for his gift proueth the reall presence of his body and blood in the SacrameÌ„t of the altar euen as God the Father gaue hun reall fleshe and blood at his incarnation CHrist for the meate whiche he promysed to gene in his last supper alleaged his diuinity as who shoulde plainly say wonder not that I promise you suche a thing of so greate difficulty and miracle for I am God His wordes are these worke saith he to the multitude of the Iewes not the meate which doth perish but that which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you for him God hath signed that is God the father hath printed his diuine substance vppon him by eternal generation or hath oynted him with the oile of gladnes aboue al others because his humane nature is vnited to the godhed whereby he is able to do as much as his father It is not to be thought that Christ would haue alleged his equall auctoritie with his Father for a gift which were not of equall truth and of equall power with that which his Father is sayd to gene But his Father gaue him not only the vertue and 〈◊〉 of flesh but reall and natural flesh and blood at his incarnation thereâ—…ore God the Sâ—…nn 〈◊〉 to geue vs the same 〈◊〉 â—…ral fâ—…sh in his last supper For which cause he doth immediatly declare both God his Fathers gift and his own 〈◊〉 his Fathers gift he say 〈◊〉 My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen for it is the bread of God whiche cometh downe from heauen and geueth life to the worlde But what breade is this I saith Christ am the bread of life I am the liuely bread which came downe from heauen â—…ow we haue lerned that God the Father gaue Christ his Sonne from heauen when he sent him to take the flesh of man which flesh assumpted oâ—… the word is also by vnion to the word made the bread of life Christ therefore hauing shewed his Fathers gift and that him self is the bread of liâ—…e cometh to shew his own bread which he wil geue saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The brief discourse of yâ— who le doctrine is this work the meate which tarieth for euer which the Sonne of man wil geue you for this Soâ—…ne of man is equall with God his Father whose naturall image he hath printed in him God the Father hath geuen his Sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life Therefore God yâ— Sonne being equall with his Father wil geue vs the same true flesh of the Sonne of man as meate yâ— shall tarie with vs to life euerlasting But his Father gaue him â—…o the world not only in faith spirite but in real and substancial flesh Therefore God the Sonne by the drift of all his talk doth signifie that he wil geue in his supper whereof he speaketh not in spi rite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the 〈◊〉 same real and substanciall flesh First he sayth he wil geue that meate which shal tarye to life euerlasting Secondly that he is able to doe so as one signed of God his Father Thirdly he sheweth what bread and meate his Father hath geuen him that is to say the true flesh wherein â—…e spake to that preseÌ„t multitude of men Fourthly he sayth yâ— breade that he wil geue is his fleshe Last of all who so cateth it hath life euerlasting Doth not all this goe to proue that as he bad them work the meate which tarieth for euer and shewed him sefe concerning his 〈◊〉 to be made that meate sent from God his Father so he is able to geue them that meate which his Father gaue him and sayth he wil geue it them to the end they eating it may liue for euer he tarying in them and they in him And yet is not that his reall and substanciall flesh which he promiseth Or did he not perform in his supper that which he pro mised If he can not be false of his word we haue in our Lords supper where he perfomed this promise the reall and substancial body of Iesus Christ as truly as euer his Father gaue him reall and substancial flesh in this world And consequently we haue it not only by faith and spirite but in truth and substance This plainly is the discoâ—…rse of Christ him selfe who by his Godhead assureth vs of the gift of that incorruptible meat which is his flesh Whereupon S. Hilarie sayth that no man douteth of yâ— veritie of Christes flesh in vs except he deny Christ to be true God ¶ Seing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith spirit only suffiseth not but it self also must be really eaten GOd sent his Sonne who is by nature the bread of life as hym self hath witnessed to take flesh for vs that in his flesh he might geue vs the same diâ—…ine nature which is the 〈◊〉 bread of life Therefore when Christ had sayd The Sonne of man will geue you the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting straightways he sheweth in one word three causes of yâ— his promise For God the Father sayeth he hath signed this SoÌ„ne of maÌ„ that is to say he hath geuen him hys owne substance concerning the diuine nature of Christ and concerning his humane nature he hath shewed his will by hym as by a seale of his owne hand Farthermore he hath assigned hym to bring vs this meate which tarieth to life euerlasting The verb Signauit he hath signed may signifye the printing of the same forme and ymage which the originall seale hath as S. Cyrillus hath noted in this place also it may stand to shew or confirme a thing by witnes of seale as Theophilact expoundeth it Orels to assigne or appoint a thing to some certain effect and purpose as S. Chrysostome and Eâ—…thymius take it God the Father signed Christ after the first sort by geuing him his own nature And after yâ— secoÌ„d sort by shewing him through miracles wrought in his flesh to be his own Sonne And last of all in appointing to haue his will done most perfitly and executed by him as Christ him self said It is my meate to doe the wil of him that sent me According to this last sense it was the wil of God that Christ should geue vs the euerlasting â—…eate which naturally is his Godhead and by the mysterie of the incarnation it is his flesh And to signifie so much Christ sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate because my Father hath signed me to this purpose The whiche sense S. Chrysostome followeth in the first place of his interpretation writing thus Signauit hoc est misit qui hunc vobis
to that heauenly instrument of Christes flesh So that sometyme we say the Fathers gift is reall and externall but then we meane the visible flesh of Christ in his owne person Somtyme we say the Fathers gift is only spiritual and then we vnderstand the faith charitie and grace which the Father worketh in vs whom he bringeth to Christ by faith and spirit This distinction well remembred I trust to make the matter playne enough The state of our nature is suche that sith we consist of body and soule our soule being the chief part of vs and our body the inseriour parte God the Father in his gift intendeth to feed our soules which being fed our body shal be fed by reason it dependeth vppon the soule But Christ considering that our heauy bodies most commonly weigh down our soules to the pit of hell wold also inuent a way that our very bodies might not only not hindre but rather helpe our soules and not only through our soules but also through a meate that them selues should receaue be made lyght and meet to rise vpward and to obey the spirit gladly So that the meate which God the Father geueth to the soule Christ bringeth to the body And because the body hath no faith to apprehend the flesh of Christ withall neither vnderstanding nor spirite whereby to folowe the flesh of Christ into heauen it hath pleased his infinite mercy to leaue his flesh in so maruelouse a manner vnder the forme of bread that it might be geuen into our handes mouthes and breastes by which meanes we are able to receaue it corporally and naturally The Sonne therefore and the Father geue one thing on Christes behalfe but not one way on our behalfe For the Father geueth Christ vnto the world in dede but to vs in faith and spirit The sonne geueth him self to vs in faith and spirit with the Father and moreouer he is here sayd to geue him self in truth of body and blood to oursoules and bodies Because therefore the thing it self is one which the Father and the Soune geue one effect doth folowe in vs of both gifts For as it is sayd of the Fathers gifte He that beleueth in me hath euerlasting life So it is sayd of the Sounes gifte He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life But for so much as the Father and the Sonne geue not theire gifts after one sorte Therefore their two giftes are in this chapiter of S Ihon diuersly described First as I sayd before of the Fathers gift it is sayd He doth geue the true bread in the present tense Of that Sonne I wil geue in the future tense The Father geueth Christ in the forme of man and therefore it is sayd This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleueth on him may haue euerlasting life and again ye haue sene me and haue not beleued Behold by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithful may see that Sonne of man vppon whom they beleue But of the Sonnes gifte it is only sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh where it is not sayd that his flesh shal be seen but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder a couering of an other kinde of food which the naming of bread signifieth And in the supper where this prophecie was fulfilled it is most clere The Fathers gift is called Verus panis de coelo the true bread or meate from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not only true bread but also truly bread and meate in dede Caro mea verè est cibus my flesh is truly meate some true meate may chaunce not to be truly meate because it is not eaten but nothing is meat in dede and truly meate except it be in dede eaten There is difference betwene being the true vyne and a vyne truly Christ sayd him self was the true vyne but he sayd not that he was truly any certeyn vyne The Iewes and Disciples went not away from Christ for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gyfte For albeit they beleued not Christ to be yâ— sonne of God yet they well perceaued that suche a gifte of eating by faith myght stand with the custome of Gods people but when the sonnes gifte came to be declared they could abyde no longer Seing then it is playne that they lacked faith but yet lacked not vnderstanding we may be sure they sawe more apparaÌ„t absurditie in the sonnes gifte as they toke it then in the Fathers because it semeth straunger for mans flesh to be eaten as the sonne semed to saye then God to be made man which is the Fathers gift who sent his sonne to take our flesh The gifte of the Father is called by suche names only as belong to the persone of Christ or to his dyuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God only is absolutely the true bread of life or by the pronownâ—… ego which is to say I. but yâ— gifte of Christ is called also by yâ— names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and blood oâ—… the sonne of man An other difference may be to coÌ„sider that Christ endeth his talke of eche gifte with repeating the old figure Manna betokening yâ— as wel by the giste of the Father as of the sonne the shadow of manna was fulfilled But as it shall hereafter appeare Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doynges by the sonnes gift As therefore when he had longe reasoned of the belefe which they ought to haue in him whom God the Father had sent he last of al concludeth I am the bread of lyfe Your Fathers did eate manna in the desert and be dead yf any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer ryght so hauing at large reasoned of eating his owne flesh and of yâ— effect which ryseth thereof he at the last endeth This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your Fathers haue eaten manna and be dead he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer The like peroration vsed in both places with wordes somwhat vnlike doth declare that one substance is gyuen of the Father to be eateÌ„ of vs by faith and of the sonne to be really eaten so that the maner differeth because we eate only ex Christo that is to say of Christ by faith but we eate and receaue Christum Christ him self in the Sacrament of the altar For it pleased the whole Trinitie yâ— the fulnesse of our saluation should be in the manhood of Christ whose food it is to end his Fathers worke The Fathers gift is to beleue in Christ the soÌ„nes gifte is to eate and drink in very dede his flesh and blood In working the Fathers gifte a working faith is sufficient in working the sonnes gifte â—…aith is required with taking and eating that wherein we
beleue The Fathers gifte is to worke Christ in vs as Christ is God and man but more as he is God then as he is man for oure â—…aith and belefe is due to the Godhead first of all aâ—…d vnto the manhood because it is ioyned vnto the Godhead and therefore Christ sayd ye beleue in God beleue also in me But drinking and eating is first apperteyning to the manhood and afterward reacheth vnto the Godhead because yâ— Godhead is in that meaâ—…e and drinke which we take therefore Christ sayd he that 〈◊〉 my flesh dwelleth in me and I in him The Fathers gift is belonging first to our spirite and then to oure flesh because it is the flesh of such a spirit which beleueth in God and loueth him the sonnes gifte is first in our body and flesh concernyng the Sacramentall receauing of him and then in our spirite because it is a spirite belonging to such a flesh which receaueth the flesh of God thorough Christ. In the Fathers gift we are not sayd to receaue yâ— true bread it self which the Father gaue into the world but to receaue as it were an effect wrought by yâ— streÌ„gth thereof for after Christ had at large described his Fathers gifte he said this is the bread comming downe from heauen to the entent that if any man shal eate ex ipso of it he may not dye he saith not ipsum if any man eate it but of it Again Ego sum panis qui de coelo desceÌ„di si quis manducauerit ex hoc páne viuet in aeternum I am the bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer to eat of this bread is to receaue some grace and effect comming from it And this much coÌ„cerning yâ— Fathers gift But concerning the sonnes gifte Christ saith except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ He saith not of the flesh but yâ— wholè flesh it self Again My flesh is truely meaâ—… he that eateth my flesh tarieth in me and afterward he that eateth meâ—… he saith not now of me but me Last of all qui maÌ„ducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shal liue for euer he saith not now he that eateth of this bread as he sayd before speaking of spirituall eating but he that eateth this bread And yet to make the matter more playne such an eating is assigned to the gifte of Christ which is made in his supper as before was named of MaÌ„na for it was sayd thereof Our Fathers did eate Manna they sayd not of Manna but Manna in his owne substance which words are three tymes conformably rehearsed and euery where they did eate Manna not only of Man na as though they had only taken a certeyn vertue out of it but they did eate Manna as we eate common bread Seing then we may eate of a thing or els the thing it self the eating of it is a spiritual eating by faith and vnderstanding But the eating it is a reall eating in the nature and substance of the thing it self When I say that by the Fathers gifte we eate of Christ and by the Sonnes gifte we eate Christ I meane not to deny but that also by the Sonnes gifte we eate of Christ. For as he that hath syxe hath fower so he that eateth worthely Christes flesh eateth both Christ and of Christ but not only of Christ for he eateth Christ in his humane nature wherein the diuine nature dwelleth and is geuen thereby to be eaten of He eateth of Christ I say concerning that effect grace which by Sacramentall eating the Godhead worketh in his body and soule For the Godhead it self is the bread whereof we must partake But the meane to partake it most abundantly is to receaue worthely yâ— manhood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth Therefore Christ geuing all the spirituall gifts that his Father doth as meane to make vs partakers of yâ— Godhead geueth also besydes all them the truth of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar as yâ— meane far yâ— highest to ioyne vs most nigh to yâ— spirit of God And although his Father geue vs by his appointment the same flesh and blood which Christ doth geue yet Christ calleth it for a great reason his own gift because the substance of it procedeth from his own person where vnto he assumpted flesh and blood For in this Chapiter as in many other places by the Fathers gift the gift of God and of the whole Trinitie is meant And by yâ— Sonnes gift that chiefly is meant which peculiarly procedeth by meane of yâ— incarnatioÌ„ strength of Christes flesh ioyned always with yâ— dyuine nature the which flesh we receaue in the Sacrament of Christes own institution wherein he sayd in his own person Take and eate this is my body drink ye all of this for this is my blood Who seeth not nowe the difference betwene the gift that God geueth vs by charitie which he spreadeth in our hartes and the gifâ—… wherein he gaue his owne Sonne wheÌ„ he toke flesh and became man with vs and the gift which the Sonne being made man geueth in his supper No gifte of God could saue vs the prophecies standing as they did but only the geuing of his soÌ„ne into the world when he tooke reall flesh for vs. And yet was not that enough except the Sonne again had geuen him self to death for vs. Then the flesh of Christ is the meane for vs to be saued that is a ladder let down from heauen whereon we may steppe and so clyme vp God him self we could not eate thereby to be chauÌ„ged into him and made membres of him But God became man that we eating maÌ„ might receaue God as he dwelt in that flesh which we reâ—…aued The conclusion is that if the Fathers gifte which is the inâ—…arnation of Christ and his manhood be to be taken in spirite and faith concerning the feeding of our soules as you haue seen it plainly proued the sonnes gifte which is an other different maner of geuing and hath an other kynde of working appoin ted to it must be receaued not in faith spirit and vertue only but also in the substance of flesh and blood Our new preachers expound the whole matter as though Christ gaue his flesh in his last supper noâ—…e otherwise excepting materiall bread and wine then his Father geueth it vnto vs by faith And therefore they teache that we receaue in the supper of our Lord with common bread and wine Christ him self by faith and spirit But by that meanes Christ geueth a great deale lesse then his father gaue For bread and wine is lesse then the gift of faith when Christ geueth faith he doth it as God therein being one with his father Is then his owne gift only bread and wine Came he into the world to geue a lesse tokeÌ„ then God had
we hope to see that agreement of minds that consent of wils that vniformitie of life and belefe which our grandfathers and great grandfathers had The Trinitaries of Polonia vnder their Capitain 〈◊〉 who is a false preacher in 〈◊〉 that chief citie of yâ— Kingdom said that the name of the blessed Trinitie is a monsterouse thing not because they openly deny the father yâ— sonne yâ— holy ghost or the equality of them nor because they defend any more then one God But they affirm yâ— albeit there are three vnius naturae of one nature of one Godhead yet there are not three say they yâ— are vna natura vel Deitas one nature or Godhead And for proufe hereof they appeale to the new Testament and old and to the Churche which they call priuatiue which was of the first two hundred yeres or thereabout bidding vs looke whether we find Trinum vnum deuÌ„ or Trinitatem in vnitate or vnum deum in tribus personis in any scripture or in any Father of that age As for S. Athanasius S. Hilarie S. Basil S. Augustin so forth they esteme no more then our new brethren esteme S. Bede or S. Thomas of Aquine The booke intituled of the Trinitie which is in S. Iustinus works they affirm not to be his vsing presently the same shamles shifts against the blessed name and nature of that Trinitie which the Sacramentaries vse against the nature name of the Masse Not long after these Trinitaries an other cumpany began to think circumcision so necessarie that in Lituania many 〈◊〉 them selues who to defend that heresy must nedes deny S. Pan les epistles as Luther hath denied S. Iames his epistle for that it is against his iustification of only faith And what forbiddeth an other sect to doe the like in an other matter Thus alwaies are we seeking as Tertullian sayth but we neuer find any thing if once we goe from that which we all beleued If then a stay be to be made at any tyme in questions of belefe if we may be sure of any article of all our faith it behoueth we vndoe not that which our forfathers haue so long before concluded to be true No reason of induciÌ„g a new faith can be so weighty as the peace and preseruation of vnitie in Christes Churche ought to be singularly weighed of euery man There was but one vniuersall chang to be loked for in religioÌ„ from the beginning of Christes Church to the last end thereof And that was at the coming of Christ into the world The which chang that it might not be sodein it was prophecied of before in all ages both by yâ— dedes and words of Patriarchs of Prophets and of Priests And when the fulnesse of tyme was come it was proued to become by miracles of so great vertue and name that the very stones that is to say the infidels were turned by them so great a matter it was with God to haue the order of his religioÌ„ altered And now shal we after Christes faith preached beleued fiften huÌ„dred yeres together shall we now take a new faith of Luther of Zumglius and of Caluin If they be Christ I graÌ„t we must admit theyr doctrine but if they be not so it is not possible they should come of God though they came with neuer so many miracles but they must be the forerunners of 〈◊〉 To come again nere 〈◊〉 own matter if we shall geue any eare to them who affirm the words of Christes supper to be figuratiue that must be with some dout of our former faith and in douting thereof we are become men that lacke faith which if it be not sure it is not good for so much as it hath not the foundation of the things which the Apostle sayd were to be hoped for Or tell me he that first gaue eare to BereÌ„garius or Zuinglius against the bessed Sacrament of yâ— altar may the same man geue care now to another that should wickedly say the Apostles had no authoritie geuen them to write holy scriptures If he may theÌ„ he may dout of the sayd â—…utoritie and yet surely it were very hard to proue to a wrangler that such autoritie of writing Gospels or epistles could be iustified out of the expresse words of the holy Bible But if it be vnlawfull to heare any such seditiouse man how could it be lawful when eare was first geuen to Berengarius or Zuinglius for then it was no lesse generally receaued through all Christendom and much more expresly to be proued by the holy scripture that the things set foorth and consecrated vpon the holy table and altar were the reall body and blood of Christ then it is sayd that whatsoeuer the Apostles did write should be confirmed and established as the words of the holy gooâ—… Where yet I will enter farther into the 〈◊〉 of the cause â–ª And before we heare what reasoÌ„s he can bring who wil reproue the faith of the church in the blessed Eucharist I say he is not to be heard because it is not possible that his reason can haue any sufficient ground why we should geue ouer our old faith and that whether we respect the writen word of God or yâ— faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his churche For â—…either can he shew where it is writen or when it was beleued This is not my body nor can proue that it is more honorable to God or more agreable to Christes coming or more profitable to vs that we should lack his body present vnder the forme of bread rather then haue it For if the death of Christ did procede from excessiue charitie of him toward vs and of God and our profite that his Sonne should take flesh and dye for vs I can not deuise how the most honorable remembrance of the same death should not be most according to th' intent of Christ and to our soules health And doubtles it is a more honorable and a more louing remembraÌ„ce where the true substaÌ„ce of Christ is made really present for the keping of his death in memorie we take more benefite by such a commemoration of his bloody sacrifice then if in stede of Christes reall body a peece of bread and wine be left vnto vs with neuer so great a feding by faith For imagine ye the faith to be neuer so great I am sure it will not be the lesse because Christ is taken into our hands mouthes and brests The touching of his garment neuer hindred any good hart much lesse can the taking of his whole body hurt our faith or deuotion And yet if corporal touching did not also help the faithfull womaÌ„ troubled so long with a bloody fluxe had not bene so miraculously cured by touching the hemme of Christes garment Her faith touched his Godhead and her soule
