Neither doe you consider this that they cannot haue life which are expertes without part of the body and bloude of Christ seeing hee sayth himselfe Except you shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude you shall haue no life in you Agayne Contra Pelagianos Hypognost lib. 5. Si enim intelligeretis crederetis quare dixerit Dominus Non opus est san◠medicus c. If you did vnderstande you woulde beleeue wherefore our Lorde saide The whole neede not the Phisition but they that are sicke you would beleeue truely that they are not whole but wounded which are offered to be healed to our sauiour the Phisition at the station of Baptisme and that they shoulde not haue life except they eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of him which is life For he him selfe hath said Except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal not haue eternall life in you and hee which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life Howe therefore doe you promise the life of the kingdome of heauen to infantes not borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Non cibatis carne atque non potatis not fedd with the flesh of Christ and which haue not dronke the bloud of Christ which is shedde for the remission of sinnes For it is his decree If any man bee not borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen For to enter into the kingdome of heauen is none other thing but to liue in a blessed life which remayneth for euer and euer Beholde hee which is not baptised and he also which is depriued of the vital meate and cup is diuided from the kingdome of heauen c. To the like effecte hee writeth Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bon. lib. 4. cap. 4. Si omnibus c. If reconciliation by Christ be necessarie for all men sinne hath passed oouer all men by which wee were enimies that we haue neede of reconciliation This reconciliation is in the lauer of regeneration and in the body and bloude of Christ without the which no not infantes can haue life in themselues Also Contra Iulian lib. 3. cap. 11. deriding his pietie that infantes shoulde be damned for not doing that which they coulde not doe he addeth Vbi etiam ponis c. where also wilt thou place them because they shall lacke life seeing they haue not eaten the flesh of the Sonne of mā nor drunke his bloude Also de peccatorū meritis remissione lib. 1. cap. 20. a place cited by Bristowe but mingled with many intersections of his owne as his maner is After Augustine hath rehearsed the text Ioan. 6. Except ye eate c hee addeth Quid vltrà querimus c. What seeke wee further What can they aunswere to this except stubbornes doe stretch their striuing sinowes against the constancie of the manifest trueth Or dare any man say this also that this sentence pertayneth not to infantes and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them c Likewise cap. 24. he saith Optimè Punici c. Best of all the Christians of Africa do call baptisme it selfe nothing else but health and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else but life Whence but of an auncient as I thinke and apostolike tradition by which they holde it ingrafted vnto the Church of Christ that without baptisme and participation of the Lordes table no man at all can come not onely not to the kingdome of God but neither to health life euerlasting For this also the scripture testifieth according to those thinges which wee haue sayde before For what other thing doe they holde which call baptisme by the name of health but that which is sayde hee hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and that which Peter saith so also doeth baptisme in like manner saue you What other thing also doe they holde which call the sacrament of our Lordes table life but that which is saide I am the breade of life which came downe from heauen and the breade which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the worlde And except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you If therefore as so many and so greate testimonies of GOD doe consent that neither health nor life eternall without baptisme and the body and bloud of our Lord is to be hoped to any body in vaine without these is it promised to Infantes Furthermore if from health and life eternall nothing but sinnes do separate by these sacramentes nothing but the guilt of sinne is loosed in infantes These places of Augustine I haue rehearsed the more at large that the impudencie of the councell of Trent and of their poore patrone Bristowe might appeare whiche would excuse the errour of the auncient Churche and of the Bishoppe of Rome in those times in saying that albeit they vsed to minister the communion to infantes yet they did it not for any necessitie to saluation whereas the contrary by so many places and more then I haue rehearsed doth most manifestly appeare As for the practise whiche he confesseth of giuing that sacrament to infantes he saith is not against Probet seipsum c. Let a man examine himselfe c. Because that infantes may examine them selues by others whiche is a monstrous kinde of speache as well as beleeue and repent by others Here is one errour of Augustine defended by an other of his for infantes are not baptized for the faith of other men but because they are comprehended within the covenant of GOD to whome baptisme is no more to be denied then circumcision was to the infantes of the Iewes The Prophet sayeth Iustus c. The righteous man shall liue by his owne faith It is not the faith of other men that can procure life vnto vs. Neither is faith required of infantes before they can heare the worde of God which is the onely ordinary meanes by whiche faith commeth But infantes sayeth Bristowe bee in no mortall sinnes being newely baptized and therefore they neede no examination for feare least they should come vnworthily Saint Augustine confesseth that hee was in mortall sinne euen in his infancie Imbecillitas membrorum infantium innocens est non animus infantium The weakenesse of the members of infantes is innocent not the minde of infantes Afterwarde hee bringeth examples of enuie euen in an infant and at last concludeth Quod si c. And if it be so that I was conceyued in iniquitie and that in sinnes my mother in her wombe nourished me where I beseech thee my GOD when LORDE was I thy seruant where or when was I innocent By this you see there is no shorte time of mans life free from sinne Neither may you cavill that Augustine was not baptised in his infancie seeing he speaketh generally
meate which abideth vnto eternall life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but once set downe which must be referred as wel to the meat which perisheth as to the meate which taryeth but being applyed to the meate which perisheth it cannot be turned Worke not the meare which perisheth as stuffe that is present but Labor not or seeke not for it as you doe which is absent therefore it must be so turned as it may serue for both And where as Sander saith that this meat is not laboured for because it is not sought out by our diligence but giuen by Christ it is a fonder reason except you wil say that we must not labor for any good thinges because all good thinges are the giftes of God Finally that you may see what a singular quarrelling vaine glorious person he is to seeke a knot in a rush you shal vnderstande that the papistes themselues translate this place euen as the great bible doeth namely Heskins as well learned a Papist as Sander lib. 2. Cap. 2. of his popishe Parliament The second text which he pretendeth to be falsified is ver 57. of the same chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me ipse viuet propter me The true English is He that eateth me he shal also liue for me The english bible readeth he that eateth me shall liue by the meanes of me The best colour of his cauil is that propter patrem is translated in the same ver For the father Howbeit seing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or propter signifieth the efficient cause there is no fraude in turning it By the meanes of me which is the same that is meant by For me and as I thinke was so turned by the translators to shewe that For the father includeth not the finall cause as it might seeme but the eternall efficient cause of life As for the cauillation that a man may liue by meanes of him which is absent is altogether childish and ridiculous for who can vnderstande him to be absent which is eaten The controuersie is not of the presence but of the maner of the presence But howe can the Papists digest this saying of Christ He that eateth me shall liue by me or for me when they affirme that wicked men eate him which liue not by him for this is generally true of all that eate him and not to be restrayned to them that eate him worthily For the Sacrament in deede may be eaten vnworthily but Christ himselfe is not eaten but where he giueth life The 3. corruption obserued by Sander is vers 58. of Iohn 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum The true English were He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer The Bible doth english it He that eateth of this bread The adding of this word Of may be the Printers fault for many translations reade without Of. But seeing Sander confesseth it is a true saying he that eateth of this breade vsed by Christ before verse 51. heere can bee no corruption or falsification prooued As for the distinction which Sander maketh betweene eating Christ and eating of Christ eating his flesh and eating of his flesh is friuolus and vaine for none eate of him but they which eate him Yes saith he Of him we may eate without the Sacrament but him selfe wee properly eate onely vnder the forme of breade Howe vntrue this is you may see by this argument None can haue eternall life except they eate Christ and the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloode But manie haue eternall life which eate not the Sacrament Therefore manie eate Christ and the fleshe of Christ which eate not the Sacrament Ioan. 6. ver 53. 57. The 4. falsification is in S. Matth. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm accepisset Iesus panem gratias egisset fregit dedit discipulis ait The true English is Iesus hauing taken breade and giuen thankes or blessed brake and gaue to the disciples and saide The common Bible readeth Iesus tooke breade and when he had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue i◠to the disciples The holy scripture saieth not that Iesus brake it neither that hee gaue it but that hee brake and gaue Againe in saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul fiue times putting the particle it which is neither in the Greeke nor in the Latine Bible Who woulde thinke that an auncient man would play the boye so kindly What say you Sander is not the particle it added neither in Greeke nor Latine When the accusatiue case is once set downe and then followe transitiue verbes is it the phrase of the Greeke or Latine tongue to adde the particle it You say he brake and gaue but not brake it nor gaue it Will you teach vs a newe Grammer that fregit and dedit be verbes newters absolute Or if you wil say they bee verbes actiue transitiues lest the wilde Irish boyes that goe to the Grammer schoole should hisse at you as you goe about your popish and trayterous commission I would wish some young Redshanke ladde to oppose you and aske you what hee brake and what hee gaue If hee brake not and gaue not it which hee tooke If you say hee brake his bodie and not the breade because you say he so gaue his bodie that hee gaue no breade aduise your selfe howe you will aunswere the breaking of Christes body which was but once broken for vs on the crosse but yet not broken into seuerall peeces as that thing whatsoeuer you will call it was broken which hee gaue to his disciples And this vndoubtedly you meane when you say The wordes of saint Matthew doe not all stande in order in so much as Christ said the wordes of consecration before hee brake the sacrament or gaue to his disciples And doe you nowe complaine of Saint Matthewe for disordering the words Verily saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul place the wordes in such sort as saint Matthew doeth And if all these Euangelists and Apostles doe set the words out of order whence come you that will take vpon you to set thē in order Haue you other places of scripture to proue this pretended inuersion of order And if you had haue you forgotten what you did write euen nowe in the preface that if there bee any obscuritie founde in the wordes of the supper there is no other part of scripture that can cleere them But standing of the wordes out of order and that in euerie one that rehearseth them must needes make vncerteintie and obscuritie yea this standing or not standing out of order may decide a great parte of the controuersie for if the wordes were spoken after he brake and gaue then he brake and gaue breade And seeing the placing of the wordes in all the Euangelistes and saint Paul fauour this opinion you shall not easily prooue the contrary against so manie faithfull and prudent witnesses which had a care to place
propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse pernicies námque id est carnis huius mors aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat Terra enim â—s in terram reuerteris propter peccatum â—udiuimus Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur oâ—inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati Deo ita volente perniciem essugiebant Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris praefiguratam veritatem iam videns our inquam turbaris si Christus dicit Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis cùm oporteret Mosaicis te legibus institutum priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse Neither let the Iewe of the dulnes of his minde thinke that we haue inuented such mysteries as were neuer heard of for hee shall see if he will search more attentiuely that the same thing hath beene alwaies done by figure since the time of Moses For what hath deliuered their auncestors from the plague of the Aegyptians when death raged against the first borne of the Aegyptians Is it not manifest that they being taught by the institution of God did eate the flesh of a Lambe and annoynted the postes and vpper dore postes with bloude and therefore death departed from them For destruction that is the death of this flesh did rage against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne But because Christ by his flesh was to ouerthrow this cruel tyrant therefore that mysterie was shadowed to the old fathers and being sanctified with the flesh and bloud of the sheepe God so willing they escaped destruction Why therfore ô Iewe art thou troubled seeing the trueth alreadie prefigured Wherfore I say art thou troubled if Christ say Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of Man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in your selues whereas it behoued thee being instructed in the Lawe of Moses taught to beleeuing by the old shadows to be most readie to vnderstande these mysteries This place of Cyrill sheweth at large that he meaneth not by tast and touching or meate which is of alliance with vs the naturall bodie of Christ but the outward part of the sacrament namely the bread and wine for of the bodie of Christ there is neither taste nor touching bodily in the sacrament But euen as by eating of the Lambes flesh and anoynting of the bloude which prefigured the flesh and bloude of Christ and was a meate of kindred or alliance with them with whose taste and touching they were acquainted the Iewes were assured of their deliuerance so we by eating and drinking these outwarde signes of Christes bodie and bloude are assured of eternall life For you must note that he saith hoc ipsum the selfe same thing was alwayes done by figure from the time of Moses What was that namely that not onely our soules by the holy Ghost but also our bodies by externall sacramentes were brought to immortalitie But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christs incarnation therefore Cyrill is nothing lesse then of the Popish meaning The last witnesse is Tertullian de resur Carnis The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is oynted that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defenced The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hande that the soule also may be illuminated The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ that the soule also may be made fat of God They cannot therfore be parted in reward whom worke ioynesh We agree to that which Tertullian saith that our flesh is fed with that body bloud of Christ but not after a carnall or natural maner by receiuing the body and bloud at our mouthes c but after a spiritual manner as he himselfe sheweth in the same booke Nam quia durum intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis promisit spiritus est qui viâ—ificat For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eateÌ„ of theÌ„ verily that he might dispose the state of saluation into the spirit he saide before It is the spirit that quickeneth In these words Tertullian counteth it the error of the Capernaites to thinke that Christ determined that his flesh should be eaten verily meaning that his fleshe was not to be eaten after a grosse and naturall manner with the mouth and teeth but with faith and heart Againe the argument of the resurrection of our bodies which he draweth of eating the bodie bloud of Christ cannot stande but with a spirituall eating thereof For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ and so many thousand Christians as since that time haue neuer receiued the sacrament haue of the resurrection of their bodies if the vertue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating Therfore Tertullian meaneth plainely that the externall sacraments which are receiued with the body beare the name oftentimes of the thinges whereof they are sacraments are arguments and assurances that saluation perteineth both to the bodie and to the soule and not that the bodie eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine any more then the body receiueth the holy ghost vnder the forme of water or imposition of hands c. What the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof He affirmeth that we say Christ giueth to the bodie breade and wine but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith spirit and vnderstanding This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter But either he is ignorant what we teach or rather he is not willing to shewe it that by rehersing it imperfectly he might haue more aduantage to dispute against it We beleeue that Christ giuing vnto vs bread and wine as visible seales of his inuisible grace giueth to the whole man his body and blood to be receiued of him by faith after a spiritual and wonderful maner passing al vnderstanding of man wherby we are assured that we are spiritually fed vnto eternal life eueÌ„ as by the seale of baptisme we are assured that we are spiritually and wonderfully washed from our sins born anew to be the sonnes of God We say not therefore the god giueth himselfe by faith spirit vnderstanding to our soules onely but he giueth himself vnto vs to be receiued by faith spirituallie But
will giue to you and not only for you But his death was giuen more properly for vs then to vs. For it was paied to God for our debtes but was not properly giuen to vs for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vs and consequently God the father robbed of his glorie What say you Sander Can nothing be said properly to be giuen vs but that which is sacrificed vnto vs So God loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne that euery one which beleeueth in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting Iohn 3. And Esai saith The sonne is giuen to vs. The spirit of God is giuen to vs c. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice are you not ashamed of such senseles shiftes Christ in his death was giuen in sacrifice to his father for vs and his father being reconciled to vs by that sacrifice giueth him to vs and Christ also giueth himselfe for vs because all the fruite of his death and sacrifice is referred to our saluation The fourth reason is that Christ naming breade meate foode Manna c. promiseth an eatable thing which is his flesh in a banket the Iewes vnderstoode his flesh really not erring in vnderstanding but in faith for Christ coÌ„firmeth their vnderstanding with an oth sayth verily verily except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. ergo their sense which reterre the gift onely to his death is not sufficient but it must be meant also of the last supper This argument followeth not for although the names of bread food flesh c. proue that Christes flesh is eatable yet it proueth not that it is eatable only in the supper Secondly that the Iewes erred only in faith it is false for they erred also in vnderstanding taking the eating of Christes flesh to be perfourmed carnally which he ment only spiritually His oth confirmeth not their vnderstaÌ„ding but his owne promise of giuing his flesh for the life of the world which except they did eat spiritually they could haue no life in them But whereas it is obiected that Christ speaketh of that gift which was common to the whole world euen to the Patriarkes Prophets therefore it is a spirituall gift for else Dauid AbrahaÌ„ could not haue partaken it he answereth that Christ doth not pro mise any one meat vnto the whole world but his flesh to be eaten which is giuen for the whole world I reply the words are plaine the bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world not only for the Iewes Neither doth Christ in his supper giue a far better meat than he gaue to Moyses Elias for he gaue euen to theÌ„ his flesh bloud to be their spiritual food vnto eternal life witnesse the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat drink the same spiritual meat that we do and that their meat drinke was Christ. Concerning that dayly we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth he answereth the Sacrament is left to be our daily supersubstantial bread either because we may receiue it daily if we wil or because it tarieth alwayes with vs by some spirituall effect To this I answere that all men cannot receiue it daily and some men not at all which yet must haue spirituall foode to feede them vnto euerlasting life therefore this breade may be eaten without the Sacrament The last argument that he woulde seeme to answere is this Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tarie in him him in vs therefore not of Sacramental eating for Christ tarieth not in all that eate him in the Sacrament He answereth the fault is not in the Sacrament but in them that abuse the gift of God to their own hurt As though our Sauiour Christ did speak only of the power of his flesh being eaten not of the effect The flesh of Christ being eaten maketh vs one with him him But Augustine is cited contr Crescon gram lib. 1. Cap. 〈◊〉 Quid de ipso corpore what say we concerning the very body and bloud of our Lorde the only sacrifice for our saluation Although our Lord himselfe saith Except a man doe eate my flesh and drinke my bloud he shall not haue life in him doth not the Apostle teach that the selfe same thing is made hurtfull to them that vse it euill For he saith whosoeuer shall eate the bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But it followeth immediatly in Augustine Eâ—ce quemadmodum obsint diuina sanctamatè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus See how diuine and holy thinges doe hurte them that vse them amisse Why not baptisme after the same manner These last wordes declare that Augustine saying that the body and bloud of Christ may be hurtfull speaketh of the Sacrament and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament as in baptisme As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint Iohn The Sacrament of this thing saith he is receiued of som to life of some to destruction but the thing it selfe or matter of the Sacrament which is the body and bloud of Christ is of none receiued to destruction but of all vnto life as many as receiue it By whose whole discourse it is manifest that Augustine vnderstandeth Christ speaking of spirituall eating which may be without the Sacrament and maketh a difference betwene the meat there spoken of which presently was offered to be eaten the Sacrament therof which afterward was instituted Therfore whatsoeuer Sander doth glory of all authority vpon earth concurring to his position there is no authority from heauen to prooue that Christ in the 6. of S. Iohn spake of his supper at all or that his supper may be vnderstood therin otherwise then the Sacrament and seale of that spirituall and heauenly eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud which of the fathers and of all the faithfull hath bene eaten and drunken vnto eternall life not only in this Sacrament but in other Sacramentes of Gods ordeining and without all Sacramentes by faith and power of Gods spirite CAP. VI. The meate tarying to euerlasting life which Christ promiseth â—o giue is meant of his reall flesh and bloud to be giuen at his last supper Sander by conference of this verse Operamini cibuÌ„ c. labour for the meate or as he translateth iâ— worke the meate that perisheth not c. with that which foloweth where he saith the bread which I will giue c. prooueth that Christe speaketh of his flesh and bloud to be eaten and drunken But that the same is to be giuen only at his last supper which is the onely matter in controuersie he is not able to prooue His first reason is that because Christ saieth his flesh is meate in
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But
