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
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
that it so feedeth vs as the water in baptism doth wash vs and that as water toucheth our body so it entreth into our body Which thing is so true that Christ hauing taken bread blessed stretching forth his hand said Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you Where not without a great mysterie Christe gaue his body vnder the forme of bread not only to feede vs presently through yâ— grace which procedeth froÌ„ his flesh by touching eating yâ— same but also to shew vs that this is the same bodie which before had incorporated vs into it self For as of manie graines of wheate one loaf of manie persons one Mysticall body of Christe was made so when Christ turneâ—…h the substance of bread into his own substaÌ„ce and so maketh him self present vnder yâ— form of bread he both feedeth many persons who partake of that one bread and by the form of bread sheweth how they being neuer so many are yet one in him because they are all incorporated into him Of this Sacrament S. Paule intreating sayd The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body because through it we both partake of the one bread which is Christ and are our selues shewed to be one bread and one body What are we in mystery but only members of Christ And for as much as Christ is him self present vnder the forme of this bread and is the very substaÌ„ce which is receaued there we are no lesse named one mystical bread of this one bread then we are named one mystical body of Christes true body out of which discourse it is vndoutedly proued that the bread which we breake is the body of Christ. How could we otherwise be called thereof one bread How could one bread and one body be put to signifie one thing but that in dede bread and body are here in substance the same selfe thing we are named the mysticall body in respect of yâ— vnion which we haue with the natural body of Christ and amoÌ„g our selues But we are also called one bread in S. Paule Therefore out of dout S. Paul meaneth that one bread which is Christ in respect whereof we are named to be yâ— mystical body of Christ. The Church taketh her names froÌ„ Christ that which Christ is in truth the Church is in mystery so that nothing can be verified of the Church which was not true before in Christ for the members folow the state of theyr head But the meÌ„bers are called one bread one body for mysteries sake therefore the head is in truth one bodie he is the one bread whereof we partake and we partake of that which is broken by meanâ—… of yâ— forme of bread therefore Christ is really present vnder that forme of bread whiche at his supper we breake and partake We are members of this bread before we take it in the Sacrament of the altar because this bread is that substance of Christe vnder the form of bread to whose mystical body we were ioyned in baptisâ—…e whereof S. Augustine writeth thus Nulli est aliquâ—…tenus ambigendâ—… cae No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body blood of our Lord when he is made a member of Christ in baptim neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cup although before he eate that bread and drinke that cup being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benefite of that Sacrament for so much as him self hath found that thing which that Sacrament doth signify Whereas Christ sayd Except ye eate my flesh and drink my blood ye shal not haue life in you a man wold haue thought that euery person were bound to receaue actually the Sacrament of Christes body and blood but S. Augustine sheweth that thing not to be after that sorce necessarie to all men For he that is made a member of Christ in Baptism is therein made partaker of yâ— body blood of Christ. How so Because he receaueth that thing which the Sacrament of Christes body and blood signifieth What doth it signifie The mysticall body of Christ. By what meanes S. Augustine expounded yâ— meane a litle before saying Bread is not made of one grayne but of many likewise one liquour is made of many grapes Thus our Lord Iesus signified vs. he wold vs to apperteine to himself Mysterium panis vnitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecrauit he hath consecrated the mysterie of our peace and vnitie in his table Note that our mysterie was not made by the baker but consecrated by Christ the consecration was to turne the substance of the bread into his owne flesh keping still the olde forme of the same bread But if the body of Christ were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptized be partaker of the benefite of this Sacrament Was he made partaker of bread and wine No verily but of the mysticall body What hath the mystical body to doe in this Sacrament For â—…oth so much that here is both the thing which maketh vs all one which is Christ and he is so present that he sheweth him self to haue ioyned all vs to him as he hath ioyned the graines of wheat vnto his flesh For as the bread which we breake hath none other substance besyde the substance of Christ and yet it hath an outward appareuce of an other thing so the mysticall body of Christ hath none other substance through which it is one body besydes yâ— body of Christ although it haue an oâ—…tward appareÌ„ce of an other thing For be we neuer so many in number persons we are one body in Christ. How so euer we appere mortal men as we once were yet in truth we are ioyned to the body of Christ and are members of him our only head Take away that body of Christ from the forme of bread and here is no signe of vnitie in Christ. A signe of vnitie here is but not in Christ. Euery loaf 〈◊〉 vnitie but none other betokeneth our vnitie in Christ but that bread the substance whereof is Christ yâ— forme whereof is the forme of common bread If the naturall substance of Christ be absent from the bread which we consecrate and so be signified without the reall presence thereof if again the natural substance of bread remaine and signific the mysticall body of Christ who is absent him self in substance no signe is by that meane more effectually made then that Christ and his members are as far a sunder as heauen is distant from the earth and that as Christ is signified present being in dede not present so his members be signified to be ioyned to him and in truth be not ioyned to him These are the mystical signes which do folow necessarily vpon the
Sacramentaric doctrine whereof I haue the gladlier writen to thintent S. Augustines doctrine might be opened who alwaies noteth this Sacrament to be the signe of the vnitie which is made by Christ in baptism among the faithfull but he meaneth such a signe as Christ him â—…elf maketh vnder the forme of bread when he affirmeth him to consecrate herein yâ— mystery of vnitie Is it not an extreme madnes to affirme that wheaten bread keping his own earthly nature should be the mystery of vnitie Christ is that mystery first because he is both God who alone made all things to serue him and man in whom all things are a new collected which where before made Secondly because Christ maketh vs one with God reconciling vs to him by the blood of his crosse Thirdly because he maketh vs one among our selues by his one spirit and Baptism Last of all because he sheweth and geueth him self really present vnder the forme of bread wherein he would vs to vnderstand the vnitie which is really made betwene vs and him and God Of this vnitie S. Hilarie writeth If Christ assumpted truly the flesh of our body and we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body and by this thing we shal be one because the Father is in him and he in vs quomodo voluntatisvnitas asseritur cùm naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacracramentum sit vnitatis How is yâ— vnitie of wil affirmed whereas the naturall proprietie through the Sacrament is the holy signe of a perfite vnitie This place good Reader openeth al the hard points of the mystery of vnitie First Christ toke truly flesh Next we take truly the same flesh vnder a mystery By his taking God and man were made one concerning the whole nature of man By our taking we and Christ are made one concerning euery particular man who receaueth worthely his body And that is not only done so but withall it is shewed so for the thing which we receaue is the flesh of Christ vnder the forme of bread The flesh yâ— is there being receaued maketh vs in dede to be one with Christ. The form of bread sheweth not only them to be one that receaue this food but those also who now doe not receaue it if yet they be or shal be baptized to be one in Christ. And sayeth S. Hilarie so much Ye doubtlesse and that he twise repeteth For when he sayth Verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body then he meaneth that vnder the forme of bread we take Christes flesh Under what other mysterie can it be sayd we take it Or seing he speaketh of the last supper doth he not meane the signe of the same supper which was bread But yet let vs heare more plaine words Naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The natural proprietie through the SacrameÌ„t is the SacrameÌ„t of a perfite vnitie The word proprietas meaneth one particular substance proper to one thing which in men is commonly called a person S. Augustine witnesseth that Christ is called the true vine Per similitudinem non per proprietatem by likenes not by proprietie that is to say Christ is yâ— true vine by like condition and not by the self substance of a true vine S. Hilarie then sayeth The naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a Sacrament of perfite vnitie Here is the word Sacrament twise iterated the proprietie of Christ is a Sacrament and it is a Sacrament by a Sacrament A Sacrament is a holy signe Therefore the proprietie or substance of Christ is a holy signe But how Euery substance is the truth How is it then a sigue It is not barely and absolutely called a signe but a signe by a signe that is to say the true substaÌ„ce of Christ put vnder the form of bread by that signe of bread is seâ—… to signifie a most perfite vnitie made betwene God and vs. The natural proprietie of Christ by the signe of bread maketh and signifieth a perfite vnitie It maketh it whiles we receaue Christ into vs who is one with his Father in nature as we naturally haue him in our bodies and soules It signifieth the same vnitie because the substance of Christ who is one nature with his Father in Godhead one with vs in manhod being now vnder the signe of bread sheweth him self as it were with al his faithfull members about him offering them all to God as if he sayd Ecce ego pueri mei mecum Behold Father I am here and my seruants or children with me This sayeth S. Augustine is the sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ Quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quâ—…od in ea oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur The which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of the altar knowen to the faithful Where it is shewed to the Church that in that sacrifice which she offereth her self is offered It is well knowen that the Priests of yâ— Church taking bread and wine according to the institution of Christ consecrate them saying in Christes name This is my body and this is my blood If by those words the body and blood of Christ be not made pre sent vnder the forme of bread and wine how is the Church offered in the offering which she maketh Who doth make an oblation of her to God Wil ye say that Christ sitting in heauen presenteth to his Father the bread wine which is in earth saying Father looke vppon my faithfull members See what a mysticall body I haue gotten to me in the earth Might not God answer Why sonne is the substance of your mysticall body bread and wine Haue you coupled my seruants your brethren whome I created reasonable to those vnseâ—…sible creatures Or is the handy work of the baker your oblation or the oblation of your mysticall body But if Christ be vnder the forme of bread and thence make an oblation to his Father of all his obedient members which are there signified by the forme of bread then is none other substance of those mysticall members presented besyde the true substance and head of the mysticall body to wit the flesh of Christ which worketh gathereth a body to it self through out the whole world TheÌ„ the Church offereth none other substance besyde the one oblation which dyed for vs. The same reall coniunction of the faithfull to Christes flesh may be declared also by the example of building a howse For as euery howse is in the fundation moste large and afterward it is drawen alwaies so muche the nigher together by how much it approcheth to the top or end thereof euen so the Church being the howse of God must be one so that it may in some partes thereof be
his argument vppon that worde alone For he may be bread and herbs and milke vnto vs both in the Sacrament and without it but he is bread herbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as Manna was vnto the Iewes only in the Sacrament Iuel Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that we receaue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for he saith who so hath abundaÌ„tlie drunk of the Apostles springs hath already receaued whole Christ. San. You misse in your prouf For you should proue that whoso drinketh of the Apostles spring he receaueth Christes bodie you proue that he receaueth Christ. A man maie receaue Christ in his hart and yet not haue Christes bodie in his bodie Christ being the name of the person maie be verified as wel of the diuine as oâ—… the humane nature But there Gregorie Nyssen spake of his diuine nature which thing is most clere because he speaketh of eating by faith so as it agreeth to the whole Trinitie And therefore it foloweth I mie father will come vnto him Lo he wil come so as his father cometh to wit by his diuine nature But beside that S. Nyssen speaketh of his birth and of hys being meate vnto our bodies which is oâ—…lie done in the Sacrament of the altar Iuel M. Harding reasoneth thus Christ was borne ergo his bo die is reall in the Sacrament San. O dissembler he reasoneth cleane contrarie with Gregorie Nyssen Christ is made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament Therfore he was reallie born as I haue alreadie shewed Iuel This conclusion is childish San. Yours is childish But D. Hardings is so stronge that if the eating of Christ proue his birth it will followe that as he is born reallie so much more he is eateÌ„ really otherwise if he were onlie eaten by faith thence we could coÌ„clude no more but a byrth by faith which is against Gregorie Nyssenes purpose Iuel If he conclude not this he concludeth nothing San If you speake as you think you are byside your sell. For as by the real eating of Christes fleshe his birth is concluded of S. Nyssen so â—…y D. Harding the reall eating is noted as a most knowen truth presupposed by S. Gregorie Nyssen ¶ That M. Iuel hath not well answered the places of S Cyrillus HArding Cyrillus saith vvhen the mystical blessing is become to be in vs dothe it not cause Christe to dvvel in vs corporally by receauinge of Christes bodie in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iuel Cyrillus expoundeth him selfe natural vnion