twelue which taryed with him at Capernaum for his promise in offer was as large to all that departed and to the world for the life whereof he promised to giue his flesh therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not onely a spirituall gift that was promised but an externall gift deliuered by hand which Iudas might receiue For Christ promiseth such a gift as if it be receiued worketh eternall life in the receiuers Finally it cannot be prooued that Iudas was prseÌ„t at the supper who departed about his treason before the institution of the sacrament as appeareth by saint Iohn immediatly after the soppe receiued wherevnto some of the ancient writers also do consent Furthermore that the gift of Christ doth differ from the gift of his father in person and time and therfore cannot be giuen by faith only it is no good consequent For God gaue his sonne for the worlde and Christ gaue himselfe for vs yet but one gift The difference of time I haue often answered As for the obiection that he faineth the Sacramentaries must say that that flesh heere staÌ„deth for the signe or figure of his flesh is of his owne making for as I said before we vnderstand the flesh of Christ giuen for the life of the world his naturall body crucified for vs and not the sacrament of his body giuen in his last supper CAP. XII A further declaration of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud taken out of the discourse of his owne wordes concerning the different eating of him by faith and the receiuing of his flesh and bloud in the Sacrament of the Altar First he repeteth his three gifts God gaue by Moses naked figures as Manna God giueth presently the flesh of Christ to our eyes and heartes and Christ will giue hereafter the same flesh vnder the forme of breade Of these giftes he maketh three diuerse workes the first by teeth and belly the seconde by faith and spirite and the thirde by both The gift of Christ differing from Manna is expressed in the Chapter But any difference of the gift of the father and of the sonne there is not expressed nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument Yet Sander hath founde out a great number of differences to prooue that although the Father and the Sonne giue one thing that is the flesh of Christ yet not one way to be receiued the Father giueth it to bee receiued by faith onely the Sonne to be receiued corporally The first difference is of the time The Father doeth giue in the Present tense the Sonne will giue in the Future tense This I haue often answered to be no differeÌ„te for Christ saith in the preseÌ„t temps except ye do eat the flesh c. ergo he did presently giue it Againe he that doth eat often is ofteÌ„ times repeted in the present time and my flesh is meate in deede all which prooue that Christs gift was present when he spake to be receiued therefore it differeth not from the Fathers gift and way of receiuing the same The second difference the Father giueth Christ in the forme of man by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithfull may see that sonne of Man vpon whom they beleeue as it is saide This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleeueth in him may haue euerlasting life And againe yee haue seene me and haue not beleeued Of the Sonnes gift it is not saide that his flesh shal be seene but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder the couering of another kinde of foode I answere that Christ in neither of both these sayings speaketh of the corporall sight of his body But in the one which is first placed in S. Iohn Yee 〈◊〉 au seene me and not beleeued he exprobrateth to the Iewes their wilfull blindnesse which had acknowledged him before to be the Messias when he fed their bellyes now refuse to beleeue him when hee offereth to feede their soules In the other place he sheweth that obedieÌ„ce of faith ioyned to a manifest acknowledging of Christ by the wil of God is the way to eternal life For if seing should be taken for bodily seeing of Christes flesh it could not extende to vs which cannot bodilie behold him Againe this difference ouerthroweth Sanders supposed way of the fathers giuing which is by faith and spirit onely not sensibly to the eye of the bodie Last of all it is a weake argument it is not saide in this or that text ergo it is not meant or it is not true at all The 3. difference The Fathers gifte is called the true bread from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not onely true breade but also truely breade and meate in deede Some true meate may chaunce not to bee truely meat becâ—â—se it is not eaten but nothing is meate in deede and truelye meate except it bee in deede eaten If this difference bee woorth a strawe then your consecrated hostes bee not the Sonnes gift before they bee eaten and except they bee eaten as some time yee woâ—â— well they are burned they bee not his gifte at all if not his gift then not flesh and bloude The difference of a true Vine and a Vine truelie is sufficiently discussed in the later ende of the fourth booke answered by master Nowel Sander cannot or will not consider the difference of the opposition betweene truely and falsely and truely and properly The fourth difference The Iewes and disciples went not away from Christe for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gifte thinking that a gifte of eating by faith might stande with the custome of Gods people but in the Sonnes gift they sawe more apparant absurdity not lacking vnderstanding but faith and therefore departed I answere they lacked vnderstanding as much as faith and therefore Augustinâ— saith Sed qui aderant plures non intelligendo sâ—andaliazti sunt non erum cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem quod ipsi erant But manie of them that were present were offended for lacke of vnderstanding For heating these thinges they thought on nothing but fleshe which they themselues were It is a simple difference that is gathered of the Iewes ignorance and incredulitie The 5. difference The gift of the father is called by such names only as belong to the persoÌ„ of Christ or to his diuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God onely is absolutelie the true bread of life or by the Pronoune I The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and bloud of the sonne of men If this differeÌ„ce proue any thing it prooueth not the diuerse wayes of giuing the same thing but that the same thing is not giuen by the Father and the Sonne Where as Sander saide before that the Father giueth Christ in humane nature to the worlde If the humane
