the body Looke what place corpus did occupy the same figura corporis must nedes occupy And therevppon it foloweth that the pronoun hoc must be ruled by the noun figura likewise the relatiue quod and it must follow the verb est and goe before the verb datur And so the sense is Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my body the which figure is geuen for you Thus the SacrameÌ„taries haue brought vs not only â—…o a figuratiue presence of Christes body but also to a figuratiue death and sacrifice thereof I know they will say that albeit by the noun corpus body they vndcrstand figura corporis the figure of the body 〈◊〉 they wold not the relatiue quod which to be ruled by the noun figura but by the genitiue case corpus body As if it were sayd this is the figure of my body the which my body is geuen for you This shift will not serue because after that sort the noun substantiue corpus body is takeÌ„ two ways that is to say first vnproperly and then again properly Unproperly when it standeth for the figure of Christes body properly when it is sayd to be geuen for vs. Now seing that noun substantiue is but once named in all how so euer it is taken at one tyme it must be taken likewise at the other tyme for so much as it is not twise repeted but once only mentioned This sayeth Christ is my body which is geuen for you I ask how ye take the word body which is but once named in the whole sentence If ye take it to stand for the signe of Christes body mark well that you take it vnproperly And remember that you euer continew in taking it vnproperly after the same sort therefore if it be Christes body vnproperly it is geuen for vs vnproperly If it stand for the signe and figure of Christes body when it is ioyned with the verb est is how can it but stand for the same signe and figure when it is ioyned with the verb datur it is geuen Can the relatiue quod take half of that signification which was in his noun substantiue and lay asyde the other half You say corpus doth signifie two things to wit the figure of Christes body beit so Then the one peece of the signification is in the noun figure the other in the noun body To which word so consisting of two parts when a relation is made that relation can not respect the oâ—…e half of the word and neglect the other half But howsoeuer the word is taken so must the pronoun relatiue quod repete him again In this is my body say you the body standeth for the signe of Christes body therefore say I in these words which is geuen for you it must nedes be vnderstanded the which signe of my body is geuen for you And seing they say yâ— this pointeth to bread it followeth that bread is geuen for vs. This later sense is so blasphemous that the very Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists and Anabaptists abhorre from it therefore they ought likewise to abhorre from the former sense where they take the noun body for a figure of Christes body For doubtlesse as they take yâ— word in the one place they must nedes take it in the other sith it is one simple proposition hauing but once in it the word body This thing is yet more plainly sene in the Grâ—…ke text where S. Luke writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is to say word for word as â—…igh as our tonge may attein to the phrase This is the body of me geuen for you Or rather presently geuen for you And yet more expresly this is my body the same body I say which is presently geueÌ„ for you Two of the which Greek words can hardly be expressed in the Latin tong The one is the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which being of the present tense hath no like in Latin answering to it But we are constrained to put for it these two words quod datur which is geuen The other is the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which repeteth again yâ— noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body Geuing an vndoubted witnes that the thing geuen for vs is the same body which is pointed vnto and affirmed to be present This is my body This is the same body I say which is euen presently deliuered to be sacrificed for you But in Greek all this sense is without any other verb sauing the verb substantiue est is As if it were sayd in Latin Hoc est corpus meum datum pro vobis this is my body geuen for you In which proposition corpus is the noun substantiue to the participle datum And therefore one and the same body is both pointed vnto vnder yâ— forme of bread and presently geuen that is to say offered to 〈◊〉 sacrificed on the Crosse and to be pearced and crucified the next day for vs. I require and humbly beseche him yâ— thinketh me to be deceaued in this point â–ª as he loueth God and his neighbour to shew me wherein I misconstrue these words or by what meanes the argument which I now make for the reall presence of Christes body may be possibly auoided For it semeth to me that noman of good conscience who will not wilfully be damned is able to auoide but that Christ affirmeth this which he pointeth to really to be the same substance of his body which was betrayed and offered vpon the crosse for vs. He that sayth this is a figure of Christes body sayeth a figure of his body to haue bene geuen for vs. I can deuise no maner of escape besyde wilfull malice It may be some ignorant man will say that the noun corpus body standeth not for the signe of Christes body but that the verb est is rather standeth for the verb significat doth signifie and so the sense to be this doth signifie my body and so the noun body standeth still properly who so maketh any such obiection vnderstandeth not that it is all one to say this doth signifie my body and this is the signe of my body therefore either of both being confuted both are confuted for the cause why the verb est should be resolued into the verb significat must nedes come from the word corpus body sithens this doth therefore signifie the body because it is made the signe of Christes body But if it be not the signe thereof surely it doth not signifie it in so muh that this proposition hoc significat corpus meum being resolued into this hoc est significans corpus meum as the rules of good reason and of the arte of logik require the word which apperteined to the signe shal be found à parte praedicati rather then à parte copulae that is to say it shal be found that the reason of signifieng con sisteth in the
the more particular my reasoning is the more it ought to moue them earnestly to looke to the worde of God and not to contente them selues with the bare shewes thereof For my exposition beside the very order and conference of Christes supper hath for it as auncient a witnesse as Iustâ—…s Martyr is a man within the first two hundred not only within the 600. yeres whose works Robert SteueÌ„s printed in greke at Parise An. Dom. 1551. Thus he writeth The Apostles in their com meÌ„taries which are called gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundement who when he had taken bread geuen thanks said do and make this thing for the remembrance of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est corpus meum That is to say my body Thus I reade the words thus they are vnderstanded make this thing That is to say make my body They that haue translated Iustinus haue turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est whiche words may be Englished as if the cause had bene This is But they also may signify hoc est that is to say For so the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in greke in the way of interpretation or of exposition when the wordes that went before are expounded by the wordes that follow The same phrase is vsed in S. Matthew where after the Hebrew wordes were writen which Christ said vpon the Crosse Fli Eli Lamalabachtami it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is to say my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Therefore albeit the Latins can not distinct betwene hoc est whiche signifieth this is and hoc est whiche signifieth that is to say yet the grecians write the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing Iustinus also hath obserned in the wordes belonging to the blood putting in euery letter The last they write leauing out yâ— last letter of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Apostrophe in pronountiation making one word of both And this sense is proued true by the processe of Iustinus who after that he had said we are taught the meat whiche is consecrated by the praier of the word whiche we toke of Christ to be his body and blood He would proue it to be still so because the Apostles dyd witnesse Iesum sic sibi mandasse Christ to haue geueÌ„ theÌ„ such a precept Hoc facite make this thing what thing my body Now if this thing were not meant to be yâ— body of Christ Iustinus had proued no commandement thereof and consequently no fleshe of Christ present whiche yet he affirmeth most plainly Therefore straight after he had rehearsed the commaundement Hoc facite make this thing he sheweth what thing it is â—…aiyng that is to say my body whereunto we must nedes vnderstand to make vp the full sense make my body or make this thing which is my body Therefore as well by the force of the letter of the Gospell as by the authoritie of S. Iustinus these words can be verified of no signe or figure nor by any other way theu by that we make the selfbody of Christ which always is this thing because it always tarieth one and the same in number person whereas the taking of bread and breaking or eating it is alwais such anotherthing but neuer this thing ¶ the xxi Circumstance of the words in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me THe finall cause of instituting this new passouer was to make the remembrance of Christes death which so effectually and profitably for vs could be made in nothing els as in the same flesh that died for vs and being made therein it forceth vs by al meanes through the presence thereof to remeÌ„ber him whose flesh it is If now he that hath a busines to doe will those the beast meanes he can to bring it to passe if Christ came into the world to redeme vs by his death and if in beleuing and folowing that death our life consist seing no meane possibly can be deuised so effectuall to make vs remember and partake his death as if the thing which died be it self made present with vs and it self deliuered to vs a wise man may easibly iudge whether Christe hath not rather leaft his own body to vs for an vndoubted token of his death seing his words doe sound so theu that he hath leaft a peece of bread and a litle wine which neither be spoken of in the deliuery of the mysticall tokens nor be aptâ—… enough to worke the matter for which they are sayd to be least Therefore S. Chrysostom shewing the difference betwene other figuraâ—…iue remembrances and this truthe sayth Tibi quotidie ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur Christ is euery day him self put before thee least thou shouldest forget him Note that Christ him self in this Sacrament is a remembrance of him selfe dying for vs euen as Manna was kept in the taberâ—…le of God to be a remembrance of it self Kepe it sayth God Vt nouerint filii Israël panem quo alui vos in solitudine That the children of Israel may know the bread wherewith I fed ye in yâ— desert So likewise the self body of Christ is kept as it were and preserued in the tabernacle of this blessed Sacrament that we may know by that knowlege which is meete for faithfull men that our Lord hath died for vs. ¶ The xxij circumstance of these words Drink ye all of this AFter the cup was taken and thanks geuen Christ gaue to his disciples and sayd bibite ex hoc omnes drink ye all of this In S. Luke it is sayd take and diuide among you By these words Christ meaneth literally that all the twelue should drink of that one cup and S. Marke witnesseth this precept to haue bene fâ—…illed saying Et biberunt ex illo omnes and all drank thereof This interpretation S. Dionysiâ—…s the Areopagite confirmeth saying that one chalice was diuided among them all And as S. Lyrillus witnesseth Circumtulit calicem dicens bibite ex hoc omnes He caried about the chalice saying drink ye all of this By carying about he meaneth all the twelue to haue receaued the drink out of that one cup in order Christ then would that his twelue Apostles should al drink of the same cup. The reason why he wold haue it so foloweth For sayth he this is my blood as if he sayd I haue conserated this cup only and none other therefore drink yâ—… all of this For if two or three of the twelue should haue drunk vp all that was in that cup either Christ must haue consecrated the cup again or the rest must haue receaued a drink not consecrated But it is not the wil of Christ that one Priest should coÌ„secrate in one Masse any more then once eche kind of the Sacrament because Christ died but once and then he onght to consecrate both kinds together because Christes blood and
say we then This is my body which is geuen for you are they words of promise or no I answere Words of promise may be taken for suche as make a promise or els for suche as haue a promise made cōcerning them Those who beleue in God as Isaac did are named in holy scripture the children of promise not of that promise which themselues make to God but because through the grace of God which he promised before to Abraham in his blessed sede Iesus Christ they are made his chil dren And in that sense This is my body which is geuen for you may be called words of promise in so much as they fulfil at Christes supper the promise made before at Capharnaū When Christ sayd work the meate which the sonne of man will geue you and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh Again these words which is geuen for you at the tyme of Chri stes supper might stand to signifie which shal be geuen for you and so the old Fathers did reade them and the Latin copies of S. Paule haue so at this daye But the◅ the promise was to be consydered concerning the death of Christ which was to come and not concerning his supper which was present Caluin speaking of Christes supper as it is a supper saith this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise and that not because they are iustified concerning a former promise made at Capharnaum neither concerning the death which is now past but because they make a promise of Christes body to be spiritually eaten at his supper For he saith those words were not spoken to the bread wine but vnto the disciples to whom Christ pollicetur promiseth the communicating of his body and blood Also he saith the promises are offered to the faithfull together with bread and wine Moreouer let vs vnderstand saith he these words to be a liuely preaching which maie shew his efficacie in the accomplishement of that it promiseth First these words be a breif collation or sermon Secondly they promise the cōmunicating of Christes ◅ody Thirdly they being receaued of the faithfull bring forth in them that effectual eating of Christ which they promise Last of al he saith Take eate is the commandement like vnto Inuoca me call vpon me This is my body is the promise like vnto Exaudiam te I will heare the. I am the longer in shewing his mind because I feared it might be thought of wise men a great slaunder to faine so folish an opinion vpon a man taken for wise and lerned For it semeth an extreme madnesse to affirm that those words which shew a thing really present and bid vs take the same are notwithstanding words of promise At the transfiguration of Christ it was said this is my derebeloued sonne in whom I haue delighted heare him But who was euer so mad as to think that Christ was promised in those words and not rather shewed present Likewise when Christ said to him that had the palsey take a good hart sonne thy sinnes are forgeuen thee we beleue his sinnes were presently forgeuen him and not only a promise made that hereafter they should be forgeuen A promise lacketh many conditions which the performance hath A promise beginneth the bargain the perfoormance endeth at the least some part of it A promise consisteth in bare words the perfoormance besyde words hath dedes also ioyned A pr◅ mise belongeth to the time to come the performance to the tyme present A promise maie be differred to a certain daie or suspended with conditions the perfoormance must ◅edes be altogether without delay And how can these words Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise which neither speake of the time to come but of the present neither begyn but end the couenant nor consist in bare talk but also in reall dedes nor haue any condition or delay annexed but haue all things presently said signified made and deliuered If this is my body make to y◠hearers a promise of a spirituall communicating then seing those words were spoken to Iudas one of the twelue and are daily spoken to euil men without any condition or exception it maie seme that a spirituall communicating is promised to them which possibly can not be so For how can light and darknesse agree But if Caluin saie these words promise the body of Christ only to the faithfull I aske whether those words be writen in the supper of Christ or no If they be not writen how dareth Caluin supply them It is not said this is my body to you only that be faithfull as Caluin vseth falsely to interprete those words But it is absolutely said This is my body whosoeuer take it and eate it whether he take it by faith to his comfort and to euerlasting life or in deadely sinne to his iudgement and death For as God the Father said This is my derebeloued sonne and as thereof it foloweth that the person then shewed and pointed vnto by y◠voice was y◠sonne of God in dede whether euill men had to doe with him to whom he was y◠sauour of death or good men to whom he was the sauour of life right so this is my body was said of one certain thing then blessed be the man y◠cometh to eate it good or bad And as this is my derebeloued ◅ne are no words of promise but of a diuine witnes ◅oward Christ euen so this is my body promise not but witnesse and make presently the thing shewed to be in dede Christes body If this is my body doe promise the body of Christ yet this must nedes shew where the thing is whereunto it pointeth the body of Christ which is promised is also pointed vnto and the sense is I will geue you this thing to eate which is my body and by that meanes the eating is promised and the body is pointed to but the pointing can be directed to none other sensible thing but vnto that which semeth bread therfore that is affirmed to be Christes body and is promised to be geuen vs as meat bu◅ bread is not naturally the body of Christ therfore it is made his body And consequently Caluin who will haue these words to promise the ◅ing of Christes body by faith must nedes confesse that they make the same body in dede to th'◅nd the promise of eating that body which is so directly pointed vnto maie be fulfilled Howbeit Christ said not I will geue you my body but presently geuing said take eate this is my body But seing Caluin teacheth this that is pointed vnto still to remain bread I see not how those words which as he saith point vnto bread can withall promise the body of Christ. For the proposition is simple and affirmeth but one thing and that thing doth concerne the substāce as we beleue of Christes body as he saith of bread so
that none other thing can 〈◊〉 inferred vpon those words then what thing this is as we saie or what thing this bread doth signifie as the Sacramentaries teache Admit now it were expresly said this bread is the signe of Christes body which sense is salsely ascribed to those words by the Zuinglians yet it wold not follow therevpon that the body of Christ is promised to our soules but only that by this bread we are brought to remember Christ. Now as for eating it is commanded and not promised Caluin had the cheif property of an heretike which was to be singular And therein he delighted so much that albeit he was determined not to tarie in the faith wherein he was Christened yet he wold neither goe to Luther who first withdrew himself from vs nor to Zuinglius whose sect he fauored rather but he wold make a religion of his own And therfore he deuised a new sense of Christes words Affirming This is my body not to be spoken to the bread as both Catholiks Lutherans and Zuinglians after diuers meanings doe confesse but to be words of preaching made vnto the people that stand about the Priest and that these words promise the body of Christ to al that beleue his death and resurrection as verily as that bread is really eaten into their bodies and yet neither be the words conceiâ—…ed in the manner of promising neither do they speake of faith or death or of the resurrection of Christ or of eating bread Is not this a strang sense to pick out of these words This is my body as if it were said Masters beleue that Christ is dead and risen again and then as this bread is eaten of your bodies so certainly shal you fede of his body in faith spirit Did â—…uer any man heare of such a 〈◊〉 Hoc This doth signifie and shew to Caluin the bread which must be eaten at the supper of Christ and pointeth also to a spirituall food which is promised Est Is doth stand both properly for the present time in yâ— it is a signe of Christes body at the tyme of speaking and also vnproperly for the tyme to come in that it is a promise of his body to be eaten spiritually Corpus meum My body doth signifie to him the signe of my body taken by mouth and the streÌ„gth or vertue therâ—…of that shal be taken by faith and spirit Put together This bread which you bodily eate is the signe this thing which I promise that your soules shall eate shall be the streÌ„gth or efficacie of my body and yet he addeth farther of his owne to them that beleue Christes death and resurrection This is the sermon which Caluin saith was made at Christes supper Wherein euery word must signifie at once two or three things and one verb in one tense must signifie two tymes and the same word body must signifie two proprieties and yet neither of them both properly For whether body stand for signe of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of bread it standeth vnproperly or whether iâ—… stand for efficacie of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of the communicants it standeth vnproperly whereas the proper signification thereof is to signifie the substance of Christes body If we presse him out of S. Paul and out of the Fathers that euil men eate the body of Christ then he will answere they eate the signe of his body without promise or efficacie If we saie that good men eate the body of Christ he expoundeth it in such sense that they first haue it promised them â—…ate both a certain pledge bodily and in their soules a spirituall efficacie thereof O crafty deuiser If thou canst thus deceaue a sort of miserable and either vnlerned or vngraciouse men thinkest thou to deceaue God or to escape his terrible iudgement Agree at the last how euery word shal be so taken that thy interpretation maie be like it self Let not the same word be now a signe now a pledge now a promise now an efficacie now again no efficacie no promise no pledge but only a signe We beleue that euery word standeth properly And that both euill and good receaue one and the same substance of Christes body But as one medicine receaued of two diuerse complexions worketh not one effect so the good men haue a good effect by eating worthely the body of Christ the euill haue condemnation by eating it vnworthely Thus we take the word body for the reall substance of the body the verb est is we take properly because it is in dede Christes body when the words are spoken This we saie doth finally point to the substance of Christes body as then prâ—…ently made vnder the foorm of bread In our interpretation there is no inconstancy no impropriety no changing of significations in the same words no bare promising of a thing to come bâ—…t a present perfoormance If any man aske by what scriptures I conuince Caluin I wold first â—…now by what scriptures he proueth his lewed interpretation Shall he speake a thing without scripture beside all truthe and reason and shall not we be credited vnlesse we conuince him by scripture Howbeit let vs forgeue that iniurie and confute his fond â—…pinioÌ„ by the word of God Caluin saith This ys my body be words of promise against which saing thus I reason S. Paule intending to shew that God was not bound to the carnall Iewes because they were the childern of Abraham by flesh but that rather he wold reward them who were the children of Abraham by faith and spirit declareth Isaac to haue ben the child of promise because the Angell said to Abraham Secundum hoc tempus veniam erit Sarae filius I will come according to this tyme and a sonne shal be vnto Sara out of which words S. Paule proueth a promise How so Promissionis enim hoc verbum est For this word or saing is a word of promise which word is that Veniam I will com filius â—…rit a sonne shal be as if S. Paule said wil shall be words of promise For when a speache is conceiued for the tyme to come with 〈◊〉 circumstance that it maie appere the speaker meant to warrant the thing spoken it maketh a promise If I will come and 〈◊〉 sonne shal be are words of promise I am come and a sonne is be words of perfoormance and that is also conâ—…irmed out os the word of God Where it is writâ—…n the Lord visited Sara as he had promised and fulfilled the things which he spake and she conceiued and brought foorth a sonne at yâ— tyme wherein god had foreâ—…old 〈◊〉 that which was before in S. Paul named a promise is â—…ow called also a foretelling or prediction For albeit euery prediction be not a promise yet euery promise is a prediction and a telling before hand so that we haue in the word of God that a promise telleth a