twentie tymes to the intent it might at the least wise sinke at the lengthe into some of his disciples minde And how much lesse should I either thinke it long to dilate this argument either the Reader be wery thereof S. Paule sayth eadeÌ„ vobis scribere mihi quidem non pigruÌ„ vobis autem necessarium To write the same thinges vnto you it is not lothsom vnto me but truly necessarie vnto you Euen so Christe for our greate profite always repeted that he would geue meate whiche should not perish a bread which was his flesh And that we should eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood that who so did eate his flesh and drink his blood should haue life euerlasting for his flesh is meate in deede and his blood is drinke in deede who so doth eate his flesh and drinke his blood doth tarie in Christ and Christ in him and he that doth eate him should liue for him and that this is the bread which came doune from heauen an other manner of bread then MaÌ„na was He that doth eate this bread shal liue for euer Thus about tenne tymes we finde that in S. Ihon he said one thing though not in one words Sometyme calling it flesh sometyme blood sometyme him self sometyme this bread sometyme meat Put now here vnto that he toke bread and wine blessed gaue thankes brake and gaue and said take and eate this is my body and drinke ye al of this for this is my blood and make or doe this thing for the remembrance of me Remember farther that three Euangelists wrote the history of the supper in diuerse yeres all after one sort that S. Paule wrote the same adding more terrour to it by shewing that some died at Corinth for the vnworthy receauing the body and blood of Christ with all the rest which the Apostle sayth in that epistle and we shall find that the holy ghost hath confirmed and verified the knowen and litterall vnderstaÌ„ding of the words flesh blood body meat without any figuratiue speache or meaning Albeit God meant not his body and blood to be eaten and drunken after the common vsual manner of eating rosted flesh or drinking raw blood but that we should eate it drinke it vnder the forms of bread wine For which cause he also vsed yâ— name of a certaine kinde of bread A bread I say which came donne from heauen because it is vnited vnto yâ— sonne of God who was for euer equal with his Father in glory nature honour This repeting of one thing so many tymes is a great argumeÌ„t of speaking plainly without all figures or parables This argument to begin wth the weaker the greke author Euthymius maketh who vpon those wordes my flesh is truly meate saieth hoc dixit confirmans quòd non aenigmaticè neque parabolicâ—… loqueretur This he hath said coÌ„firming that he spake not 〈◊〉 either els in the manner of a parable Which obseruation Euthymius borowed of S. Chrysostom who saith that Christ affirmed his fleshe to be meate in dede to confirme his disciples least they should thinke him to haue spoken obscurely in parables But the ofte repeting is of it selfe the confirming and assuring vs that he spake not so Oecumenius also vse th the same reason in a like matter Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quòd non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec iplos exterreat in that he many tymes nameth the body and blood of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man as the Nestorians did falsely teache but the Lord him self and maker of all things to th end he might verily put them in a terrour by these wordes if the ofte naming of Lord did shew it to be the body not of a bare man but also of God how much more doth it shew that it is not the bare substance of bread but the body it selfe of Christ who is our maker S. Basile noteth in the Apostle S. Paule coÌ„cerning this very matter VehemeÌ„tius simulque horribilius proponit ac declarat condemnationem per repetitionem The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemeÌ„tly to the more terrour of the vnworthy receauers the condemnation by repeting it S. Augustine in his booke which he made concerning the working of muncks perceauing that some thought yâ— Apostle to speake figuratinely wheÌ„ he requireth that all men should labour and worke who would eate among other arguments wherewith he disproueth these figurantiue workers vseth this also Neque enim aut vno loco aut breuiter dictuÌ„ est vt possit cuiusuis astutissimi tergiuersatione in aliam traduci peruertique sententiam â—…t is not said in one place or in shorte wordes so that it may be 〈◊〉 and peruerted into an other meaning by yâ— ouerthwarting of neuer so suttle a sophist Thus reasoneth S. Augustine vpoÌ„ the ost repeting of worke of labour of miniâ—…ring with handes prouing thereby that the Apostle meant in dede bodily worke and not only working with mind or tonge But I am assured there is not more in the new testameÌ„t concerning the precept of working with handes then is of the body and blood of Christ of his flesh of the meat which perisheth not of such substanciall bread of taking eating drinking communicating partaking the body and blood of Christ of making the same of geuing breaking and distributing of not discerning it of being gilty for vnworthy eating of true meate true drink oâ—… reising vp him that eateth it of his abyding in Christ and liuing for Christ of the Church and Christ being twain in one flesh of being one bread one body all that partake of the one bread of liuing for euer if any man worthely eate this bread which is the flesh of Christ which he wil geue for yâ— life of that world it is not said in one place neither in short or few words therefore it ought not be drawen into an other meaning then the words do sound â—…y the ouerthwarting of neuer so suttle a sophist To conclude S. Cyrillus writeth in the same sense Non obdurescamus toties a Christo veritatem audientes non est enim ambigenduÌ„ quin summa supplicia subituri sunt qui saepius haec a Chisto iterata non capiunt Let vs not harden our selues hearing the truth so oft of Christ. for it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most â—…reme paines who receaue not these thinges whiche are so many tymes repeted of Christ. The preface of the sixth booke BEcause the adoration of the body and blood of Christe in the Sacrament of the Altar is a matter whiche moste manifestly conuinceth the reall presence of Christ vnder the forme of bread I thought it best to handle it a part
it to passe that both we maie be in Christ and Christ in vs. Besyde this it followeth Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem Christ is him selfe in vs by his â—…leshe Note how he is in vs and by what meane not by the meane of bread and wine but by the meane of his fleshe And afterwarde he is beleued to be in vs by the mysterie of the Sacraments ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente Him self tarying naturally in vs which is the effect of the SacrameÌ„ts At the length he concludeth his chefe intent against the third argument of the Arrians saying Si ergo nos naturaliter fecundum carnem per eum viuimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti c. If then we liue naturally according to the fleshe by him that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his fleshe how can he but haue the father naturally in him self according to the spirite seing he liueth for the Father Out of whiche place it appereth that as the substance of God the Father is really in the person of Christ so S. Hilary meant that Christes naturall substance by meane of the Sacrament receaued is within our own persons For the naturall being of Christ through the SacrameÌ„t in vs is the meane to proue that God the Father is naturally in Christ. But if Christe through the Sacrament were in vs as only eaten by faith God the Father should be proued to be in his sonne by faith only and not by nature whiche thing the Arrians would haue concluded whom M. Iuel doth help al that he may and hindereth the prouss of the consubstantiality of Christ with his father But S. Hilary saith By the Sacrament of flesh and blood the propriety of naturall communion is graunted Againe by the sonne tarying carnaliter fleshely to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Laste of all the mysterie of tâ—…ue and of naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabilirer vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Thus S. Hilarie hath proued most directly and hath affirmed by diuerse words of one meanig about twelue times that Christ is ioyned to vs by nature of his flesh And not by the nature of faith or of baptism as M. Iuel most desperately affirmeth For Christ neither hath anie faith in him whiche maie be of the nature of our faith Nor anie baptism of the same nature of forgeuing synnes which our baptism is of it is the nature of flesh and blood onlie whereby Christ is naturally carnally and corporalâ—…y ioyned vnto the faithful men at what time thei reâ—…aue his mysteries This point so euident when M. Iuel dissembled and forged an other had he not don better if he had subscribed teÌ„ times Iuel These words that Christ corporally carnally and naturally is within vs in their own rigour seme very hard San. They must nedes seme hard to him who beleueth not a hard talke saith S. Augustine but to hard harted meÌ„ incredible but to them who beleue not Iuel Hilarius saieth We are one with God the Father and the Sonne not only by adoption or consent of minde but also by nature which according to the letter can not be true San. Why bring you not the latin words where he saith it wil you now spet 〈◊〉 your poyson of lying also against that blâ—…ssed father S. Hilarius He teacheth that Christ and his Father are one nature and likewise that we and Christe are one nature because he toke our flesh of the virgin Marie and gaue vs the same flesh in the Sacrament whereunto we being ioyned prosiceremus ad vnitatem patris might go forward to the vnitie of the sather And again he saith that he rehersed these things coÌ„cerning our natural vnitie with Christ because the hereâ—…ikes falsely affirming the vnitie of will only betwen the father and the sonne did vse yâ— example of our vnitie to god as though we were vnited to the sonne and by the sonne to the father by obedience only and deuout wil without anie propriety of natural communion being graunted to vs by the SacrameÌ„t of flesh and blood where both by the honour of the sonne of god geuen vnto vs and by the soÌ„ne tarying fleshly in vs and we being vnited in him corporally and vnseparably the mysterie of true and natural vnion is to be prea ched taught It is answered therefore of vs to the folly of suriouse meÌ„ Hitherto S. Hilarie where he teacheth in dede that we are ioyned to the Father but per filium manenteÌ„ in nobis carnaliter by the Sonne tarying in vs carnally to witte in truthe of flesh which thing he also teacheth to be doâ—…e per SacramentuÌ„ carnis et sanguinis by yâ— SacrameÌ„t of flesh blood But that we are one with God yâ— Father by nature or one with God yâ— Sonne in his diuine nature it is a most impudeÌ„t lye forged vpoÌ„ S. Hilarie you that do forget it haue passed herein al the bounds of honestie to accuse S. Hilarie of so blasphemouse a saying as that had bâ—…ne Iu. The Fathers hauebene fain to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kinds of speache San. Now you shew your self in your own colours M. Iuel Whatsoeuer you haue hitherto pretended you thinke in your harte that the Fathers doe not speake well for violent speaches be no good speaches and excessiue speaches be not literally true You would not call them hyperbolicall speaches least any man should thinke you inteprete and excuse their wordes by a figure oâ—…hetorike But yet al is one to them which vnderstand greke to say theyr speaches are more then true and to say they are excessiue But I muste nedes cal you accompt you a wicked man for such 〈◊〉 speaking and I require you by the force of this confession of yours to subscribe For it is enough yâ— the Fathers doe speake so plainly againste you that you are constrained to cal it a violent and excessiue speache It standeth not now in you to say that they spake more then is true You haue promised to subscribe if any one sufficient senteÌ„ce were brought foorth out of the first six hundred yeres S. Hilarie is nere vpon the first three huÌ„dred yeres He sayth that Christ is naturally in vs by his flesh communicated in a Sacrament receaued vnder a mystery and carnally and corporally tarieth in vs. Therefore you muste subscribe not only through promise but to saue your soule frome hel fyre But what say we doth S. Hilarie speake more then is true Could the Arrians haue wished a better Patrone for their faction then M. Iuell is or is not Christe muche bound to M. Iuel whose diuiâ—…e nature S. Hilarie defending is said to speake excessiuely Is not God yâ— Father much beholden to M. Iuell who impugneth yâ—
he applieth the answere made by S. Hilarie concerning the vnion betwene our selues by faith as though he had sayd it of Christes vnion with vs. a matter of great weight is so shamefully belied He writeth things expressly contrary as that by faith Christes body dwelleth in our bodies really and corporally and that Christ dwelleth in vs not really or bodily but because his faith is in vs. Againe what contradiction is it to say all accidentall coniunction is remoued and yet not to graâ—…nt a reall and substantiall coniunction to say the Sacrament is taken with our mouthes and that we vndontedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament and yet that Christes body is not receaued into our mouthes really but by faith only That our coniunction with Christ is called corporall because it is spirituall He vseth a point of so great and shamefull dishonesty as one boy in scholes wold not vse in reasoning against an other Making D. Harding to reason so as he neuer thought os as to say 1. The Capharnaites mistoke Christes words 2. Christ speaketh of his ascension 3. We eate not the flesh that was crucified Uppon euery of which propositions and many suche like he maketh D. Harding conclude ergo Christes body is really in the Sacramâ—…nt Either falsifying the whole argument or leauing out a principall part or putting that in one part which should haue stode in an other And when he hath done his feat then to amend the matter he is wont to come in with a But M. Harding will say cet A man of good conscience and of learning wil rather make his aduersaries reasons stronger and then answere them when they are at the worst then to dissemble the strength of them and only to blere mens eyes with defacing his Aduersaries strong argument by falsifying his proof D. Harding requireth only that men of vnderstanding wil vouthsafe to reade his words againe after M. Iuel hath made his argument and then to consider his vnhonest report a witnesse of his euill conscience He falsifieth the doctours by making them to say more then they do say He putteth into S. Hierom these three words into heauen that whiche doe vtterly change the sense He reporteth that S. Augustine teache th the olde Fathers to haue eaten the selfe same body that is receaued now of the faithful all the which wordes are forged In the words of Cyrillus he did put in these three wordes non aliud quà m He maketh S. Hilarie to say that we are one with Christ by faith naturally He leaueth out certein words of the doctours whiche were of importance touching the principall question The nominatiue case in the B. of Rochesters words conueying in also a false nominatiue case in steede of the true In S. Augustines wordes in one place he left out the genitiue case vnitatis and huius rei and in the same place the verbe praeparatur in mensa Domini In the third place the noune adiâ—…ctiue spiritualem wherein the whole weight of the cause rested in the fourth the ablatiue case in ipso eius corpore constituti In Anacletus he left out Chrismati putting in oleo for it In Alexander he omitted MissaruÌ„ solennia In englishing yâ— wordes of BonaueÌ„ture he left out the adueâ—… essentially In S. HieroÌ„ he left out repellamus Iudaicas fabulas which wold haue shewed whereof he spake In alleging â—…usebins Emissenus he left out three linesin yâ— miâ—…dest ioyning yâ— foormer part with the later He affirmeth Gregorie Nyssen not to speake one worde of the Sacrament and therein formeth D. Hardings argument Christ is borne of the virgin ergo his body is really in the Sacrment whereas Gregorie Nyssen said cleane contrarie Christ is made meate to to the body ergo he was borne of the virgin and thereof D. Harding concluded ergo he was as really made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament as euer he was really borne sithe his being real meate proueth his birth He saith one Iohn Scote and Bertram wrote openly against the real presence with good contentation of the world a more impudent lye was neuer vttered by man He disgraceth S. Hilarie and priuily fathereth vppon him a great blasphemy as though he taught that we are one with God the Father and the sonne in nature of the Godhead whereas his mind was nothing so as I haue declared before He calleth the Fathers wordes spoken in the matter which is in question betwen D. Harding him hot violent rigorouse excessiue therein plainly yelding him selfe giltie that he ought to subsribe as who would not find fault with those three most lerned and auncient Fathers words Hilarie Chrysostome Cyrill vnlesse he clerely saw them to speake vtterly against his doctrin I beseche God to geue him grace to amend these enormouse faults It is better M. Iuel once to subscribe hartely then to be damned for euer Now to leaue M. Iuel and to speake these few words to thee good Christian Reader I chose to speake so copiously of this argumeÌ„t partly because it is the safer way to offend in that side partly because this one questioÌ„ is the ground of a great number â—…oe whiche depend of it For if the body and blood of Christ be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine which thing nowe is most fully proâ—…d there is no doubt of transubstantiation as the which is the most conueâ—…ient way to make the body present Againe wheresoeuer that body is it can not be but a propitiatory sacrifice sith it is the substance once bloodily sacrificed wherein the merite of that sacrifice still remaineth Thirdly seing that body being risen from death dieth no more the whole must nedes be vnder eche soorme and therefore albeit the consecration muste be necessarily made in two kindes to represent the death of Christ where his blood was apart from his flesh yet no lesse merite vertue grace cometh to him who receaueth worthely one kind alone then if he receaued both together Fourthly there can be no dout but the body of the sonne of God both ought to be adored being present for vs may be preserued for our necessity So that all these truthes and many moe depend of this one wherein the reall body of Christ is proued to be present in the Sacrament And seing it is proued present by the word of God as it hath bene declared in the third fourth and fifth bookes seing it hath bene taught to be adored as it is declared in my sixth booke seing it is 〈◊〉 to be taken into our 〈◊〉 mouthes and bodies and to nourish our very flesh to resurrection to be made meate to our bodies which haue neither faith nor spirit but only flesh and bones to receaue
parte Is that enough to buyld your consciences vpon agaynst the playne scripture vniuersall tradition consent of nations deâ—… of generall Councels and so vndouted witnesses as are in the aâ—…cient Fathers are you so slenderly buylt vpon Christ that euerie blast of 〈◊〉 â—…inglius or Caluins mouth is able to remoue you from the scriptures tradition Councels Fathers and 〈◊〉 belefe of all Christendome I speake not this God is my witnesse to vpbrayd you of your 〈◊〉 but to warne you of the miserable state that your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seâ—…ses haue caried you to I now requier not anie other thing of you then that yow depelie ponder and all parâ—… set a side calling for the grace of God earnestly examine what was the sirst motion that made you doute of Christes 〈◊〉 and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine Was it not your senses Did not your sensuall man saie how can this white round cake be the body of Christ How can this bald shoren Priest make God How can Christe sitting at the ryght hand of his Father he also present in a thousand places at once Tell not me but tell your ghostly fathers whether theis reasons chefely moâ—…ed you not to discredit this high mysterie If those or suche like where the beginning of your departing from the Catholike â—…aith remember that God is almightie that Christ is God that he said This is my body doe and make this thing and all those thoughtes of infidelitie are straight driuen away But if now ye replie that there was in dede the beginning but afterward you found more strong argumentes I tell you the argumentes also be daily the stronger because your faith is daylie the weaker But for so muche as I am not with euerie of you face to face where I maye shew the weakenes of your argumentes I haue answered in this booke such as I found in the Apologie of the Churche of England beseching you most hartely to take my paynes in good worth If any where I seme to charge my aduersaries with malice or any like faulte take not that spoken to you but to hym that is giltie of it If my laboure lyke you in this argument it shal be redie to serue in anie other to my best habilitie Fare well and pray for me as I beseche God of his grace that I may pray especially for all them that reade my booke To th'entent it may offend none but the desperate helpe some that be not incurable comfort others that desier comfort of God to whom be all honour and glorie Amen ¶ Certeyne notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of hym that shall reade this booke IN alleging the holy scriptures although I haue had alwaies dew regard vnto the tonges wherein they were first writen yet I haue specially kept that texte which hath bene aboue these thousand yeres generally receaued throughowt all the weast Churche and therefore is expounded best and best knowen to the Latyns Concerninge the number of the Psalmes I haue followed the seuentie interpretours whom vniuersally the whole Churche hath followed from the Apostles tyme namely in the distinction of the Psalmes Concerning the englyshe bible I haue almost neuer vsed the wordes thereof partely because I am not bounde therevnto but specially because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any controuersie is in these our daies And to omit for this present other falsified places to the number of a great many hundreds these that followe are found not to be well translated in the onely matter of the Sacrament of Christes body and blood Christ saieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true Englishe were worke the meate which tarieth The translation appointed to be read in the Churches turneth Operamini labour for Whereby the sense of the place is corrupted We labour for that which we seeke and haue not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs and must nedes be present before we can worke it I suppose there is a difference whether a carpenter worke a piece of tymber or labour for a piece of tymber He that woorketh it hath it present he that laboureth for it seeketh it absent Christ bad the Iewes not labour for a meate which should be absent when they came to work but he bad them work the meate which taryeth to life euerlastinge which the sonne of man will geue them The sonne of man which is Christ will make the meate present and the Iewes are willed to worke the sayed meate being first made present and geuen to them It is not therfore the commaundement of Christ that they should labourfor it as if it were to be sought out by their diligeÌ„ce for they should labour in vain as neuer being able to find of them selues so preciouse a thing But Christ meaneth that they shuld work by faith and mouth by soule and body by soule in beleuing by body in eating that meate which the sonne of man doth promise to geue them That is the trew meaning of the word Operamini work ye as the wordes that follow to the end of the Chapiter do plainly declare But because the Sacramentaries do not beleue the meate that tarieth which is afterward shewed to be the flesh of Christ eaten in dede whereby he tarieth in vs and we in him for euer to be made really present so that we maye work it by faith and body therfore they haue changed working into labouring for as thowgh in the supper of Christ we laboured for his body and did dot rather work his body Againe Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me ipse viuet propter me The trew English is He that eateth me he also shall liue for me The Englishe Bible teadeth He that eateth me shall liue by the meanes of me There is a similitude made in that place that as Christ being sent of the Father liueth for the Father so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ. The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places It is construed with an accusatiue case in both places it is latined by propter in both places yet in the former place it is englished in the common Bible for the Father in the later not for me as it owght but by the meanes of me Whereas Christ wold proue that as him self doth liue for his Father with whom he is one nature and Godhead by eterna generation so we doe liue for him with whom we are one flesh and manhod by eating him worthely As therforâ—… the Godhead of the Father is really present in the whole substance thereof with Christ so is Châ—…ist really present with vs in his whole substance when we eate him in the Sacrament of which kind of eating he speaketh in that place by the waie of promise as I haue proued vpon S. Ihon. What honâ—…sty can be here pretended in one sentence to turne one
the flesh blood of Christ they haue inuented such kind of speaking as may both seme to agree with the Scriptures and yet withall mayntein their false doctrine The which thing that thou mayest the better vnderstand this is to be consydered The Catholike faith is that Christ in one person hath two natures The nature of God and the nature of man which two natures are ioyned and vnited together into one person after such sorte that what so euer is said of the one nature may be sayd of the other if we speake by that worde which signifieth the person For example we may say that man was in heauen before the ascension of Christ and that God died not because the nature of God could be borne of a woman or dye or the nature of man could be in heauen before the ascension of Christ but because that which was borne and dyed was also God and that which was in heauen was also man albeit his byrth and death was by the nature of man and his being in heauen by the nature of God The natures then tary distinct but yâ— pâ—…rson of God man is but one Now shall you see the meane whereby these new prechers go about to deceaue you They say Christ geueth him selfe in his SacrameÌ„ts The word Christ doth signifie his person wherein he is both God man Likewise the word him self is a word belonging to his person wherein both natures of God man are conteyned Now when they say Christ geueth him self they meane that he being God man geueth by some spiritual way the vertue of his flesh blood which they call him self for that he as God being euery where may dwell in vs more excellently by charitie as the Father and the holy Ghost doe But they meane not by geuing of him selfe the reall gifte of his person and of both natures which are ioyned therein after such sort that our whole nature might receaue his nature For then they should teache that which we doe But howsoeuer they bable of our soules they will graunt our bodies no touching nor tasting of him no not so much as vnder yâ—â—…oormes of bread and wine You haue heard what they say Now heare what Christ sayeth Christ speaketh of him self in diuerse places diuersely Due where he sayeth I will not leaue you Orphans I will come vnto you There he speaketh of his person and concerning the nature of Godhead as it appereth afterward where it is written If any man loue me he will kepe my word and my Father will loue him and we will come vnto him and make a mansion or dwelling with him or at his howse Here he speaketh first in such sort of his own coming that his Father as it appered afterward might come after the same sort Then was it the coming of God and not of man At his departure when he ascended from the world into heauen he sayd Behold I am with you all dayes euen vntill the consummation of the world These words may be meant as well by the nature of manhod which we haue with his Godhead in the Sacrament of the altar and so some holy Doctors haue taken them as also by the only nature of the Godhead which is euery where by maiestie and in good men by grace In an other place he sayd Poore men ye shall haue allwayes with you me ye shall not haue allwayes Where by the word me he meaneth not his Godhead which is allways euery where but the nature of his manhod and that not as it is in the Sacrament but as it was when he spake in a visible forme of a poore man who had not any howse of his own where he might reste his head Last of all let vs marke after what sorte he sayd that he wold be in his blessed supper Dyd he say I will geue my self to be eaten and to be drâ—…nken If he had sayd so yet seing he had mentioned eating and drinking which according to the letter rather belongeth to his manhod then to his Godhead we should rather haue thought that the words must haue bene taken properly then improperly To eate the substance of a man may be sayd properly for in deed it may be eaten with mouth and teeth but to eate the substance of God it is sayd vnproperly For it can not be eaten with teethe and mouth as also S. Cyrillus hath noted but only with vnderstanding and faith If then Christ had sayd before supper I will geue my self to be eaten and had sayd at his supper I do geue my self to be eaten These words with a circumstance of a supper had made so stroÌ„gly for the bodily geuing of him selfe that their part had bene more probable who had vnderstanded it of his manhod With whom if the tradition of the Apostles had stood there were no doubt but he should haue bene a wicked heretik who when Christ had sayd I geue my self to be eaten wold haue denyed that we had eaten the humane nature of Christ. But now attend what words Christ vsed He forcseing this hearesie made 〈◊〉 agaynst it and therefore he sayd not I will geue or do geue my self to be eaten as heretiks now delight to speake but I geue my flesh my body my blood These are not wordes of personage which may be applyed two wayes but they are the words of nature and only of mans nature For God by yâ— nature of his Godhead hath neither flesh ne blood ne soule ne body ne bone Christ as man hath all these things Now do the heretiks and false preachers of our age maruclously deceaue the people of God who alwayes say that they diminish not Christes benefite nor do not abuse the Lords supper 〈◊〉 say they we teache that Christ geueth his owne self and they repete agayne and agayn his owne self his owne self And thereby they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by fayth spirit and vnderstanding Wholy robbing vs of that flesh which dyed for vs and of that blood whiche was shed for vs. For although God was able to haue saued man otherwyse yet he swetely disposed our saluacioÌ„ by sending his dere soÌ„ne to take of the virgyn our flesh and blood This flesh and this blood worketh our saluacion Which he yâ— taketh away from the Sacrament of the altar depriueth vs of the meane whereby to come to life euerlasting For as by this flesh and blood we are redemed So that redemption is applyed to all that be of lawful age by worthy eating and drinking thereof Now when these preachers cry vnto you of God of fayth of spirit of vnderstanding of vertue they seme perhaps to say goodly things but they craftily put you from that only meane of fleshe and blood whereby God hath ordeyned our saluacion Abraham was the sather of al beleuers because neuer any mans belefe was so