is not to be adored Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples receiueth Christ but hee shal be an Idolater if he giue diuine honour to him which is due onely to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith de ijs qui myst cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament To Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God the heauenly breade the breade of life To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table To Cyrillus lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus nor Hilarius lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally and by a naturall participation for they say not so simplie but vnder a Sacrament vnder a mysterie c. that is the Sacrament doth assure vs that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe after an heauenly and diuine manner and not onely are ioyned to him in loue and faith and will but are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone by his incarnation and holy spirite vniting vs vnto him in a mystical bodie not in a personal vnion for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ must be adored with diuine honour the Church of God should bee so adored which is the bodie of Christ and so called in the Scripture Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life and the mysticall loaues which quicken vs c. gaue no diuine honour vnto it as personally vnited vnto Christ but as to an holy mysterie and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings buildeth that the Fathers affirmed that which was on the table to bee the diuine substance yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored and cannot be eaten corporally but in the Sacrament And yet no one father that hee hath cited saieth any such thing If Cyrill say we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance And to saye the Godheade can be corporally eaten in the Sacrament it is monstrous heresie When Cyrillus saith Christ dwelleth in vs corporally hee saith not by eating the Sacrament wee eate GOD or Christ corporally but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporallie by participation of the fleshe of Christ. But let vs yet heare a more full witnesse which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vpon it I will set it downe againe Hoc corpus c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion and barbarous they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at lest follow those barbarous men For when they sawe the manger and cottage and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest they came with most great reuerence and quaking But thou seest that thing not in the Manger but in the Altar not a woman which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy ghost copiously spredde vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither lookest thou barely vpon the bodie as they did but thou knowest the power of it and al the order of dispensing thinges And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges which were done by him and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs professe openly a greater deuotion then those barbarous men lest if we come barely and coldly we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire Out of this place Sander would haue the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued But this place prooueth neither of both For he speaketh figuratiuely of seeing the bodie of Christ of seeing the holy ghost spredde vpon the Sacrifice c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie but must needes haue a spirituall vnderstanding The bodie of Christ is so present as it may be seene but it cannot bee seene but spiritually therefore it is not present but spiritually This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence therefore not of their manner of adoration Nowe let vs see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place First we must note these comparisons The Altar the Manger the Virgin the Priest the Wisemen the Christians the adoration of the one and the other but this last comparison is forged for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling with earnest desire and affection not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures but to him that is seene by faith Further Sander chargeth him to say it is the same bodie in both places which Chrysost. saith not although it be the same body which is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament with that which the wise men did worship yet it followeth not that the same real body is present vpon the altar before it be receiued to bee there worshipped Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words vides in altari thou seest it on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not onely comprehended by faith but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen What say you Sander is the body of Christ seene then is hee present visibly It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread You were wont to tell vs that a substance is said to be seen where the proper accidents thereof are seene And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ O newe Philosophy and Theology but I pray you sir if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith but also seen by meane of the forme of bread by what meane is the holy ghost seen whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes in wresting the holy scriptures and sayinges of the ancient fathers As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament then the wise men did Christ in the cottage be in vaine For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament or the elementes thereof but of comming with reuerence vnto the bodye of Christ which is really in heauen whereof we are made partakers
is naturally in none but such as receiue that sacrament and that none liue naturally according to the fleshe by Christ but they that receiue the communion which is false Therefore he meaneth that Christs flesh is truely vnited to vs by vertue of his spirit which is testified in the sacrament and not that the sacrament receiued is the onelie meane but the seale of our faith which apprehēdeth the working of Gods spirit in this merueilous coniunction aboue the reach of mans reason Sand. But Hilarie saith By the Sacrament of fleshe and bloud the proprietie of natural communiō is granted Fulke We say and beleeue the same but not onely by the sacrament of the supper but without it also Sand. And againe by the same tarying carnally to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Fulke But yet after a spiritual manner according to which 〈◊〉 being once entred into vs hee neuer departeth from vs as in the popish sense he doth when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted Sand. Laste of all the mysterie of true and naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabiliter vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Fulke This cannot be restrained to the supper seeing he is corporally and inseparablie vnited to all his members of which manie neuer receiued the communion And that which you teach men to receiue in the communion is not vnseparablie vnited to them for it departeth as soone as the breade and wine by heat of the stomake are putrified according to all your schoolemens opinions Wherefore there is no cause why Maister Iewell shoulde dissemble this point which maketh wholy against your vnderstanding of Christ present naturally corpo 〈…〉 lly really c. Iew. Those wordes that Christ corporally earnally and naturally is within vs in their owne rigor seeme verie hard Sand. They must needes seeme hard to him that beleeueth not Fulk Master Iewel beleeueth them in such sense as they were spoken ment by Hilarie not as you wrest them Iew. Hilarius said we are one with God the father the sonne not only by adoption or consent of mind but also by nature which according to the letter