suum appellat He calleth the bread his body But we can not call a thing except we speake vnto it Therefore when Christ called the bread his body he spake vnto the bread as if he had said to the bread be thou my body For as it is all one in Christ to saie let thy synnes be forgeuen and thy synnes are forgeuen so it is one to saye concerning a certain bread which was taken Let this be my body or this is my body with whatsoeuer words the mind of Christ be vttered out of question it is allwaies fullfilled But among all kind of vtteraÌ„ce none is more plain to vs then when a thing is clerely aâ—…rmed to be this or that for then it is made plain to vs not only that God wold haue it so or wisheth it to be so but that really and in dede it is so Christ calleth bread his body Therfore Caluin saith falsâ—… when he affirmeth that Christ speaketh not to the bread to th' end it might be made his body You will say calling is not making yeas for foutâ—… in God in Christ in those whom Christ willeth to call one thing and make thereof an other thing in all them calling is making Men call a thing by the name of the former nature but God in calling any thiâ—…g or in willing it to be called by a new name changeth the former nature and maketh it to be as he called it And therefore when the Prophet 〈◊〉 wold signifie that the gentils and panims should be turned to the faith how doth he vtter that matter Saith he not in the person of God Dicam non populo meo populus meus es tu I will saye to that which is not my people thou art my people Dicam I will saye it And trow ye his saying is not don Yes it solloweth immediatly Et ipse dicet Deus meus es tu And the people it self shall say thou art my God which thing the people could not saye except in dede it were conuerted and made the people of God from the people of infidelity And therfore S. Paul him self expoundeth this place of Osoe by the word of calling and 〈◊〉 Vocabo non plebem meam plebem meam I will call that which is not my people my people erit in loco vbi dictum est eis non plebs mea vos ibi vocabuntur filij Dei And it shall come to passe in the plate where it hath ben said to them ye are not my people there they shal be called the sonnes God After which sort when Christ hauing taken bread and blessed said This is my body That saying was the calling of that which was before Non corpus Christi not the body of Christ. Corpus Christi the body of Christ. In this sense S. Ambroise saith Ante benedictionem verborum coelesâ—…m alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aliud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur Et tu dicis Amen hoc est verum est quod os loquitur mens interna fateatur Quod sermo sonat affectus sentiat Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is named an other kind after consecration the body is signified himself saith or nameth his blood Before consecration it is named or sayd an other thing aâ—…ter consecration it is called blood and thou 〈◊〉 Amen 〈◊〉 is to saie it is true That which the mouth speaketh let the inward mind cousesse that which the speache soundeth let the harâ—… think Here we lern by S. Ambrose that the naming signisying or calling bread and wine the body and blood of Christ is both 〈◊〉 â—…uident signe that Christ spake to bread and wine otherwisâ—… then Caluin said and also the making of them to be in dede so â—…s they are called and signified also he sheweth yâ— custome of yâ— primatiue Church to haue ben that immediatly before communioâ—… when yâ— Priest said the body of Christ the people vsed to answer Amen it is true it is in dede his body And as the word body soundeth and as our confirmation thereof soundeth so he requireth vs to beleue confesse and think certainly there is none otheâ—… thing sounding to our eares besyde the name of body Likewise Tertullian hauing witnessed that Christ called the bread his body witnesseth also that he made the bread which was taken and distributed to the Disciples his body Fecit panem corpus suum He made the bread his body in saying This is my body that is to saye the figure of my body But neither calling nor naming noâ—… saying nor the being of a figure stoppeth any thing yâ— reall truthâ—… of Christes body the Sacrament is the figure of Christes body because it sheweth his death vntill he come as S. Paul saith But as Christ is the figure or print and form of his Fathers substance and yet also his substance in dede euen so the Sacrament is a figure of Christ and Christ in dede Christ as an other person beside his Father so is he the figure of his substance But otherwise in truthe he is throughly the same substance euen so as the Sacrament is another maner of Christes presence so it is a figure either of his visible body or of his death But concerning the truth of substance all is one Thus without all controuersy the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 â—…ords standeth vpright And his naming signifying figuring calling is the making of a thing to be that which it is named bi him signified figured or called He hath said the things are made Ther can be none more grosse more vile more blasphemous opinioÌ„ then to think yâ— Christ is a bare man â–ª that his word is like our word or his figures and Sacraments like our figures or like the figures of the old law Looke what oddes is betwen God and man so much beleue thou to be also betwen his naming or his figures of the new Testament and all other figures His figures contein the self same substance which they expresse in figure signe or name whereof God wylling I will intreat more hereafter It is at this tyme to be coÌ„sydered yâ— seing the SacrameÌ„t of Chri stes supper is the remeÌ„brance of that great sacriâ—…ice made by his death vpoÌ„ yâ— crosse It self also must nedes partake that nature whereof it is the remembrance consequeÌ„tly it must be certeinly beleued to be a true sacrifice as that of the crosse was In euery publike saâ—… ther is a thing offered vowed vnto God the act which offereth voweth it apperteiueth as wel to the thing 〈◊〉 by the meane of doing sumwhat about it as vnto God to whom the oblation is theifly dedicated As therefore when a lamb is sacrificed hands are layed vpon the lambs head the lamb is killed burnt or eaten and all that while God in the lamb is honoured prayed vnto blessed thanked
altar to offer them That offering is a vowing of them to God When are they vowed When the word of vowing or of prayer is spoken When is that prayer made S. Augustine sheweth in the same place Orationes accipimus dictas cum illud quod est in Domini mensa benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur We take prayers to be sayd when that which is on the table of our Lord is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed Mark whether S. Augustine speake like Caluin or no. that which is on the table is blessed that is sanctified that is broken that is distributed that blessing sanctifying is made by prayer that prayer is the vowing to God of that which is brought to the table which was bread and wine The word of vowing is to saye ouer it This is my body For the sense of these words is that Christ so â—…estly offereth so throughly voweth the substance of bread and wine to the honour of God that he maketh them by his almighty power the same flesh and blood of Christ which is vnited to the sonne of God in one person This only is the offering and vowing of an outward thing which came to that perfection whereunto in the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 it was destenied Because the Priest who offered it according to the order of 〈◊〉 is God as well as man The instrument of this great sacrifice the word of this prayer the execution of this vow are the words of Christ who said in the waie of blessing of thaÌ„ksgeuing oâ—… praying and of vowing or of offering to God This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Caluin wold neither haue prayer nor vow nor any sacrifice made vnto God in these words but hath with swete poysoned talk made of them a promise apreaching to the people geuing to man the 〈◊〉 of sacrifice dew 〈◊〉 God only But S. Ireneus witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and geuen thanks said This is my body and confeâ—… the chalice to be his blood Et noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationem and he taught a new oblation of the new testament Which also he proueth out oâ—… Malachie the Prophet Caluin wold the words to be spoken without working any thing vpon the brend as who should say the bread could be offered according to the state of any law or testament and yet no change of substance be made therein Caluin wold the working to be only in the minds of yâ— hearers whereas yâ— gospell teacheâ—… that Christ hauing taken bread said This is my body But Caluin imagineth that he spake not to the bread but sayd to the people this bread is a witnesse that you shall caâ—…e my body whereas the bread it self was by those words made Christes body and so made that it was his body as sone as the word was spoken So saith Bregorius Nyssenus who writeth that the bread is chaÌ„ged into the body of Christ statim vt dictum est â—… verbo Hoc est corpus meum straight as sone as it is sayd of the word of God thiâ—… is my body S. Chrysostom sheweth the words to be spoken by the Priests mouth who saith This is my body Hoc verbo propâ—… sita consecrantur With this word the things set foorth are consecrated S. Ambrose saith Vbi verba Christi operata fuerint sanguis efficitur qui plebem redâ—…it When yâ— words of Châ—…ist haus wrought the blood is made which hath 〈◊〉 the people Is it nâ—…t a great madnesse to resist theâ—…e witnesses Or can the thâ—…ngs set foorth which are 〈◊〉 and wine be consecrateâ—… be chanâ—…d â—…e made the body 〈◊〉 of Christ not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I might bring against Caluin whatsoeuer the Catholikes teache or saie of the reall presence of Christes body and blood of 〈◊〉 and of the sacrifice For 〈◊〉 word destroyeth this foolish inuention of promising and preaching It shal be now sufficient to shew that the whole East and West Church by diuerse meanes yet conformably destroye that erroneouse opinioÌ„ of Caluin In the East Church the words of consecration This is my body which is geuen for you and likewise of the blood are spoken with so lowd avoice that the whole Church maie here the Priest pronouncing them And immediatly after eche of the words the quere and people cried out Amen Which doth signific as S. Ambrose hath expounded it Verum est it is true Wherby all those Churches did signifie that the body and blood of Christ was presently made when the people affirmed it to be true and yet noman had at that tyme receaued the communion Therefore thâ—…se words This is my body which is geuen for you and this is my blood which is shed for you Which Caluin calleth words of promise made to the receauers are witnessed by yâ— who le Churâ—…h to be true presently and so to be perfoormed lâ—…g before any man receaue cither kind On the other side in the West Churche the same words are spoken secretly oâ—…er the bread and the wine and immediatly after the pronouncing of eche words the body and blood of Christ is adored of all the people because it is really conteined â—…nder the foormes of bread and wine Which auncient custome of secretly pronouncing these words This is my body shew they are neither words of promise nor of preaching If they were words of promise or of preaching they should be spoken to the people out of the chaire or pulpit or some like place But now they are spokâ—…n at the alâ—…ar of God and not at all directed to the people as the which 〈◊〉 to that office of 〈◊〉 Priesthod whereunto yâ— people is not called For as the high Bishop among the Jewes went alone and that but one day in the whole yere into the Holy of Holies in the temple of Salomon right so when the Priest goeth to consecrate the Holy of all Holies which is the body and blood of Christ it is most conneniently ordeined that he alone enter 〈◊〉 And this custom is in that West Church which S. Peter and S. Paule planted with their preaching and watered with their blood This is the Church which S. Ambrose honoured so 〈◊〉 that albeit himself in manie points followed in his seruice the 〈◊〉 rite and manner yet he openly praised the good and laudable custom of the Romane Churche saying In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam In all points I couet to follow the Romane Churche But now let vs bring a practise of the whole primatiue Churche as well in the East as in the West which so euidently doth confute the 〈◊〉 opinion of Caluin that he is sain to condeÌ„ne the Apostles them 〈◊〉 to auoide that argument For so had he rather doe yea to deny all the whole Bible then once to remoue the breadth of a 〈◊〉 from
Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
Christ â—…ayd to the Leprouse man Be thou made cleane which words gaue a signe and token of cleansing therefore in deed he was made cleane Christ gaue a signe and token that synnes were forgeuen to him that had the palsey by these words Remittuntur tibi peccata tua Thie synnes are forgeuen the therefore in deed they were forgeuen Likewise Christ bad him take vp his bed goe home for a token that the sonne of man had power in earth to forgeue synnes therefore Christ in deed had power in earth to forgeue synnes Because his token and signe is neuer false When Iohn Baptiste had sent two of his disciples to know whether he were the man that shuld come or an other were to be looked for Christ gaue a token to the eyes and eares of the messengers that the blind sawe yâ— lame walked yâ— leepers were cleansed Therefore in deed it was so And he bad them tell S. Ihon what they had heard and seen Christ sayd to the deafe and domme man Adaperire Be thou opened and as it foloweth in the Gospell straight ways his eares were opened and the bond of his tonge loosed Thus might I goe through euery example of the whole Gospell and allways when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inward grace is rehersed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh Marke well good Reader that this rule be not wreasted to that mere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing For then I confesse many parables many obscure sayings were vttered to prouoke his audience to be humble to think of their owne ignorance to depend wholy of Christ to aske him the vnderstanding of the darke sayings But now I speake not of sole doctrine I speake of a worke that Christ maketh and of words ioyâ—…d with his worke In this case I say what so euer signe is outwardly made the same is inwardly wrought Christ sayeth to his Disciples Take ye the holy Ghost and withal he 〈◊〉 vpon them Beholde the word and the doing The outward word is a holy signe or Sacrament so is the outward doing which is breathing The inward worke is the perfoorming of thâ—… 〈◊〉 signe which the worde and breath did betoken Seing then Christ at his last supper did somewhat seing he tooke bread seing he blessed seing he brake seing he gaue seing at the tyâ—… of this outward doing and working he sayd somewhat which saying was a signe a Sacrament a figure a token a pledge a 〈◊〉 of his body we are assured by the word of God which neuer shall perish that Christ gaue at the same tyme his true body vnder the forme of that bread which he tooke and which by blessing he turned into his body Hath not now the Apologie depely reasoned Hath it not put a goodly foundation of the Sacramentarie doctrine to saye the supper of our Lord is the euident token of the body and blood of Christ thereby meaning thâ—… his body is not in dede really present wherein although it speake otherwise then the holy scripture â—…oth in the same case â—…et mangre the will of the makers thereof it proueth the Catholike faith because the signe that euery Sa crament of Christ maketh euidently to our senses is inwardly wrought in that creature whereof the signifying words are spoken By this true declaration of the nature of a Sacrament it is proued that so many Fathers as call the supper of Christ a signe or figure geue witnesse that it is also the truth it self And if the Apologie will disproue the reall presence of Christ vnder yâ— foorm of bread it must shew that his supper is not so much as a signe of his body and blood But as long as they graunt vs the sigâ—…e the word of God will conuince the truthe to be present which is signified ¶ The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of tokens WHen I graunt the supper of Christ to be a signe a token a figure yet I do not graunt the words wherewith it is made to be figuratiue If I geue you a ring and say were this token for the remembrance of me I both geue a token of me and name a signe or token and yet my words are not figuratiue It is therefore to be noted that how many Fathers so euer call the Sacrament a figure yet none of them all teacheth these words This is my body and this is my blood to be words figuratiue For when they call it a figure they meane not a figure of Rhetorike but a mysticall figure and calling it a signe they meane not a naturall signe or token but a mysticall signe that is to say a secret and miraculous kind of token such as the state of the new Testament requireth the nature whereof is to doe that which it sayeth â–ª because Christ the speaker 〈◊〉 all that by his diuine power and substance which his word spoken by the mouth of his manhod in holy Sacraments doth vtter and signifie Now he that wold the Sacrament of Christ so to be a signe that he should not make that thing to be his body in deed whereof in word he sayeth This is my body he most wickedly denieth the Godhead of Christ. Ebion was an heretike who denying the diuine nature of Christ sayd him to be NuduÌ„ hominem a bare man Epiphanius will proue against Ebion that he is God How so Because he was geuen to the world for a signe As the holy Ghost had prophecied before of him when he sayd to Achaz Pete tibi signum ask to the a signe And for as much as he wold not ask then sayd the Prophete Ipse Dominus dabit vobis signum our Lord him self will geue you a signe Behold a virgin shall conceaue Now sayth Epiphanius Non potest is qui per omnia homo genitus est signi gratia mundo dari He yâ— is alltogether begotten as a man can not be geuen to the world for a signe For that which is customably don what signe of the Godhead could be therein Epiphanius therefore doth signifie that sith Christes birth was geuen to the world for a signe it could not be such a byrth as other men haue but it must be miraculous and the miracle stode in this point because he was truly born of a true virgin Muche more we may say sith the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath bene left vnto vs as a signe of the body and blood of Christ It could not be so if it were bare bread and wine and not in deed his body and blood what signe what secret token what miracle were in the eating and drinking of bare bread and wine if none other thing were made thereof As the ordinarie birth of man is no mere signe for Christ who is true God so the ordinarie eating of bread drinking of wine is no mete signe for
or nothing els is here called the signe thereof If the maÌ„hood be the signe surely the maÌ„hood is now promised and is deliuered euen to Iudas at his last supper which being so I graunt it to be a most true â—…se yâ— Iudas did eate such a signe of Christes flesh as his owne substance is But if the Sacramentaries will needes haue materiall bread meant by these words The bread which I will geue besydes that they take that word otherwyse then it is taken in all the talke which apperteineth to yâ— true bread which came down â—…rom heauen I wil confute that grosse error an other way also Christ ioyneth together two diuerse tenses the future and the present Dabo I will geue and est it is aâ—…ing that the geuig of his bread is to come but the substance or being oâ—… the same bread which he wil geue is presâ—…nt for he sayd not yâ— bread which I will geue shal be my flesh but is my flesh And yet if the word bread did stand for materiall bread and the word flesh for yâ— signe and figure of fleshe as some doubt not falsely to teache or it the 〈◊〉 is oâ—…d stand â—…or the verbe signiâ—…icat which mâ—…aneth to betoken or to signifie theÌ„ Christ euen by our aduersaryes interpretation should haue sayd the bread which I will geue shal be my flesh and not as he now said is my flesh For seing that Christ spake these words one whole yere before his supper as by the ghospell it maie appere if the bread whiche he said he would geue should only betoken his flesh and not be his fleshe in dede then were it falsely spoken that the same bread now presently is his flesh for if the bread it self he not yet made yea perhappes not so much as the corne thereof in the grounde and certainly not yet blessed of Christ how is it possible that the bread which now is not can be now a signe or token of Christes flesh That which is not it self can much lesse be a â—…oken of an other thing but that which Christ sayd he wold geue was extaÌ„t in substance at that tyme when he spake and at that present instant when he spake For he sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh as I say is now is at this moment wherein I speake But the materiall bread that I will take into my hands turne into my flâ—…sh is not as yet extant any where Or if it be it is not a token vntill I blesse But the bread that I will geue is euen now my flesh As much as if Christ sayd that which I will geuâ—… at my last supper howe so euer it seme coÌ„mon breade and appeare in the forme of bread which forme and figure is to come and therefore I say that I will geue it hereafter yet the substance that shal be conteyned within that forme of bread that sub stance which is the being and essence of my gift whereof now I speake that substance is now present in your eyes What substaÌ„ce is that Forsoth the substance of my flesh For as the forme of brâ—…ad is to come and the substance of my flesh is here present in me so by the forme of bread I say I wil geue it but concerning the substance thereof I say it is my flesh I say not it shal be lest you should thinke I meante to make such a giâ—…t of my flesh the substance whereof were to come rather then present But I say it is my flesh For within the forme of that bread none other sub stance shal be then that which you see here which is my flesh so that these words the bread which I wil geue is my flesh are as much to say as I will geue you the substance of my flesh to eat And that the word flesh doth here signifie the substance of Christes flesh Tertullian hath witnessed almoste fourtene hundred yeres past Who disputing against those heretiks that confounded the flesh and the soule of Christ taketh vpon him to declare that they are two distincted natures Of yâ— soule of Christ it was sayd Anxia est anima mea vsque ad mortem my soule is sorowfull to death of his flesh Panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi caro mea est The bread which I shall geue for the life of yâ— world is my flesh Quod si vna caro vna anima illa tristis vsque ad mortem illa panis pro mundi salute saluus est numerus duaruÌ„ substantiarum 〈◊〉 genere distantium excludens carneae animae vnicam speciem If the flesh be one and the soule an other yâ— soule sorowâ—…ui to death the flesh bread for the saluation of the world the number of two substances differring in their kinde is safe excluding the one kind of a fleshly soule If in this disputatiâ—…n we might expound flesh for the signe of flesh and being for the signe of being Tertullian by this place had not proued a reall substance of flesh sith a signe of flesh is not the substance of flesh but now as in this saying my soule sorowfull the word soule standeth for the substance of the soule so in this the bread which I will gene is my flesh the word flesh standeth for the true substance of Christes flesh Seing then Christ promiseth to geue the substance of his flesh it must nedes be that he fulfilled his promyse vndonbtedly he hath geuen vs in dede the true substance of his flesh in his last supper when he sayd Take and eate this is my body that is to say as now I haue prosâ—…d the substance of my body Thus it is proâ—… first that these words belong to the Sacrament of Christes supper Next that the word bread 〈◊〉 â—…eth Christ him self the bread of life Thirdly that if it were exâ—… for common bread yet euery way the sense should serue to proue of 〈◊〉 the true gift of Christes substance in his last supper ¶ A farther declaration of the reall presence of Christes bo dy blood taken out of the discourse of his â—…wn words concerning the different eating of him by fâ—…ith and the reâ—…auing of his fleshe and blâ—… in the Sâ—…amente of the â—…ltar MAruaile not good Reader that I stand long about a little The strength of the word of God is so greate that a fewe syllables of his can not be sufficieÌ„tly expounded by a great many bookes of any mortall maÌ„s making for God spake but one and yet Dauid heard two things to wit the power and mercy of God Whereby are vnderstanded the two hole bookes of the old and newe Testament Now I wil goe forward to shew you the plaine differerence that Christ him selfe hath set forth in this Chapiter betwene eating of him by faith and eating of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar For these two are not one as our new preachers goe about against the worde
In whom we liue are moued and haue our being Therefore the words which are called spirit and life are called in effect diuine and almighty Spirit sometyme standeth to signific the words of God as when S. Paule sayth the letter killeth the spirit quickeneth the letter in that place doth signiâ—…ie the law and the spirit doth signifie the words of our Lord as S. Basile doth expound it For Christ our Lord geueth grace to his words that they should not only signifie things as the words of the law did but also make and work the things which they signified The words that be spirit must be vnderstanded spiritually that is to say diuinely and as it becometh the words of him who is God him self whose words haue power in them selues to worke that which they betoken To vnderstand the words of Christ spiritually it behoueth we beleue them first as they sound to humble reasonable men for if we beleue not we shal not vnderstand but if we do beleue then we may be assured as S. Chrysoâ—…tom vppon this place hath writen that they conteine no naturall course but are free from al earthly necessity and from the lawes of this life Which being so when Christ taking bread and blessing saith this is my body we may not say with our selues how can this be so what other body can here be then a peece of bread which mine eye seeth and my tong tasteth If we speake after this sort we call the words of Christ from the spirit of God to the course of nature and of reason and we do not beleue them to be spirituall that is to say diuine and aboue the course of nature but we vnderstaÌ„d theÌ„ carnally loking for no miracle to be wrought by them and yet they are spirit and life able to quicken what soeuer they list they can make bread to be Christes body wine to be his blood they haue power to change natures and to worke inuisibly In a parable it is not nedefull that all things be in dede as the words doe sound but when Christes words are sayd to be spirit and life then it is declared to vs that they partake the nature of his Godhead that they worke a thing aboue our capacitie and make all that which they say Yea but say you shew me the body which they haue wrought I answer they are spirit and haue wrought a spiritual body not such as lacketh the truthe of flesh but such as through the vnion which it hath with the Godhead hath disposed the substance of flesh vnder the form of bread in such sorte as our soules are disposed within our bodies which are vndoubtedlie there but they can not be touched or felt by any sense euen so we beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread and wine because the words of Christ are spirit life albeit no scuse or reason can attein to that highe mysterie Seing then these words of promise the bread which I wil geue is my flesh be spirit and life these words of performance which after bread taken say presently this is my body must nedes be much more spirit and life yâ— is to say of diuine power to worke that which they sound Let now al heretikes ceasse to mock vs of so many miracles as we teache to be in the sacrameÌ„t of the altar for so much as Christ hath witnessed it should be a miraculouse sacrameÌ„t and aboue al course of nature as being made by words which are spirit and life Let them likewise no more abuse the name of spirit to make men beleue that Christ spake not properly sith Christ calleth his words spirit because they be so proper that they come nere to yâ— nature of the Godhead as being his words who is naturally God then the words of men are able to doe and as the Godhead is most immurable and not at al subiect to any change euen so those words which partake most of the Godhead are most vnchangeable and least figuratiue for al figuratiue speaches are changed and abused hauing the name of tropes among the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab eo quod vocabula mutantur a propria significatione in alienam figuratiue speaches are called in greake tropes that is to say chaÌ„ges because yâ— words are changed from their proper significatioÌ„ to an vnproper meaning but God is not changed nor those words be not changed froÌ„ their proper signification which God hath called spirit life but as they partake yâ— Godhead so doc they partake the proprietie of not being changed from their most accustomed meaning proper nature It is a world to see what difference there is betwene yâ— words of Christes Ghospell the interpretation of the false Ghospellers betwene the old Fathers and the new brethern betwene Catholikes Protestants Mark I pray thee good Reader the differences diligently Christ by his incarnation was made to vs the bread of life to the end we might eate his Godhead otherwise then the Fathers had done before the new brethern after the incarnation and supper of Christ wherein we should haue the Godhead geuen vs bid vs beleue vpon Christ in heauen and so to fede vpon him by faith alone as Noâ—… Abraham did Their councâ—…l is not 〈◊〉 in bidding vs sede by saith but where is yâ— Godhead 〈◊〉 by this meanes is that also receaued by faith why so it might haue bene receaued and so it was receaued before Christ was man Where is the food of Angels made the food of man where is the word of God so geuen to me after his incarnation as it could not be geuen before Where is any euerlasting meate for my body Where is the supper which may fede the whole man faith fedeth my vnderstaÌ„ding but my wil affectioÌ„ hath as much nede to be fed my flesh is rebelliouse to my spirit it hath nede to be fed my body was the meane to poyson my soule therefore my soule must haue a medicine which shal be receaued into my body and so be communicated vnto my soule S. Ireneus reproued those heretiks who because men were called in scripture spirituall denied the true resurrection of their flesh as though their spirit only should tary for euer and yet our new brethern where so euer mention is made of spirit or of a spirituall body and flesh so wrast it as though the reall substance of flesh in the Sacrament were by that word denied or diminisshed whereas it is rather increased for so much as that flesh which is spirituall is not thereby the lesse true flesh but it partaketh the more of the spirit And because a spirit once created is by the natural gift of God immortal a spiritual flesh is likewise like to the spirit in that case S. Augustine writeth that after resurrection the body shall no more haue nede of corporal
