncient Fathers For thus generally they would intangle the matter But seing to be accused of the schisme it is more greuouse then to be accused of treason let vs sce whether it were enough in a iudgement of treason to say to a man of our age you haue denied your obedience to the king and yet could name no king whome the paâ—…ie had disobeyed Would not the party accused say name the king whome I haue disobeied Mary saith yâ— accuser you haue disobeyed William Conquerour Constâ—… tine the great Would not the party accused answere â–ª Why syr I liued not with them nor vnder them and therefore I could not depart from their obedience No but saith the accuser thou arte the sonne of him that disobeied William Conqueroâ—… The other answereth No syr not so My fathers also were obedient always to the kings vnder whome they liued and kept their lawes froÌ„ tyme to tyme. If now the accuser could goe no farther what should the Iudges doe I praie you should they condemne the party accused of treason â—…ight so we are accused of schisme but from whome did we depart from the Apostles Ue liue not vnder them Well but we are the sonnes of them who departed from the Apostles May surely For all our fathers obeied always the successours of the Apostles and kept all their lawes and traditions What say ye now 〈◊〉 ye bring foorth auy of our forefathers who disobeyed the prelats which liued in their tyme Yea but you goe from the doctrine from the writinges from the preaching of the Apostles If we doe so either we now first beginne to doe so or els it must be shewed when our forefathers began to do so For we kepe the preaching the doctrine the Gospell which we receaued and we preache it as we receaued it We find that S. Paule said to Timothe Depositum custodi kepe that which was committed to thee We find This is my body four tymes writen with many circumstances which importe a reall prosence Besyde we haue alwaies from the Apostles tyme taken the vnderstanding of those wordes to be that this is the very substance of my body In so much that our forefathers haue allwaies adored it and called it a sacrifice for the liuing and for the dead In this faith we were borne in this we liue and excâ—…pt ye shew when and how we went from an other Gospel or an other faith we can be no schismatiks Yea but S. Augustine say you and men of his tyme did otherwiâ—… exâ—…ound the Gospell No syr that can not be so for then the preachers whome S. Auguâ—…ine and other 〈◊〉 felow Bishopes sent foorth would not haue deliuerâ—…d to our aunceâ—…stours this beleefe Either shew when we or our forefathers renosiced the coÌ„munion of S. Augustine or beleue no longer that blessed man who teacheth euen as we beleue And so he deliuered to his successours and they to vs. Yea but his bookes haue contrary doctrine No verily nor his nor any mannes els that is elder theâ—… Berengarius alâ—…eit Bertram perhaps disposed him selfe to miscredit somewhat which yet he could not determine nor hath not plainly vttered But as we kepe the faith preached by S. Augustine so we kepe and reuerence his bookes and knowe what they meane But if they did speake any thing against the vniuer â—…all saith him selfe hath in many places declared that he would vs not to beleue
soule must be signified a part from his flesh and his bdoy It is not therefore according to the mind of the Gospell that as now they doe in England when one cup is drunken vp an other should be filled out of a prophaue pot that staudeth by as though al were one so that wine be drunken with a remeÌ„brance of Christes death and resurrection it is not so All must drink of one chalice that is to say of yâ— one blood of Christ which is consecrated at one tyme though the chalices which hold it were diuerse as sometymes they haue bene when a great multitude of people did receaue at once This circumstance doth shew that it is more then wine which is drunke This doth shewe that these words This is my blood work somewhat in that one chalice whereof all must drink And consequently that Christ speaketh to bread and wine at his supper and not only preacheth to the audience as Caluin most ignorantly aud impudently affirmeth This is the cup whereof S. Ignatius writeth VnuÌ„ poculum vniuersis distributum est one cup is distributed to the whole eâ—…mpanie and he meaneth not so much one cup in nuÌ„ber as that the drink is al one in euery cup to wit the blood of Christ. This cup was so throughly communicated to all the twelue that Iudas one of the twelue drank thereof and that to his own damnation because he made no