of Christes passion Sander The speach is figuratiue not in the substance to be eaten but in the manner of eating therfore when Christ had consecrated bread into his bodie that speache was not figuratiue because the maner of eating was determined vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulk Saint Augustine hath stopped that starting hole expounding the meaning of that figuratiue speach not of eating Christ vnder the forme of bread but of communicating with the passion of Christ which is represented by the Sacrament and is perfourmed without the Sacrament So you faile both in your substance and manner of eating Sander Of the whole saying of Augustine I haue entreated more fully lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulke And I haue answered more fully Iewel Tertullian saith The Capernaits thought his speach was harde and intollerable as though he had determined to giue them his flesh verily and in deede to be eaten with their mouthes therein saith Tertullian stoode their error Sander The worde ve 〈…〉 doeth not shewe that they tooke it to be eaten in substance but that they thought they should eate it carnally they thought not of eating vnder the forme of bread Fulke Not onely the worde verè must needes shewe they thought the substance of his fleshe shoulde be eaten verily but also the argument of Tertullian doeth plainly proue it For he answereth the obiection of them that denyed the resurrection of the fleshe because of the Angelike perfection whereunto the children of the resurrection shal be changed shewing that the perfection shall not bee through vertue of the fleshe but through the incorruption which the flesh shall put on Vsing a similitude of the flesh of Christ which of it self doeth profite nothing but by vertue of the spirit which maketh it able to giue life Wherefore the error of the Capernaits was in that they imagined the substance of Christes flesh should be eaten bodily which Tertullian affirmed should be eaten spiritually and by faith of his worde onely As for the authoritie of Lyra which followeth is not worth the contention CAP. VI. Sander Master Iewell hath not conferred the supper with the sixt of S. Iohn as it ought to be Iewell Christ in S. Iohn speaking of spirituall eating faith made no mention of any figure But in his supper he added an outward Sacrament to the same spirituall eating which the fathers oft call a figure Sander If spirituall eating by faith be only spoken of why saith he dabo I will giue when spirituall eating was alreadie giuen Fulke Because he would continue his giuing as he had done before and accomplish his passion by which his flesh was made meate Sander The perfourmance doeth expound the promise especially when he saith this is c. Fulke Here is no newe promise but a continuance of the olde of spirituall eating by faith Sander The fathers who call Christs supper a figure must needes meane such a figure as was promised Fulke There was no figure promised in the sixth of Iohn therfore they meane another thing then was there promised or spoken of Iewell Master Harding putteth no difference betweene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Origen in Cantic Sander Origen doth speak of them who reading that book would perhaps apply the names of loue there vsed carnally Fulke Prolog in Cantic he speaketh of diuers meate of the inward man and of the outwarde man The meat of the outward man is agreable to his nature bodily and earthly The meat of the inward man is the bread which came downe from heauen c. Sander You haue set forth the booke of canticles in the vulgar tongue contrary to Origens iudgemēt to be reade of euery wanton boy or girle Fulke As though that booke was not in the vulgar tongue in his time when it was in the Greeke tongue Beside that he saith the litle ones can take no great hurt if they reade it although it bee meate for perfect men Iewell The bread is a figure Sander Before consecration S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure but not after the wordes are said ouer it Fulke He confesseth it to be bread before and to be called the bodye of Christ after consecration and that the body of Christ is signified thereby De myst Cap. 9. Yea he calleth it a figure of the body bloud of Christ De Sacram lib. 4 Cap. 5. For it can be no figure of Christ before consecration Touching Damascen and Rabanus Maurus I will not striue because they are both later wnters then 600. yeres although the later be cleare against this peece of Popery the other not clearly for it Iewell The Sacrament saith Augustine is receiued from the Lords table Of some vnto life of some vnto destruction The thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament that is the body of Christ is receiued of euery man to life of no man vnto destructiō whosoeuer be partakers of it Sander Here is a heape of falshood and lies Fulke Here is an impudent cauillation Sander The thing of the Sacrament is not the body of Christ sitting in heauen but the company of Saints and the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ not his natural bodie but his mysticall bodie the church Therfore he saith not simply The Sacrament but the Sacrament of this thing that is to say of the body and bloud of Christ which fiue words M. Iewel hath left out Fulke These fiue words help you as much as fiue egges whereof foure be rotten For Augustine by them vnderstandeth the flesh bloud which Christ promised to giue which if it be not the same bodie which sitteth in heauen that bodie which sitteth in heauen is not giuen by his iudgement in the Sacrament For thus he writeth vpon these words of Christ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therefore he hath not this life which eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall they cannot haue at all Therefore he that eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath not life in himselfe and he that eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud hath life eternall And that he saith euerlasting life answereth to both it is not so in this meate which we take for sustentation of the life of this bodie for he which taketh it not shall not liue and yet he shall not liue which shall take it For it may be that by olde age or sickenesse or some chance many which shal take it may die but in-this meat drink that is in the bodie and bloud of our Lorde it is not so for both he which taketh it not hath not life he which taketh it hath life that verily eternal Therefore he will haue this meat drink vnderstood to be the fellowship of his body his members which is the holy church in his saints and faithful ones predestinated called iustified glorified Wherof
of Christ. Iewel Emissenus saieth Christ is present by his grace Sand. You haue put a false nominatiue case it is victima the oblation which is present in grace Fulke And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice but Christ for the action you confesse to be vtterly past Iewel Saint Augustine saith Christ is present in vs by his spirit Sand. That is true when he is in vs by his flesh Fulk It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present to vs after a wonderfull manner Iewel You shall not eate this bodie that you see it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you Sand. The wordes of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set forth Fulke To commend or set forth is to deliuer in doctrine Sand. That which was commended at Capernaum was onely the same flesh which dyed for vs therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible manner but yet in truth of giuing by bodie taking by bodie Fulke That giuing and taking by bodie Saint Au gustine denieth in the person of Christ ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see nor drinke that bloude which shal be shedde It is a sacrament or mysterie which I haue commended vnto you which being sp 〈…〉 itually vnderstoode shall quicken you Sand. In deede M. Iewel Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel Fulke The Gospel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man and doe drinke his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue not nowe life in you Christ speaketh in the present temps But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that they might haue life except he did then deliuer his flesh as well as at his supper For many of theÌ„ might die before the institution of his supper Againe he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he which doth eate my flesh which doth drinke my bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nowe life euerlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day For my fleshe is verily meate my bloude is verily drinke Howe was it verily meate and drinke when he spake if no man might eate and drinke it before his supper Againe He which doth eate my fleshe and which doth drinke my bloude doeth abide in mee and I in him How can this be verified in the present temps so ofteÌ„ repeted except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten dronken before his supper but onely promised them at Capernaum Iew. Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present not corporally Sand. Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie haue the worde corporally concerning the sacrament Fulk But neither of both saith that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally I 〈…〉 Not carnally S 〈…〉 S. Hilarie hath the word carnally Fulk You play mockeholiday S. Hilarie saith not That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally Iew. No 〈…〉 rally Sand. S. â—â—larie hath the tearme naturally diuerse times and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking and naturall vnion Fulk Neither the one nor the other euer saide that Christ is in the sacrament naturally Touching the naturall participation and vnion it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present naturally in the sacrament Iew. But as in a sacrament by his spirit by his grace Sand. Here appeareth what stuffe you haue fedde the reader withall in your whole booke For partly you denie a trueth which is that Christ is not corporally present against the expresse worde of God and the fathers as I haue shewed Fulk And yet neither the expresse word of God nor any of the fathers haue this sentence Christ is corporally present in the sacrament or any thing equiualent to it Sand. Partly you prooue that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace then if he be present in his flesh Fulk The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace excludeth your heresie of presence corporally and he is better present by spirit and grace whereby he tarieth in vs for euer then by your imagined presence of his body in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie Your conclusion being for the most part but a repetition of such cauils slanders and railings as you haue vsed throughout the booke deserueth no seuerall answere partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie and partly because both they and the rest conteine nothing but generall accusations without any speciall argument to proue them As for that you make bost that you haue pr 〈…〉 euerie one of your bookes whether I haue a 〈…〉 ough briefly yet sufficiently confuted or no I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers GOD BE PRAISED Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuke Bristowe â—Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe F 〈…〉 Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe â—ulkâ— Bristowe Fulkâ— Bristowe â—â—lke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuâ—ke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristo Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulk 〈…〉 Ambros. de Sacralib 1. cap. 1. Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander â—ulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Ser. 6. de Ieiâ— 7. mens Sander Fulke Esay 9. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Ful 〈…〉 Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sand. Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Cont. duaâ— epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander 〈◊〉 Sander Fâ—lke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sanden Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Sander Fulk Sande Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke 3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke 〈…〉 der Fulke Sander Fulke â—ander â—ulk Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke
not onely minister the communion to in 〈…〉 ntes contrary to the doctrin of the Apostle Let a man â—xamine himselfe c but also that they thought it ne 〈…〉 ssarie for them in paine of damnation to receiue the â—ommunion which error I supposed the papistes them â—â—lues woulde not defend Heere first Bristowe accuâ—eth my boldnesse in that I affirme the Papistes will not â—efende this error and secondly my wilfull ignorance â—hat I neuer redde the councell of Trent wherein it is â—eclared that they doe defend it with an admonition to his couÌ„trie men what blind guids they haue of me and such as I am c. Concerning the boldenesse I desire â—ardon of the Papistes if I thought not so euell of theÌ„â—s they deserue And touching my wilfull ignorance â—nd blindnesse I must needes vse the prouerbe Who â—s so bolde as blinde Bayarde Bristowe which so conâ—tantly affirmeth that it was not possible for him to â—nowe Fulke neuer redde the councell of Trent and that iâ—â—tterly false for as I knowe I haue redde it so suppose 〈◊〉 haue redd it before Bristowe But admitte I had neâ—er seene the report of that 5. session vnder Pius the 4. which was helde the 16. day of Iuly 1562 are all blinde guides that neuer sawe that session O waightie censure of a proude papist whiche by a fault called of the Greekes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinketh that to bee the highest point of learning which he hath learned latest But what if the councell of Trent doe not onely acknowledge it to bee an error but also doe anathematise all them that holde the contrarie Then haue I not slaundered the Papistes but Bristowe hath slaundered mee The verie wordes cited by Bristowe out of the 4. Cap. shewe that the Papistes helde it for an error that it is necessarie for infantes to receiue the communion That infantes lacking the vse of reason are by no necessitie bound to the sacramentall receiuing of the Eucharist Also the fourth Canon of the same session thundereth out anathema against them that say otherwise Si quis dixerit parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem Anathema sit If any man shall say that the communion of the Eucharist is necessarie for infants before they come to the yeares of discretion let him be accursed But the same councel in the Chapter by Bristow cited affirmeth that Antiquitie is not to be condemned if it practised that maner sometime in some places and that without controuersie it must be beleeued that they did it not for anie necessitie of saluation And this declaration saith Bristow may suffice not onely all Catholikes to whoÌ„ it is the declaration of the holy Ghost himself but also any other reasonable man Indeede if any resonable man wil be satisfied with such a grosse ledging of the whole matter in controuersie it is a good satisfaction The councel of Trent saith so therefore although Augustine Pope Innocentius other witnesses of antiquitie say the coÌ„trary of themselues yet we must not beleue them That Kemnitius a Lutheran toucheth not this error of the couÌ„cell of Trent it is a great argument such as Bristowe often vseth that it is no error Kemnitius if he had beene as quicke eyed as Bernard yet saw not all things neither was he bound to confute all errors that he sawe But for further satisfaction of all men Bristow will open the case particularly which is this in effect The Pelagians affirmed that children without baptisme should haue euerlasting life although not in the kingdome of God Wherevnto the Catholikes replied they could not haue eternall life except they did eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud in the coÌ„munion but the communion they could not receiue before they were baptised therefore without baptisme they could not haue eternal life Now Bristowe putting the case that a childe were baptised and then immediately dyed before he receyued sacramentally the Eucharist demandeth whether the father granting to such a childe by force of baptisme remission of sinnes do not also allowe him eternall life and the kingdome of God And let any man saith he bring me one place of those Doctors speaking to this case holding the contrarie I aunswere seeing they vsed immediately after â—aptisme to communicat the infant the case that Bristow â—utteth is too rare to happen in 500 yeres that any queâ—â—ion might grow vpon it But what their opinion was â—f the necessitie of the one sacrament as much as the oâ—her it is easie to proue both by their argument which Bristow confesseth they vsed also by their own words whatsoeuer the blind guides of the Tridentine councel â—ay in their defence They brought in the Eucharist saith Bristow onely to proue that baptisme is necessary to the euerlasting life of children Verie well but what force â—n the worlde hath that argument of the Euchariste for the necessitie of baptisme if the Eucharist also bee not necessarie for children For the Pelagians might reply that if the Euchariste be not necessarie no more is baptisme for the atteyning of eternal life But those fathers labored to prooue the necessitie of baptisme for infants by the necessitie of the Euchariste for infantes And this appeareth by many places of S. Augustine As cont Iul. â—ib 1. cap. 2. Where he speaketh of Innocentius Bishosh of Rome Qui parvulos c. which hath defined that infantes except they eate the flesh of the son of man can haue no life at all in theÌ„ And there he meaneth of eating sacrameÌ„tally as his owne words cited by Augustine declare Cont. duas Epist. Pelag lib. 2. cap. 4. speaking of the rescript of Innocentius to the Bishops of Numidia Nónne apertissimè de parvulis loquitur Haec enim ejus verba sunt c. Doth he not most manifestly speake of infantes For these are his owne wordes Illud verò quòd eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare c. But concerning that your brotherhood affirmeth them to preach that infants may be rewarded with the rewards of eternal life euen without the grace of baptisme it is a verie foolish thing For excepte they shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud they shall haue no life in themselues But they which defend theÌ„ to haue this life without regeneratioÌ„ seeme to me that they would make frustrate baptisme it selfe when they preach them to haue that which we beleue is not to be conferred vpon them but by baptisme c. And within fewe lines after Augustine saith Ecce beatae memoriae c. Beholde Pope Innocentius of blessed memorie saith that infantes haue not life without the baptisme of Christ and without participation of the body and bloud of Christ. Agayne lib. 1. Cap. 2. hee speaketh against the Pelagians which granted that baptisme was necessarie for infantes to attaine to the kingdome of heauen but not for remission of sinnes Nec illud cogitatis c.
then in deede sayeth Bristowe â—he day of our Lorde is instant And howe knowe you â—hat For our Lorde Iesus Christe sayeth he will kill â—im with the breath of his mouth What immediatly Bristowe so soone as he is shewed openly will you â—llowe him no time to exercise the power of Satan in all lying signes and wonders shall he be killed before he haue practised all deceite of vnrighteousnes in them that perish to whome God shall â—ende the efficacie of errour that they may beleeue lying that all they which haue not beleeued the trueth but had pleasure in vnrighteoâ—snesse may be condemned This will aske a longer time then three yeares and an halfe of the Sunnes reuolution or 42. months of the Moones circuite It is not one mannes person or age that can suffice to deceiue all them that haue not beleeued the trueth His last conceite in distinguishing the apostasie from the reuealing of Antichrist by the token giuen of the abolishing of the Romane Empire which should come to passe before the reuealing but not before the apostasie because it is his owne drousie imagination without grounde I will not vouchsafe to confute especially seeing the Apostle ver 3. ioyneth the Apostasie and the reuelation immediately together Whether Antichrist or the Apostasie agree to the Protestantes In this title is nothing but surmises wherof he him selfe is vncerteine but for one place in the Apocalipse he would saye vnder the churches leaue that our heresie is the apostasie the place is in the first Vâ— of the Locustes and their king Abaddon Apoc. 9. where somethings agree and other things agree not c. But let him looke on the commentarie of Bullinger Alphonsus Chytraeus Iohn Bale and other and he shal finde a neerer agreement of that kingdome to the Pope and his lecherous Locusts the Monkes and Fryers then he can imagine vnto vs. I passe ouer the abomination of desolation which one while he maketh Luthers and Caluins inuentions another while the kings armes set in place of the moste sweete and glorious roode yea the image of a vile grassehopper in a church that is well knowen which is an vmbraticall desolation as the images of Iupiter and the Emperors were in the temple c. matters to be laughed at although perhaps he lye because he dare not name the church or else is afrayd it should be refourmed if any vaine painter hath set vp such images And yet what more common in Poperye then not onely to paint but also to carue the images of kings and noble mens armes euen vpon the roodeloft of the Churches where they were patrones At last hee challengeth mee to ioyne with him vppon his last demaund which is apostasie vnto which I haue aunswered long since Finally he will discharge the Pope from being antichrist by the commentarie which the scripture it selfe makes The seuen heads are seuen hilles vppon which the woman sitteth And they are seuen kings whereof fiue are falne which are the persecuâ—ing kings before the time when this was spoken What then One is presently who therefore is ment of the Romane Emperors and all other kings persecuting with them The other is not yet come and when he commeth he must remaine a short season who euidently is Antichrist in proper person This exposition hitherto may agree with the Pope Nay sayth Bristowe for he must remaine not a long season as the fiue and as the one but a short season only three yeares and an halfe But where haue you the length of his continuance compared with the fiue and one All the time of the Churches persecution is but short in comparison of the infinite comfort that she shal haue euerlastingly though it be long in the iudgement of fleshe and blood measuring the time by the breuitie of mans life and the seasons of this worlde as Bristowe doeth the three yeares and an halfe But this is worthie to be noted that he expoundeth the sixt king for the whole state of Romane Emperors and other persecuting kings as he doeth the fiue kings that were past and yet against all reason and analogie wold haue the seuenth which is antichrist to be one singular man so to auoide that the whole rabble of Popes cannot be antichrist Nowe followeth the exposition of the tenne hornes which are tenne kings which haue not yet taken kingdome but they shall take power as kinges euen in one houre with the beast that is together with Antichrist sayth he to serue him as his feede knights I maruell whether he will not expound the houre in this place for the 24. part of a naturall daye For otherwise wee see by histories that the aduauncement of the Pope was the decay of the Empire in the West and with him arose a multitude of kings in euery prouince which before were subiect to one Emperour And so you see euidently sayth Bristowe by these seuen hilles thus expounded that the woman which sitteth vpon them is not so little a one as you do make her but that shee is Mundus impiorum the whole worlde of wicked men But where do we see this euident exposition of the seuen hilles wee haue seene the exposition of the seuen heades to bee seuen kings and also seuen hills but we see no exposition of the hills who must needs be taken in their proper sense because they are the exposition of anotheâ— figuratiue speach namely seuen heades But the woman you say is no little one which sitteth on the seuen hilles but the worlde of wicked men Let the holye ghost I pray you expounde the woman as well as the heades of her beast And the woman which thou sawest is that great citie which hath the kingdome ouer the kinges of the earth This is a cleare exposition of the whore of Babylon the woman and as cleare a description of the citie of Rome which in that time had the kingdome ouer the kinges of the earth and is the citie builded vppon seuen hilles before expounded to be one of the significations of the seuen heades a persecuter of the sainctes vnder the Emperors and a poisoneâ— and persecutor of the Church vnder the Popes And therefore Mundus impiorum is a false exposition which I will prooue by this reason The whore of Babylon is a great citie hauing dominion ouer the kings of the earth but the whole worlde of wicked men is not a great citie hauing dominion ouer the kinges of the earth therfore the whore of Babylon is not the whole worlde of wicked men Againe The whore of Babylon is a citie situated vpon seuen hilles The whole worlde of wicked men is not a citie situate vppon seuen hils therefore the whore of Babylon is not the whole world of wicked men The third part Concerning the question of purgatorie and first ab authoritate scripturae negatiuè I saide Purg. 44â— It is no good logike to conclude negatiuely of any one place or booke of scripture yet
from drowning that was not in the Arke of Noah In which Arke one at leaste was saued from bodily drowning which was not inwardly baptised with the spirite vnto saluation The figure of whom I might vrge as probable as Bristow doth of the whole number saued from drowning like vnto whom al they that are baptised are brought into the visible Church although some with Cham are not members of the mysticall bodie of Christ. Real presence transubstantiation Touching the Eucharist I saide Christ is present at his supper but not after a grosse and Capernaicall maner but as he was preseÌ„t in Manna to the fathers 1. Cor. 10. Bristowes aunswere is it was a spirituall meate a spirituall drinke for it signified Christ. But Saint Paule saith expresly it was Christ and the Rocke was Christe But est is taken for significat where it pleaseth the Papists where it pleaseth them not it is blasphemie impudencie falsification c. Further he saith they all did eate one and the same meate but not that they and we eate one the same meate Although Saint Augustine is cleare they did eate one and the same that we eate yet I will proue it by argument out of the Scripture that which we eate and that which they did eate was is Christ ergo they and we eat one and the same meate euen as they were baptised with the same baptisme for the church of God neuer had but one baptisme As for the Capernaites he saith I vnderstande not the chapter Iohn 6. and so onely telleth his fantasie vppon it But what mine vnderstanding is of that chapter also mine answere to al popish reasons falsely gathered thereout let it appeare in my confutation of Heskins Sanders Concerning transubstantiation I said Of all follyes this is the greatest that when the Papistes haue prated neuer so long of the sacrifice of breade and wine at the laste they wil haue no breade nor wine in their sacrifice First he saith this wise argument proueth the papistes their fathers the old writers to be fooles To this I replye those old writers which are none of the papistes fathers although they supposed Melchizedechs bread and wine to bee a figure of our sacrament yet they were not such fooles to denye breade and wine to remaine in our sacrament But for answere Bristow saith that I my selfe confesse that the drink of the water of the rock was a figure of our drink in Christs Chalice although that were water this is no water no nor made of water how much more might Melchizedechs bread and wine be a figure of it although there bee no breade nor wine in it considering it was made of breade and wine and retaineth the formes of breade and wine c. But where hath he this confession of mine I neuer saide the water of the Rocke was a figure of Christes cuppe but euen Christs cuppe it selfe and the very bloud of Christ in a sacrament to the faithfull as the wine in the cuppe is to vs. For Christ did euen then feede his true members with his flesh bloud vnto eternall life Iohn 6. Marriage of Votaries as Bishops Priests Deacons Because we say the marriage of votaries is sinne and no marriage Fulke saith we are the forbidders of marriage that saint Paul speaketh off 1. Tim. 4. But this saith Bristow I haue shewed to pertaine to the Eucratites Maniches c. and I haue shewed that it pertaineth more properly to the Papistes But saint Augustine aunswereth them Fulke at once saith Bristowe Cont. Faust. lib. 30. Cap. 6. Ille prohibet nubere qui hoc malum esse dicit Hee forbiddeth to marrie that saith it is a naughtie thing non qui huic bono aliud melius anteponit and not he which to this good thing preferreth an other better thing Well if he forbidde to marrie and to teache the doctrine of Deuills which saith marriage is a naughty thing then you Papists which as you confessed before saie that the mariage of votarics is sinne saie it is a naughty thing and consequently forbidding to marry doe teache the doctrine of Deuills neither can you shift a waie to saie you doe not affirme that which is marriage indeede to be a sinne but that which is falsely called marriage for you saie euen as the Manichees in this point it is a naughty thing for the Clergie and them that be in holy orders to marry and therefore you compell them to the vowe and forbidde mariage to all that will enter into those orders and also into moonkery which you call religion as though holynes and religion could not stande with marriage And therefore to you as well as to the Manichees Saint Augustine speaketh in the. 4. Chapter of that Booke in defense of the catholique Church which in his time forbadde not marriage nor compelled any to virginity Hoc nobis primum respondeâ—tis velim c. I would you should answere this thing first vnto vs whither it be the doctrine of Deuills to make any virgins at all or only to make them by prohibition of marrying if by prohibition it perteyneth nothing to vs for we our selues doe iudge it as foolishe a thinge to staie one that is willinge to be a virgine as it is a wicked verie vngodly thing to compel one that is vnwilling As for the preferring of virginity in them that haue the gift and for whom it is conuenient for setting forth of the kingdome of God before marriage according to the doctrine of Saint Paule wee agree with Saint Augustine and dissent from Iouinian if his doctrine were as it is reported But if Iouinian taught as I saide Ar. 45. that such as coulde not conteyne though they had vowed virginity should neuerthelesse be married this was the doctrine of Saint Paul it is better to marry then to burne And although Ambrose Augustine account such marriage to be adultery or worse then adultery yet the holy Ghost saith marriage is honorable in all men and the bedde vndefiled Heb. 13. And for them that cannot conteine although they haue vowed virginity it is better to marry then to burne 1. Cor. 7. except Bristowe thinke it better to quenche the fier of lust with fornication and vncleanes For all men cannot conteine neither can all men make them selues chaste for the kingdome of God Math 19 But this conference of Scripture pleaseth not Bristowe for he counteth it none at all comparing mee for want of conference of scripture to a cloude without water well then let vs heare what sweete dewe commeth from Bristowes cloude First hee asketh what it is to burne Hee aunswereth to bee troubled with the pricking of the fleshe say the heretikes Not so say wee for Sainct Paul himselfe was troubled much with such pricking 2. Corin. 12. and yet hee was not bidden to marrie when hee prayed so instantly against it but it was saide vnto him by Christ My grace is