This is my body any faithfull man doubteth but that both Christ had a true naturall body which he might geue and is able to make his word true vseth to vtter no falshood And whereas Christ sayd after bread taken This is my body it is geuen vs to vnderstand that by his word he maketh that particular substaunce of bread which was taken into his hands to be his own body what cause can now be brought why we should forsake these knowen significations and seeke out other more strange The law of nature wold vs to rest in the names which we find Iradition also maketh for the same interpretation And surely these are that chief rules to know that meanig which any words may haue Epiphanius in this matter hath a notable rule saying Omnia diuina verba non habent opus allegoria sed prout se habent accipienda sunt Speculatione autem indigent sensu ad cognoscendam vniuscuiusque argumeÌ„ti vim facultatem Oportet autem traditione vti non enim omnia a diuina Scriptura accipi possunt All the words of God nede not an allegorie or a figuratiue meaning but they are to be taken as they be They require in dede a diligent obseruation and vnderstanding that the strength and power of euery matter proponed may be knowen wherein it behooueth to vse tradition For all things caÌ„ not be gathered out of the diuine writing Here is the first place geuen by Epiphanius to the naturall takiÌ„g of words for al things be not figuratiue though many be To know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consyderation and auncient tradition helpeth much Well of other helpes hereafter Now let this be graunted that the first rule of all maketh for the Catholikes Which is that euery word and speache as long as the contrary is not manifestly proued is to be taken as it commonly doth signifie According to the which rule these words of Christ This is my body and This is my blood affirme the reall presence of Christes body and blood as now it shal be shewed ¶ The proper signification of these words This is my body and This is my blood is that the substance of Christes body and blood is couteyned vnder the visible formes of bread and wine WHen the Paschall Lamb was eaten and the Disciples feete washed Christ by taking bread into his hands declared him self to be disposed to vse it for some one purpose or other by blessing and thanksgeuing ouer it we are informed he wold make some diuine mysterie of that bread And when he began to make the mysterie saying this is and ended it adding thereto my body we lern by the two first words this is that his mysterie consisteth not of bread and of his body but of one substance only which was declared to be so really intended as well in his mind as at his tongs end that hauing once named what it was to wit my body no maÌ„ aliue might doubt but either he both in word and dede made a false signification which is with all true Catholikes a thing without al possibilitie or els that it was in dede so as his words of blessing and of saying This is my body witnessed And for asmuch as his word affirmed this to be his body and his dede of taking bread and of blessing shewed his words to be directed vnto yâ— which was in his hand or lay before him which was bread before it must nedes be that the pronoun this so shewed to his Apostles the thing already subiect vnto their eyes that much more it serued to teache their vnderstanding verily this which appeared to them bread to be in substance at the ending of the words his own body Therefore we teache the pronoun this to serue both to the eyes and to the vnderstanding of the Apostles to their eyes in pointing to the foorm of bread which they saw to their vnderstanding in teaching that substance which was present vnder that they saw to be his own body streight when it was so named And in so much as the same forme of bread tarieth after coÌ„secration which was there before the pronoun this doth allwayes direct their eyes to one and the same forme of wheaten bread which was there when Christ tooke it first and also it insinuateth to their vnderstanding that they must looke by the nonn that foloweth the verb to know what proprietie or substance that visible thing hath And seing the noun which cometh after is not the name of a qâ—…alitie or proprietie but the name of a substance and of such a substance as before was not present Without all question these words This is my body haue according to the proper custom of speache this meaning The substance which is conteyned vnder this forme of bread and vnder the accidents the which I shew you is the substance of my body Whereof it foloweth that the same thing is no longer the substance of bread and consequently therevnto that the substance of the bread is by the word of Christ changed into the substance of his body And likewise when Christ sayd This is my blood the sense is The substance which is conteined vnter the forme of wine which you sensibly perceaue to be in this cuppe is my blood or is the substance of my blood Which interpretation is so true that Christ hath forced vs to seeke it out in causing S. Luke and S. Paule to write This chalice is the new Testament in my blood For of necessitie we must interpret these words This chalice that is to say the thing conteined inthis chalice is my blood As therefore This in na ming the chalice doth serue to shew the place compasse within which I must looke for that substance which afterward is defined to be the blood of Christ euen so this being spoken of the bread which was taken into Christes hands doth first point vnto the eye within what circuit or quantitie the mind shal seke for that substance or proprietie which afterward the mouth of Christ wil declare and when the name is once heard it sheweth it to be that substance of Christes body Out of which discourse we may gather two conclusions The one that this beginneth most naturally with the sense of man The other that it with the rest of that speache informeth the vnderstanding of more then the eye saw To the sense it sheweth yâ— outward formes to the vnderstaÌ„diÌ„g it sheweth prâ—…cipally the inward substaÌ„ce vnder those formes Now looke by how many degrees the inward substance doth passe the outward formes and the end of the talk doth passe the beginning thereof by so many the pronoun this rather apperteyneth to the substantiue body wherein it endeth then to the formes within the which it goeth about to shew an invisible substance Which being so Hoc this is in Latin of the neuter gender because the noune
substantiue corpus body wherevnto it hasteneth is of the neuter gender And in the consecration of the blood Hic this of certeintie is the masculine gender because sanguis blood whereto it belongeth is of the masculine gender Thus the literall sense of Christes words is declared which ought to be taken for true vntill the contrarie be proued But this propriety of words standing as it ought to stand marke that whensoeuer any Catholike sayth The substance of Christes body and blood to be vnder the formes of bread and wine he speaketh not any other thing then the natural and proper signification of Christes words doth geue For as he that pointing to that kind of beast which an other cometh to learne sayeth This is an Oelephant in effect sayth The substance of an Oelephant is contemed vnder this visible forme So Christ hauing taken bread and saying This is my body sayeth in effect the substance of my body is conteined vnder the forme of this bread Only this oddes is betwene Christes naming and ours that we either must name the thing by his former substance or proprietie or els we make a lye But Christ by 〈◊〉 one thing the name of an other geueth it also the substance thereof whensoeuer he speaketh not in parables but in the way of doing some good turn for he being God as easily calleth things which are not as those which are and by his calling he maketh them to be as he nameth them and not as them selues were ¶ That the pronoun this in Christes wordes can point neither to bread nor to wine SEing Christ in his last supper assigneth none other substaÌ„ce to this and this besyde the substance of body and blood and yet the Sacramentaries will not graunt so muche I ask them for as muche as although it were so that his words did mean an accidentall token of his body and blood that token must be grounded in some substance or other I ask them what substance is pointed vnto as wherein the figure of Christes body and blood may by their iudgement consist when Christ saith this is my body and this is my blood is any substance included in those words or none at all yf none this may not be sayd to be any particular nature at all for yf it be any certain thing consisting by it self it is a substance if it be in any other thing it may be an accident and qualitie but Christ saith not this is in my body but this is my body Admit now that he meant this doth signifie my body yet this that doth so signifie must be sumwhat or other I aske what this thing is which you say doth signifie or shadow Christes body you must nedes say it is bread and wine and therefore you must expound it this bread signifieth my body this wine signifieth my blood This interpretation of yours can not be true For this wil not agree with bread or wine neither in greeke nor in latin For hoc in latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek is of the neuter gender but panis in latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke is of the masculine gender therefore hoc this doth neither in greeke nor in latin agree with bread likewise hic in latin is of the masculine gender vinum wine is of the newter and contrarie wise in greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the newter gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine is of the masculine gender therefore this nother in greeke nor in latine can be referred to wine Now to say hoc this thing vnderstanding which is bread is to correct the words of Christ as though he had sayd hoc quod est panis est corpus meum this which is bread is my body yet if it had bene so sayd the sense must haue bene thus the substance of bread doth signifie the body of Christ. for that thing which is bread is to say the substance of bread which if it were so euery substance of bread should be the signe of Christes body because that which the substance of one loafe is the substance of an other loaf is also in the same kind consequently whensoeuer any man eateth any substaÌ„ce of bread without examining himself he is giltie of the body of Christ. Again when it were sayd hic est sanguis meus hic being of the masculine gender could not be expounded by hoc quod est vinuÌ„ this thing which is wine for it standeth not neutrally to signifie this thing but only agreeth with the noune blood which foloweth after when it is sayd this is my blood The pronoun is put in the same case gender and number whereof the substance is wherevnto it pointeth as when Christ sayd hic est haeres this is the heire hic this is of the masculine gender aswell as the noune substaÌ„tiue hâ—…res an heire hâ—…c est hora vestra this is your hower As hower is of the femine gender so is the pronoun haec this hoc est opus Dei this is the worke of God as opus worke is of the neuter gender so is the pronoune hoc that But when Christ tooke bread blessed he pointed not to bread by the pronoune this as to the substance which should remaine at the end of his whole talke for bread is of the masculine gender both in greke and latine Again let vs consyder that it is all one to say hoc est corpus meum and haec est caro mea in so much that S. Cyprian rehearseth the words of Christes supper by these words haec est caro mea where haec being the feminine gender doth only agree with caro flesh and not with panis bread which is neither of the neuter gender that hoc may agree with nor of the feminine thaâ—… haec may be referred to it but only of yâ— masculine gender Therefore if Christ had pointed finally to bread he must hane sayd neither hoc est corpus nor haec est caro but hic est corpus meum vnderstanding to hic the substantiue panis and in Greke it should haue bene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English this is of all geÌ„ders and therefore it can not be exemplified in our barbarous tong which thereby appereth not so mete to haue the word of God handled literally in it as the lerned tongs are although it is able enoughe to receaue an interpretation of Gods word But it is much like as if one pointing to a man called Laurence should say she is Laurence or her is Laurence which is as good english among the Brytons as hoc panis and hic vinuÌ„ is good latine among the Sacramentaries Thus make they the wisedome of God to speake at this time who say that the pro noune this determineth and pointeth to bread as to a thing that still remaineth in his old substance whereas bread is of
noun body rather then in the verb est is for which cause Oecolampadiâ—…s admitted aswell the one as the other making no difference whether est is stand for significat to signifie or corpus body for signum corporis the signe and figure of yâ— body so that the reall presence might be taken away But as I haue now proued out of the word of God seing yâ— body is pointed vnto which died the true substance it self died for vs the true substaÌ„ce is pointed vnto vnder the form of bread and so pointed vnto that none other coÌ„struction of those words can be made for if corpus body doth not stand properly when it is ioyned with the verb est is it is not possible that it standeth properly as it is the noun substaÌ„tiue to the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or as it is antecedent to the relatiue quod which In dede if Christ had sayd expresâ—…ie this is the figure of my body it might wel haue folowed the which body is truly geuen for you for of the two antecedents the relatiue might haue bene referred to the next But now there is but one antecedent in all and it is taken vnproperlie as the Sacramentaries say therefore in that vnproper signification it must be antecedent to the relatiue folowing all the grammarians in Christendom can find none other construction of these words If the Sacramentaries can excuse the matter let them bring it to light ¶ The xix Circumstance of the verb facere to doe or make or to offer sacrifice ALthough the verb facere doth signifie most generally all making and doing yet because the most excellent dede that can be made is to offer a true internal and external sacrifice vnto God therefore it is come to passe that facere in his most principall signification is vsed somtimes to signifie the offering of a sacrifice neither doth it skill whether it stand alone or be ioyned with an other word in the accusatiue or in the ablatiue case for it is the circumstance of dedes and words which principallie make it so to signifie That facere in this place doth betoken the offering of a sacrifice it appereth by al the circumstances of the supper first in that Christ hath now in the fourtenth day of the first moue at euening tyde begonthe blessed sacrifice of his passion next he hath offered the old â—…aschal Lamb the cheef sacrifice of the law thirdly he hath taken bread and wine the materiall parte of the sacrifice of Melchisedech fourthly he blesseth geueth thaÌ„ks externally to God in a fact wherein he consecrateth his own body the only sacrifice of mankind yea farther he so consecrateth it yâ— he douted not to say ouer yâ— bread this is my body which is geuen for you straight vpon which words he addeth hoc facite doe ye or makâ—… ye this thing Whâ—…t other sense now can this verb haue but doe that I haue done who now haue exercised my priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech So did S. Cyprian take this verb facere when he said of this verie matter Iesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster Ipse est sum mus sacerdos Dei patris sacrificium Deo patri ipse primus obtulit hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit Iesus Christ our Lord and our God him self is the highhest preist of God yâ— Father and first hath offered sacrifice vnto God the Father and hath commaÌ„ded the same to be done for the remembrance of him If Christ offered sacriâ—…ice and commaÌ„ded the same to be done he commanded sacrifice to be offered of his Apostles and therefore it foloweth in S. Cyprian coâ—…cerning a priest of the new Testament sacrificium verum plenum tunc oâ—…ert in ecclesia Deo patri si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse he then offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the Church if he so begin to offer according as he may see Christ him self to haue offered If now Christ hath willed his Apostles to offer that which he hath offered it is most certain that Christ offered none other thing in the whole earth besyde his own body the which he toke to offer to God in stede of al other oblations as Dauid S. Paule say therefore that body of his he both offered himself and willed his Apostles to offer it but what soeuer he offered in his last supper he had it in his hands or vpon the table before him and gaue it vnder the forme of bread and wine to his Apostles therefore the reall substance of Christes body and blood was vnder the sayd formes that it might so be offered vnto God according as Melchisedech had before signified This argument were able to receaâ—…e a great deale of matter but it wold be aboue the cumpasse of a circumstance ¶ The xx Circumstance of the pronoun hoc this thing CHrist sayd not only facite doe ye or make ye but hoc facite doe ye make ye this thing The which words as they coÌ„maund bread to be takeÌ„ blessing breaking geuing taking and eating to be vsed and the words of Christ to be duely pronounced so beyond all these things they commaund one speciall thing to be made which is the body of Christ. for none other thing in all the supper can particularly discharge and fulfill those words besyde the body of Christ. As for bread wine they be not commaunded to be made â—…ith they were made before the supper began taking blessing breaking eating partly are not this one thing but manie things partly they be not such as may be in all degrees repeted done so as the precept of doing or making this thing requireth For the taking and breaking of other bread is yâ— doing of a like thing to this whiche Christ hath done not the doing or making this thing But Christ said not sic facite doe so as I haue done but hoc facite do or make this thing If we shal kepe the propriety of Christes words the meaning must nedes be make this body of mine For he sayd this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing which this thing but that only thing whiche was named for none other special thing or substance was named besyde the body of Christ. Hoc is the neuter gender and either it must be referred to the noune cor pus body as to his substantiue which went before and the sense is facite corpus meum make my body and so doth Haimo construe it or els it must stand substantiuely and so it meaneth this thing that is to say the thing which is the body of Christ. I doe not without great cause stand so long about euery litle word I know the tergiuersation of them that missexpound the word of God who altâ—…ough they will soâ—…er be confounded then amended yet
very same that is put to death for you but concerning the true vine he saith As the braunche can not beare fruit vnlesse it be in the vine so can not we beare fruit except we tary in him The particles as and so be words of similitude and not of substance Behold how he is a vine by a similitude and by a metaphor by an exaÌ„ple by hauing a like propriety towards vs as the vine hath towards his owne braunches These be other manner of circumstances for the pithy and plaine setting forth of his reall body vnder the form of bread theÌ„ you can bring any to make so much as an apparence that Christ should be a vine And is yet the one with you so plaine so pithy as the other To what case would you bring the words this is my body if your power were to your will S. Iustinus the Martyr calleth them words of praier because they were spoken with thankesgeuing S. Chrysostom words which consecrate the things set forth because they make a Sacrament of yâ— bread and wine S. Ambrose calleth them words of blessing and a speache which worketh because they are spoken with the intent of working that they souÌ„d S. Augustine nameth them a mystical praier of consecrating of vowing or offering because they consecrate vow and offer vnto God the substance of bread and wine to theâ—…d it being accepted of him may be made the body of Christ our only sacrifice wherein the oblations of the new law must end You making these words no more pithy theÌ„ I am the true vine would haue them worke no more then metaphorical words do work which is to say that they teach only a comfortable doctrine but worke no essentiall thing in the substance of bread whiche is set forth to be consecrated Christ after his body was consecrated sayd to his Apostles Make this thing for the remembrance of me but after the wordes of the true vine were spoken he bad no thing to be doâ—… or made for any purpose or effect The making of Christes body was eâ—…r accompted a greate sacrifice as the greeke Liturgies and latine â—…bookes delare but there neuer was hard of auy vine that was in that opinion among the faithfull The words which consecrate Christes blood shew likewise what is to be thought of this is my body but the true vine is not so conâ—…d by any other like consecration annexed The blood is pointed vnto within a cup or chalice declaring the body also to haue bene pointed vnto vnder the form of bread but the vine was not so limited within a certaine place where it might appere to any sense of the Apostles It is called the blood of the new tostament or the new testament in Christes blood the like addition is not made to yâ— true vine The very cup of Christes supper is said to be shed for vs because the blood is conteined in it which was only shed for vs yâ— like is not said of any thing wherein yâ— vine might be conteined The wordes of Christes supper be so playne and so pithy that if we take them not as they sound the pronoâ—…nes hoc and hic shall lacke theyr noune substantiue The verbe est is being once taken for significat shall haue no substantiue at all to be his nominatiue case The noune corpus body being expounded for the figure of Christes body shall not agree with his participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or els the relatiue quod which shall not agree with his antecedent corpus body except we defend a figure of Christ to haue bene crucified for vs. None of all these things compell vs to take these wordes I am the true vine in suche sorte There is no pronoune no Relatiue or Participle which may so restrain the nature of the wordes but that we may take Christes kind of being the true vine for hauing the qualitie of a true vine and not being any vine in a seuerall substance Three Euangelists haue writen This is my body one after an other confirming the propriety of the words but only S. Ihon wrote that Christe said I am the true vine Nowe that is not so plainly said whereof four men write conformably as that which one writeth alone For if an other had writen the parable of the vine perhaps he would haue added other words to haue made it plainer although it be plaine enough already For the honour of these wordes This is my body Churches and Altars haue bene builded where that blessed body might be coÌ„secrated vnder the forme of bread For any vine I neuer thinke the like to haue bene done You your selues allow at the least a square table where this is my body may be solemnly pronounced but not so for these words I am the true vine The body whereof Christ spake hath bene taught to be adored vnder the forme of bread by S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine all the Fathers You are the first M. Nowell who would either a vine to be adored equally with Christes body or els his body to be no more adored in the Sacrament of the altar then a parabolicall vine For to that end your words runne that as wel Christ should be a vine as that whereof he spake in his supper should be his body to say that his body is only present in a parable at Christes supper S. Chrysostom calleth these words I am the true vine a parable and theresore saith Quid vult haec parabola significare what will this parable meane And againe Vide quà m diligenter hanc parabolom exequitur See how diligently he prosecuteth this parable But thought he trow you that This is my body was likewise a parable No no it neuer was his minde For writing vpoÌ„ these words Take eate this is my body and hauing asked why the disciples were not troubled hearing that thing he aunswereth Quia multa iam magna de hoc anteà disseruit because Christ hath disputed of this thing many and great things before Where no dout at al can be but that S. Chrysostom meaneth the the disputation kept at Capharnaum where Christ promised the bread whiche is his flesh affirming his fleshe to be not only true meate but to be meat truely therein shewing that it is meat not only concerning the truth of nourishing but also concerning the mancâ—… of caâ—…ing it vpon whiche place S. Chrysostome writeth that Christe called his fleshe truely meate either because it is the true meate which saueth the soule or to confirme them in his former sayings ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scâ—…rent omnino necessarium esse vt corpus comederent least they should thinke him to haue spoken darkly in parables but should know it to be by all meanâ—…s necessary thaâ—… they should eate his