is nothing els but a true vnioÌ„ we are by nature the childern of anger that is in dede and truly San. The words which you allege as out of Cyrillus be 〈◊〉 in him His words are Si naturalem vnionem dixerimus 〈◊〉 dicemus If we cal it a natural vnion we shal cal it a true 〈◊〉 But you haue put in a certaine phrase of your own addinge these words non aliud quà m none other thing but that is nothing M. Iuel but alitle falshod There is ods whether it be said a natural vnion is a true vnion or els a naturall vnioÌ„ is none other thing but a true vnion For that which is natural is true but there is sumwhat more conteined in the name of nature which the name of truthe doth not expresse We are the true sonnes of God but we are not yâ— natural sonnes of god wheresoeuer thereforea thing is called natural it is at the lest true but not by and by nothing els but true That which you said of S. Augustine Corporaliter noÌ„ vmbraliter sed verè et solidè I could not find it vpoÌ„ yâ— 67. psal But thinke you M. Iuel that when S. tyrâ—…l teacheth Christ to be the natural sonne of god he wolde be contented if an Arrian should slep foorth and say that to be the natural sonne of god is nothing els but to be the true sonne of god Whiche beinge once graunted he that is a child by adoption is also the true sonne of god Therfore the Arrian wil conclude that Christ is the sonne of god by adoption But let vs come nere to the purpose let natural dwelling staÌ„d for true dwelling What of that saith S. Cyril only that Christ is naturally vnited vnto vs saith he not also that yâ— mystical blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in vs wil that word also be excluded by a true dwelling or hath M. Iuell an other phrase to answere it withal Iuel S Paul saith the Heathens are bâ—…come concorporal and partakers of the promise in Christ Iesu in the same sense San. In whith sense M. Iuel meane you that as natural so likewise corporal conâ—…tÌ„ioÌ„ meaneth nothing els but a true conâ—…ction True in dede it is but true in the truth of nature of bodie but not 〈◊〉 true in the truthe of faith and speaking S. Pâ—…e saith The Heatheâ—…s are coÌ„corporal with the Patriarches Prophets that is to say of one body mystical of one society 〈◊〉 Theresore saieth M. Iuel when S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ to dwel corporally in vs by reason of the holy communioÌ„ he meaneth that Christe and wee are all of one mysticall body Meant he nothing els M. Iuel as though it went not before Non negamus caet We denie not but that we are ioyned spiritually to Christ by right faith and syncere loue Lo there is the coniunction which maketh vs one way members of that bodie whereof Christ is yâ— head But S. Tyrill goeth to an other higher meane of the same coniunction adding that the mystical blessing which is the Eucharist maketh Christ to dwel also in vs corporally by communicating his body S. Cyril nameth dwelling in comparison of ioyning corporally in comparison of spiritually by communicating Christes body in comparison of these words by right faith and syncere charitie Therefore it must nedes be that the corporal dwelling of Christ in vs according to his fleshe which also S. Cyril nameth is an other kind of vnion theÌ„ faith and charitie loue But the giftes are corporall with the faithfull Iewes not by faith alone but as S. Hilarie declareth by the nature also of baptism by the nature of Christes flesh For they are grasted into the cumpanie of the elect by all these meanâ—…s which Christ prouided for yâ— end they beleue in yâ— same God are baptized in the same fount are reconciled by the same SacrameÌ„t of penance fed nourished and consuÌ„mated by eating really the same fleshe of Christe What doth that word corporall helpe you now M. Iuell It signifieth no more but that the Iewes and Gentils are of one feloship but the meanes of making them one remaine notwithstanding to be declared Iu By the wordes corporally and naturally a ful perfite spirituall coniunction is meant excluding all manner of fantasie San. So that with you corporally and
no stomack but ouercometh all their natures that touche him By that meanes it is brought to passe that as 〈◊〉 approching nigh to any thing â—…urneth all that is apt to be burned into it self making it of his owne condition and qualitie yea rather of his owne nature so Christ who is consuming fier turneth into his mysticall body all that worthely eate and drinke his naturall body in the Sacrament of the altar Yf we did eate common bread drinke common wine out of all question both the bread and wine wold be ouercomed of our stomack and by lytle and lytle wold be conuerted into our flesh and blood to norrish them corporally by which meanes neither we should by eating wheaten bread at any time be made one bread neither any of vs should become one with an other For they that differ by reason of diuers persons as diuerse men doe can neuer in any kinde of meate be made one whiles they eate that which is digested into their vaynes and made parte of their persons but only they are able to be made one who eate that which taryeth styll whole and sound in his owne nature styll common to all neuer appropriated to any one but gathereth all them into it self as making one spirituall mysticall body of all faithfull men Yf then we eate a kinde of bread in the holy mysteries and are one bread because we eate of the one bread surely it is no common bread but such a foode and meate as being eaten is not consumed of vs but rather consuming our weaknes maketh al vs that eate it of the same immortall nature with it which none other meate doth absolutely besydes the reall body and blood of Iesus Christ and it so mightely worketh our spirituall vnion that Christ wold his owne body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to be the Sacrament of that self vnitie which it worketh Nothing is more common in S. Augustine then to say that we take in the Sacrament the body of Christ which we are Vos estis in mensa vos estis in calice ye are in the meate ye are in the cup but we are not in the substance of wheaten bread albeit we are after consecration signified by that forme of bread which bread it self was from many graines of corne made one loaf but we are not at all signified by the substance of the bread For so euery bread in the world were the holy signe of yâ— Church of God by that meanes it were much more the body of Christ which thing S. Augustine denieth saying that euery bread and cup is not borne mysticall to vs but it is made mystical by a certeine consecration If then the natural substance of bread suffise not to signifie the body of Christ and the felowship of the elect and yet they be manifestly signified to be one in the Sacrament of Christes supper what other ground must concur to shew them to be in the meate which they receane in the cup whereof they drink The Catholikes haue learned of the auncient Fathers that it is the reall body and blood of Christ which only being vnder the foorm of bread and wine can make vs to be shewed in the meate in the chalice For we are shewed in them because our head Iesus Christ is there within the forme of bread and wine now where the head is there also the members be signified to be specially seing the head is there to gather his members nere vnto him and as S. Chrysostome speaketh to make them as it were one lumpe with him For as many grains of corne are made into one loaf and that loaf by consecration is turned into Christes body the forme of bread stil remaining so many persons are in Baptisme made one mysticall body and that body at Christes supper is againe naturally ioyned to Christes own flesh and by that corporall vnion is mingled wholy tempered with him so that one thing is made of Christe and of his Church ¶ The reall presence is proued by ioyning together all the former wordes HAuing particularly declared how breaking communicating vniting make for the real presence of Christes body and blood I thought good now to coÌ„ferre al these things together The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body because we being many are one bread and one body for we all partake of the one bread Here bread is thrise named and foure things are affirmed of it 1. We breake breade 2. bread is the communicating of Christes body 3. we are one bread 4. we partake of the one bread Seing in all these places the name of breade is put to expresse one and thesame mysteriâ—… it must nedes be ment so that all these sayings may be verified without 〈◊〉 of the one to the other which can be done by no meanes except we take the substance of Christes body vnder yâ— form of bread to be called bread By that meanes the body in respect of the form of bread is conuenieiuly said to be broken By that meanes the substance of the body is the thing coÌ„municated vnto vs vnder the form of bread By the communicating of that substance we are vnited to the one bread and be made one body not only by faith and will as in baptism but by the corporall coÌ„innction of Christes flesh because we partake of that one bread in his own substance whereof we did partake before in certaine effectes of grace proceding from it Thus the breaking distributing of such a bread is the cause of the communicating of Christes body and such a coÌ„municating is the cause of ioyning vs corporally in one body and such an vnion procedeth of the partaking of that one bread in his owne substance And consequently all things agree well together But if we once take the sub stance of common bread to be the thing which is broken neither that substance is the communicating of Christes body because euery bread in the world should by like reason be the communicating thereof for so much as that which is the substance of any thing is in euery particular propriety of the same kind nor we are not all one material bread as it is euident nor we all partake not of one wheaten bread either in baptisme or after Again if the wheaten bread which is said to be the communicating of Christes body be interpreted to signifie yâ— coÌ„municating betwene vs and Christ when it is likewise said of the Apostle we are one bread and one body for it is one verbe and oue noune in both places est there sumus here communicating of one body there one bread and one body here If the bread which is the coÌ„municating of Christes body be the bread which is the figure of the communicating we that are said to be one bread are said to be the figure of one bread Likewise seing we
of Christ made vnder the forme of bread and wine that is called any earth not because Christ hath any moe then only one body and one blood and one earth which is to be adored but because that one earth is in many places after the sorte I said before to wit vnder many formes of bread That is it which S. Augustine saith when thou bowest thee or doest cast thy selfe prostrate before any flesh of Christ in what soeuer Church house or place in what soeuer altar pix or table where soeuer thou fallest doune prostrate before the Sacrament of the altar adore it so that thou remember the flesh is to be adored for the persons sake whose flesh it is By this place it is inuincibly proued that it was the custome of all Catholike people in S. Augustines tyme to be prostrate to bow doune and to adore the blessed Sacrament of the altar But that should neuer haue bene suffered in Afrike no more then now it is suffered in England except the real substaÌ„ce of Christes flesh had bene certainly beleued of all men to be present vnder the formes of bread and wine Therefore be thou assured as those yâ— now sorbid thee to adore the Sacrament of Christes supper doe not beleue the flesh of Christ to be really present vnder the form of bread wine so they who willed all Christians vnder paine of syn to adore the earth flesh whiche they receaued before that they recâ—…aued it did vndoubtedly beleue the reall presence of Christes â—…lesh vnder the visible formes of bread and wine This was the faith of the first six hundred yeres which dured from the Apostles tyme till this our daies and yet dureth in all Catholike countries ¶ It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatrie to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar MAny things are to be abhorred which are in these our daies taught againste the truth of the Gospell yet neuer was any thing so maliciously inuented so blasphemously vttered so foolishly mainteined as to say that it is idolatrie to worship with godly honour the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar For that saying presupposeth externall idols not to haue bene taken away by the comming of Christ whiche is against the expresse word of God It presupposeth also that idolatry should be mainteined among Christians them selues not only in groâ—…es hilles and corners but euen openly in the middest of the whole Church by publike doctrine and vniuersall practise which neuer chaunced no not among the Iewes And which is most abominable of all it presupposeth that Christ who came to end and ouerthrow all idols and specially those which were made by hand of man now him selfe should geue occasion why his own people should worship bakers bread and wine of the grape and that this idolatry should be committed by pretense of his owne word yea that it should be done vnto him selfe in his owne mysteries falsely and wickedly if by any meanes Christ may be falsely adored Can there yet a more lewd and foolish pointe be added to this opinion Yea verily They that teache the worshipping of the Sacrament of the altar to be idolatry say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping they teach also the Bishop of Rome to be Antichrist whiche Antichrist is well knowen to impugne by al meanes the honour of Christ. And yet they confesse that both only Christe made and instituted the same Sacrament and that the Bishop of Rome him selfe worshippeth the same Thus at the length it commeth about that Antichrist finding this great mystery made by Christ setteth it vp to be worshipped of others and him selfe worshippeth the same all together pretending the honour of Christ and yet intending thereby as they say to debate his honour Who euer saw a doctrine so euill hanging together Antichrist as S. Paul saieth aduersatur is an aduersarie that is to say he is one that setteth him selfe against Christ and aduaÌ„ceth him selfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he doth sitte in the temple of God shewing or boasting him selfe as if he were God Behold Antichrist setteth him selfe against Christ and much lesse would he be content as the Pope is to call him self the vicar of Christ or seruant of his sernants Againe Antichrist is aduanced aboue all that eyther by nature or by deceite of the Deuill is worshipped His pride is so great that he wil not only disoaine to bow to any externall ydoll for that coÌ„meth of a superstitious feare and pusillanimity but also he will not yeld to God him selfe When S. Paul saieth he is aduanced aboue all that is called God He meaneth aboue all false Gods who are Gods by name and not in truth As Iuppiter Mars Uenns Minerua were So that we are assured by the expresse worde of God that Antichrist shall set vp no ydoll besydes his own selfe He shall say him selfe to be God and shall shew false signes miracles able to deceiue those wicked meâ—… who disdayning the felowship of the knowen Church and the saith of their fathers thinke them selues able to plant a new faith according to the vnderstanding whiche they conceaue of Gods worde That is the chefe way for Antichrist to preuaâ—…le if the preaching of nine hundred yeres and the saith of so many Christian countries may be dispised and consequently a new religion sought out at the deuising whereof ye may be sure yâ— deuil is president of the couÌ„sel To come to our purpose Antichrist is aduanced by him selfe aboue all idols therefore he shall set vp no idoll besides him self And consequently if the Pope be Antichrist he setteth not vp any idoll besides him selfe But our aduersaries confesse the Pope to set vp the body and blood of Christe to be adored of all men and him selfe to adore the same herefore the Pope is not Antichrist You will say he may be a limme of Antichrist although he be not Antichrist him selfe I answere euery lymme of Antichrist is like his head and the rest of the body whereof he is a lymme Antichrist is he that professeth him selfe an aduersary to Christ and goeth about to diminish his honour But the Pope professeth him selfe to haue all his whole honour of Christ and geueth all the whole honour he can deuise to Christ. He worshippeth the Sacrament of the altar because it is the body of Christ. He reuerenceth the signe of the Crosse because it is signe of Christ. He praieth to the Saints which are now in heauen because they are members of Christ being assined they heare his praier in Christ theyr head with whome they make one body Those are the lymmes of Antichrist who can abyde neither the godly worshipping of Christes body nor the reuerent vsing of his holy Crosse nor