saith The third Councel of Carthage did define that it is vnlawfull to pray to God the Some and GOD the holy Ghost The Councel of Carthage by that decree denied neither the person nor office of Christ nor of the holy Ghost therefore they held the foundation 49 Here cap. 8. he saith that the iust of the olde Testament went not to Lymbus Patrum after their death but to heauen immediatly Contra The fierie and shaking sword that was set to exclude man from Paradise was taken away by the death of Christ when he opened Paradise yea the kingdome of heauen whereof Paradise was but a sacrament vnto all beleeuers so that the penitent theese had passage into Paradise The vertue of Christes death extendeth to the old fathers for their saluation as much as vnto vs yet the cause which opened paradise and the kingdome of heauen was the death of Christ by Gods ordinance appointed to worke righteousnesse for all the elect as well before the time of his suffering as since 50 Who so denieth the authoritie of the holy scriptures thereby bewraieth him selfe to be an heretike Contra I say not this here cap. 9 pag. 170. that Eusebius was not accounted an heretike to excuse them that doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames. As Martine Luther and Illyricus for I am persuaded that they are more curious than wise in so doing My words be not alledged truely in neither of both propositions In the former they are these I will not gainesay but whoso denieth c. I doe not alwaies affirme that I will not gainesay I may be in doubt But to graunt that I had affirmed the first proposition absolutely what contradiction do I make in saying that Eusebius although he affirmed the Epistle of Saint Iames to be a counterfet was not accounted an heretike Shall other mens account be ioyned to mine affirmation to charge me with contradiction Againe the former proposition Who so denieth c. If it be affirmed must be vnderstoode of such as denie the scriptures which are once receiued generally because they are contrary to his opinion If he meane the contradiction to be for that I say I will not excuse Martine and Illyricus which doubt of the Epistle of Saint Iames for that I am persuaded they are more curious then wise in so doing I must tell him that doubting of the scriptures is not denying them neither is foolish curiosity like by heresie Last of al where he chargeth me with falsification of Allens words to auoide a shameful absurditie ensuing of his affirmation he plaieth his old parts first in falsifying my words where I say to reduce he saith to redeeme secondly he saith that Allen speaketh of him that nowe leadeth a godly life but will not be reduced to the perfection thereof by repentance or satisfaction of his lothsome life past The very words of Allen be these This our aduersarie Math. 5. here signifieth our brother which hath iust quarell against vs in iudgemēt for that we would not giue eare vnto him sharply admonishing vs of our faults being therefore an aduersary to our vices and fleshly conuersation In which sort to vs that are flesh and bloud and ready to euill from our youth all be aduersaries that preach Christ the amendment of licentious maners repentance of our lothsome life past or else vse against vs the rod of correction and bodily punishment that our soules may be saued in the day of the appearing of our Lord. To this kinde of aduersary Christ counselleth and commandeth vs for our great good to agree and consent whiles we be here in the way of this our pilgrimage and transitorie life least all these meanes which he wrought to reduce vs to the perfection of a Christian godly life be as it were a witnesse of our contempt and him selfe our accuser before the Iudge that shall so iustly reward euerie man according to his deedes that is Christe him selfe to whome the father hath giuen all iudgement Nowe the wordes in which I reproue this absurditie of Allen are these But before we goe any further let vs see howe the doctrine of this chapter agreeth with that we had in the chapter next before There we were told that Purgatorie serueth but for veniall sinnes or else for such mortall sinnes as by forgiuenesse in this life obtained are made veniall trespasses But here not onely vices and fleshly conuersation but also contempt of all that preach Christ and repentance of our lothsome life past c. are saide to be the debt that must be discharged in Purgatorie to the vttermost farthing then the which no vice is more mortall nor further from forgiuenesse For he that not onely leadeth a lothsome life but also contemneth all those meanes that Christ hath wrought to reduce him to the perfection of a Christian godly life I vse his owne wordes howe can he haue remission of his sinnes in this life and yet Maister Allen dare promise him that the tolleration of bandes in the prison of Purgatorie shall recompence his debt and bring him from thence into the blessed presence of Christ. The twelfth Chapter A nosegaie of certaine strange flowers picked out of Fulke that they which delight in such a Gardiner may see his handie worke The first flower is that I say Pur. 283. the sacrifice propitiatorie was offered in the lawe onely by the high Priest once in the yeare But Bristowe saith that sacrifice propitiatorie and for sinne are all one which sacrifice for sinne was offered not onely once in the yeare in the seast of expiation but also in many other feast dayes ordinarily and extraordinarily when so euer any occasion was ministred c. I knowe not whether I should here accuse his ignorance or his malice Which confoundeth that singular sacrifice propitiatorie vnto which the Apostle compareth the sacrifice of Christes death Heb. 9 with the often and vsuall sacrifices for sinne saying they are all one When that one aboue all the rest is described with such solemnitie that the high Priest that day onely entreth into the holiest place that he may offer that holocaustum or the burnt offering c. And that it should be an euerlasting ordinance to make an attonement for the children of Israel for all their sinnes once a yeare Leuit. 16. Wherefore the other sacrifices for sinne had their vertue of that shadowie or sacramentall propitiation of this principall sacrifice which was the most liuely paterne or example of the onely true sacrifice propitiatorie which our Sauiour Christ offered on the crosse once for al which proportion is obserued by the Apostle Heb 9. ver 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. c. Heb. 10. ver 11. 12. But where Bristow saith beside this one propitiatorie sacrifice Fulke findeth none but sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe he affirmeth that which was neither said of me nor is truely collected of him For I saide that Cyprian in these termes sacrifice priest
substance of his flesh and bloud not onely to our soules by wordes of promise but also to our bodyes vnder the formes of bread and wine Note here that the giuing wherein is the controuersie perteineth to our bodies and not to our soules Also that the giuing of Christes fleshe and bloud to our soules if I vnderstand this saying is not really but by wordes of promise whereof it ensueth that they which haue not eaten the flesh and bloud of Christ with their bodies from the beginning of the worlde are all perished because none can haue life in them but they that haue eaten his flesh and bloud which Sander holdeth cannot be eaten really and in deede but vnder the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament CAP. IIII. What the supper of Christ is according to the beliefe of the Catholikes He promiseth to shewe first out of the worde of god and next out of the monuments of the auncient fathers what the beliefe of the Papistes is concerning this sacrament Although he esteemeth euen Albertus Thomas Bonauenture Alexander c. worthie of credit by a rule of S. Aug. cont â—u li. 2. because they liued before this question rose betweene the Sacramentaries theÌ„ by which rule so vnderstoode we may esteme Berengarius Bruno Henricus de Gauduno Waldo Bertrame c. worthie of credite because they liued long before this question rose betweene the Papistes vs. Wherfore in this rule of Augustine is to be considered not betweene what persons but what time the question first arose betweene any persons and so the fathers of the first 600. yeares are the best and lest partiall witnesses Furthermore he sheweth that the supper of the Corinthians was not the supper of Christ but he had a supper of his owne And so rehearsing the wordes of the institution out of the Eua 〈…〉 listes S. Paul hee affirmethâ— that we are informed by these words the supper of Christ to be his owne body bloud giuen vnder the signes of the bread wine whereupon he gaue thankes turning by his almightie power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body bloud That Christ giueth his body to them that receiue the bread and wine worthily it shal be no controuersie betweene vs. But that he giueth it vnder the signes of bread and wine vnderstanding as he doeth signes for accidents he should haue prooued out of Gods worde if either he would or could haue kept promise likewise that Christ gaue thankes vpon the bread and wine and thirdly that he turned the substance therof into the substaÌ„ce of his body bloud But leauing other arguments for other places not being able to proue these things in any place he wil enquire whether the name nature of a supper be more agreable to their beliefe or to our meaning that is saith he whether Christ made his last supper of the substance of coÌ„mon bread wine or of his owne reall body and bloud As though we affirmed that the only substance of Christes supper were common bread wine not the body bloud of Christ. But to proceed let him goe with that lye his first argument to prooue how deintie costly a banket Christ made taking his leaue of his friends is taken of the great preparatioÌ„ promise made of it so long before which promise preparatioÌ„ how euil fauouredly he prooueth out of Melchizedeks bread wine Manna the table of Dauid Salomon the bread flesh of Elias c I omitt His conclusion is we must not suppose that Christ at his farewell gaue any other deinties beside common bread wine sanctified in vse onely and not consecrated in substance You may see howe absurdly he speaketh common bread sanctified which is as good as if he would say Christ gaue white blacke bread or whot colde wine We affirme that the bread wine were consecrated not in accidents but in substance to the vse of an holy sacrament that they might be the body bloud of Christ to as many as receiued the same worthily not by conuersion of the natural substance of one thing into another but by a wonderfull diuine vnspeakable change of that which is ordinatily a weake element of the world to be a mightie foode vnto eternall life The second argument he vseth to proue the excellencie of the banket is of the fine cookerie I vse his owne terme which also he doth exemplifie by making 16. or 20. dishes of egges alone which cannot be without many spices mixture great labour c. But Christ like a most cunning workman of simple litle stuffe and that without help of his disciples to prepare it made the gretest finest feast that euer was heard of vsing no shifts but only blessing or thanksgiuing The sinesse of this cookerie he setteth forth by a fine speculation of the furniture of the world by the Angels heauens elements froÌ„ whence it pleased God to make a reuolt of al things from the bottome of the earth vpward againe towardes him self And so made out of the earth vegitatiue thinges then sensible creatures last man with a reasonable soule as a briefe summe of all creatures a litle worlde who being seduced by the diuel was by the incarnation of the sonne of God restored then al thinges were briefely brought againe to God So that in this banket where Christ is giuen there is serued in one dish a composition most delicate of angels heauens elements of herbes fishes birds beasts of reasonable men and of God himselfe No kind of salet meates sauce fruits consectioÌ„ no kind of wine aqua vitae aqua composita liquors syrops can be found in nature made by art dâ—uised by wiâ—â—e but it is all set vpon this table and that in a small roâ—â—e c. Thus doe the Catholikes teach of the supper of our Lorde and beleeue it agreeable to his worde and worthie his worship What say you M. S. is this the doctrin of the Catholiks that the breade and wine being turned into the body and bloud of Christ are also turned into Angels heauens elements herbes fishes birdes beastes men God him selfe yea into all salets meates sauces fruits confections all kindes of wine aqua vitae aqua composita all liquors and syrops beside porredge puddings pyes pancakes and a great many other thinges which you haue not named but comprehended in generall wordes Is there a reall conuersion in deede by reason of your heraphicall reuolution And is this doctrine agreable to the word of God In what place is it written I pray you I suppose it to be this Eph. 1. It hath pleased God to restore in Christ all things which are in heauen which are in earth in him Where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth a briefe gathering into one certeine head and summe that all thinges in heauen and earth are brought vnto Christ
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
our price as it is called the bodie of Christ for as touching that Iudas receiued not the same with the rest of the Apostles Augustine sheweth in Ioan. Tract 59. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They did eate that breade which was the Lorde hee did eate the breade of the Lorde against the Lord. What should I saye more when Sander confesseth that Saint Augustine saith de ciuitat Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. Euill men are not to be sayd to eate the bodie of Christ. But this hee shadoweth with a vaine glosse that they receiue not the effect of the body of Christ and citeth other words of August De verbis Dom. Ser. 22. Non quocunque modo c. Not howsoeuer a man eate the flesh of Christ and drinke the bloude of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certaine kinde of way As though S. Augustine said saith he Euery way the flesh and bloud of Christ is receiued in the supper of our Lorde But howe shamefully he belyeth S. Augustine you shall heare by his owne words Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi vt alia taceam non possunt simul esse membra Christi membra meretricis Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit saÌ„guinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neither are euill men to be said to eate the body of Christ because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ for to speake nothing of other matters they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not as farre as a sacrament goeth but in verie deede to eate the fleshe of Christ and to drinke his bloude This saying of Augustine may serue to expounde not onely what he himselfe but whatsoeuer any other ancient Father seemeth to saye of wicked men eating the bodie of Christ namely that they doe it Sacramento tenus but not reuera they eate the bodie of Christ as it may bee eaten in an outwarde sacrament but not in deede The sixte witnesse is Gregorie in prim reg libr. 2. C. 1. Salutis c. They receiue not the fruite of saluation in eating of the healthfull sacrifice Of these words Sander can gather nothing but that hee addeth of his owne that the healthfull sacrifice is nothing but the naturall bodie of Christ which Gregorie neither saith nor meaneth but the sacrament which is healthfull to them which receiue it faithfully The laste that speaketh for hee hath sixe or seuen more dombe names is Beda in Lucam Cap. 22. Whose antiquitie although it be not so great as that we should bee bounde to take him for a lawfull witnesse yet because he liued before the carnall eating of Christes bodie was receiued we will admitte him Hâ—â— compareth saith Sander that man to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate illud inestimabile inuiolabile domini corpus that inestimable and inuiolable bodie of our Lorde Howe coulde hee violate it with his members if no part of his bodie touched it I answere by violating the sacrament thereof which they receiue vnfaithfullie and contemptuously Howe can hee treade vnder his feete the sonne of God and esteeme the bloude in which he was sanctified coÌ„mon c. which neuer came neere the one nor the other with his bodie Heb. 10. Let the reader iudge whether the iudgement of the Fathers doeth fauour Sander more then the Apologie If any man will see more of this controuersie he may resort to mine answere vnto Heskins lib. 3. from the 46. Chapter to the 56. CAP. IIII. What is the true deliuerance of Christes bodie and bloude The Apologie saieth that in the supper there is truely deliuered the bodie and bloude of Christ the fleshe of the sonne of God quickening our soules the foode of immortalitie grace trueth life This doctrine Sander confesseth to bee sounde and Catholike but out of it he will prooue the Popish reall presence and that by two arguments The first reason is Christ deliuered but one thing at each time when he said This and This The Apologie confesseth that hee deliuered his bodie and bloude ergo hee deliuered neither breade nor wine but in appearance and his bodie and bloude onely in deede I denie the Maior for vnto the faithfull of whom the Apologie speaketh he deliuered two thinges of diuerse natures in one sacrament or one thing consisting of two diuerse natures the bread and wine corporally his bodie and bloud spiritually as Irenaeus saith Neither is there such force in this and this but that one thing of diuerse natures or two things in one mysterie may be signified thereby When God said This is the passeouer it were a madde conclusion to say it were no Lambe or This is the newe Testament therefore it is not his bloude because This can bee but one thing Yet ' Sander clappeth handes to his owne argument O masters trueth is straunge and by the aduersaries owne weapon getteth the victorie His second reason is When the bodie of Christ is truelie deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his owne nature The nature of a bodie is to be deliuered after a bodily maner therfore the bodie of Christ is deliuered bodily The Maior is false for the bodie of Christ may be truely deliuered when it is deliuered after a spiritual and diuine maner For in the saying of the Apologie truely is contrarie to falsly not to spiritually And all the Papists confesse that the body of Christ may be must be eaten spiritually Which of them dare say the bodie of Christ is eaten falsely when it is eaten spiritually or not eaten when it is eaten spiritually euen without the sacrament Againe if Sander like this Maior I will thus inferre vpon it When the bodie of Christ is truely deliuered it is deliuered according to the trueth of his owne nature But the nature of a bodie is to occupie but one place at once and that to fill with his owne quantitie c. Therefore the bodie of Christ is so deliuered as it occupieth but one place reteyneth quantitie and all other things required in the nature of a true bodie Finally whereas Sander in the determination of the Apologie misseth quickening of our bodies but that he is disposed to play Momus hee might haue founde that he misseth in the foode of immortalitie which toucheth our bodies as wel as our soules and more properly CAP. V. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ. The Apologie saith that by the partaking of the body and bloude of
figuratiuely because a figuratiue speach can signifie no certeine thing vntil it be plainly vnderstanded This I denie for a figuratiue speache may signifie one certeine thing which the speaker meaneth although the hearer vnderstand it not at all Howbeit that which Christ did here speake figuratiuely was easily vnderstood of all his hearers which were well accustomed to such kinde of speaches But Sander replyeth that the Apostles were simple men Idiots and vnderstood not the scriptures therefore they could not vnderstand how the signe might be called by the name of the thing I answere although they were simple vnlearned men in deede and such as vnderstood not the scriptures in such full measure as was necessarie for them to discharge so great an office as was laid vpon them yet Sander doth them too much wrong to make them or any godly person of that time so ignorant in the scriptures that they vnderstoode not the nature of a Sacrament considering they were circumcised did celebrate the Passeouer euery yere the verie name wherof must needes teach them howe the signe may be called by the thing signified And therfore it is out of measure ridiculous foolish that Sander prateth of the true first meaning of the wordes of Christ. For what will the vaine iangler make to be the true and first meaning of these wordes of Christ This cupp is the newe Testament What verifying of contradictories what diuers soundings what true tokens what things present O great diuinitie of Popish doctors But the Apologie is confuted by his owne saying when he calleth the Eucharist an euident token of the bodie and bloud if it be euident saith he it is quickly vnderstood Call women and children and aske them what token the wordes of Christ make Nay rather call Turkes Sarazens and aske the question if it must be euident to them vnto whome the mysterie is not reuealed The token is euident to them that are instructed not to such as neuer heard of it as belike where Sander hath to do women and children are But God be thanked women and children instructed in the Church of Christ can tell him howe euident a token it is of their spirituall feeding on the bodie and bloud of Christ. But that wordes must be taken as they commonly sound he will proue by the institution of the sacrament of Penance as he termeth it Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen c. where as much is giuen as is signified by the wordes If this be true all cases reserued both episcopall and Papall are in case to bee forgiuen by euery priest of the lowest degree But here the Apologie which denyeth the Sacrament of Penance is charged to haue falsified the wordes of Christ saying they are meant whose sinnes you declare to be forgiuen If the Apologie doe not truely expound the wordes of Christe yet doeth it not falsifie them except Sander will saye that euerie wrong exposition is a falsification Howe Christes wordes are to be taken as Sander will not dispute in this place so neither will I stande here to discusse But this is a bolde determination of him that many wordes may signifie vnproperly in other places but the principall wordes of a Sacrament cannot be vnproper For the nature of the thing doeth limit the interpretation of the wordes If this doctorall determination be true then these are proper speaches The rocke is Christ the Lambe is the Passeouer the cuppe is the newe Testament baptisme is the lauer of regeneration And S. Augustines rule De doct Christ lib. 3. Ca. 16. must giue place to D. Sanders decree Si autem flagiâ—iis c. If the words of scripture seeme to coÌ„maunde any wicked nor vngodly acte or to forbid any profit or well doing it is a figure Except ye shall eate saith he the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you it seemeth to commande a wicked or heinous act Therfore it is a figure commanding vs to communicate with the Lordes passion and profitable to kepe in remembrance that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Againe Locut de Gen. lib. 1. fol. 72. Tres fundi tres dies sunt noÌ„ dixit tres dies significaÌ„t Et multuÌ„ haec locutio notanda est vbi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur Inde est quod ait Apostolus Petra autem erat Christus non ait Petra significabat Christum Three basketes are three daies he said not they signifie three daies And this kind of speech is much to be marked where any signifying thinges are called by the names of those thinges which they doe signifie Hereof it is that the Apostle saieth And the rocke was Christ hee saith not the Rocke did signifie Christ. Finally where Sander saieth it is against the nature of a Sacrament not to signifie plainly I agree with him affirming that the bread and wine which is eaten and dronken doe plainly signifie that we are fed spiritually with the very body and bloud of Christ vnto the full assurance of our perseuerance continuance in the fauour of God euen vntill we be put in possession of eternall life and the wordes in this Sacrament be as plaine as in the other but the diuell to aduance the kingdome of Antichrist hath deuised a monstrous interpretation of them to make a most abhominable Idoll of desolation of the most holy and comfortable sacrament of Christes death and passion CAP. XII Which argument is more agreeable to the word of God it is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore it is the true body of Christ. Sander to dispute for his life would take the conclusion thus it is a signe of his body therfore it is his bodie in deed So that Sander to dispute for his life would ouerthrow the nature of opposites which cannot stande both together at one time and in one respect But as though Logike were contrarie to the word of God hee will haue the argument tryed by the word of God And first he reiecteth the Sacramentes instituted before the incarnation of Christ which he saith were signes in part emptie and voide of the trueth which they signified because trueth is made by Iesus Christ. As though Iesus Christ concerning the trueth of doctrine and the grace of saluation were not yesterday and to day the same for euermore the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde Hebr. 13. Apocalipse 13. Secondly hee bringeth examples of the Angell speaking to Marie of Christe speaking to the leprous man to him that had the palsie to the disciples of Iohn baptist to the dumme man to proue that when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inwarde grace is rehearsed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh When Sander shal dispute for his life he must chuse him an easye aduersary for els he will soone loose