throughly tryed as hys He lacked not grace vertue and vnderstanding but he lacked the flesh and blood of Christ Which flesh when it came really into the world when it was crucified and gusshed out streames of blood then the soule of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other Fathers out of prison Wel to end this matter Christ to shew that he wold be in his supper by yâ— nature of his manhed for that cause he named not his person but his flesh his body his blood And S. Paule named his bones as you shall see hereafter Wherefore yâ— talke of his presence by fayth is vnfaythfull yâ— talke of his presence by spirite as thereby excluding his body soule from our bodies and soules is spritish and diuelish A spirit hath no flesh and bones Christ is with vs in the substance of his owne flesh of his owne bones And yet that we might vnderstand that Christ naming flesh blood meaneth not that either his flesh is vnder yâ— forme of bread without blood or his blood vnder the forme of wine without flesh but that vnder eche kinde both flesh and blood and soule and Godhead is he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood taryethin me I in hym That is to say when I promise flesh and blood I name them only to declare plainly that my being in the Sacrament is a being according to yâ— truthe of my humane nature and not as though I were not there in mine owne person for he that eateth my flesh and drynketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him But it I had sayd that I geue my self no more 〈◊〉 false preachers had expouÌ„ded my selfe by my Godhead and by fayth vppon me my simple faythfull people might haue bene deceaued I name flesh body and blood to shew according to what nature I am 〈◊〉 But I am not diuided as though my flesh were vnder one kynde and mie blood vnder the other And therefore I say last of all He that catcth me he also shall lyue for me so that I am altogether in mine owne person vnder eche kynde after coÌ„secration Marke this agayne and agayne and let not the doctrine of Christ him self preteÌ„ded in suttil words deceaue thee any longer Beleue thou the presence of body of blood of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh ¶ It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper ANd we say not this is done sleightly and coldly but effectually and truly The eating of Christ by faith and spirit is no sleight or cold thing But to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly coldly sayd Partly because so much may be done without the supper namely when so euer a man with good faith and charitie doth meditate vpon his gloriouse victorie ouer death synne Partly because it is a cold thing to 〈◊〉 men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to geue their bodies none other meate then corruptible bread and wine as you teache whereas Christ did forbid vs to work the perishing meate at his banket How can yâ— be worthely called yâ— supper of Christ which a man may make at home without coming to the table of Christ As though it were not for his honour to haue a singular kind of supâ—… of his owne Euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne howse with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither wil Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled And is not that which may be done at priuate mens tables coldly and sleightly done in comparison of that great sacrifice of the true Melchisedech who by his blessed word turneth the substance of the bread and wine into that body of his which died and into that blood which was shed for vs ¶ By eating we touche the body of Christ as it may be touched vnder the foorm of bread FOr although we do not touche the body of Christ with teeth and mouth yet we hold him fast and eate him by faith by vnderstanding and by the spirit These men haue lost their wits through malice As who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which eating shal be without touching the meate that is eaten with teeth and mouth For in the supper of Christ it is a detestable heresie and an intolerable ignorance to say that Christ saying Take and eate did not meane taking by hands or mouthes and eating by teeth and mouth Taking and eating is not without touching Christ sayd Take and eate this is my body therefore he sayd in effect touche my body with your teeth and with your mouth Neither doth it skil that his body is immortal and impassible for though it be not perished by the eating yet the eating and tou ching is not therefore false but so much the truer by how much the meate receaued is the more profitable cueÌ„ to our bodies And as we are sayd truly to kisse the Kings knee when we kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined euen so in touching the accidents of bread and wine we touche the body and blood of Christ which is coÌ„teined vnder them For which cause S. Chrysostom sayd 〈◊〉 we doe not only see we doe not only touch but we eate and fasten our teeth in yâ— slesh of Christ thereby noting and teaching the vndoubted presence thereof vnder the foorm of bread Which foorm we see we touche we eate we chaw and by that meanes we doe these things to the body of Christ vnder that foorm not perishing the body one whit For the same cause S. Cyrillus speaking of the blessed Eucharist sayeth of Christ Praebet nobis carnem suam tangendaÌ„ vt firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit He geueth vs his flesh to be touched that we might beleue assuredly that he hath truly reised his temple that is to say his own body Christ geueth vs his flesh to be touched and yet doe we not touche it But how do we touche it Uerily as S. Thomas touched the Godhead of Christ. For as in touching his flesh he confessed him to be God because the Godhead lay hid in that flesh right so when we touche with teeth mouth the forme of bread in the holy mysteries we confesse that we touche thereby the flesh which lieth hid vnder that forme and yet the Apologie denieth vs to touche the body of Christ with teeth and mouth And whereas it sayeth we hold him fast by faith that is true also but it is not the whole truthe for as S. Thomas the Apostle did beleue vpon the Godhead of Christ and withall touche the flesh wherein it dwelt corporally euen so we beleue the presence of his body and
and teacheth to be a grosse imagination O grosse imagination of these pitifull preachers May there be a more grosse imagination then to imagine that Christ lyed Cyrillus biddeth vs put away grosse imaginations and Cyrillus saith of yâ— reall presence Ne dubites an hoc verum sit eo manifestè dicente hoc est corpus meum Sed potius suscipe verba Saluatoris in fide Cum enim sit veritas non mentitur Doubt thou not whether this be true sith him self plainly saith This is my body But rather imbrace the words of our Sauiour in faith For seing he is the truth he lieth not Who so consydereth well these words may vnderstand that Cyrillus thought nothing more grosse then to doubt whether that body of Christ be present or no. What grosse imaginations then did Cyrillus bid vs put away For sooth aboue all that we should not imagin Christ to lye Secondly that we should not imagin his words concerning this Sacrament to be dark or obscure seing Christ as he sayth spake manifestly Again that no man should thinke any other body to be geuen besydes the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man In the tyme of Cyrillus a great heretike named Nestorius scholar to one Diodorus falsely taught that Christ had two persons one of God an other of man Therefore they imagined the the body of Christ which all the world euen the heretikes them selues beleued to be present vpon the altar after consecration to be the body of man but not the proper body of God the word This was a very grosse imagination and therefore ought to be put away from the mind of faithfull men in receauing the mysteries Hereof Cyrillus literally said Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sucramentum pronuncias irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum mentem qui crediderunt Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou irreuerently inforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Behold the grosse cogitation was to thinke that we doe eate that body of a maÌ„ whereas in dede through the vnitie of person it is yâ—â—…ody of God him self And therefore Cyrillus sayth afterwarâ—… Proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia viuificat It is the body proper to that word which quickeneth all thinges Of this â—…oule and grosse eâ—…oure two epistles are extant of Cyrillus as also in all his workes he full oft confuteth it One thing I wil further note this fine penner of the Apologie citeth not where Cyrillus speaketh of these grosse imaginations because the place is maruelous euident against him And what foul play is this to belie Cyrillus as though he had spoken of that imagination wherein we beleue that reall presence of Christes body vnder the form of bread whereas he spake of that wherein Nestorius vnderstanded that we did eate the flesh of Christ with out the diuine nature vnited vnto it in one person Cyrillus sayth because the word which is of God the Father is life by nature it hath declared his flesh to be the geuer of life hac ratione facta est nobis benedictio viuificatrix and by this meanes the blessing is made to vs geuer of life Cyrillus calleth yâ— Sacrement of the altar benedictio blessing because it is made by blessing Now in naming blessing he must nedes meane that which is blessed which is on the altar before vs and not any thing coâ—…ceaued in faith or spirit Therefore Cyrillus meaneth out of all coÌ„trouersie that thing which is made by blessing which we take in our hands which we put in our mouths to be able to geue life euerlasting which none other eatable thing can doe besydes the reall flesh of Christ. For the nature of Godhead as Cyrillus there confesseth is not eaten by itself or a part from the flesh If we put this together I require no more but that he be an honest man who shall construe the place of Cyrillus He shal be forced to confesse such an eating in the Sacrament of the altar as is not proper to the Godhead And yet eating by faith is proper to vs in respect of the Godhead therefore Cyrillus speaketh of eating that which quickeneth vs to life euerlasting with our body also and not with faith alone An other grosse imagination was to thinke that we eating the body of Christ should eat it dead or mortall and passible as we vse to eate other meates Whereas it is quicke yea of power to quicken vs as Cyrillus teacheth Quoniam Saluatoris caro verbo Dei quod naturaliter vita estconiuncta viuifica effecta est quando eam comedimus tunâ—… vitam habemus in nobis illi coniuncti quae vita effecta est Because the flesh of our Sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life na turally is made able to geue life When we eate it then we haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life The fifth grosse imagination is to thinke that we should so eate Christes flesh as if it were rawe and not by any meanes made meate for mannes cating Of this grosse imagination the Capharnaits were Ad immanes ferarum mores vocari se a Chri sto arbitrabantur incitarique vt vellent crudas hominis carnes manducare sanguinem bibere quae vel auditu horribilia sunt They thought them selues to be inuited of Christ to the cruel custom of wild beastes and to be prouoked to eate the raw flesh drinke the blood of man which thinges are horrible to heare It was yet no lesse a grosse imaginatioÌ„ to suppose they should cate the body of Christ peece meale one taking the shoulder an other the legg the third the brest and so foorth Against which imagination S. Augustine hath writen Their imagination also is very grosse who think that substance of bread to remaine after consecration as though they wold eate that immortall and gloriouse flesh of Christ with bakers bread Which is the cursed banket of the LutheraÌ„s whereas Christ said The bread which I will geue is my flesh geuing vs to vnderstand yâ— he wold not haue in his heauenly supper an earthly substance of materiall bread And yet it is a more grosse imagination to confesse that reallpresence of Christes body and to denye adoration to it sithens it is the body of God But how grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice sith it is his body who is the propitiation for the whole world I omit at this tyme his grosse imagination who teacheth the words which are spoken of a gift presently made and deliuered to be words of promise and of preaching * But the grossest imagination that euer was heard of is of them who affirm no body of Christ at all to be made really present vnder the form of bread
vs Secondly we must be like Egles in life and faith In life by forsaking earthly affectioÌ„s In faith by quicknesse of mind whiles we beleue that not withstanding bread and wine appeare to vs yet it is in deed an other 〈◊〉 The Egle hath many proprietes as to flee highe to looke â—…edfastly vpon the sun to see most clerely a farr of and to take his pray most swiftly To the flying high our good life must answer to yâ— quicknesse of sight our faith Not in suche sort to flee a highe as though the matter we seeke were not present but to â—…spie the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine For as S. Chrysostome saith This is the table of Egles He speaketh not now of heauen which is a boâ—…e the sun he speaketh of the table which standeth in the Church before vs wherupon the sonne of righteousnes is situated from which we take the foode of life the ioye of heauen yâ— earcase yâ— hath died for vs. The table is it whereof he speaketh What impudencie is this so to abuse the wordes of that blessed man as if he spake of going into heauen by faith whereas in dede he speaketh of them that liue like the saints of heauen and of theÌ„ that haue a quick sight to witt a faithfull vnderstanding yâ— they be able as it were to loke through the formes of bread and wine there to see vnder those formes the reall body and blood of Christ. For straight vpon the naming of a quick sight he inferreth yâ— this is the table of Egles not of Iaies As who shoâ—…ld say here is a meate that none can see but those who haue a most pure eye of faith Aquila sayth S. Augustine sublimiter volaÌ„s de tanto intervallo sub fluctibus natantem piscem dicitur ê‘â—…idere grauiter aquis illisa extertis pedibus atque vnguibus rapere The Egle flying a high is sayd most perfitly to see a great way of a fishe swiÌ„ming vnder the waues and vehemeÌ„tly beating her self against the water by stretching out her feet and clawes to snatch vp the fishe Behold an Egle seeth one thing vnder an other And so must we repute yâ— table of Christ to haue in it one thing vnder an other To haue vpon it the body of Christ vnder the form of bread And therefore noâ—…e but Egles can espie the said body As for the Sacramentaries Zuinglians they are like Iaies euer pratling of the body of Christ but neuer espying it or seing where it lieth they flee low as the Iaies doe as thinking that good works bring smal aide to â—…ife euerlasting They see weakely and coÌ„tent them selues with a base banket of bread and wine requiriÌ„g to theyr bodies none other food of life And whereas the sonne of reghteousnesse hath couered him self as it were with the cloudes of bread and wine to thintâ—…nt our eye might be able to beare more easily the brightâ—…esse of his shyning yet they are of so dull and of so dimme eye sight that thâ—…y say ther is nothing but 〈◊〉 vpon the table So that our table is the table of Eâ—…les where faithfull Egles may eâ—…pie the sonne of 〈◊〉 present vpon the altar and table and theyr table is the table of Iaies where nothing is 〈◊〉 besydes that which iufidell Iaies may find out by naturall eye sight bare naming without true being It foloweth in S. Chrysostm If noman wil rashly handle an other mans garment how dare we to our great shame and reproche receaue this pure and immaculate body â–ª which is Lord of al which is partaker of the diuine nature through which we haue our being and liuing by which yâ— gates of hel are broken downe and the gates of heauen set wide open Thus S. Chrysostome sheweth vs to receaue this body of Christ from yâ— holy table or altar as truly coÌ„cerning the substance thereof as we may truly touche an other mans garment Heauen is vsed both in holy Scriptures and in the Fathers for the heauenly life And so we must flee in to heauen not to receaue this body so it is not said but when we approche vnto this body The body is in earth with vs coÌ„cerning the nature and substaÌ„ce thereof vnder the formes of bread But as it is a body gloriâ—…ied and thereby made heauenly euen so we must clense and purge our selues from synne when we come to it and so be made heauenly or flee in to the state of them who liue in heauen And that state we professe who are called the kingdome of heaueÌ„ yâ— howse of God ¶ The bread that is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of lyfe which is the body of Christ. ANd Ciprian this bread sayith hee is meate of the mynd not meate of the belly The truth is so strong that yâ— more is brought agaynst it the better it is seene The sayng of S. Ciprian maketh so clearly for the contrarie of that wich the Apologi teacheth as it is possible to deuise If this bread be meate of the mind not meate of the belly out of questioÌ„ it is not material bread it is not the substaÌ„ce of coÌ„mon bread for though such materiall bread be neuer so much hallowed by prayer and thanksgeuing yet it still remayneth in substance bread of the belly But seing yâ— substance of yâ— common bread is changed into yâ— flesh of Christ as we catholikes beleue and teach now it can by no meanes be meate of the bellye for albeit wee receiue it really vnder the formes of bread into our bodyes and that also to feed them as wel as our sowles yet there ar two kinds of feedyng one wich is to liue in this world and in that case meate is for the belly and the belly for meate and God shall destroye both the one the other But an other feeding is to life euerlasting that is called by Christ cibus permanens meate which abideth which perisheth not Such a meate is the blessed body of Christ. It is a meat iÌ„ deed A meate wiche is truly eaten but is not digested into our corruptible flesh and voided as common meates are but a litle and a litle it feedeth and nourisheth vs to life euerlasting These defenders thought if it were â—…aten in deed that it could not be but meate of the belly As well they might blasphemously say that because Christ was man in deed he was born in synne And in that opinion they are like the Capharnaits who could imagine none other kinde of meate besides that which is diuided into peeces and consumed by eating The true Christians haue learned by the mercy of God with holy Cyrillus how the flesh of Christ because it is yâ— flesh of God may be eaten and yet quicken the eaters
cibum ferret God the Father hath signed that is to say hath sent the Sonne of man to bring you this meate And Eâ—…thymius agreeth with S. Chrysostome therein Christ therefore being sent of his Father to geue vs the euerlasting meate of life first fayeth I am the bread of life And then sheweth how he will geue the same bread saying And the bread which I will geue is my flesh S. Cyrillus vppon those words I am the bread of life writeth thus His verbis subostendit sanctissimi sui corporis vitam gratiam qua in nobis vnigeniti proprietas id est vita ingreditur permanet In these words he sheweth priuily the life and grace of his most holy body whereby the proprietie that is to say the life of the only begotten both entreth into vs and tarieth Likewise S. Hilarie hath these words Si verè verbuÌ„ caro factum est nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est If the word be truly made flesh and in our Lords meate we truly re ceaue the word made flesh how can it be but he must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Christ being for euer God in the fulnesse of tyme toke flesh and when the hower of death was at haÌ„d he gaue vs that flesh to be eaten by the which eating we reâ—…eaue the word it self that is to say the naturall Sonne of God into our bodies and so Christ dwelleth in vs not only by faith spirit or vnderstanding but naturally Wherefore S. Hilarie sayth we take and receaue the word truly Verè verbuÌ„ sumimus We receaue truly and in dede the word which was with God in the beginning and which was God But how can we receaue God truly or naturally God is a spirit and our nature consisting of a body can not fede truly and naturally vpon a spirit but only by faith and charitie How â—…hen receaue we God truly For south because 〈◊〉 toke flesh truly and we receaue truly the word made flesh Noman doubted but we can truly receaue flesh seing then the word is made flesh we thereby can receaue the word it self not only by vnderstanding but also whiles his own proprietie that is to say whiles the life Godhead which corporally dwelleth in Christes flesh entreth into vs with his flesh tariâ—…th in vs if we receaue worthely his most holy body Thus it appeareth that Christ in his flesh geueth vs the bread of life which he was sent to geue and he geueth it because that flesh is vnited to the word of God which is life by his own nature But if this flesh of his be geuen to vs by faith alone and vnderstanding or spirit alone and not in very dede We haue not yâ— bread of life in dede geuen to vs but only geuen to vs by faith spirite or vnderstanding And so it was geuen to vs before yâ— incarnatioÌ„ of Christ. For God was euer beleued on of the iust men â—…oth to be and to be the rewarder of them who seeke him as S. Paule sayth And faith by nature is due to God as Christ sayth 〈◊〉 beleue in God beleue also in me Therefore although Christ hath taken flesh yet if his flesh he geuen to vs only by â—…aith and spirit the bread of life and nature of God which dwelleth corporally in that flesh is not geuen vs after the coming of Christ by any other meanes then by faith And so by the incarnation of Christ we haue not the bread of life geueÌ„ to vs by any other way then we had it before Which is expresly against the word of God where the euerlasting meat and the bread of life is now first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the world to bring vs this euerlasting meate And the bread which he will geue is his flesh Therefore to saue the truth of yâ— Gospell which neuer caÌ„ faile we must beleue that by the incarnation of Christ and by his gifâ—… at the last supper we haue his reall flesh and in it the bread of life geuen to vs more then by faith or vnderstanding or spirit that more is the gift of the true substance of flesh and of blood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth And by it the Godhead is receaued of vs not only by an effecte of grace by a certain verâ—…ue but in such truth of nature as it is corporally dwelling in the person of Christ who is one in substance with his Father For although God be euery where by nature and fill both heauen and earth yet as Iustinus Martyr witnesseth he is in the Sonne of man by so excellent a meane of vâ—…g man to God that he is no where els after that sort And by that singular meane he was promised vnto vs as who is only the euerlasting meate which alone satisfieth the hunger of man whose harte as S. Augustine confesseth is without rest vntil it rest in God because it was made to come to God And nothing is at quiet vntill it hâ—…ue obteyned the end wherevnto it was first made Seing then God is by nature yâ— only euerlasting meate which perisheth not and seing he must be geuen to vs in his own nature and we are not able to receaue him as he is a spirit he hath done for vs as good mothers and Nourses doe for their babes The mother eateth bread by her eating turneth it into milk and that milk she geueth to the infante and by that meanes the infante eateth bread made milk This similitude S. Augustine bringeth for the same purpose whereof I now speake In the beginning was the worde and the worde was with God and the word was God Ecce cibus sempiternus Behold sayeth S. Augustine the euerlasting meate Sed manducant Angeli But the Angels eate it Quis homo posset ad illum cibum What man were able to attayne to that meate Oportebat ergo vt illa mensa lactesceret ad paruulos perueniret It behoued therefore that foode should be turned into milk and so come to litle ones Vnde cibus in lac conuertitur nisi per carnem traijciatur By what meanes is meate turned into milk except it be conueyed through flesh Quomodo ergo de ipso pane pauit nos sapientia Dei How then hath the wisedome of God fed vs with yâ— bread it selfe Quia verbum caro factum est habitauit in nobis Because the worde is made flesh and hath dwelte in vs. And so S. Augustine coÌ„cludeth yâ— man hath eateÌ„ Angels food and that as he sheweth there in the new sacrifice of Christes supper For of that sacrifice Sacrament he intreateth Thus we see that God him self must be eaten of vs not only by faith for then he neded not to haue bene made man but he must be eaten also as infants eate milk by mouth