coming of his grace into our hartes His grace can not come except we first be made mete to receaue it but his body may come to our bodies so may condemne our soules before that we are made mete to receaue it His grace therefore must come first to vs by faith and charitie that we may thereby haue power to receaue worthely afterward his blessed body least if we receaue it vnworthely we take it to our damnation But so great preparation should not be requisite if our bodies receaued none other substance besyde bread and wine for they are of baser degree then eating by faith is But now we may somtime absteine from the Sacrament euen for honour and reuerence whiche we beare to it and yet we may not absteine from eating by faith or spirite Therefore it is a worthier kind of substance which is receaued in the SacrameÌ„t then the grace is which is the effect of spirituall eating And seing it should not be a worthier thing if it were the substance of bread and wine we may be assured the substance of the Sacrament to be that selfe body whereof the Centurion sayd Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roof It is the honour of that body whiche S. Paul and S. Augustine respect and not the honour of bread and wine in so much that the faithfull as well in the Greke as in the Latin Churche haue vsed alwaâ—…s the very same wordes in adoring the Sacracrament whiche the Centurion vsed to Christ. one praier to one Lord the same reuerence to the same God and man ¶ That the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ did adore the body and blood of Christe in the Sacrament of the altar DIonysius Areopagita scholer to S Paule made a praier to the Sacrament of the Altar in these wordes Sed ô tu diuinum sanctumque Sacramentum c. but o thou diuine and holy Sacrament open and display clerely to vs as it were the veyles and clokes wherewith thorough the signes of obscurities thou art couered and fill the eyes of our vnderstanding with suche clere light as may no more be dymmed Thus did that auncient Father pray not to bread and wine ye may be sure but to that blessed body of our Lord which is present in the mysteries Upon whiche place Pachymeres noteth that S. Dionisius speaketh vnto the Sacrament as being a thig which hath sense and life and that worthely For so the greate diuine Gregory saith But o passouer that great I say and holy passouer For that our passouer and this self holy Sacrament our Lord Iesus Christ him self is to whoÌ„ the holy man spâ—…aketh Lo this selfe holy Sacrament is Christ. And as nothing in the world is our great and holy passouer besyde Christ him selfe so this holy Sacrament hath none other substance at all besyde the substance of Iesus Christ who couereth him selfe as it were with the veyles of bread and wine As you haue heard the most direct wordes of S. Dionysius adoring this blessed mystery and of Pachymeres geuing the reason why he did speake vnto it as the which is Christe him selfe now you shal perceaue that all the other Fathers did beleue the same in so much as all men will graunt that they must needes adore that thing which they confessed to be either Christ or God or one in person with the sonne of God S. â—…yprian writing of the Sacrament of Christes supper saith In sacrificio quod Christus est non nisi Christus sequendus est In the sacrifice which is Christ only Christ must be followed It is knowâ—…ll well what sacrifice we offer how we take bread and wine coÌ„secrating them by the wordes of the last supper wherein it was said This is my body and this is my blood doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me This consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is our sacrifice and because Christ is not diuided nor dieth any more but where his body and blood is there him selfe is therefore S. Cyprian saieth Our sacâ—…ifice is Christ. Neither doth he speake of the death and passion where Christ was our sacrifice bloodily but he speaketh of the sâ—…pper of our Lord where we daily sacrifice Christ vnbloodily For he speaketh of yâ— matter of coÌ„secration which he saith must be wine mingled with water and not water alone because Christ made his owne blood of wine mingled with water Now saith S. Cyprian In the sacrifice which is Christ none must be followed but Christ. If our sacrifice be Christ because of bread and wine which we bring foorth the body and blood of Christ is made by his word is it possible that Christe should not be worshipped of S. â—…yprian with godly honour If Christ be so worshipped and our sacrifice be Christ our sacrifice must be worshipped with Godly honour our sacrifice I say because the thing that is made by coÌ„secration is none other besyde that body of Christe which is the price of the world and the only sacrifice for mankinde The same thing S. Ambrose saith euen as expressie of the Sacrament which S. Cyprian speaketh of the sacrifice In illo SacrameÌ„to Christus est quia corpus Christi in that Sacrament Christe is because it is the body of Christe To the same purpose apperteine the words of S. Ignatius calling this Sacrament the bread of God the heauenly bread the bread of life which thing saith he is the flesh of Christe the Sonne of God And of S. Ambrose calling it the nourishment of the diuine substance And of Eusebius Pamphili calling it Sacrificium Deo plenum And againe horroreÌ„ afferentia mensae Christi sacrificia a sacrifice full of God and the sacrifices of the table of Christe making men to tremble and quake And of Cyrillus saying those that receaue those mysteries to be made diuinae naturae participes Partakers of the diuine nature And again corporaliter in nobis Christum habitare participatione naturali that by these mysteries Christe dwelleth in vs corporally and by naturall partaking And of Isychius calling the same mysteries the bread of life panes mysticos viuificantes and mysticall loaues and those which quicken vs to life euerlasting And is it to be thought that Christ that the bread of God of life the diuine substance the sacrifice full of God which maketh men tremble quake that yâ— mysteries which cause Christe corporally to dwell in vs yâ— the nature of God whereof we are partakers by eating that the Sacrament of Christes supper being al this yet should not haue godly honour done to it Did al the Fathers who wrote thus of that mysterie honour and worship it according to their own doctrine and writings If all they and al the rest did professe that which was vpon yâ— table of Christ
shewed a litle before that they were after consecration the body and blood of Christ. Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the body and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his body blood and so they are beleued to be and are adored or â—…neled bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the body and blood of Christ No Syr. but as being in dede the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstaÌ„ded and beleued to be They are adored because they are the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were verè existeÌ„tia quae creduntur being in dede things whiche they are beleued to be So speaketh S. Ihon saying of Christ vidimus gloriam eius gloriaÌ„ quasi vnigeniti à patre we saw his glory a glory as of the only begotten of the Father to wit we saw the glory of him being in dede the only begotten of his Father Uppon which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that coÌ„firmeth and betokeneth an vndouted determination as when we see a king comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a king that is to say he came forth as being in dede a king So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Thedorite vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speak The holy mysteries are adored as being those things in dede which they are beleued to be This place is such as can not be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or geuing godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is in dede the body of Christ as it is beleued to be But it is beleued to be the body of Christe after consecration therefore it is adored as being yâ— true body of Christ. For Theodorete before hauing confessed the mysteries to be called after consecration the body and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther doest thou beleue that thou receauest the body and blood of Christ he answered to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I doe beleue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mystical signes to be in deede after consecration the body and bâ—…ood of Christ which they are beleued to be and so beleued that they are receaued of vs. Euery word must be weighed because we haue to do with Heretikes who must find shifts or els theyr deceite will appere to al the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the body and blood Secondly that the mysteries are vnderstanded to be the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleued to be so Fiâ—…tly they are adored for that they are in dede those things which they are beleued to be And last of all they are receaued The first saying the second and the last the Sacramentaries can beare â—…ithall to wit that they are called the body and blood and are vnderstanded to be the body and blood and that the body and blood are receaned For they would haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a myssecaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name SecoÌ„dly they would haue them vnderstanded to be the body and blood and yet not to be so thereby shewing that they delight in false vnderstandings for no good men would haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which in deede it is not Againe they would the body blood to be receaued How trow you In the faith of the man but not in the truth of the body thereby declaring that they diuide faith from truth as men that haue a presuasion of things that in dede be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receauing Theodoret ioyneth also beleuing adoring and being And the beleâ—…e which he speaketh of is not referred to heaueÌ„ but vnto the holy mysteries They are beleued they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be The thing that is called or named Christes body blood is in dede that thing whiche it is called Christ can missename nothing at al. For if he should call that which were before aier water or earth by the names of fier stones or bread aier earth and water would soner cease to be fyre bread stones would come in theyr place theÌ„ God should cal any creature by a wroÌ„g name He called bread his body therefore bread is vnderstaÌ„ded to be made the body of Christ. You say the vnderstaÌ„ding of man taketh his beginning of senses which tel me it is bread I say in matters belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth me it is the body of Christ and Theodorete saith it is beleued so to be and it is worshipped for that it is so And he geueth the same very word of worshipping to the holy mysteries the which in the same sentence he geueth to the immortall body of Christ sitting at the right hande of his Father And no wonder For seing it is one body whether it be worshipped in heauen or vpon the altar one worship is always due to it Thus we haue witnessed by Theodoretus that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his body aad blood but as being in dede his body and blood Therefore worship is not geuen to them as to images whiche represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really conteine the truth represented by them ¶ The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is proued by the custom of the Priests and people of the first six hundred yeres FRom the Apostles tyme to this day the very same holy mysteries which were consecrated by the Priest vppon the altar were adored of the saithful people which thing is euidently proued out of the Massebooke of the primitiue Church For the Liturgies or Massesbookes of S. Iames the Apostle of S Clement Bishop of Rome of S. Basill Bishop of Cesarea of S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and the exposition which both S. Dionysius Bishop of Athens of Paris Cyrillus Bishop of Hierusalem Germanus Bishop of Constantinoplâ—… Maximus the munk and diuers others haue made vpon the holy mysteries do al with one accord teache and confirme that first the Deacon said Let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence And straight therevppon euen before the tyme of receauing the body and blood of Christ the Bishop or Priest who said Masse
signifie most properlie Iuel Besy de these figures they haue imagined many moe Sand. We haue imagined none but we teache as we receaued But wil you geue me leaue M. Iuel to repete a few of your figures or of your absurd doctrines in this behalfe and then let the discrete reader iudge who doth more contumelie to Gods words you or we 1. First ye ioyne together this bread otherwise then the Ghospell hath don where it is not sayd this bread is my body but this is my body 2. Ye haue don it cleaue against the Ghospell for hoc this is of the newter gender but panis bread is of the masculine gender 3. You haue iterated the same fault in ioyning hic this being of the masculine gender to vinum wine being of the â—…ter gender 4. You haue diuided the pronoun this both 〈◊〉 the body and blood of Christ with which substantiues only it may agree in right construction 5. You expound the same pronoun somtime for bread somtime for the body when ye say this is my body are words of promise For I dare say you meane not that bread is promised to any maÌ„ If theÌ„ the body be promised by these words this is my body as Caluin your homilies say doutlesse in that interpretation this doth appertein to the body and not to bread 6. Est is you expound for significat it doth signifie and that without any example For that verb In this is my body standeth not betwene two seueral natures as in these words the rock was Christ but it only 〈◊〉 meth one substance of Christes body 7. You take the very same verb est is properly referring it to the body of Christ which 〈◊〉 euery maus hart you consecrate by preaching these words this is my body as Caluin teacheth 8. Some other of you will haue the verb est alwaies to stand properly euen in respect of the bread because it is a signe of Christes body and in dede it must nedes stand so for you know that the verb substaÌ„tiue is nâ—…cessarily eyther expressed or supplied in euery propositioÌ„ in so much yâ— these words this doth signifie my body must be resolued this is signifying my body 9. When the verb est is in greeke is left out by S. Luke ye supplie it by force of common vse which leaueth out that verb as being easye to be vnderstanded and when you haue supplied it you cast it out again as though it were superfluouse 10. The â—…oun body you take properlie when you haue taken est for significat 11. The same noun you take vnproperlie for the figure of Christes body when est is taken properlie 12. You expound the relatiue quod which so as it can not agree with his antecedent and with the verb solowing together for when body is taken for the signe or figure of body as you take it most commonly and therein pretend to folow Tertullian S. 〈◊〉 then the relatiue which must nedes repete his antecedent in his whole sense and so the sense is This is the figure of my body the which figure of my body is geueÌ„ for you Now as you will say this is the figure of Christes body wherof he sayd this is my body so you can not say that the sâ—…gure of Christes body is geuen for vs. Thus quod the which standeth betwene corpus body and datur is geuen in such sort that it can not agree with both except ye say with Marcion that a figure is geuen or offered vp to God for vs. 13. Datur is geuen you expound dabitur it shal be geuen denying that it is presently true that it is geuen at the supper We say it is geuen at the supper shall be geuen also vpon the crosse not denying one truthe by an other 14. You expound facite â—…oe ye only whereas it is also make ye we graunt both ye denie the one sense 15. Hoc ye English this expound it in your homilies thus do ye as if it were sayd fic or ità do ye so or do ye thus whereas the true English is this thing 〈◊〉 In meam commemorationeÌ„ ye english in the remembrance of me whereas in with an accusatiue case doth signifie rather for the remembrance of me as we say in meam gratiam fac hoc doe this thing for my sake and nâ—…t in my sake 17. When you haue expounded est is for significat to signifie then remaineth the pronoun hic this in the confecration of the blood without a noun substantine For Hic significat sanguinem meum can haue at all no substantiue with whom it may agree in case and gender sanguinem is the accusatiue case and vinum is the neuter gender 18. If in these words this cup is the new Testament in my blood ye take the noun blood for the signe of my blood the new Testament is established in a figure of blood and so is worse theÌ„ the old which was established in true blood of oxen 19. If there you take the name of blood properly and without a figure likewise in these words this is my blood of the new TestameÌ„t it must stand properly which is against your doctrine 20. The construction of these words this cup is shed for you in S. Lukes words doth import this sense The thing with in this cup is shed for you but you say the thing within the cup is winâ—… therefore you teache wine to be shed for vs. but we teache the thing in the cup to be reall blood therefore we teache blood to be shed for vs. 21. When Christ sayed the bread which I wil geue is my flesh You so expound I will geue that it meaneth also I haue geuen and I do geue For you take it spoken only of a spirituall geuing which was both past and present and therein ye breake the nature of the word 22. In S. Paule the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body you expound signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paule distinâ—…eth our Sacraâ—…ent from theirs 23. The cup of blessing which we blesse you will haue to be a cup of wine still as though the blessing wrought nothing in it For if it work any thing it worketh the blood which at the consecration is affirmed present 24. You make Christ geue thanks to his Father in beginning the state of the new Testament in better words then dedes for his words be this is my body Yet you will haue him in dede to offer no body at all to his Father in that thanksgeuing but bare bread and wine still to remain 25. You teache Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to geue externally that is to say to our mouthes bodies lesse then Moyses For Manna was better then common bread and a gist more
Custom The vse of Gods church The adoration of Christes body A new heresie in PoolelaÌ„d Circumâ—… of them selâ—…s Tertull. de prae scriptioÌ„ aduersus haeretic One chaÌ„ge only could be in religioÌ„ Iacob 1. Heb. 11. A teacher of new doctrine is not to be heard Berenga rius preached a new doctrine The Sacramentaries can haue no ground of their doctrine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The honour of God The profite of the faithfull Lucae 6. Lucae 8. Two cau ses of spea king figuratiâ—…ly Aug. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. cap 10. The proper sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nother agaâ—… the 〈◊〉 nor good maners We can neuer be sure that Christ spake figu ratiuely The ii Chapiter Wordes are to be taken as they do properly signifie Tertull. de carne Christi Things must be beleued aâ—… they are named Li. 67. de leg 3. The names vsed at Christes supper are to be kept This is body my EpiphaÌ„ lib. 2. to 1. haer 61. TraditioÌ„ is to be re spected in exposiding holy scriptures The iiâ—… Chapiter Ioan. 13. This can be said but of one substance Christes words directed to the bread The streÌ„gth of the pronoun this The prâ—…per sense of Christes wordes TransubstantiatioÌ„ 1. Co. 11. Luc. 22. hoc this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the noune body Christes naming to making Rom. 4. The 〈◊〉 Chapiter The optmoÌ„ of the protestants The substance of bread is not pomted vnto 1. Co. 11. Mat. 21. Luc. 22. Ioan. 6. This and bread be not of one gender CypriaÌ„ de coena Domini not farre from the beginning This in English is of all genders The v. Chapiter This doth not stand to signifie many things All the doings be not pointed vnto 1. Co. 10. 1. in Apo. 2. 2. in Or. cathech 3. li. 4. de Sacram. 4. depro dit lud 5. contr Faust. li. 20. ca. 13. epi. 59. Breaking is not poin ted vnto Of S. Iames. Of S. 〈◊〉 Of S. Chrysost. Of S. Chrysost. Eating or drinkig is not alone pointed vnto 1. Cor. 10 The body or blood is only pointed vnto The brea king The taking The eating Luc. 22. The geuing The vi Chapiter Theop. â—… Math. 26 In Marc. 14. This doth mean particular ly this eatable thiâ—… The vii Chapiter 1. Cor. 11 The obiecion The aunswere 1. The Cha lice 2. The chalice expouÌ„ ded in holy scripture 3. The chalice by vse of speakig signifieth the drinke in it 4. This cha lice where in liquor is knoweÌ„ to be can not make the speach obscure 5. Matt. 16. The word ioâ—…ned with the name of 〈◊〉 maketh aâ—… plaâ—… 6. Luc. 22. 7. 26. 14. 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 is â—…amed The 〈◊〉 Chapiter Ioan. 15. 1. Cor. 10 Uniuersal consent is a way to knowe figuratiue speaches 〈◊〉 dore The dore Chiâ—…ore Ezec. c. 5 The circuÌ„ stance of yâ— speache is to be considered Aug. lib. quaest 83 q. 69. The intâ—…t of the author in this chapi ter Ioan. 1. 14. God Ioan. 6. Sent 〈◊〉 flesh To men that were flesh Rom. 12. Col. 2. Promiseth flesh Geueth flesh He is to be beleued Euseb. homil 5. in pasch Men speake most ware ly toward their death 1. Co. 11. Aug. ep 118. ad Ia nuar. Christ 〈◊〉 not bethought lesse discrete in his words then other men wold 〈◊〉 The Apostles haue 〈◊〉 Christes words to vs without any mentioÌ„ of a figure Math. 13. Parableâ—… hide the truth in part Math. 13. Ioan. 6. Leo in serm de pass do Exo. 12. 1. Cor. 5. Ioan. 1. Ireneus lib. 4. ca. 32. Leo de pass do serm 7. Heb. 7. Ioan. 1. Lucae 22. Chryso in Math. ho. 83. Christ did not eaâ—… his own flesh by faith but in dede Hom. 83. Psal. 77. The old Lamb was not desired for his own sake Psal. 49. Malac. 1. Tertul. l. 4. aduer Marcio Chryso in Ps. 37. Chryso in Math. hom 82. 83. Ioan. 13. In fine di lexit eos Chrys. hom 61. ad Anti. Chrys. 1. Cor. homi 24. great loue cauleth yâ— greatest gifâ—…s Ioan. 13. Dionys. de Eccl. Hierar cap. 3. Hieron in Math. 26. Luc. 22. Why the bread of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yâ— of 〈◊〉 Luc 22. Niceph. li. 1. 〈◊〉 Eccles. cap 28. Damasc. de orth fi lib. 4. cap 14. Gal. 4. Hebr. 11. Psal. 22. Prou. 9. Leuit. 24 Christos supper is vpon the table it self If yâ— table be râ—…ll muche more the meate Luc. 6. The bread â—… Christ toke was already ha lowed The 〈◊〉 of Christes supper is made in bread and wine Gen. 14. Leuit. 1. 2. c. Al things that be sacrificed be changed Matth. 5. Cypr. ad Caecil li. 2. epi. 3. Blessing Psal. 148 Ioan. 6. Marc. 6. Luc. 24. The blessing of god is a doing The word blessing sheweth yâ— intent of Christ. Amb. de ijs qui init mys cap. 9. Cyril li. 4. in IoaÌ„ c. 16. 17. 19. lib. 11. ca. 22. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. Nysse in orat cathechet Amb. de ijs qui init ca. 9. Blessing Thanks 〈◊〉 Iustin. in Apol. 2. Euchar. The best kind of thanks True words be most thaÌ„k full â—…ren lib. 4. ca. 34 Theod. Dial. 3. The order of doing and speaking 1. Cor. 10 Christes supper diuided into 〈◊〉 and wordâ—… Manna Exod. 16 Hieron aduersus Iouinia lib. 2. Ephes. 4. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12 1. Cor. 11 Hieron aduersus Iouinia lib. 2. Homil. 〈◊〉 in Pasch. Ignatius ad Phila delphien 〈◊〉 In Theo 〈◊〉 Eccles. 1. Cor 10 The one bread to Christ who 〈◊〉 breaking 〈◊〉 whole 1. Cor. 10 Christ gaue with his hands Ioan. 6. The meat of Christes supper came from his hands 26. 14. 22 1. Cor. 11 Christes gift in S. 〈◊〉 is meant of an externall gift The Sacramentaries can not 〈◊〉 when Christ ful filled his promise 1. The profite of words 2. The necessitie of words 3. The wordes of God 4. Mysteries 5. The mysterie of Christes supper 6. The Sacramentaries trust not Christes words 26. 14. 1. Co. 11. 22. 7. Dedes be doubtfull Chryso in Math. Hom. 83. 8. The 〈◊〉 of the supper were para bles 9. The words of the supper expound yâ— parable of the dedes 10 Mere 〈◊〉 words ex pound nothing 11. The words of yâ— supper geue 〈◊〉 to y◠〈◊〉 Ioan 3. Matt. 28. In yâ— secoÌ„d booke ca. 〈◊〉 12. It is no singâ—… 〈◊〉 che is not knowen The 〈◊〉 The aunswerâ—… Ioan. 6. In Epi. 162. 〈◊〉 belongeth to the body â—… soule Tertul. de resur carnis â—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epipha haer 30. Hebr. 10 Christ pre sented no external sacrifice besyde his own flesh Gen. 14. Exod. 16 Malac. 1. Working words caÌ„ not be figuratiue Chrys. homi de prodit Iudae Ioan. 6. Howe the SacrameÌ„ taries 〈◊〉 Chri stes wordes Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 35. How S. 〈◊〉 placed 〈◊〉 â–ª words There is but one noun substantiâ—… in Christes 〈◊〉 By the Sacraâ—… doctrâ—…e a â—…gure was cruâ—… for vs. The obâ—…ction The aunswer One word can not haue at once a pro