haue but because his words did not serue the turn it pleased this corruptour of all good authors to geue him new words The first place in S. Ignatius is vt credentes in mortem eius per BaptismuÌ„ participes resurrectionis eius efficiamini To th' intent ye beleuing in his death through Baptism should be made partakers of his resurrection Here is not that for which M. Iuel seeketh because Baptism is also named whereof as yet it is not his course to speake Again here is no reall or substanciall dwelling spoken of The other place is Vos verâ—… inuitat Christus ad suam incorruptibilitatem per passionem suam ac resurrectionem qui estis membra eius Christ inuiteth you who are his members to his immortalitie by his passion and resurrection But this place wâ—… not serue M. Iuels purpose For it is not sayd we are made the members of his body which is the thing that M. Iuel must proue That word body was not in S. Ignatius but is cast in by M. Iuel 2. Moreouer though it had bene expressed it had bene meant of Christes mysticall body â—…oncerning faith and not of his naturall body whereof we now dispute 3. S. Ignatius speaketh not of our incorporating to be now first made by faith in Christes passion but he saith Christ inuiteth vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being his members he speaketh not of that we are made his members that word made M. Iuel made of his own head 4. S. Ignatius spake of this point how those that are already the members of Christ which thing they were not by faith alone but by Baptism and the Eucharist how those I say were inuited not now to be made members but to be made immortal with Christ their head Thus M. Iuel doth order the holy Fathers words ¶ The contradiction of M. Iuel concerning Christ really dwelling in vs by faiâ—… not really dwelling in vs by faith c. WHat shal we say of M. Iuel who in one and the selfe same diuision affirmeth two propositioÌ„s cleane contrarie For as here he saith Christes body dwelleth in our bodies by euerie of the four meanes of which one is a dwelling by faith so afterward expounding out of S. Augustine the very same wordes of S. Paule whiche he now bringeth for the dwelling of 〈◊〉 body in our bodâ—…es really Thus he â—…aith Christe is in thee not really or bodily but because his â—…aith is within thee And those wordes not really or bodily are not the wordes of S. 〈◊〉 but the wordes of M. Iuell Who within the câ—…mpasse of two leaues affirmeth more coÌ„tradictions neuer able to be recâ—…ciled The one place saith Christes body is in our bodies by faith The other saith Christ is not really in vs but by faith If there be any ods betwene Christ and his body it maketh altogether against M. Iuel For whereas Christe maie be said to be where his body is not and maie be said to be in vs when his body is not in our bodies M. Iuel 〈◊〉 in the one place not only the body of Christe to be really in vs but also he denieth that Christ is really iâ—… vs. and in the other he affirmeth not only Christe to be really in vs by faith but also his body to be really not only in vs but euen in our bodies by faith You pretend some contradiction M. Iuell here and there betwen D. Hardings own words but I 〈◊〉 you no such is to be fouÌ„d as this is You note in this article that D. Harding is contrarie to him self because he saiâ—…th in one place Berâ—…ngarius first begaÌ„ openly to sowe the Sacramentarie heresie in an other he said the Messalians were the first parents of this heresy But what a poore contradiction is that sith one may be the first parent of an heresie in geuing secret occasion thereof the other may beginne it first in professing it opeÌ„ly and publikely as D. Hardings own wordes expressly say But if D. Hardinges contradiction were like yours it should saie Berengarius began this heresie first openly and Berengarius began it not firste openly The same termes being kepte the one shoulde haue affirmed the same thinge whiche the other had denied No no it is for M. Iuel to haue suche contradictions and for no man els But what credit shall any man geue to your wordes sith yoâ—… doe not only saie these two contradictiones but you teache them both You hold that Christe is in vs by faith and therefore that his body is really in our bodies You set it foorth as a doctrine of yours you make a preface to it solemly say for answere hereunto it shal be necessarie first to vnderstand howe manie waies Christes bodie dwelleth in our bodies and thereby afterward to view M. Hardinges reason Four speciall meanes there be whereby Christe dwelleth in vs and we in him His natiuitie whereby he embraced vs. Our faith whereby we embrace him The Sacrament of baptism and the Sacrament of his body By euerie of these meanes Christes bodie dwelleth in our bodies and that not by waie of imagination or by figure or phantasie but really naturally substantially fleshly and in deede Are not these your own words M. Iuel Are they not spoken of you not only in the wai of answering wherein somtime a maÌ„ vseth some shift but are they not your own words setting foorth a doctrine whiche you would haue beleued and embraced Well Why then saie you afterward the contrarie and that not only once but in diuerse places For againe in an other place before you said Christe dwelleth in our hartes by faith must he nedes meane that Christ is really and fleshly placed within our harts Meane you not there to saie that though Christe dwell in vs by faith yet he is not really placed in vs What meaneth this contrarie doctrine Surely thus it meaneth yâ— you knowe not what you saie you vnderstand not whereof you dispute You prouide only to contrarie D. Harding and through him the Catholike Church and that by al meanes possible to be deuised by phrases of speache by the authorities of schole meÌ„ by falsifying yâ— auncieÌ„t Fathers And now through vehement bending your self against our reall receauing of Christes bodie into our bodies which the Catholikes beleue you haue inuented three other your selfe in the meane time assuredly beleuing that there is neuer a corporall coniunction at all with Christes naturall bodie Of other petie contradictions I speake in other places ¶ Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme or no IVel. To increase this vnion God hath specially appointed his holy Sacraments San. Not only to increase it but also to make it For partly now all men be baptized being yet infantes when they doe not actually beleue partly though they did beleue their saith maie be to weake to worke the incorporation as S. Augustine saeith
the death of Christ the true passouer and the true Lamb of God Straight way he began to make this new Sacrament in stede of the old Paschall Lamb that the Churche of Christ might haue a new oblation which should conteine really the true Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world For as Leo the great sayeth Vetus Testamentum consummabat nouum Pascha condebat he ended the old Testament and made a new passouer As therefore the old Paschall Lamb was really present and really eaten so much more the true passouer Iesus Christ in yâ— banket which him self instituted is really present to be really eateÌ„ except we shal say yâ— his â—…ew banket is lesse true and really then the old was or that the old being an vndoubted figure of the new did not by the eating thereof declare that the new Paschall Lamb Iesus Christ should be also eaten not only by saith which kind of eating Christ both Moyses and Phinees had but euen externally vnder the forme of bread the which kind of eating Christes flesh the old Fathers had not because the law brought nothing to perfection but we haue it because the truth is made by Iesus Christ who deliuered vs his own flesh to be eaten really and in dede ¶ The fyfth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper AS the ending of the old ceremonie moued Christ to institute a new so the ioye which he tooke of that change was so great yâ— he could not forbeare but sayd to his Apostles Desy derio desyderaui hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum antéquaÌ„ patiar I haue desired with desire to eate this passouer with you before I suffer And as S. Chrysostom witnesseth he did really receaue the mysteries at his supper to incourage his Disciples to receaue them without all scruple or feare Neither doth it skill to my purpose whether the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb or to the nâ—…w If they be referred to the new alone Christ desireth only to eate his own body with his Apostles But Christ could not eate it by faith deuotion sith he had it present in a better maner then so therefore by shewing him self desirouse of eating it and by his owne eating it we learn that it is his own reall substance not only an effectuall sigâ—…e thereof And it is not to be wondered that he will gladly eate his own flesh namely in such an vnspeakable mysterie as him self hath prepared because thereby as S. Chry sostom writeth he encouraged his Apostles not to be afeard therâ—…of And why should not Christ doe that thing for our great profite seing that other men haue often tymes eaten their own flesh euen in a grosse manâ—…r either for hunger or for anger or phansie without doing so great good to them selues or to any other as Christ in this fact hath done to all his Churche Or is it more straunge to eate his own flesh in so miraculouse a maner as it is present in then voluntarily to geue the same flesh to shamful death for our sakes Marke that I say Christ did eate his own flesh not as butchers and cookes dresse it but in so pure a sort as Angels feede on it by hauing it really present with them and yet in so true a sort as men receaue meat into their bodies For herein man eateth Angels foode in that he eateth the same spirit of God in Christes flesh the which feedeth the Angels really in heauen Now for Christ to eate his own body in truth of substance after that Angelicall maner it is no absurditie at all But for him to eate it by faith it were a thing cleane impossible And to eate it in abare figure without saith it were to lack the chief point that is requisite to the worthy receauing of the Sacrament If the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb the 〈◊〉 yet is all one because it is certein he desired not to eate the old Lamb for the Lambs sake but only for that it was the last eating of the Lamb as the which was out of hand to be taken away and to haue the flesh of the true Lamb of God geuen to the faithfull in stede thereof In either of â—…oth ways the desire and ioye of Christ was not finally for eating the Paschall Lamb wherein according to the Prophets words he had no delight but for the eating of his own passouer which can be none other thing besyde his own flesh Therefore Tertullian expounding this matter noteth well Indignum esse vt quid alienum concupisceret Deus How it were vnsemely that God should desier any thing which were other then his own With whom S. Chrysostom agreing writeth Non solummodo Pascha sed hoe in quo cum praeterijsset figura peracta erat veritas Christ desired not simply a passouer but this passoner wherein the figure being passed ouer the truth was celebrated And as he sayeth in an other place Wherein he wold deliuâ—…r the mysteries and new things vnto vs. Lo that which Christ desired was the truth it self to wit his own substance because it being vnited to yâ— Godhead was the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure and that substance is the meate of Christes supper and not only the eating thereof by faith ¶ The sixth circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament WHereas Christ through all his life had loued his Church he both continued that his loue euen to the last end of his life and spent his own life for the same loue and most euidently shewed that his loue the night before his passion first by wasshing most humbly his Apostles seete and then by geuing his own body and blood vnto them in so much that the said Sacrament is thereof called Signum vnitatis vinculum charitatis The signe of vnitie and the bond of charitie Whereof S. Chrystom writeth thus Christ hath mingled him self together with vs hath tempered his body into vs to th end we may be made one â—…rtein thing as it were a body ioyned to the head ArdeÌ„ter enim amantium hoc est For that is a point of them who loue feruently the like he saith also vpon S. Paul Seing now loue was one of the causes which moued Christ to institute this holie Sacrament let vs coniecture by that circumstance whether it be more like yâ— he leaft a peece of wheaten bread for a signe of his loue or els left the best greatest iewel he had to wit his own substance vnder the form of bread to witnesse yâ— same excessiue loue towards vs. I thinke it more then probable that sithens he was able to geue the substaÌ„ce of his own body to vs by turning bread into it and hauing taking bread said after thanks geueÌ„ this is my body I think it more then probable that his great loue
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