we are saued by the washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the holy ghoste Likewyse that which Manna dyd then shadow hauing the swetenesse of all deyntie and pleasant tastes as now really geuen because yâ— flesh of Christ is meate in dede We differ not in substance of our manna from the Angels of heauen but only they are out of all feare we lyuc in good hope they see and eate we eate see not but beâ—…ue They are in theyr and oure countrey we are in the way to them Whyles we are goyng the truth of heauen is couered to vs but sith Christ came downe to be our guyde he hath left the kingdome of heauen in the blood of the newe testament among vs as really as him self â—… really for that purpose tooke fleshe and dyed in the same flesh to thintent he being exalted vpon the crosse should draw al things vnto him selfe ¶ The bread that Christ promiseth to geue which is his flesh must nedes be meant of the substance of his flesh HAuing already touched the three seuerall tymes of geuing â–ª which are spoken of in S. Ihon order wold yâ— I should shew the three seuerall kinds of working those three gifts But for as much as the last gift of the three is the gift of Christ whereof we doe principally intreat I thought good to say somewhat of it alone Christ hauing sayd before work the euerlasting meat which the Sonne of man will geue you cometh now to namè what kind of meat it is and the bread sayth he which I will geue is my flesh I haue proued already that these two sentences belong to one maner of gift which also is promised to be geuen to vs and not only to be geuen for vs as some doe aâ—… To be geuen to vs I say in the Sacrament of Christes supper and not only for vs vpon yâ— Crosse the which thing because I haue by diuerse reasoÌ„s proued in two places of this present booke it shal be now suâ—… to warn the reader that S. Cyprâ—… writing vpoÌ„ our Lords prayier hath alleged these words The bread which I will geue is my â—…esh as spoken of the Eucharist The like hath S. Chrysostom done in his comments vpon the same place affirming that Christ spake of the mysteries beside that which he speaketh hereof vpon the sixt of S. Ihon doth also allege it again for the Sacrament of Christes supper naming benedictionem mysticaâ—… the mysticall blessing S. Augustine often tymes allegeth this text for the gift made in Christes supper as I haue declared before also Theodoritus was of the same mind and as for Theophilact and Euthymius be so clere in this matter that they neuer doubted thereof Which sith it is so let it staÌ„d for a truth most vniuersally receaued yâ— Christ saying The bread which I wil geue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil geue you at my last supper is my flesh Moreouer the word bread must be noted which standeth not presently for wheaten breade but only for food and meat For as Christ sayd before work the meat which the sonne of man wil geue you so now he sayth and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh declaring yâ— bread in this place is all one with meat The which truthe is also expressed of S. Cyrillus where he sayth Saluator cuÌ„ ad Iudaeos multa de carne sua dissereret ac viuisicum verè panem â—…am appellaret panis enim inquit quem ego dabo caro mea est When our Sauiour disputed manie things among the Iewes of his flesh and caâ—…ed it the bread truly geuing life he sayd for the bread which I will geue is my flesh Thus it is clere that Christ in effect sayth I will geue you a kind of meat or food in my last supper yâ— which is my flesh euen the same flesh which I wil geue for the life of the world This promise Christ made at Caphâ—… to al the â—…tude but 〈◊〉 submitted theÌ„ selues to receaue that doctrine beside the twelue Apostles among whom Iudas being one had this promise made to him also For although Christ knew him to be a deuil and traitour as him self sayd euen at Caphâ—…um yet seing he taried with the twelue euen at the last supper and other men knewe not so muche of his maliciouse intent Christ dissembled it and as he promysed his fleshe to all so he gaue it to the twelue in the night wherein he was betrayd The whiche thing I speake to thend the reader might perceane what Christ promised presently Suche a gift it was the whiche was performed â—…o lesse to Iudas then to the other Apostles It was not therefore a spiritual gift only which was promised for such a one Iudas neither did nor could take but it was a reall â–ª and externall gift which was deliuered with the hands of Christ and receaued into the mouthes of the Apostles After which sort Iudas tooke it Which could not be so except the fleshe of Christ were vnder the forme of bread which Christ gaue Again Christ spake not now of geuing his flesh by faith only for that gift his Father presently gaue as he sayd Pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum my Father doth geue you the true bread from heauen That gift Christ him self was being geuen in flesh to th end we should beleue in him and 〈◊〉 vpon him by spirituall deuotion But Christes gift both hath an other person an other tyme. The person is Christ the tyme is to come Wherevpon S. Chrysostom here noteth Se non patrem dare dicit He saith him self to geue and not his Father It is therefore a reall gift to be made externally whereof Christ speaketh WherupoÌ„ it foloweth that Christes flesh was promised vnder the form of bread which suin his â—…pper was taken blessed and deliuered Under that form Christes flesh is promised not in faith only but in truth of nature and in the same substance which was geuen 〈◊〉 the life of the world The Sacramentaries must nowe say that flesh here standeth for the signe and figure of Christes flesh and so by that meanes they will say both Iudas had the figure of Christes flesh geuen â–ª and the other Apostles had the flesh it self by faith and spirit It hath bâ—…e â—…wed before that the bread whereof Christ now speaketh and which he affirmeth to be his flesh is Christ him self as he is true God and man Therefore to say the bread which Christ will geue is the signe of his flesh is to say that Christ him self through his own gift is the signe of his own flesh for of any other bread Christ spake not in this place then of such bread as him self is And of that he spake not in that only respecte as he is God but as he is man And so either the manâ—…hood of Christ is yâ— signe of his flesh
geuen before vnder Moyses For who can doubt but manna dyd in his owne substaÌ„ce farre passe bakers bread and wine of the grape Is this the end of this long disputation of so many differences put betwene Moyses God the Father and Christ betwene manna Christes incarnatioÌ„ his supper betwene eating by body alone by faith alone by bodie faith together Is this al to haue by yâ— gift of Christ only a token of him selfe in bread and wine how is then the bread which is eaten able to make vs liue for euer if the eating it by faith only at Christes supper make vs lyue for euer and yet we had it by faith before of the fathers geuing then Christe geneth him selfe by none other meane sauing bread and wine then his father had done and doth he in vain trow ye distinct his own gift from his fathers so many waies is it then all one to eate of Christ alone and to eate Christ and of Christ Uerily if concerning our taking of it the thing were throughly one sauing bread and wine he wold not make so many differences But if Christes gift concerning our partaking differ front his fathers gift in tyme in maner in degree why should it be so but that Christ geueth for a greater ioyning of vs to him â–ª yâ— same in truth of nature whiche his father in faith and spirite gaue before as the necessarie preparation to the sonnes gifte His father is only spirite and truth and therefore geueth Christe really to the worlde to be fed of spiritually by vs. But the sonne is fleshe for the worde is made flesh and so geueth really to vs the gifte of that flesh whiche he toke not for his own sake but for ours to th ende we might really eate the spirite of God which is in it Neither let it be strange to you yâ— Christ semeth to geue more to vs then his father for he geueth more both for vs vppon the Crosâ—… and to vs in his supper then his father doth outwardly geâ—… but yet all his gifts come srom his father because his father gaue his only begotten sonne to vs in the truth of our fleshe to th end he should geue the same flâ—…she in his owne person both for vs to vs that by such an excellenâ—… meane we might 〈◊〉 the nerer ioyned to God him self Although the conference of the words of the Ghospel do proue sufficiently that which I haue sayd yet I wil shew also that S. Chrisostom toke this chapiter in the same sense that I haue done First he noteth the diuersitie of persons in that Christ sayd se non patâ—…em dare him selfe to geue and not his Father Secondly the distinct places of the chapiter where Christ speaketh in the one of eating his Godhead by faith in the other of eating his body Primum de diuinitate c. de corpore circa fineÌ„ inquit Panis quem ego dabo c. Christ speaketh firâ—…t oâ—… his Godhead of his body he sayth toward the end the bread which I will geue is my flesh Thirdly S. Chrysostom noteth that the word panis bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluatioÌ„ and faith in him or els his body By which words who seeth not yâ— he distincteth eating by faith alone from eating yâ— body it self The body therefore is it self eaten otherwyse then by fa th Fourthly he sayth vpon these words my flesh is verily meat that Christ sayd so to th end they should not thinke him to speake in parables And yet by flesh to meaue the signe of his flesh or by eating to meane beâ—…uing is to speake in parables Last of all he sayth it is brought to passe by the meat which he hath geuen vs that we should not only by loue but also in dede it selfe be turned into yâ— flesh of his And again Christ mingleth him selâ—…e with vs not by faith only but he maketh vs his booy in it self But if we 〈◊〉 Christ by faith only loue surely we should be reformed to him by none other meane theÌ„ by faith loue But now we are turned from our corruptible nature and are made able to liue for euer not only by the gift of faith and charitie but euen by that we receaue Christes flesh in dede it selâ—…e in his owne substance truthe and nature All these things did S. Chrysostom gather out of Christes words I nede not to shew in many lines that Theophilact and Euthymius folow that same order in expounding S. Ihon which S. Chrysostom before had vsed For I think no man who knoweth their trade of wryting doubteth of it The former saith vpoÌ„ these words The bread whiche I wil geue is my flesh that Christ manifestly in that place speaketh of the Sacramentall communion of his body and that yâ— bread which is eaten of vs in yâ— mysteries is not only a certein resembling of our Lords flesh sed ipsa caro Domini but the flesh of our Lod it selfe Euthymius likewyse agreeth that Christ is bread two ways according to his diuine and humane nature Non autem dixit quem do sed quem dabo He sayd not which I doe geue but which I will geue For he minded to geue it in his last supper Now as Christ is bread two ways so is he eaten two ways As God he is eaten by faith alone as man geuing his flesh to vs at hiâ—… last supper he is eaten not only by faith but in very dede The later way of eating the Sacramentaries take away ¶ The like precept made to men oâ—…lawful age for caring Chrisâ—…es flesh as was made generally for 〈◊〉 sheweth his 〈◊〉 to be as really present iâ—… his 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 is in 〈◊〉 WHen Christ had promised to geue his flesh to be eaten and the Iewes had asked how he was able to doe it Christ answered Except yâ—… eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting and I will reise him in the last day These words first were spoken to men of lawfull age as it appereth by the circumstance who are bound to receaue the blessed Sacrament of Christes supper if no lawfull impediment stop them to th end they may nourish and maitein the life which they toke in baptism and increase it to a higher degree of vnitie with Christ him selfe But baptism by our aduersaries confession may and ought to be geuen to infants and yet it could not doe them any good if it conteined not in it self the strength to regenerate them in Christ seing they are not able for their parts to beleue actually Mary if baptism really make them a new creature saue them as S. Paule speaketh the nourishment which we receaue in yâ— SacrameÌ„t of â—… altar being now of perfect vnderstaÌ„ding must nedes be also reall For as â—…regorius of
meate vnto the body for how saith he can a ' thing whiche lacketh a body be made meat vnto the body as who should say there is no doubt but the flesh of Christ is made meate vnto one body because Christ sayd my flesh is meate in dede and meate is ordinarilie promised to nourish the body although it being the meate of God helpeth the soule also If the bread that came downe from heauen whiche is the flesh of Christ be true meate it is a bodily thing for els how could a thinge that hath no body be made meate for the body if that can not be so truly the flesh geuen at the supper of Christ whiche is meate in dede and drinke in dede can not be only receaued in spirit but it must be so reall that it may fede our bodies also to thinteÌ„t they may be reised in the later day therefore that whiche our body receaueth when Christ saith take and eate is the same flesh of Christ which is meate in dede and seing it is proued to be a body because it is made meate vnto the body it must be meate in dede vnto vs and must be really taken into our bodies by our mouthes or els Nyssenus â—…ayleth in his whole discourse for he proueth it a body because it is meate vnto the body then certainlie it is not meate only to the soule nor it is not only receaued by faith but trulie and in dede And seing al wise men reason vpon a sure ground we may not doubt but all the Catholike Church twelue hundred yeres past and so vpward toke it for an euident truthe that Christes body was meate vnto our bodies ¶ By the maner of our tarying in Christ it is proued that we receaue his reall flesh into our bodies WHereas hitherto the necessitie the profite and the truth of eating Chrisies flesh hath bene shewed and confirmed Now the proper effect of that banket is also declared because he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his blood tarieth in Christ and Christ in him In respect whereof the same thing was before named Cibus permanens the meate which tarieth Whereby we may perceaue that in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper we doe not beginue to liue as in baptism but we maintein kepe nourish increase the sede of life which we toke in our spirituall birth Neither only doe we preserue life during the tyme of our feeding but also when the banket is ended some effect remaineth in vs through the which we are sayd to tary in Christ and he in vs. Let vs then trye out what effect that is for by the maner kind of the effect we may gather somewhat of the cause What meaueth it that Christ tarieth in vs and we in him S. Chryâ—…ostom answereth In me manet dicit vt cum ipso se admisceri ostendat Christ sayth He tarieth in me to shew that him self is mingled with him S. Chrysostom meaneth that whiles we receaue worthely the substance of Christes flesh into our bodies we are so intierly ioyned to him that we may be sayd to be mingled with him And how that is done S. Cyrillus declareth by this similitude As if a man poure wax vppon melted wax he wholy must nedes mingle the one with the other so it must nedes be if any man receaue the flesh and blood of our Lord that he be so ioyned with him that Christ may be found in him and he in Christ. And again Sicut parum fermenti caet As a litle leauen tempereth the whole lump of dow so a litle benedictioÌ„ whereby he meaneth a peece of the consecrated host be it neuer so smal draweth the whole man vnto it and filleth him with his grace and by this meanes Christ tarieth in vs and we in him S. Cyrillus calleth the things which are consecrated at Christes supper Benedictio a blessing because they are consecrated by the words of blessing the which Christ left vnto vs. Now a litle of that blessed food being receaued worthely of vs is not so properly sayd to tary in vs as we to tary in it for that though it be small in forme yet in vertue it is great And therefore it draweth vs vnto it as leauen turneth the dow to his nature It can not be auoided by these interpretations but that the heauenly food which we receaue into our mouthes is the reall substance of Christes flesh For it is here called Benedictio the blessing that word is not meant of an inward vertue coming srom heauen but of that which semeth bread and is visibly receaued at our Lords table For euen in the same Chapiter S. Cyrillus exhorteth men ad recipiendam benedictionem to receaue the Sacrament of Christes supper The which SacrameÌ„t if it were wheaten bread how could it be true that a litle thereof should draw the whole man vnto it Doth wheaten bread make vs like it are we then made vnreasonable vnsensible and a corruptible creature as wheateÌ„ bread is Christ sayth his meat tarieth to life euerlasting so doth not wheateÌ„ bread Christ sayth by eating his flesh we tary in him But we tary in him whiles the gift which at his supper he deliuereth is mingled with vs and conuerteth vs vnto it as S. Chrysostom and S. â—…yrillus teache And yet we be not conuerted or drawen to the nature of materiall bread or wine therefore it appeareth the gift which Christ deliuered not to haue bene bread and wine but his own body and blood vnder those formes S. Hilarie bringeth the very same word of tarying to proue that as Christ is in his Father by the nature of Godhead we in him by his corporall birth so he is in vs by the mysterie of the Sacraments and tarieth in vs naturally The like witnesse Theophilact geueth saying Contemperatio fit noua super rationem ita vt sit Deus in nobis nos in ipso There is made by eating Christes flesh a new mingling together so that God is in vs and we in him Briefly thus Christ meaneth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood receaueth me as meate into his body and soule But because I come not to nourish carnall life but spiritual in him he doth not digest and turn my body into his as it happeneth in other meates but he is turned to be like me For the real ioyning and knitting of my flesh to his maketh a maruelouse mixture as if melted wax were poured to other wax so that a great grace and vertue is left of me in him whereby he may tary still in me and increase the fountain of life which is in him This kind of our tarying in Christ and of his with vs could not be true if we â—…ed spiritually only vpoÌ„ Christ absent in body For how can the body which is only in heauen be so teÌ„pered tâ—… our bodies soules in earth as one melted wax being powred
to an other wax doth make one thing of twain which is the similitude made here by S. Tyrillus What like ioyning to that other similitude of the leauen can be if no leaueÌ„ that is to say no benediction or no flesh of Christ be receaued into vs which may draw vs to it What mingling together is made of things that be so far distant as heauen and earth If you say faith and spirit doth ioyne mingle knitte Christ to vs and vs to Christ and make vs to tarie in him and him to tarie in vs either you geue a cause of yâ— ioyning which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ or els you correct his cause and put a better If the faith spirit whereof you speake shal stand with Christes cause it must be such faith as doth concurre with the eating of his flesh For he now sayd not he that beleueth in me tarieth in me but he yâ— eateth my flesh tarieth in me Therefore though ye beleue neuer so wel yet your present tarying in Christ is not assigned to faith but vnto eating Faith is necessarie to worthy eating and coÌ„sequently to our tarying in Christ. But not euery ground which is necessarie to a thing is by and by yâ— cause thâ—…reof Or though it be one cause it is not the only cause In the former part of this chapiter saith had his due commendation But now Christ speaketh of eating his flesh and saith it maketh vs tary that is to say to be ioyned to him wholy and to be mingled with him as well in body as in soule which thing can not be otherwise then through that we eate his flesh substantially He that leauing that eating of Christes flesh staieth vpon feeding by faith alone correcteth the cause assigned by Christ and also depriueth vs of that naturall tarying in him whereof he now intreateth ¶ We are made one with Christ by natural participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his Father hath assumpted our nature into his own person HE that eateth Christes flesh tarieth in Christ and receaueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirit only but also by natural participation of his flesh which thing Christ declareth by this example As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue for the Father also he that eateth me shal him self liue for me But Christ liueth not for his Father by faith at all because he seeth his glorie face to face nor yet by the meane of spirit alone as we take spirit for deuotion or els for spiritual gifts and qualities but he liueth for his Father hauing his Fathers whole substance really present in him self therefore we that eating Christ liue in like maner for him must haue his whole substance really present in vs and so must we receaue life not by faith or spirit alone but by taking the flesh of life it self into our bodies and soules Thus veriâ—…ic Christ doth meane That we may reache to the true ground of this comparison it behoueth we lerne first how Christ liueth for his Father and then we may vnderstand how we receauing his flesh worthelie shall liue also for him Christ hauing two natures in one person may be sayd to liue for his Father according to either of bothe natures As God he liueth for his Father for that he is eternally begotten of him to whom the Father geâ—…eth his whole nature substance life glorie so that uo diâ—…ference is betwene the Father and the sonne but that the sonne is begotten of the Father and the Father is altogether vnbegotten and without any relation to a farther beginning This order wherein the sonne otherwise equall God 〈◊〉 his Father doth yet alwaies refer his generation and life to an euerlasting beginning is the cause why Christ as God liueth for his Father the which interpretation S. Hilarie S. Basile S. Chry sostom and S. Augustine doe confesse may well agree to this place Christ as man liâ—…eth for his Father because his Father sent him to take flesh whose flesh being of it self neither able to geue life euerlasting nor to haue it in his own nature yet for the word wherevnto it is vnited in one person both hath life and geueth life now the word is naturally one God and one life with the Father this second sense doth better please S. Basile S. Augustine and S. Cyril although they allow the former also but this second sense doth more agree with those words sicut misit me pater as my Father sent me For the sending of Christ was the taking of flesh at his incarnation bothe senses agree herein that both life is really and corporally dwelling in Christes flesh through the Godhead and the Godhead is naturally with Christ through that he is the sonne of God the Father Two things are to be noted in this comparison the one is the real presence of life the other is the hauing of it by gift and by relation to a farther cause or beginning For as Christes flesh liueth for the word of God to whom it is really vnited and the word of God liueth for the Father whose whole substaÌ„ce it hath really receaued by generation without beginning of tyme so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ hauing the substance of his flesh really present with him and thereby partaketh life euerlasting This verie sense Christes words haue both by the conference of the text it self and also by the interpretation of S. Hilarie who by this scripture confuteth the Arrians that sayd Christ to be inferiour to his Father not to be equall God with him To mainteine the which heresie they brought foorth a similitude of vnitie which is made in holy scripture betwene God the Father Christ and vs affirming Christ to be one with his Father as we are one with him but sayd they we are one with Christ only by will and consent therefore Christ is one with his Father only after the same sort to which argument S. Hilarie answering turneth it vpon their own heads in this wise Viuit ergo per patrem quomodo per patrem viuit eodem modo nos per carnem eius viuemus omnis enim comparatio c. Christ then liueth by his Father and as he liueth by his Father after the same maner we shal liue by his flesh for euery comparison is presumed to be made according to the forme and concept of our vnderstanding to thintent the matter whereof we intreat may be so perceaued as the example geueth which is proponed This truly is the cause of our life in so much as we haue Christ abyding by flesh in vs who consist of flesh and he shall liue through him by such condition as he liueth through his Father Yf we then liue through him naturally according to flesh that is to wit hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can he but haue naturally the Father