cannot be true Sand. It is a most impudent lie forged vpon S. Hilarie that we are one with God the father by nature or with God the sonne in his diuine nature Fulk You are mad through malice no man chargeth S. Hilarie but with the phrase of speech by which it is manifest he tooke the wordes nature naturally otherwise then you as appeareth euen by that his generall rule Qui per eandem c. Those that by the same thing are one they are one by nature and not by will onely Iew. The fathers haue bene faine to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kindes of speach Sand. Now you shew your self in your colors you think the fathers do not speake wel for violent speaches bee no good speaches excessiue speaches be not literally true Fulk Sometime the fathers speake neither well nor truely But these violent and excessiue speaches are well inough and good speaches if they bee well and rightly vnderstood And what if hyperbolicall speaches bee not literally true are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers Metaphors be not literally true wil you therfore say that whatsoeuer is spoken by a Metaphor is spoken vntruely This paltrie is but to mocke selye vnlearned Papistes of whom you haue exhibition for such as knowe what figures of Rhetorike meane woulde thinke you worthie to weare a cockescombe thus to dispute of true and false out of Rhetoricall figures more then of manna literally Sand. Master Iewel is mad he is blinde full of extreme malice Fulk Railing in steede of wordes proouing that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament or of Christs naturall dwelling in vs. Iew. The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was onelie to speake of Christes birth Sand. His purpose was to speak of manna which did both signifie the birth of Christ and the sacrament of the altar Fulk What word haue you to prooue that he spake of it as it doth signifie the sacrament of the altar Iew. In like manner of speach Saint Hierome saith The wheat whereof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lorde saide my fleshe is meat in deede Sand. The speach of S. Hierome is of the sacrament therefore the speach of Nyssenus which you confesse to be like Fulk It is not like in scope and purpose but in the phrase speaking of wheate Iew. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius vnlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not beene borne spiritually Sand. I knowe not to what purpose hee speaketh it but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and because if that birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the sacrament Fulk You might haue inferred eating spiritually a◠well as borne spiritually Iew. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becommeth strong meat vnto the perfecte herbes vnto the weake c. Sand. He may be bread herbes and milke in the sacrament and without it but he is bread hearbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as manna was to the Iewes onely in the sacrament Fulk Where haue you in Nyssen your But he is c. in our mouth Is he any of this bodily Iewell Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that wee receiue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for hee saith whoso hath aboundantly drunke of the Apostles springs hath alreadie receiued whole Christ. Sander You misse of your proofe you should proue that he receiueth Christs bodie you proue that he receiueth Christ. Gregorie spake of his diuine nature which may be receiued in our heart yet not his body in our bodie Fulke I pray you sir is not whole Christ both the diuinitie the humanitie Sander If the eating of Christ proue his birth it wil follow that as he is borne really so much more hee is eaten really if hee were only eaten by faith thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith Fulke You may as well conclude if he be eaten only vnder the forme of breade he was borne onely vnder the form of bread such strength is an D. Hardings argumēt CAP. XXIIII Sander That M. Iewel hath not well answered the places of S. Cyrillus Harding Cyrillus saith when the mystical blessing is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwell in vs corporally by receiuing of Christs body in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iewel Cyrillus expoundeth himself natural vnion is nothing else but a true vnion Wee are by nature the children of anger that is in deede truely Sander He saith not it is nothing else but ss naturalē If wee call it a naturall vnion wee shall call it a true vnion Fulke M. Iewel saith not generally that naturall is nothing but
haue no more to say but it seemeth as though he would haue me â—harge the man or the time with more thaÌ„ I can manifestly proue But seing I quote no place for it he dare say I haue it not in the workes of Iustinus himselfe and counsels mee not to trust the Magdeburgian Centuries As for the Centuries I dare say I neuer redde fiue leaues of them together or in partes But I dare shew to any man that doubteth of my reading of the most auncient writers my book of notes writteÌ„ with mine owne hande more then 15. yeares past The place of Iustinus out of which such a matter seemeth is Apologia secunda ad Antoninum Pium c. where he hath these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As they that by mans lawe enter into seconde marriages are sinners by our maisters iudgement I knowe the wordes are otherwise interpreted by some and the sinne not referred to seconde marriages but to wanton beholding of women And therefore I doe not precisely charge Iustinus And yet againe I say it seemeth that the Church in his time was in some error because Athenagoras a Christian philosopher that liued in a manner in the same time doth expresly call the seconde marriage speciosum adulterium a faire kinde of adultery Qui namque repudiauerit inquit c. For hee that shall forsake his wife saith Christ and marry another doth commit adulterie suffering a man neither by diuorcement to put her away whose flower of virginitie he hath defiled nor to goe vnto seconde marriages For he that depriueth him selfe of his former wife although after she is deade a diuorcement is made is a secrete and couered adulterer transgressing the hand that is the creature or workemanshippe of God Because in the beginning hee made one man and one woman and dissoluing fleshe from flesh the vnion of commixtion instituted for the participation of kinde and sexe c. And this seemeth to be the common error of his time because he writeth this in that Apologie which he made in defence of all Christians which it is not like he woulde present to the Emperor in the name of them all except he had written that which was the common receiued opinion of the Christians doctrine in his time Concerning Hieronyme Bristowe is angrie also that I say hee was almost falne into Tertullians error when it is manifest hee was fayne to purge himselfe not onelye against malicious enuiers but also towardes Godly Bishoppes and Christians Apol. ad Pammachium Where as I laye vnto Hierom two other perilous Assertions whereof the one tendeth to destroye the humanitie of Christ the other to giue diuinity to the martyrs where hee saith The soules of the martyrs follow the Lambe whether