difference betwen the blood of Christ and other drinkes And now the Sacramentaries be in the same case concerning that they teache the substance in Christes chalice to bethe substance of common wine and not the blood of Christe As our Sacramentaries in England by geuing the faithfull people drink they care not whence so it be wine doe by that facâ—…e shew them selues to beleue that the blood of Christ is not present in the cup of the holy table so Christ by willing his Apostles that all should drink of that one cup because it was his blood geueth vs a greate warning to beleuc that cup to haue had really his owne blood in it For contrary doctrines haue contrary vsages ¶ The xxiii circumstance of these words This is my blood I Must nedes touch in this place somewhat spokeÌ„ of before but I will doe it for a farther purpose and to an other effect whereas the Sacramentaries teache the wine to be made a â—…igure of Christes blood wine is neither named at the consecration tyme as it is euident nor pointed vnto because the article hic this which only pointeth to all that is pointed vnto can not agree with wine but diffeâ—…eth from it in gender for so much as in Latine hic this is of the masculine gender and vinum wine is of the neuter Again in Breeke the articicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the neuter gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine is of the maculine so that if the pronoune hic this be not a noune substantiue it self but do point vnto a certain substance and yet that substance by the rules oâ—… grammar can not be wine and withall it both may be blood and of Chist is sayd to be his blood there can be none other literall proper and historical sense of these words but that This which is shewed by pointing vnto it is the substance of Christes blood I chose rather to say this much vpoÌ„ these words then vppon yâ— other This is my body Because though in them also yâ— pronoune hoc this doth only agree with the noune body not with bread yet I know that the Sacramentaries would striue therein say impudently that hoc standeth substantiuely for this thing and so would resolue it into this thing which is bread But in the consecration of Christes blood they can not pretend so much for it is not sayd hoc est sanguis meus in the neuteâ—… gender but hic est sanguis meus in yâ— masculine gender where the pronoune hic may only agree with sanguis blood By the which words we are certified also that in hoc est corpus meum the pronoune hoc this may only agree with the noune corpus body and neither with bread nor with any other acte which at the supper tyâ—… is a doing It can not now be sayd that est doth staÌ„d for significat seing there is no nominatiue case at al to go before the verbe significat for hic this can not stand neutrally but is of the same case geÌ„der and number that his substantiue sanguis blood is of It can not therefore be sayd Hic significat sanguinem meum this doth signifie my blood because in that speache this doth lack a noune substantiue to whome it may be referred and consequently the verb significat lacketh a noune substantiue to be the nominatiue case vnto it By which meanes the Sacramentaries leaue no congruitie of speach at all And so as S. Hierom wel noteth of their forefathers they build a roofe without walls or fouÌ„dation For what sense can they make without congrue words or what congruitie of words is in hoc panis and hic vinum what proposition will they haue without a nominatiue case or what nominatiâ—…e case without a noune substantiue or without an other thing which may stand substantiuely Or how can hic this in the masculine gender stand substantiuely The words of S. Hiâ—…rome are Debemus scripturam sanctam primûm secundum literam intelligere facientes in ethica quaecunque praecepta sunt Secundô iuxta allegoriam id est intelligentiam spiritualem Tertiô secundum futurornm beatitudinem Vos autem primam inquit secundam contemnentes diem spiritualia vobis quaedam figmenta componitis sine fundamento parietibus tectum desuper imponentes We ought first to vnderstand the holy scripture according to the letter doing whatsoeuer things are commaunded concerning morall vertues Secondly according to the allegory that is to say according to the spirtual vnderstanding Thirdly according to yâ— blessedues of the things to come But you sayth God contemning the first and yâ— second day do frame you certain spirituall imaginations putting a roof thereuppon without a foundation and walles Euen so the Sacramentaries tel a goodly tale of eating and drinking by fayth and of spirtuall feeding but they take away the meat and drinke whereupon we should â—…eed they take away the literall sense of Christes words which being once gone all that is buylded vppon the words is the putting vp of a roofe without walles or fouÌ„dation These three propositioÌ„s are found hic est sanguis meus haec est caro mea hoc est corpus meum In all three it is euident that the pronoune agreeth only with the noune folowing the verbe The Sacramentaries pull hic from sanguis blood ioyne it to vinum wine They pul haec from caro flesh and hoc from corpus body and ioyne haec and hoc to panis bread Is not this to