in him self according to the spirit or Godhead sith he liueth through the Father S. Hilarie sheweth first in these words y◠there is a similitude of liuing betwene vs and Christ and betwene God the Father and Christ. we liue for Christ by eating his flesh as he liueth for his Father who sent him but we saith S. Hilarie liue for Christ by eating his flesh in such sort that we haue the nature of his flesh in vs. Therefore Christ liuing for his Father hath his Fathers nature in him self Thus haue the Arrians gained nothing by saying that the Father was one with Christ as Christ is one with vs. For Christ is found to be one with vs naturally and thereunto it suffiseth not that Christ toke our naturall flesh in his mothers womb for Christ spake not of that vnitie otherwise the gentils Iewes heretiks and heinouse synners should be naturally one with Christ which thing is not so for to be one with Christ it behoueth that as he toke our nature into his own person we take his nature into our bodies soules Two reasonable parties which haue both free will consist of bodies be not properly made one in nature if they bothe do not as well consent thereunto in mind as also approche in bodies Lett vs put an example betwene Dina and Sichem for although Sichem had by force oppressed Dina corporally yet she not consenting in hart thereunto was not throughly and in her whole nature made one with him for that the cheif part of her dissented Again lett vs put the ca◅e that two other persons be together in hart wisshing to be man and wise but yet that they can not come together because bothe or one of them is inclosed in prison these also are not one naturally as long as their bodies be asonder euen so albeit Christ haue the same nature which all men haue excepting synne yet he is not naturallie that is to say in the whole truth of nature one with vs thereby except we both in hart and body approche vnto him If we come to him in body alone we come vnworthely if in hart alone it is a spiritual coniunction which will serue if either necessitie or infamie kepe vs from natural coniunction but if we come to lawful age haue opportunitie we must approche both in body and soule to the Sacrament of Christes supper to be made one with him naturally that is to say to take his body really into ours to th' end the spirit and Godhead which dwelleth corporally in that body of his may fede our spirit and soule which beleueth in him to life euerlasting Of this kind of liuing Christ spake when he sayd he that eateth me lineth for me as I liue for my Father And it is to be consydered that Christe brought the similitude of his own liuing for his father to shew thereby how we doe line for him when we eate him But S. Hilarie was so sure of this later part of the similitude to wit that we liue for Christ by naturall coniunction of his body and spirite to our bodies and soules when we eate him that thereby he proued Christ to be one with his father in nature and substance And now come our new Sacramentaries teaching the argument of S. Hilarie to be nothing worth because they presuppose Christes fleshe not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his own nature and substance whereby they also affirm that the father is not proued to be in Christe naturally by these wordes of our sauiour as the liuing father sent me and I liue for the father also he that eateth me shall liue him selfe for me For if here the comparison be only in this point that as Christ referreth his life to another beginning which is his father so we liue by Christ who is the cause of all the grace we haue if I say nothing els be respected in both partes but that a thing whiche is lesse receaueth a benefite by the greater these words rather seme to proue against the Godhead of Christ then for it Yea the māhood is not by thē shewed to be really vnited to the worde And so that which the Catholike fathers bring for the truth which is beleued in Christ the Sacramentaries make altogether voyd Let vs adde to the former consyderations that we eating Christ liue for Christ. we then so liue for him as we eate him For seing the eating is the cause of the life such is the life as the eating is But the Sacramentaries auouche that we eate bodily nothing els at Christes supper beside bread and wine therefore by theyr iudgement we shall liue bodily none other way then to that end whereunto bread wine cā fede vs. They can not feed vs to life euerlasting therefore it foloweth of the Sacramentarie docrine that our bodies haue no meate whereby they may liue for euer What say ye masters Haue we not bodies as wel as soules ▪ Doe not our bodies eate in theyr kind as wel as our soules Do not our bodies line by theyr proper meat as our soules doe liue by the meat which is conuenient for them If Christ be meat vnto vs is he not meat to vs as well in respect of our bodies as of our soules Doth he not heale the whole man regenerate the whole feed the whole and saue the whole ▪ Then by like he feedeth our bodies to life euerlasting What food it that Where is it geuen how cometh it vnto vs The Catholiks answere It is the flesh of Christ which is geuen to vs vnder the form of bread But ye Zuinglians who deny that real presence of Christ shew what meat our bodies receaue which is able to make them liue for euer Either say they shal not liue or shew the meane of life You say our bodies eate sanctified bread at Christes supper Be it so But is that sanctified bread stil bread or is it made the flesh of Christ which is the bread of life If it be made Christes fleshe ye agree with me our bodies haue the true food of life But if it tarie bread stil it can not geue our flesh life euerlasting Ye will say Christ is able to vse wheaten bread tarying bread for his instrument or tokē to geue vs by that maane euerlastiug life As common water tarying water is in baptism y◠instrumēt meane as wel to our bodies as to our soules of life euerlastig In which reason ye vaunt your selues ouer much and think ye haue found a goodly defence But beware least ye triūph before the victorie As hitherto I haue resorted to the word of God to confute your vain doctrine so now I wil repair to the same vndouted fountain of true wisdome It is most certain that God were able to saue vs by what mea nes he would But his will is now committed to writing that heretiks might
taking bread wine he putteth vs in mind of that great Priest Melchisedech who brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham As therefore Melchisedech toke bread and wine to offer them first vnto God next to communicate AbrahaÌ„ with them so doth our true king of rightuousues intend to offer to God and his Father the present bread and wine which he taketh And because the thing sacrificed is to be changed one way or other euen in substance from the former nature which it had as being sometymes killed sometymes burnt and sometymes eaten when Christ as the high Priest of God for so it appeareth in the end toke bread wine he toke them to offer coÌ„sequently to thange them in the most perfit maner that euer could be deuised as who is the most perfit Priest And into what substance shall he chaÌ„ge them but into the sede of Abraham his own body who came to fulfil the law and gather all things into him selfe and so to bring them again vnto his Father For which cause S CypriaÌ„ sheweth that as Melchisedech first brought foorth bread wine that so the blessing might duely be celebrated about Abraham so Christ fulfilling the truth of the prefigured image offered bread wine suum scilicet corpus sanguinem that is to say offered his own body blood This great mystery could not be throughly haÌ„dled in a whole booke much lesse I am able to coÌ„clude it within the cumpasse of a circumstance it is now sâ—…icient to touch the chefe points of so long a matter ¶ The tenth circumstance of blessing OUr chefe Bisshop did not only take bread and wine but he blessed also Benedictio blessing is as it were a blessed saying and because God sayth and it is done in him blessing is doing and in Christ who is both God man blessing is most properly of all a doing by the meane of saying or signifiyng for not alwayes when he blesseth he nedeth to speake but if he blesse as man he maketh at the least some outward token of the good dede which he is about either by lifting vp his eyes or hands to heauen or by making the signe of the crosse or by speaking certeine words Howsoeuer it be it caÌ„ not be well imagined that blessing should be in God or in Christe without a doing otherwise it should not differ from a simple saying yea it should be the saying of mâ—…n rather then of God But now it is called the blessing as if we should say a beneficiall saying which in God always importeth a doing In this place it sheweth also what intent and purpose Christ had For whereas Christ might haue spoken in the way of exhorting or of prophecying or of threatening or of comforting when it is writeÌ„ he blessed and sayd we may learne that he speake in the way of doing of working of bestowing some real benefit and of geuing vertue and strength vnto his word for that effecte which being so we can not now with any pretense of honestie imagine that those words are in the substantial parts of them 〈◊〉 at the prononcing whereof the Gospell hath rehearsed the word and vertue of blessing For as a figuratiue saying is an imperfect speache and therefore lesse then a common kind of speaking so is blessing farre more theÌ„ any speaking and therefore a true doing What repugnance then were it to say that Christ blessed at such tyme as he not only did no great miracle but also did lesse then the ordinary nature of speaking requireth For ordinarily men vse proper words Well that blessing in this place is to be referred to the words This is my body and this is my blood it is the doctrin of the most auncient fathers For S. Ambrose calleth this mystery benedictionem verborum coelestium the blessing of the heaueÌ„ly words and S. Cyrillus commonly nameth the blessed Eucharist benedictionem Christi or mysticam benedictionem the blessing of Christ or the mysticall blessing The like doth S. Chrysostome writing vpon S. Paule Now for so much as blessing standeth here beâ—…wene taking of bread and saying this is my body the which bread and body caÌ„ not be truely verified of the same thing at once the blessing so declareth the working and making present of Christes body that it doth intimate withal the bread to be changed into his body For as all blessing doth geue some benefit so when a creature taketh a benefit it is châ—…ged into a better state For which cause both S. Gregorie of Nyssa and S. Ambrose atâ—…ribute the chaunging of the nature of bread and wine into Christes body and blood to the vertue of his blessing It would paâ—…e yâ— describing of a circumstaÌ„ce and become a whole booke if I should prosecute any of these matters so largely as the thing would beare which at this tyme I may not doe ¶ The eleuenth circumstance of gening thankes GOd blesseth his creatures in bestowiing some benesite vpon them and the creatures blesse God by praising and rendring 〈◊〉 vnto 〈◊〉 Blessing thereâ—…ore in a diuerse sâ—…se is coÌ„mon to God and man but thanksgeuing is the proper duety whiche man oweth to God As Christ by blessing at his supper shewed his intent of changing bread and wine to a better nature then they before had so by geuing thanks he declarerh his change to appertein to the honoure of God and that after such speciall sort in this Sacrament that the whole mysterie taking thereof his name is called as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse Eucharistia that is to say the geuing of thanks Whereas thanks be geuen by words alone or dedes alone or in both together it can not be denied but those are best thanks wherein most excellent dedes are ioyned with most true and reall words And who can dout but it is a more worthy dede to make present the body of Christ vnder the form of bread yâ— God may thence be glorified thanked then to make bread stil taryiÌ„g bread to be an effectuall signe of Chistes body Who can dout but the words of thanking are more true which say this is my body and meane the same then those which name yâ— body of Christ meane the figure of his body The Chatholiks beleue that Christ gaue thanks to his Father with moste true words and with most perfit dedes in so much that we deny any perfiter worke to be any where done vpon any creature in the whole world then that was wherein Christ wrought his body present vnder the form of bread to thend it should be a sacrifice of thanksgeuing to God And consequently we confesse with S. Ireneus eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt corpus esse domini that bread wherein thanks were geuen to be the body of our Lord. And therefore he addeth iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia it is not now common
the Gentils whose greatest mysteries be made of corne and wine That Iacob prophecied of the fat bread of Aserwhich should geue spirituall delicats to the faithfull kings of Christes Church and yet how caÌ„ any bread be fat except it be the bread of life which is the flesh of Christ which is made fat with the presence of his Godhead Who seeth not that God promiseth as the highest reward in earth for keping his coÌ„mamdements to blesse the loaues of his people and to geue abundance of bread and wine That wheateÌ„ meale is appointed for fit matter to make a sacrifice of that the shew bread must stand continually in the temple before the face of God That Priests shall offer the loaues of theyr God therefore shal be holy Or what is the loaf of God besyde the flesh of Christ And who would not wonder to consyder that euen the chief Priests of the Iewes whose lips kept once the law of God after the comming of the faithfull Priest Iesus Christ to whome God hath built a new Church which shal neuer be vnfaithful to him are constrained to aske a morsell of mysticall breade at the haÌ„ds of those Priests which God hath appointed ouer the faithful Gentils if they wil haue any part of the euerlasting heritage in the house of God so that all the sacrifices of the law must be supplied fulfilled and made perfit by the Priests of the new testament in that cake or peece of the liuely bread which is the body of Iesus Christ geuen for vs. Dauid flying from Saul king of the Iewes to king Achis a Gentile changeth his countenaunce appearing like a foole or mad man to the vnfaithfull courtiers driueling on his beard stumbling and being caried in his own hands to shew yâ— Christ should appere vnder an other form to the conuerted Gentils theÌ„ he had commonly appered in among the Iewes For now he semeth contemptibly vnder the fâ—…rme of bread add wine who appereth daily of great authority to the Iewes in the natural forme of his true manhod but at his last supper he driueled like a child to theyr seming that be wise in the world he offended euen his own Disciples at Capharnanâ—… with the promise of geuing his flesh to cate he changed his countenaunce caried him self after a sort in his own hands when holding and geuing to be eaten that which semed bread he by his almighty Godhead dowted not to say as the thing was This is my body which is geuen for you The same kingly Prophet had great ioy in his harte considering the increase that came by the fruit of corne wine he praysed the bread that strengtheneth and the wine that maketh mery the faithfull hart of a spirituall man The goodly chalice that maketh true Christians drunke The remembrance which God hath made of his maruelous workes geuing meate to them that feare him How can it be thought a smal mysterie that Elias is fed from the ayr with bread and fleshe that he walketh forty daies in the inward streÌ„gth of a peece of bread very weake feble to see vnto that Esaias saieth the wheat corn of the Church of God shall no more be geuen to her ennemies and that the vine wherein she hath laboured shall not be the drinke of strange children That â—…ieremie calleth the flesh of Christ the bread wherein the wood of the Crosse is fastened That Zacharie asked what good thing there is besides the corne of the elect and the wine which engendreth virgins That Malachie complaining how the Iewes had polluted Gods â—…ble with vncleane bread promiseth a pure and cleane oblation made to his name among the Gentils â–ª That God him selfe would be called the bread of Aungels That Christ hauing taken â—…eshe would be called through his diuine nature the trâ—…e bread which came down from heauen and through his humane nature wherein the Godhead dwelleth meaâ—…e in dede and drinke in dede And last of all that the holy Ghost would cause the preacher to say and very ofte to repete none other thing to be good vnder the sonne besides eating and drinking with gladnes and mirth Which saying who so vnderstandeth of the eating common bread or meat and drinking common wine he doth not wel to think that the holy Ghoost commendeth 〈◊〉 liuing Neither doth the Prophet meane such a kinde of eating drinking 〈◊〉 yâ— same booke he saith It is better to goe to the house of moorning then to the house of feasting for there a man is warned of the ende that all liuing thinges shal haue and in his life time thinketh what thinges are to come On th' other side he that so vnderstandeth it onely of spirite faith vertuouse meditatioÌ„ that he leaue no possible meanes to eate and drinke bodily such a kinde of bread and wine in comparison whereof nothing may be iudged good vnder yâ— sonne he semeth without iust cause to deny that Sacramentall eating and drinking there to be meaâ—… whereof the prophete may be right wel thought co speake For as the holy scriptures by the vsuall manner of attributing to God the passions qualities and natures partly of other creatures but especially of man did thereby geue vs warning that one time or other God should become trew man himselfe after that sorte fulfilling those propheticall phrases of speach euen so the ciâ—…toine of commending so much â—…orn wheat meale bread and wine and of eating and drinking doth declare that such a thing should at the last be eaten and drun ken vnder the formes of bread and wine as might be called not only good but euen the best thing absolutely vnder the sonne except any thing can be better then Christ or any action more acceptable to God then the receiuing of that flesh and blood worthely which both maketh al iust men to be one body among them selues and to be one with Christ through eating his flesh who is one with his Father in diuine nature and substance Whereby three persons in the holy Trinitie and one God two natures in Christ and one person many persons in the Church and one nature al be made one in a maruâ—…lous mysterie The Sacrament of which vnitie because our Lords supper is both in shewing manie graines to be actually molded into one loaf and in making many persons really to be members of yâ— one flesh which euery of them vnder the forme of bread worthely receiueth and is changed into it therefore in comparison of this eating and drinking none other thing is good vnder the sunne And he well saith vnder the sonne for aboue the Sonne there is I will not say more goodnes yet more fruition of the same goodnes when the forme and couer of bread wine being taken away we shal see face to face eating and drinking vpon the table of God in his kingdoâ—… ¶ These words of
no reason brought sor proufe that thâ—…y are really ment to be that which they are called wheÌ„ they are named together with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if there be not euident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 theâ—… proper meaâ—…ing naturally they are included Thus when it is said The word was Gâ—…d the word was made flesh there was much grasse in that place the â—…onne of man shal be three days in the haâ—…t of the earth John was in 〈◊〉 those particular substances really to be that which they are named but if it chaunce otherwise we aske why it doth not signifie â–ª as it should chiefly doe Which being so we must seeke the reason why these words I am the true vine doe not signifie Christ 〈◊〉 self to be yâ— substance of the true vine whiche thinge the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 someth to import But as the truthe is when Christ sayth I am the true vine he can not meane I am the substance of a vine for if he were so he were not Christ. Because the substance of Christ who is God and man differeth wholy 〈◊〉 the substance of a vine But Christ prâ—…eth of him self I am this or that â—…fore we are compelled so to expound his words that his 〈◊〉 may stil be saued He sayth not I am changed into a vine or I am made a vine the which words 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â–ª of being with the losse of the former Being but 〈◊〉 sayth I am the true 〈◊〉 wherein somwhat is rather attributed or geuen to his former substance â–ª then any thing taken from it and much lesse the former substance it self is wholy taken away If then it repugne to the nature of Christâ—… wordes that he should in theÌ„â—…e thought to 〈◊〉 spoiled of his 〈◊〉 by which words his substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 nedes find oâ—…t some other way of expounding those words then â—…o aâ—…e that â–ª Christ is the substance of any materiall vine Seig then these two substâ—…es for so in word they seme to 〈◊〉 although in deâ—… they can not so be ment seing I say these two 〈◊〉 substances â–ª Christ a vine can not either be wholy one whiles they be diuerâ—… or be wholâ—… 〈◊〉 whilâ—… 〈◊〉 be said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise man auoiding as nigh as may be all absurdity seeketh out such a meaning that both natures may remayne still 〈◊〉 concerning their differeÌ„t substances and that they may coâ—…municat and agree in some â–ª â—…uality which is common to â—…th The which consyderation made al the lerned Fathers in these phrases of speache I am the dore I am the way I am the true vine the rock is Christ â—…on Baptist is Elias and in such like to shew what coÌ„dition qualitie or propertie was common betwene these natures without any surmise at all that any transubstantiation could be meant in those words in all which propositions the verb sum es fui doth stand to signifie an accidental and not a substantiall agreement betwene diuerse natures substances But it is far otherwise when Christ hauing taken bread saith after blessing This is my body for in those words two seuerall natures are not ioyned together and thereby affâ—…ed still to be the substances they were before It is not sayd This bread is my body No Enangelist no Apostle no Disciple reporteth Christes words in that sorte such additions comme from Luther from zwinglius from Decolampadius from Caluin but not from S. Matthew S. Mark S. Luke or S. Paule The true Apostles of God by the inâ—…inct of the holy Ghoost were so far from the minde of saying this bread or this wine that they did put the pronoune this in such a gender as neither could agree to bread nor to wine whereof I haue spoken sufficiently before The proposition then being such as nameth one substance only and that moste particular there is no cause why the verb est is ought not to stand in his moste proper and vsuall signification verily to signifie this one thing which was knowen to haue bene bread by Christes word to be the substance of Christes owne body which if it be once graunted it will necessarily folow that this which is the substance of Christes body is not also common bread because those natures were not at any time appointed to be together in any one proprietie of person If it be not common bread and yet it doth seme so it will insew that the substance of yâ— bread is changed into Christes owne substance which is really present vnder the forme of common bread Thus I haue shewed cause why the verb est is doth signifie otherwise in this is my body then in these words I am the true vine by reason of which proper vnderstanding of the verb substantiue transubstantiation is of necessitie inferred For as when I heare it reported for certeine that Peter who was in the morning at Douer was seene the same night at Calis I doe thereby vnderstand that Peter passed ouer the sea not because so much was spoken but because it foloweth vpon that which was done Euen so when I reade that Christ in his supper toke bread and sayd after blessing Take eate this is my body I vnderstand the bread which by nature is not Christes body by blessing and speaking to be made his body and consequently to be changed from his own substance into the substance of Christes body None of all which things can be reasonably applied to the other words I am the true vine For which reason I conclude that whereas in euery proposition three parts are either expressed or imployed the one which goeth before the verb the other which foloweth after and yâ— verb it self euery one helpeth to proue transubstantiation in these words This is my body and euery one hindereth the proufe of the same transubstantiation in the other words I am the true vine So discrete a chalenge M. Nowel made in comparing these two sayings together But who can looke for better stuffe at his hands sith he hath forsaken the notable wisedom of the Church of God and taketh Caluins dreame to be Gods word Hitherto M. Nowell I haue shewed the true meaning of euery word of the two propositions by you alleged But now I haue such confidence in the cause of those Catholikes whom you 〈◊〉 Papists that I will graunt you for farther disputations â—…ake euery thing to be otherwise then it is in dede Let vs imagine that Christ were not God and therefore might be changed in substance that the true vine were a certeyne particular vine â—…eueral from Christ into the which a real change might be made that the verb sum I am did stand to signifie a being in substaÌ„ce and not in qualitie alone yet these words I am the true vine wold not proue as well a transubstantiation as This is my body for that transubstantiation wold be better proued in all doutes moued therevppon which were the more semely