body Behold in promising his flesh and in affirming it to be meate in dede Christ spake not in parables much lesse could he do so in performing his promise and in saying Take eate this is my body Yet M. Nowell thinketh a parable as plaine as that speache which is no parable Forgetting yâ— Christ said him self to speake in parables to the multitude so that the hearers did not vnderstand him Yet M. Nowell wil haue I am the true vine whiche is a parable to be as plaine as this is my body S. Augustine saith Christe is called a vine by a Similitude or Metaphore but he neuer taught the like of this is my body For he saith Noster panis calix certa consecratione mystious fit nobis noÌ„ nascitur Our bread and chalice is not borne but is made mysticall to vs by a certain consecration That whiche is consecrated is in dede made somwhat which it was not before not only shewed to be a thing by a similitude A parable or similitude as I am the true vine is hath no consecration belonging to it but our bread hath a certeine consecration which worketh some mysterie and what consecration is that besyde the effectual operation of these words this is my body Christ was the true vine before he said I am the true vine but the thing pointed vnto at his supper was not his body before it was said This is my body Therefore these words which make a new thing when they are spoken are more pithy then those which only shew a thing already extant But are metaphors vsed to be really made after acerteine mauer of consecration Master Nowell They be named and writeÌ„ many tymes but they be neuer coâ—…secrated 〈◊〉 made really S. Cyrillus 〈◊〉 that he called himself a vine exempli ratione by the way of example But what said he likwise this is my body as it were for examples sake wheÌ„ we bring an example we bring it to proue some other thing which is more principal then the example was Christ inteÌ„ding to teach in what sort his disciples depended vpon him for their spiritnal life sheweth it by an example of the vine but in his supper his own body consecrated made and eaten was not an example brought to declare an other thing but it was the principall thing it self which was intended Therefore this is my body was more pithily said then I am the true vine For the principal is always more pithy then that which is alleged for to serue an othâ—…r purpose in so muche that S. Cyrill sayth Longè ab omni ratione remotum est ad naturae substantiaeque rationem illud traducere quod per similitudinem dictum est It is far distant from all reason to apply that which was spoken by a similitude to a comparison of nature and substance Which words S. Cyrill spake of the Arrians who denying these words to be ment of Christes humane nature by the similitude went about to proâ—…e that as the vine and the husbandman be not of one nature so God the father who is as it were the husbandman and Christ who is the vine were not of one nature And as the Arians did amisse to applie the words spoken by a similitude to the denying of Christes own diuine substaÌ„ce right so M. Nowell doth applie the same similitude euill to disproue by the example thereof the substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament But as S. Cyrillus doth returne the argument of the Arians vppon their heads by shewing how Christ is the vine and we the braunches according to his humanitie so may we shew to M. Nowell that these words of Christ I am the true vine serue to shew the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament of the altar S. Augustine sayeth Christ was made man to th' end the nature of man might be the vine in him of which humane nature we men might be the braunches S. Cyrill affirmeth likewise Christ to be the vine euen according to the flesh and vs to be braunches both spiritually and corporally He proueth it for so much as the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell corporally also in vs by the communicating of the flesh of Christ. What meaneth he by dwelling corporally Himself sheweth saying Non habitudine solum quae per charitatem intelligitur veruÌ„ etiá naturali participatione Not only by habit by power by effect or by the state and condition of charitie alone but also by naturall participation â—…o he placeth naturall participation as a farther degree beyond that dwelling of Christ in vs which is by faith or charitie M. Nowell will say peâ—…haps that the naturall participation of Christes flesh is to beleue that he is true man and true God and so to fede vpon him by faith at the tyme of eating bread and of drinking wine Such cursed interpretations now adaies they bring as though he that doth not beleue Christe to be in dede true man and true God can be ioyned to Christ at all â–ª by faith and charitie But S. Cyrill speaketh of that participation which is made not only by faith and charitie but also by naturall partaking his body and blood We must put a certeine iust man to beleue most pâ—…y who yet hath not receaued the mysticall blessing or communion of Christes flesh That iust man is ioyned to God by faith and charitie but not yet corporally He is a branche of the Godhead which is principally the true vine and a braunche of the manhod in that he beleueth in Christ who is true God and man but he is not yet corporally a braunche of the manhood which is also the true vine except he 〈◊〉 worthily the mysticall blessing which is the Sacrament of Christes supper the which maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally also Note the word quoque also For Christ dwelt in his Apostles harts before the last supper by right faith and charitie and therefore he sayd they were all cleane sauing Iudas but this mysterie maketh him dwel in them corporllay also And S. Cyrill expoundeth farther how Christ by the Sacrament dwelleth in vs. For whereas Christ had sayd except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood ye shall not haue life in your selues He interpreteth life the flesh of life in your selues in your body That is to say except ye eate my flesh ye shall not haue the flesh of life in your body Vita autem iure ipsa vitae caro intelligi potest The life may well be vnderstanded the self flesh of life In vobis ipsis dicit id est in corpore vestro Christ sayth except ye eate yâ— flesh and drink yâ— blood of the sonne of man ye shall not haue life in your selues that is to say in your body Is not this plaine enough Then heare yet a plainer
one with vs. Vt corpus cuÌ„ corpore vniretur That the body might be vnited to the head Behold we that by baptisme were the body must yet be vnited with our head what by only vnitie of wâ—…l or faith and loue all that we had before but we must be vnited now in nature in real coniunction of body and blood S Cyrâ—…l writeth thus If we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christ suffereth not himselfe to be diuided or separated Therefore the Church also is made the body of Christ and â—…uery one of vs according to S. Paule yâ— members of Christ. For we being ioyned to Christ alone through his body because we haue receaued him in vs who can nat be diuided our members are rather applied to him then to vs. Theodoritus toucheth as well the vnion of baptisme as of the Eucharist saying As Eue was formed out of Adam so we out of Christ our Lord. For we are buried together with him in baptism and we rise together with him and we eate his body and drink his blood Thus we are members of Christ either by faith and mysterie which is done in baptisme or by â—…is body blood which is done in the Eucharist That is the beginning of our vniting this is the end that is the foundation of the house this is the top that is in spirit chefely this in chefely in flesh But now let vs graunt that when S. Paule saith we are meÌ„bers of his body of his fleshe and of his bones that he meant we in baptisme are members of Christes mysticall body and we are members as it were taken out or proceding from his flesh bones that is to say we are one mystical body because the flesh bones of Christ haue geueÌ„ vertue to the font of baptism wheÌ„ce we are regenerated Let vs admit S. Paule had meant so the contrarie whereof al the auncient fathers teache yet the wordes which folow in S. Paule can by no meanes 〈◊〉 auoided For he vseth the example of Adam and Eue shewing it to be a great mysterie in Châ—…ist and the Church and that mysticall example may be applied to the vnity which is betwene Christ and vs either in baptism or in the supper of our Lord. For coÌ„cerning baptisme as Eue was not corporally begotten of Adam but was taken out of his syde whiles he slept so our regeneration is made by the water which flowed from Christes side whiles he slept vpon the Crosse without the personall begetting of Christ him selfe in his owne substance But what â–ª stayeth S. Paule in this part of the similitude Goeth he not forward to a greaâ—… mysterie Saith he not for this cause the man which is Christ shall forsake Father and mother and shall cleaue to his own wife which is the Church and they shal be two in one flesh Eue was taken out of Adam and was flesh of his flesh but as the spirit of God and not Adam wrought that birth so yâ— vnion of baptism is wrought rather by the spirit of Christ then by his flesh Albeit his 〈◊〉 flesh is yâ— material patern according to which God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flesh in baptism euen as Adam was yâ— material patern according to which God formed Eue. But Eue was borne beside the customable course of nature to betoken that the Church should be born of the vertue of Christes flesh not by company of two sexes but by the working of God without the natural seede of man But when Adam knew his wife carnally then the flesh taken before out of him by God was not only ioyned again to his flesh by God but also by the actuall cooperation of Adam him self â–ª theÌ„ two were made not only out of one flesh which was the miraculouse work of God in forming Eue out of Adam but also two diuerse persons already made by God are by natural coÌ„iunction of both theyr bodies made really one flesh euen as man and wife when they beget children are not now two as Christ him selfe testifieth but one flesh This is a great mysterie I meane sayth S. Paule that it is great in Christ and the Church For when the faithfull members who were incorporated to Christ in baptisme by the vertue of his flesh really absent in substance but presente in efficacy when those members come againe to Christ in the sacrameÌ„t of his last supper they then find not his flesh absent in substance as before but two that is to say Christ and his spouse the Church are in dede one flesh they are in deede soyned together in truth of substance on eche part Christ by his power and vertue prepared our flesh in baptism and by cleausing it there he made it a mete spouse to receaue his naturall flesh in his own real substance But in the supper we are not only of him but we are him selfe For we two are one flesh for the tyme that the coniunction dureth for as the man and wife be not always ioyned in the act of begetting children no more is yâ— real flesh of Christ always ioyned in his own substaÌ„ce with our flesh albeit his spirit and the vertue of his flesh tarie stil with vs and make vs tarie in him but when we come to the Sacrament whereof he said take eate this is my body then we really haue yâ— substance of Christes flesh in our mouthes and bodie In mariage there are diuerse degrees of coupling the first is by words of promise for mariage to ensew The second is by words of present bargayning the third is when the man wife deliuer theyr bodies eche to other for begetting of children Christ was made one with his Church in the way of spousage from the beginning when he promised that the sede of yâ— woman should tread downe the serpents head The which promise the Patriarches beleuing were euen then ioyned by faith aud loue vnto God The signe whereof Abraham and his sede caried in theyr flesh and it was renewed to Dauid and denouÌ„ced by many Prophetes as by the lawfull proctours of God At the length Christ by taking fleshe came to the house of his spouse to see whether she would goe forward in mariage or no. And although the vnfaithfull Jewes forgetting the couenants of spousage plaied the harlots parte with Christe whereof he greuously complaineth in his Prophets yet Christ keping his promise went forward in mariage with them who would receaue him Who consenting to his conditions by the aunswere of a good coÌ„science in baptisme were by present words made surâ—… vnto him for euer renouncing all other â—…orain husbands aâ—…ter which consent eche part hath right vpon the others body newe may the party baptized call for the Sacrament of Christes body if he be of the yeres of discretion And likewise him 〈◊〉 is on the other syde boâ—…nd to obey the
that he had not one chappell reserued to him in all the world where idolatry was not outwardly committed And how committed by pretence of his owne Gospell of his owne word of his own dede It was Christ that sayd This is my body It was he that sayd Ye beleue in God beleue also in me I and my Father are one thing or substance If it be so wee must worship him as wee adore his Father And his body is vnited to his diuine persone Yea say you but it is not his body but bread still appointed to figure his body Well Syr he sayd it is his body and all the Church hath so far beleued him that all Christians haue worshipped it for euer as being his true body That faith of theirs ioyned with those words of Christ proue to me that it is his body and therefore no idol Moreouer I thinke my self bound to beleue the Prophetes who sayd Christ should destroy y◠idols of the earth which literally is by S. Athanasius S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine and by many others expounded of externall idolatry whereby men fell doune geuing Godly honour to creatures Such a worshipping after the iucarnation of Christ is decayed in the whole world euen among infidels much more it ought to be decayed among the faithfull And yet if our idolatrie be any it is externall What say wee then Is there now a days no idolatry in Christendome Are there no false Gods worshipped yes doubtlesse to many But idolatry partly is outward partly is inward The outward idolatry is decayed by the outward and visible coming of Christ into the world The inward is decayed by the faith and charitie of good people But because not al that be outward Christians be the true seruantes of God therefore they still worship idols in their hartes They adore mony for the desier where of they sel benifices and cure of soules without feare and are content to robbe euen Churches and monasteries although they thinke wel inough both of Priests and Monkes as they vse to say These inward idols bee not taken away but where Christ is inwardly professed And for asmuch as likewise y◠outward idols be taken away where Christ is outwardly professed it can not be that those who beare the name of Catholikes and Christiās should adore by common consent any outward idoll Is there then no outward idol at all Noue surely made with the hands of men among Christians But yet there lack not inuisible idols made by the wit of men whereof S. Cyprian speaketh in this wise Christi aduentu detectus ac prostratus inimicus videns idola derelicta caet The enemy detected and throwen doune by the coming of Christ seing the idols forsaken and his seates and Temples left voide through the great multitude of beleuers deuised a new guile that vnder the very title of Christes name he may deceaue the vnwary He hath found heresies and schismes whereby he might ouerthrow faith corrupt truth and cutte of vnitie Lo the heresies and the schismes are the idols that be inuented since y◠coming of Christ. If you wil knowe a true marke of an idolatour note him y◠diuideth vnitie that