so euer hee goeth and thereof concludeth If the Lambe be euery where those also that are with the Lambe must bee beleeued to bee euerie where Bristowe aunswereth that the sainctes are not euerie â—here in personall presence How then But of such power 〈…〉 ey be that they heare their suters in all places at once and 〈…〉 n be personally present to heale helpe whom they will Euen 〈…〉 s the lambe that is Christ according to his humanitie hea 〈…〉 eth his suters in all places and in personall presence assi 〈…〉 ed Saint Stephen and whomsoeuer else hee will I say according also to his humanitie c. But what say you according to his humanitie is hee euerie where that is the question and not of his power in hearing suters or helping them If you will defende the vbiquitie of Christ according to his humanitie speake plainely and ioyne with Hieronyme if you dare If you interprete euerie where for all power how can you giue all power to the soules of Martyrs which they ascribe onely to GOD and the Lambe Apoc. 7. And whereas you attribute vnto the soules of Saintes such power that they heare the suters in all places at once c Let the reader see howe much you ascribe to Christe that make the sute of euerie saincte equal with him in infinite power of hearing vnderstanding and helping For to heare vnderstande and helpe all suters at once is a diuine priuiledge not communicable to any creature that is not GOD. The argument therefore of inuocation of sainctes whiche you acompte to bee so stronge without horrible blasphemie against the diuine nature can neuer bee defended The Sainctes followe the Lambe not to bee of diuine nature or equall power with him but to bee partakers of his glorie according to his grace and the measure and capacitie of nature created Touching praying to the Sonne and to the holy Ghoste Being vrged by the Popishe Articles to shewe the error of the Church in any thinge I shewe Pag. 89. of that aunswere That the Councell of Carthage the 3. cap. 23. confirmed by a generall councell which is with the Papistes the Church representatiue decreed that the prayers at the altar shoulde bee directed alwayes to the father which is no small error seeing that hereof it followeth that none ought to be directed either to the sonne or to the holy Ghost or to the blessed Trinitie What moued those fathers thus to decree I know not but certayne it is the decree is erronius and offensiue Bristowe cauelleth at my collections as vnnecessarie that no prayers may bee directed but to the father whereas my wordes haue relation to such prayers as the councel speaketh off Also that the verie prayers at the altar may not be directed to the Sonne or to the holy Ghost because for orders sake they are appointed to be directed to the father I say sauing the authoritie of the councell which appointeth them to be directed to the father alwaies they may not otherwise I doubt not but they may And therefore Bristowe laboreth in vayne to proue out of Fulgentius Ad Monimum Petrum diaconum that the prayers although they bee directed to the father yet are made to the holy Trinitie especially because of the conclusion which hath in it the name of the sonne and the holy Ghost And whereas hee sendeth me to the Canon of his Masse for proofe of the same I must put him in remembraunce that in Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi O lambe of GOD which takest away the sinnes of the worlde c which is also sayde in his Masse both the prayers is directed to God the sonne yet no conclusion there is naming the father and the holy Ghost Let Bristow therefore choose whether hee will defende the error of the councell of Carthage or else acknowledge that the Romishe Church doth erre in directing the prayer at the altar to the Sonne without any conclusion including the father and the holy Ghost 5 Of minisiring the blessed Sacramentes to infantes I charge all the Churches in S. Augustines time Inâ—ocentius him selfe Bishoppe of Rome with this error 〈…〉 at they did
the holie Ghost or else he acknowledgeth him present vnder the formes of breade and wine without distinction of persons and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case seeing he wil admit no figure but a most proper speach in these wordes This is my bodie Whereas it is euident to all men that are not obstinately blinde that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is and would haue declared the same in proper speach he would not haue saide This is my bodie and this is my bloud which is but a part of him and the lowest part of him but he would haue saide take eate this is Iesus Christ or this is al that I am But when he saith this is my body this is my bloud which if it be not a figuratiue speach should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud he sheweth manifestly that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud but an heauenly and diuine mysterie teaching vs and assuring vs that God the sonne being ioined with vs in the nature of his humanitie which he hath taken vnto him by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vs on the crosse doth wonderfully feede vs and nourish vs as it were with meate and drinke vnto eternall saluation both of body and soule If any man think that I referre the words of Sander to the Sacrament which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally let him reade the whole Epistle and comparing it with the title of salutation which I haue set downe in his owne wordes consider whether Sander professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ after any other sorte then vnder the formes of breade and wine Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication tending to so grosse heresie were a declaration of his proude stomake nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onely Sauiour and Redeemer whome we adore and worship as our King and God not vnder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine but aboue all principalities and powers sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen to whom with thee and the holie Ghost we giue al honor praise for euer vouchsafe if it be thy holy wil to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie vnto the true vnderstanding of thy blessed word or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit so require shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion that we thy humble seruantes beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes may laude and magnifie thy holy name as well in the saluation of thine elect as in the destruction of thine enemies to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer Amen The preface to the Christian reader THe proposition of this painted preface is that the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde which Sander assumeth to be the vse custome and practise of the Catholike Church This assumption is false although if it were true it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times for any error which they maintaine against vs. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures is of the holy Ghost whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde but in the scriptures them selues wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God is of greater auctority then the practise of men The scriptures inspired of God are able to make vs wise vnto saluation they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people must be examined by the scriptures and not the scriptures expounded after it Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith Rom. 12. But faith is builded vpon the worde of God and not vpon the custome of men therefore exposition of the scriptures must be according to the word of God and not after the vsage of men The example which Sander vseth to confirme his false assumption is of baptising of infants of Christians before they be taught which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations To this I aunswere that the vse and consent of all nations were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places As is manifest in the institution of circumcision According to the couenant whereof the Apostle saith that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy therefore to be admitted to baptisme 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant according to which scriptures they are baptized the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused and not onely vpon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin as Sander affirmeth which custome is good because it is grounded vpon the Scriptures but the scripture is not authorized by that custome Wherefore popish confirmation and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament although he falsely affirmeth that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures but are proued contrarie to the same But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ to be against transubstantiation and adoration Sander replyeth that things vncertein must be iudged by things certeine and not contrariwise This principle is true but it is false that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine as also that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth be either all certeinties or certeinly on his side The first is the wordes of the scripture This is my body about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation The breade which we breake c. so often as ye eate of this bread c. The second is false that in the Catholike church all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnder the formes of bread c. for it is the practise onely of the Popish Church and that but of late yeres neuer admitted by the Orientall churches beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West that euer did abhorre it Thirdly the Councell of Laterane
to our greate shame and reproch receiue this pure and immaculate bodie which is the Lorde of all which is partaker of the diuine nature c. Heere saith Sander Chrysostome sheweth vs to receiue the bodie of Christe from the holy table or Altar as truely concerning the substance thereof as wee may truely touch another mans garment I answere hee speaketh in this place neither of Altar nor Table and seeing hee hath before shewed howe and from whence Christes bodie is in deede receiued if afterwarde he call the externall Sacramentes by the names of that which they signifie and performe to the worthie receiuer What proofe is that for the carnall presence Neither doth he shewe at all how truely Christes bodie is taken but what iniurie it is vnto his bodie to haue his sacraments despised or vnworthily receiued CAP. XXVIII The breade which is the meate of the mindâ— and not of the bellie can be no wheaten breade but onely the breade of life which is the bodie of Christ. This saying of Cyprian saieth Sander prooueth that the substance of breade remaineth not for materiall breade cannot be meant of the minde but of the bellie Yes forsooth as well as materiall water câ—n serue for the washing of the minde And yet Saint Peter saith it is not the washing of the body but the aunswere of a good conscience which is baptisme that saueth vs. Wherefore it may be materiall breade though not prepared to feede the body but consecrated as a sacrament to feede the minde The plaine meaning of Cyprian is that the body of Christ entreth not into the body of man but into the minde being no bodily foode but spirituall foode as the Apostle calleth it 1. Cor. 10. As for that which Tertullian saith The fleshe is fed with the bodie and bloud of Christ that the soule may be made fatte in God I haue shewed before howe it must of necessitie be vnderstoode of the externall sacrament which beareth the name of that whereof it is a sacrament seing he speaketh there altogether of the externall signes receiued in the bodie and vertue thereof applyed to the soule But Cyprian saieth further in the same treatise de coen dom Panis iste c. This breade which our Lorde gaue to his disciples being chaunged not in shape but in nature is made flesh by the almightie power of the worde This place is often alledged by the Papistes for transubstantiation but Cyprian did meane no such matter but onely that common bread by the almightie power of the worde of God is chaunged from the nature of common breade whiche is a bodily foode to bee an heauenly and spirituall foode as I haue declared more at large in answere to doctor Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 17. and shall haue better occasion to speake of the same place repeted afterwarde CAP. XXIX Sacramental eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof onely Saint Augustine speaketh in the place alledged by the Apologie The Apologie to shewe the naturall bodie of Christ not to be sought on the earth but by faith in heauen citeth this place of Aug. Tr. 50 in Ioan. How shall I hold him that is absent How shal I reach forth mine hand inâ—o heaueÌ„ that I might hold him there sitting Reach out saith he faith and thou hast caught him Here Sander scoffeth out of measure saying that Augustine in that place spake not one whit of the Sacrament but of beleeuing in Christ that hee speaketh not to the faithful but to the vnbeleeuing Iewes and therefore it is one thing to receiue Christ by faith alone another thing to receiue him by faith and sacrament together In deede it is true that Christ may bee receiued by faith alone without the sacrament and it is as true that Christ is receiued by faith alone with the sacrament seeing by this place of Augustine it is shewed that Christ is absent from the earth and to be sought in heauen onely by faith No saith Sander although he be absent to infidels that are not baptised yet hee is not absent to the faithfull that are admitted to the Lords table As though Augustine in the same treatise sheweth not at large that the bodie of Christe is not with the Church on earth vpon these words The poore you shal haue alwayes with you but me you shall not haue the place I haue ciâ—ed at large before and in the same treatise sheweth how Christ is present in the holy sacrameÌ„ts namely in one as he is in the other Quid est enim non semper quid est semper Si bonus es si ad corpus Christipertines quod significat Petrus habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum Habes Christum in praesenti sed habebis semper quia cùm hinc exieris ad illum venies qui dixit latroni Hâ—die meâ—um eris in Paradiso Si autem malè versaris videris habere in praesenti Christum quia intras