body Behold in promising his flesh and in affirming it to be meate in dede Christ spake not in parables much lesse could he do so in performing his promise and in saying Take eate this is my body Yet M. Nowell thinketh a parable as plaine as that speache which is no parable Forgetting yâ— Christ said him self to speake in parables to the multitude so that the hearers did not vnderstand him Yet M. Nowell wil haue I am the true vine whiche is a parable to be as plaine as this is my body S. Augustine saith Christe is called a vine by a Similitude or Metaphore but he neuer taught the like of this is my body For he saith Noster panis calix certa consecratione mystious fit nobis noÌ„ nascitur Our bread and chalice is not borne but is made mysticall to vs by a certain consecration That whiche is consecrated is in dede made somwhat which it was not before not only shewed to be a thing by a similitude A parable or similitude as I am the true vine is hath no consecration belonging to it but our bread hath a certeine consecration which worketh some mysterie and what consecration is that besyde the effectual operation of these words this is my body Christ was the true vine before he said I am the true vine but the thing pointed vnto at his supper was not his body before it was said This is my body Therefore these words which make a new thing when they are spoken are more pithy then those which only shew a thing already extant But are metaphors vsed to be really made after acerteine mauer of consecration Master Nowell They be named and writeÌ„ many tymes but they be neuer coâ—…secrated 〈◊〉 made really S. Cyrillus 〈◊〉 that he called himself a vine exempli ratione by the way of example But what said he likwise this is my body as it were for examples sake wheÌ„ we bring an example we bring it to proue some other thing which is more principal then the example was Christ inteÌ„ding to teach in what sort his disciples depended vpon him for their spiritnal life sheweth it by an example of the vine but in his supper his own body consecrated made and eaten was not an example brought to declare an other thing but it was the principall thing it self which was intended Therefore this is my body was more pithily said then I am the true vine For the principal is always more pithy then that which is alleged for to serue an othâ—…r purpose in so muche that S. Cyrill sayth Longè ab omni ratione remotum est ad naturae substantiaeque rationem illud traducere quod per similitudinem dictum est It is far distant from all reason to apply that which was spoken by a similitude to a comparison of nature and substance Which words S. Cyrill spake of the Arrians who denying these words to be ment of Christes humane nature by the similitude went about to proâ—…e that as the vine and the husbandman be not of one nature so God the father who is as it were the husbandman and Christ who is the vine were not of one nature And as the Arians did amisse to applie the words spoken by a similitude to the denying of Christes own diuine substaÌ„ce right so M. Nowell doth applie the same similitude euill to disproue by the example thereof the substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament But as S. Cyrillus doth returne the argument of the Arians vppon their heads by shewing how Christ is the vine and we the braunches according to his humanitie so may we shew to M. Nowell that these words of Christ I am the true vine serue to shew the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament of the altar S. Augustine sayeth Christ was made man to th' end the nature of man might be the vine in him of which humane nature we men might be the braunches S. Cyrill affirmeth likewise Christ to be the vine euen according to the flesh and vs to be braunches both spiritually and corporally He proueth it for so much as the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell corporally also in vs by the communicating of the flesh of Christ. What meaneth he by dwelling corporally Himself sheweth saying Non habitudine solum quae per charitatem intelligitur veruÌ„ etiá naturali participatione Not only by habit by power by effect or by the state and condition of charitie alone but also by naturall participation â—…o he placeth naturall participation as a farther degree beyond that dwelling of Christ in vs which is by faith or charitie M. Nowell will say peâ—…haps that the naturall participation of Christes flesh is to beleue that he is true man and true God and so to fede vpon him by faith at the tyme of eating bread and of drinking wine Such cursed interpretations now adaies they bring as though he that doth not beleue Christe to be in dede true man and true God can be ioyned to Christ at all â–ª by faith and charitie But S. Cyrill speaketh of that participation which is made not only by faith and charitie but also by naturall partaking his body and blood We must put a certeine iust man to beleue most pâ—…y who yet hath not receaued the mysticall blessing or communion of Christes flesh That iust man is ioyned to God by faith and charitie but not yet corporally He is a branche of the Godhead which is principally the true vine and a braunche of the manhod in that he beleueth in Christ who is true God and man but he is not yet corporally a braunche of the manhood which is also the true vine except he 〈◊〉 worthily the mysticall blessing which is the Sacrament of Christes supper the which maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally also Note the word quoque also For Christ dwelt in his Apostles harts before the last supper by right faith and charitie and therefore he sayd they were all cleane sauing Iudas but this mysterie maketh him dwel in them corporllay also And S. Cyrill expoundeth farther how Christ by the Sacrament dwelleth in vs. For whereas Christ had sayd except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood ye shall not haue life in your selues He interpreteth life the flesh of life in your selues in your body That is to say except ye eate my flesh ye shall not haue the flesh of life in your body Vita autem iure ipsa vitae caro intelligi potest The life may well be vnderstanded the self flesh of life In vobis ipsis dicit id est in corpore vestro Christ sayth except ye eate yâ— flesh and drink yâ— blood of the sonne of man ye shall not haue life in your selues that is to say in your body Is not this plaine enough Then heare yet a plainer
Sacramentaric doctrine whereof I haue the gladlier writen to thintent S. Augustines doctrine might be opened who alwaies noteth this Sacrament to be the signe of the vnitie which is made by Christ in baptism among the faithfull but he meaneth such a signe as Christ him â—…elf maketh vnder the forme of bread when he affirmeth him to consecrate herein yâ— mystery of vnitie Is it not an extreme madnes to affirme that wheaten bread keping his own earthly nature should be the mystery of vnitie Christ is that mystery first because he is both God who alone made all things to serue him and man in whom all things are a new collected which where before made Secondly because Christ maketh vs one with God reconciling vs to him by the blood of his crosse Thirdly because he maketh vs one among our selues by his one spirit and Baptism Last of all because he sheweth and geueth him self really present vnder the forme of bread wherein he would vs to vnderstand the vnitie which is really made betwene vs and him and God Of this vnitie S. Hilarie writeth If Christ assumpted truly the flesh of our body and we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body and by this thing we shal be one because the Father is in him and he in vs quomodo voluntatisvnitas asseritur cùm naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacracramentum sit vnitatis How is yâ— vnitie of wil affirmed whereas the naturall proprietie through the Sacrament is the holy signe of a perfite vnitie This place good Reader openeth al the hard points of the mystery of vnitie First Christ toke truly flesh Next we take truly the same flesh vnder a mystery By his taking God and man were made one concerning the whole nature of man By our taking we and Christ are made one concerning euery particular man who receaueth worthely his body And that is not only done so but withall it is shewed so for the thing which we receaue is the flesh of Christ vnder the forme of bread The flesh yâ— is there being receaued maketh vs in dede to be one with Christ. The form of bread sheweth not only them to be one that receaue this food but those also who now doe not receaue it if yet they be or shal be baptized to be one in Christ. And sayeth S. Hilarie so much Ye doubtlesse and that he twise repeteth For when he sayth Verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body then he meaneth that vnder the forme of bread we take Christes flesh Under what other mysterie can it be sayd we take it Or seing he speaketh of the last supper doth he not meane the signe of the same supper which was bread But yet let vs heare more plaine words Naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The natural proprietie through the SacrameÌ„t is the SacrameÌ„t of a perfite vnitie The word proprietas meaneth one particular substance proper to one thing which in men is commonly called a person S. Augustine witnesseth that Christ is called the true vine Per similitudinem non per proprietatem by likenes not by proprietie that is to say Christ is yâ— true vine by like condition and not by the self substance of a true vine S. Hilarie then sayeth The naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a Sacrament of perfite vnitie Here is the word Sacrament twise iterated the proprietie of Christ is a Sacrament and it is a Sacrament by a Sacrament A Sacrament is a holy signe Therefore the proprietie or substance of Christ is a holy signe But how Euery substance is the truth How is it then a sigue It is not barely and absolutely called a signe but a signe by a signe that is to say the true substaÌ„ce of Christ put vnder the form of bread by that signe of bread is seâ—… to signifie a most perfite vnitie made betwene God and vs. The natural proprietie of Christ by the signe of bread maketh and signifieth a perfite vnitie It maketh it whiles we receaue Christ into vs who is one with his Father in nature as we naturally haue him in our bodies and soules It signifieth the same vnitie because the substance of Christ who is one nature with his Father in Godhead one with vs in manhod being now vnder the signe of bread sheweth him self as it were with al his faithfull members about him offering them all to God as if he sayd Ecce ego pueri mei mecum Behold Father I am here and my seruants or children with me This sayeth S. Augustine is the sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ Quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quâ—…od in ea oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur The which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of the altar knowen to the faithful Where it is shewed to the Church that in that sacrifice which she offereth her self is offered It is well knowen that the Priests of yâ— Church taking bread and wine according to the institution of Christ consecrate them saying in Christes name This is my body and this is my blood If by those words the body and blood of Christ be not made pre sent vnder the forme of bread and wine how is the Church offered in the offering which she maketh Who doth make an oblation of her to God Wil ye say that Christ sitting in heauen presenteth to his Father the bread wine which is in earth saying Father looke vppon my faithfull members See what a mysticall body I haue gotten to me in the earth Might not God answer Why sonne is the substance of your mysticall body bread and wine Haue you coupled my seruants your brethren whome I created reasonable to those vnseâ—…sible creatures Or is the handy work of the baker your oblation or the oblation of your mysticall body But if Christ be vnder the forme of bread and thence make an oblation to his Father of all his obedient members which are there signified by the forme of bread then is none other substance of those mysticall members presented besyde the true substance and head of the mysticall body to wit the flesh of Christ which worketh gathereth a body to it self through out the whole world TheÌ„ the Church offereth none other substance besyde the one oblation which dyed for vs. The same reall coniunction of the faithfull to Christes flesh may be declared also by the example of building a howse For as euery howse is in the fundation moste large and afterward it is drawen alwaies so muche the nigher together by how much it approcheth to the top or end thereof euen so the Church being the howse of God must be one so that it may in some partes thereof be
to be worshipped with Godly honour Seing therefore thou seest yâ— priest present who is wont to handle Godly things it were a farre more impiety for thee not to adore Christes body at the time of masse when thou art assured by the worde of God who sayd to his Apostles in them to al priests doe and make this thing that the holy Ghoost faileth not at the consecration to work the body of Christe really present All this consydered it is not possible for any man that lyeth not wittingly and willingly to say but that S. Chrysostome â—…aught and beleued the body of Christe to be really present and that it ought to be really adored vpon the altar it self or in the priests hands And therefore he saith afterward Quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendam I wil shew thee that in the earth which is worthy of the highest honour How can S. Chrysostome shew any thing in earth worthy of the highest honour besyde the body and blood of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine For by that which is worthy of highest honour he meaâ—…eth expresly Christes body because it is the body of the SoÌ„ne of God And in saying he will shew it thee he can possibly meane none other thing but that shewing which is by the formes of bread and wine For if any man should require him to shew that most high thing which he promised to shew questionlesse he would lead him to yâ— altar there would shew him that which had bene consecrated by the Priest and he would say vnto him pointing to the mysteries this is the body of Christe and this is his blood For by that meanes only were he able to performe his promise of shewing that thing which is worthy of the highest honour It followeth yet more plainly in S. Chrysostome by an other similitude As in the palacies of kings saith he not the walles not the golden roof but the kings body sitting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christe the worthiest thing in heauen quod nunc in terra videÌ„dum tibi proponitur the which body of Christe is now set foorth to thee in earth to be seen Good Lord what can be required more of the greatest papist in Europe then S. Chrysostome saith Againe yet it followeth I shew thee not Angels not Archangels not the heauens not the heauens of the heauens but I shew thee the Lord of all these things S. Chrysostom saith he sheweth yâ— Lord that in earth vpoÌ„ yâ— altar yet is there a figure to escape his most euident words In faith truth by such figures they may defende yâ— I also am of their opinioÌ„ but 〈◊〉 wise men such wily shifts wil not preuaile There is noman aliue but 〈◊〉 he wil coÌ„â—…ue yâ— words of S. Chrysostome as they stand in order he must coâ—…se yâ— both he speaketh of yâ— body of Christ really present in the Sacrament of the altar and also teacheth yâ— vpon yâ— very alâ—…ar it ought to be adored much more iustly of vs Christians then it was once adored in the manger or stable of the three kings Here wil I detect an other shift of our Aduersaries who perceauing S. Dionysius S. Ambrose S. Augustme and S. Chrysostome with diuerse other auncient Fathers to be so plaine in the matter of adoration haue deuised to say that those Fathers attribute that vnto the signes of Christes body which is proper to the body it self and therefore when they speake of adoring that vpon the altar they meane that we should adore yâ— truth of that thing the signe whereof standeth vpon the altar This interpretation is in dede necessarily to be made of them who haue determined not to beleue the word of God where in it is sayd â—…his is my body But I say that interpretation is foolish and should make all the Fathers gilty of idolatry for they preaching to the common peple teache them expresly that which standeth after consecration vpon the altar to be the true body blood of Christ and therefore that it must be adored much more of vs then the visible body was adored of the wise men If the interpretation of the Heretikes should be admitted they might say the very same of Christes incarnation and so expound what so euer is sayd in yâ— Bible or in yâ— Fathers touching his flesh to be meant of a phantasticall appering of flesh but not of true flesh But now let vs bring against these Signifiers an other plaine authoritie which was by the prouidence of God written as it were of purpose to destroy this imagined and figuratiue adoration of the Sacrament whereof they speake Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christe now to consist of the only nature of his deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he toke of the virgin doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes supper in the which Sacrament two things are found one which is seen and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seen but vnderstanded and beleued and that is the true body and blood of Christe That which is seen is sayd to remaine in his former substance nature and figure and kind In his substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being nowe by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine in their former nature because they norish no lesse then the substance of the bread it self would haue done if it had remained They remaine in their former shape and kind as being thinges that may be seen and touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing sayd thus much for the one parte of the Sacrament cometh also to shew the other parte thereof For his minde is to declare yâ— as there be two kindes of things in one Encharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christe Therefore the other nature besyde the formes of bread wine is the reall substance of Christes body blood of which parte thus he speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelliguntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur The mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleued and they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be Note good Reader that the mystical signes which Theodoretus calleth mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be 〈◊〉 that they were made But what are they 〈◊〉 â—…o be that which they are not Nay Syâ—… yâ— were false vnderstanding which falshod caÌ„ not be in the mysteries of Christ. they are then in dede that which they are vnderstanded to be What is that Theodoreâ—…us
but the 〈◊〉 is the word comming to the 〈◊〉 Those â—…wo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figure and 〈◊〉 no words 〈◊〉 spoken whereby the 〈◊〉 should câ—…ase to be that it was yea because it is saied I baptise or washe thee whiche is not done without water we are forced to beleue that the substance of water remaineth But it is saied ouer the bread This is my body And after that words spoken fully past that which semeth bread is yet stil a mystical figure as it may wel appere in that a good tyme after consecration yâ— holy figure of Christes body being reserued vpon the altar hath bene receaued of the Christian people alwaies in the Church of God at yâ— end of the seruice Therefore the figure which is made in the supper must be so made that it must remaine when the wordes are past Nowe that remanent substance is the body of Christe vnder the form of 〈◊〉 But if the earthly substance of bread did â—…ill remaine as M. Iuel saâ—…eth there is nothing at all whiche maie be a figure For as the water is no figure when the wordes are absent so the breade could not be a figure any longer when the words were fully past Iu. The body of Christ is the thing it selfe and no figure San. You know not what you say The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it selfe both the thing and also a figure of the mystical vnitie of the Church SoS. Hilarie teacheth saying Naturalis per SacramentuÌ„ proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The naturall proprietie or which is al one the personal substance or the proper nature of Christ by the Sacrament or signe of bread is the Sacrament of a perfite vnitie The body of Christ it selfe is a signe as well as the truth but yet a signe not only by it self but by yâ— signe vnder which it is Hereof I beseche thee good Reader to see my fiâ—…t booke the fift chapter The thing it selfe which is no figure is the grace of corporall vnion whiche is wrought in this Sacrament with Christ him selfe Iu. In respect of the body we haue no regard to the figure â–ª wherâ—…nto S. Bernard alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for San. What a desperate custome is it for you to 〈◊〉 alwaies the Fathers of these last nine hundred yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned If they be idolatours or false preachers why bring you their witnesses as to build any thing vpon theÌ„ either you wil â—…and to S. Bernard or els you in vaine allege him If you stand to him euen in those words which you take out of him you are vtterly ouerthrowen He saith Manie things be done for them selues only as if I geue a ring to a maÌ„ only to geue it without any farther meaning other things be done to signifie those are called signes and be so As when a ring is geuen to put a man in possessioÌ„ of an heritage in this case the ring is not respected for it 〈◊〉 but for the heritages sake So saieth S. Bernard our Lord drawing nere to his passioÌ„ prouided to adorne his disciples with grace Thus by him grace is the end or effect of the signe but what is the signe it selfe M. Iuel saieth bread But I praie you saith S. Beruard so No verily what saith he theÌ„ Vt securi sitis SacrameÌ„ti dominici corporis sanguinis pretiosi inuestituraÌ„ habetis That ye may be without feare ye haue the inuestiture of our Lords Sacrament his preciouse body and blood Behold the body and blood of Christ is the signe it self wherewith we are inuested or put in possession of grace As therefore the ring or the booke is present whereby we are put in possession of the heritage or of the prebâ—…ed so the body of Christ is really present wherwith we are put in possession of grace It is not bread that is the signe of grace it is the substance of Chistes body aud blood whiche is the holy signe whereof S. Bernard speaketh and therefore he maketh not the body of Christ the thing it selfe as M. Iuel corruptly allegeth The thing is the grace of God the substance of Christ vnder yâ— form of bread is yâ— signe For Christ coÌ„meth in his own corporall presence to sease to indue vs with grace Hence it commeth M. Iuel that S. Augustine so oft calleth this Sacrament a figure because the body it selfe is here not for it selfe but to put vs in possession of so great a grace as the vnion with God is ¶ That Christes body is receaued by mouth and not by faith only IVel. We put a difference betwene the signe and the thing it self that is signified Sander In the consideration of a resonable vnderstanding there is alwaies a differnce betwen the signe and the thing but not alwaies in substance For Christ is the figure of his Fathers substaÌ„ce and withal the same substance but not called a figure in the same respect or consideration For as he is the figure so he differeth in person from his Father but in truthe of nature he is also one substance with him Euen so the body of Christ as it is vnder the forme of bread differeth in the manner of being from the body of Christ which died for vs in form of man But in substance it is all one Euen as Christ being transfigurated had an other manner of being then he had before his owne substance tarying still one and the same Iu. We seeke Christ in heauen San. So doe we to and yet beleue him also to be with vs vntil the worlds end Iuel And imagine not him to be present bodily vppon the earthe San. Neither doe we imagine him present in his bodily shape but wee beleue and by assured faith knowe him to be present in bodily substance whent the bread and wine are consecrated Our affirmatiue beleefe is grounded vpon the expresse word of God and vppon the continuall practise of the Church Your negatiue â—…gination is an â—…ool â—…ormed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 idolatours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caluin 〈◊〉 Martyr 〈◊〉 Iu. The body of Christe is to be eaten by faith only and none other wise San. In so saying if you will also defeâ—…d it you are the mainteiner of a blasphemouse heresie and 〈◊〉 otherwise and that I wil proue because your words are directly against the Gospell the auncient fathers and affirme the same which the Arrians did affirme beinge condemned for it of old tyme. Christe after bread taken and thankes geuen said take eate this is my body But Christe spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and he saith the thing eaten to be his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also I goe farther with you Al that was eateÌ„ by mouth or by
eate the same spirituall meate but an other corporall meate they did eate manna we â—…ate an other thing What is that other thing where might we learne the name or nature of it let vs not goâ—… to any other man but to the same blessed S. Augustine who neuer had any fellow in the Church of God for his 〈◊〉 knowledge in holy scripture but the more profound he is the lesse he is able to be vnderstanded at the first sight of those who reade him not â—…o great diligeÌ„â—…e Thus he writeth Quid est manna c. what is manna I am saith Christ the liuing bread which came down from heauen and again It is knoweÌ„ what God had rayrayâ—…ed from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what the Christians take let them blush then because they know it not let them passe ouer by the read sea Let them eate manna that euen as they haue beleued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit himself to them Thus S. Augustine doth teache that Iesus himself is our corporall meate in the manna of the new TestameÌ„t For of corporal meate â–ª now he speaketh of that I say wherein we differ from the old fathers and not of that wherein we communicate with them Christ eaten by faith is their and our meate al in coÌ„mon yea the Catechumeni may so eate of him But Christ neither being receaued into the bodies of the old Fa thers nor now of that Catechumeni who lern their faith is only yâ— corporall meate or true manna of the faithfull baptized which is no lesse really taken into our mouthes vnder the forme of bread then the Iewes did really eate manna fortie yeres together in the desert Iuel Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ in Baptism whiles he findeth that vnity which is signified by the Sacrament therefore the faithfull eate Christes body otherwise then in the Sacrament Sand. Who denieth but that Christes body may be otherwise â—…aten then in the Sacrament But it is not therfore eaten there really That only D. Harding affirmed you proue that he is otherwise eaten but yet that other eating whereof S. Augustine Beda spake proueth the real eating which D. Harding defendeth For if the body of Christ it self were not vnder yâ— form of bread he that is baptized should not partake at all of the Sacrament of Christes supper â–ª because he neither partaketh in Baptism of bread nor of wine but is only made a member of that mysticall body which in the Sacrament is signified And how is it signified let vs heare S. Augustine expounding that vnto vs who speaking of heretiks and schismatiks which are out of the Church saith Non sunt in eo vinculo pacis quod in illo exprimitur Sacramento they are not in that bond of peace which is expressed in that Sacrament The bond of peace expressed in the Sacrament is not only the wheaten cornes molded into one loaf for that bond is in euery loaf and not only in that of Christes supper but the bond of peace is the body of Christ present vnder the formes of bread and wine whereof I haue spoken at large in my v. booke in the v. chapiter ¶ M. Iuel hath not replied wel touching the Capharnaites HArding If Christ in S. Ihon had spoken tropically the Ievves and disciples vvho vvere vsed to figures vvold not haue sayd this is a hard saying Iuel His reason hangeth thus The Capharnaites vnderstode not Christ ergo his body is really in the Sacrament Sander No syr but thus They vnderstode Christ to speake without parables and Christes words appertin to the Sacrament as it was sayd before therefore his body is really in the Sacrament â—…ark the words of the Capharnaites and you shal finde by their answers and by their demands that they vnderstood what Christ promised but beleued it to be a thing either not possible or not conuenient Therefore Christ sayd there be some of you who beleue not He sayd not saith S. Augustine there be some among you who vnderstand not but he told the cause why they vnderstood not there be some among you who beleue not therefore they vnderstand not because they beleue not Iuel He sayd â–ª The bread which I will geue caet of spirituall eating It is the spirit that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith S. Augustine San. There is a spirituall eating without the Sacrament of Christes supper either by faith or by Baptism Of that Christ spake not now because it was not to come but was already geuen at the least concerning faith to all the iust men from the beginning of the world There is an other both spirituall or worthy and also reall eating of the Sacrament of Christes supper it self Thereof he now speaketh promising to geâ—…e it and at his supper he gaue it both really and spiritually that is to say not in a grosse maner but diuinely and miraculously whereof ye may see in my third booke the. xix and. xx Chapiter Iuel Ye shall not eate sayeth S. Augustine with your bodily mouth this body that you see caet I geue you a certeyn Sacrament San. Of this place I haue spoken at large in my vi b. the. iâ—… Chapiter and in my 3. b. the. xiiij Chapiter I will now briefly note the chief points First M. Iuel doth abuse this place because S. Augustine had sayd before that Christ gaue that same flesh to be eaten wherein he walked and which he toke of the virgin Wherevnto M. Iuel hath no regard at all Secondly he taught that it ought to be adored before it was eaten Thirdly he nameth it the Sacrament willing vs to consyder it spiritually Fourthly he nameth it quamlibet terram any earth calling â–ª the â—…sh of Christ earth now in saying that we adore any earth he manisesily declareth that he speaketh of the adoration which is made in diuerse places or altars Whereas otherwise the flesh oâ—… Christ in heaueÌ„ is but one earth in one place These things presupposed all which are in the place of S. Augustine which M. Iuel now allegeth it will â—…olow that S. Augustine meant both that Christes flesh is eaten with our bodily mouth in the Sacra ment and also adored Therefore when he sayth ye shall not eate this body that you see he meaneth ye shall not eate it in suche forme as you see it in such mortall quantitie or in such a corruptible sort But if it should be meant ye shall not eate the substance of my body as M. Iuel taketh it S. Augustines owne words were clean contrarie to them selues for the causes alleged before Besyde this great dissembling of M. Iuel who knew the other words of S. Augustine and yet only wold haue these to be consydered he hath also misordered and misenglished diuerse words 1. He hath translated commendaui I