written This is 〈◊〉 figure of my bodie Secundarily thei can bring no Church where the bodie of Christ was not confessed worshipped and 〈◊〉 Thirdly they haue no generall 〈◊〉 where it was euer said that the wordes of Christ are 〈◊〉 and worke not his bodie present Thereunto they will straight take exception affirming that all yâ— first six huÌ„dred yeres cooke the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue and nedes they must say so muche for 〈◊〉 they should saie nothyng at all But what 〈◊〉 we to that saying of theirs Uerily we 〈◊〉 that it is a mayn lye an impudent assertion a fond imagination as the which hath no ground at all in the first six hundred yeres Which thing although yt may be proued many wayes yet in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is most inuincibly declared by three 〈◊〉 The former is in so muche as diuers holy Fathers 〈◊〉 vs most instantly to beleue the wordes wherin Christ said This ys my body and This ys my bloode although they seme to be agaynst naturall reason and sense and yet no wise man wil requier vs to beleue figuratiue wordes The second is because the same Fathers teach expresly the adoration of that 〈◊〉 and blood of Christe which is in the holy mysteries which 〈◊〉 on the altar and table which is taken into the handes mouthes and bodies of Christian men The third reason is because the holie Fathers teach that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthy recenuing of the blessed Sacrament of his supper All these thinges shal be declared God willing in their places We haue therefore iust cause not to graunt our aduersaries the first six hundred yeres And although we had not so iust cause to shewe the first six houdred to stand so playnlie for vs yet how ys yt possible that they or any man aliue can be sure of the opinion of that age The scriptures that should teache them what thei owght to â—…ue sounde an other waie â–ª The practise of the Churche which hath deriued to vs their custome and vse doth informe vs of a contrary meaning By what meanes then come oure aduersaries to assure them selues of the first six hundred yeres It is cleâ—…ely impossible that any man should haue any sufficient ground whereby to know that the first six hundred yeres were of the 〈◊〉 or Sacramentarie iudgement For the wrytinges of the Fathers whiche only they pretend cannot informe them of any suche their minde for so muche as none of them all writeth so fauorably for them that he hathe gone aboute once to proue that the bodie of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth or hath warned the people to beware of idolatrie or hath vsed suche words in that behalfe as the Sacramentaries of oure tyme do vse And yet suerlie a lyke fayth wolde hauâ—… browght foorthe a lyke doctrine Now where they call the Sacrament a figure and holie signe that doth not withstand the reall presence any whit but rather proueth it to him who considereth the signe we speake of not to be a signe made by men whose tokens do signifie thâ—… truth absent but institued by Christ who maketh reall truth in euerie Sacrament vnder a holy signe therof To be shorte there is nothinge to be sene or readen in the auncient Fathers concerninge the matter of the Sacrament but the same hath bene alwayes acknowleged of the Catholikes for good and sound doctrine euen continually all thies nine hundred yeres when if they had thought otherwise they might withowt reprouffe of any man before BereÌ„garius or after his tyme haue condemned what booke they lysted But no Papist were he neuer so muche addicted to the real presence of Christes body in the Sacrament did find fault with any Catholike Father of the first six hundred 〈◊〉 Undowtedlie because he neuer sawe worde in them against his owne opinion Or tell me doth S. Thomas doth Sâ—…otus doth Nicolaus de Lira doth Dionysius Larthusianus accuse anie Father of the first six hundred yeres as not thynkinge well of the Sacrament No suerlie And that is because they neueâ—… founde in them but the same docteine which them selues beleued and tawght And yet as sone as Berengarius began his newe doctrine euerie lerned man founde fault with yt Likewise with 〈◊〉 with â—…uinglins and with Iohn Caluin It is therfore euident seinge no Catholike nother hathe bene before Luters time nor is nowe offended with the olde Fathers doctrine concerninge the reall presence of Christes body and yet euerie of them is offended with the Sacramentaries doctrine that the Sacramentaries teache not as the olde Fathers did and agayne that the Sacramentaries cannot be suer that their doctrine is found in the olde Fathers For if yt were there to he found why should not Catholikes find yt there as well as they Or what one word can be brought sorthe of them so plainly denyinge the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread as we are able to bringe forth certayne hundred places wherin the said reall presence is earnestly affirmed Admitte the Fathers doctrine were vncertayne were dowtfull obscure yet cowld oure aduersaries neuer be sure therby that the fyrst six hundred yeres were with them Admitte some of them semed rather to fauoure theire side then owrs whiche is vtterly false yet the plaine word of God the plaine generall Councelles the faith of all nations by the space of nine hundred yeres owght to preuaile before the probable and apparant sayenges of a fewe men But nowe seinge the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres are so clerelie for vs that oure aduersaries are forced to excuse the expresse witnesses of S. 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome S. 〈◊〉 alleged for the reall presence of Christes bodie as spoken by plaine hyperbole which in them that professe to teach the Catholike faith is no lesse to say then that these Fathers make rhetoricall lyes in wryting of the blessed â—…ucharist seing they are constrayned to deuie certaine workes of the verie most auncient as of Dionysius Areopagita of S. Ignatius of S. Polycarpus of Abdias of S. Clement of Anacletus of 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 yea of S. Ambrose and of suche like because their sayings are to 〈◊〉 agaynst them seing all that dispute now a dayes with the 〈◊〉 presse them with nothing more customably then with the autoritie of the auncient Fathers Now to saie they leaâ—…e to the first six hundred yeres when the holie scriptures and auncient Fathers generall Counceils and 〈◊〉 tradition maketh agaynst them he that listeth to consyder how 〈◊〉 how vilely how impudently it is pretended may in all other assertions mistrust them as men for great synnes geuen ouer vnto their owne lewd phantasie withowt they repent and call agayne to the holie Ghost for more grace and better vnderstanding M. Nowel in the preface prefixed before the reprouf of M. Dormans prouf semeth to haue
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
cause we doubt not to commit it to Gods word And that no man maie suspect we take the words of the Apologie to short that we expound them to hardly that we seeke aduantage vpon small occasion I will bring foorth their owne words which they haue more fully writen in an other place of the same Apologie concerning this matter We do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of godly and of faithfull men and such as are endued with the spirite of Christ. These felowes do teach that the very body of Christ maie in very dede and as they terme it really and substantially be eaten not only of wicked and vnfaithfull men but also it is horrible to speake it of mise and dogges Whether mise and dogges maie in some sense eate the body of Christ or no it is not worth while to discusse for so much as the Catholikes kepe the body of Christ so warely that neither mouse nor dogge maie come nigh to it But as yâ— Arrians threw downe the body and blood of Christ and trod thereon with their filthie feete and as the Donatists brake the chalices which as Optatus saith caried the blood of Christ so the Sacramentaries of England haue taken out of the holy pixes and troden vnder their prophane fecte the blessed body of Christ they haue sold broken and abused to filthy ministeries the chalices which haue holden Christes blood If the wicked men be able to pollute to tread on and to defile as much as lieth in them the body of Christ A thinke that to be worse then if mise and dogges did eate it Not that the immortall body of Christ can take any harme at all But yet a terrible damnation is reserued to them who being able to do it no hurte shewe not withstanding their vnsatiable malice against the highest mysterie of our redemption tredding vnder foote the sonne of God counting the blood of the new testament prophane and vnholy Leauing therefore this question we returne to the principall matter coÌ„fessing our selues to teache that the wâ—…ked men â—…ate in dede really the body of Christ in our Lords supper Thus we teach not only because the greater part of the Fathers haue deliuered so vnto vs but also because thus we learned of Christ. Who after bread taken hauing blessed gaue to Iudas one of the twelue bidding him take eate saying This is my body A worse man then Iudas I think is not lightly heard of Which amoÌ„g other things causeth vs to beleue that be the man neuer so euill yet if he take and eate after consecration and benediction he taketh and eateth really and in dede the body of Christ. Which vnworthy receauing of so precious a thing although it mislike Christ as all synne doth yet as he permitteth synne for the goodnes which he worketh by the occasion thereof so he thought it lesse euill that euil men should eate his body then that his Sacraments by any our infidelity should be made void or that the gift of his grace should be vncertaine For Christ in the institution of his SacrameÌ„ts dependeth not vpon our faith or vertue but vpon his owne mercy and truth Wherefore when so euer by a lawfull Priest intending to execute the ministerie commaunded by Christ it is dâ—…ely sayd ouer bread and wine This is my body and This is my blood Christ would it so to be as the wordes declare and who so euer receaueth that kind of food receaueth the body of Christ. whether well or â—…uill that dependeth vpon his worthy or vnworthy eating If any man eate vnworthely then will Christ complaine of him as he coÌ„plained of Iudas For straight after the deliuery of the blood he sayd as S. Luke doth witnesse and S. Augustine hath noted the same to pertaine to the Sacrament Veruntamen ecce manus tradentis me mecum est in mensa But yet see yâ— hand of him yâ— betrayeth me is with me on the table As if he had sayd You see what loue I shewe to you by geuing mine owne body to be eaten mine owne blood to be drunken in this my last supper this only greueth me that a very deuill doth eate drinke these preciouse giftes together with me and you Except our new brethren will say Iudas to haue bene a good faithfull man I see not but they must coÌ„fesse that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ deliuered to them Which thing S. Paul most euidently confirmeth of all euill Christians saying Therefore who so euer shall eate this bread or drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shall be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Doth not he that speaketh of vn worthy eating coÌ„fesse a true eating True I say in nature of the thing eaten but vnworthy coÌ„cerning the effect of grace ensewing And yet doe not euill men who receaue the body of Christ vnworthely eate really the same body It is written in the booke of the Machabees that King Antiochus hauing slaine foure score thousand within three dayes entred also into the holy Temple Et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa contrectabat indigne contaminabat And taking in his wicked hands the holy vessels he handled or touched them vnworthely and defiled them I aske whether it doth not folow Antiochus touched vnworthely the holy vessels therefore he tou ched the holy vessels If that argument be good it is like to say an euil man doth eate the body of Christ vnworthely therefore he doth eate yâ— body of Christ. Or did not Adam and 〈◊〉 eate of the â—…uit of the tree because they did eate the same against the commaundement of God For these defenders seme to make an vnworthy eating no eating Whereas if it were no eating it were not an vnworthy eating Perhaps they wil say S. Paul writeth not that synners wicked men eate the body of Christ vnworthely but that they eate this bread vnworthely Uerily S. Paul speaketh not of bakers bread in yâ— place But hauing shewed that Christ taking bread after thanks geuen sayd This is my body straight he inferreth that as often as this bread is eaten the death of Christ is shewed therefore who so eateth this bread vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body of our Lord. This bread is one certayn kinde of meate or foode for so bread in the holy scripture doth signifie which food before was declared to be the body of Christ. And S. Paul doth so warely describe this kind of bread that he putteth both an article and a pronoune to it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if it were said in English who so eateth vnworthely this certayn kinde of bread For so the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth â—… certayn bread spoken of before But then foloweth besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most vehemently restraineth that certayn bread
blood This can be but one thing Therefore Christ deliuering that whereof he sayd This and this deliuered at eche tyme but one thing in all but two things He deliuered his body blood as him self sayd and you coÌ„fesâ—…e he truly deliuered them wherevpon I conclude that he deliuered neither bread nor wine and consequently that the bread taken was changed in to the body of Christ and the wine was changed into his blood For seing Christ toke both bread and wine and deliuered truly his body and blood yet deliuered but one thing at eche tyme and that also keping the forme of bread and wine it must nedes be graunted that the substance of bread and wine which was truly taken and not truly deliuered because an other thing was truly deliuered was in the meane tyme truly changed into that body and blood which was truly deliuered O masters truth is strong and by the aduersaries own weapon getteth the victorie Again remember that the name of body and the name of blood are names belonging to the manhod of Christ to which manhod when you adioyne any act or work which may truly be verisied thereof it must be meant according to that truth which properly belongeth to the nature of the manhod When we say Christ was truly scurged nailed to the Crosse bound and buried it is not here to be vnderstanded that these things were don in figure in spirit in faith But that his body suffered according to the fâ—…esh all these things And he that saith the contrarie is an 〈◊〉 which heresie wold the manhod of Christ to be changed into his diuine nature If then the body and blood of Christ be truly dâ—…red you must not vuderstand a figure only to be dâ—…red neither a spiritual dâ—… only For if the body of Christ be deliuered truly and yet by spirit only then the truth of his body is by these men brought vnto the truth of a spirit and the flesh of Christ hath losi his true nature and propâ—… Mark wel the reason when the body of Christ is truly deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his own nature The nature of a body is to be dâ—…d after some bodily maner verily by hands or by some other corporail action And they to whom it is delâ—…red likewise receaue it by some part or sense of their body For so requireth the true nature of flesh and blood not immediatly to be geuen to the spirit and soule but to come to it by meane of the body Whereof it is inferred that the body and blood of Christ which are truly deliuered in the supper are bodily deliuered and bodily receaued But from the body of Christ who made the dâ—…ance vnto the bodies of the Apoâ—…es who receaued the things deliuered none other thing can â—…syde that which semed bread and wine therefore vnder that foormes the body and blood of Christ were truly contâ—…ined and by yâ— meanes truly deliuered and truly receaued Thirdly when you say the â—…sh of God quickeneth our soules you should haue sayd also that it quickeneth our bodies as in other places I haue proued out of the sixth of S. 〈◊〉 anâ—… out of S. Jreneus â—…tullian Cyrillus and other auncient Fathers ¶ what it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ â–ª ANd that the same supper is the coâ—…ion of the body and blood of Christ by the partaking whereof we are qâ—…ned we are 〈◊〉 and sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which 〈◊〉 and â—…th can not be 〈◊〉 from them whom it nourisheth and when it is cut of their reache they can not haue it before it be geuen If then we haue in 〈◊〉 yâ— body and blood of Christ we receaued it by his gift at his supper And surely it was the thing whereof he sayd Eate and whereof he sayd Drinke Other food was not deliuered in Christes supper beâ—… his body and blood Nor possiblie can we haue the food of his supper at any other mans table then at his Wel. If we be nourished by the meate which Christ gaue vs when he sayd Eate and yet we be nourished by his body and blood vndoubtedly he sayd Eate of that which he gaue with his hands and which the Apostles toke into their mouthes and that was bread to see vnto therefore vnder that â—…orme of bread we take the nourishment whereby we are sed to immortalitie Otherwise what warrant haue we to come by this food which is cleane out of our reache vntil God geue it saying Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood By those words oâ—…â—…ate one liquour only is geuen which also â—…deth vs to immortalitie as yâ— Apologie coâ—…h But none other food that man may receaue bodily can feed vs to immortalitie besyde the reall substance of Christ. therefore that substance is receaued nourisheth vs when Christ sayd Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood ¶ The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must nâ—…s be a naturall vnion â—…ore it be a mysticall ANd by the which we are coupled we are vnited and grafted into the body of Christ that we might â—…well in hinâ—… and he in vs. Christes â—…sh is deliuered to the end we should be nourished therewith And the end of nourishing is to make one thing of yâ— which is eaten and of him that eateth it The flesh deliuered to nourishe vs is not any mysticall flesh but only the natural flesh of Christ neither can it be any other food For none other thing that coâ—…th in at the mouth of man is able to seed him to immortalitie besyde the substance of Christes flesh and blood If then it be the naturall flesh which feedeth and the vnion doe come by seeding the vnion must of necesâ—…ty be made with the naturall flesh of Christ. And because that is such a flesh as being vnited to God hath power to geue life and â—…mortality out of the naturall vnion which is made with it by eating an other spiritual and mystical vnion floweth which maketh all the members of Christ to be one mysticall body So that we haue now fiâ—…e degrees First the slesh of Christ is deliuered to vs in his supper Next we eate the same flesh Thirdly we are fed by it if we eate it worthely Fourthly of yâ— feeding conuneth a reall and naturall vnion and ioyning with Christes flesh as S. Hilarie teacheth and other auncient Fathers Of that naturall vnion procedeth a spirituall vnion with the whole body of the Church Because being made one with Christes flesh we are vnited thereby to his spirit and Godhead liuing for him as he â—…th for his Father whereof I will speake more hereafter The Apologie acknowledgeth a ioyning with Christ by eating But it surely meaneth the last spirituall ioyning which ariseth of the other naturall vnion Whereas that spiritual ioyning doth â—…ude the other natural as euery effect presupposeth the necessarie
agreed for all scâ—…iptures call it the body and some doctours call it a signe But if these thinges can not both be true together awase with signes awaie with tokens let the worde of God be heard which saieth This is mâ—… body This is my blood Is it reason we obeie men or God If both stand in one degree men keping them selues vnder God let both be obeyed But if men draw from God he is more worth alone then all the men of the world What 〈◊〉 we now Will the sigâ—…e of the body and the body it selâ—…e stand together or no If not let the signe of the body which is not in scripture geue place let the body it selfe which is often times found there tarie still If the signe and the truth can not stand together the Sacramentaries must nedes be condemned who denie the truth which is in the scripture and preferre the signe before it which is not in the scripture If the signe truth doe both stand together yâ— Sacramentaries onlesse they repent be condemned because they denie the one part of yâ— twaine For they denie the true presence of Christs body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine In what case stand these defenders which still be in state of damnation whatsoeuer be concluded true We verely teach and beleue the figure and the truth to stand together the supper of our Lord to be the signe of Christes body and to be his owne body The weaker part is the signe the greater is the truth But both doe not only stand together in one Sacrament but farther more the true nature of euerie Sacrament of Christ is to haue both that is â—…aie to haue oue certaine truth one certaine signe of the same truth The truth is hidden vnder the signe the signe is witnes of the truth Which thing once being declared you shall see the vaine doctrine of this Apologie with what kind of worthy Schoolâ—… the English Church is nowe gouerned to the greate 〈◊〉 and destruction of Christian soules Pardon me good reader if I stand somewhat long vpon the name of a Sacrament for in that word lieth hidden all the poyson of the Sacramentarie doctrine ¶ That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament GEue diligent care good Reader to the doctrine folowing Because as it is most true and profitable so is it somewhat hard I will shew that suche a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must nedes haue the same truth present whereof it is the Sacrament or holy signe The naturall sonne of God tooke naturall flesh of the virgin Marie to th' intent he being oâ—…e persone and there in hauing his humane nature common with men and his diuine common with God might by that meanes reconcile man to God againe His diuine personne staied in it the nature of man his manhod partly couered the diuine nature from the eyes of mortall men partly by maruelous signes and workes shewed the same to the faith of 〈◊〉 men Liâ—…ewise man consisteth of two parts of a soule inuisible and of a visible body The soule ruleth and gouerneth the body And the body sheweth to others by outward tokens what the soule thinketh and inwardly worketh Christ therefore intending to leaue certayn holy mysteries vnto his Church thereby to 〈◊〉 to her the fruite of his passion and death as well for regard of his owne selfe in whose personne two natures were vnited as for regard of vs who coÌ„siste of body and soule made the sayd holy Sacramentes to be of a dubble sort and nature so that the one part thereof might appere to the senses the other should lye priuie and only be seene by faith But as the outward workes and doctrine of Christ were vndoubted testimonies of the inward Godhed really present so the outward signe which is in the Sacraments is a most euident witnesse of the inward grace which they worke really present in them Aâ—…ter this sort Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme that we might be newly borne and regenerated of water and of the holy Ghost as him selfe sayd to 〈◊〉 For the outward wasshing of the body in the naâ—…e of the Trinitie is an euident signe that the holy Ghost at the same instant by the meane of the word and water inwardly wassheth yâ— soule from synne Therefore S. Paul sayeth God hath saued vs by the wasshing of water and of the renewing of the holy Ghost The which holy scriptures S. Augustine embracing sayeth Aqua exhibens forinsecus Sacramentum gratiae spiritus operans intrinsecus beneficium gratiae regenerat hominem in vno Christo ex vno Adam generatum Water geuing outwardly the Sacrament or holy signe of grace and the holy Ghost working inwardly the benefite of grace begetteth man againe in one Christ which was begotten of one Adam Water is the outward signe Grace is yâ— inward benefite The outward water which wassheth the body is the signe of the inward grace which is wrought vpon the souâ—…e Here thou seest good Reader the signe of a thing and the thing it selfe to agree so well that the one is alwayes depending of the other Much lesse doth one of them hinder the other Except any man will say that Christ was not God in dede because his works were tokens signes of his Godhead which were a detestable saying Likewise the supper of Christ is both a signe of his body also his true body A signe outwardly the true body inwardly A signe by yâ— sound of words when it is first made a truth by the inward working of the holy Ghost by the meanes of the words of the censecration For as when the Priest spâ—…inkleth or dippeth the child in water saying 〈◊〉 wass he the in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost At the same moment the holy Ghost wassheth the soule of the person baptized Right so when Christ or any lawfull Priest in his name taking bread blesâ—…ing duely sayeth This is my body making in those words an euident token of his body â—…eally present at the same instant the holy Ghost worketh inwardly the true substance of Jesus Christ really present vnder the forme of bread The outward pronouncing of the words ouer bread and wine is the Sacrament or holy signe that maketh and sheweth Christes body and the inward 〈◊〉 ning of the substance of bread into Christes reall body is the grace which is at the same tyme inuisâ—…bly wrought Thus in holy Scripture the signe of body and the true body stand so welâ—… together that both are true because one is true The which doctrine S. Chrisostom confessing writeth Sacerdotis oreverba proferuntur Et Dei virtute proposita consecrantur gratia Hoc est ait corpus meum hoc verbo proposita
haue power to make that thing whereof Christ spake then the token was true and the outward signification of the words agreeth with the inward effect and working of them For which cause we say that Christ in those words instituted a Sacrament of holy orders For he gaue vnto his Apostles at that tyme by those words the order of Priesthod The holy signe of this Sacrament is the pronouncing of these words Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me The inuisible grace wrought therein is the power which the Apostles toke to make the body of Christ. Euen so As sone as these words This is my body and this is my blood are duely spoken straight the body and blood is made present If indeed it be not present here is no Sacrament at all Note well what I say here is no true signe at all but an hipocriticall and fonde Imagination of a thing the truth whereof is not so as the word soundeth and therefore the sigâ—…e is false Neither will it helpe any thing at all if one say that Christ spake figuratiuely For a figuratiue speache can not be an euideÌ„t token of any thing except it be such a figure as through the custome of speache hath now obteined some easy and knowen 〈◊〉 among all men that vse the same language as when by the name of a cuppe we meane the drinke in it or by the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen we meane authoritie to bring men to Christ and God or by opening the mouth we meane speaking which kind of speache though it be called figuratiue for some respect yet in dede it is all one with proper speach because vse and custome maketh euery speach propre Otherwise a very figuratiue speach signifieth no certain thing vntill it be plainly vnderstanded And consequently no figuratiue speach can be a Sacrament or a holy signe of an other thing For a signe is euer plaine euident and able to instruct as being according to the iudgemeÌ„t of S. Augustine the thing which besides the shew it maketh to our senses causeth an other thing to come to our knowledge But a figure not made common by vse is obscure darke vncertaine as all ridles be vntill they are opened So that if Christ saying This is my body had meant this doth signifie my body and in dede is not so truly no Sacrament had bene made as I will shew hereafter because no euident token had bene geuen of any thing It can not be called an euident token when I may more truly veryfie the contradictorie then that which is spoken For if the Sacramentaries teach wel it is a truer token to say This is not my body then to say This is my body But this is my body caÌ„ neuer signifie to me by any figure of â—…hetorike this is not my body For doubtlesse as long as I am not driuen to thinke this is not my body or to thinke of an other thing as of trees stones water bread wine or any like thing which is cleane diuerse in nature from Christes body which to do after the name of body once heard out of Christes mouth is allmost impossible so long it may still be a signe to me that it is Christes body And seing it can neuer come to passe that I hearing Christ say This is my body can exclude the thought of his body from my vnderstanding will I or nill I This will be to me either a falshod or it will be the Sacrament or signe of his body If it be so then seing the Sacrament and holy signe must nedes be true the body must likewise be truly present for so the token doth report If when I heare Christ say This is my body I must stand musing and diuising how is may be taken vnproperly and signifie a certayn betokening without a true being surely because all ignorant men studie they neuer so long are able to conclude no such thing for that no such example cometh to their minde and they are not exercised in scriptures as diuines be thereby it will folow that Christes words shall signifie one thing to one man and an other to an other To some learned men after some conference they may signifie by the waye of coniecture the betokening of his body To others who coniecture that Christ pointed to his own person when he sayd so they will sound otherwise But to the simple and ignorant who can not so put matters together they will signifie allways the reall presence of his body Uerily the twelue Apâ—…tles were very simple ignorant and as the scriptures call them 〈◊〉 without lerning neither was their mind opened to vnderstand the scriptures at yâ— tyme. And yet I dare say they knew what they did receaue wherefore they toke the words of Christ literally as they sounded to them Now seing these words This is my body signified the body of Christ it will insewe that seing Christ maketh allways a true signe to them it was the truth of Christes body Marye to Ihon Caluine who is more deeply lerned and who studieth ful sore to make and proue Christ a lyer it may well be they will sounde otherwise O Lord to what case are these signes and Sacramentes brought if according to some menne they shall sound one way and to others an other way And yet the truth of them standeth chiefly wholy dependeth vpon the signe which they make As though all other men being able to make their last willes with wordes plaine enough thou Lord alone haddest neither vtterance nor witte nor mind nor remembrance to make a token of thy inuisible work And yet the Apologie sayth that the Eucharist is an euideÌ„t token of the body and blood If the token be euident all men do quicklie vnderstand it why then striue we vpon an euident matter Call wemen children to ask of them what token yâ— words of Christ make I warrant you they will not say that is doth stand to betoken nor body for figure of body That kind of tokens is not very euident to them But in deed the token of Christes body is euident by his own words and therefore the truth which he doth betoken to be present is really present for as his token is most euident so is it most true Christ after his resurrection gaue power to his Apostles to forgeue and retaine synnes This thing was the institution of the Sacrament of Peuance Let vs there see the Sacrament or holy signe of this giâ—…t whose synnes ye forgeue sayeth he they are foregeuen them And whose ye retaine they are reteyned 〈◊〉 in those words a signe of remission of synnes be instituted suâ—…ely when that signe is made by a Priest duâ—…ly absoluing the peniteÌ„t his synnes are in deed remitted For loke how much the words doe signifie to men of common vnderstanding so much is geuen by them How proue I that