haue no spirite in Sanders corporall iudgement when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite life because he neuer giueth his flesh but with effect of his quickening spirite And that is a grosse spirite and a deadly life which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth for then the cuppe should be made bloud and the newe testament in his bloud What is They are spirite and life sayth Augustine in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt they are to be vnderstood spiritually therfore not according to the sounde of wordes but according to the minde of the speaker It is colde deuotion saith Sander that hearing the body of Christ by himselfe affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye godly honour to it We eate not without adoring Master Sander although wee adore not that which we eate bodily but that which wee eate spiritually giuing this diuine honour vnto him that wee put our whole trust confidence in his redemption wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance CAP. XXIII The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vs in the mysteries that wee may certeinly knowe we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be giuen vs sayeth Sander in these mysteries he is present in them for a gift is not made of a thing absent Yes Master Sander if the Prince at Westminster giue a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster hath the manor truely giuen vnto him which is in Yorkeshire Therefore a gift by sufficient assurance may be of a thing absent in nature thereof and so is Christes body giuen vs in the mysteries which are the seale of Gods promise truely giuing Christes body vnto vs which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence is in heauen and not on the earth Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones except it be by the reall corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries Yes forsooth wee knowe it by the worde of God which so testifieth Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vs Rom. 8. and last of all we haue assurance therof by the holy sacrament as by a seale confirmation and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vnto vs. But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ the flesh of men cannot be made saith he by faith spirite and vnderstanding As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage except in deede they come bodily togither Yes sir wee holde that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man by his incarnation but this coniunction profiteth not all men but only them to whome he is ioyned by spirite faith vnderstanding and so the incarnation of Christ made all the fathers of the olde testament flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone For otherwise it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing What auaileth it the reprobate that God is become man ioyned in the same substance of fleshe bloud and bones and humane soule Nothing because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith Last of all where he saith that man wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation it is a beastly opinion For he that sayde they shall bee two in one flesh spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage according to Gods institution before carnall copulation by which the acte of generation is sanctified and the bed made to bee vndefiled not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie husband and wife although there were no comming together of their bodies And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament when the coniunction in one flesh which is the effect thereof cannot be wrought by the worde of God but is left in the choise of the man and the woman Last of all where Sander saith there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell howe Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh but by meanes of transubstantiation it will fall out that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell neither was thought vpon sixe hundred yeares in the Church but the contrarie manifestly proued that Christ is not present in flesh at all nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes Such trueth is in his assertions CAP. XXIIII The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the bodie of Christ from the altar First he chargeth vs with great forgetfulnesse Afterwarde to make a shewe of contrarietie he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries c. therefore he is not here but in heauen feeding vs from thence This worde Present hee nowe addeth which because he missed before he would seeme to proue it by reason Shall I saye who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man or rather with so shamelesse an heretike Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries but alwayes that manner of presence which the papists affirme and is now in controuersie betweene vs. That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes is no good argument to proue that Christ is onely in heauen he vseth much foolish babling as though that saying onely were brought for an argument or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument or that saying for any argument But where the Scripture sayth that Christ after his ascension concerning his humanitie hath left the worlde Ioan. 16. which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly and without all parable and that he sitteth in heauen and not on earth Col. 3. the Apologie sayth this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes and not as Sander peruerteth it because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers was to acknowledge the mysteries vpon the table to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to denye the reall presence of Christ saith Sander Doe you not looke for some sound argument to proue this geare especially of him which immediatly before charged the author of the Apologie to vse an argument more like a tinker than a diuine you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom Hom. de Eucharistia Diddest
myracle made in meate gaue occasion to that doctrine vttered in that Chapter as S. Iohn sheweth The 3. circumstance the Propheticall promise what he would doe the Easter tweluemoneth after I answere that promise was fulfilled in his passion The 4. the conference of thinges done and said about the sea of Tiberias at Capernaum with that was done and said in the last supper This conference followeth afterward in the 17. conferences The 5. the present eating of the fathers gift The 6. the eating of Christes gift to come To these two circumstances I answere that Christ exhorteth the Iewes to the present eating of his flesh vpon paine of damnation Except ye eate the flesh c. He which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therfore the flesh bloud of Christ might be eaten and drunken before his supper Wherfore none of these circumstances do proue a promise of a sacramentall eating which may be without profite nor an eating of the naturall substance of flesh and bloud of Christ in the sacrament which at that time was not instituted But nowe we must come to the conferences Foure of which conferences are bread 2. blessing 3. thanksgiuing 4. eating in both I answere so there was in all the dinners and suppers that euer hee did make Beside that heere is multiplying and fish which is not in the last supper Therefore a vaine conference The fift is that as heere hee beginneth his talke of common breade and endeth with eating and drinking his fleshe and bloude so in his supper hee tooke common breade in his handes and ended his banket in eating and drinking of his body and bloude But when Sander can make a consequence of this conference I will yeelde vnto it that he speaketh of Sacramentall eating The 6 and 7. the sonne of man is the giuer meate is giuen in both ergo hee speaketh in both of the Sacraments I denie the argument for the meate which the sonne of man giueth may bee eaten without the Sacrament and therefore hee saith he that nowe eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud when as yet that sacrament was not instituted The 8. conference Hee saith the breade which I will giue is my fleshe and not the bread which I will take So in his supper he tooke one kinde of breade and gaue another This is a noble conference to tel vs what Christ said not According to which I might conferre this He saith the breade which I will giue hee saieth not the drinke which I will giue is my bloude therefore in the supper he giueth not his bloude The 9. conference the fleshe is giuen in the one and nothing but the bodie in the other for the substance of common breade was chaunged This reason in deede is of great weight if transubstantiation were granted The 10. No common breade is giuen in either of both places if by common breade he meant prophane breade and not dedicated to holy vse I confesse the conference but seeing by common breade he meaneth naturall breade I denie it For though no naturall or materiall breade was promised to bee giuen in the sixte of Saint Iohn yet was naturall breade giuen in the Sacrament The 11. The fleshe that dyed for vs is giuen in both That is true but after diuerse manners in the one it is giuen in a Sacrament in the other more generally but in both to bee spiritually receiued and not carnally The 12. The gift is eaten in deede in both I confesse but spiritually and by faith yet with this difference that in the one it is eaten often without the sacrament the other is a seale or a sacrament of that which is eaten euen without it The 13. The bloude of Christ is drunke in both It is so drunke as the flesh is eaten The 14. As in the sixt of Iohn there is no wine spoken of so Christ in his supper neither spake of wine but of drinking nor gaue any wine at all to bee drunke because it was by his wordes chaunged into his bloude I answere If bread were spoken of in that which was taken into his hands wine by Metonymia was spoken of by taking the cuppe Secondly if the fruite of the vine be the matter of wine wine was spoken of At Caparnaum there was no wine spoken of nor any occupied Let Sander see howe hee can make the conference with the supper in which wine was occupied although he say it was not drunk which is a weightie argument when that which is in question is brought for the proofe Last of all if Christ at his supper gaue no wine at all to be drunke as Sander saith howe agreeth the Popish communion with Christs supper seeing the Papistes doe giue wine to bee drunke vnto the laye people The 15. The twelue Apostles most faithfull taried with him at Caparnaum so they alone were admitted in the night of his betraying to his holy table In the faithfull tarying of the twelue Apostles he forgetteth Iudas and that the twelue onely were present at the institution of the supper it is vncertaine For it is certaine there was more then twelue present at the eating of the Passeouer and it is prooued before that Iudas went out before the Sacrament ordeined The 16. Peter with the twelue protested in both places not to forsake Christe So they did at other times and places where no mention was of eating Christ. The last Iudas was reprooued in both places I answere Iudas was reprooued in other places where no promise or mention of the supper is made Finally I answere that not any one nor altogether of these conferences can make any consequence to prooue that our Sauiour Christ in that sixt of Iohns Gospel speaketh of the Sacrament otherwise then as it is a seale a pledge an vndoubted token of assurance of that spirituall eating drinking of Christs flesh and bloud which in that Chapter is commended vnto vs. CAP. III. It is prooued out of the holy Fathers and generall councels that Christ in S. Iohn spake of his last supper I haue shewed euen nowe in what sort Christ may bee saide to haue spoken of his last supper in that chapter and of that sense and meaning are the most ancient and sounde fathers whome Sander citeth to bee vnderstoode And not one which affirmeth the eating of Christes fleshe and bloude which there is spoken of to bee peculiar vnto the supper and singulerly to bee vnderstoode of eating in the sacrament and not otherwise which is the onely thing which we denie and not that the doctrine of that Chapter doeth not at all pertaine to the supper but that it is further to bee extended then to the supper by which the carnall manner of eating of Christes flesh is manifestly ouerthrowne But let vs briefely runne ouer his authorities First Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen hee omitteth because they speake nothing almost sounding to his purpose But Cyprian in orat dominica
by the Sacramentes of baptisme and penance saith Sander this shal be a sufficient answere First so many fathers do â—et expound it of any others argument as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord. To this I reply yâ— al or in a maner all do interprete it of our spiritual coniunction with the body and bloud of Christ whereof the supper is a Sacrament and confirmation Secondly he answereth that those fathers which haue expounded the wordes otherwise then of the supper haue also expounded them of the supper whereby their authority is as great for that which I say as it is against it I reply that none of them expoundeth the wordes of the supper so as they be singular vnto the supper and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose nor expounde them otherwise then I haue shewed in reply to the first answere Thirdly he answereth that no one of the fathers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to apperteine to the supper A lewde answere for none of vs denieth those wordes to apperteine to the supper but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper Fourthly many of the places brought for the contrary opinion doe manifestly and as it seemeth to Sander inuincibly prooue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally ment of the supper of Christ. This shall appeare by the examples following First Cyprian ad Quirâ—num lib. 3. Cap. 25. 26. writeth that a man can not come to the kingdom of heauen without baptisme because it is writen Except a man be borne againe c. and likewise Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Heere saith Sander he expoundeth not the wordes of baptisme but meaneth according to the custome of the Church which was to giue the cummunion to infantes not so much for necessity as for suerties sake of which custome we haue mention in Dionysius Ambrose and other The like answer he saith may be made to Innocentius Augustinus and Eusebius Emissenus which bring these wordes against the Pelagians Except'ye eat the flesh c. to prooue that infantes can not haue life except they be baptized To this I reply it can not be denied but such an erronious custome coÌ„trary to the word of God was vsed in those ancient times to giue the communion to infantes whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity which Pope Innocentius and Augustine and all the West Church as Augustine saith did hold although Sander would excuse it to haue bene practised not for necessity but for suerty yet hereof it followeth not that the wordes of S. Iohn in Cyprian and the rest are literally vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ which Sander confesseth may to be without the Sacrament euen of such eating of the flesh of Christ as the fathers were partakers of vnto their saluation before Christ came in the flesh wherof Augustine speaketh most plentisully In Ioan Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question Huius rei Sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis c. A Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in some places by certaine distances of daies is prepared in the Lords table and from the Lords table is receiued of some to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of none to destruction whosoeuer shall be pertaker of it And because Sander saith the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily vpon the Eucharist alone The same Augustine saith to the contrary Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudiâ—itan sibi manducat bibit For this it is to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abide in vs. And by this he which abideth not in Christ in whom Christ doth not abide out of al doubt neither doth he eate spiritually his flesh not drinke his bloud although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing vnto his own damnation Heere Augustine opposeth the eating of Christes flesh spiritually with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally whereby he sheweth that Christes flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction And by this you may see howe well red Sander is in Augustine which professeth that in his workes he neuer sawe one sillable why to thinke that he would the litteral sense of the sixt of S. Iohn to belong onely to spirituall eating when Augustine saieth expressely This is to eate that meat to eate spiritually to haue Christ abiding in vs c. But that same Augustine de peccat merit lib 1. Cap. 20. saith Dominum audiamus inquâ—m noÌ„ quidem hoc de Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de Sacramento sanctae mensae suae quò nemo ritè nisi baptizaâ—us accedit Nisi manducaueritis carnem meam c. Let vs heare our Lord I say not saying in deede this of the Sacrament of baptisme but of the Sacrament of his holy table whither no man commeth well vnlesse he be baptized Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue life in you c. Heere saith Sander it is plaine by Augustines iudgment that Christ in that Chapiter speaketh not of baptisme and that he speaketh of his supper I answer Augustin writeth against the Pelagians which denied baptisme to be necessary for infantes as for them that had no originall nor actual sin laboring to prooue the necessity of baptisme by those wordes of Christ Except a man be borne of water and of the holy Ghost c. to bring infantes vnder the compasse of sinne and to establish their saluation onely by grace not by merite of their workes His cause in deede was good but his argument was weake to proue the necessity of baptisme by that texte euen as to prooue the necessity of communion for infantes by this text of the 6. of S. Iohn which is not needful nor lawful to be giuen vnto them at all Yet such was his error that he thought infantes were charged by this text to coÌ„municate in paine of daÌ„nation That he iudged they ought to be partakers of the body bloud of Christ it is true by that text but that he thought this partaking
was by the Sacrament in young children he was deceiued yet Sander saith it was not of necessity but of surety whereas Augustines error is manifest to vrge it of necessity An verò quisquā etiā hoc dicere audebit quòd ad paruulos haec sententia nō pertineat possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us sanguinis in se habere vitā quia non ait Qui non manducauerit sicut de baptismo qui nō renatus fuerit c. Is there any man that dare say this also that this sentence pertaineth not vnto young children and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them because he sayeth not he that shall not eate as of baptisme he that shall not be borne againe I will make answere to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians but in discouering of his error Regeneration is vndoubtedly proued necessarie for infants by that place of Iohn 3. as eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ in this 6. of Iohn which is ynough to ouerthrowe the Pelagians but neither in the one place nor in the other the necessitie of the external sacrament is required but as it may possibly and ought to be profitably receaued according to the worde of God Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text vnto the sacrament in arguing from the signe to the thing signified or contrariwise must be vnderstoode according to his deliberate exposition in Ioh. Tr. 26. or else he should bee founde contrary to himselfe And whereas Sander sayeth This text so appertaineth to the supper as it appertaineth not to baptisme and therefore can not be taken of the spirituall vniting with Christ which is in baptisme I deny the argument for although it doth not so properly pertaine to the sacrament of washing as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing yet doeth it also pertaine to baptisme in as much as by baptisme we are not only washed by Christs bloud from our sinnes but wholy regenerate borne a newe to be the children of God which wee cannot be but by participation of flesh bloud with our brother Iesus Christ and therefore we are also in baptisme spiritually fed with his body and bloud To that which is brought out of Basil Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical comming flesh and bloud Sander answereth that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper because he that receiueth worthily is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applyed to the Sacrament which is all the question his owne wordes shall declare Edimus enim ipsius carnem bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes sensibitis vitae verbi sapientiae Carnem enim sanguinem totum suum mysterium aduentum nominauit doctrinam actiua naturali ac theologica constantem indicauit per quam nutritur anima interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur For wee eate his flesh and drinke his bloud being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisedome For hee named his whole mysticall comming flesh and bloud shewed his doctrine consisting of actiue naturall and theologicall by which the soule is nourished and in the meane time prepared vnto the beholding of the trueth Thus by Basils iudgement by faith in Christes incarnation and doctrine wee eate his flesh and bloud whereof wee are assured by the Sacrament therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christes naturall flesh to be after a corporall maner receiued in the Sacrament CAP. V. Their reasons are answered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Iohn The reasons are for the most parte such as Papistes haue made which thinke in their conscience that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt against whome Sander opposeth him selfe not regarding with what conscience but with what shewe of wordes he may maintaine his false position against all men The argumentes as he numbreth them are fiue The first is this There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter ergo it speaketh not of the supper This argument Sander denyeth because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shal be made Good stuffe I warrant you Againe he saith the matter of a sacrament is not more necessarie then the forme of wordes But Christ saying to Nicodemus Except a man be borne againe of water c. although he name the matter sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament yet speaketh he there of baptisme ergo here of the supper I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there otherwise then of the supper here by comprehending the seale of assurance vnder the promise of the thing it selfe But this argument Sander alloweth wel Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs to receiue vnder both kindes but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnder what kind soeuer wee receiue it If this be true it were well done to take the bread from the people another while to serue them of the cup consecrated for a whole communion But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege as though Christ doth not name drinking almost as often as eating although he name neither bread nor wine And if his bloud be drinke in deede then is it not receiued with the bread which is not drunke but eaten The second argument is Christ speaketh of eating him by faith therfore saith this is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whome he hath sent He that beleeueth in me shall not hunger but there be some of you which beleeue not so that the eating is beleeuing the not eating is not beleeuing To this argument grounded vpon the authoritie of Scripture he hath nothing to answere but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ that is of his grace by faith eating Christ that is his whole flesh bloud soule godhead into our bodies by colour of these words Manducare ex hoc pane manducare hunc panem which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth vseth for all one But that you may see his grosse folly madnesse you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh c. Now the whol context is this I am that liuing bread which came downe frō heauen if a man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction To eat of this bread is to be partaker of grace by faith which he confesseth may
be wtout the Sacrament But that bread wherof he shall eate is the flesh of Christ which he will giue for the life of the worlde therefore to eate the flesh of Christ is to receiue Christ by grace although it be without the Sacrament The third argument is Christ was presently the breade of life when he spake to the Iewes saying I am the bread of life and my father giueth you the true bread from heauen therfore Christ was the bread of life when hee was first incarnat for euen then hee came downe from heauen Therfore his wordes cannot be applyed to his last supper which was not yet instituted Sander confesseth that Christ was by his godhead and manhod the bread of life to be eaten of the Iewes presently by faith and not corporally But he saide also Worke the meate which the sonne of man will giue you and the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which gift is fulfilled in his supper For no reason can be shewed saith he why Christ shoulde say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift then to eate him by faith alone which was lawfull at that instant To this answere of Sander I replye first that he groundeth vpon a strange translation of his owne of working the meate c. Secondly of a patching together of twoo textes that stande farre a sunder Thirdly the worke of meate spoken of in the former text whereunto they are exhorted is expounded of faith by Christ himselfe immediately after This is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whom he hath sent Fourthly the gift which Christ saith in the Future tense he would giue prooueth not that it was yet present but promiseth it to them that will receiue it presently For if a mā haue a Ring in his hand he may truly say to them that stande before him I will giue a Ring to them that shall first come to me Heere the worde of giuing is in the Future tense promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it yet for all that is the Ring still in his hande Fifthly this reason I shewe why Christ saieth hee will giue his flesh for the life of the worlde which presently might be eaten and was eaten almoste foure thousand yeares before because his passion by which it is communicated to the faithfull of all ages at that time when he spake was not perfourmed in act although in effect he was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde The fourth argument which hee consesseth to be of Caietane is that Christes gifte is not meant of his supper because it was the gift of himself to death vpon the crosse such as shall redeeme the worlde Which gift was onely perfourmed vpon the crosse and was partaken alwayes of the olde fathers and may be daily and hourely partaken of vs which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes supper This argument saith Sander is wittily deuised no doubt because it was vsed by Caietane a Papist but yet it is insufficient for many causes The first cause is because Christ spake of a meate that he would giue euen vnto our bodies and not onely vnto our soules Howe proueth he that he spake of such a meate because he ordeined the miracle of multiplying the fiue loaues to be an introduction vnto this talk which loaues were eaten corporally as also that he shewed himself to be the true bread that would fulfil and exceede Manna the figuratiue bread of the Iewes Two blinde causes as though he might not take occasion of corporall eating to speake of spiritual eating as in the fourth of Iohn of corporall drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria of spiritual drinking and in the same Chapter his Apostles of corporall eating hee teacheth them what spirituall meate was As for the figure of Manna of which he speaketh as of a corporall meate whereof they that did eate died our Sauiour Christ was euen to them that did eate it faithfully life euerlasting Manna was the flesh of Christ vnto them But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread is that which is necessarie to be betweene the bare signe and the thing signified from which to reason as Sander doeth Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually therefore the fleshe of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually is to ioygne together things that are to be deuided which is a poore shift of Sophistrie Beside that it is a ridiculous argument to reason of the similitude of those thinges wherein the auctor sheweth them to be vnlike For our Sauiour saith not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes of which saying it is much more probable to reason your fathers did eate Manna corporally therfore you shall not eate this breade which I will giue corporally But he obiecteth that Origen saith as it is alleaged in the decrees De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac No man eateth properly the flesh of Christe as it was crucified Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christe corporally for hee was crucified corporally But Sander will haue vs to marke that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ whereof he speaketh in Saint Iohn from the respect which the same flesh hath being crucified in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Ierom saith the flesh of Christ is two wayes to be considered that spirituall and diuine fleshe whereof he speaketh when he sayth My flesh is meate in deede c. except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. and that flesh which was crucified This distinction is of the maner of receiuing the one which is onely spiritually and of the maner of handling the other which was corporally or it is that distinction which is betweene the effect and the cause Such difference is by Ierom betweene Christ crucified and Christs bodie eaten and drunken which Sander would haue to be all one in substance and differ onely in eating The second reason that Christ speaketh of his supper as well as of his death is that the Greeke text mentioneth two giftes The bread that I will giue is my fleshe which I wil giue for the life of the world Here saith he is I wil giue twise ergo two gifts and then he defendeth the Greeke text to be true although the Latine haue I wil giue but once You see the cunning of the man that can make them both serue his purpose But it is Popish Logike to conclude two giftes of saying twise I will giue as in this example The lande which I will giue you is the maner of Dale which I wil giue to you and to your heires Here is I will giue twise therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike O wonderfull learning of Popish Doctors The third reason is that Christ speaking of the meat saith the sonne of man dabit vobis