ecclesiam signas te signo Christi baptizaris baptismo Christi misces te membris Christi accedis ad altare Christi in praesenti habes Christum sedmalè viuendo non semper habebis What is meant by not alwayes and what is alwayes If thou be a good man if thou pertaine vnto the body of Christ which Peter doth signifie thou hast Christ both in this preseÌ„t time and in the world to come In this preseÌ„t world by faith in this preseÌ„t world by the signe of Christ in this present world by the sacrament of baptisme in this present world by the meate and drinke of the Altar Thou hast Christ in this present world and thou shalt alwayes haue him For when thou shalt depart from hence thou shalt come vnto him which saide vnto the theefe This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise But if thou leadest an euill life thou seemest to haue Christ in this present world because thou comest into the Church signest thee with the signe of Christ art baptised with the baptisme of Christ ioynest they selfe with the members of Christ commest vnto the Altar of Christ thou hast Christ in this present worlde but by euill liuing thou shalt not alwayes haue him By these wordes it is euident howe Christ is present in the meate and drinke of the Altar namely as he is present in Baptisme which is not corporally but spirituallie Secondlie that the vngodly so receiue Christ in the sacraments that they onely seeme to haue him when in deede they haue nothing but the signe of him Thirdlie that all the faithfull in Augustines time receiued as well drinke as meate at the Altar Last of all while Sander iesteth at the penneâ— of the Apologie hee sheweth him selfe most ridiculous of all For although Augustine speaketh of the Iewes by Apostrophe which hee wisheth
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
inwarde and outward which we must vse when we come to worship Christ himselfe CAP. II. The adoration of Christs bodie is proued againe out of the Prophet Dauid Psal. 98. The Latine text is Exaltate DominuÌ„ DeuÌ„ nostrum 〈◊〉 scabellum peduÌ„ eius quoniam sanctuÌ„ est Exalt the Lord our God worship his footstoole because it is holy Sander coÌ„fesseth the Hebrew readeth because he is holy So might he haue confessed that the Hebrew readeth worship at the stoole of his feete which is at the arke tabernacle or teÌ„ple which is called by Dauid 1. Chr. Ca 28. the footstoole of Gods feete And that the sense of this verse is all one with yâ— last verse of the same Psalm which euen the vulgar Latine interpreter readeth thus Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate in monte sancto eius quoniam sanctus Dominus Deus noster Exalt ye the Lord our God worship in his holy mountaine because the Lord our God is holy In both verses is one word of worshipping the same preposition before the word that signifieth his footstoole and that word which signifieth his hil or mountaine Therfore the Latine interpreter should not haue said worship his foot stoole but worship in or at his footstoole as he saith in or at his holy hill Wherefore the Prophet Dauid in this place speaketh nothing for worshipping of the bodie of Christ any way if his own words rather then the words of the translator be considered Wherfore the foundatioÌ„ of this worship of the Sacrament is vtterly ouerthrowen But Sander saith that the Arke the temple being the footestoole of God toward which the Iewes did pray did signifie that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heauen but also in the Sacrament which is the arke temple vessel conteining the self same substance of Manna which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Did I not tell you in the preface that he would not proue the presence by the adoration but the adoration by the presence which is all in question who shall grant that the SacrameÌ„t is such an arke temple vessel as he affirmeth But many of the old fathers vnderstood the footestoose for the bodie or flesh of Christ affirming that it was to be worshipped To this I answer first they were all deceiued in their ground of scripture that so tooke the footestoole Secondly some of theÌ„ affirming the flesh of Christ is to be worshipped had no relation vnto the sacrament Thirdly they that said it was to be worshiped in the sacrament vnderstood worshipping otherwise then the Pa pists teach practise namely for reuerencing of Christs flesh in the mysteries without any imagination of carnall presence Hierom the first author cited by Sander for this purpose in Psa. 98. saith There be many opinions of the â—ootstole what it should be But heere the Prophet meaneth our Lordes body wherein the maiesty of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a footstoole This is spoken of the humanity of Christ without any respect vnto the Sacrament therfore it followeth Quid autem adorari debeat c. And that he ought to be adored the Apostles taught at his ascension when they returned vnto Ierusalem worshipping But also these thinges are to bee referred to our Lordes crosse and to his holy soule The next is Ambrose de Spir. Sanct. lib. 3. Cap. 13. Per scabellum c. By the footstoole the earth is vnderstanded by the earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the mysteries which the Apostles as we haue said before did adore in our Lord Iesus for Christ is not deuided but one Here saith Ambrose the flesh of Christ is adored in the mysteries he saith not that the mysteries are adored as the flesh of Christ. Christ is honored or contemned in the poore in his Ministers in Magistrates in his word in al his creatures It followeth not that Christ is really present in the poore in his Ministers in Magistrats in his word in all his creatures Neither can it be prooued that by mysteries Ambrose meaneth only the Sacrament of Christes supper Againe when he saieth wee worshippe the flesh of Christ in the mysteries which the Apostles worshiped in Iesus Christ it followeth that the mysteries and Iesus Christ are diuerse thinges and not all one But when the same Christ is worshipped in the mysteries that was worshipped in his proper person it followeth as Ambrose saieth that Christ is one and not deuided Thirdly is cited Augustine in Psa. 98. who interpreting the footstoole to bee the flesh of Christ which he hath giuen vs to be eaten to saluation saith Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit c. And no man eateth that flesh except he haue first adored it it is found out how such a footstoole of our Lordes may be adored and that we should not only offend in adoring but we should sinne in not adoring Here Augustine saith the flesh of Christ must be adored before it be eaten and who doubteth of that For hee that honoureth not Christe come in the fleshe shall neuer be nourished by his flesh and bloud But Augustine is so farre of to teach vs that Christs flesh is to be adored as really present in the Sacrament that he doth expresly denie his naturall body and bloud to be eaten and drunken for thus hee saith to the Capharnaites in the person of Christ as euen Sander reporteth ye shall not eate this body which you see nor drink that bloud which they shall shedde who shall crucifie mee I haue commended a certeine Sacrament to you being vnderstoode spiritually it will make you