maketh parts that goeth from agreement Fifty yeres past there was but one body of the whole West Church All worshipped one God one Christ one body and one blood of his Al were vnder one shepherd the Bishop of Rome Al spake one tong in publike seruice of the West Church all kept one faith acknowledged one truth Luther arose and sayd The Pope was not our head Straight vnitie was diuided For one withdrew him self from the rest Ergo Luther was the first idolatour Anon after he had fellows a pretie flock of idolatours very visibly seen and knowen to dwel at Wittenberge Within fower yeres zuinglius diuided him self not now from y◠Pope but euen from Luther and made two idols of one After which tyme y◠idols haue bene multiplied to the number of aboue three score that canbe named in Germany as it may appeare in Fridericus Staphylus And as for the Sacramentaries in England although they haue receaued into the number of their Gods y◠chief idols both Auther and zuingli◅s yet they worship the idoll of Taluine aboue them both For as S. Hierome saith Sicut idola fiunt manu artificis ita Haereticorum peruersa doctrina quodcunque simulauerit vertit in idolum facit pro Christo adorari Antichristum As idols be made with y◠hand of the craftsmā so what so euer the ouerthwart doctrine of Heretikes cloketh it turneth it into an idol and causeth Antichriste to be adored in stede of Christe As for example Martin Luther or Iohn Caluine being fully determined to breake of from the reste of the Church syt a deuising sith they are at a point not to teache the olde doctrine what new doctrine they may teache Then hath the Deuill power vpon them for so much as they are finaly agr◅ed not to be subiect to any master or preacher in the whole Church of God no though it were a whole generall Councell gathered out of all the men in y◠earth For that intolerable arrogancy the Deuill may rule them as he list therefore sendeth some wicked opinion into theire mindes such as he hath plenty of They a litle while pondering it perhappes i◅dge it impossible to be admitted of men as Luther iudged of the deniall of the reall presence wherein he laboured a certaine time and in that case the Deuill inspireth a newe deuise But when they are once agreed vpon that they will goe foreward withall they haue a strong imaginacion how certeine that opinion is and with an excessiue pride acknowlege them selues the Prophetes of God and imagine what glory they shall come vnto among fooles and mad men Albeit they must take them for no fooles who soeuer wil forsake the faith approued fiftene hundred yeres together and folow the new blast of theire trompet But are they trow ye no fooles because they think them selues none Thus when they haue gotten a sufficient schole and audiēce they publish their doctrine vnder y◠name of Gods worde and so er◅ct a phantasticall idoll But to say that the blessed Sacrament of Christe is an idoll semeth necessarily to imploy that Christe iustituted an idoll which to thinke it were no small idolatry For he and noman els made or published this Sacrament to thend idolatry should cease whiles wee did only adore that body and blood which is vnited to the Godhead in one person But yet if our Fathers did and wee do worshippe wheaten bread and wine our idolatry were more grosse not only then that of the heretikes but also then y◠of the Gentils But that is vtterly against the worde of God therefore wee do not worship any creature at all as
it yet the godhed remayned corporally dwelt in it and the soule returned to it agayne the third day Therefore when Christ saith This is my body which is geuen for you I am bound to beleue that his body is neither without soule nor godhead for ells it were not truly said it is geuen for vs yf it were not profitable to vs. Thus you se that I beleue al that words of Christ together and that you not doing so are without ye do repeut certeine to be condemned for not beleuing these words take eate This is my body You wyll say ye beleue these words yet not carnally but spiritually as it is mete for Christes wordes to be beleued O syr he that assigneth a meane howe he will beleue Christes wordes in that very faut sheweth hym selfe not to beleue them for belefe inuenteth nothing of his owne but followeth the autoritie of God that speaketh I beleue in deed that Christes words can not be carnal as you take carnal words for foule and grosse meaninges But I see it to be a very cleane and pure meaning that the moste pure substance of the flesh of Christ should he geuen vnder the form of bread to thend it may be eaten of vs and the chiefe and cleanest thing that we vse to eate is bread To geue therefore the chiefe and most healthfull flesh in the world to be eaten vnder the form of the purest eatable thing is a very pure and cleane work far from all carnality You will say it is more pure if it be rather beleued to be eaten only of yâ— harte of man by faith spirit then by mouth and body I answere that is no pure eating of a corporall thing which taketh away the truth of corporall eating Againe both ways of eating are better then one of them alone I beleue his real flesh to be eaten with hart and mouth to be eaten with body minde to be eaten in deede and in faith Here faileth your belefe because of two true thinges you beleue but one the other you discredit To be short let vs imagine him that beleueth the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to stand before the seate of Christes iudgement and that Christe asketh him why he did beleue and worship his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine May he not wel answere in this wise I beleued so and did so because your maiestie taking bread and hauing blessed douted not so say This is my body which words al my forefathers vnderstode to be spoken properly and to be true as they sounded therefore at the commandement of my prelats I adored your body vnder the form of bread If Christ reply that he had preachers who tought him otherwise and cryed to him to beware least he committed idolatrie first that obiectiâ—… might not be made to any man that died aboue fiftie yeres past because no preacher taught publikely any such doctrine Secondly if so much were said to one of our time he might answere that he had 〈◊〉 forefathers and moe preachers and those much more anncient and more honest men who required him to beleue Christes wordes and to worship the body of his maker Well now we are come to the point all the Catholikes haue preaâ—…hed with one accorde that it is the true body of Christ and the Gospell witnesseth that Christ 〈◊〉 This is my body Here is the word of God and the tradition and preaching of man ioyned together I aske whether it be possible for Christ who requireth nothing so earnestly of vs as briefâ—… to 〈◊〉 that simple man who being otherwise of good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his word and his forefaâ—… and the preachers agreable with both or not Answere me for what fault shall this poore man be condemned First to beleue Christ it is no fault Secondly Christ faid this is my body Thirdly he being yet an infant was of his parentes taught that to be the body of Christ which was holden ouer the Priests head Fourthly as many and moe preache vnto him when he cometh to laufull age and say this is the body of Christ as there are that aâ—…terward preache the contrary Tell me then what was his fault for which he may be coÌ„demned If you say his eyes told him it was not yâ— body of Christ he will answere that for the reuerence he bare to the word of God he denied the fensible instruction of his eyes as geuing more credit to Christ then to him selfe Is that a fault If you reply that by that meaâ—…es he might haue worshipped the roâ—… in steâ—…de of Christ he wil answere he knoweth not what you meane he neuer had any rok shewed him by most graue authority which was said to be Christ. If any suche thing had bene taught him he for his parte was so obedient to beleue so willing to adore Christ that he would haue done any thing which had bene commanded to him vnder the name of Christ or of his religion Is this a fault why the poore man should be condemned No surely seing the Prophet Dauid saieth Vt iumentum factus sum apud te I am become as it were a beast before thee It is â—…andable saith Euthymius that in the sight of God we take our selues as beastes which being so I can deuise no fault in this poore and simple man who if he be deceaued he is deceaued by Christ by his forefathers by diuerse Catholike and vertuous Preachers by yâ— vertue of humility of obedience of pure loue towards God But on the other side if Christ call one of them before him who denieth his reall presence aske him why he did not beleue the Sacrament of the altar to be the body of Christe what will he answer for himselfe â–ª Will he say Syr I beleâ—…ed your body to sit at the right hand of God the Father and therefore that your body was not in the Priestes hand Why then thinkest thou that I am not able to make the same which is at the right hand of my father to be alsâ—… present vnder the form of bread Sir whether you be able or no I can not say but I haue hard many preachers tel that one body caÌ„ not be at one time in diuerse places O howe dreadfully would Christ answere in this case Did not those preachers whom thou preteÌ„dest to folow say alwaies they preached to thee the sincere word of God Did they not by that colour ouerthrow monasteries Churches altars images of Saintes and mine owne image and crosâ—…e Did they not denie the sacrifice of the Masse praing for the dead and such like auncient vsages only for pretence of the word of God And now see how inexcusable they thou art I said Take eate this is my body I said this to twelue men I gaue eche of them my body â—…ad
the relatiue quod in latine in english whiche doth so restraine the noune corpus body vnto that only meaning wherein it is said the true body is geuen for vs that no scape may be had beside infidelitie and heresy whereof I haue spoken at large in my fourth booke the 6. chapiter the 18. circumstance If now this which is pointed vnto be the reall natural and s◅bstantial body of Christ which died for vs seing this that he pointeth vnto is meant of the Sacrament Christ meant that in this Sacramēt his body is really naturally substantially present And therefore M. Iuel must subscribe Iuel Christ was the rocke but yet not reallie Sander First these wordes were not spoken of S. Paule with the intent to make any Sacrament or anie other thing 2. Two diuerse natures are named in them which can neuer be one i◅ substāce but only in qualitie or in similitude but this is my body nameth one substance only and signifieth it alone really present 3. It was not anie one certeine rocke in number whereof S. Paule spake for the water flowed out of two rocks in two diuerse partes of the wildernes Either of which did signifie Christ and they bothe are only one rock in meaning and in the substāce figured 4. Therefore S. Pa◅le meant only by the name of the rock the spiritual rock which in substance was Christ him selfe They dranke saith he of the spirituall rock But this is my body is spoken of a real truth made present at Christes supper and shewed outwardly aparte from Christes own visible body 5. He saied not this rocke pointing to it but the rocke 6. Not is Christ but was Christ. 7. Such effectua words folowed not to shew that any real rocke was meant as these words are which is geuen for you whiche folow and expound the other wordes This is my body Iuel D. Harding must seek helpe of 16 or moe sundrie figures not knowen to the old Fathers Sander 1. You seeke one figure for all which taketh away the substance of Christes supper frome his externall table frome his hand from his word and from the Apostles bodies 2. D. Hardings figures be to defend Christes words yours to destroy thē 3. It is not true that he is constreined to seeke either sixten or sixe figures as it shal appere in due place Iuel the old Fathers thought it no heresie to expound Christes words by a figure Sander They thought it here◅ie to expound these words This is my body by a rhetorical or grāmatical figure as by Synecdoche or Metonymia or anie other which may exclude the substanciall presence of the thing figured Iuel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his body and blood Sander He did so 1. but he gaue such a figure of his own body which is also the substance of his body as him selfe being a figure of his Fathers substance is also the selfe same substance with his Father 2. He gaue a true and not a false signe And yet it were false if this which he pointeth to and affirmeth to be his body were not in dede his body seing the words signifie so much as I haue declared in my second booke xij chapter 3. He gaue a miraculouse not a common figure in the secōd booke xiij chapter 4. A diuine not a rethorical figure in the secōd booke xiiij chapter 5. A mystical not an artificial or natural figure in y◠fifth booke sixtenth chapter 6. He gaue at his supper a figure of the new and not of y◠old testament that is to yas a figure which hath the truth in it and not of that kind whiche only both betoken the truth absent from it which thing S. Augustine declareth most euidētly saying The old Fathers did celebrate the figure of the thing to come when as yet the true sacrifice which the faithfull know was foretolde in figures these sacrifices being as wordes that promise a thing are taken away Quid est quod datum est completiuum What is it which is geuen as accomplishing or performing the old figuratiue sacrifices which promised a true sacrifice S. Augustine answereth Corpus quod nostis quod vtinam non ad iuditium noueritis The body which ye know is the accomplishmēt of the old figures the which body I would ye might not know to your damnation And again exhibita est veritas promissa the promised truth is presently brought foorth In this body we are of this body we are partakers we know what we receaue Here S. Augustine manifestly calleth the body whiche we receaue in the Sacrament the very truth promised which accomplished the the old figures 7. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure You bring this autoritie to proue that Christes words be expounded by a figure as though S. Augustine thought the speach to be figuratiue For so your word expounded by a sigure must import but this authoritie proueth not your intent For S. Augustine speaketh of Christes deede and not of his words 8. The names of body and blood as they are vsually taken of men doe signifie such a visible a corruptible and mortall nature as al we haue which thing S. Augustine wel knowing and of all men most depely po◅dering the same in so much that he was afeard least childern wold thinke that Christ had walked none otherwise vpon the earth then in the shape of bread for that respect he always teacheth that the body of Christ in the Sacramēt is the signe and figure of Christes visible body After suche sorte S. Paule speaketh of Christes fleshe saying Although we haue knowen Christ according to the flesh yet we know him not In which words he meaneth not that Christ now lacketh his flesh but that he now is no more visibly seen in his former mortall shape 9. Your abusing of S. Augustine in this behalfe if it come of ignorāce ye are not worthy to be a preacher as who vnderstand not your booke if it come of malice you are not worthy to be a man as who delighteth in leading soules to damnation Iuel Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of mie bodie Sander He meaneth so as I sayd before S. Augustine did meane which solution might serue all this whole article of the real presence but the truth is so wel armed that euery word you bring may be turned vppon your owne head Tertullian doth witnesse that the Marcionites brought forth a place of S. Paule where it was writen of Christes manhood accepta effigie serui non veritate the shape of a seruant being taken not the truth said the Marcionite in similitudine hominis non in homine and in the likenes of a man not a man figura inuentus homo non substantia id est non carne