the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes Here is the Sacramentaries argument I eate bread and drinke wine in token of Christes death resurrection therefore he is dead and risen I pray you Syr how doth this argument hold What affinitie hath bread and wine with the death and with the resurrection of Christ But if bread and wine be turned into the same body blood of Christ which died and rose againe which wrought all the miracles done in this world Then is the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ in dede it selfe set before the eyes of our faith Because as Chrisostom teacheth Hoc idem corpus cruentatum caet This very same body bloudied perced with yâ— speare gaue as it were out of a spring fountaynes of blood healthfull to the whole world And the selfe body God aâ—…anced vnto the highest seate the which body also he gaue to vs both to th' intent we should haue it and to the intent we should eaâ—…e it But what speake I of S. Chrisostom This sayeth Christ is my body which is geuen for you And againe the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world How ofte so euer sayeth S. Paul ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he comme So that the hauing of the death and resurrection and all yâ— miracles of Christ before our eyes at Masse tyme riseth chiefly of yâ— thing which is the body of Christ. And secondarily of the things which are done about that his body The consecrating the offering the eating of the selfe same body which wrought these miracles which died and rose againe those facts I say in that thing shew his death and resurrection All other wayes of setting the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence of Christ is painting and shadowing in comparison of this liuely representation O how many sayeth S. Chrisostom say now adayes I wold see the soorm shape of Christ I would see his very garmentes and shoowes Ipsum igitur vides ipsum taÌ„gis ipsum comedis Lo thou seest him selfe thou touchest him selfe thou eatest him selfe Non quòd corpus illud sayeth Damascen è coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the body of Christ came downe from heauen but because the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. See now good Reader whether the Apologie say more truly that the signe or token of Christes body and blood the body it selfe not being made present vnder the soâ—…nes of bread and wine as it teacheth doe more effectuously set before our eyes that death and resurrection and all the miracles of Christ or els whether the incarnation life death and resurrection of him be not better and more according to the word of God set soorth by the Catholikes who teach that the substance of bread and wine is changed into that body and blood of Christ to th' end the death and resurrection of the same body might be effectually remembred So teacheth S. Cyrillus in these words Prebet Christus nobis carnem suam tangendam c. Christ geueth vs his flesh to be tou ched that we might beleue assuredly that he hath in deed reised his temple For that the communion of mystical blessing is a certayn confession of the resurrection of Christ it is proued by his own words For he distributed the bread after it was broken saying This is my body which shal be geuen for you for the remission of synnes Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore the participation of that mysterie is a certain true confession and remembrance that for our sakes and for vs our Lord both hath died and is reuiued and through that filleth vs with diuine blessing Let vs therefore flee infidelity after the touching of Christ and let vs be found strong and stedfast being far from all doubtfulnesse Thus far S. Cyrillus Who alludeth in that place to S. Thomas the Apostle And as S. Thomas touching the syde of Christ cried out My Lord and my God euen so S. Cyrillus teacheth that we touche the body of Christ when we come to the holy communion For as vnder the visible flesh of Christ his Godhead lay priuie but yet was truly present and had assumpted his flesh into one person euen so vnder the visible foorm of bread the flesh of Christ is really present in the holy mysteries and therefore we touch that flesh when we touche the foorm of bread as S. Thomas did touche the Godhead when he touched the flesh of Christ. For in eche place we touche not either the Godhead or the flesh visibly but by the meane of that thing wherein it is truly present That thing I say receaued of vs doth make his death and resurrection to be remembred Hath not he all that euer Christ did presently before his eyes who hath Christ him selfe present But take Christ awaye and afterward it is a foolish dreame to talke how his deeds be set before our eyes by bread and wine The apparence of bread is the token that Christes body is here to be eaten And the similitude of wine doth shew that his blood is here to be drunken But the true shewing of his death life and resurrection ariseth of that truth which is vnder those foormes When I eate the body that died I shew the death of it because no sacrificed flesh was euer eaten before the host was offered But we eate really the body of Christ therefore our fact crieth that Christ is dead We eate his body aliue hauing the blood and soule in it therefore our fact crieth he is risen again Thus the Ca tholiks reason Let him that hath coÌ„mon sense iudge who goeth nere the truth of the Gospell the Sacramentarie or the Catholike ¶ Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body TO th' intent we should geue thanks for his death and our deliuerance and that by often resorting to the Sacramentes we should continually renew the remembrance thereof These men presuppose we haue a signe or token left vnto vs in bread and wine to geue thanks withall We haue in deed a token but this token though it were made of bread and wine is not bread and wine For Christ in his last supper tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Behold the token wherein Christ both him selfe gaue thanks and would vs to geue thanks in the same The making of his body for vs is the thanksgeuing for his death and for our deliuerance Ipso genere sacrificij sayeth S.
the sigure of his flesh That is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speach which they find â—…n the text and yet that might be wel born withal if thei rested there For in dede it is meant in some sense of Christ except ye eate the figure of my flâ—…sh to wit except ye eate that inuisible sâ—…stance of my fleshe which is a figure of my visible passible 〈◊〉 ye shall not haue life in you But now they can not so â—…ke it For they will not graunt that Christ meaâ—…t of his owne substance to be really eaten For which cause they must goe forward and expoâ—…d again the figure of Christes flesh saying â—…xcept ye eate the â—…gure of my flâ—…sh the which â—…igure bread wine shall make ye shall not haue life in you Did S. Augustin referre the â—…gure he 〈◊〉 of to bread and wine Did he once touche or mention those materiall elements in declaring the figuratiue speach thâ—…t Chrâ—…st by his iudgement vsed where named S. 〈◊〉 bread and wine He sayth our Lord commanded vs to communicat with his passioÌ„ to remember swetely the flesh which was crucified for vs. In that communicating and remembrance he putteth the figuratiue speache So that if we marke wel the reall eating of Christes flâ—…sh is not 〈◊〉 but left stil as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the â—…gure must be built The figure must be in the end of the worke and not in the beginning therâ—…of 〈◊〉 â—…gure looketh higher to a truth aboue it and not lower to 〈◊〉 elements which â—…re 〈◊〉 it â—…rily neither Christ nor S. Augustine did speake or meane of bread and 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ sayth except ye eate my 〈◊〉 â—…hey sâ—…y 〈◊〉 ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shall 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…s this to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood to 〈◊〉 bread and wine and there 〈◊〉 to make 〈◊〉 wine to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood What ignorance what abusing of Gods word what a blasphemy is this to make yâ— higher 〈◊〉 first to siâ—…nifie the lower that the lower may afterward 〈◊〉 yâ— higher It is as muâ—…h to say as Chrâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a doore then a doore is sâ—…oÌ„darily the token of Christ. Where is honesty where is shameâ—…nes where is coÌ„mon 〈◊〉 I aske of them whether these words except ye eate belong to yâ— supper They say they doe belong to the supper so truly that they build vppon them falsely the 〈◊〉 of both 〈◊〉 Then say I â—…ating is meant not only of eating by hart and faith but also by mouth as S. Basil S. Chrysoâ—…ome S. Cyrillus S. Augustine with all the rest of the fathers besore alleged doe coâ—…fesse and the Sacramentaries graunt the same most willingly Then we are agreed that eating standeth in some part properly concerning that some one thing eaten shall enter into our mouth I aske theÌ„ wherein the figure cheefely standeth They say in yâ— word flesh principally secondarily in eating yâ— is in remeÌ„bring by that thing which is eaten an other thing and I conâ—…e it also What is now meant by that word flesh They say the figure of flesh and that doe I graunt although it were more properly sayd that flesh meaneth and is the figure of the passion But let flesh stand for the figure of flesh Here beginneth the issue What meane you by the figure of flesh Bread say they That say I is starke false and vnpossible For how commeth flesh to be latine for breade By what grammaticall by what Rhethoricall by what Mosaical or mysticall figure is that interpretation brought about All the world seeth that in proper speach he that wil haue bread vseth not to cal for flesh Or if he doe so I think the butcher wil soner serue him then the baker Moreouer no figure wil serue to make one thing meane another except there be some affinitie or dependance betwene them but fleshe and bread are cleane seuerall kindes of natures Thirdly Christ neuer in any couenant or truse instituted flesh to signifie material bread we haue no such SacrameÌ„t neither in the old nor in the new Testament and surely sith flesh is neither a naturall nor a diuine token of breade nor so vsed in common speache it can not by any ordinarie meane betoken bread In so muche that the lawiers who of all men best know the proprietie of wordes and are most prone to expound them fauorably in the testamentes of men departed yet haue coÌ„cluded that if any man erre in naming the kinde of thing as if intending to bequeath his garmentes doe say I bequeath my siluer or contrarie wise the legacie can not hold For saith Ulpian Rerum vocabula immu tabilia sunt hominum mutabilia Proper names geuen by men may be changed and therefore an errour in them is tolerable but the appellatiue names of things can not be changed and yet our new brethern can fynd the meanes how fleshe may stand for bakers bread blood for wine of the grape The coÌ„trarie might stand right wel because bread and wine were instituded by God in the law of nature and of Moyses as the fact of Melchisedech the figures of the lawe do shewe to figure shadow Christes flesh blood So was the rock instituted to signifie Christ manna to be a signe of his last supper But that flesh yea the flesh of Christ who is the end of the law that it should serue to signifie wheaten bread that diuinitie was born and sprang first in our dayes being vnknowen to S. Augustine and to all other Fathers and Councels yet it is so good diuinitie iu England that a maÌ„ may soner haue a bishopprick for it then for saying God is one in thre persons I haue stode sumwhat long vpon this place because it is one of them where vpon the Sacramentaries vse fondly to boast bragg as thowgh they had gained sumwhat by the name of a figuratiue speache which S. Augustine saith is in Christes words but yâ— figure serueth to shew a higher a more profitable mysterie theÌ„ the word nameth but not as they vulearnedly wold haue it to shew the base creature of wheaten bread wyne It is the passion of Christ the spirituall maner of eating in respect where of Christes speache is called of S. Augustine figuratiue for if Christes flesh were eateÌ„ only to fill the bellie without farther accompt of spiritual grace and life then were the eating of that flesh natural sensible accustomable and without all figure and should be eaten by cutting tearing and wasting it but in that case flesh profiteth nothing the flesh we speake of must be be eaten as a figure as a mysterie as a Sacrameut as a holy signe of a higher truthe wrought in the soule then that bodilie eating doth work So likewise in baptism we are washed in a fi gure because the
his word 〈◊〉 this whereunto he pointeth to be in substance his oâ—…n body but his dedes perform only a signe of his own body as the Sacramentaries teach May I not now say to the Sacramentaries the like to that which Malachie the Prophet sayd to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Iewes who offered in the temple of God â—…ind lame and feint or sicke oxen and shepe Offer illud 〈◊〉 si placueret ei aut si susceperit faciem tuam Offer such halting presents to thy Lord or capitain tel me whether it wil please him or whether thou shalt be welcome to him or no. If one should come to a greate personage and with solemne thaÌ„ks make him a preseÌ„t in words of a fat oxe or of a couragiouse horse and when the noble man were come forth to accept the present he should geue him a peâ—…ce of paper wherein it were writen this is a fat oxe or a couragiouse horse wold the noble man take it well Now come these new preachers and whereas they confesse yâ— Christ gaue thanks to his Father and sayd in words This is my body yet they feare not to teache that he offered more to him in words then he performed in dedes Yea they doubt not to teache that the words wherewith he maketh his present are vtterly vnproper and figuratiue not withstanding that S. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 supper sayth In coÌ„secratione diuina verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur In the diuine consecration the selfe words of our Lord and 〈◊〉 doe worke â–ª The words doe worke how theÌ„ are thei 〈◊〉 A figuratiue word is like a paited image which may be somewhat if the thing meant thereby be real and true but otherwise it is an idole and nothing at all But as an image of neuer so liuely a truth absent in substance froÌ„ it can not it selfe worke or doe any thing because it is dead no more can words grammatically figuratiue worke of them selues for that they are dead as not hauing theyr meaning which is theyr life present with them S. Chrysostom likewise writeth hoc est ait corpus meuÌ„ hoc verbo proposita consecrantur This saith he is my body with this word the things set foorth are consecrated And yet can this word whiche doth so wonderfull an act can it be in the meane tâ—…me so weake so feble so dead that it hath not in it self so much as the naturall proprietie of common wordes Commonly wordes do meane as they sound and those whiche do not so be concerning the vse and seruice of words which is to vtter a maÌ„s minde of baser condition then other wordes are But Christes words be so liuely that they haue power to work and make that which they sound in so much that he called them in S. Iohn life and spirit therefore it is vnreasonably said that they are figuratiue Hoc est corpus meum are but foure words of which foure they leaue neuer a one in his own significatioÌ„ and some of them they pluck from his gender other they pluck from their case which they were put in hoc this is the neuter gender with his noune substantiue corpus body they draw it to the masculine gender that it may agree with panis bread Est is a verbe substantiue signifiyng the substance of that noune substantiue with whom it is ioyned They draw it from that signification to signifie an accident in bread which in these words is not named They put corpus meum which is by Christes setting the nominatiue case into somtime the accusatiue somtime the genitiue case for they â—…ay this doth signifie my body then is it in yâ— accusatiue case or this is the figure of my body and then it is the genitiue case what miserable taking is this of so heaueÌ„ly words but hereof I think to say more vpon those words this is my blood least I now excede the measure of a circumstance Yet this one thing I can not but warn yâ—â—…eader of although it may seme to some man of no great weight But I thinke with S. Chrysostom no syllable or prick in the word of God to be superfluously placed S. Paule reciting the words of Christes supper placeth them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body For where as the other Euangelist had writen the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last place as we likewise in latin put meuÌ„ last the holy Ghost foreseing the heresy yâ— now should rise caused S. Paul to ioyne that proâ—…oun belonging to Christes person vnto yâ— other pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc this For although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ruled of the noun body and in sense must nedes follow after it yet it pleased God to place the same pronoun with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this shewing thereby that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must finally be referred vnto the noun corpus body as wel as the other pronoun meum mine as if it were in latin hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body That ioyning I say of this and of me together doth geue such coniecture as in the order of words may be had that as of me is the genitiue case coming after yâ— noun body so this likewise apperteyneth to the noun substantiue body and only resteth and endeth his signification in that word Whereas on the other syde if this were only referred vnto bread no reason could be brought why S. Paule should ioyne the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of me vnto it This bread of me is the signe of body iudge what a hard speache it were Let noman wonder if I so narrowly scan euery syllable For you shall see before all is done that God hath caused the wordâ—… of his last supper by so many circumstances of writing and speaking to be opened vnto vs that when the rest is all heard it wil seme probable enough not so much as the setting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue bene superfluouse ¶ The. 〈◊〉 circumstance of these words Which is geuen for you ALthough S. Mathew and S. Mark thought it sufficient to report that Christ sayd This is my body as the which words both were plaine enough able to make the mysterie of Christes supper yet the holy Ghost stirred vp S. Luke to adde the other words which Christ had also vsed to thâ—…ntene the literall meaning of Christes words might be most câ—…tainly confirmed and therefore he writeth that Christ sayd This is my body which is geuen for you In all the which words there is none other noune substantiue named besides the only substance of Christes body With it agreeth Hoc This with it quod the which It cometh after the verb est is and goeth before the verb datur is geuen If now we interpret the noun corpus body by figura corporis the â—…igure of
of S. Paule but as S. Paule and S. Luke take the noun blood it can not possibly be taken figuratiuely â–ª except any man wil be so desperate as to say that the â—…w promise and Law of Christ is established in a figure of blood or in the substance of common wine Which if it were so we are in worse case then the Patriarâ—…hes and Iewes who at the least had true blood to coÌ„firm their temporall truses Testaments and promises as it may be seâ—…e both in Genesis Exodus although it were the blood of beastes it must nedes be that the heaueuly things them selues be cleansed with better sacrifices saith S. Paule If then the name of blood being put in these words this cup is the new testament in my blood be taken for the substance of Christes blood which is that better sacrifice whereof S. Paule speaketh without al question in these wordes this is my blood of the new testament it stondeth likewise for the substance of Christes blood It is one supper one Sacrament one parte of the supper and one part of the Sacrament yea one self same thing whereof all foure do speake If new do answere to new testament to testament this to this is to is how can it be that blood should not answer to blood But this cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood can not be meant in yâ— figure of my blood least yâ— signe of blood and not the truthe thereof be that which establisheth the new truse therefore in these words this is the blood of the new testament the noune blood standeth not for a figure and signe of blood but for the real substance thereof ¶ The xxv Circumstance of these words this cup or chalice AS euery Apostle or Euangelist wrote later then other so he made the supper of Christ more plain geuing vs euidently to vnderstand that the words of Christes supper are so far of from figuratiue speaches that rather the propriety of them is by all meanes fortified I haue shewed before how the name of cup or chalice doth not hinder any whyt why all yâ— rest of Christes words may not be proper and literally true but now I affirm also that it increaseth much the reason of their pro prietie Why so Because the cup is named to shew the maner of fulfilling of the old figures In the old Testament the blood of the oxen was put in crateras into great cups or basins and so the people were sprinkled therewithall Now to bring the Apostles and all vs in mind thereof Christ nameth the cup or chalice Declaring thereby that his own blood is now to vs as the blood of oxen was to the people of Israel His in the chalice as the blood of oxen was in the basiâ—…s His presently drunk as that other was presently sprinkled Erat autem veteris Testamenti calix caet There was a cup or chalice sayth S. Chrysostom of the old Testament and sacrifices and the blood of brute beasts For after sacrifice the blood being taken in a chalice and cup they made after that sort libations or offerings of that which was liquide and renning CuÌ„ igitur pro sanguine brutorum sanguinem suum induxisset ne quis his auditis perturbaretur illius veteris sacrificij meminit Seing therefore he had brought in his own blood in stede of the blood of brute beasts least any man hearing of these things should be troubled he maketh mentioÌ„ of the old sacrifice Decumenius also writeth thus concerning the naming of the chalice or cup Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem Et bene in poculo vt ostendat vetus Testamentum anteà hoc delineasse Our Lord geueth his own blood in stede of the blood of vnreasonable creatures And he doth well to geue it in a cup to shew that the old Testament did shadow this thing before Behold why the cup is mentioned Uerily to shew Christes blood to be as really in the cup of his own supper as euer the bruâ—…e beastes blood was in the cup of the old testament yea much more also For the blood of the oxen was really put into that old cup to shew that Christes blood should be really present in the cup of his supper the old blood did not shew that wine should be in Christes cup for that had bene lesse then the old testameÌ„t it self because the blood of oxen is better then wine of the grape but that blood in the basin did signifie that Christes blood should be in our chalice not only as in a figure for so it was in the basin also of the old testament but euen in very dede vnder the forme of wine It is not now sufficient to say we drink Christes blood in hart or by faith it must be drunken really out of the chalice and cup of Christes supper thence the hart must take it at Christes supper thence it must be receaued both in faith and truthe ¶ The xxvi Circumstance of the verb est left out in S. Lukes words IT is the custome of writers in the Hebrew tonge to leaue out many tymes the verb sum es fui which is latin to be and that because common sense and vse doth easily teache vs to supply that verb as being both most necessarie of al other and most frequent in common speache S. Luke writeth thus This cuâ—… is the new testament in my blood shed for you this sentence is imperfit for lack of a verb which may knit the parts thereof together I ask what verb we shal vnderstand to make it perfit The Sacramontaries say that Christ meaneth this cup doth signifie the new testament in my blood will ye then vnderstand the verb significat doth signifie if ye do so I wil shew that as well the noun cup as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testamentum are both put in the nominatiue case but if S. Luke had meant to vnderstand the verb significat he wold haue put one of them in the accusatiue case If ye supply the verb est is to make the sentence perfit that verb must nedes be takeÌ„ in the same sense wherein it is wont to be supplied but it is coÌ„monly supplied as a coÌ„mon verb whose nature is to declare the substance and not the figure of the thing which is spoken of therefore so it must be taken at this tyme. Otherwise what a folly were it wheÌ„ a verb is at the first left out to call it of purpose into the speache and as sone as it is placed there to say it staÌ„deth not properly but to remoue it again put an other verb for it What was the verb est being once left out brought in for this intent only yâ— as sone as it was in his place it should be immediatly cast out chaÌ„ged into the verb significat If ye say ye were compelled to cal it in I agree with you and say further ye are