liue Although it must needes be celebrated visibly it must be vnderstanded inuisibly Howe thinke you Sander auoydeth the force of this place First he saith the last words must agree with the first and then both are true Very well he spake before of a spirituall manner of presence and eating of Christ in the Sacrament because he now denieth the corporall presence Secondly he answereth that Augustine speaketh of the visible forme and not of the substance of the body of Christ which is inuisible O abhominable impudence Augustine saith you shal not eate this bodye nor drinke that bloud Sander saieth These wordes body and bloud are taken for visible formes and not for the substance â—â—r Christ tooke not that greatnesse and quantity of flesh of his mother wherein he walked for his greatnesse increased from the state of an infant to the state of a perfect man But I pray thee Sander if with shamefastnesse thou hast not lost all thy wit tell me whether Christ was crucified in the state of an infant or in the state of a perfect man Augustine denieth the eating and drinking of that body which was crucified and that bloud which was shedde when he was crucified which body also he demeth that the Church hath present vpon
after an heauenly and spirituall manner in the Sacraments not by bringing the body of Christ downe vnto vs but by our ascending vp vnto him as Chrysostome sheweth plainly by that long allegory of the Eagles which he vseth in the 24. Homily Neither doth Chrysostome say that as those vngodly barbarous men did worshippe his body in the manger and handes of a woman so we being godly and ciuil must worshippe it lying on the altar or in the priestes hands in the forme of bread But he exhorteth by this exaÌ„ple his auditors to come often decently with dew reuerence preparation to the participation of the holy mysteries in which the same body of Christ though after an other manner is seene and dispensed But Chrysostom saith more plainely Hom. 28. I will shewe thee that in the earth which is worthy of highest honor Where can he shewe it saieth Sander but on the altar pointing to the host Yes forsooth he can shew it to the eies of faith for to the bodily eies he can shew nothing but breade and wine which is worthy of small honour But yet it followeth more plainely As in the pallaces of Kinges not the walles not the golden roofe but the Kinges body fâ—tting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christ the worthiest thing in heauen which is now sett forth to the earth to be seene What could the greatest Papist in Europ say more quoth Sander Verily no Papist that is aduised what hee saith will say the body of Christ is set forth on earth to be seene but onely by the eies of faith and so the Lord of all thinges is shewed by preaching by ministring of the Sacramentes but not to bee seene with eies of the body but with the eies of the mind Wherfore seing Christ is set forth to be seene on earth which sight cannot be but by faith Chrysostome meaneth of a spiritual sight shewing manner of presence and not of a bodily sight shewing or manner of presence Neither doe we inuent any shiftes as Sander saith to auoide the adoration in question for it shall neuer be prooued that the Sacrament was adored in the primitiue Church in such sort as it is worshipped and commanded by the Papistes But beside Chrysostome wee must haue a plaine authority of Theodoret who disputing against an Eutychian that denieth the humanity of Christ reproueth him by the example of the Sacrament wherein two thinges are found saith Sander but Theodoret saieth there are two natures and substances breade and wine and the body and bloud of Christ. Neque enim signa mystica for the mysticall signes after sanctification depart not out of their nature For they remaine in the former substance figure and forme But now heare the shameles glosse of Sander In substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being now by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine So that in substances is not in substance but in accidentes wherevpon it will followe in Theodorets argument that Christ hath not now the substance of his humanity but the substance of accidents thereof Secondly hee saieth The formes remaine in their former nature because they nourish no lesse then the substance of bread it selfe would haue done if it had remained And is it the shapes or formes of bread and wine that nourished before while the substance remained was it the former nature of the formes to nourish O monster of impudency If the substance and not the shapes did nourish the shapes now nourishing as this new Philosopher affirmeth remaine not in their former nature but haue taken vpon them a newe nature which no formes or shapes beeing accidents euer had before But hitherto Sander hath done nothing but by intollerable impudence sought to shift of the authority of Theodoret which is so plaine and direct against transubstantiation Now followeth the place for adoration which he citeth in Greeke for more credit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The mystical signes are vnderstoode to bee those thinges which they are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are beleeued reuerenced Sander had rather say adored as being those thinges which they are beleeued to be Heere can be no lesse then reall presence and adoration And yet Theodoret meaneth neither of both in such sorte as Sander would haue him The mysticall signes are spiritually the bodye and bloud of Christ so to be beleeued and so to be esteemed reuerenced honored and adored not by any actuall conuersion of the elementes into the bodye and bloud of Christ but by the grace of God making the same spiritually which the signes represent outwardly And so shal Theodoret expound himselfe Dialogo primo Qui enim c. He which called his naturall body wheat and bread and nameth himselfe againe a vine euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto the nature And whereas Sander concludeth vpon the place by him cited Therefore worshippe is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent It followeth immediatly after the wordes by him cited Dial. 2 Cenfer ergo imagineÌ„ cum exemplari videbis similitudineÌ„ Oportet enim figuraÌ„ esse veritati simileÌ„ Compare therefore the image with the paterne or sampler and thou shalt see the similitude For the figure must be like the trueth Theodoret calleth the same mysticall signes which are reuerenced the image and the figure which represent the body of Christ which is the principal sampler whereof the Sacrament is an image and the trueth whereof the Sacrament is a figure Se you not what reall presence he maintaineth Who so will more at larg see Theodoret cited and obserued he may reade the 52. and 56. Chapiters of mine answere to the third booke of Doct. Heskins CAP. VI. The adoration of the body and bloud of Christ is prooued by the custome of the Priestes and people of the first 600 yeares First he citeth the liturgies of Iames Clement Basil Chrysostom all which beare conterfeit names and yet say nothing to the purpose They report that the deacon said let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence What is this for adoration we also charge men to come with feare reuerence to the coÌ„munion Again the Priest said before the receiuing of the coÌ„munion Sancta sanctis Holy things are for holie men Sander laboreth to prooue that they spoke of the Sacrament as though we denied that the Sacramental bread and wine were holy things when they are consecrated to be the body and bleud of Christ to the worthie receiuers But Chrysostome ad pop Antioch Hom. 61. vppon the same saith Considera c. Marke I pray you the kingly table is set before the Angels ministring at the table the king himselfe is present