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
Chapiters of the seuenth Booke 1. Maister Iuel hath not answered D. Hâ—…rding wel touching the vvords of Christes supper 2. That the supper of Christ is a naked bare figure accordig to the Doctrine of the SacrameÌ„taries 3. That Christes bodie is receaued by mouth not by faith only 4. M. Iuel hath not replied vvel touching the sixth Chapiter of S. Iohn But hath abused as vvell yâ— gospel as diuerse authorities of the fathers 5. Item he hath not replied vvell touching the Carpharnaites 6. Neither conferred the supper vvith the sixth of Iolm as it ought to be 7. Neither disputed wel touching the omnipotenâ—…ie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh 8. Whether the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 exponÌ„d more vnpropertie or inconuenientlie the vvords belonging to Christes supper 9. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel 10. Of the signification of aduerbs 11. Of the first author of the SacrameÌ„tarie heresie 12. Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded 13. A place of S. Chrysostom examined 14. The difference betvvene baptisme and oure Lordes supper 15. The ansvvere to M. Iuel concerning the Nicene Councell S. Augstine caet 16. VVhether Christes bodie dvvelleth reallie in our bodies by his natiuitie 17. Item vvhether by faith 18. The contradictions of M. Iuel in this article 19. Whether by baptism Christe dvvelleth reallie in our bodies 20. Item VVhether by the Sacrament of the altar or no. 21. Christes bodie is proued really present by S. Chrysostoms vvordes 22. Item by the vvordes of S. Hilarie 23. Item of S. Gregorius Nyssenus 24. Item of S. Cyrill ¶ Master Iuel hath not answered D. Harding well touching the words of Christes supper IVel. fo 316. The people was not taught in the first 600. yeres to beleue that Christes body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the Sacrament Harding Of the termes really substantially corporally coet found in the doctors Iuel His answere is that Christes body is corporally vnited to vs but whether it be corporally in the Sacrament he answereth not one word Harding The termes are fouÌ„d in the doctors treating of the true being of Christes body in the Sacrament Sander Ergo M. Iuel said not truly For as D. Harding now saith it so he proueth afterward Christes body to be really in the Sacrament Iuel In this matter he is able to allege nothing for direct prouf Harding Christen people hath euer bene taught that the body of Christ is present verely in the Sacrament vvhich doctrine is founded vpon Christes plaine vvords Sander Ergo M. Iuel â–ª he was able to allege some what Iuel It is marueil the people should be taught without a teacher or without â–ª words â–ª or those not writen Harding Christes vvordes are expressed by three Euangelists and S. Paule Take eate this is my body this is my blood coet San. Ergo M. Iuel hath 〈◊〉 plainly 〈◊〉 whereby direct prouf of Christes real presence is 〈◊〉 â–ª Harding Neither saieth our Lord only This is my body but to put the matter out of dout he addeth vvhich is geuen for you Iuel 317. Hereupâ—… M. Harding fouÌ„deth his carnal presence 318. in such grosse sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament c. San. It is no grosse sort of presence whiche is reall true and miraculouse as being of Christes own institution Marcion and Apelles herein your auncestors M. Iuel thought it a carnall a grosse a fleshly thing for Christ to lie nine moneths in his mothers belly to be nourished there with blood and humours to be borne naked to be wrapped in clouts For a remedie of which absurdities the one of them deuised that Christ was not really borne but that which Tertullian saith against Marcion shal be my answere to you First God saieth he hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound men that are wise in their own conceit 2. Whatsoeuer is vnworthy