Iudas saith Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat to whom Christe himselfe gaue bread the whiche bread was to be betraied See the bread that Christ gaue it was not euery bread not the substance of coÌ„mon bread but euen that bread in substance which was betraied for vs to death For Christ is bread geuing himself to Iudas he gaue the same bread that was betraied except any other thing was betraied for vs beside Christ. I might surely bring a maruelouse number of suche testimonies all which declare the name of bread whiche is attributed to the body of Christ after consecration not to signifie materiall or wheaten bread as it was before the blessing and pronouncing of the words but to describe that meat that food that true Manna which is only the flesh of Iesus Christ eaten vnder the forme oâ—… common bread And that kinde of bread is neuer named without an article or pronoune ioyned with it Whereby the excellency of the bread is witnessed the difference of it from common bread It is called in S. Mathew supersubstantiall bread in S. Iohn the bread which is flesh and in S. Paul the bread which who so eateth vnworthely he is gilty of the body of Christ which is as much to say as that kind of bread is the body of Christ. ¶ The presence of the body and blood of Christ in his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old Testament FRom Adam to S. Iohn Baptist all the faithfull people of God was both in continuall expectation of the coming of Iesus Christ partly foreshewed in dedes by holy figures and pagents partly foretolde in words by the spirite of prophecie what should afterward be done by Christ him self and be obserued in his kingdom the church After which sort the brasen serâ—…ent betokened the death of Christ and Ionas his resurrection The figures by the way of doing commended the same truth to the eyes which the prophecies by the way of speaking dyd set forth to the eares Which two senses are the chief meanes whereby we atteine to knowledge in this life And because both figures and prophecies are obscure darke and vnpleasant vntill they be fulfilled I thought best not tâ—… speake of them before I had declared the true meaning of that gift whiche Christ made at his last supper Now it remaineth yâ— we briefly conferre the one with the other shewing that sense of Christes wordes which the Catholiks defend to be agreable to suche old shadowes figures prophecies as apperteined to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar For to the Iewes as S. Paul affirmeth all things chanced in figures And Christ saith all things must nedes be fulfilled which are spoken of him in the law Psalmes and Prophetes ¶ The figure of Abel ABell the first shepherd Priest Martyr and perpetuall virgin made a sacrifice of the first begotten of his flocke and of the fat of them which God shewed him self to accept by sending down fier from heauen Abel then hauing first offered him self vnto God vnder the shape of other thinges afterward went forth to be offered in his owne person and shape being â—…aiterously put to death by his brother Cain with a deadly â—…ripe of a wodden club or stake whose blood the earth opening her mouth receaued into her bowels and from thence it cryed to God The prince of shepherdes the chief Priest greate martyr and witensbeaâ—… to al truth the flower and garland of all virginitie is Iesus Christ God and man whose flocke the faithful men are The first begoâ—…eÌ„ and fatte of them is the flesh and blood which Iesus â—…oke of the virgin Marie which flesh and blood he first offered to God by wil and affection when he toke into his hands bread and wiâ—…e within a certaine parler vpon mounte Sioâ—… where he did eate the Paschal lambe with his Apostles And God shewed him selâ—…o to accept that intent of the sonne of man by working with the consuming fiex of his Diuinity that marucilouse grace which turned the substance of bread and wine into yâ— substance of Christes own flesh and blood And from that place Christ went forth ouer the brook of Cedron to be offered in his owne person and shape betraied by Iudas and put to death vpon the wood of the crosse by his own brethren the Iewes whose blood the Church called forth from among both Iewes and gentils with al due honour receaueth into her mouth bowels whence it geueth a better crie then the blood of Abell did from the earth where it lay Abel vnder the sigâ—…e of his Lambes did by will and affection consecrate the same truth of his body and soule to God which at yâ— tyme of his death he actually rendred and gaue vp into the handes of his maker And surely if he had bene able to haue made the substance of his owne body anâ—… soule present in his owne handes when he offered he would much more 〈◊〉 haue offered it then yâ— dâ—…ad flesh of lambes which he vsed for a signe of 〈◊〉 For who would content him selfe with a barâ—… signe if he weâ—…e able to offer the truth it selfe He was not of such power as to change the lambes into him selfe thereby working that in his haudes outwardly which his hart inwardly offered But yet he shewed his desier to haue a change made in that he slew yâ— laÌ„bes taking from them theyr former substance to thinâ—…t by consecration they might obteiâ—…e a more holy and sacâ—…ed being God also looked vpon his gifts as wel accepting the mind of his Priest as the maner of his doing But that which lacked in Abel who was faine to shew outwardly the consecration of his owne hart by a thing of an othere substance that thing Christ fulfilled making the same substance of his owne flesh present in his hands which he dedicated to God in his hart For taking bread and blessing he sayd This is my body Abel offered his gift before he went forth into the field where he was â—…aine The Sacramentaries deâ—…e Christ to haue offered his giftes in his last supper before hâ—… went forth to his passion Abel contented not him self with the former substance which his lambes naturally had They teach that Christ contented him self with the former substance of bread wine Fier â—…rom heauen inâ—…amed the external giftes of Abel They deny yâ— fier of the word of God to swallow vp the substance of bread and wine which Christ toke Abel consecrated his own body and blood as farre as he was able vnder the outward signe of his lambes They deny Christ to haue consecrated his owne body and blood vnder the formes of the bread and wine which he toke although they must nedes confesse that both Christ was able really to do it and by yâ— way of blessing to haue sayd this is my body
not born is made I say Therfore hoc facite signifieth make this thing 〈◊〉 sayth Inefficabili operatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traÌ„sformatur etiam si nobis videatur panis although it seme bread to vs it is made an other thing or transformed by an vnspeakeable working 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after this sorte If the word of God be liuely and of efficacy and all things what soeuer it wold it hath made if it sayd Let light be made it was made let the firmament be made and it was made If the 〈◊〉 be establyshed by the word of God and all the vertue of them by the spirit of his mouth if heauen and earth water fier aier and all the decking of theÌ„ and man himself a lyuing creature spred and made common euery where were made perfecte with the word of God If God the word him self of his owne wil was made man and hath vpholden and staied in his own person flesh without seed of maÌ„ out of the most pure and 〈◊〉 blood of the holy virgine is he not able to make bread his own body and wine and water his blood He said in the beginning let the earth bring forth 〈◊〉 spring to this day reyne being made it bringeth forth springs holpen and strengthned with the commandement of God God hath sayd This is my body and this is my blood and make this thing for the remembrance of me Et omnipotenti eius praecepto donec veniat efficitur and by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made 〈◊〉 he come Marke whether Damascene doth not ground all his authorities vppon making and the authoritie of Christes supper vpon these words make this thiÌ„g 〈◊〉 expouÌ„ding these words Hoc facite sayth Hoc inquit nouum mysterium non illud vetus make this new mysterie sayth he and not that old Haymo sayth Hoc facite id est hoc corpus sanctificate sanctifie this body that is to say make holy and consecrate this body 〈◊〉 Archbysshop of Cantorbury although he sheweth first that by this word Hoc facite eating and drinking for the remembrance of Christes death is commamded to al Christians yet declaring also a farther sense of yâ— same words he sayth Aut corde vos qui Sacerdotes estis hoc facite quod ego 〈◊〉 feci id est calicem vini consecrate vt 〈◊〉 sanguismeus hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemorationem vt in hoc facto sitis memores mei eorum quae pro vobis passus sum Or els ye that are Priests make that which I haue now made that is to say consecrate the chalice of wine that it may be made my blood make this thing for the remembrance of me and of those things which I haue suffred for you 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople sayth that the holy Ghoste maketh the mysteries by the hande of Priestes and toâ—…g Nicolaus Methonensis sayth the body and blood of Christ to be those thinges quae hoc ritu perficiuntur which are made peâ—…fit with this ryte If sanctificare efficere panem corpus Christi panem facere corpus Christi vinum sanguinem if consecrare operari diuinissima fieri eucharistiam facere panem corpus Christi conficere corpus Christi ore conficere oblationem Christi conficere paneÌ„ calicem mysticum fieri panem sui ipsius corpus facere nouum mysterium sacere corpus effici corpus hoc sanctificare coÌ„secrare calicem vini vt fiat sanguis Christi If al these phrases and kindes of speache can not be â—…nglished by doing but only by making and yet the aucthority and commandement that any Priest hath to make the body and blood of Christ commeth only from these words Hoc facite it must nedes be confessed that these words do signifie much more make this thing then doe this Otherwise we should not make the body of Christ at al whereas S. Iames Dionysius Areopagita S. Iustinus S. Ireneus Tertâ—…llian S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Augustine Theophilaet Euthymius Haimo Damascene Germanus Methonensis yea al the whole Church doth say with one accorde that Priestes doe make and are commanded to make the body of Christ. Is it now possible that the body of Christ which is thus made froÌ„ of wheaten bread by yâ— coÌ„mandement of God him self should not be for al yâ— present with vs vnder the form of the same bread If when the word was made flesh in the virgins wombe it was present with vs not only by saith and spirit but dwelt really in the world being conuersant among men and was sene in earth likewise when the body of Christ is made from of the creature of bread by the Priests mouth in the vertue of Christes word it is present with vs not only by faith and spirit but in deede and trâ—…th it self it dwelâ—…eth not only among vs but euen within vs as meate dwelleth in him who receaueth it weth a sound stomake and digesteth it well For seing Christ hauing taken bread and blessed sayd this is my body and â—…ad his Apostles make this thing bread is in such sorte made his body yâ— when y◠〈◊〉 of the words is past the body of Christe remaineth still according to the distinction of S. Basill as the work which was wrought by yâ— sayd words and it is receaued of the faithfull people vnder the form of bread to nourish theyr soules and bodies to euerlasting life ¶ What these words doe signifie For the remembrance of me that they much help to proue Christes reall presence vâ—…der the formes of bread and wine IT may be some man will say I deale not honestly â–ª for Christ sayd not only make this thing which I haue most pressed vpoÌ„ but he added other words thereunto which declare that a figure should be made and not his true body For he sayd do this in the remembrance of me If it be a remembrance of Christ how is it Christ him self The remembrance of a man differeth from the man him self Thus much if any man say against me I feare nothing but I shall satisfie him concerning my doing if now I shewe that the words of remeÌ„brance whereof he taketh holde doth much more help my saying theu his Which that I may the better perform I besech him to remember that Chist said not hoc agite in coÌ„memoratione mei doe this in my remembrance or in remeÌ„brance of me but hoc facite in meam commemorationem which signifieth as wel to make as to do this thing not only in but rather for the remembraÌ„ce oâ—… me and yet so haue these words bene commonly Englyshed and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 as though he had said only hoc agite doe this not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite which is both doe this and make this thing Again as though he had said in mea commemoratione in the ablatiue case in the remembrance of me and not 〈◊〉
for Christ to worke But it is a great deale more semely for him to turne bread into his body then to turne him self into a vine Because it is to be thought he being the wisedom of God changeth allways for the best Which were not so if in stede of him self he should leaue vs a materiall vine and yet in turning bread into his body the change is made for the better by infinite degrees Therefore these words I am the true vine though al other thigs were equall could neuer proue that vnwise change so well as This is my body wil proue a most wise happy change of common bread into the bread of life Morcouer these words the vine albeit they were ment of a certeyne vine yet there is no necessitie that they should shew it present Sith those words may be verified of a vine which being a hundred mile thence were knowen to Christ alone as likewise wheÌ„ S. Paule sayd The rock was Christ the rock whereof he spake was not present 〈◊〉 him but in his mind he noted a certeyne rock which yet in truth it self was not very certeyne touching any one materiall rock because two diuerse rocks were stryken out of which water flowed at diuerse tymes But as I was about to say the true vine being only described by those termes might be vncerteine to the Apostles and to the hearers of Christ either because they neuer knew it or because they haue forgotten it So that these words I am the true vine will not as well proue a transubstantiation as the other words This is my body For both the bread which was changed was first present and the body wherevnto the change is made is presently shewed taken and eaten vnder the forme of the same bread It is doubtlesse a great help in prouing transubstantiation to know both the vttermost partes and to be able to bring that foorth into the which the other is changed For the nature of proof among men consisteth in making a thing plaine to reason by the meane of senses and among faithfull men it consisteth in making it plain to faith by the meane of the same senses If one should aske where the vine is whereof Christ sayd I am the true vine and ye could not bring it foorth and on the other syde if I could bring foorth the body of Christ into which yâ— bread were changed although you might as wel beleue the transubstantiation of Christ into the vine through the word of Christ as I do beleue the transubstantiation of bread into his body yet you could not so wel proue it because you could not shew it so well The vine is lesse then this vine and the proof that this maketh doth far excede the proof that the can make If an inquisition were made who had done a certeyne murder and you said the man hath done it but I could say this man hath done it I suppose all the Iudges in the world wold say that I proued the murder done better then you When it is sayd the man hath done such a murder albeit the Iudge beleue the saying yet his vnderstanding is not quieted but he asketh farther which man is that But when you come so nigh to the point as to say this man hath done it nothing caÌ„ be asked more plaine Which being so albeit I graunted a transubstantiation in eche saying yet M. Nowell had not sayd truly in affirming that these words I am the true vine do proue as well a transubstantiation as This is my body By how much this in making proof doth passe the by so much the later words wold better proue a transubstantiation then the first Besydes this when two transubstantiations are affirmed of the which one hath bene in some like sorte practised before but the other hath not bene likewise practised those words which affirme such a transubstantiation the like whereof hath bene before done do proue the sayd transubstantiation better then those that speake of a thing that neuer was done Bread was vsually turned into Christes body whiles he lined in earth for his body was nourished with bread the which bread was turned into his flesh Quamobrem rectè nunc etiam Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credimus im mutari Wherefore now also we beleue well sayeth Nyssenus brother to S. Basile the bread which is sanctified with yâ— word of God to be changed into the body of God the word This argument also Damascene Theophylact and Euthymius do make So that it is no newes for bread to become Chri stes body but for Christ to become a vine that as it is throughly impossible because Christ is God and vnable to be changed so albeit we did graunt it possible yet it were yâ— harder to proue it because it had not benâ—… done before Last of all there was neuer any auncient Father or Generall Councell nay there was neuer no learned man were he Catholike or otherwise there was neuer none of the lay people no woman no childe no naturall foole which tooke or thought any vine or rock in the whole world to be the naturall substance of Christ Notwithstanding that Christ had sayd I am the true vine and S. Paule that the rock was Christ. But if we come to these words This is my body and consider them so pronounced as they were we shal finde not only thousand millions of faithful people to haue beleued the bread ouer which those words are spoken to be changed into Christes body but also whole Generall Councels wherein many hundred of Bisshops and of great clerks haue bene gathered together to haue taught and decreed directly or by manifest sequele yâ— doctrine of transubstantiation as the Councels of Lateran of Basile of Constance of FloreÌ„ce of Trent Which all are knowen to haue agreed in this behalf Besides many auncient Fathers haue moste constantlie writen the same as S. Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom with all the rest The prosecuting of which argumeÌ„t were at this present to far distant from my principall intent but in case I may vnderstand that these few reasons doe not satisfie M. Nowell or any other man to whome my labour may doe good I will proue moste fully the doctrine of transubstaÌ„tiation both out of the holy scriptures and out of the holy Fathers Now for M. Nowell not withstanding al these sâ—…ueÌ„ differences to affirme that no Papist shal euer be able to shew cause why I am the true vine doth not proue as well a transubstantiation as these words This is my body it was an ignorance in a preacher not pardonable For if I should only staye vppon the last argument wherein all Christendom is shewed to haue beleued transubstantiation through these words This is my body and that as well before in dede as by confession of our aduersaries euer sence the great Councell of
by it selfe aâ—… also being one of those things which doth principally declare the saith of the whole Churche in this behalfe For no man would adore the body of Christ in the Priestes hands or vpon the altar if it were not really present there The Chapiters of the sixth Booke 1. The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the Prophet Dauid in the Psalm 21. 2. Item of the Psalme 98. 3. It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatry to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar 4. The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the new Testament 5. That the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ dyd honour the body blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar 6. The adoration of the body blood of Christ is proued by the custome of the Priestes and people of the first six hundred yeres 7. The reall presence is proued by the doctrine consent of the auncient Fathers 8. Item by the faith of the people 9. That no man can be coÌ„demned for beleuing the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine ¶ The adoration of Christes body is proued out of the Prophete Dauid OF this adoration due to the body of Christ the holy ghost forewarned vs by the Prophete Dauid in that psalme which Christ him selfe hanging vpon the Crosse declared to be literally ment of him selfe and that as well concerning his death whch he suffered for vs as also concerning the memory of the same death which he instituted in the night wherein he was betraied Christ therefore hauing she wed in that psalme the cruelty of Iewes in killing him most humbly asketh of his Father through his manhod that his soule may be deliuered by resurrection from the mouth of yâ— lion promising or vowing therewithal that he will open the name of God vnto his brethren and praise him in the middest of the congregation And when I cried vnto him he heard me If God hath fauorably heard Christ as there can be no doubt but he hath Christ is bouÌ„d by his own promise to praise his Father in a greate Church therefore saith he will doe so adding thereunto I will render or performe my vowes in the sight of them that feare him By what meane wil he performe them It foloweth immediatly Edent pauperes caet The poore shal eate be silled and they that seeke him shal praise the Lord theyr hartes shall liue for euer all the endes of the earth shall remember and be turned to the Lord. All the families of the Gentils shall adore in his sight Because the kingdome is the Lords and him selfe shall beare rule among the nations All that be fat on the earth haue eaten and adored al they that goe doune into the earth shall fall doune before him 1. Christ then â—…or his resurrections sake 2. made a vow to praise God 3. in the great Church of all nations 4. the performance whereof should be stablished by the meanes of eating filling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worshiping â—…ose that after baptism by yâ— grace of God are preserued froÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar 〈◊〉 be filled 〈◊〉 praise God for euer Eating is the acte of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirituall 〈◊〉 is the heauenly effect thereof the praising of God is the fruit of the 〈◊〉 For we 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 are filled to the end we should praise God for euer 〈◊〉 that after 〈◊〉 fall into greate 〈◊〉 partly they so fal that they rise 〈◊〉 and then they remember in yâ— memory of Christes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his last supper is that Christe died for them and so the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 forceth presseth them by penance to returne Partly they so fall that they care not to returne to God but lye wallowing still in their synnes yet they departe not by 〈◊〉 or infidelity out of the Church but kepe stil the bare belefe of Gods truth without performing his â—…dementes Such men eate worship but because they wil not remeÌ„ber be 〈◊〉 to God but come to the table of Christ vnworthely they are not filled by their eating But there are two other kinds of men who sometime haue bene of Christes church but now are not of it of which two the one doth eat and not worship because it beleuâ—…th not the thing eaten to be the flesh of God such are the Zinglians the other doth neither worship nor eate which are the vnfaithfull Iewes who are not only departed from the Catholike Church but also froÌ„ yâ— coÌ„fession of Christ our true Messias of whom S. Pâ—…ule saith we haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle Christ being absent in the visible forme of his body sitting therein at the right hand of his father ruleth his Church reigâ—…eth in it not as the vnfaithfull Iewes thought he would haue done by exâ—…ising violent inâ—…isdiction and subduing the bodies of men by force but he reigneth in yâ— hartes through faith charitie which he geueth vs. This inuisible reigning among visible men requireth for conuenient maâ—…tenance thereof an inuisible kinde of presence concerning the person of the king bâ—…t yet visible concerning the forâ—…ies of bread and wine to theâ—…d his members may know where to worship him For as his Church is visible through the bodies of them whose soules do inuisibly serue him so his body is visible through the formes of bread wine vnder the which it lieth inuisibly distributing the frutes of his death and resurrection All this eating adoring filling raigning and praysing doth chieâ—…ly belong in this place to the Sacrament of Christes body and blood Through those mysteries Christe the bread of life is really eaten wee are filled with grace God is praised in good works reigneth in our hartes we bowe downe to his body and worship him for our maker our King and our Lord. And that this interpretation is not of mine owne making it shall nowe appere S. Hierome vpon those wordes vota mea reddam I wil render my vowes which I promised saith Vota Christi natiuitas vel passio vota Ecclesiae opera bona vel mysterium corporis sanguinis mei offeram cum his qui in eius timore haec celebrant The vowes of Christ are his birth or passion the vowes of the Church are good workes or els I will offer saith Christe the mystery of my body and blood with them who celebrate these thinges in his feare First S. Hierome taketh the vowes of Christ to haue bene the promises that he made to be borne or to die but afterward he geueth an other sense which is more agreable to the letter For Christe had spoken before of his passion