Augustine when he sayeth He will not geue his body in that maner as you thinke As who should say he will geue it one way but not that way as you Capharnaites imagine He will not geue a shoulder to one and a leg to an other But the supper sheweth the maner of the geuing Where bread was taken and after blessing and the words pronounced Christes body was geuen to the mouthes of the Apostles Iuel This is the table for Egles and not for Iayes sayth Chrysostom San. I haue answered your iangling talk of Iayes in my iâ—… booke the. xxviâ—… Chapiter And haue turâ—…ed it vppon your own head Iuel S. 〈◊〉 let vs goe vp with the Lord into heauen into that greatparlar and receaue of him aboue the cup of the new â—…estament â–ª San. Certein men had imagined that Christ should reign corporally in earth a thousand yeres together drinke a new kind of wine who grounded their heresie vpon these words of Christ I say vnto you I will not drinke from hencefoorth of this frute of the vine vntill the day when I will drink it new with you in the Kingdome of my Father S. Hierom calling that 〈◊〉 Iudaicas fabulas Iewish tales therwith declareth what kind of wine we must drink in the Kingdome of God which is the Church saying Si ergo panis qui de coelo caet If then the bread which came down from heauen be the body of our Lord and the wine which he gaue to the Disciples be his blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of synnes let vs repell Iewish fables let vs ascend with our Lord vnto yâ— great parlar spread and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cup of the new Testament Hitherto S. Hierom. whose authâ—… ritie M. Iuel hath abused diuerse ways First you adde to S. Hierom these two words into heauen without cause For it folowed in S. Hierom whither we should ascend coenaculum magnum vnto the great parlar there to take of Christ the blooâ—… of the new Testament aboue that is to say not in the stalenes of the letter but in the newnes of the spirit as it foloweth afterward And yet againe more plainly in regno Ecclesiae in the Kingdome of the Church And last of all Impleamus opus eius Christus nobiscum bibet in regno Ecclesiae sanguinem suum Let vs fulfill his work and Christ will drinke with vs in the Kingdome of the Church his blood Thus it is plaiue that S. Hierome spake not of going into heauen by faith to drink the cup of the new Testament but oâ—… going vp into the great parlar which is the Church and Kingdome of God S. Hierom alluded to the Historie of Christes last supper which was kept in a parlar spread and strawed as it is thought in the mount Syon Let vs goe thither sayth S. Hierom there let vs receane the new wine whereof Christ spake S. Chrysostom also alluded to the same parlar saying yâ— Christ maketh this supper which now his Priests doe consecrate as well as he made that wherein he deliuered his owne banket Hoc est illud coenaculum caet This is that parlar wherein Christ was then with his Disciples Hence he went to yâ— mount of Oliues â–ª which sith it is so it was very euill done of M. Iuel to diuide the verb from his accusatiue case and to put an other â—…oun betwene against all reason grammar and honestie S. Hierom sayd ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum 〈◊〉 vs goe vp with our Lord to the parlar M. Iuel putteth the noun in coelum into heauen betwene As if when a man sayd let vs goe vp to the chamber he wold put an other word beâ—… and say let vs goe vp into the sliple into that chamber For after he had conueyed into S. Hierom his words into heâ—… uen he secondly turned coenaculum that parlar where is that in S. Hierom M. Iuel That was of your putting in to make vs beleue that heauen is the parlar whereof S. Hierom spake Thirdly M. Iuel left out these â–ª words which went immediatly before and shew in what respect S. Hierom spake of going vp Iudaicas fabulas repellamus Let vs put away Iewish fables and so let vs goc vp with our Lord to the great parlar by keping that which Christ instituted and by leauing other fables Fourthly whereas in the same very question it foloweth that not Moyses but our Lord Iesus gaue vs the true bread himself eating and being he that is eaten How can M. Iuel find in his hart to allege this place of S. Hierom against the reall presence For how is our bread more true then the bread of Moyses if at Christes supper we must goe vp into heauen to eate it Might not Moyses eating Manna doe the same How is Christ the maker of the feast and the meate it selfe if common bread be eaten and not his flesh Is common bread the maker of the feast If not the maker of the seast neither is it the meate for al is one saith S. Hierom. Iuel Cyrillus saith our Sacrament anoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the minds of the vnfaithfull in vngodly maner to grosse or flesh cogitations Sand. A man would scant beleue how wickedly this place is abused First these are not the words of S. Cyrill â–ª next he neuer meaÌ„t not so much as by dreame any such thing as M. Iuel doth father vppon him His own words are spoken vpon such occasion Nestorius the Heretike sayd that Christ had two persons and that his â—…hod was not â—…nited 〈◊〉 one person to the sonne of God Against whom S. Cyrill saith in that place proprium â—…orpus dicimus factum esse verbi non hominis alicuius seorsum separatim we say the body of Christ to be made proper of the word that is to say to be the words own body and not to be the body of any man apart or separated Nestorius replied out of Christes words He that eateth my flesh tarieth in me what eate we sayd the heretike the Godhead or the flesh meaning therby to conclude that seing the Godhead can not be eaten with our mouth yet the flesh was really eaten that there was one person of the Godhead an other of the flesh Cyrillus answereth Doest thou then affirm that there is an other sonne and Christ besyde the word coming from God the which hath appered to whoÌ„ alone the matter of Apostleship may be coÌ„mitted Now follow yâ— words corrupted by M. Iuel Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc sacramentuÌ„ pronuncias doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man M. Iuel turneth these words as though S. Cyrillus had set foorth a doctrine of his own without any respect to the heresie of Nestorius but the
so that the substance of flesh and blood shal be excluded by all meanes And as for the qualitie of Christes fleshe he wil haue it corporally in our bodies without any substance thereof wherein that qualitie may rest which his opinion is against all the course of nature Agayn when S. Hilarie saith that Christ tarieth naturally in vs what qualitie wil M. Iuel assigne to that aduerb shal he tary in vs in the maner of a natural tarying and yet shal not his true nature be in vs let vs go a litle farther S. Hilary saith Christus natualiter secundum spiritum in se patrem habet Christ hath the father in him according to yâ— spirit naturally How wil M. Iuel expound the worde naturally whether that Câ—…riste hath a qualitie of his fathers nature in him not the whole true substaÌ„ce Last of al S. Hilarie expoundeth his owne wordes euen as D. Harding hath done For as he saith in one place Ipso in nobis naturalitr permanente he tarying in vs naturally so he saieth in an other place a litle before Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem Therefore he is in vs him selfe by flesh Aâ—…d again Naturaliter secundum carnem per eum viuimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti We liue by him according to the flesh naturally that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh Consider good Reader that naturaliter viuere to liue naturally is by S. Hilarie thus resolued to liue by hauing the nature And to liâ—…e naturally according to the flesh is to liue by hauing yâ— nature of Christes flesh Who is now the more ignorant in grammar D. Harding or M. Iuel And yet M. Iuel in that childish eloquence of his triumpheth vpon D. Harding saith childern are taught these things Iu. God regardeth not the doing of any thing but the manner of doing But M. Harding will ouerloke the grammar rules San. That rule is to be vnderstande in matters belonging to manners But now we dispute of substances and not of doings We say Christes body is in our bodies naturally this truth is to be discussed and not any morall action of ours Iuel Our childern must lerne a new grammar for thâ—…se mens pleasure otherwise these mens dâ—…initie can not stand San. Priestes childern may 〈◊〉 a new grammar but as the old faith so the old grammar wil â—…erue other mens childen It is verily a verie new graÌ„â—…r to say that aduerbes taken of nounes neuer signifie the substance Good Scholmasters wil not admâ—…e such rules Iu. Haue these old Fathers nor names nor wordes San. As though you knowe that they folowe hereafter when you are come to them you wil be quickly werie of them ¶ Of the first Author of the Sacramentarie heâ—…sie HArding Berengarius first began openly to shevv the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes body in the Sacrament Iu. Before M. Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Harding The Messalians opinion VVas the Sacrament of the altar did nor good nor euil And therein they VVere the first parents of the Sacramentarie heresie San. That which the Messalians did begin priuily by generall disgracing the Sacrament Berengarius began openly by denying this speciall vertue thereof which is the real presence and so there is no contradiction at all and you are founde but a cauiller Iu. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteinâ—…d the same doctrin before Berengarius Sander If these men did barke in priuie corners at anie ceremonie which thing yet is not euident to vs but if it were so yet thâ—…y mainteined it not For then they had bene condemned of heresy But if that also were true you haue gained litle more theÌ„ two huÌ„dred yeres and those but by surmise without knowledge thereof left in any good historie And what is that to 〈◊〉 hundred yeres of continuall practise and open doctrine suche as we Catholiks haue had Iuel For farther declaration hereof it shal be necessary to open Berengarius iudgement San. Nay Sir it is enough to vs that you are at a stay can bring your faith no higher then to Ihon Scote and Bertram If your faith began priuily almost eight hundred yeres after Christ shall we here the declaration thereof if that may be permitted the heresy of the Arrians may be heard againe who was before Bertram Iuel Thus Berengarius wrote San. I care not what he wrote sith he recaÌ„ted yâ— same The 〈◊〉 wil standeth in his force and no wise man knowing that he repeuted his follie will afterward allege his authoritie for that which he recalled Iuel But his iudgement is confirmed by the Fathers San. It is not possible that the Fathers should confirme his iudgement who impugned their vniuersall tradition in so muche that he him selfe 〈◊〉 his own iudgement For seing he recanted his whole opinioÌ„ he recanted also that verie errour which he had coÌ„ceiued as by pretense of yâ— fathers words What a madâ—…es is it for you to allege any of both in his name for he in his recanting hath answered his own authorities alleged before out of the Fathers Iuel Let vs see the confutation hereof San. Seing Berengarius is the coÌ„futour his own true word is enough to vndoe as muche as his word had falsely stablished before Iuel Berengarius was forced to recant in this wise San. Force is not done to the free 〈◊〉 of man Iuel I beleue that the bodie of our Lorde Iesus Christ sensibly and in very dede is touched with the hand of the Priest brokeÌ„ and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull San. You haue englished the wordes very spitefully you haue added rent of your owne head and atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to be wasted which may be done without grinding You are so accustomed to falsify things yâ— no mans wordes may escape your poison Iuel The very glose saith vnlesse you warily vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fal into a greater heresy then euer he heald any San. The glosse warneth vs that all the touching breaking and wasting or coÌ„suming is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine the which thing if you had not left out you had alleged some one glosse without falsifying the same Iu. These Fathers redresse the lesse errour by the greater San. The cause whie Berengarius recanted by those wordes rather theÌ„ by anie other were two the one for yâ— he had taught in the tyme of his errour the body of Christ not to be before our eyes Against whiche words he now saith it is sensiblie handled The secoÌ„d was for that the body being vnder the form of bread and touched by the Priestes hands and broken by reason of the same form is thereby shewed most really present to witnesse the whiche reall presence S. Chrysostame had
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
