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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The vnion is made not onely by faith but by the thing it selfe which is neither water breade nor wine nor faith but onely the reall substance of Christs body and blood Fulk That is not the question but of the manner of the mingling whether it be corporall or spirituall Sand. Chrysostome nameth changing sacrifice hand mouth tongue seeing touching eating hauing within vs therefore the manner of mingling must be corporall Fulk Chrysostome nameth the hande breaking the fleshe in peeces the mouth filled with spirituall fire the tonge made redde with this wonderfull bloode as you your selfe confesse therefore he speaketh not properly but figuratiuely of these instrumentes of the body which outwardly receiue the sacrement of so high holy a coniunction the manner of working whereof is wonderfull and not done with handes mouth tong c. of men Sand. Prooue that where Christ dwelleth by faith that such dwelling is made by the thing it selfe not by faith onely Fulk The word is be come flesh and dwelled in vs being verily Immanuel God with vs therefore by the thing it selfe and not by faith only he dwelleth with all the faithfull Sand. Prooue that wee are made Christes fleshe in baptisme by the bodie of Christ for else the vnion of the sacrament will be more reall Fulk By baptisme wee are buried with Christe vnto death c. And what purgeth vs in baptisme but the bloode of Christe which purgeth vs from all â—innes San. Prooue either that wee are vnited to faith it selfe and vnto baptisme it selfe or else the vnion made in this sacrament will farre passe the ioyning which is in the other Fulk Wee are neither vnited to faith baptisme or to the Lords supper but to Christ by faith and by the sacraments Sand. Here wee are vnited to the same body wherewith we are fedde which wee see and touch but there wee bee not vnited to the water wherewith wee are washed Fulk Neither are you here vnited to anye thing that you see or touch excepte you will bee vnited to bread and wine or to the accidentes of them which only you holde remaine to be seene and touched In baptisme we are vnited to Christ whome we put on with whome we die are buried and rise againe being washed with his bloode in our soules as our bodies are washed with cleane water Sand. You say that wee are made Christ by baptisme but prooue that Christ is there deliuered in sensible thinges to your handes to your mouth to your tongue so that you may haue him within you as it is done in the supper These phrases you must prooue to be verified by faith and baptisme if you will haue as reall a ioyning made by faith or by baptisme as is made by the sacrament of the altar Fulk Saint Augustine saith wee are made Christe The phrases that Chrysostome vseth alluding to the externall manner of participation of that sacrament which is by hande mouth and tongue are not necessarie to prooue that the vnion made by the one sacrament is as reall as by the other when there bee phrases of equall force as the phrases of ingraffing putting on dying and being buried with him washed with his bloode c. Iew. As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the bodie of our Lorde euen so the breade of idols is the partaking of Diuels and if wee eate one bread with idolaters we are made one body with them Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sand. You falsifie the wordes of Saint Paul that which he spake of the substance of bread you assigne to the action of breaking Fulke You slaunder him for although he vse the tearme of breaking of bread yet bee assigneth not the communication to the action of breaking but to the thing that is broken as in the other parte of the similitude you might see if malice had not made you blinde Euen so the bread of idoles c. Sand. Primasius tooke not the name of breade materially for wheaten bread but for all kinde of meate and drinke which the idolaters vsed therefore he meant the bread which we breake is no materiall breade but a kinde of meate which Christe hath prepared for vs. Fulk Primasius tooke bread materially for wheaten bread although not onely for wheaten breade Therfore he tooke the breade which we breake for wheaten bread for what else is broken Againe the argument is nought hee tooke bread of idolaters generally for all meates by synecdoche the figure Therefore hee taketh the bread of Christians specially for one kinde of meate which is no bread at all But howe answere you Primasius saying there is the same vnion betweene diuels or idols and them that eate their bread which is betweene the body of Christ and Christians which eat the bread which is broken The participation of the one cannot be bodily ergo not the other CAP. XXII Sand. It is proued that S. Hilarie thought the body of Christ to be really in the sacrament Hard. If the word be verily made flesh and we receiue verily the word being flesh in our Lords meat how he is to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally who both hath taken the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable to himselfe in that he is borne man and also hath mingled the nature of his owne flesh to the nature of euerlastingnes vnder the sacrament of his flesh to bee receiued of vs in the communion Hil. de Trin. lib. 8. Iew. Master Harding hath not hitherto founde that Christes body is naturally or corporally in the sacrament Sand. You vse many shiftes whereof this is the last which I will nowe declare against your dissembling assertion Fulk Belike then D. Harding had not found that you are faine to seeke for him Iew. Against the Arrians Hilarius reasoned thus Christ is really ioined vnto the father as vnto vs but Christ is ioyned to vs by nature therefore Christ is ioyned to God the father by nature That Christ is ioyned to vs by nature he proueth it thus We are ioyned to Christ by faith that is by the nature of one faith and that is to say naturally Sand. He falsifieth S. Hilarie for he hath not the word naturally Fulk You slander him most impudently for he doth expounde the wordes of Hilarie Per vnius fidei naturam by the nature of one faith to be all one as if he had said naturally Sand. S. Hilaries intent is onely to shewe that faithfull men are one among themselues by nature of faith and not how Christ is ioyned to vs by that faith which he hath not at al for he answereth the argument of the Arrians grouÌ„ded vpon that place Act. 4. of the multitude of the beleeuers there was one soule and one heart Fulk As though there coulde bee anye vnitie of the belieuers among themselues but as they are al ioyned in one by Christ Christ to theÌ„ whoÌ„ blasphemously Sander affirmeth to haue had no faith froÌ„ the instant of his