geue Whereas the Sacrament was not yet deliuered but was only commended and set foorth in words vnto the Iewes when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh 2. Iâ—… commendare were Latine to geue yet it should haue bene translated I haue geuen 3. For viuificabit M. Iuel readeth viuificat it doth geue life for it shall geue life He was â—…oth to haue any commendation past or any geuing of life to come For he wold so vnderstand Christes words that the gift the quickening might be present lest it should apperteyn to the supper Whereas the commendation of the gift was past in those words I wil geue and the geuing of life to come verily because the Sacrament should then geue life when it should be receaued These are miserable shifts to saue your selfe from subscribing Iu. We haue a spirituall mouth a spirituall tast eyes eares as Basill Leo Origen Tertulliá say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the mind not of the belli to beleue in him that is to eate the liuing bread therefore Christes meaning is spirituall and not reall San. What grosse ignorance is this to thincke that the reall preseÌ„ce of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t hindereth my spiritual mouth tast eares eyes faith or minde All these muste goe together Christ tooke his body to bring to our bodies the meate whereof our soule might spiritually eate It is the fondest kind of reasoning in the world by one truth to denie an other seing both staÌ„d together Is my faith the lesse because Christ was bodily seen in earth How is then my spiritual feeding the worse because the foode of life is in my mouth Doth not Tertullian say the flesh is fed with the body blood of Christ to thend the soule may be made fat of God Iu. M. Harding wil say eating with mouth and grinding with teeth is a worke spiritual And so he is a good proctour for the Ca pharnaites San No that hâ—… will not say except the meate be so eaten that the manner of eating it be so cleane and spirituall that although it enter into the mouth yet the â—…aith both may and doe worke vpon it by adoration and participation as it chanceth in Christes supper And therefore Christ said work the meat which perisheth not which the sonne of man wil geue you And he meaneth work it by soule by beleuing and in body by eating And the Prophet Dauid saieth They haue eaten and worshiped This vnderstanding neither yâ— Capharnaites had nor the Sacrmentaries haue therefore they grind now common bread with their teeth whereâ—… they shal bitterly gnash if they repeÌ„t not yâ— soner Iuel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who sayth to vnderstand carnallie is to vnderstand plainly as the things be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing els San. We vnderstand not so For we seing the forme of bread thinke vppon the body of Christ which is vnder it Therefore S. Chrysostom is not against our euasion Iuel S. Augustine sayeth the saying of Christ is a figure or maner of speache San. What you meane by your maner of speache I can not tell S. Augustine vseth not those words But except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man is in dede a figure and the speaking thereof is figuratiue because it was not meant that a maÌ„ should be visiblie eaten as flesh is eaten at common tables But yet that he should be really eaten Albeit the maner of eating be figu ratiue as we know And therefore when Christ had consecrated the bread into his body and sayd this is my body that speache was not figuratiue because as the truth of the body was to be eaten so the maner of the eating it was determined And theâ—… all was plain to good beleuers but not to Iudas and his companions who beleue no more then they see bodily S. Augustine then calling those words except ye eat my flesh figuratiue referreth the figure to the maner of eating But not to the substance which is to be eaten For els if by no meane the flesh of Christ might be eaten it should not be eateÌ„ by faith But if it may be so eaten it may be eaten by mouth also in that pure maner as it is geuen vs. Iuel The figure commaundeth vs to be partakers of Christes passion San. It had bene more truly translated that we ought to communicate with Christes passion Communicare is to partake in the fullest maner that may be And how can you possiblie communicate better or more fully with Christes passion then to eate worthely the self body that suffered Whereof S. Paule sayeth How oft so euer ye eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he come That is the communicating whereof S. Augustine speaketh Iuel And with comfort and profit lay vp in our memorie that Christ hath suffred death for vs. San. The perfit laying of this matter in our memorie is with Penance loue to eate the thing which is made for the remembrance of Christ. Thence cometh power to liue through or for Christ so really as he liueth through or for his Father with whome he is one thing and nature Of this whole saying of S. Augustine I haue intreated more fully in my 3. b. the. xiiij Chapiter Iuel This therefore is Christes meaning and the very eating of his flesh San. Not this which you meane But this it is M. Iuel as I haue told you The whole man must eate as well in body as in soule because the whole is taken and assumpted of Christ the whole is incorporated by Baptism the whole redemed by death and the whole shal be crowned with glorie therefore the true eating is to eate that meate which of it selfe coÌ„sisteth of body soule and Godhead to eate it I say in body soule and spirite and not by faith only Iuel The Capharnaites vnderstoode Christe grossely of éating with teeth that whiche Christe spake spiritually and so would M. Harding teache the people San. D. Harding 〈◊〉 no more then he toke of Christ and of the Euangelists It is no grosie thing vnder the form of bread to eate the bread of life The Capharnaites went no farther then to theyr teeth and belly But we make the teeth to serue the mind also That of Origenes S. Dierom S. Augustine maketh not againste vs. Iu. Tertullian saith the Capharnaites thought his speachâ—… was hard and intolerable as though he had determined to geue them his flesh verily and in dede to be eaten with theyr mouthes therin saith Tertullian stode theyr erroure San. You know they thought not of eating it vnder the forme of bread For S. Augustine saith in Christes person Quis modus sit manducandi istum panem ignoratis Ye know not what waie there is of eating this bread Therefore the
so that the substance of flesh and blood shal be excluded by all meanes And as for the qualitie of Christes fleshe he wil haue it corporally in our bodies without any substance thereof wherein that qualitie may rest which his opinion is against all the course of nature Agayn when S. Hilarie saith that Christ tarieth naturally in vs what qualitie wil M. Iuel assigne to that aduerb shal he tary in vs in the maner of a natural tarying and yet shal not his true nature be in vs let vs go a litle farther S. Hilary saith Christus natualiter secundum spiritum in se patrem habet Christ hath the father in him according to yâ— spirit naturally How wil M. Iuel expound the worde naturally whether that Câ—…riste hath a qualitie of his fathers nature in him not the whole true substaÌ„ce Last of al S. Hilarie expoundeth his owne wordes euen as D. Harding hath done For as he saith in one place Ipso in nobis naturalitr permanente he tarying in vs naturally so he saieth in an other place a litle before Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem Therefore he is in vs him selfe by flesh Aâ—…d again Naturaliter secundum carnem per eum viuimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti We liue by him according to the flesh naturally that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh Consider good Reader that naturaliter viuere to liue naturally is by S. Hilarie thus resolued to liue by hauing the nature And to liâ—…e naturally according to the flesh is to liue by hauing yâ— nature of Christes flesh Who is now the more ignorant in grammar D. Harding or M. Iuel And yet M. Iuel in that childish eloquence of his triumpheth vpon D. Harding saith childern are taught these things Iu. God regardeth not the doing of any thing but the manner of doing But M. Harding will ouerloke the grammar rules San. That rule is to be vnderstande in matters belonging to manners But now we dispute of substances and not of doings We say Christes body is in our bodies naturally this truth is to be discussed and not any morall action of ours Iuel Our childern must lerne a new grammar for thâ—…se mens pleasure otherwise these mens dâ—…initie can not stand San. Priestes childern may 〈◊〉 a new grammar but as the old faith so the old grammar wil â—…erue other mens childen It is verily a verie new graÌ„â—…r to say that aduerbes taken of nounes neuer signifie the substance Good Scholmasters wil not admâ—…e such rules Iu. Haue these old Fathers nor names nor wordes San. As though you knowe that they folowe hereafter when you are come to them you wil be quickly werie of them ¶ Of the first Author of the Sacramentarie heâ—…sie HArding Berengarius first began openly to shevv the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes body in the Sacrament Iu. Before M. Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Harding The Messalians opinion VVas the Sacrament of the altar did nor good nor euil And therein they VVere the first parents of the Sacramentarie heresie San. That which the Messalians did begin priuily by generall disgracing the Sacrament Berengarius began openly by denying this speciall vertue thereof which is the real presence and so there is no contradiction at all and you are founde but a cauiller Iu. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteinâ—…d the same doctrin before Berengarius Sander If these men did barke in priuie corners at anie ceremonie which thing yet is not euident to vs but if it were so yet thâ—…y mainteined it not For then they had bene condemned of heresy But if that also were true you haue gained litle more theÌ„ two huÌ„dred yeres and those but by surmise without knowledge thereof left in any good historie And what is that to 〈◊〉 hundred yeres of continuall practise and open doctrine suche as we Catholiks haue had Iuel For farther declaration hereof it shal be necessary to open Berengarius iudgement San. Nay Sir it is enough to vs that you are at a stay can bring your faith no higher then to Ihon Scote and Bertram If your faith began priuily almost eight hundred yeres after Christ shall we here the declaration thereof if that may be permitted the heresy of the Arrians may be heard againe who was before Bertram Iuel Thus Berengarius wrote San. I care not what he wrote sith he recaÌ„ted yâ— same The 〈◊〉 wil standeth in his force and no wise man knowing that he repeuted his follie will afterward allege his authoritie for that which he recalled Iuel But his iudgement is confirmed by the Fathers San. It is not possible that the Fathers should confirme his iudgement who impugned their vniuersall tradition in so muche that he him selfe 〈◊〉 his own iudgement For seing he recanted his whole opinioÌ„ he recanted also that verie errour which he had coÌ„ceiued as by pretense of yâ— fathers words What a madâ—…es is it for you to allege any of both in his name for he in his recanting hath answered his own authorities alleged before out of the Fathers Iuel Let vs see the confutation hereof San. Seing Berengarius is the coÌ„futour his own true word is enough to vndoe as muche as his word had falsely stablished before Iuel Berengarius was forced to recant in this wise San. Force is not done to the free 〈◊〉 of man Iuel I beleue that the bodie of our Lorde Iesus Christ sensibly and in very dede is touched with the hand of the Priest brokeÌ„ and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull San. You haue englished the wordes very spitefully you haue added rent of your owne head and atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to be wasted which may be done without grinding You are so accustomed to falsify things yâ— no mans wordes may escape your poison Iuel The very glose saith vnlesse you warily vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fal into a greater heresy then euer he heald any San. The glosse warneth vs that all the touching breaking and wasting or coÌ„suming is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine the which thing if you had not left out you had alleged some one glosse without falsifying the same Iu. These Fathers redresse the lesse errour by the greater San. The cause whie Berengarius recanted by those wordes rather theÌ„ by anie other were two the one for yâ— he had taught in the tyme of his errour the body of Christ not to be before our eyes Against whiche words he now saith it is sensiblie handled The secoÌ„d was for that the body being vnder the form of bread and touched by the Priestes hands and broken by reason of the same form is thereby shewed most really present to witnesse the whiche reall presence S. Chrysostame had
vsed the same kind of speach before saying NoÌ„ se tantum videri permittens desyderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desyderio sui omnes impleri Christ permitteth him self not only to be seen of theÌ„ that long after him but also to be touched eaten the teeth to be fastened to his fleshe and all men to be filled with the desire of him Which notwithstanding M. Iuel writeth in the margent of Berengarius his consâ—…on This is an horrible blasphemie not knowing that the denying of this reall presence vâ—…der those formes of bread and wine is that horrible blasphemie whereof he speaketh And not to speake as S. Chrysostome and other holy Fathers haue spoken Iuel Bertram and Ihon Scotus wrote openly against it with the contentation of the world San. Against which it did they write Iuel Against this if it be the Catholike faith Sander Which this Whether against the confession of Bereugarius You say theâ—… were two hundred yeares before hun what then wrote thei against the Catholike faith if they did so howe could the Catholike world be content therwith again where are the words which the world was contented withal thinck you it lawfull to faine or glose what you list Iuel That M. Harding calleth the Catholike faith is in dede aCatholike errour Sander No errour can be Catholike because Christe said hell gates should not preuaile againste his Church And it is a citie built vpon a hill which can not be hiddeÌ„ The rest of your words shall hereafter be proued vayne ¶ Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded HArding The body vvhich vvas before the death thereof thrall and frail is novv spirituall Iu. M. Harding in the end concludeth against him selfe San. You say so but you proue it not Iu. Only Stephen Gardener geueth the world to vnderstaÌ„d that Christ is not yet fully possessed in this glory thus he saith the time of the despensation or seruice of his hâ—…militie remaineth stil vntil 〈◊〉 deliuer vp the Kingdom vnto God his Father Sand. B. Gardiâ—…er dot noth say that Christ is not fully possessed in his glory for his own part that is your addition Again the word seruice was of your putting in least any authority might escape you vncorrupted How be it B. Gardiner semeth to meane no more therein then S. Paule sayd before him witnessing that Christ sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in heauen minister sanctorum the minister of holy thinges for he is yet a minister stil by reason of his mysticall body If it were any part of our principall purpose to stand vppon that matter I wold shew you what holy things they were and how he ministred them by dispensation of his humility during the time of the peregtination of his members notwithstanding his own glory at the right hand of his Father wherein he is fully possessed Iuel To what end allegeth M. Harding the spirituall state of Christs body Eutiches sayd it is changed into the very substance of God which heresie is like M. Hardings if it be not the same Sand. I know not what you meane by burdening D. Harding with the heresie of Eutiches sith the defence of the reall presence is as directly against that heresie as may be for how can the naturall and substantiall flesh of Christ be present in the Sacrament if his flesh were turned into the substance of the Godhead as Eâ—…tiches sayd could that be in the Sacrament which were not in it self Therefore the places alleged out of S. Augustine S. Dionysiâ—…s S. Cyprian and other holy Fathers concerning the truth of Christes humane substance and nature â—…ill remaining and not changed into the diuine substance or els concerning our â—…mitation or likenes of God is wholy confessed of vs. neither doth D. Harding meane by the body deiâ—…ed other then yâ— body immortal spirituall yet so farre aboue our bodies as the vâ—…ion in yâ— person of the naturall sonne of God excedeth our adoption by grace But for so much as you doubted not M. Iuel to burden D. Harding with the Eutichian heresie I will briefly shew that your opinion is far more like vnto it then D. Hardings belefe As Eutiches destroyed the truth of humane flesh in the person of Christ so the Sacramentaries destroye the truth and reall presence of the same flesh in the Sacrament of the altar And yet the old Fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two things of the signe or foorm of bread and of yâ— body of Christ so Christ consisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane But seing the Sacramentaries take away yâ— reall presence from the visible signe of bread they falsifie the argumeÌ„t of the old Fathers and further the cause of the Eutichians For as the Eutichians turned the naturall flesh of Christ into the Godhead so the Sacramentaries turn the Sacramental eating of naturall flesh into mere diuine and spirituall eating which is made by faith alone But as the old Fathers proued against the Eutichians that Christ who truly suffered death could not suffer it in his diuine nature so I tell the Sacramentaries that Christ who â—…aid take eate this is my body can not be taken into our hands or eaten with our mouthes by faith and spirit aloue We must haue such an eating as may proue Christ to haue had reall flesh because we eate by mouth his reall flesh So S. Hilarie proued our naturall vnion with Christes flesh against the Arrians S. Gregorie Nyâ—…sen that Christ had taken true flesh of the Uirgin For how can a thing saith he which hath no body be made meate vnto the body So S. Cyrill proueth that there is but one person because the flesh which we receaue doth geue lifâ—… to our soules and bodies which it could not doe except it were the proper flesh of God who only geueth life Thus M. Iuel may perceaue that his opinion agreeth with the Arrians Ualentiâ—…ians Neâ—…orians Eutichians And the like might be sayd of the Marcionites Manichees Apellians briefly of all those heretikes who denying a reall truth of Christes diâ—…ine or humane nature were always confuted by the Fathers by the reall truth of Christes manhod and Godhead confessed of the Catholikes in this blessed Sacrament Harding S. Hierom shevving tvvo vvays of vnderstanding Christes flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it vvas crucified declareth the maner of eating it only to differ from the maner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iuel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence San. He meaneth both Iuel S. Hierom speaking of the dubble vnderstanding of Christes flesh meaneth that we haue our saluation in Christ eating him and liuing by him not for that his flesh was
and specially of al Christ hath appointed baptism to be after his coming so necessary a meane for our incorporatioÌ„ to his mystical body whereof he is the Sauior yâ— except a man be born again of the water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kyngdome of heauen Again some Sacraments are appointed to reconcile vs to god if we synne after baptism For except we doe penance we shall perish all together Iuel Thei that are baptized are planted into Christ. San. You should shew that Christes body is plaÌ„ted into their bodies and that really and substantially 〈◊〉 Haue you forgotten your promise Iuel Thei haue put Christ vpon them San. You should shew that Christes body is put within their bodies euen fleshely Iuel By one spirite thei are baptized into one body San. You should shew that the naturall body of Christe is by baptising really in their bodies For the body whereof S. Paule speaketh is the mysticall body Iu. S. Augustine saith This is the vse of baptising that thei that be baptised may be incorporate into Christ. San. It would haue bene englished hereunto baptising is available that is to say this is the strength and the force of baptism But you beleue baptisme to be only a seale of an incorporation alredie made and not in dede to incorporate vs into Christ and therfore you falsified S. Augustine according to your shamâ—…ul custome Well we are incorporated by baptisme yet the body of Christ is not thereby shewed to dwell really in our bodies A man may be incorporated to the cumpanie of Marchants in the citie of London yet the cuÌ„panie of Marchantes shall not dwell really in his body All this doth not proue your principall proposition that by baptism the body of Christ dwelleth really in our bodies Iuel Being baptised we are turned into God saith Dionysius Sander The word that he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which importeth a participatioÌ„ of diuine nature howsoeuer it be brought to passe insomuch that the Angels may so be made as it were gods or be made like to his nature Therfore it is not proued by yâ— words of Dionysius that Christs body dwelleth in our bodies really or substancially by baptism nor he nameth not turning but rather a deification or a comming to be like vnto god Iu. Pachimeres saith we are graft into Christ and made one nature with him by holy baptism Sander You haue turned him falsely For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie one nature but diuerse men of one nature kinsmen as it were and men of the same stock or of the same route or graffinge It is not al one to be made one flesh of one flesh In baptism we are al made of one flesh and we al are graft into one mystical flesh of Christ but by yâ— Sacrament of the altar we are during yâ— time of the coÌ„iunction one self flesh with Christes natural flesh There we are two in one fleshe as I haue shewed in my 〈◊〉 boke yâ— v. Chapter But seing you crane ayde of Pachimeres you shal heare his mind coÌ„cernig yâ— blessed sacrameÌ„t of the altar theÌ„ iudge you whether he say or meane the like of baptism The bishop saith he beleueth that euen the things which are set forth he meaneth the bread and wine were changed into the preciouse body blood of Christ by the holy goost who worketh all If then the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ yea and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the first paterns sor so he called them before the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh relation to al that went before if then the bread and wine be chaÌ„ged into those first examples of flesh and blood which were taken by Christ of his mother seing we partake those holy mysteries aster the chaÌ„ge it is easy io iudge that Pachymeres taught otherwise of one vnion to god concerning the meane of Christes supper then euer he taught concerning baptism ¶ Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar or no. IVel. Thus much may sufsice to discry M. Hardings slender argument San. Not so M. Iuell you must expound the fourth member of your diuision You haue told that Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies by his natiuitie our faith and by baptisme come now and shew how it dwelleth in our bodies really by the Sacrament of the altar Was not al the other talke made for that end why flie you when you are come to the very point but who would not laugh to see this mans doing He saith Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies and that four waies And when he hath endeuored to shew that it is so in three of the first in the whiche in dede it is not so then cometh he to declare in the fourth way by which only Christes body dwelleth really in vs when we receauâ—… the Sacrament of his body there he spendeth al his strength to declare that Christes body is not really dwelling in our bodies Why Sir Did you so forget your selfe that you haue â—…mitted your principal part You wil say perhaps that D. Harding hath done that for you and that the places whiche he bringeth do shew so much be it so At the lest then you should not impugne D. Harding as you doe If his places proue not yâ— Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies as you say thei doe not proue it then it is your part to proue so much for you aâ—…cmed it before Iuel Notwithstanding by the Sacrament of baptisme Christ be naturally in vs yet M. Harding may not therefore conclude that Christ is naturally in the Sacrament of baptisme San. It is false that Christ by the Sacrament of baptisme is naturally in vs. For as the father who begetteth a childe is not thereby naturally dwelling in the childe albeit an effect of his nature was one of the causes of the childes nature so Christe by regenerating vs in baptisme by his worde whiche is in place of the seede and by water whiche is as it were the wombe of the mother doth not thereby dwell naturally in vs albeit we haâ—…e an effect of spiritual grace whiche came to vs by meanes of his fleshe Iuel Bonauentuâ—…a saith wel we maie not in any wise saie that the grace of god is conteined in the Sacraments as water in a vessel For so to say it were an errour But thâ—… are said to 〈◊〉 gods grace because thei signifie gods grace SaÌ„ BonaueÌ„tnâ—…a was a Cardinal of Rome a scholastical writer a man lesse then three hundred yeres old one that said masse and yet with M. Iuel now he is a good author saith well But yet what 〈◊〉 you in englishing his words to leaue yâ— aduerb essentialiter essentiallie vnenglished