of God is expedient for maÌ„ 3. Be thou assured Christ had rather be borne then in any parte to make a lye Now if we applie all these sayinges to Christes presence in the Sacrament it shal be lesse carnall lesse grosse lesse fleshly to haue the substance of Christes corporall flesh in a spirituall manner really present vnder the forme of bread then either to be corporally in his mothers womb or to think that he made a lye when he said take eate this is my body Iuel Christ vseth not any of these words San. I will say with S. Augustine although the word be not found the thing is found Harding 130. Though this manner of speaking be not thus expressed in the scripture yet it is deduced out of the scripture Iuel Christ vseth no leading thereunto Sander The worde 〈◊〉 â—…id lead the Apostles to that which was in Christes hands or which lay before him the wordes is my body shewed the substance thereof as if I shewing to a man that kind of beast should say this is a lion the word this leadeth him to that beast which he feeth and whereunto I point is a lion sheweth the substance of the thing pointed vnto This oddes only there is that a man by pointing speaking can shew only that which was before but God who spake it was made by pointing and speaking doth make that to be the substance of his body whiche was not so before Nowe as when it is truly said this is a lion it wil follow thereof vnder this visible forme which I shew a lion is substantially conteined so seing Christe pointeth to the Sacrament saying This is my body it will follow thereof in this Sacrament my body is conteined substantially corporally c. Thus Chrisâ—…es wordes lead vs to his body substantially present in the Sacrament ergo M. Iuel must subscribe by his owne promise Iuel 317. D. Fisher saith this sense can not in any wise be gathered of the bare wordes of Christ. Sander Wel fisht I promise you if he fish wel that catcheth a lie 1. The blessed B. of Rochester had said that the vnderstaÌ„ding of the Gospell is more certeinly obteined by the interpretation of the Fathers and by the practise left by them then by the bare words of the Gospel For example hereof he saith no man shall prone by the bare wordes of the Gospel that any Priest in these daies doth coÌ„secrate the true body and blood of Christ. Marke good Reader whereof he speaketh For although saith he Christ him self did in dede make his body and blood of bread and wine yet except the like be promised and graunted to vs we can not be sure we do it but no suche thing is promised For in S. Mathew now followeth one of the places alleged by M. Iuell No word is put whereby it maie be proued that in our Masse the very presence of Christes body and blood
spiritually forsoth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say either yâ— apparitioÌ„ which was made to the fathers of yâ— old testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to be dâ—…nied in these oure daies For to them who faithfullie consider the matter â–ª it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the flesh it selfe is present now also to vs no dout verilie but that it is so in the sacrameÌ„t Here is M. Iuel the true substance of Christes own flesh affirmed to be no lesse present in a spiritual maner but not in a carnal manner of being as it was present to the Apostles who saw Christ in flesh I omit Nicholaus Methonensis and 〈◊〉 and Photâ—…s Grecians Albertus Magnus Alexander de Haâ—…s Iâ—…nocentius the third with diuerse moe aboue three huÌ„dred yeres old Iu. Their doctrine is without coÌ„fort thei hold that the bodie of Christe remaineth no longer in our bodies but only vntill the formes of the bread and wine begin to alter San. That doctrine M. Iuel is not without coÌ„fort in so much as the Sacrament serueth as a meane to bring to vs the body of Christ which when it hath deliuered vnto our bodies a coniunction is made by touching and eating Christ out of whiche coniunction made by flesh â–ª riseth a marueilouse commoditie to our spirite and soule So that albeit when the formes of breade and of 〈◊〉 be altered the body of Christe can not be affirmed to be corporally in our bodies any loÌ„ger yet a grace vertue strength is left stil with vs of inestimable operatioÌ„ toward life euerlastiÌ„g If this do seme absurd to M. Iuell how thinketh he of al those whome Christ healed by touching them with his fleshe was it not a corporall and real touching because Christ ceased to touche any more when the helth was once procured was not all Christes comming and walking in fleshe true real and