nature of Christ bee giuen of the father the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift The 6 difference That Christ endeth his talke of eche gifâ— with repeting the old figure Manna betokening by both the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift This is an agreement rather then a difference except in the last illation which is a meere begging of the matter in question But there is a great difference in that it is said of the one If any man eate ex hoc pane of this breade in the other he that eateth hunc panem this breade and heere is made a great difference betweene eating of Christ and eating Christ himselfe the one is onely by faith the other in the Sacrament of the Altar the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ the other to receiue the substance of Christ. c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue with the preposition for all one I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition but what is this bread of which he that eateth shal liue he answereth The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whereof he saith afterward Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c where he vseth the Accusatiue by which it is plaine that with Christ to eat this breade to eat of this bread is all one Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference shewing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock which was Christ vnworthily where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread But Sand not satisfied asketh if this be the end of our long disputatioÌ„ that Christ came into the world to giue a lesse token then God had giuen before vnder Moses c as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giue the sacrament As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift and his we finde not any one but that they may all agree in one gift which was not his supper but himselfe to death for the life of the world wherof euery one of his elect is made partaker as of spiritual foode by faith his holy spirit But this difference is learned saith he out of Chrysostome vpon Iohn Ho. 45. c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons saying Se non patrem that he not his father dare to giue saith Sander but he falsifieth Chrysostome which saith dedisse to haue giuen which proueth that it is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which then was not instituted 2 That hee saith Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie and about the ende of his bodie prooueth not that he speaketh onely of the Sacrament For Hom. 45. he saith plainely as Sander confesseth that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluation and faith in him or else his body Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation who will not haue the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named But Chrysostome saith vpon these wordes my flesh is meat in deed c. that he so saide to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables but by fleshe to meane the signe of flesh or by eating to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables I answere that wee say neither of both but that Christ is verily eaten by faith and by the spirite of God yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying Aâ—â— quòd is est verus cibus c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule or else c. But he saueth not the soule onely by eating the Sacrament therefore this meate is not eaten onely in the sacrament Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vnto vs not by faith and loue onely but in verie deede Wee confesse but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation in as much as they all were members of his bodie And so confesseth Chrysostome in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ shall bee partaker of the resurrection and therefore Christ saide He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day The testimonies of Theophilact and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison I will not stande vpon CAP. XIII The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chrisâ—â— flesh as was made generally for baptisme sheweth his flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is in baptisme Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme neither the other of the Lordes supper And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is not â—aide onely vpon men of lawfull age because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men seeing Nicodemus to whome Christe saide Except a man be borne c. was of lawful age For spiritual food which is nothing else but the body bloud of Christ is as necessarie for al ages as for perfect age But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as water in Baptisme to wash vs it is a froward and foolish comparisoÌ„ for water washeth not our soules nor regenerateth vs but the holy ghost whereof water is a signe so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as the holy ghost to wash vs and regenerate vs which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vs without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them The right Analogie is betweene water and breade and wine and betweene the spirite of God and the flesh and bloud of Christ not betweene outward water spirituall flesh of Christ which is as preposterous a comparison is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme with the breade and wine in the sacrament But of the error of Cyprian Innocentius and Augustine he will prooue the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper because they gaue the communion to infantes that coulde not receiue it with faith vnderstanding therfore they thought the very body blod of Christ to be really coÌ„tained in the sacrameÌ„t I answere it was not because they thought so but because they thought the one sacrament as necessarie as the other which might and may in deede be ministred to infants that haue not faith nor vnderstanding actually Therfore that
otherwise be brought to incorruption and life vnlesse the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it This is true but the manner of the coniunction is all the matter we stand vpoÌ„ which we affirme must be such as may ioyne euery body of Gods elect that hath bene shall be to the body of the naturall life which cannot be the SacrameÌ„tal coniunctioÌ„ or corporal receiuing of Christs naturall body into our bodies which was denied to al the fathers before Christes incarnation And yet except euery one of their bodies had bene ioyned to the body of Christ which is the body of naturall life they could not be partakers of incorruptioÌ„ life as Cyril saith Therefore the manner of our coniunction is not the receiuing of Christes body in at our mouthes but an heauenlie diuine manner wrought by the spirit of God apprehended by faith in all that haue heard the word of God â—â—d are partakers of it CAP. XVIII The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was 〈…〉 ght with the losse of many disciples If Christ had not meant to giue his flesh in deed saith Sander he would not haue cast a stumbling blocke in his disciples way nor hindered their faith by wordes more hard then needed I answere he ment to giue them his flesh in deede to be eaten not only in his supper but euen then presently if they had bene faithfull to haue receiued it And therefore he saith to them he that eateth me shall liue for me or by me my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Sander must remember what he hath taught vs before that Christes fleshe cannot bee meate in deede except it bee eaten but Christ saith it is meat in deede before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirite and he speaketh not there of Sacramentall eating onely Neither doth Cyrill say that only in the Sacrament Christes flesh is eaten although he shew that Christ instructed his Apostles when he gaue them fragmenta panis pecces of bread how his flesh might be eaten in Ioan lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally CAP. XIX The right vnderstanding of these wordes It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Basil Chrysostome and Augustine saith Sander expounde the name flesh for carnall and fleshlye vnderstanding of the Iewes which Caluine of Luciferian pride reprocueth And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l doe chiefely followe another vnderstanding which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth that Christes flesh should not profit any thing but that by the spirite of his Godhead it is made able to giue euerlasting life See the ranâ—or of Sander which condemneth Caluine of diuellish pride for refusing one interpretation of some fathers taking the exposition of others and that which one of the same fathers doth cheefely followe as Sander doth confesse But now saith he what neede more adoe If this saying apperteine not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our beleefe If it doe apperteine they are wordes propheticall fulfilled in the supper I haue often shewed how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ perteineth to the supper and howe it perteineth not And this I prooue out of this saying against your Popish opinion wherein you holde that wicked men eate Christes flesh Our sauiour Christe shewing whence his fleshe hath power to giue life namely not of it selfe but of the spirite doth also shewe the necessary effect of his spirit which is neuer separated from his flesh The spirit saith he quickneth or giueth life seeing therefore that no man can receiue the fleshe of Christe separated from his spirite no man can receiue his flesh but he that receiueth it quickning or giuing life But where Sander saith that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spirituall sorte and noâ— after a fleshly manner It might seeme that he fully agreed with vs in minde as he doth in wordes but when he coÌ„meth to expounde spiritually and fleshly he declareth that he meaneth not to exclude all fleshly manners but only one maner of eating his body by pieces as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner but when he coÌ„meth to spirituall sort he expoundeth it only by inuisible sort as though he which giueth a piece of golde closed in a paper so that it could not be seene did giue it after a spirituall manner As for the conuersion of bread and wine into his body and bloud his presence at the table and in their mouthes and in heauen c. shew not a spirituall manner of giuing his body but a monstrous alteration of bodily thinges which are affirmed to be so really and corporally and yet contrary to the nature of all thinges and bodies spoken of I omitt his ridiculous interpretations of Ieremies saying Let vs put wood into his bread which he applyeth to the crucifying of Christs flesh where yet wodde was not put into his flesh but his flesh put vpon wodde But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his aduersaries which threatened to giue him wood in steede of bread that is to famish him in the stockes Likewise of Abacuks saying Hornes are in his hands which he meanein of the almightie power of God often called figuratiue hornes Sander referreth it to the corners of the crosse which yet were not in the hands of Christ but his hands stretched out toward them CAP. XX. The words of Christ being spirite and life shewe that his 〈◊〉 flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of 〈…〉 reason Sander as his manner is can rest in no certeine 〈…〉 sition but wil haue euery interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place if it affirme any thing that 〈…〉 first because the flesh of Christ is vnprofitable 〈…〉 the spirite which giueth it power of quickening 〈…〉 haue this saying all one in effecte with the wo 〈…〉 ing before it is the spirite that quickeneth 〈…〉 vpon occasion of a phraâ—e vsed by Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈…〉 wordes are of the spirite he wil haue the meaning to â—e that the wordes of Christ haue in them some of his spirite diuine power therfore the naming of flesh bloud before was not figuratiue but proper I graunt the conclusion but I denie the argument for he vttered other words before which weâ— figuratiue vnproper as I am the bread that came c. yet were these wordes spirite life and so are all the words of the Gospel that is giue hâ—â— if they be spiritually vnderstood I say not alwayes figuratiuely but always beleued to be true in that sense they are vttered ment by him whether they be figuratiue or proper as concerning the prhase Thirdly the wordes of Christ are spirite and life because they make the spiritual bodie of Christ which is a spirituall food as
Ambrose sayth de ijs qui myster init Cap. 9. Ambrose saith truely that for asmuch as the bodie of Christ is a spiritual bodie it is not a corporal food but a spiritual food Why is it not a corporall food seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our soules Verily because it is not receiued corporally but spiritually which is the difference in which we stande Wee agreefully with Augustine in Ioan. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be vnderstanded spiritually so are spirite life to vs as they be of their owne nature howsoeuer vnfaithful persons esteem of them they worke whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to signifie to be wrought by them as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We beleeue as Chrysostom teacheth Hom. 47. in Ioan. That they conteine no naturall course but are free from all earthly necessitie And therefore when Christ promiseth to giue vs his flesh to be eaten deliuereth the breade calling it his bodie we beleeue his words to be spirite and life that is not to conteine any naturall course but to be free from all earthly necessitie that is we beleeue vnfainedly to be fed with Christes bodie and bloud although we do not eate drinke it corporally with our mouth which is a naturall course of eating we beleeue that by the flesh bloud of Christ both our bodies soules are nourished wonderfully vnto eternall life not thinking it necessarie that the flesh and bloud of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies as the Papistes teache for that is an earthlie necessitie from which the words of Christ are free yet the onlie thing that Sander vrgeth so vehemently without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the fleshe and bloud of Christ. But Sander coÌ„mandeth al heretikes to cease to mocke them for making so many myracles in the Sacrament of the altar because the wordes of Christ This is my body are spirite and life Nay verily this argument will stirre vp all men to mocke the Papistes more then they did before seeing they thinke it lawfull to faine what miracles they will in the Sacrament because Christes words be spirite trueth yet more to laugh at Saâ—ders reason which will prooue these wordes to be most proper least figuratiue because they partake most of the godhead in which there is no change wheras figures or tropes come of the Greeke worde which signifieth changing Notwithstanding this great clerk oftentimes before hath taught vs that whatsoeuer is spoken of bread and meat and eating in Iohn 6. Chapter vntill he come to this saying And the bread which I wil giue is my flesh doth pertaine to the godhead of Christ and the participation therof by faith in which wordes he cannot denie but bread meat eate hunger thirst c. must bee taken figuratiuely But what drunkennesse is it to reason of these words only This is my body when all the wordes of Christ as well figuratiue speeches as proper be spirite and life as well as these Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference betweene the wordes of the Gospel the interpretation of false gospellers betwen the old fathers the new brethren For Christ saith he was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eate his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before The newe brethren bid vs feede vpon him by faith alone as Noe Abraham did I trust it shal be sufficient to proue those new brethren to be the right children heires of those olde fathers when they haue all one matter of saluation the flesh and bloud of Christ all one instrument of eating faith alone And why should the new brethren eate the godhead or manhood of Christ otherwise in substance then the olde fathers did But Sander asketh where is the word of God so giuen me after his incarnation as it could not be giuen before And I aske Sander wherfore it should bee giuen nowe otherwise then it was before and why it could not be giuen before so as it is giuen now but that he will binde the worde of God to a naturall course not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessitie He demandeth further where is any euerlasting meat for his bodie I demaund likewise wher was any euerlasting meat for the bodie of Noe Abraham our fathers But Sander saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirite and hath neede to be fedde his bodie was the meane to poyson his soule therefore his soule must haue a medicine which shall be receiued into his bodie I answere the flesh of our olde fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirite had neede to be fed were a meane to poyson the soule c yet needed they not that the flesh of Christ should be receiued into their bodies that it might bee a medicine vnto their soules no more is it needful for the newe brethren that are their children But let vs see the other differences Irenaeus reprooued them that denyed the resurrection of mens bodyes because Godly men in scripture are called spirituall the newe brethren wrest the name of spirite or spirituall bodie to denie the real substance of flesh in the sacrament Nay they inferre that the maner of the eating must be spiritual in which respect it is called a spirituall bodie and not onely for the power of quickning which it hath of that spirit of Christ. But it is a great mysterie that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. woulde haue Deacons to be chosen of such men as haue the mysterie of faith in a pure conscience Sander thinketh hee meaneth the Sacrament which in their masse at the consecration of the bloud is called mysterium sidei in Iustinus time was deliuered by the Deacons O blockish imagination such be the arguments of poperie But if it be so why is not the breade so called in your Masse as well as the cuppe And if there bee a speciall reason why the cuppe shoulde rather bee so called what conscience haue your Priests and Deacons to spoile the people therof and not to deliuer it as the Deacons did in the time of Iustinus The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeteth come al to this end that we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable that we affirme that spirit to quicken vs wtout eating of Christ in his supper we wrest to the spirit of man that which Christ saith of the spirit of god al which is false slaÌ„derous for as I haue ofteÌ„ shewed We beleue it to be of necessity that we shold eat drink the flesh blod of Christ which by vertue of his spirit hath power to giue eternal life to al them that receiue it we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and lâ—â—e so as no mortall mans words can be neither did we euâ—â— say that flesh and bloude signifieth bread and wine
and the same breade and wine must againe signifie the flesh and bloud of Christ although wee say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seale and confirmation of that doctrine which Christe teacheth in this Chapter concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and naturall flesh and bloud which hath power to seede vnto eternall life them that eat and drinke it spiritually as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof but by faith through the almightie working of Gods holy spirite The fourth Booke The preface of the fourth Book declareth that he purposeth in the same to shew that the words of the institution of the supper are proper and not figuratiue and so haue beene taken aboue 1500. And that they are proper he wili prooue by circumstances of the supper by conference of scriptures out of the olde and newe Testament by the commandement giuen to the Apostles to continue the sacrament vntil the second comming of Christ. Last of all he craueth pardon if he chaunce to say somewhat that was touched before affirming that his purporse is not so to doe although by affinitie of the argument desire to haue the thing remembred or by his owne forgetfulnesse he may be caused to fall into that default CAP. I. That no reason ought to be hearde why the wordes of Christes supper should nowe be expounded vnproperly or figâ—ratiuely And that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof Christ saith he in his last supper was both a testator and a lawe maker a testator in giuing his bodie and 〈…〉 oude and a lawemaker in commanding his Apostels 〈…〉 d their successours to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament This testament and law was soone after writ 〈…〉 n and published At which time and euer since the Church hath taken these wordes This is my bodie not 〈…〉 guratiuely but properly This last saying is vtterly 〈…〉 alse neither can it bee prooued by Ambrose Chryso 〈…〉 tome Augustine Theodoret whom hee nameth or any before or after their time for 600 yeares that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as the very bodie of Christ. If he haue any thing to shewe we shall haue it hereafter But it is a follie he saith vpon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man as the primitiue Church is to leaue the custome of the present Church which Christ no lesse redeemed gouerneth and loueth then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares I answere shortly that is not the Church of Christ but of antichrist which of late yeares hath taught the worshiping of the sacrament as God and man And whereas Sander replieth that then we shall haue no quietnes or end of controuersies if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church as the Trinitaries in Poolande and the Circumciders in Lithuania for these appeale to the primitiue Church and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures as the Protestant I answere the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures by which all heresie may be condemned the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God Whereas he saith there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion which was to be made by Christ I affirme the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion to Antichrist which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie saint Iohn in the Reuelation the cuppe of fornication whereof all nations should drinke c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal but that the seruants of God though in small number and credit with the world were preserued out of that generall apostasie and called out of Babylon as wee see it nowe come to passe by the preaching of the eternall Gospel then also foreshewed Apocal. 14. 17. 18. c. Another reason why we shoulde giue none eare to them that say the words are figuratiue is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith and in doubting become men that lacke faith And why should you not onely doubt but refuse a false opinion beleeued contrarie to the worde of God But wee must tell Sander whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius may giue eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures No forsooth for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius did heare them because they brought the authoritie of scriptures which is the onely certaine rule of truth against which no question or doubt may be mooued As for the opinion of carnall presence if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius as Sander falsely affirmeth yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true not so much because they are generally receiued as for that they are manifestly approued by the authoritie of the holy scriptures But Sander will yet enter farther into the bowels of the cause before he heare what reasons caÌ„ be brought against the popish faith he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie haue any grounde of their doctrine that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue either in respect of the worde written or the faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his Church Yes verilie all these fiue respects moue vs to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue And First the word written by saint Luke and saint Paul This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude which wordes being manifestly figuratiue haue the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe and Saint Marke This is my bloude and that these wordes haue This is my bodie which are vsed by all fower Therefore by the written worde they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God Secondly the faith of all Christians for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe hath beene sufficiently prooued to haue vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely for a figure signe token pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine Insomuch that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe De cons. dist 2. Cap. Hoc est hath these wordes Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperly Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner but not in trueth of the thing but in
of Christ by faith As for Sanders cauill that the bread is not one still seeing it is broken is an impudent Sophisme For neither can Christ at one time and in one respect be called whole and broken Do not they all eate of one sheepe which eate of it after it is deuided in partes The lawe commanded one sheep for euery houshold which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect that the one bread and cup is vnto vs. So we all eate of one material bread and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie not so many aâ— eate the materiall bread but so many as eate it worthily by faith Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth as Sander would haue it seeme but in the mightie working of the spirite of God who not onely in this Sacrament but in all Sacraments of all times haue wrought the same spirituall vnion in all the faithful of all ages who al make one Church and one bodie whereof Christ is the head and euery one of the elect is a member CAP. V. Howe we are one mysticall bodie Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in this mysticall bodie faith and the Sacraments but in verie deede the spirite of God is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect sometimes not onely without the Sacraments but also without actuall faith as in infants which perteine to Gods election Faith in men of yeres is an assurance of this coniunction The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith Wherefore the bread which we breake is so a coÌ„municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith by which we are assured of this communication before wee come to the communion and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence vnder the fourme of bread For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ then wee are made one bodie and one bread But wee are made one bread and one bodie spiritually and sacramentally therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually sacramentally Sander asketh Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing I answere if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing and the selfe-same thing that the Sacrament is then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ but his mysticall bodie by â—â—rtaking of this bread Sander replieth that this vnion is in respect of the nanâ—rall bodie of Christ which I doe not deny but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vnto vs by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies which also Augustine in serm ad infantes aâ—â—d Bedam cited by Sander doth plainly testifie Nulli est allquatenus c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cuppe although before he eate the bread drinke that cuppe being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament for so much as himselfe hath found that thing which the Sacrament doth signifie whereas Christ said except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud ye shall not haue life in you Out of this place although it be directly against transubstantiation yet Sander is able to prooue it If the body of Christ saith he were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptised be partaker of the benifit of this SacrameÌ„t was he made partaker of bread and wine No forsooth but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is signified by that bread and cuppe So saith Augustine or who so euer was author of that sermon and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present in the supper then in baptisme But take away that bodie of Christ saith Sander from the forme of breade and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ for euery loafe betokeneth vnitie but not in Christ. Againe let the substance of breade remaine and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ which is absent the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder as heauen is distant from earth I answere this is poore Sophistry yet much vsed by Sander disioyning thinges that ought to be ioyned togither beside that this wise reason would proue likewise that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ because Christ is not really present with the forme of water but the substance of water remaining on earth and â—he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate is in heauen Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries such presence I say as is meete for his glorious maiestie namely by his spirite which ioyneth heauen and earth together and maketh our vnitie to be perfect although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie which if hee haue not like vnto ours in all thinges except sinne and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vnto through sinne in vaine should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him and the conformation of them vnto his glorious bodie The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of wee allowe lib. 8. de Trinit If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie and wee take truelie vnder a mysterie the flesh of his bodie and by this wee shall bee one because the father is in him and hee in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie In this saying Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father was not an vnitie of nature and substance but of will only But seeing the vnitie that wee haue with Christ which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely and by giuing his flesh truelie vnto vs vnder a mysterie in the Sacrament to bee an vnitie in substance and not in will onely it is absurd to say that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will Now let vs see what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower First he noteth that we truely take the flesh of Christ I graunt vnder a mysterie as Hilarie saith so many as receiue the SacrameÌ„t worthily for els wicked men should be vnited to Christ as he is to his father Secondly the mysterie with Sander must be the forme of bread