and set foorth with the coâ—…tation of them vsed by S. Hilarie because M. Iuel taketh part with the Arrians against S. Hilarie not in dede concerning the professioÌ„ of their heresie but in that he taketh away the strength of S. Hilaries answer And applieth that answer to one part of the Arrians argument which S. Hilarie did vse to aâ—… other 3. S. Hilarie first professeth that he will refell them ex his ipsis quibus vtuntur out of the very same things which they vse 4. The first argument of the Arrians is this Of the multitude of the beleuers there was one soule and one hart Lo sayd they this is the vnitie of will and not of nature 5. S. Hilarie answereth two ways the first answer is that euen this vnitie which is by faith cometh not only of the will but also it hath an vnitie of nature ioyned withall what nature is that Forsouth the nature of faith For the faith is one as S. Paul sayth And therefore it is one certain nature which being promised S. Hilarie coÌ„cludeth thus Si ergo per fidem id est per vnius fidei naturam caet If all they were one by faith that is to say by the nature of one faith how is it that thou vnderstandest 〈◊〉 not a naturall vnitie in them who are one by the nature of one faith 6. Now for Gods sake good Reader see how M. Iuel applieth this geare vnto his purpose and know him to be a very desperate man Iuel Against the Arrians Hilarius reasoned thus 1. Christ is as really ioyned vnto the Father as vnto vs. 2. But Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature 3. Therefore Christ is ioyned to God the Father by nature San. In dede S. Hilarie maketh such an argument But how doth he proue that Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature Iu. He proueth it thus We are ioyned vnto Christ by faith that is by the nature of one faith and that is to say naturally San. If euer anie man spake ignorantly falsely impudently this man is giltie thereof at this tyme. Note I beseche you the number of faults committed by him First he maketh S. Hilarie to bring such kind of proofe as he doth not bring for proofe of that proposition which M. Iuell hath set foorth For S. Hilarie did bring that which is said of the nature of faith to answere the argument taken out of the Actes of the Apostles which I now haue proponed Secondly M. Iuel omitted the true and only argumeÌ„t which S. Hilarie bringeth in dede to proue that Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature The which proof of his I will hereafter prosecute at large Thirdly M. Iuel doth make S. Hilarie a verie foole in the kind of proof which M. Iuel assigneth him For whereas by M. Iuels consession he should haue proued that Christe is ioyned vnto vs by nature M. Iuel maketh him to saie that we are ioyned vnto Christ by faith and so that we are naturally ioyned to him Where is your memorie M. Iuell It is to be proued that Christ is ioyned to vs and not only that we are ioyned to him And that he is ioyned to vs by his nature and not only that we are ioyned to him by a nature of faith whiche is not in him For Christ hath no faith because from the instant of his incarnation his soule and vnderstanding was illuminated with the vision of God to whose nature it was ioyned in one person and where clere vision is there is no faith in so much that faith shal cease when we come to see God in his glorie And how is Christ ioyned to vs by that faith which he hath not at all Fourthlie M Iuel ouerthroweth wholie the true argument of S. Hilarie whose intent is onlie as yet to shew that faythfull men are one among themselfes by the nature of faith also and not onlie by wil and consent as I haue declared before He speaketh I say of our ioyning one to an other not as yet of Christes ioyning to vs or of ours to Christ. Fifthlie M. Iuel falsifieth the words of S. Hilarie for he maketh him to say that we are ioyned to Christ by faith naturaliter naturally he writeth that word in such letters as he is wont to write the words of the fathers in But S. Hilarie saith not nor neuer meaÌ„t that we are ioyned to Christ by faith naturally Ther is no such word in him What honest nature thoughe heretofore he did beleue M. Iuel will now any longer stick vnto him sith he is found to be without al wit or conscience Trulie Simon Magus was no more filthie in his iuggling knaks theÌ„ this man is But let vs goe forward in S. Hilarie The second answer of S. Hilarie to the first argâ—…ment of the Arrians is that the Christians are one also by the nature of one baptism and not by Will onlie Iuel Likewise he saith we are ioyned vnto Christ by the regeneration of one nature and againe we are ioyned to Christ by the nature of one baptism hereof he concludeth therefore are we naturally ioyned vnto him Sand. In so few words it is hard for a man â—…udued with reason to make so many faultes as M. Iuel hath now committed First he wil make S. Hilarie proue that Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature because we are ioyned to him by regeneration of one nature Which argument will not hold for it will not follow yâ— because we are ioyned to an other by some inferiour meanes yâ— he therefore is ioyned to vs by a higher meane To be ioyned to vs in nature is a higher thing then for vs to be ioyned to Christ in Baptism How can then the baser coniunction infer of necessitie a higher kind of ioyning Secondly M. Iuel doth falsifie S. Hilaries wordes reporting that he sayth we are ioyned to Christ by the nature of one Baptism S. Hilarie saith it not but only that all the Christians are one among them selues by these things and not one naturally with Christ. His own words are Whereas in so great diuersitie of nations of conditions of sexes the faithfull are one cometh it of the assent of will or rather of the vnitie of the Sacrament because both Baptism is one vnto them and all they haue put on them one Christ Therefore what shall the concord of minds doe here for as much as they are one thereby because they are clothed with one Christ by the nature of one Baptism Thirdly it is most impudently affirmed of M. Iuel that S. Hilarie concludeth hereof therefore we are naturally ioyned vnto Christ. S. Hilarie hath no such conclusion neither could he haue any such because it is not yet his purpose to open how Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature You wil say is it not then true
that we are ioyned to Christ by faith and by Baptism Yeas Syr and by will also But note the point we stand vpon we are not ioyned naturally to Christ nor he is not ioyned by nature vnto vs by our faith or Baptism It is yâ— term naturally which M. Iuel denied at S. Poules crosse and that teâ—…n D. Harding hath found to appertein to the Sacrament as it shal be be made most manifest That term M. Iuel wold wrest to faith and Baptism And for that termes sake he is almost become a wicked Arrian or a naturall The second argument of the Arrians is He that planteth he that watereth are one Ergo sayd they the vnitie of will is in both them and they meant of will only and not any other vnitie S. Hilarie answereth that they are one because to them being born again in one Baptism one ministerie or dispensation of the one Baptism which doth regeneraâ—…e is graunted So that they are onâ—… because they haue one ministerie and not only because they 〈◊〉 of one minde At the last S. Hilarie geueth a generall rule qui per eandem rem vnum sunt naturâ etiam vnum sunt non tantum voluntate Those who are oâ—…e by the same thing they are one by nature and not only by will The third argument of the Arrians is Exemplum vnitatis istius sayth S. Hilarie caet The Arrians haue brought foorth an example of this vnitie out of our Lords words also to th' end all may be one As thou O Father in me and I in thee that they also may be in vs. To this argument S. Hilarie answereth declaring now first that which M. Iuel spake of before out of place Now first beginneth S. Hilarie to shew how Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we in him And consequently how we also dwell in his Father by the meane of him To this matter should M. Iuel haue applied his solutioÌ„ For vppon the discourse made by reason of this argument D. â—…ding did ground his proof of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament What saith M. Iuel to this matter Iuel Thus it appeareth by S. Hilarie we may haue Christ naturally within vs by three other sundry meanes and therefore not only as M. Harding holdeth by receauing of the SacrameÌ„t San. Thus it appeareth say you but I haue shewed that no such thing appereth For S. Hilarie neuer sayd hitherto that we were naturally in Christ. Iuel Like as Christ is naturally corporally and carnally in vs by faith by regeneration and by Baptism euen so and none otherwise he is in vs by the Sacrament of his body San. First you begin with a thing not confessed nor agreâ—…d vpon and thereof you conclude a manifest falshod Christ is in vs by faith and Baptism but not corporally in our bodies But by the Sacrament of his body he is both in vs and in our bodies in the true and corporal substance of his own flesh blood Secondly you distinguish regeneration from Baptism as though Baptism were not the Sacrament which doth regenerate vs euen by S. Hilaries own doctrine alleged before Thirdly if Christ be none otherwise in vs by the Sacrament of his body then by faith or Baptism why do you make it a seuerall way from the other named before Why is that counted by your self a fourth meane of Christes being in vs which disferâ—…th not at all from the other three At the length it is tyâ—…e that I proue out of S. Hilarie which thing you M. Iuel dissemble and denie Chrisles body to be really present in the Sacrament It is to be remembred that whereas the Arrians had sayd aâ—… vuitie of will to be only betwen God the Father and the sonne as we likewise are one with Christ by will only for so thei sayd S. Hilariâ—… doth not in that case rest vpoÌ„ this answer that Christ by his birth is one with vs in truthe of flesh blood and therefore not in will and assent only as the Arriaâ—…s pretended and as M â–ª Iuel did before goe about to proâ—… S. Hilarie I say rested not therein because the vnitie of nature which was made with mankind by Christes Incarnation â—…ight be thought to pertein no more to the good then to the euill whereas Christ prayed for the vnitie of good men aloâ—…e that they might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christ in him Therefore S. Hilary seking an other meane of our natural vnitie with Christ thereby proueth seing the faithfull men are one with Christ not only by faith or Baptism but by naturall coniunction and by corporall partaking of his own substance that much more Christ is one with his Father in nature and not in will alone S. Hilarie then must prone that we are one with Christ naturally which thing he doth after this â—…ort The word is verily made flesh and we take verily the word being flesh in our Lords meate therefore Christ is to be iudged to tary is in vs naturally Thus doth S. Hilari reason as I haue now shewed his coÌ„clusion is yâ— Christ tarieth in vs naturally yâ— meane to proue it is dubble one because Christ hath true flesh and blood whereby it is shewed to be possible that he may dwell naturally in vs the other is to shew that Christ gaue vnto vs aâ—…d that we take verily the same word being flesh in our Lords meate whereby the flesh that was able to be geuen to vs because it was really assumpted of Christ cometh in dede reallie vnto vs by his gift â–ª our Lords meate whereof S. Hilarie speaketh is the Sacrament of Christes supper wherein only he â—…ed vs corporallie with the word being flesh therefore S. Hilarie doth vs to vnderstand that in the Sacrament we take the word made flesh and so verily take it as the word was verily made flesh â–ª Iuel That we verily and vndoutedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament it is neither denied nor in question SaÌ„ You sayd before pag. 323. that Christ in his supper added an outward Sacrament to the spirituall eating named in S. Ihon which Sacrament you sayd was commonly called a figure and again you sayd the bread is a figure Last of all you said out of Rabanus that the Sacrament is receaued with the mouth but now you say it is not denied yâ— we verily receaue Christes bodie in the Sacrament whereof I say it must nedes folow that Christes body is receaued with the mouth For it is receaued in the Sacrament as here you confesse and the Sacrament is receaued with the mouth as you taught before therefore by your doctrine Christes body is receaued by mouth which is against your third conclusion pag. 319. Who can tell where to find you But to return to my purpose the aduerb verily doth signifie in this place naturallie
his argument vppon that worde alone For he may be bread and herbs and milke vnto vs both in the Sacrament and without it but he is bread herbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as Manna was vnto the Iewes only in the Sacrament Iuel Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that we receaue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for he saith who so hath abundaÌ„tlie drunk of the Apostles springs hath already receaued whole Christ. San. You misse in your prouf For you should proue that whoso drinketh of the Apostles spring he receaueth Christes bodie you proue that he receaueth Christ. A man maie receaue Christ in his hart and yet not haue Christes bodie in his bodie Christ being the name of the person maie be verified as wel of the diuine as oâ—… the humane nature But there Gregorie Nyssen spake of his diuine nature which thing is most clere because he speaketh of eating by faith so as it agreeth to the whole Trinitie And therefore it foloweth I mie father will come vnto him Lo he wil come so as his father cometh to wit by his diuine nature But beside that S. Nyssen speaketh of his birth and of hys being meate vnto our bodies which is oâ—…lie done in the Sacrament of the altar Iuel M. Harding reasoneth thus Christ was borne ergo his bo die is reall in the Sacrament San. O dissembler he reasoneth cleane contrarie with Gregorie Nyssen Christ is made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament Therfore he was reallie born as I haue alreadie shewed Iuel This conclusion is childish San. Yours is childish But D. Hardings is so stronge that if the eating of Christ proue his birth it will followe that as he is born reallie so much more he is eateÌ„ really otherwise if he were onlie eaten by faith thence we could coÌ„clude no more but a byrth by faith which is against Gregorie Nyssenes purpose Iuel If he conclude not this he concludeth nothing San If you speake as you think you are byside your sell. For as by the real eating of Christes fleshe his birth is concluded of S. Nyssen so â—…y D. Harding the reall eating is noted as a most knowen truth presupposed by S. Gregorie Nyssen ¶ That M. Iuel hath not well answered the places of S Cyrillus HArding Cyrillus saith vvhen the mystical blessing is become to be in vs dothe it not cause Christe to dvvel in vs corporally by receauinge of Christes bodie in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iuel Cyrillus expoundeth him selfe natural vnion is nothing els but a true vnioÌ„ we are by nature the childern of anger that is in dede and truly San. The words which you allege as out of Cyrillus be 〈◊〉 in him His words are Si naturalem vnionem dixerimus 〈◊〉 dicemus If we cal it a natural vnion we shal cal it a true 〈◊〉 But you haue put in a certaine phrase of your own addinge these words non aliud quà m none other thing but that is nothing M. Iuel but alitle falshod There is ods whether it be said a natural vnion is a true vnion or els a naturall vnioÌ„ is none other thing but a true vnion For that which is natural is true but there is sumwhat more conteined in the name of nature which the name of truthe doth not expresse We are the true sonnes of God but we are not yâ— natural sonnes of god wheresoeuer thereforea thing is called natural it is at the lest true but not by and by nothing els but true That which you said of S. Augustine Corporaliter noÌ„ vmbraliter sed verè et solidè I could not find it vpoÌ„ yâ— 67. psal But thinke you M. Iuel that when S. tyrâ—…l teacheth Christ to be the natural sonne of god he wolde be contented if an Arrian should slep foorth and say that to be the natural sonne of god is nothing els but to be the true sonne of god Whiche beinge once graunted he that is a child by adoption is also the true sonne of god Therfore the Arrian wil conclude that Christ is the sonne of god by adoption But let vs come nere to the purpose let natural dwelling staÌ„d for true dwelling What of that saith S. Cyril only that Christ is naturally vnited vnto vs saith he not also that yâ— mystical blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in vs wil that word also be excluded by a true dwelling or hath M. Iuell an other phrase to answere it withal Iuel S Paul saith the Heathens are bâ—…come concorporal and partakers of the promise in Christ Iesu in the same sense San. In whith sense M. Iuel meane you that as natural so likewise corporal conâ—…tÌ„ioÌ„ meaneth nothing els but a true conâ—…ction True in dede it is but true in the truth of nature of bodie but not 〈◊〉 true in the truthe of faith and speaking S. Pâ—…e saith The Heatheâ—…s are coÌ„corporal with the Patriarches Prophets that is to say of one body mystical of one society 〈◊〉 Theresore saieth M. Iuel when S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ to dwel corporally in vs by reason of the holy communioÌ„ he meaneth that Christe and wee are all of one mysticall body Meant he nothing els M. Iuel as though it went not before Non negamus caet We denie not but that we are ioyned spiritually to Christ by right faith and syncere loue Lo there is the coniunction which maketh vs one way members of that bodie whereof Christ is yâ— head But S. Tyrill goeth to an other higher meane of the same coniunction adding that the mystical blessing which is the Eucharist maketh Christ to dwel also in vs corporally by communicating his body S. Cyril nameth dwelling in comparison of ioyning corporally in comparison of spiritually by communicating Christes body in comparison of these words by right faith and syncere charitie Therefore it must nedes be that the corporal dwelling of Christ in vs according to his fleshe which also S. Cyril nameth is an other kind of vnion theÌ„ faith and charitie loue But the giftes are corporall with the faithfull Iewes not by faith alone but as S. Hilarie declareth by the nature also of baptism by the nature of Christes flesh For they are grasted into the cumpanie of the elect by all these meanâ—…s which Christ prouided for yâ— end they beleue in yâ— same God are baptized in the same fount are reconciled by the same SacrameÌ„t of penance fed nourished and consuÌ„mated by eating really the same fleshe of Christe What doth that word corporall helpe you now M. Iuell It signifieth no more but that the Iewes and Gentils are of one feloship but the meanes of making them one remaine notwithstanding to be declared Iu By the wordes corporally and naturally a ful perfite spirituall coniunction is meant excluding all manner of fantasie San. So that with you corporally and
〈◊〉 Chapiter Therfore Unworthy â—…ating This 〈◊〉 An â—…tion The â—…swere The ix Chapiter Doing The â—…meles interpretations of Heretikâ—… Deut. 25 This bread * In the third chap â–ª of the secoÌ„d booke Theodo in 1. Cor. cap. 11. Haymo â–ª 1 Cor. 11 â–ª Primasius Sedulius Hiero. in 1. Cor. 11 Theoph. in ca. 11. 1. Cor. In Math. Hom. 8 â–ª In Ioan. li. 9. c. 19 De Bap. cont donatist 5. cap. 8. The x. Chapiter Misbelefe CoÌ„tempt Aug. in 〈◊〉 tract 62. Neglâ—…gence Chrys. iâ—… 1. Cor. Hom. 28 1. Co. 11. 1. Co. 11. Mala. 10. Hieron in Malach Alpian de iniur lib. 1. c. 7. Rom. 2. 1. Co. 11. Heb. 10. 1. Cor. 2. In 1. Co. Hom. 28 The xi Chapiter An â—…ction The aunswer Figures Epist. 23. In Anco rato Internall figures Num. 21. Ioan. 3. Typicall images Heb. 10. Theodo retus in 10. Heb. Shadowes Self images In the 〈◊〉 booke the x. Chap. 1. Co. 11. Leo de nat Do. ser. 4. 5. Ipsa ima go Heb. 1. Colos. 1. Artificiall figures Naturall figures Typicall figures Mysticall figures Sacrifice Heb. 10. Num. 21. Exod. 16 Ioan. 5. Cyrill in IoaÌ„ c. 19. Gen. 41. Ad Phil. cap. 3. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. 1. Cor. 10 11. Euthy in6 c. Io. S. Chry. in Ioan. hom 48. Oâ—…cum in Epi. 1. ad Cor. cap. 11. Basil. de baptis li. 2. cap. 3. Aug. de 〈◊〉 Monachorum cap. 13. Ioan. 6. Math. 6. Matt. 26. Marc. 14 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 Ephes. 5. Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. The first Chapiter Ambros. â—…erm 3. Matt. 27. Psal. 21. The 〈◊〉 The performance The meane of performiÌ„g the vow The king dom of the Lord. AdoratioÌ„ 〈◊〉 Eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reminiâ—… 1. Cor. 11 2. Cor. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacraâ—… 〈◊〉 Unfâ—…ithfull Iewes Hebr. 〈◊〉 Domini est regnuÌ„ Ioan. 8. Luc. 17. The king donâ—…e of God in his Church Ioan 6. Math. 5. Hieroâ—… in Ps. 21. The â—…owes of Christ. 1. Co. 10 1. Co. 11. Aug. coÌ„ment 2. in Ps. 21. Sacrificium In comment Sacrifice Uowes Sacraments Cassiod in Ps. 21. Uowes Sacraments Eating â—…eda in Psal. 21. 〈◊〉 Sacraments Sacriâ—…ices Understanding Appering The subgement of euill men Arnob. in Ps. 21. Euthy in Ps. 21. Psal. 21. Ioan. 6. Hieron in Ps. 21. The verbs The cases belonging to yâ— verbs 〈◊〉 Aug. in ep 120. ad Honâ—… ratuÌ„ c. 27 The table of Christ. AdoratioÌ„ What brin geth the riche or the earth to adore From the table they eate and adore The secoÌ„d Chapiter In Ps. 98 God is to be adored absolutely AdoratioÌ„ is dew to that manhod through yâ— vnion The fotestole The Arke Angelo in 2. Re â–ª cap. 6. The body The Arke was the figure of our Lords body Heb. 9. Ioan. 6. Cyril li. 4. cap. 19 1. Co. 10. The TeÌ„ple Ioan. 2. Heb. 9. 〈◊〉 22. The â—…arth is y◠〈◊〉 Eâ—…ai 66. Hieron in Ps 98. The body of Christe is the 〈◊〉 2. Reg. 6 De spiritu sancto li 3. ca. 13 AdoratioÌ„ of Christed fleshe in the mysteries Aug. in Psal. 98. Eâ—…a 66. Tooke walked Gaue. In Psal. 98. A Sacrament We must eate the bodytakeÌ„ but not the body sene The body sene The body taken Lucae 1. The body takeÌ„ walked in and eaten Spiritual vnderstan ding Ioan. 6. Cyrill li. 4. in IoaÌ„ cap. 14. The same not the same Luc. 22. Before Earth that is to say Christes flesh Terra quaelibet The only one fleshe of Christe is vnder many formes of bread The only sense of S. August wordes Prosternere Inclinaâ—… The third Chapâ—…ter Idols not takeÌ„ away Idolatrie mainteined Christ ge ueth the occasion oâ—… idâ—…try 2. Thes. 2 2. Thes. 2 Antichrist The pope is not like Antichrist 2. Thes. 2 Who shâ—…be deceaued by An tichrist The pope adoreth yâ— Eucharisâ—… An obiection The â—…swere 1. â—…or 12 The lymmes of An tichrist Rom. 9. Matt. 6. The king doÌ„ of God Deut. 6. 1. Tim. 2. Esa. 2. Matt. 3. Luc. 17. Matt. 13. The king dome of darknes Iere. 50. Ezec. 30. Mich. 1. Soph. 2. Zach. 13. Psal. 9. Dâ—… Deuil is perished Idols are the sword of the Deâ—…l August in lib. de diuinatione daemonum Athanasius de In carnatio neverbi The Papâ—…ts be no idolatours Hieron in li. 2. in Esaiam cap. 41. Spiritual idolatry The Ma nichees idolatours Bread is not the God of yâ— Papists Psal. 98. De spiri sancto li. 3. ca. 12 In li. coÌ„tra Gentiles Psalm 〈◊〉 Math. 26 Ioan. 14. Ioan. 10. An obiection The aunswer 1. Co. 15. Externall idolles be destroyed Outward idolatry Inward idolatry Gal. 5. Eph. 5. Cypria de vnitate Ecclesiae Idols forsaken Heresies and schismes are yâ— idols after Christes coming The vnâ—…tie of our fore Fathers Luther yâ— first idola tour of our age ann 1517. Ann. 1522 Two idols Thre score idols The SacrameÌ„tary English idoll Hierom. in Zacha riaÌ„ ca. 13. The framing of an Idoll â—… Tim. cap. 2. In Epist. ad Argen toratenses The folowers of heretikes The Eucharist set foorth only by Christ can be no Idoll In Ps. 98 The iiij Chapiter August in Ioan. tracta 62 The others in 1. Cor. 11 Two differences The first The second In 1. Co. Hom. 28 who is set worth Ambros. 1. Cor. 11 〈◊〉 In 1. cor hom 24 â–ª Ipsa meÌ„â—…a Ioan. 4. In Psal. 7â—… Luc. 22. Cypr. de coena do min. Heb. 10. 1. Ioan. 2. 1. Cor. 11 Aug. in epist. 118 SacrameÌ„ tuÌ„ honorare Luc. 19. Matth. 8. Sapi. 26. l. 2. Retr cap. 20. A worshipping singularly 〈◊〉 Honourâ—… Making a 〈◊〉 Sacrament No dishonouring 〈◊〉 The thing in yâ— mouth is honoured 〈◊〉 That meat Diiudicare Singular â—…orship Godly hoâ—…our Aug. de ciui Dei li. 10. c. 1. 〈◊〉 tum Matth. 8. Origen hom 5. in diuersos Euang. In liturg Chrys. missall Roman The fyfth Chapâ—… De eccl Hierar cap. 3. Pachyme res in his greâ—…e Pa râ—…rasis The substance of our passoâ—…er Sacramâ—…t is onâ—…o Christ. Cyp. li. 2 epist. 3. Luc. 22. Our Sacrifice Rom. 6. 〈◊〉 is to be 〈◊〉 De ijs qui mit myst c. 9 Ignat. in epist. ad Rom. Amb. li. 6. de Sacram c. â—… Euseb. li. 10. ca. 10. Cyril li. 3. in IoaÌ„ ca. 37. Lib. 4. cap. 18. Isych l. 6 in cap. 22 Leuit. The God head can not be corporally â—…aten but in the Sa crament Chrys. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24 Hoc Id. In the altar The Chri stian is better instructed The Sacramentaties refuge Note those com parisons The body set foorth The body holden â—…ten 〈◊〉 Vides Luc. 22. In 1. Co. Hom. 24 The shewing of Christe The body of Cheâ—…ste in earth The Lorde she 〈◊〉 A shift of the Sacrâ—… mâ—…s The Fathers gilty of â—…dolatry Theodo retus dia log 2. Theodo retus dia log 2. In substance In nature In shape Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Made As. Ioan. 1. Theoph. in 1. cap. Ioan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 2. The beâ—… â—…nderstaÌ„ ding