corporall because when the tyme of his humble dispensation â—…as 〈◊〉 he departed bodily out of our sight and taried with vs in his godhead and power Moreouer I haue said often times our coÌ„â—…ton with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnal copulation betwen the wife and husbaÌ„d where twain are in one flesh A great mysterie saith S. Paule in Christ his Church As therefore the man and wife being corporally ioyned tarie not alwayes together but after a tyme departe a sunder and yet for all that of their coniunction iâ—…ue commeth and they kepe yet alwaies the bonde of wedlock and of loue in eche of them so after that Christe hath vnited him to vs vnder the foorme of bread he departeth in bodily presence when those foormes cease to be vnder whiche it pleased him to comme to vs but the vertue of that coniunction tarieth still Iuel Some others say that as sone as our teeth touch the bread straight wayes Christes body is taken vp into heauen The words be these Certum est quod quà m cito species dentibus teruntur tam cito in coelum rapitur corpus Christi San. Haue you not yet done with gloses M. Iuel I marueil not For the greatest flour of your gardeÌ„ lieth in gloses and phrases But yet if the gloses â—…e of them selues not at al tymes moste wary because they were made in greaâ—… security of yâ— faith the authors of theÌ„ neuer thinking yâ— such a desperat generatioÌ„ of â—…leuers should haue sprong vp surely you ought not to make theÌ„ more odiouse then they deserue by false and corrupt translation You haue englished nowe teruntur touched and species bread for you say as sone as our teeth touch the bread the body is takeÌ„ into heauen But species doe signifie the formes of bread wine teruntur doth signifie are wasted or consumed The which word in Berengarius coÌ„fession you could turne by the word grynded thus at one tyme terere is to grynd with you at an other tyme it is to touch Why M. gloser of gloses is terere latine to touch to grind But you haue a new kind of malice in your hart which can make new latine new english new Gospell new faith and a new Church at your pleasure Iu. Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike San. You can not so speake to D. Harding as he spake to the Arrian heretike to whome he spake not by his owne authoritie but by the authoritie of S. Cyrillus who disputing against an Arrian heretike saied vnto him as D. Harding may right well say vnto you An fortassis putas caet What troweth this Arrian heretike parhaps that we knowe not the vertue of the mysticall blessing Whiche when it is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwel in vs corporally also by receauing of Christes body in the communion Thus farre S. Cyril whose words touched M. Iuel a thowsand yeres before he was borne because his heresie is one in this behalf with the Arrian heresie who taught vs not be corporally ioyned by naturall participation to Christe as braunches are ioyned to the vine but â—…aughte euen as M. Iuel doth that we depend of Christ by faith and none otherwise And troweth M. Iuel now that he may talke to D. Harding by his own contemptible authoritie as D. Harding talked to him out of S. Cyrillus Bring if you can M. Iuel a saying of aboue a thowsand yeres old where D. Hardinges doctrine may be accused of heresie Iuel Commeth Christ to vs from heauen and by and by forsaketh vs San. As Christe at his incarnation came not frome heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assupting flesh of the virgin so nowe at the time of the consecration his body commeth not doune froÌ„ heaueÌ„ but the bread is changed into his body and by that meane his body is present with vs. and as after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread and wine being consumed Christe caeaseth to be corporally with vs to th end we should again desier his presence and well know these two chefe pointes of our belefe the one that the end of the ioyning consisteth in spirit rather thâ—…n in flesh the other that the flesh of Christ really eaten is the meane whereby we haue accesse to the spirit of God with trust and confidence Iuel Or that we eate Christe and yet receaue him not or hauâ—… him not or that he entreth not caet San. We eate him and receaue him and haue him he entreth into vs. Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadow troubleth you Iuel He saith this presence is knowen to God only then it foloweth M. Harding knoweth it not San. He sayd not this presence but the maner of the presence is knowen to God only and so is it in dede But why