body is receaued by mouth not by faith onely Iew. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only and none otherwise Sand. You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresie and affirme the same which the Arrians did Fulk Master Iewel is more free from Arrianisme then you from Eutychianisme Sand. Christ saide after bread taken c. Take eate this is my body but he spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and the thing eaten to bee his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also Fulke That which was to be eaten with mouth was breade in nature and his body in mystery which body was to be eaten by faith and not by mouth as the bread was to bee eaten by mouth and not by faith Sander All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christes supper came from Christ but all that he is writen to haue giuen came from his handes therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all or his bodye came then from his owne handes Answere the Gospell master Iewel or els blaspheme no more Fulke I denie your minor For it is writen The spirite it is that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. Life remission or sinnes participation of his death c. were giuen but not all nor at all by his handes but by his diuine spirit Sander The fathers teach that we eate Christes body by our mouthes and not dy faith onely Fulke They teach we eate the Sacrament which is so called and which after a certaine manner is the body of Christ but not absolutely Sander S. Cyprian saith of euill men Ser. de lap 5. Plus modo they sinne now more against our Lord with their handes and mouth then when they denied our Lord. Fulke They sinne against our Lord in receiuing the Sacrament vnworthily more then in denying because denying was of weakenes this other of hypocrisie Sander Cyprian saith the sinne is inuading and doing violence to our Lordes body and bloud Fulke That is to the Sacrament thereof for our Lords body is impassible Sander Chrysostom witnesseth vs to take in our handes in our mouthes to touch to eate to receiue into vs Christes flesh is all this done by faith onely Fulke Chrysostom witnesseth we see All the people to be made red with the bloud of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith Desacerd lib. 3. Hee saieth Christ iâ— broken in the SacrameÌ„t which he was not on the crosse Is that done really in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Sander Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter ye ought so to communicate that ye doubt nothing c. Fulke Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sander Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. sheweth vs to eate Christ corporally Fulke You slander Cyril he saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwel in vs corporally by participation of the flesh of Christ not by faith and loue onely Iewel Christes body is meat of the mind not of the belly saith S. Cyprian Sander I find no such wordes in Cyprian but whosoeuer spake them it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not materiall bread Fulke If you finde not the wordes in Cyprian you may finde them in Gregory who by error of the printer is called Cyprian and you may finde the sense in Cyprian wee sharpen not our teeth nor prepare our belly but with syncere faith we breake the holy bread You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread we agree with you and euer did Iewel Beleeue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body Sander These words are not offacramental eating but of spirituall eating Fulke He saith vt quid paras dentes ventrem to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Therefore he sheweth that Christ is not receiued by mouth and belly but by faith onely Iewel It is better to vse the worde figure than the wordes really corporally Sander It is better to vse the wordes body bloud flesh which are the wordes of scripture than the worde Figure which is vsed of the fathers only Fulk Master Iewel compareth not the worde figure with the wordes of scripture but with the wordes really corporally vsed neither in scripture nor in the fathers CAP. IIII. Sander Master Iewel hath not replied well touching the sixt Chapiter of Saint Iohn but hath abused as well the Gospell as diuerse authorities of the fathers Harding The promise of giuing the flesh which Christ would giue for life of the worlde beeing onely perfourmed in the supper prooueth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper which was offered vpon the crosse for the life of the world Iewel Master Harding supposeth no man to eate the flesh of Christ but onely in the Sacrament Sander He denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eaten spiritually both by faith and by baptisme but not really saue onely in the supper Fulke If Christ speak there onely of his gift in the supper then all are void of life eternall that receiue not the supper Except ye eate c. Iewel The wordes bee plaine and generall vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man yee shall haue no life in you Sander He saith ye shall not haue life in you Fulke A diuersity without a difference Sander He meaneth of him who hauing discretion to prooue himselfe refuseth to receiue the Sacrament of Christes supper Fulke This is a glosse of your owne discretion and not the meaning of Christes wordes who denieth life to all them that are not fedde with his flesh and bloud Iewel Seeing Christian children receiue not the Sacrament by Master Hading it will followe they haue no life Sander It will followe they haue not in themselues the flesh of life as Cyrillus â—aith in their bodies but it is an vntrue sequel to say they haue no life at all for they haue spirituall life in baptisme Fulke They could haue no life in baptisme if they were not fedde with the flesh and bloud of Christ without which there is no life at all whatsoeuer it please Sander to glosse Iewel S. Ambrose saith Christ giueth this bread to all men daily and at all times Sander He may meane of the gift which is in spirite or which is daily ready in the Sacrament Fulke He doth meane that the breade is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which is not giuen to all men nor at all times Iewel S. Augustine saith They eate Christes body not onely in the Sacrament but also in very deede Behold not onely in the Sacrament Sander S. Augustine speaketh of the mysticall body which is the company of the elect and the holy Church of God not of the naturall bodye which sitteth at the right hand of God Fulke Augustine saith qui ergo est c. He then that is
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
where also wee must feede on Christ by faith Fulke Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding like as baptisme is of our regeneration and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme Sand. 37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe whereof it is a figure why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament then giue the same vnto it Fulk A figure can neuer be that which it figureth in the same respect As Christ is the figure of his father so is he not his father as he is the figure of his fathers substance so is he not his fathers substance but consubstantiall with his father for though hee be the same essence yet hee is an other person beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee but that which God will haue them to be You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it Sand. 38 Christ being equall with his father made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh Fulk We deny not but he hath giuen the same real fleshe although not to be present really in the Sacrament Sand. 39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life to be notwithstanding figuratiue consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength Fulk Howe dare you affirme any of Christes words of which many are figuratiue to be deade and voyde of life and strength Are not those figuratiue wordes I am the bread that came downe from heauen This cup is the newe testament Sand. 40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body hee tooke fleshe and said Take eate c yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vs through the flesh of Christ. Fulk The worde became not fleshe either onely or principally to be giuen in the sacrament but he could not haue beene meat vnto man except hee had taken fleshe which fleshe he communicateth vnto vs through his spirit by faith to feedboth body and minde yet not to be receiued into the body as bodily meats but being receiued of the minde to nourishe the whole man Sand. 41 To conclude whereas ye finde flesh body bloode ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking giuing breaking distributing communicating dijudicating ye expounde al these words figuratiuely As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them Fulk You say vntruely of all these wordes wheras you finde bread cup the fruit of the vine so often repeted you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding or rather your gainefull idolatrie for which you care not to erre against grammar rhetorike Logike Philosophie diuinitie faith trueth nature sense knowledge and conscience Iew. If in these wordes Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man ye followe the letter it killeth Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit. Sand. He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them doeth followe the spirite and not the letter Fulk Yee assume for granted that which is all the controuersie It is not onely the letter to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally as other meates are eaten although couered from the eyes and tast as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake CAP. IX Sand. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel Iew. Saint Augustine saith the sacrament of Christs body after a certaine phrase or maner or trope or figure of speaking is the body of Christ. Sand. Secundum quēdam modum is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach but in the sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof wherin the likenes is and not in the forme Fulk Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large then Sander citeth them who leaueth out the foremost part let the reader iudge whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall or of a manner of being which is significatiue Ep. 23. Bonifacio Nempe saepè ita loquimur c. Verily oftentimes wee SPEAKE so that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past and that passion was promised but once in all Verily on the sonday it selfe we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose Why is no man so foolish to reproue vs so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes in which those thinges were done that it is SAIDE the day it selfe which is not the day it selfe but in reuolution of time like it that it is SAIDE to be done on that daye because of the celebration of the sacrament or mysterie which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in a sacrament not onely at euerie solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people Neither surely doth he lie who being demanded shall answere that he is offered For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges whereof they are sacraments they were not at all sacramentes Out of this likenes also for the most part they take their names Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech that are figuratiue and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them iudge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Iewel Euen the Canon law writen as it should seeme before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis c. Therfore as the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ that is saith the glosse the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ after his maner is called the bodie of Christ the sense is saith the glosse it is called that is it fignifieth the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which being visible which being palpable was put on the crosse and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in the trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstod to be baptisme is faith Let this
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome
of our 〈…〉 nnes in baptisme but we are saued by baptisme as we â—re inâ—eoâ—fed by a deede that is sealed that is assured of â—aluation as Abraham receiued circumcision the seale â—f the righteousnes which he had by faith before he was â—ircumcised Ro. 4. and euen so he clenseth his church by â—he lauer of water not by the merite of the worke of bapâ—isme but in that he gaue him selfe for it that he might sanctifie it Eph. 5. After the same maner doth baptisme saue vs. 1. Pet. 3. not the putting off of the filth of the flesh â—ut the interrogatioÌ„ of a good conscience before god thoâ—ough the resurrection of Iesus Christ which presuppoâ—eth his death for satisfaction of our sinnes as his resurâ—ection is the speciall cause of our iustification Last of â—ll saith Bristowe he hath made vs kings priestes to God Apo. 1. If spiritual priests ergo to offer vp spiritual sacrifices as of 〈…〉 ur mortification Rom. 12. our almes deedes Heb. 13. both for our â—wne sinnes for the sinnes of other Here in the last point â—he quotation of scripture so plentiful before faileth but we shal haue reason confirmed by scripture because the â—xternall priest is ordeined to offer externall sacrifices for sinnes â—oth for him selfe for the people Heb. 5. But this cause is many wayes auoided for we are priests to offer vp the onâ—y sacrifices of thanksgiuing not of propitiation for sinne which cannot be without shedding of bloud Heb. 9. Secondly although we be all made priests yet we are not made high priests of which the text speaketh Heb. 5. which office one only can enioy at one time which is our sauiour Christ for terme of his life which is without end Thirdly those sacrifices which the externall priest offered for sinnes could neuer take away sinnes Heb. 10. much lesse our spirituall sacrifices of thanksgiuing for Gods benefites bestowed on vs his whole church I cited further Apoc. 7. These are they that came out of that great affliction haue washed their stoles and made them white in the bloud of the lamb therfore they are in the presence of the throne of god Brist saith this word therefore is referred to their comming out of affliction and so whited their stoles And yet this gloser saith he of me taketh it away from the affliction whereas that whiting was nothing else but that affliction O impudent and blasphemous heretike when the holy ghost expressely sayeth they made their stoles white in the bloud of the lamb darest thou open thy mouth and saye not only that that whiting was somewhat else then the bloud of Christ but also that it was nothing but that affliction so vtterly excluding the bloud of Christ But I forgot to conferre other places of scripture as he chargeth me Is there any scripture that ascribeth purification of our sinnes to any other thing than to the bloud of Christ Let vs heare what whoso ouercommeth shal be clothed with white garments Apoc. 3. But the Martyrs ouercame the diuell not onely by the blood of the lambe but also by their owne patient confession or affliction vnto death Apoc. 12. The text is and they ouercame him by the bloud of the lambe and by the word of their testimonie and they loued not their liues vnto death Here is no cause of victorie but the bloud of the lambe and the worde of their testimonie which was the confession of their faith the onely instrumentall cause of their iustification and victorie who is he which ouercommeth the world sayth S. Iohn but he that beleueth 1. Iohn 5. Faith therefore the onely shilde to haue victory against the worlde and the diuell hath no power in it selfe to clense our sinnes but leaneth altogether to the bloud of Christ. But it is a proper thing to see Bristow forsake his vulgar latine authenticall translation and to turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their owne martyrdom which is in deede by the worde of their testimonie or which they did testifie whereas by his translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for suffering of death as I thinke it is in no Greeke author sure I am it is neuer so taken in the newe testament But Bristow addeth that S. Paul also accordingly calleth it the mortification of Iesus when the Apostles were mortifyed for Iesus and sayeth they carryed the same about continually in their bodies that also the life of Iesus might also be manifected in their bodies 2. Cor. 4. I wot well wee must be conformable to Christ in sufferings that we may be partakers of his kingdome and glorie but doeth it therefore followe that our sufferings merit this glorie by his bloud or that his bloud without all respect of our merites doeth not alone purge and clense vs from all our sinnes After he had finished the cleansing of our sinnes by his owne selfe sayeth the Apostle he is set downe at the right hande of magnificence in the highest Heb. 1. Last of all Bristowe opposeth that Saint Paul sayth This our affliction although it be but short and light worketh vs euerlasting weight of glory exceeding measure aboue measure 2. Cor. 4. I answere it worketh not by meriting not by purging our sinnes or by satisfying for our iniquities but by making vs conformable vnto our head in passing by the same way of tribulatioÌ„s vnto glorie that he did euen as the way or steppes which leadeth vnto an high place of dignitie maketh not them worthie of the dignitie that must ascende by those steppes vnto it and yet it is necessarie for them that will come to that dignitie to sit in such places to take that ordinary way Therefore as the passage of such way worketh their dignitie so doeth affliction worke our glory Not to abridge any part of the glorie or merite of Christes suffering by which onely wee are made worthie of glory when all our sinnes being cleansed by his bloud wee appeare righteous before God not in the merite of our owne workes nor hauing our owne righteousnes which is by the lawe but the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ that wee may knowe him of the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable vnto his death Phil. 3. Wherefore it remaineth that seeing the bloud of Christ purgeth vs of all our sinnes and Iesus Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes committed either after baptisme or before that all other purgings and satisfactioÌ„s are ouerthrowen and so popish purgatorie remaineth without any foundation the purging of Christs bloud making vs most pure and Christ our propitiation being throughly only sufficient to reconcile vs. Secondly directly of Purgatorie it selfe prayer for the dead whether all the elect goe streight to heauen Afore Christes comming Limbus patrum His childish rayling on mine
be carryed vp sir it signifieth to be carried away and seeing the riche man looking vp seeth Lazarus afarre of it followeth that Lazarus was carried vp and not downe But you reply it foloweth not that he was carryed into heauen Then you may say he was carried vp to hell But the places you say might be nigh together in respect of the distance of heauen although one were vpwarde and also farre off both in state and situation purgatorie peraduenture betwixt them This is a goodly faith that standeth vpon peraduenture and this may be c. The Scripture saith ther was a great Chaos which is an infinite distance betweene them which cannot agree to Limbus which must be harde adioyning to hell or else it is not Limbus But if they were no way nigh together sayth he it will not followe that Abrahams bosome was heauen I answere if they were no way nigh together it could not be hell nor Limbus of hell which is the thing I was to proue Also the text is plaine that Abrahams bosome was a place of comfort And other place of comfort then heauen or Paradise which is all one for the soules departed I finde none in Scripture The last argument is this If righteousnesse belong to Abrahams children the rewarde of righteousnesse also perteineth to them Therefore Abrahams bosome was open to receiue all the childrem of Abraham euen as the bosome of God was readie to receiue Abraham because he was his sonne through faith Heere Bristowe noteth no small blasphemie proceeding of grosse ignorance saying That which is proper to vnigenitus the onely begotten sonne of God hee maketh common to Abraham Why Bristowe because vnigenitus is eternally and after his proper manner in the bosome of the father doth it thereof followe that none can be in the bosom of GOD but the proper place of Christ is made common to them You threaten in the 12. Chapter oftentimes to bewray my grosse ignorance in the scriptures and haue you such fine knowledge in them that you coulde not see what Esay writeth Chap. 40. according to your owne translation Ecce dominus Deus c. Beholde the Lorde God shall come in strength and his arme shall haue the dominion beholde his rewarde is with him and his worke before him As a sheepheard hee will feede his flocke hee will gather the Lambes together on his arme and beare them in his bosome in sinâ— suo leuabit Beholde you greate and mightie doctours in the scriptures the bosome of GOD as of a shephearde is open to receiue all his Lambes howe much more as a father to receiue his children But to the argument you aunswere The rewarde of righteousnesse may belong to one and yet not payed him as soone as hee dyeth Saincte Paule saying expresly of Abraham and many of his children that they departed not receiuing the promises but beholding them a farre off and all these renouned by faith receiued not the promise That is saith Bristowe the inheritance the rewarde of righteousnesse I replye the rewarde of righteousnesse cannot belonge to one but it must bee payed him as soone as it is payed vnto others to whome the same rewarde vppon the same cause belongeth therefore seeing it is payed to some immediately after their death it is likewise to all That manie dyed not receiuing the promises is partelie vnderstoode of the promises of the lande of Canaan partelye of the full fruition and perfection of rewarde which to all men is denyed before the laste iudgement and so no inequalitie or vniustice vnto any Whether since Christ all goe straight to heauen They that liue vnto Christe dye vnto him and being disolued are with him The soules of the faithfull and the repentant are where Christ is as hee prayeth â—oan 17. so hee saith to the theefe no perfecte iuste â—an but a sinner repentaunt This day thou shalt â—ee with mee in Paradise Luke 23. And Saincte Pâ—ule desireth to bee dissolued and to bee with Christ. To leaue his iugling of seeing Christes godheades glorie and manhoodes glorie whereof I speake no worde hee confesseth the example of Sainct Paul declareth that a perâ—ect iust man goeth straight to Christ Likewise the example if the theefe declareth that a penitent sinner goeth straight to Christ if either his penaunce bee full and perfect or his pardon which is a remission of his penance be plenarie By this you perceiue that penance with him is taken for punishment satisfactory and not for repentaunce of the hearte and true conuersion vnto GOD But there is a plenarie pardon and satisfaction for all sinnes giuen to euerie penitent sinner therefore euery penitent sinner goeth streight to Christ whom we knowe and beleeue to be in heauen The minor is proued by sainct Iohn 1. Iohn 2. Iesus Christ is our aduocate and propitiation for our sinnes The bloude of Iesus Christe doth purge vs from all sinnes Secondly hee saith I allude to a place Romans 14. wee liue to our Lorde and wee die to our Lord whereby nothing else is ment but that hee is our iudge in life and death A bare exposition if wee haue no more comforte by liuing to the Lorde then that hee shall bee our iudge at our death Howe be it I grounde not myne argument onelye of that phrase to controll Augustines exposition of them that die in the Lorde Apoca. 14. for martyrs onely as you slaunder mee but compare other places of the faithfull that are asleepe in Christ 1. Corin. 15. And they that are deade in Christ 1. Thessalonians 4. where the phrases being all one with that of Apoca. 14. blessed are the deade that dye in the Lorde that text cannot bee restrained onely to the blessednesse of martyrs but extendeth to the happinesse of all that are deade in the Lorde which are all the faithfull But the circumstance of the place saith Bristowe giueth it to bee meant of martyrs I aunswere there is no circumstance that can proue it to bee spoken onely of Martyrs seeing the argument of their blessednesse is dying in the Lorde whiche is common to all the faithfull therefore blessednesse also and that is the iudgement of S. Augustine de ciu dei lib. 20 Cap. 9. whatsoeuer Allen or you prate to the contrarie For after the text rehearsed he writeth thus vpon it Reg. nat itaque The Church therefore nowe first reineth with Christ in the lyuing and in the deade For therefore as the Apostle saith Christ dyed that he shoulde be Lorde ouer the liuing and ouer the deade But therefore he named onely the soules of the Martyrs because they as the chiefe reigne being deade which vnto death striued for the truthe But by a part we vnderstand the whole euen the rest that are deade pertaining to the Church which is the kingdom of Christ. Whether that iudgement may stande with Purgatorie My first argument he maketh of the true falling to the North or South and so resting which in