vnanswered GOD BE PRAYSED The cauils of Nicholas Sander D. in Diuinitie about the Supper of our Lord and the Apologie of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof confuted by W. Fulke Doctor in Diuinitie MAN HV what is this The figure Exod. 16. This is the breade which our Lorde hath giuen c. The prophecie Prouerb 9. Come eate my breade and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you The promise Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world The performance Matth. 26. Luke 22. He gaue saying take eate this is my bodie which is giuen for you The doctrine of the Apostles 1. Cor. 10. The breade which we breake is the communicating of the Lordes bodie The beliefe of the Church Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit Both our Lord hath professed and we beleeue it to be flesh in deede The custome of Heretikes Tertul. de resur car The contrarie part raiseth vp trouble by pretence of figures THese notes and sentences D. S. hath set before his booke as the pith and martowe of all his treatise In which as he pleaseth him self not a litle so he sheweth nothing but his ignorance vanitie and falshood His ignorance in the interpretation of the Hebrue wordes Man Hu which doe signifie This is a readie meate prepared without mans labor as euen the author of the booke of Wisedome expoūdeth it Which Sāder readeth interrogatiuely folowing the errour of some olde writers which could put no difference betweene the Hebrue and the Chaldee tongs For Man in Hebrewe signifieth not what neither doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it so but Manna hu that is This is Manna that is to say a ready meate Againe he sheweth him selfe ignorant in the Apostles doctrine when he maketh Manna a figure of the sacrament which the Apostle plainely affirmeth to haue bene the same spirituall meate which the sacrament is to vs. 1. Cor. 10. His vanitie appeareth that when he can racke neuer a saying of the Prophetes to his purpose he dreameth of a prophecie in the Prouerbes of Salomon which booke was neuer accounted of wise men for propheticall but doctrinall and this pretended prophecie is an allegorical exhortation of wisdome to imbrace her doctrine and not a prophecie of Christ instituting his sacrament an inuiting of men in Salomons time and all times to studie wisedome and not a foreshewing of a supper to be ordained by Christ in time to come In the words which he alledgeth for the promise of the sacrament is discouered a manifest falsification of the text of Scripture to peruert the meaning of Christe which is of his passion vnto the institution of the sacrament thereof For the wordes of our Sauiour Christ Ioh. 6. 51. are these And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world These last words which I will giue Sander hath fraudulently omitted that this promise might seeme to be referred not vnto the passion of Christ in which he gaue his flesh for the life of the world but vnto the giuing of the sacrament of his flesh in his last supper In the title of performance he omitteth to shewe what Christ gaue when he saide This is my body that he might seeme to haue giuen nothing but his body whereas the Euangelistes teach that he brake and gaue the breade which he tooke affirming it to be his body The doctrine of the Apostles Sander doth not holde because he neither breaketh breade which he denieth to be in the sacrament nor acknowledgeth a communicating or participation of the Lordes body which he alloweth to be receiued of the reprobate which haue no communicating or partaking with Christ. So that he denieth the sacrament or outward signe to all men and giueth the heauenly matter or thing signified by the sacrament euen vnto wicked men The beleefe of the Church which Hilarie professeth Sander maintaineth not for Hilarie saith that we do truely eat the flesh of the body of Christ sub mysterio vnder a mysterie per hoc vnum erimus and by this we shal be one with him and the father which can not be vnderstoode of the Popish corporall receiuing Last of all he followeth the custome of heretikes which is to draw mens sayings inio a wrong meaning for Tertullian in the place by him alledged speaketh not of such heretikes as pretended a figure in the sacrament where none should be acknowledged but he him selfe by that the breade is a figure of the body of Christ proueth against Marcion the heretike that Christ had a true body ad Marc. lib. 4. To the body and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine all honor praise and thankes be giuen for euer I Can not tell whether I should complaine more of the vanitie or blasphemy of this dedicatorie Epistle the forme whereof being so newe and strange that the like was neuer heard of in the Church of Christ euery word almost containeth a great and grosse heresie For not content to make the sacrament the very naturall body and blood of Christ he maketh it the very essentiall deity it selfe For vnto whom is all honor and glory dewe but vnto God himselfe Againe seeing he ioineth not the persons of God the Father and of God the holy Ghost in participation of the praise by this forme of greeting he doth either exclude them or if he will comprehend them for that inseparable vnity which they haue with the godhead of Christ he bringeth forth an horrible monster of heresie that God the father and God the holy Ghost is with the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine Much like the Sabellians and Patripassians which affirmed that God the father was borne of the virgine Marie and was crucified as well as God the Sonne Euen so Sander by this blasphemous and heretical epistle if he denie not honor glorie power and presence euery where vnto the Father and the holie Ghost yet comprehendeth them with GOD the Sonne and God the Sonne with his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine For thus he writeth I adore thee my God and Lord really present vnder the formes of breade and wine To which also he saith And to whom should I referre the praise and thankes for it but vnto thee alone Or of whome should I craue the protection thereof but of thee seeing thou onely art a meete patron for the defence of any booke which only art alwaies present wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shall be examined To the honour therefore of thy body and bloud I offer this poore mite c. By these wordes you see that Sander acknowledgeth no GOD nor Lorde but him that is really present vnder the formes of breade and wine except hee acknowledge more Gods and Lordes than one And consequently that either he acknowledgeth not God the Father and God
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