bone but not thereby really dwelling in our bodies which belong to our persons Iuel In that sense S. Ihon saith the word was made flesh and dwelt in vs. San. In what sense Whether that Christes bodie by his natiuitie dwelleth substantially in our bodies for so you said but S. Ihon said not so God gaue men power to be made the sonnes of God to such as beleue in his name to such as are borne of God and when S. Iohn had said we had power to be the sonnes of God if we were borne of God he consirmeth that power geuen to vs saying And yâ— word is made flesh hath dwelt 〈◊〉 vs. Therfore saith S. ChrysostoÌ„ he hath dwelt in vs that it might be lauful to come to him selfe to speake to be câ—…uersant boldly with him He was not in our bodies really straight vppon the incarnation but when he dwelt 〈◊〉 our nature wheÌ„ he was a trúe man as we are then might we come to him Priusipsu verbum voluit nasci ex homine vt tu securius nascereris ex deo The word wold first be born of a woman to thâ—…d 〈◊〉 mightest be born of God without feare Iuel Therefore Christ calleth himself the vine and vs the braunches San. It is vntruly sayd 〈◊〉 Iuel For albeit Christ by his humane birth be as it were the 〈◊〉 of the vine for his owne part yet he is not to vs the vine nor we be not the braunches 〈◊〉 we are graffed into Christ which is don by saith and Baptism S. Augustine saith he is made maÌ„ that the nature of man should be a vine in him whereof we that are men might be also the braunches If his only birth had made vs braunches what neded a new birth in Baptism When S. â—…yrill wold shew that Christ according to his humane nature was the vine which thing the Arrians denied he went not for the matter to Christes birth only for then Iudas and â—…ain had bene braunches but he went to the Sacrament of Christes supper to proue that we depend of Christes flesh as braunches doe of the vine Iuel S. Paul calleth Christ the head and vs the body San. S. Paule speaketh of Christes mysticall body and you should proue that his natural body is really in our bodies Now if to make his body to dwell really in our bodies more then his birth be necessary it is not true that M. Iuel with such vain brags hath hitherto sayd that his body by â—…is natiuity dwelleth really or substancially or naturally in our bodies But only that he dwelleth in vs to wit in our nature being made Emanuell nobiscum Deus God with men But thereby Christ dwelleth but in one body really to wit in that which he made to himself out of the virgins most pure blood Wherefore S. Cyrillus saith Habitauit in nobis Dei verbum in templo vno quod propter nos de nobis sibi condidit vt omnes in seipso habeÌ„s in vno corpore patri reconciliaret The word of God hath dwelt in vs or among vs in one teÌ„ple yâ— which he made to himself for our sakes and out of vs that hauing al in himself he might reconcile them to the Fathâ—… in one body One thing M. Iuel I must put you in mind of You 〈◊〉 that Christes body may not be in many places at once which doutlesse you meane of his naturall body and his body is by no meanes more natural then by the natiuity thereof But you say now that Christes body by his natiuity dwelleth really substan cially and fleshly in our bodies and certeinly our bodies dwell in many places therefore you are against your own doctrine as who confesse Christes body by his natiuity to dwell naturally in all our bodies which are not only in many places of yâ— earth but a great number also are vnder the earth in al which Christes body according to your doctrine must dwell corporally and therefore it must be in many places together ¶ Whether Christes body dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. IVel. Towching faith S. Paul saith Christ by faith dwelleth in our harts San. The word hart in holy scripture doth not alwayes signifie that fleshly part of a mans body commonly so called but S. Paule meaneth that Christ dwelleth in our minds and wills by faith and charitie which is made very plaine by the words going before secundum interiorem hominem according to the inner man Therefore no dwelling of Christes body really or substancially in our bodies is proued by this place of S. Paule except we shall say that Christ hath no real and substanciall body of his own For if is be a reall substance what meaneth M. Iuel to affirm it dwelleth really and substancially where the real substance thereof it not if it be a reall dwelling of Christes body in our bodies in that we beleue in Christ and yet Christ haue but one reall and substanciall body by M. Iuels phrase of speache that body may be sayd to haue dwelt really in yâ— virgins â—…omb in that she only beleued in Christ. and by such worthy interpretation the truthe of the incarnation is vtterly taken away Iuel S. Peter saith Hereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature San. Those wordes generally pertein to all the giftes of God and specially to yâ— incarnation of Christ whereby we communicate most perfitly if yet we be faithsull with the nature of God For when we beleue in Christe who is man with vs and God with his Father then wee communicating with his manhood coÌ„municate also with the Godhead whiche dwelleth corporally in Christ. But that coÌ„municating may be made either by faith or baptism and other Sacraments And as the Godhead dwelâ—…eth incomparably more excellently in Christes own body â—…then it doth in any other thing which dependeth thereof so the vnion with his nature is made far better by the meane of the Eucharist with faith and Baptism ioyned together then by one or two of them alone And that this place of S. Peter doth pertein to the communicating of Christes flesh in the Sacrament also Cyrillus of â—…ierusalem doth witnesse writing thus Under the forme of bread the body is geuen and vnder the forme of wine the blood is geuen c. And so we shal be made partakers of the diuine nature as S. Peter sayth Now M. Iuel hath most improperly placed this Testimonie in the second kind of Christes dwelling in vs sith it apperteyneth to all foure ways generally but most especially to that coÌ„munion or ioyning which is made by the holy Eucharist Iuel So sayth Ignatius By his passion and resurrection that is by our faith in the same we are made the members of his body San. S. Ignatius in two places oâ—… that Epistle speaketh of such a matter as M. Iuel wold
in which word yâ— greatest weight of his iudgeâ—…ent resteth For he intendeth not to denie but that the sacraments of the new lawe conteine and geue grace but he saith Thei conteine it not essâ—…ntially as a veâ—…el coÌ„teineth water or as a box holdeth a medicine Whiche notwithstanding he sheweth two other waies how thei conteine grace But I pray you to what end allege you Bonauenture if not to disproue yâ— reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacramente For say you though Christes bodie were in our bodies really it woulde not therefore be concluded that it is really in the Sacrament how is tâ—…at proued forsoth by S. Bonauenture did he then say that Christes bodie though it be really in vs yet it is not râ—…allie in the Sacrament Did he meane any such thinge You shall nowe heare his own words in the same verie place concerâ—…ing the con ference of the Eucharist with other Sacramentes In illo Sacramento est transubstantiatio Vnde illud quod significatur ibi vera est substantia quam congruit esse per se. In that Sacrament there is 〈◊〉 whereby that thing which is signified there is a true substance which substance is fit to be by it self ¶ That Christes body is proued to be really in the Sacrament by S. Chrysostoms words HArding By this Sacrament sayth Chrysostom Christ reduceth vs as it vvere into one lumpe vvith himself And that not by faith only but he maketh vs his ovvn body in very dede Re ipsa VVhich is no other to say then really Iuel This place wold haue stand M. Harding in better stede if Chrysostom had said Christ mingleth his body with the Sacrament and driueth himself and it into one lumpe San. If the Sacâ—…ament of Christes supper were a thing so distinct from Christes body as Christes body is distinct from vs S. Chrysostom might haue sayd perhaps that Christ mingleth himself with the Sacrament But now it is a great ignorance that M. Iuel marketh not the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper to be of it self the reall body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore to say Christ is mingled with the Sacrament were to say that Christ is mingled with him self S. Chrysostom was wiser then to say so but speaking of the Sacrament he sayth that Christ mingleth himself really with vs who worthely receaue that Sacrament Iuel Neither will M. Harding say that Christ mingleth himself with vs simplie and without figure Whereof it foloweth that much lesse it is so in the Sacrament San. This is a fine kind of Rhetorick to make D. Harding beleue he will not say that which he doth say He meaneth that Christes own reall body is ioyned to our bodies and that simplie concerning the substance thereof and without any figure of Rhetorike or of grammar but not without a mystical figure because it is geuen vnder the formes of breade and wine The whereof that you inferre vppon your false surmise is â—…louse vnsensible and fond Iuel It is a vehement and a hot kind of speache such as Chrysostom was most delighted with San. To speake without sporting it is so hot that if you amend not your opinion it may help to promote you to the 〈◊〉 of hell but to good faithful men it is a mild and calme saying Iuel It is a speache farre passing the coÌ„mon sense and course of truth San. I thought you wold bring it to a phrase or figure of speache But he 〈◊〉 it for a truth as we shal see anon Iuel Himself thought it necessarie to correct and qualifie the rigour of the same speache by these words vt ita dicam which is 〈◊〉 it were or if I may be bold so to say San. You stand altogether vppon phrases and 〈◊〉 but S. Chrysostom meant not to correct or qualifie the doctrine which he taught concerning Christes reall ioyning with vs. But only he shewed himself in teaching it to 〈◊〉 or rather to allude to a similitude and Metaphore at the vse whereof he stayed somwhat As if he had sayd at large euen as many graines of corne are by the baker brought into one lumpe of dough right so Christ and they that doe communicate are made all one with Christ and 〈◊〉 with him in this Sacrament Now because this similitude is not set foorth at large but briefly alluded vnto therefore S. Chrysostom saith vt ita dicaÌ„ that I may so say to wit that I may at this time vse this allusion and this briefsimilitude So that the correction is referred only to the word Massa which is a lump of dough or of any like thing and not to the correction of the doctrine whiche is mainteined both by S. Chrysostom and others without any correction or qualifiyng He writeth vpon S. Ihon that Christ sayd he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me to shew cum ipso se admisceri That himself is mingled with him Again he sayeth It is brought to passe by the meate which he hath geuen vs that we should be turned into that flesh not only by loue but by the thing it self Again Cum suum caet WheÌ„ Christ wold shew his loue toward vs he mingled himself with vs through his body And he brought himself into one with vs to th' end the body should be vnited with the head Many like words he hath in his sermons to the people of Antioche in the which he neuer vseth the phrase vt ita dicam that I may so say because he vsed not the similitude of the lump of dough wherevnto that correction perteyneth Yea what shall we say if euen in this place S. Chrysostom vse no such qualifying nor say not vt ita dicaÌ„ for albeit the Latine text reade so yet the edition of Parise doth wiâ—…nesse that his Greke words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seipsum miscet nobis he mingleth himself with vs. Where is now M. Iuels discrete phrase Where is his corrâ—…ction His qualifying of the rigour of the speache To be shorte where is his answere Iuel In such phrase Anacletus sayeth the power of the holy Ghost is mingled with the oyle San. Mercifull God whither will not this man runne for phrases He now appeleth to a Pope whose Epistle he estemeth as muche as his shew sole only meaning to make some not of the wisâ—… sort to beleue yâ— he hath answered well when he hath writeÌ„ somewhat although himself beleue not that which he writeth Doe you beleue this very sentence M. Iuel which you allege How say you Is the iâ—…isible power of the holy Ghost mingled with the oyle If you thought so you wold vse holy oile more then you doe One thing I must tell you which I had almost forgotten it is not in Anacletus in oleo in yâ— oile as you name it but sancto Chrismati to the holy Chrism It was not
Baptism only Christ ioyned vs to him selfe then as it were he should put vs foorth to nurse for neither faith nor baptism is Christ him selfe But when he fedeth vs with the reall substance of his own body and with it not only apprehended by faith but receaued by mouth then he fedeth vs by his own self and by him selfe vniteth vs to him selfe To conclude S. Chrysostome saith writing vppon S. Iohn Cum suum c. Christe intending to shew his loue towards 〈◊〉 hath mingled him selfe with vs by his body and hath brought him selfe into one with vs to thend the body should be vnited to the head Here are foure things to be noted First that Christe worketh the vnion Secondly that loue causeth him to worâ—… it Thirdly that the meane whereby he worketh it is affirmed to be his owne body Fourthly that so the body whiche is the Church is vnited to the head who is Christ. In whiche consideration Christ as sitting in the glorie of his father is the worker of the vnion His body as present in the Sacrament is the instrument whereby he worketh Christ as the Sauiour of his body whiche is the Church is the end whereunto the vnion doth bring vs. And herein appereth his loue that he him selfe in his owne substance is the beginning the middle the end of the vnioÌ„ The fondation the wall the top of the spiritual building The carpenter the instrument the dweller in the house of his ownâ—… handy working Now M. Iuel I will geue you certein phrases to pick out whereof you shal neuer be able to rid your handes 1. You proue right well that by faith we are dwelt in of Christ proue now that such dwelling is made by the thing it self and not by faith only â–ª for els Christes dwelling in vs by faith is not so reall a dwelling as that whereof S. Chrysostom speaketh which is not by faith only but by the thing it self to wit by the reall body of Christ. 