euerlasting rest of infantes that were not baptized But what saith Bristowe to my reply which is this The same reason serueth as well against the Popish Purgatorie because we finde it not in the holie Scriptures Bristowe asketh whether Saint Augustine doth so reason against it As though that were materiall when the reason will binde one man as wel as another and one matter as wel as another As for his opinion of prayer for the dead as I haue often saide proueth not a thirde place as for the two places De Ciu. Dei lib. 21. cap. 13. 24. the one manifestly corrupted the other iustly suspected I haue spoken to them both alreadie Other Doctors about prayer for the dead I cited Purg. 382. Gelasius 24. 92. C. Legatur That no man can be absolued of the Pope after his death and wherefore then serue the Popes Pardons Bristowe answereth that all their suffrages are only for them that die in their communion and not for excommunicate persons Verie well yet are you not escaped For where is the Popes commission for pardoning Quodeunque c Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shal be loosed in heauen c. if this be your commission as well for giuing pardoÌ„s as for absoluing excommunicate persons this commission cannot be exercised but vpon the liuing We read saith Gelâ—sius that Christe did raise the dead we reade not that he did absolue them that died in errour If I had pleasure to enterlarde the Doctors sayinges as you haue I should adde that we reade not that Christ gaue pardon to any in Purgatorie And because he alone had power onely this to doe he committed it to Peter the Apostle principally Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shabe loosed also in heauen c. He saith vpon earth for he neuer saide that he was to be absolued which died in his binding Likewise that this authoritie giuen by this texte be it more or lesse is to be exercised onely vpon men liuing on the earth you may read C. 24 q. 2. Quod autem And that no man can be excommunicated or absolued after his death it is shewed by the wordes of the Gospell in which it is said whatsoeuer you shal binde c. he saith vpon the earth not vnder the earth Where I cited out of Cyprian Cont. Demetr Pur. 140. when men are departed from hence there is no place of repentance no effect of satisfaction Here life is either lost or saued Here prouision is made for euerlasting life by the worshipping of the fruite of faith Bristowe chargeth me with clipping because I left out the last periode which is neither to nor fro my purpose Likewise where I said he exhorteth Demetrianus himselfe to repentance which had bene a wicked man and a persecutor of Christians he chargeth me with changing for I should haue said which presently was I changed no worde of Cyprian in saying he had beene and a reasonable man would haue vnderstoode me that he presently was such a one when I said Cyprian exhorteth him to repentance But what is the answere This which is expresly written of Infidells in hell and of baptisme I pretend to be written of the faithfull in Purgatory and of penance after baptisme I answere Cyprian speaketh generally of all men not of Infidels only of al men in this world and not of Infidels in hell Nec quisquam c. Neither let any man be staide either by sinnes or by yeares that he should not come to obteine saluation To him that remaineth still in this worlde no repentance is to late The way is open vnto pardon and to them that seeke and vnderstand the trueth the accesse is easie Finally after he had saide that passage is from death to life the place by me cited he addeth Hanc graiiam This grace Christ bestoweth this gift of his mercie he giueth by subduing death with the trophee of his crosse redeeming the beleeuer with the price of his bloud reconciling man to God his father quickening a mortall man by heauenly regeneration Him if it may be let vs all followe let vs be esteemed by his sacrament and signe he openeth vnto vs the way of life he restoreth vs to Paradise he bringeth vs to the kingdome heauen with him we shall alwayes liue c. These wordes declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth one meane of saluation as well for the Gentile to be baptised as for the penitent Christian by the onely mercie of God in Christe obteined in this life without any satisfaction of paine for euer after this life and therefore he saith moreouer That beeing made the sonnes of God by Christ restored by his bloud we shall alwayes reioyce with him We Christians shall be together with Christ glorious blessed of God our father reioycing of perpetuall pleasure alwayes in the sight of God and alwayes giuing thankes to God For he can not be but alwayes ioyfull and glad which when he was guilrie of death is made sure of immortality Thus doth Cyprian promise to Demetrianus if he did repent but euen immediately before his death and were baptised that he should enioye the same state of felicitie with all faithfull Christians in perpetuall ioy after death with Christ. In like maner he exhorteth them that were fallen in persecution to repent in this worlde while confession may be receiued and satisfaction and remission made by the Priest is acceptable to God which he speaketh generally as if he had saide no satisfaction or remission made by the Priest auaileth to them that are departed To the place of Chrysostome whiche I cited against himselfe Pur. 251. Bristowe after he hath remoued the question from the cause to the person answereth that no friend no iust man shall helpe him that dieth in mortal sinne either committing euil or doing no good I say no more but as I saide before Let it be compared with Chrysostomes other saying the Homilie next before 41. in 1. Cor. and with Allens exhortation in the same Chapter Pur. 242. If thou yet chance c. Out of Ambrose although allowing prayer for the dead I cited in Psalm 4. Bene c. The Prophet did well to adde on earth for if he be not cleansed here he can not be cleansed there I should haue saide cleane saith Bristowe for though he be not cleane from veniall sinnes he may be cleansed there as also from the temporall debt of his remitted mortall sinnes But he forgetteth the worde of the Psalme out of which Ambrose maketh his note Vt emundet cum in terra that he may cleanse him on earth why was it well added on earth if he might be cleansed after this life There is no cleansing but on earth Where Ambrose was alledged by Allen Pur. 104. to proue that euerie man immediately after his death doth feele that he must looke for in the day of iudgement I saide Purgatorie 105. I maruell wherefore it is brought in if it bee not to
Gardener others challenge Theodoret Gelasius Againe he sayth The fathers are against the Protestants because they excuse Hilarie Chrysost. Cyrill by the figure of Hyperbole which is a Rhetoricall lye but in deede this argument is a lewde lye of one which knoweth neither Logike nor Rhetorike but like a young smatterer or a sophisticall cauiller For the figure of Hyperbole is not a lye more then any other figure of Rhetorike in the true vnderstanding thereof whereas after wrong vnderstanding euen that which is spoken without all figure is false and vntrue Finally whereas he chargeth vs to denye the workes of the auncient writers Dionysius Ignatius Polycarpus Abdias c. that is a lowde lye shadowed neither with Rhetorike nor reason for we denye not the workes of those fathers but we refuse counterfeit workes falsely ascribed to them which thing if we proue not by manifest demonstration we require no credit As for that which he cauilleth against master Nowel I omitte as being confuted by master Nowel him selfe But where he sayeth the scriptures woulde neuer abide him that should saye This is not my body I answere we neuer say This is not Christes body after any manner but this is not his body after a grosse carnall or naturall maner and that saying the scripture will abide euen as well as this The rocke was not Christ naturally substantially or essentially although the scripture saye The rocke was Christ. Or this Christ was not a vine properly naturally or substantially notwithstanding that he sayeth I am a verie or true vine The prowde bragge which Sander maketh that popish Catholikes lacke no scripture for any of their assertions how true it is let all men iudge seing that for many things they confesse they haue nothing to shewe but tradition vnwritten Likewise how aptly in this controuersie of the supper he hath examined the wordes of Christes supper noted the circumstances of thinges done and saide there conferred the scriptures of both the testaments and ioyned the fathers of the first sixe hundred yeres And yet he fauoureth him selfe so much in his doing that hee boldly affirmeth vs to haue no helpe of those things For scriptures we cannot conferre to make the wordes of the supper plaine because Doing and the words therof are more playne then any other place of scripture concerning it as the passion of Christ is more playne then the lawe and Prophets c. If this were true the Apostles labored in vayne to proue the passion of Christ out of the lawe and the Prophets and the rest of the writings of the Apostles are needlesse and vncertayne instruction if the historye of the passion doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be knowen concerning it But it is a clarkly conclusion of Sander That if the words of the supper be figuratiue none other can be playne as though figuratiue speaches cannot be playne when they are vsed for playnesse sake of them that knowe how to vse them And because Sander chargeth vs Tell me masters c I say likewise Tell me masters Are these wordes recorded to be spoken in the institution action of the supper This is the new Testament in my bloud Tell me I say are these the verie words which Christ then spake or the interpretation of them If they be the very words which of you wil say they are not figaratiue If they be the interpretation then are they more cleere plaine then those words which he vttered This is my bloude Now whether the iudgement of the primitiue Church for the first 600. yeares maketh for vs as it hath in many treatises so in this that followeth it shal be shewed sufficiently Last of all it wil appeare both by the scriptures and testimonie of the fathers that the iudgemēt of the externall senses or naturall reason was not the first argument that might moue thē that first departed from antichristianitie to the ancient true vnderstāding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper Of the almightie power of Christ we doubt no more then of his will reueiled in scriptures in which seeing we learne that Christ concerning his humanitie was made like vs in all things except sin and that our bodies after the resurrection shal be made like to his glorious body Heb. 2 ver 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation wee may not reasō of his power so that we should ouerthrow his wil. For he is almightie to do whatsoeuer he will not willing to do whatsoeuer he can But of the whole matter we shal intreate more at large as occasiō is giuen in the bookes following CAP. II. Certaine notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of him that shall read this booke Sander prosessing that he followeth most the vulgar Latine translation and lest the English Bible because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any cōtrouersie is in these our dayes taketh in hand to proue many falsifications and wrong translations in the onely matter of the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloud The first is Iohn the 6. ver 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true English were worke the meate which carieth The English bible turneth Operamini labor for We labor saith he for that which we seeke and 〈◊〉 not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs. This corruption the Sacramentaries haue vsed because they doe not beleeue the meate which taryeth to be made really present so that we may worke it by faith and bodie This finall cause is falsely alledged for we beleeue the meate that tarieth vnto eternall life to be made really present by faith to them that receiue the sacrament worthily Contrariewise the papistes holde that the same meate is receiued where it taryeth not vnto etetnall life namely in the wicked And concerning the corruption pretended it is false which Sander saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth alwayes to worke that which is present and not to labour or seeke for that which is absent for saint Paul writeth 2. Thessa. 3. ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis non vult operar◠If any man will not labour neither let him eate Euery man cannot worke that stuffe which is present as in Sanders example of a Carpenter working a peece of tymber therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to labour generally either in seeking that which is absent or in working that which is present Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Sander and a manifest corruption of the text by leauing out such words as shewe the vanitie of this cauill and ouerthrowe the difference of this distinction For the wordes of Christ are these speaking to the Iewes which sought him being absent not because they sawe his miracles but because they had beene filled with his breade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labor ye not for the meate which perisheth but for the
and in him as it were againe begonne and renewed And cannot this be done except the body of Christ do really conteine all things by your surmised reuolt for I dare not vnderstand you siguratiuely seeing you abhorre figures in this matter of the supper nor Hyberbolically for that you count no better then a rhetoricall lye Wherefore if these things be really conteined as you say I thinke it small for the worship of Christes banket whose excellencie I take to be so great that it conteineth not these grosse meates of the body but an heauenly refreshing of the soule And that will the olde fathers whome you cite for your cookery plainly testifie with me First Cyprian de Coen Dom. Vident haec sacramenta c. The poore in spirite see these sacraments and contenting themselues with this one dish they despise all the delicats of this world and possessing Christ they disdaine to possesse any stuffe of this worlde Beholde Cyprian sayeth nor that this dish conteineth al foules fishes sauces spices c. but that al these are despised of them that are partakers of this dish Againe speaking of the wicked Et a secretis diuinis omnium intra se continentibus summam diffugiunt recedunt c. They fly and depart from the diuine secrets which conteine within them selues the briefe or summe of all mysteries He saith not they containe meates and drinkes syropes and confections but the summe of al mysteries or heauenly diuine treasures But saith Sander when saint Cyprian saith intra se within them he meaneth within the compasse or formes of breade and wine for these onely are the thinges that we can poynt vnto within or without Belike he will teach vs newe Grammar and newe Latine also For in our old Latine and Grammar we learned that sui and suus were reciproca but Sander will teach vs that se signifieth the compasse or formes of breade and wine Or if the worde se signifie themselues as it was wont to doe Sander wil teach vs that the compasse or formes of bread and wine are the diuine secrets themselues For Cyprian saith that the diuine secrets within themselues containe the summe of al mysteries But marke his reason and you wil thinke that an Oxe hath lowed it out rather then a man spoken it The compasse or formes of bread are the onely things that we can poynt vnto within or without for other meat drinke we see not quoth he He will haue nothing but that he can point vnto with his hand and see with his bodily eye Whereas diuine secretes whereof Cyprian speaketh can neither be seene with the eye nor poynted at with the finger but onely be vnderstoode by faith in them to whom God hath reueiled them His next witnesse is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24 Quando corpus Christi c. When the body of Christ is set before thee say with thy selfe For this bodies sake I am no more earth and ashes For this I hope to receiue heauen and the good thinges which are in heauen immortall life the seate of Angels the companie of Christ. The very table is the strength of our soule the bonde of trust the foundation our hope saluation life If wee goe hence pure with this sacrifice with most great confidence we shall ascende to the holy porch or entrie as it were compassed rounde about with golden garments But what rehearse I thinges to come whiles we are in this life this mysterie causeth that the earth is heauen to vs. Whatsoeuer Chrysostome saith here we acknowledge to be true as he did meane it but nothing he saith for Master Sanders reuolution and as little for the carnall manner of presence or eating of Christes body For euen as we are no more earth and asshes as earth is made heauen which is after a spiritual manner by fayth and yet truly and vndoubtedlye so is the body of Christ present eaten at the table According to which meaning he saith in the same homily QuemadmoduÌ„ enim corpus illud vnituÌ„ est Christo ita nos per hunc panem vnione coniungimur For euen as that body is vaited to Christ so we also by this bread are joyned in an vnion Note heere that body this bread to be diuerse thinges in naturall substance againe our coniunction to be by the bread mystically for naturally and substantially wee are not ioyned one to another but in an heauenly kinde of vnion we are made one bodye of Christ and members one of another And this is not an emptye dish of faith as Sander calleth it but a full mysterie of saluation And although faith shall cease when we haue the full fruition of Gods promises in heauen yet doth Sander both absurdly and vnfaithfully gather therof an opposition of faith and trueth wheras faith hath thereof the name in Hebrue because it is grounded vpon truth But what meaneth he by truth that which he preferreth aboue the receiuing by faith Namely the carnall manner of receiuing Christes body which hee holdeth the wicked may doe to their damnation A worthy truth in respect of which saith is counted litle worth as an empty dish which yet by their owne doctrine must make their trueth effectuall to saluation But see I pray you howe cunningly he reasoneth of the finall cause Christ tooke flesh saith he that our bodies might haue a banket made to them as the soules of the faithfull neuer lacked God whom they might feede on by faith and spirit By which reason the godly of the old testament before Christes incarnation were but halfe nourished namely in soules onely and not in bodyes if Christes flesh bee not a meat otherwise then receiued into the body after the Popishe meaning Yet he supposeth that Cyrillus fauoureth this argument In Ioan. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Oporiuiâ— enim certâ— vt non solùm anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet verâ—netiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustâ— tactu cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur For it behoued truely that not onely the soule shoulde ascend by the holie Ghost into the blessed life but also that this rude and earthly bodic shoulde be brought to immortalitie by tasting touching and by meate which were of alliance with vs. Cyrill meaneth of the outwarde element by which our faith being instructed as our bodies are fedde so we are taught that the whole man is nourished to immortalitie Therefore he saith immediatly after in the same place Nâ—â— putet ex tarditate mentis suae Iudaeus inaudita nobis excogitata esse mysteria videbit enim si attentiùs quaerit hoc ipsum à Mosâ— temporibus per figuram semper factitatum suisse Quid enim maiores corum ab ira Aegyptiorum liberauit quando mors in primogenita Aegyptiorum saeâ—iebat nónne palà m est quia diuina institutione perdocti agni carnes manducauerunt postes ac superliminaria sanguine perunxerunt
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
faith which is not of externall things but of things inuisible The tenth we truely taking them beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some read resurrection for bread wine be not tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeeme vs or did they rise from death quoth Sander No verily But the Councell saith for all that that these things which are set on the table namely bread and the cupp are beleeued of vs to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption which the wordes following do declare For this cause wee take not much but litle that we might knowe we take not to fill vs but for holinesse What can that be whereof not much but a litle is taken but the breade and wine for the body bloud of Christ is not taken in quantitie more or lesse Secondly what neede wee by taking litle be admonished that it is not to fill vs if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there which could fill vs Finally why take we a little for holines if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe and of his owne nature whether we take little or much You see therefore the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe which is a monstrous saying and as monstrous an opinion but the bread and wine in the sacrament to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing hath left out no wordes of the Councell that make against it but whatsoeuer it hath omitted it hath left of that aduantage it might iustly haue taken if it had throughly and at large discussed them CAP. XXVII That the Catholikes haue the table of Eagles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iayes The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie for alleaging the place of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles vnto the bodie of Christ as though the bodie of Christ were not vpon the altar but we onely should by faith ascend into heauen whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also and not by faith onely Afterward he rehearseth his words but without the heade or former part of them which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vs howe we should come vnto Christe and where wee shoulde finde him Likewise he translateth corruptly to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum admirabile quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamus aquilae in hat vita facti ad ipsum coelum euolemus vel potius supra coelum Vbi enim cadauer inquit illie aquilae All this hath Sander left out Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas autem appellat ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere qui ad hoc corpus accedit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora semper volare in solem iust 〈…〉 tae iniuâ—ri mentisque oculum acutissimum habere Aquilarum enim non graculorum haec mensa est For vnto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vs which commandeth vs that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it and being made Egles in this life we flie vp vnto heauen it selfe or rather aboue heauen For where the carcase is saith he there also be the Egles The Lordes body is the carcase through his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he nameth eagles to shewe that he must get vp on high which commeth to this body and that he ought to haue nothing to doe with the earth nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places but alwayes to flie vp vnto the high places and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eie of the minde most cleare For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vs that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar or in heauen For wee must bee made Egles not to hoouer vppon the table but to flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen because Christ is there Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vnto the highest place and to haue nothing to doe with the earth or lower places if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table But wee must haue a moste cleare eye of the minde sayeth Sander to see the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as an Egle flying on high will fee a fish vnder the water and catch it as Augustine writeth But Chrysostome teacheth vs not to flye vpon high to looke downe from on high and see the bodie of Christ vnder the water or clowdes of accidentes but alwayes to flye vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse which is in heauen and not belowe on earth for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table what neede wee flye from it to beholde it from so great a distance And whereas hee sayeth that wee are Iayes because wee see weakely and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine I woulde hee knewe wee haue a moste cleare eye of the minde which through that base banket of breade and wine can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe sitting aboue all heauens and flye so high with the winges of faith that wee not onely see it but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting it is because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause the onely mercy of GOD in Iesus Christ and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen But saith Sander hee speaketh of the table whiche standeth in the Church before vs hee speaketh not nowe of heauen which is aboue the sunne This saith Sander without all proofe and against all reason For Chrysostome saith it is the table of Egles therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church where vnto we must flie vpwarde alwayes euen into heauen where that bodie which once was deade is nowe sitting in glorie yea aboue all visible heauens and therefore aboue the sunne So that the table in Chrysostome signifieth metonymically the spirituall meat and drinke which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie whereof the table on earth with that which is on it is onely a Sacrament pledge assuraÌ„ce But Chrysostome in the same homily saith If no man will rashly handle an other mans garmente howe dare wee
might be◠conuerted yet hee speaketh in an homily or Sermon to the faithfull for their instruction at which neuer a Iewe was present And where as Sander argueth that because no infidell was admitted to bee present in time of masse therefore Augustine might not lawfully talke to a Iewe of the mysticall presence of Christ in the Sacrament hee sheweth double follye for why might hee not expounde euen to the Iewes that which our Sauiour Christe him selfe spake to the vnbeleeuing Iewes of the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud and secondly when hee preached publikely of that mysticall presence or writ of it in bookes which hee set abroade to bee redde of all men howe coulde hee prohibit infidels to heare the one or reade the other And yet I knowe the ancient Fathers had such regarde to speak of the mysteries of our religion before infidels that they shoulde not take an occasion to scorne them or deride them Neuerthelesse they were not so daungerous as Sander imagineth Iustinus Martyr in his Apologie to the heathen emperors and Senate of Rome and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Iewe feareth not plainely to expresse what the faith of the Christians was concerning these holy mysteries wherefore Augustine although in these wordes he spake not of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet in other words of the same homilie as you haue seene hee speaketh of the presence of Christ euen in his sacraments The third Booke In the Preface of the third Booke he promiseth to proue First that Christ in the sixt of S. Iohn spake of the gifte he made afterwarde in his parting banket Secondly that the real presēce of his flesh and bloud is euidently prooued by such words of promise as he there vttered Afterwarde he excuseth himselfe that he is driuen to handle deepe obscure matters being a poore scholler of Oxford and yet inferior to 200 that were in the late Tridētine councel So that if any Parliament man brought vp in hawking and hunting think he writeth too profound ly for his vnderstanding he must thinke that he is lesse able to be a iudge of this whole controuersie and of all questions in religion As though it were necessarie for euerie member of the Parliament that shall entreate of cases of religion to be trained vp in schoole points of Popish diuinitie which the farther they be from the vnderstāding of that cōmō people y◠further they are from faith Christiā religiō which ought to be cōmonly know◠euē to the simplest women and children And albeit that euerie parliament man is not able of himselfe to iudge of al controuersies of religion yet they altogether by the instruction of so many godly learned men as are among them may decree what lawes are necessarie to bee made for the aduancement of Gods glorie in religion as well as for the furtherance of the common wealth in quiet tranquillitie To conclude his foolish preface hath neuer done craking of hard and difficult matters as though he were a man of such ripe iudgement in them that whatsoeuer he did write were the Oracles of Apollo where as in deede euerie meane wise man shall easily perceiue that when he would seeme to winde himself out of a difficult and intricate matter hee sheweth more boldnesse in aduouching then soundnes in his approuing CAP. I. The argument of the sixt chapter of saint Iohn is declared First he affirmeth that Christ may bee receiued three wayes by faith and spirit onely without the Sacrament in the Sacrament of the Altar onely without faith and grace or in both together Of the laste kind of receiuing he affirmeth that Christ speaketh toward the later end of the Chap. In the beginning vpon occasion of the miracle of multiplying bread and fishes he exhorteth the Iewes to worke the meate that perisheth not which the sonne of man will giue them This gift saith hee is plainelie meant of his last supper and so saith Theophilact a late writer But because they could not come to the working of this gift without faith vpon him therefore hee teacheth for a preparation that he is the breade of life c After which preparation made he returneth saith he to expounde his owne gifte shewing most expressely that which he will giue in his last supper And the breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde But the gift of spirituall eating was not to come when Christ spake vnto his disciples but Christ saieth his peculiar gifte was to come This onely reason he vseth in this Chapter Wherein you must note first that heere of a falsifying minde hee citeth the wordes of Christ otherwise then Saint Iohn did write them For his wordes are these And the breade that I will giue is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the worlde In which wordes the gifte is manifestly referred vnto his passion and not vnto his supper Wherefore although spirituall eating of his fleshe was from the beginning of the worlde yet that singular act by which the flesh of Christ had vertue to feede vnto eternall life and was giuen for meate was not then performed but was soone after accomplished in his death and passion For all benefites of Christe haue like streames flowed alwayes from the bloud of his crosse and our redemption and reconciliation thereby If Sander will excuse him selfe of falsifying the scripture because the vulgar translation in the later ende of the sentence leaueth out these words which I will giue which it is certaine by the Greeke text of saint Iohn that our sauiour Christ did speake hee cannot so escape for the Latine texte without his preiudicate opinion brought vnto it although it want the wordes yet may well reteine the sense But Sander wilfully leauing out these wordes which he knoweth both to haue beene vsed by Christ and which giue a cleere and cleane contrarie sense to that whiche hee affirmeth and that in so weightie a matter as is the passion of Christe wittingly incurreth the horrible cursse of GOD pronounced against all them that adde or take any thing from his holie worde CAP. II. It is prooued by circumstances and by the conference of holie Scriptures that Christe speaketh in saint Iohn of his laste supper The circumstances are 6. the conferences 17. and yet neither any one nor altogether prooue that Christ speaketh of his supper otherwise then as it is a seale of the do ctrine which he teacheth in that Chapter The first circumstance is the time which he supposeth to be Easter tweluemonth before his supper instituted to argue that he speaketh of his supper is a vaine argument both because the time is vncertaine and also because the time of Easter if it were certaine hath better relation to his passion then to his supper The 2. circumstance is the myracle made in breade A ridiculous matter as though it were not made also in flesh But in deede the