within or lesse foode of the heart Fulke If Christ had not taken reall flesh to his diuine nature he could not haue bene the foode of eternall life to vs but there is no such necessitie of giuing his bodie in the forme of bread therefore the similitude is vnlike Iewel The thing that is receiued in spirit is receiued in deede Sand. Spirituall receiuing is good and true when it shouldreth not out reall receiuing Fulke If reall receiuing bee receiuing in deede spirituall receiuing shouldreth not out reall receiuing Iewel It is an holy mysterie and an heauenly action forcing our mindes vp to heauen and there teaching vs to eate the bodie of Christ not outwardly by the seruice of our bodies Sand. Is not verè sumimus spoken of taking by the seruice of our bodies Fulke As concerning the outward sacrament but not concerning the bodie of Christ. Sand. Christ hath mingled that nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated vnto vs which you passe ouer in Hilarie as you were vtterly blinde The nature of Christs flesh is I trow real It is coÌ„municated vnto vs vnder a sacrament which is receiued by the mouth therfore the nature of Christs flesh is receiued by our bodies and not by faith alone Fulke And is the reall flesh of Christ mingled with his diuinitie what can followe thereof but confusion of the natures If that be hereticall then the nature of his flesh mingled with the nature of his euerlastingnesse is not his reall flesh nor his reall diuinitie but the natural propertie as he termeth it afterward of his diuine flesh which is communicated vnto vs vnder a sacrameÌ„t As for your rotten reason that whatsoeuer is receiued vnder the sacrament is receiued by the mouth because the sacrament is receiued with the mouth is confuted before Iewel The truth hereof standeth not in any reall presence but as Hilarius saith in a mysterie which is a sacrament Sand. Hilarius saide wee receiue verily the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie you report him to say in a mysterie Is that no false dealing Fulke It is all one before God and al wise and honest men Sand. Well we receiue Christ verily vnder the sacrament and that sacrament is by your confession also outward and commonly called a figure therefore we verily receiue the flesh of Christs bodie vnder an outwarde figure which is the figure of bread although you meane the substance of bread Fulke There is both an outward sacrament and an inward mysterie S. Hilarie speaketh of the whole dispeâ—sation of the sacrament which is both outwarde and inward and not of the signe of bread onely or principally M. Iewel neuer confessed that the outward figure of bread although in some sense it be called a sacrament yet that it is the whole sacrament Iewell Our regeneration in Baptisme in a certaine bodily sort teacheth vs the purgation of the minde as Diony sius saith so it is in the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sand. Saint Augustine saieth that must be eaten in the trueth it selfe spiritually which is visibly taken in the sacrament and not one thing outwardly taken and another thing inwardly as M. Iewel would haue it De verb. Apost Ser. 2. Fulk Are you such a bussarde that you cannot see the opposition betweene eating in a Sacrament and eaâ—ing in trueth visibly and spiritually I trow the reall substance of Christes bodie is notvisibly eaten in the sacrament but the breade which is so called because it is a sacrament thereof Iewell Although Christ be not bodily present yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mysterie Sand. The substance of the mysterie must needes be hindred where it is absent Fulke Christ is not absent although not bodily present Sand. The substance of the mysterie is the naturall substance of Christ vnder the Sacrament Therfore Saint Hilarie saieth The naturall propertie by the sacrament is the sacrament of the perfect vnitie The naturall propertie is the naturall substance for so S. Hilarie vseth the word proprietas verie much for the substance and personall being of God Fulke So often that you can bring none example but li. 5. cap. 5. you fetch your example our of Augustine Sand. These words can haue none other literal meaning but this The substance of Christ through the forme of bread wherin vnitie is figured is the sacrament of perfect vnitie Fulke Lib. 5. Cap. 5. you shall finde another literall sense more agreeable to the minde and purpose of Hilarie Sand. S. Hilarie saith There is no place to doubt of the trueth of flesh and bloude For nowe both by the profession of our Lorde himselfe and â—by our faith it is flesh in deede and bloude in deede Answere I pray you M. Iewel what is flesh in deed what is the nominatiue case to est I knowe none other beside the word sacramentum c. Fulk The more foolish Priest you For caro the flesh of Christ the bloud of Christ of whose truth we ought not to doubt is by his profession and our faith flesh in deede and bloud in deede Sand. It is meant by S. Hilarie of an outward thing for he saith immediately haec accepta these thinges taken and drunken doe bring to passe that both we may be in Christ and Christ in vs. Fulke You that could construe so pretily before do now forget your concords for haec accepta will not agree with sacramentum in number that should haue bâ—â—â— the nominatiue case to est And what can these thinges being taken haue relation vnto but to the flesh and bloud of Christ which immediately before was auouched to be flesh and bloud truely which being receiued maketh Christ to dwell in vs and vs in Christ. The outwarde thing that is receiued bringeth not to passe that Christ dwelleth in them that receiue it Wherefore the flesh and bloud of Christ are receiued inwardly not outwardly Sand. He saith further Christ himselfe is in vs by his flesh not by the meane of bread and wine Fulk Who saith otherwise Sand. And afterwarde he is beleeued to be in vs by the mysterie of the sacraments ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente himselfe tarying naturally in vs. Fulke This cannot be after the popish vnderstanding by which Christ tarieth no longer in vs then the formes of bread and wine remaine vncorrupted Sand. He concludeth against the third argument of the Arrians Si ergo nos c. If then we liue naturally according to the flesh by him that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can hee but haue the father naturally in himselfe according to the spirit seing he liueth for the father By which it appeareth that as the substance of God the father is really in the person of Christ So S. Hilarie meant that Christes natural substance by means of the sacrament receiued is within our owne persons Fulke Then Hilarie should meane that Christ