2. You say in Baptism we are made Christes flesh and so we are made in dede his mystical flesh proue now that we are made also his flesh in baptism per corpus Christi by the body of Christ â–ª for els the vnion of the Sacrament wil be more real because the meane is more reall and more excellent 3. You proue that we are vnited to Christ by faith and Baptism proue now either that we are vnited vnto faith it self and vnto Baptism it self or els the vnion made in this Sacrament will farre passe the ioyning which is made in the other For here we are vnited to the same body wherewith we are fed which we see touche but there we be not vnited to the water wherewith we are washed 4. You say we are made Christ by Baptism but proue now that Christ is there deliuered in sensible things to your hand to your mouth to your tonge so that you may haue him within you as it is done in Christes supper These phrases you must proue to be verified by faith and Baptism if you will haue as reall a ioyning made by faith or by Baptism as is made by the Sacrament of the altar Iuel As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the body of our Lord euen so the bread of idols is the partaking of diuels and if we eate one bread with idolatours we are made one body with them San. You falsifie the words of S. Paule who is not reported by Primasius to saie that the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the bodie of our Lord but the bread which we breake is the partaking of the bodie of our Lord. That which S. Paule spake of the substance of the bread which is the coÌ„municating of our Lords bodie that thing you assigne to the action of breaking And whereas Primasius saith the bread of Idols is also the partaking of diuels as the bread which we break is the partaking of our Lords bodie it sheweth yâ— he toke not yâ— name of bread materiallie for wheateÌ„ bread but for all kind of meare drinck which the Idolatours vsed And therefore he meant likewise yâ— the bread which we breake is no material bread but a kiÌ„d of meate which Christ hath prepared specially for vs. Againe as the Idolatours did offer their meate vnto diuels so much more the Christians did offer theirs vnto god And seiÌ„g the Idolators did in will and consent of mind partake with the diuels to whoÌ„ they offered the Christians did partake with God not only in will mind those I meane that were faithfull but also in body and mouth by receauing the natural flesh of Christ into theire bodies For Christ herein specially had honored his Church to theÌ„d the external sacrifice thereof should be no more any earthli creature but 〈◊〉 his own body blood the only propitiatorie sacrifice for al maÌ„kind ¶ It is proued that S. Hilarie taught the body of Christ to be really in the Sacrament HArding If the vvord be verily made flesh and vve receaue verily the vvord being flesh in our Lords meate hovv is he to be thought not to dvvell in vs naturally vvho both hath taken the nature of our flesh novv inseparable to himself in that he is born man and also hath mingled the nature of his ovvn flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder the Sacrament of his flesh to be receaued of vs in the communion Iuel M. Harding hath not hitherto found that Christes body is naturally or corporally in the Sacrament San. You found such a deuise M. Iuel to call for Fathers for their names and their words before their place was come that a maÌ„ wold haue thought when they were once come you wold haue examined their sayings most diligently But now your first shift is to heape them vp altogether And whereas in matters of lesse weight you did diâ—…ide D. Hardings words into a competent number of lines here you will not answer to the testimonies one by one least your nakednesse appeare but lay them all in one so to hyde your ignorance in answering Your second shift is to intreate of things out of order speaking now of one now of an other confusely But I wil bring your words to their due order as nigh as I can Your third shift is to let goe S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie and to râ—…ne to iâ—…pertinent sayings of S. Augustine of S. Bernard and of Cyrillus which are already answered The fourth shift is to say â—…alsely that M. Harding findeth not Christes body to be naturally or corporally in the Sacrament The which point God willing I wil now declare against your dissembling assertion 1. S. Hilarie disputeth against the Arrians which thing also M. Iuel in this article confesseth 2. The Arrians alleged against the Godhead of Christ diuerse arguments the which I must nedes repete
ioyned together in the top it self which is the flesh of Christ. For they that are one mysticall howse by faith and charitie alone they are one in the fundation through the spirit of God but not yet one in the top And the vnitie of that fundation wold not cause them to be a perfite howse if some stones being reised thereon did not at the length mete really together in the top of the building which is the flesh of Christ through the connexion of which stones those also which laie in the lowest place may be sayd to mete in the top for that they are necessary and substancial parts of that howse which is builded from the lowest parte of the ground vp to the very highest top Faith is the fundation and ground of the things which are hoped for Baptisme goeth nerer the top because beside the grace of faith it partaketh some other grace proceding not only from the spirit of Christe but also from his flesh in that the water according to the minde of S. Chrysostom of Leo is as it were the wombe wherein and the worde is the sede wherewith man is regenerated as wel in body as in soule Confirmation geueth strength to the new building wherein the stones are as it were with strong barres of iron holden together But when Christe geueth him selfe to vs vnder the forme of bread then are we come to the top of the building and are ioyned really to him that is yâ— end of the law For which cause this Sacrament of Christes body blood is called of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectio the end or perfitenes of our heauenly building This flesh is also in the fundation but by spiritual efficacie not by reall vnion It is in Baptisme by the vse of corporall instruments of water and the word and so by spirituall efficacie and also by meane of bodily instruments proceding from the flesh by that Sacrament of Baptisme which he constituted in his body and sanctified the element thereof with his body In the Sacrament of perfection this flesh it self is present to make a moste perfite end of the whole spirituall building Thus are the baptized Christians built vpon yâ— faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets and the faithfull who receaue Christes body in his last supper are built in a higher degree aboue the faith of the Fathers and aboue the Baptisme of those who died before they partaked Sacramentally Christes flesh And seing all these concurre to make vp one howse the top whereof may touche Christes naturall body which he toke to make the reall coniâ—…nction with vs who consist of bodies all the mysticall body of Christ is perfitly one through them who being one with the rest in faith spirit and baptisme be also one with Christes flesh in truth of naturall and corporall vnion to Christes flesh really partaken at his holy table Let vs once deny the flesh of Christ to be really in the blessed Sacrament of the altar and here is no perfite building toward the flesh of Christ and consequently no reason why we should be called his mysticall body or flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones For as if Eue had not bene taken really out of the naturall body of Adam she should not haue bene in truth bone of his bones so we are not flesh of Christes flesh in truth it self except the flesh of Christ in the naturall substance thereof be the meane by our natural coâ—…ction to it that we are framed wrought into a spirituall man These last wordes of S. Paule where he toucheth how we are â—…esh of Christes flesh doe also leade vs to an other notable example of our natural vnion which is to be made to that flesh of Christ. For when S Paule had said that the husband is head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church he prouoketh the husbands to loue their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche Who haue loued it so intierly that he hath cleansed it in the washing of water and the word to th end he might make him self a gloriouse Church without spot or wrinkle Behold baptisme is a token of Christes loue but to what end That he might haue a cleane spouse To what purpose Will he then come nere to his wife and as it were be cloupled with her Yea verily not for any fleshly pleasure but to nourish her by his reall flesh And therefore S. Paul goeth forward saying Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their own bodies He that loueth his wife loueth him self And surely noman euer hated his own flesh but he nourisheth and cherisheth it as Christ doth his Church What meane you S. Paule Is then the Church the flesh of Christ For your words import so much He answereth it is so For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones For this cause the man shall forsake Father and mother and shal be ioyned to his own wife and they shal be two in one flesh This is a great Sacrament or mysterie but I meane in Christ and the Church Hitherto S. Paul hath prouoked the husbands to loue and to cherish their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche in cleansing it through baptisme and as he cherisheth it as being members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Note that as the loue of husbands toward their wiues is coÌ„pared to baptisâ—… so the cherishing of them is compared to the cherishing nourishing which Christ vseth toward his Churâ—… â–ª whiche is knowe to be done after baptisme for no man cherisheth that which is not yet borne When we are borne again in Christ we are made members of Christes body and therefore those words Membra sumus corporis eius we are members of his body may be ment of baptisme â–ª where we are made members of his my stical body according as S. Paule had said before Sumus inu icem membra we are members one of an other But when he addeth de carne eius de ossibus eius of his flesh and of his bones he then speaketh not of any mysticall flesh and blood but euen of the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereof we are made members not by faith and mystery alone as in baptisme but by naturall participation of them in the last supper So doth S. Ireneus take these words For S. Paule spake not saith he of any spirituall or inuisible man sith a spirit hath neither bones nor flesh but of that disposition which is agreable to man the which consisteth of flesh of sinewes of bones the which disposition is nourished of the chalice which is his blood and is increased of the bread which is his body So doth S. Chrysostome also take these words saying we are members of his flesh and bones And again he hath mingled him selfe with vs and brought him selfe into
the inuocation of his dere frindes and members For if that which is done to the lest of Christes â—…ocke be done to him selfe how much more is that honour which is done to the Sacrament of his own body and blood most directly done to him selfe wherefore it is out of all peraduenture that to honour the Sacrament of the altar it can be no idolatry except Christ him selfe be an idoll But if Christ be God as S. Paule saieth blessed for euer aboue all thigs then surely the honouring of his dody is the worshipping of God to whoÌ„ that body is ioyned in oâ—…e person And vnreasonable is it to thinke that whereas Christ hath by the taking of his body deliuered the earth from idols now the Sacrament of the same body should becomme it selfe the greateste idoll that euer was The kingdom of God for the comming of the which we daily make petition in our Lordes praier is perfitely come when it is euident to all men that there is but one God who both made and ruleth all thinges and who by the incarnation and passion of his only begotten sonne redeined and saued al the elect which shall be most perfitely seen at the day of general iudgement And therefore Esaias speaking of that day sayth Eleuabitur dominus solus in die illa idola penitus conterentur The Lorde alone shal be aduanced in that day and idols shal be vtterly destroyed In the meane time they are so in parte destroied as the kingdome of God is begonne in parte For Iohn Baptist sayd the Kingdome of heauen is drawen nere and Christe expressely telleth the phariseis Ecce enim regnum Dei intra vos est For behold the Kingdome of God is within you And in S. Mathew in maine parables he sheweth the present Church gathered in his name to be the Kingdome of heauen Contrariâ—…wise Babylon Samaria Aegypt Edom Tyrus and Sydon stand in holy scripture to betoken the Kingdome of the deuil of the world of Darknesse of heresie Now when the Prophetes will shew that the idols and false religion which the Deuill hath procured to be set vp shal be destroied by Christe they vse to say the idols of Babylon or of Aegypt shal be ouerthrowen In which forte Ieremie saith Tell tidinges among the Gentils and make your voice heard lift vp a signe crye out cease not but say Babylon is taken Bell is confounded Merodach is ouercome His grauen Gods are confounded their iâ—…ls are ouercome Ezechiell writeth in the person of God I will destroie yâ— counterfait images and make the idols of Memphis to cease Micheas vseth the same phrase concerning Samaria All the grauen images thereof shal be broken And all the rewardes of it shal be burned with fyer And I will bring destruction to all the idols thereof In Sophonias it is written that God shal bring doune all the Gods of the earth Zacharie also witnesseth that when the fonte of Baptisme shal be open to wash away the synnes of Iuda and Hierusalem it shall come to passe in that daie saith the Lorde of hostes I will destroie the names of idols from the earth and they shall â—…omore be had in remembrance and I will take awaie from the earth false Prophetes and the vncleane spirite Last of all Dauid saith to Christ thou haste sitten vpon the throne who iudgest righteousnes thou haste reproued the Gentils and the wicked is perished thou haste blotted out their names for euer and euer the swordes of the enemy haue failed thou hast destroied theire Cities the memory of them is lost with the sownde and our Lorde tarieth for euer Thus much may 〈◊〉 for shewing the destruction of idols and of the power of the Deuill howbeit a greate booke might be made out of the holy scripture of that argument S. Augustine confesseth praedictum esse a Prophetis quòd vnuÌ„ Deum essent culturae gentes exterminatis dijs falsis quos anteà colebant That it was forspoken of the Prophetes that the natioÌ„s should worship one God the false Gods whom they worshipped before being cast out Athanasius writeth thus Vbi nominatur vel Christus vel fides eius inde omnis idololatria depellitur daemonum insidiae patefiunt Where either Christ or his faith is named thence all idolatrie is driuen and the deceitfull guiles of the deuils are detected and made open Lo the name of Christ putteth away all idolatry I am sure it can not be denied but the name of Christ is and euer hath bene among the Papistes how then are they burdened with so foule a kind of idolatrie as to worship bread wine in stede of our makers body and blood S. Hierome affirmeth Post aduentum Christi omnia idola conticuisse all idols to haue holden their peace after the coming of Christ. It is therefore so true that all idolatrie hath by the coming of Christ bene remoued from his Church that lightly not so much as any heretike how so euer he deuised new spirituall fornicatioÌ„s and idolatry yet hath professed to worship any artificiall idoll made with the hands of man The Manichees in dede adored the visible Sonne which wee see shine as a part of the light wherein God dwelt but yet it were more grosse to adore bread sithens the Sonne is at the least a heauenly creature aboue the reache of men and in great admiration But the husband man first soweth the corne and repeth putteth it in his 〈◊〉 the â—…llet grindeth it the baker maketh it into a loaf And is this at the length our God Are we become so insensible after the light of the Gospell as to adore the worke of bakers hands Did not S. Augustine see at yâ— least the daunger of this idolatrie when vnder paine of synning he pronounced that enâ—…ry man ought to adore any earth or flesh of Chrâ—… before he did eate Did not S. Ambrose vnderstand this idolatrie when he sayd to this day we adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries But we so many hundred yeres brought vp in the faith of Christ are so foolish as to adore a dead peece of bread as our aduersaries belie vs. S. Chrysostome writeth that in his tyme very few Cities were left where idolatrie was vsed And yet doe all the Cities not only of Mahomete of the Tartarians of the â—…ores but doe all the Cities of Christendome stil commit open idolatrie For I am sure no Protestant aliue caÌ„ deuise any Citie of the Christians vnder the Sonne where Christes body blood was not worshipped as it shall appeare also hereafter vnder the formes of bread wine openly as well in the Greke as in the Latine Churches these many hundred yeres together Where was then yâ— Church of Christ Was our Sauiour who was promised to inherite al nations brought to that straightes