for we affirme that euery one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world hath beene fedde truely with the verie naturall flesh of Christ but spiritually receiued and by other meanes then vnder the forme of breade in the supper namely by faith and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion and might come to them and euen without faith and without Sacraments in such of Gods elect as lacking age were preuented by death before they could be partakers of sacraments by the onely working of Gods holy spirite who no lesse worketh in this wonderfull spiritual nourishment then in any spirituall regeneration And therefore Sander reasoneth like a grosse Philosopher when he sayth that no signe is able to comiey that heauenly bread to vs. It is horrible blasphemie to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my soule and bodie seeing faith is but a creature onely wherein the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore is not able to attaine to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to giue it mee And yet for all this that Sander sayeth the Apostle prayeth that Christ in whome the fulnesse of the godhead dwelleth corporally may dwell in our heartes by faith In deede not by the worthinesse of faith but by the grace of the holy spirite who giueth strength to the weake elements of the worlde and to our vnperfect faith to bring to passe wonderfull effects as we may see in baptisme Wherefore to reason of the weakenesse of signes and vnablenesse of faith seuerally from the spirite of God is as much as if you would go about to proue that because a mans body without his soule can do nothing therefore being vnited to his soule it is not of force to do any thing To prooue that wee cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh he alleageth Cyrillus and Augustine whose authorities it is needeles to repeate seeing wee grant as much as he would haue to be proued by them But beside them he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit Si verè verbum c. If the worde be truely made flesh and in our Lordes meate wee truely receiue the worde made flesh howe can it bee but hee must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Hereof he gathereth that wee receiue Christ into our bodies after a carnall manner of receiuing which is farre from Hilaries meaning although he vse the worde naturally which euen Sander must confesse to be vnproperly vsed or else hee shall admitte many vnnaturall conclusions Wherefore by naturally he meaneth properly verily and truely yet after a diuine and spirituall manner not after a grosse naturall and sensible manner of habitation Againe this dwelling of Christ in vs naturally doeth not prooue that hee is corporally receiued into our mouthes and settled in our stomakes But this is sufficient to prooue that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually receiued in that hee affirmeth it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receiue his flesh in the Lordes meate Sander addeth worthily But Hilarie sayeth truely Therefore whosoeuer truely receiueth the flesh of Christ in the meate of our Lord Christ must needes dwell in him naturally but Christ dwelleth not at all in the vngodly therefore the vngodly receiue not his fleshe in the Lordes meate as the Papistes say in whome also hee shoulde dwell naturally if hee were receiued truly or as they say corporally CAP. IX By the three diuerse giuings which are named in Saint Iohn it is shewed that Christ giueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of another thing The three times of giuing doe not prooue that three diuerse things are giuen neither doeth Sander saye one worde to prooue that they doe and where is then the grounde of this disputation God by Moyses sayeth Sander is sayde to haue giuen in time past he hath giuen them breade from heauen to eate But Christ sayeth Moyses gaue you not breade from heauen but my Father giueth you the true bread from heauen Euen he which gaue them Manna for a Sacrament of the true breade euen he gaue then giueth nowe and shall giue for euer the true breade from heauen which is the fleshe of our Sauiour Christe incarnate crucified reuiued and ascended into heauen for our saluation And howe can Sander prooue that Christ saying hee will giue his flesh meaneth any other gift then God his father did alwayes giue except he referre his giuing to the time of his passion the fruite whereof was and is giuen vnto the ende of the worlde That the breade which Christ giueth is true vnder a figure that is the forme of bread fulfilling the figure of Manna is a dreame of Sanders owne head for Christ speaketh not of any giuing vnder a figure or forme of breade or of giuing the bread of his supper but of the generall foode of eternall life which it is necessarie that al they be partakers of which shal be partakers of eternall life And therefore it is out of measure absurd that Sander would proue his figuratiue forme by Irenaeus which saieth that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and wine the other heauenly c Irenaeus saith not that the formes of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament but bread and wine in deede for those externall formes or accidents bee not any earthly thing which is a substantiall matter Irenaeus saieth of the bread and wine our bodies are increased and nourished so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But hee will shewe the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion If Christes gift saieth he consisted of the substance of breade sanctified in qualitie and made a signe of his body as the sacramentaries teach it shoulde neither bee the true bread which his father gaue him nor better then Manna c But where doe the Sacramentaries teach that Christes gifte spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in qualitie c. Wee teach that Christs gifte is his owne naturall bodie and bloude giuen in his passion to all the faithfull of the worlde to bee the foode of eternall life as for the substance of bread giuen in his last supper wee teach that it is a Sacrament and seale of this gift Therfore he must seeke other Sacramentaries to fight against if any such be For wee teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments according to the worde of God making difference as all Christian diuines haue done before vs of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament CAP. X. By the shadow of the law past and by the naked trueth to come in heauen it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnder the forme of breade He groundeth vpon the 10. to the Hebrews The Law hath the shadowe of good things to come
and not the verie image of things applying the shadowe to the Lawe the image to the gospel and the things themselues to the life to come In which application he seeth not howe he graunteth to the Gospel but an image of things and not the thinges themselues and thereby in deede denieth the verie flesh of Christ to be giuen vs but an image thereof For his glosse will not stande with the Apostles wordes that we haue the verie flesh of Christ vnder the image o◠forme of bread the Apostle saying we haue the image of things which image if it be none other but the accidents of breade wee haue no great prerogatiue aboue the Law In deede the Apostle meaneth that the same things which were but rudely shadowed as it wer with a cole to the fathers in the Law are in a liuely image described and set forth vnto vs in the Gospel For the Gospel hath not those good thinges which are to come but possesseth them by faith Therefore how foolish is that conclusion of Sander vppon this text Christ gaue vs his real flesh vnder the forme of breade or else he gaue not the thing it selfe and if hee gaue it without figure out state were not an image of the things themselues Wheras the Apostle speaketh not of these things which are giuen but of the clearenes of the doctrine of those things which are promised and therefore he calleth them good things to come and Christ an high Priest of good things to come As madde yea and more frantike is that conclusion that Christ cannot be a mediator betweene the two Testaments except he gaue his flesh vnder the forme and figure of breade By which drunken conclusion it should follow that Christs mediation depended vpon the institution of the Sacrament which the Apostle in expresse words doth affirme to haue bene made complet in his death which was effectuall vnto all ages alike Heb. 9. Also that Christ in Baptisme hath not shewed himselfe to be a mediator greater then Moses because he hath not therein giuen vs his naturall flesh which is in heauen And last of all that Christ is not a mediator vnto the fathers that liued before the institution of his supper but onely to them that are partakers of his flesh in the supper Againe as vntrue it is that because Christ came to fulfill the Law therfore it was necessarie that he should giue his flesh vnder a figure which flesh was not giuen to them that liued vnder the Lawe as though there were one meane of saluation for them and another for vs. The scripture doth often distinguish the Law and the Gospel shewing what is peculiar to either of them but it neuer affirmeth that the persons liuing in the time of the strength of Moses Lawe were saued otherwise then by the Gospel that is by remission of sinnes through faith in the mercie of God reconciled to vs by Iesus Christ. Therefore it is more then blockish to wrest the distinction of the Testamēts to make a difference of the saluation of the persons Seing the new Testament was not first ordeined as Sander seemeth to say when Christ did institute his supper which hee called the new Testament but euen from the beginning of the world but yet to take effect vertue and strength by the death of Christ of which Testament the supper is a sacrament bearing the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament as well when it is called the newe Testament as when it is called the bodie and bloude of Christ. And therefore the example of the precept of not killing expounded by Christ to extend to anger proueth not any newe trueth to be added by the Gospel but the ancient right meaning of the cōmandement deliuered from the glosse of the Pharisees which expounded the precept onely of murthering with the hand For who will say that such anger as Christ forbiddeth was lawfull before the time he made that exposition or that to commit adulterie in heart by lusting after a woman was not sinne before Christ did so interpret that commaundement If it were sinne then it was a breach of the Law if it were a breach of the Lawe it was of the Lawe that was giuen therefore the Lawe was alwayes spirituall and had that true meaning and was so taken of all good men before Christ reprooued the corruption of the Pharisaical glosses That all legall instruction and propheticall figures are transferred into the sacraments of Christ as Leo saith we agre We denie not that which Dionyse saieth although wee may not acknowledge him to haue beene S. Pauls scholler that our holy gouernement partaketh of heauen spirituall contemplation and of the Lawe sensible signes Neither of both these autorities proue the matter in question As for the distinction of gifts whervnto Sand. tumbleth againe in the end of this chapter we make not voyd by our figuratiue doctrine But such distinction as was in deede betweene that which Moses gaue and God gaue we vpholde by our figuratiue doctrine which sheweth y◠right difference betweene the auctor and the minister the signe the thing signified But that distinction betwene the gift which the Father gaue alwayes and that which the sonne promiseth to giue to be diuerse whē Sander cā proue we may be brought to acknowledge it In the meane time that promise of continuance of that gift in the Future temps which Christ hath alwayes giuen is a slender argument to proue the distinction of gifts imagined by Sander Finally in substance of the foode of eternal life as we differ not in the life eternall it selfe we are not preferred before the lewes They did all eat the same spiritual meate c Our prefermente is more cleere sight and vnderstanding euen such difference as is between the knowledge obteined by a description of a bodie shadowed and liuely set foorth in colours which is the shadow and verie image that the Apostle speaketh of Heb. 10. CAP. XI The bread that Christ promiseth to giue which is his flesh must needs be meant of the substance of his flesh There is no doubt but Christ did giue the substance of his flesh which being crucified for vs is made the bread of life and spirituall meate and drinke to be receiued of vs not after any corporall manner of eating but by faith in spirit not onely in the Sacrament of his supper but in baptisme also and without any sacrament But that it must stand for a trueth vniuersally receiued that Christ saying The breade which I will giue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil giue you at my last supper that I say I denie What Sander vaunteth he hath proued thereof in the 5. and 6. chapters of this booke let it bee examined with mine answere But admit he had spoken principally of his supper yet doeth it not followe which Sander doth inferre that he promised to giue his flesh to Iudas because he was one of the
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
physicall argument either he commanded it by an other worde or els this worde is vnproper For to eate by faith is to eate vnproperly and not to eate physically as all other meats are eaten The seuenteenth circumstance of these wordes This is my body He will speake of these wordes but as of a circumstance if the â—â—â—be Is import no more but a bare signe Christ is greatly promoted to giue thankes for leauing a bare signe I answere Christ gaue not a bare signe but his body to be spiritually receiued with a seale and an effectâ—â—ll signe but euery figure and token saith he which d 〈…〉 th in substance from his trueth is alwayes bare and naked in respect of the trueth it representeth M 〈…〉 â—â—we the dâ—gge barketh against the dignity of baptisme and all the Sacrament of the old time and caâ—â—lleth foolishly by disioyning of thinges to be conioy 〈…〉 d. But Chriâ—â— saith he hauing a body presented not bread and wiâ—e as figurâ—s of his body and bloud in 〈…〉 e to 〈◊〉 â—â—ther and gaue thankes for them This is a pâ—lting 〈…〉 ion of that in question for we denie the Sacrifice pretended yet Christ at other times gaue thankes for bodily meate much more nowe for spirituall food of the soule as the Sacrament is beeing worthily receiued As for Melchisedek his Sacrifice in breade and wine we finde none that he offered to God but a refreshing to Abraham whome in deede he blessed as the Priest of God and so hath Christ blessed vs with eternall happines Therefore all this babling of Sander that Christ offered bread and wine to his father which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fatte Oxe and giue him in a paper writen this is a fat Oxe c. is not worth one Goates heare Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once shedding his bloud the great mystery of which redemption he deliuered to his Apostles in the outwarde creatures of breade and wine But let vs see howe he prooueth that these wordes are not figuratiue First Ambrose saith In the diuine consecration the selfe wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke and Chrysostome saith that by this word This is my body the thinges set forth are consecrated but figuratiue wordes worke nothing therefore they are not figuratiue This minor is a starke lye often times confuted These wordes in the very institution of the supper are figuratiue This is the new Testament in my bloud and yet worke as much as these This is my body Likewise the wordes of Christ are spirite and life therefore not figuratiue is a beastly argument vnworthy answering which wold denie al figuratiue speches to be the words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum we leaue neuer a one in his own signification plucking them from their gender and case when we expound it thus This doth signifie my body which is a toy to mocke with an Ape For who can expound a sentence in other wordes to keepe the same case and gender and kinde of wordes alwaies But it is a weighty matter that Sander hath obserued in Saint Paules order of wordes placing the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 next to the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vttering the wordes after this manner This of me is the bodie whereas the other Euangelistes say This is the bodie of me Verily there is not here so much oddes as betweene a milhorse and an horsemill But what is the great mysterie that lyeth in this obseruation forsooth it giueth coniecture such as in the order of words may be had that the Pronowne This onely resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Bodie and cannot be referred vnto Bread For it were an hard speech to say this bread of me is the signe of bodie But if I say this bread doeth signifie of me the bodie what other sense hath it then if I saye this bread doeth signifie the bodie of mee I blame not Sander for scanning narrowly whatsoeuer is vttered in the scripture but in vrging the composition of the Greeke speech which is not like the English tongue where there is no difference in sense seeing the Latine composition wâ—l wel admitt that which soundeth hardly in the English speeche Hic panis mei signum est corporis The eighteenth circumstance of these wordes which is giuen for you Sander playeth the foole out of measure to vrge the accidents of grammar in a figuratiue speech Saint Luke sayeth Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur If you take corpus figuratiuely saith he then the sense must be Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my bodie which figure is giuen for you and so not his true bodie but a figure thereof was giuen for vs. Sander thinketh he hath to do with young laddes that learne their accidentes of grammar which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections But what if wee expound it thus Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei as Tertullian doeth and reteining the gender of the Relatiue say quod pro vobis datur This is a figure of my bodie which bodie is giuen for you Sander hath his answere readie that the relatiue must repete his whole antecedent which cannot haue at once both a proper and vnproper meaning What coulde Priscian or Aristarchus haue vttered more learnedlie But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me vos c. This is my couenant which you shall obserue betweene me and you c. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti the signe or seale of the couenant as it must needes be for circumcision whereof he speaketh was not the couenant how doth the relatiue repete the whole antecedent howe hath one word a proper and vnproper vnderstanding Againe Exodus 12 Haec est religio phase Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo This is the religion of the Passeouer No straunger shal eate of it Heere co is a relatiue agreeing in the newter gender with phase his antecedent and yet phase the passeouer signifieth a Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe when it is saide Hoc est postrâ—mum pascha quod comedit Iesus cum discipulis This is the last passeouer that Iesus did eate with his disciples hath not quod the same relation which it hath in these wordes quod pro vobis datur But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar what if the figure bee laide in the verbe est after this manner Hoc est id est significat corpus â—â—um quod pro uobis datur this signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents and relatiues But hee hath founde another mystery in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
significat in the consecration of the bloud hic remaineth without a substantiue Fulke A bable answered lib. 4. circumst 23. Sand. 18 In these words this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud Fulke Ye fable we take it properly and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes This is my bloude Sand. 19 If you take bloud properly in these words it must also be proper in these This is my bloud Fulke That followeth not Sand. 20 The construction of these words This cup is shed for you prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed which you say is wine Fulke This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst 26. 27. Sand. 21 In Christs words The breade which I will giue is my flesh you expounde I haue giuen and I doe giue Fulke Yea I will giue as I haue done and doe Sand. 22 In Saint Paul The breade which wee breake is the communicating c. you expounde signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs Fulke And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments haue like with theirs the ceremonies of the Gentiles also not what difference there is You are wel studied in Saint Paul Sand. 23. The cuppe of blessing you wil haue to be a cuppe of wine as though the blessing wrought nothing in it Fulke As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation Sand. 24. You make Christ giue thankes to his father in beginning the state of the new testament in better words then deede for his words are This is my body yet you will haue him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing Fulke Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament was at the institution of the supper Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament Secondly howe prooue you that This is my bodie are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god Sand. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to giue to our mouthes lesse then Moses for Manna was better then common breade Fulke Sacraments be no shadows Neither did Moses giue Manna but God for ought that I knowe And it is most conuenient that the signes of the new testament should be lesse glorious then of the old because the doctrine is more cleare Sand. 26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating that is to say for not eating or refusing to eate For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ. Fulke For wee expounde guiltie for eating to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily that is in some vnreuerently or negligently in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby Sand. 27. You will not haue Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables who both did sacrifice and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs Fulk We will haue no more sacrifices but the onely and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption The repetition of sacrifice sheweth an imperfection in it and not a betternes Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar table of diuels not in sacrifice but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars tables which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is and ouerthroweth your carnall presence Sand. 28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure whereby you shew him not to be truly deade Fulk You shewe it by eating him aliue whereby there is no argument of his death We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element without which it is lame dead and vnperfect Sand. 29 Ye expounde the not making difference c. in such sort that hee will not haue the bodie present wherein difference is to be made Fulk As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence Sand. 30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe by corporall participation which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh Fulk Our corporall participation is by his incarnation which is applied vnto vs by faith through his spirite vniting vs vnto him and testifyed in the supper Sand. 31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels by howe much he hath a more excellent name you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries but affirme them to bee as they were before c. Fulk The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name but because he hath it by inheritance for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God and princes are called Gods You haue not sought Christ in the scriptures but the confirmation of your heresie Againe we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries that wee beleeue them to bee the same that they are called after a spirituall manner although they haue not that name by inheritance but by grace affirming in the elementes a greate alteration from that they were before not in substance but in vse and effecte Sand. 32 No promise in the scriptures can be found made to him that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper beside the worde of God Fulk The promise is made in scripture to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution although not for eating bread and drinking wine onely This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme because no promise is made to him that is washed in water but to him that is washed according to Christes institution Sand. 33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored Fulk Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament Sand. 34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament Fulk The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall shall be taken away by the comming of Christ but among true Christians which do renounce all worshipping of idols Sand. 35 Christ came to saue feed the whole man◠why deny you the foode of life to our bodies Fulk We affirme that Christ feedeth bodie soule vnto eternall life without the sacrament and with it although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates nor swallowed and disgested as they are Sand. 36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone why is it called a supper more then baptisme