Epiphanius Who so beleueth not the saying to be true as him self spake it is fallen from grace and saluation Cyrillus Hierosolymitatus Seing Christ him self affirmeth so and sayth of the bread This is my body Who hereafter may be so bolde as to doubte S. Ambrosius Our Lord Iesus him self geueth witnes vnto vs that we take his body and blood Ought we any thing to doubte of his fidelitie and witnesbearing S. Chrysostome Because our Lord sayd This is my body let vs be intangled with no doubtfulnes but let vs beleue and see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Eusebins Emissenns Let all doubtfulnes of infidelitie depart for so much as the author of the gift him self also is witnes of the truth S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Doubt not whether it be true sith Christ sayth manifestly This is my body But rather take y◠word of our Sauiour in faith for seing he is y◠truth he lieth not And againe Let vs take great aduantage by the synnes of other men Geuing stedfast faith vnto the mysteries Let vs neuer in so high matters either thinke or speake that word Quomodo How S. Gregorius Nazianzenus Eate the body and drink the blood without confusion or doubte if at the least thou arte desirouse of life Neither do thou withdraw faith from the sayings which concerne the flesh The same thing S. Hilary Leo Isychius Theophylact Paschasius and diuerse others haue spoken requiring vs not to doubte of the truth of this mysterie and that specially because Christes words make full persuasion and take away al occasion of doubting But if they be figuratiue it is not so for then one may vnderstand this kinde of figure an other that kinde One may thinke it to be a Metaphore An other that it is Synechdoche The third that it is Metonymia The fourth that it is altogether an Allegorie or parable and without all ground of Historie Others doubt not to expound This is my body as if it were sayd in this with this or vnder this or about this my body is Yea from that day wherein the proper and natural sense of those words was denied I thinke neuer any words haue bene more vncertayne and more doubted of then This is my body Yet the Fathers were so farre from this vncertaintie that they counted him an infidell and ◅allen from grace and saluation who so did not beleue them euen as Christ spake them To wit euen so as they sound at the first sight If the truth of Christes body be the reall substance thereof they that intreating of the Eucharist affirme y◠truth of his flesh must nedes meane that his substance is really present in that Sacrament whereof they speake S. Hilarius speaking of the holy mysteries sayth There is left no place of doubting of the truth of flesh and blood Yet surely if the substance of flesh and blood were not present not only some place but the chief place of doubting were left S. Ambrosius It is the true flesh of Christ which we take Doubt ye nothing at all sayeth Leo concerning the truth of Christes body By like he spake to Catholikes for doubtlesse the Sacramentaries doubt so vehemently thereof that they beleue the truth of Christes body to be only at the right hand of his Father Isychius He receaueth by ignorance who knoweth not this to be the body and blood according to the truth Damascenus The bread and wine is not the figure of Christes body and blood God forbid But it is the self deified body of our Lorde The like assertion Theophylact Euthymius and diuerse other Fathers haue They that name the supper of Christ a figure a Sacrament or a remembrance do not therby exclude the true substāce of Christes flesh but they meane to shew that it is present vnder the signe of an other thing after a mysticall and secret maner S. Cyprian The diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it self in the visible Sacrament S. Hilarius We take in dede the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie Lo the flesh the substance of God is present in truth but vnder a signe Ty◅illus Hierosolymitanus Vnder the figure of bread the body is geuen to thee Who now knowing the Sacrament to consist of two parts wil wonder that sometyme it is named of the one and sometyme of the other S. Augustine The body and blood of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which is visibly receaued in the Sacrament be in the truth it self eaten spiritually B◅holde there is a thing in the Sacrament and so really it is there that it is visibly receaued Therefore it is not a spirituall thing only for no such matter is visibly receaued but it is there and thence it must be eaten spiritually and in y◠truth it self That is to say it must not only be taken into the mouth but into the hart also then it shal be life vnto the receauer This thing so receaued in the Sa cramēt must nedes be the body of Christ vnder y◠forme of bread for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually It were to rediouse to allege all that S. Augustine hath writen in this behalf but his other words being conferred with these wil make it plaine that whensoeuer he nameth it a figure he meaneth the truth hidden vnder a figure which is more shortly named a mysticall figure He that allegeth cause why the flesh and blood of Christ is not seen in the mysteries presupposeth albeit an vnuisible yet a most reall presence thereof S. Ambrose sayth it is not seen in his owne forme Vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis To th' end there may be no lothsome abhorring of raw blood and yet that the price of our redemption may work So that by his iudgement the truth of blood is present to worke in vs the effect of Christes death and yet the foorm of blood is not seen because we should not abhorre to drink it Theophylact Although it seme bread to vs it is chaunged by vnspeakable operation Because we are weake and abhorre to eat rawe flesh specially the flesh of a man and therefore it semeth bread but in dede it is flesh If these words can be glosed with a figure then I know not what shall escape the hands of these figure makers They that acknowledge a change of the substāce of bread into Christes body must nedes meane a real presence of that body whereinto the change is made When Iustinus Martyr denyeth vs to take the things consecrated as common bread and drinke shewing also that we haue learned them to be not only sanctified in qualitie but to be the flesh and blood of Christ which is an other substance he doth vs to vnderstand that he meaneth them not to be after consecration the substance of common
Chapiters of the seuenth Booke 1. Maister Iuel hath not answered D. Hâ—…rding wel touching the vvords of Christes supper 2. That the supper of Christ is a naked bare figure accordig to the Doctrine of the SacrameÌ„taries 3. That Christes bodie is receaued by mouth not by faith only 4. M. Iuel hath not replied vvel touching the sixth Chapiter of S. Iohn But hath abused as vvell yâ— gospel as diuerse authorities of the fathers 5. Item he hath not replied vvell touching the Carpharnaites 6. Neither conferred the supper vvith the sixth of Iolm as it ought to be 7. Neither disputed wel touching the omnipotenâ—…ie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh 8. Whether the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 exponÌ„d more vnpropertie or inconuenientlie the vvords belonging to Christes supper 9. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel 10. Of the signification of aduerbs 11. Of the first author of the SacrameÌ„tarie heresie 12. Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded 13. A place of S. Chrysostom examined 14. The difference betvvene baptisme and oure Lordes supper 15. The ansvvere to M. Iuel concerning the Nicene Councell S. Augstine caet 16. VVhether Christes bodie dvvelleth reallie in our bodies by his natiuitie 17. Item vvhether by faith 18. The contradictions of M. Iuel in this article 19. Whether by baptism Christe dvvelleth reallie in our bodies 20. Item VVhether by the Sacrament of the altar or no. 21. Christes bodie is proued really present by S. Chrysostoms vvordes 22. Item by the vvordes of S. Hilarie 23. Item of S. Gregorius Nyssenus 24. Item of S. Cyrill ¶ Master Iuel hath not answered D. Harding well touching the words of Christes supper IVel. fo 316. The people was not taught in the first 600. yeres to beleue that Christes body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the Sacrament Harding Of the termes really substantially corporally coet found in the doctors Iuel His answere is that Christes body is corporally vnited to vs but whether it be corporally in the Sacrament he answereth not one word Harding The termes are fouÌ„d in the doctors treating of the true being of Christes body in the Sacrament Sander Ergo M. Iuel said not truly For as D. Harding now saith it so he proueth afterward Christes body to be really in the Sacrament Iuel In this matter he is able to allege nothing for direct prouf Harding Christen people hath euer bene taught that the body of Christ is present verely in the Sacrament vvhich doctrine is founded vpon Christes plaine vvords Sander Ergo M. Iuel â–ª he was able to allege some what Iuel It is marueil the people should be taught without a teacher or without â–ª words â–ª or those not writen Harding Christes vvordes are expressed by three Euangelists and S. Paule Take eate this is my body this is my blood coet San. Ergo M. Iuel hath 〈◊〉 plainly 〈◊〉 whereby direct prouf of Christes real presence is 〈◊〉 â–ª Harding Neither saieth our Lord only This is my body but to put the matter out of dout he addeth vvhich is geuen for you Iuel 317. Hereupâ—… M. Harding fouÌ„deth his carnal presence 318. in such grosse sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament c. San. It is no grosse sort of presence whiche is reall true and miraculouse as being of Christes own institution Marcion and Apelles herein your auncestors M. Iuel thought it a carnall a grosse a fleshly thing for Christ to lie nine moneths in his mothers belly to be nourished there with blood and humours to be borne naked to be wrapped in clouts For a remedie of which absurdities the one of them deuised that Christ was not really borne but that which Tertullian saith against Marcion shal be my answere to you First God saieth he hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound men that are wise in their own conceit 2. Whatsoeuer is vnworthy of God is expedient for maÌ„ 3. Be thou assured Christ had rather be borne then in any parte to make a lye Now if we applie all these sayinges to Christes presence in the Sacrament it shal be lesse carnall lesse grosse lesse fleshly to haue the substance of Christes corporall flesh in a spirituall manner really present vnder the forme of bread then either to be corporally in his mothers womb or to think that he made a lye when he said take eate this is my body Iuel Christ vseth not any of these words San. I will say with S. Augustine although the word be not found the thing is found Harding 130. Though this manner of speaking be not thus expressed in the scripture yet it is deduced out of the scripture Iuel Christ vseth no leading thereunto Sander The worde 〈◊〉 â—…id lead the Apostles to that which was in Christes hands or which lay before him the wordes is my body shewed the substance thereof as if I shewing to a man that kind of beast should say this is a lion the word this leadeth him to that beast which he feeth and whereunto I point is a lion sheweth the substance of the thing pointed vnto This oddes only there is that a man by pointing speaking can shew only that which was before but God who spake it was made by pointing and speaking doth make that to be the substance of his body whiche was not so before Nowe as when it is truly said this is a lion it wil follow thereof vnder this visible forme which I shew a lion is substantially conteined so seing Christe pointeth to the Sacrament saying This is my body it will follow thereof in this Sacrament my body is conteined substantially corporally c. Thus Chrisâ—…es wordes lead vs to his body substantially present in the Sacrament ergo M. Iuel must subscribe by his owne promise Iuel 317. D. Fisher saith this sense can not in any wise be gathered of the bare wordes of Christ. Sander Wel fisht I promise you if he fish wel that catcheth a lie 1. The blessed B. of Rochester had said that the vnderstaÌ„ding of the Gospell is more certeinly obteined by the interpretation of the Fathers and by the practise left by them then by the bare words of the Gospel For example hereof he saith no man shall prone by the bare wordes of the Gospel that any Priest in these daies doth coÌ„secrate the true body and blood of Christ. Marke good Reader whereof he speaketh For although saith he Christ him self did in dede make his body and blood of bread and wine yet except the like be promised and graunted to vs we can not be sure we do it but no suche thing is promised For in S. Mathew now followeth one of the places alleged by M. Iuell No word is put whereby it maie be proued that in our Masse the very presence of Christes body and blood
Albeit he be spirituallie the true vine and the true Manna For seing he was not these things really thei can not be said of him really But he is man in dede and therefore offered in dede killed in dede buried in dede and eateÌ„ in dede For now as we beleue the real death of him so must we beleue the real â—…ting of him because the truth belonging to eche of them is to be taken according to the true nature of man whiche he toke And as it was mete for him to be killed in the shape of man so he would be eaten in the shape of bread Iu. S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the natural office of the body What preparest thou thy teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten Beleuing in him is the eating of the bread of life San. You are one of yâ— most impudent men that euer any creature had to doe withall S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes with whome Christe talked at Capharnaum who gaped for bodily meate and belly chere Now when Christ had said worke the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting S. Augustine saieth to the Iew who soughte to haue his bellie filled what preparest thou thy teeth M. Iuel knoweth that when Catholikes come to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar they whet not theyr teeth as if they came to a carnall banket but they beleue eate first by beleuing to th end they maie afterward eate by mouthe worthely And therefore S. Augustine confesseth vs to receaue Christ by mouth also but by a faithfull mouth not by a glotoâ—…ouse mouth His words are Hominem Christum Iesum caet fideli corde atque ore suscipimus We doe receaue with a faithful hart and mouth the man Iesus Christ geuing his fleshe vnto vs to be eaten and his blood to be drunk although it may seme more horriâ—…le to eate maÌ„s flesh theÌ„ to kil it drink mans blood then to shed it When S. Augustine saith we receaue Christ with a faithfull mouth he sheweth that â—…his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as M. Iuell most impudently saith but he meaneth we should not come to the Sacrament for to satisfie our bodily hunger but with a faithfull harte and mouth Where if he spake not of reall drinking by mouth he would neuer haue said it is more horrible to drink mans blood then to shed it but now although it be so horrible to drink mans blood in that corruptible sort which mortal blood hath yet Christes blood is geuen to vs in a miraculonse manner without corruption or lothsomnes and is receaued euen in the mouthes of the faithful But I can not so leaue you M. Iuel Did S. Augustine vtterly remoue the office of the mouth Said he not that for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy Ghoste Vt prius in os christiani corpus dominicum intraret quà m caeteri cibi that our Lords body should enter into the mouth of a christian man before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vttterly remoued Where is M. Iuell your mind your wit your sense Where is your care of God regarde to your good name or the feare to abuse the holy mysteries Harding Buceâ—… taught the body of Christe to be truly and substantially present exhibited and taken Iu. Hitherto M. Harding hath alleged nor auncient doctour nor old CouÌ„cel San. As though we had not disputed this long time of yâ— Nicene Councâ—…l where 318. auncient Fathers were gathered together Iu. What reasons lead him to yeld to the other side for quietnessake I remit vnto God San. In a matter of suche weight he ought not to haue yelded for quictnes sake sith S. Paule resisted S. Peter for a matter of much lesse importance as wherein they rather disagreed in facte then in doctrine as Tertullian witnesseth Iu. If M. Harding had found any other doctor he would not haue made his entry with Bucer San. Beside the Nicene councel which you haue heard already ye shal heare other doctours anon Iu. The councel of the eight Cardinals at Rome might rather haue bene scoft at then this brotherly conference San. The Cardinals sought not a new faith as Bucer and Luther did but the purging of old faultes they came not together to set forth a new doctrine but to amend the life of euil men Tertullian saieth well hllic scripturaruÌ„ expositionuÌ„ adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas inuenitur doctrinae There the couÌ„terfeting both of the scriptures of yâ— expositioÌ„s is to be assigned where yâ— diuersity of doctrine is fouÌ„d such diuersity is betwen the Lutherans and Zuinglians but not betwen the Catholiks Iuel If we compare voices thei of wittemberge were moe in number Sander Nay sir all the Catholike nations of Christendome communicated with the Cardinals but your doctrine was then scant sixtene yeres old and had neuer a citie town or village in the world that wholy communicated with it at that daye The number must not be tried by the men gathered in a house together but by the men agreing in the church together For yâ— who le Church is one house oâ—… god Iuel If we compare knowledge thei were better lerned San. Of new sprong teachers 〈◊〉 said Omnes tument â—…mnes scientiam pollicentur Al of them do swel with pride and euerie one doth promise knowledge But on the other side Nemo sapiens nisi fidelis No man is wise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithfull The Cardinals therefore being faithfull were also â—…etter lerned then your men of witteÌ„berge Again Tertullian sheweth that certein men are wont to saie whie did this woman or that man being moste faithfull most wise most practised in the Church goe into thaâ—… side that is to saie hold this or that new opinion But he answereth they are neither to be counted wise nor faithfull nor men of practise whom heresies can change Therefore those that camâ—… together at witteÌ„berge seing thei chaÌ„ged their old faith soughâ—… out a new thei could not be lerned as thei ought to haue bene But otherwise also thinck you M. Iuel that ani wise man wil grant you that Luther and Bucer with their companions were better lerned them Contarenus Sadoletus Polus and Theatinus with their fellowes Is it enough for you to haue said it in bare words without any proufe at all Iuel If we compare purposes thei sought peace in truth and the glorie of god Sander Cal you that peace when thei diuided Germanie from the rest of ChristendoÌ„ You are of those who wold cure the sores of the people by vâ—…ine words saying to them peace peace when as in dede there was no peace Iuel If we compare issue god hath blessed their doings and geuen force vnto his word Sander Touching your case Tertullian saith Deverbi administratione
c. What shall I speake of the administration of the word sith their whole indeuour is not to conuert Ethniks bâ—…t to peruert our men thei rather couet after this glorie to ouerthrow those that stand then to raise vp those that are fallen because yâ— verie worke of theirs coÌ„meth not of their building but of the destruction of the truth They vndermine our works that they may build vp their owne Thus Tertullian said of you before you were borne It is theÌ„ small issue that you haue hitherto obteined by ouerthrowing as outwardy monasteries Churches altars scholes hospitals so inwardly faith humâ—…tie chaâ—…tie obedience all 〈◊〉 loue of God or of our neighbours Iuel These Cardinals espied suche faults as euery childe might haue found San. Neuer a Priestes childe in England is able to vnderstand them now that they are found much lesse euery child would find them if they were to be sought out Iu. They neuer redressed any of the same San. You say not truly which thing as it might be declared in manie other points as wel of making Priests of geuing beuefices as also in other faults there named so is it most euident to yâ— eye coÌ„cerning yâ— harlats which neither ridde in coche nor dwelt in any palace since that tyme nor went in the tyre of any honest matrone Iuel If M. Harding had bene in the Apostles tymes he would hâ—…ue made some sporte at theyr Councâ—… 〈◊〉 where or in what house assembled they together San. They assembled in the house of S. Iohn as Nicephorus thinketh when they chose Mathias into yâ— nuÌ„ber of the Apostles Againe they assembled to decide the coÌ„trouersie risen coucerning the obseruances of the law of Moyses in diuerse other places Whereat D. Harding will make no sporte because wheresoeuer they assembled they were laufully asseÌ„bled being sent to yâ— who le worlde by Iesus Christe But anie such couâ—…sion Luther and Bucer can not shew Iu. What Bisshop or Pharisee was among thâ—…m San. They had one Bisshop 〈◊〉 the lest among 〈◊〉 and him appointed by Christe to whome he committed both his shepe and lambes But in dede all the Apostles were also Bishopes as it maie apere in that S. Mathias toke the Bishoprike of Iudas â—…ccording to the Prophecie of Dauid Were Luther Bucer and Melancthon so made Bishopes Or will you haue the Churche beginne again in our tyme as it began or rather toke his perfection in Christ Shall Luther be Christ will you be new Apostles to vs Heare what Tertulâ—…an saith hereof also ProbeÌ„t se nouos Apostolos c. Let theÌ„ proue them selues to be new Apostles Let theÌ„ say that Christ hath descended againe yâ— he hath taught againe bene crucified againe dird againe risen againe for so he was woâ—…t to make Apostles more ouer to geue theÌ„ power to do those things which he him self did I would therefore declare their power vertues but yâ— I know theyr chefe power to be in yâ— they do follow the Apostles peruersly For they did make those yâ— were dead to liue but these doe make those that liue to die Hitherto Tertullian Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lacked Bishops in theyr assembles as being all sent with full authority into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…or your assemble had 〈◊〉 Bishop at al Because since Christes assension 〈◊〉 had authoritie to preach or to cal assâ—…bles muste nedes 〈◊〉 of them or of theyr successours to whome Christ gaue suche authoritie But Luther being sent of no man who 〈◊〉 ordinarily to the Apostles must nedes be a false Prâ—… as who ranne before he was sent And truly sith Christe 〈◊〉 noâ—… him selfe to the authoritie of Apostleship but was called of God thereunto and proued his commission by his manifold worâ—…es and miracles it is an intolerable pride for Martin Luther at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worde without anie other miracle 〈◊〉 yâ— he was the most fyithiest maÌ„ both of mouth and life ther lightly was in â—…he earth to require all the world to to beleue his new 〈◊〉 Iu. S. Augustine 〈◊〉 conference and disputation with â—…tius the Arrian at Hippo in a priuate house of one Anitius San. But I 〈◊〉 you it was kepte of S. Augustines part to maintein the knowen 〈◊〉 faith and not to ouerthrow if Yea it was kept to maintein yâ— word homusion which yâ— heretike Pascentius alleged not to be in the holy scripture and therefore that it ought not to be admitted Iu. There be euer some that laugh at the repairing of Hierusalem as Origen saith San. You are of that summe for you laugh at S. Augustine who brought the faith into England and at the eight Cardinals who went about to repaire the wals of the Church But Origenes speaketh of idolatours and Gentils who euuied at yâ— rising and not at the repairing of the wals of the Gospel because it greued them to see moe new Christians daily made of iufidels ¶ Whether Christes body dwel really in our bodies by his natiuity Iuel The old Fathers speak not any one word that serueth to M Hardings purpose San. This lying brag can not face the matter as it shal appere hereafter Iu. M Harding proueth Christes body to be really in vs and not in the Sacrament thereby altering the question Harding Christ dvvelleth in vs truly because of our receauing his body in this Sacrament San. Ergo M. Iuel said not truly that D. Harding hath altered the question For that which he now saith he also proueth Iu. Four special meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination buâ—…â—…ally substancially naturally fleshly and in dede San. You had ben better to haue subscribed sour 〈◊〉 M. Iuel than for gredines of denying the real presence of Christes body in the Sacrament to haue made an assertion so vain as this is Iu. Christes body by his natiuitie whereby he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwelleth in our bodies really substancially caet San. If you had only said that Christ by his incarnatioÌ„ dwelleth naturally in vs or we naturally in him that sayinge might haue had a true sense for that Christ by taking yâ— nature whiche we are might haue bene said to dwell among vs and to be 〈◊〉 of vs. But to say not only that Christ but that his body not only dwelleth in vs but in our bodies and that not only naturally but also really substancially in dede to affirm coÌ„stantly so much it semeth to me very hard First Christes natiuitie no more caused his body to dwel really in our bodies then his incarnation For when the word was made flesh euen then it dwelt in vs. Secondly his incarnation may be considered three waâ—…es one way as if he had taken 〈◊〉 by thought or imagination only and not in verie dede of which opinion you are not as it may appere
by diuerse places of your booke Another way the incarnation may be considered according to that nature which is generally common to all men As that thei consist of bodies of soules of reason and of certain accidents The question is whether Christ at his incarnation toke al man kind after such sorte that he is now the coÌ„mon substance of vs all or no. Here I know not what M. Iuel would answer if he were namely put in mind thereof But his wordes draw to the affirmatine sense altogether For he saith Christs body dwelleth in our bodies by his natiuitie whiche saying semeth to haue no real truthe in it except Christ be common man kind whiche is in 〈◊〉 man If he be that vniuersall substance then I see that as reason as life as sense as fleshe and blood are no lesse in one man then in an other so Christe who is supposed to be that generall reason life sense fleshe and blood is supposed likewise to be really in euery mans owne body But this kind of opinion is foolish and vain as it shall appere anon The third way of considering the incarnation is to say that Christ toke not yâ— common substance of al mankind but only the whole particular nature of man so that the 〈◊〉 of God hath assumpted so much into his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as any other 〈◊〉 euer had in his 〈◊〉 and corruptible 〈◊〉 to wit he hath assumpted the mind the 〈◊〉 the body and the 〈◊〉 shape of a true man According to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only is true S. Paul saith that he is not 〈◊〉 to call vs his brethern and that because the children whome God 〈◊〉 to him had 〈◊〉 and blood common among them ipse similiter participauit eisdem and he also likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he toke parte that is to say he toke to himselfe fleshe and blood for his own part as they had the same for their parts And therefore as they had a particular 〈◊〉 and generation so Christ was not gathered or taken generally out of the bodies soules of al men 〈◊〉 he was born of the virgin Marie alone the sonne of Dauid and of Abraham according to the fleshe whiche being so his body was no more really in our bodies by his natiuitie then one of our bodies is in the body of an other man For wheÌ„ we speake of our bodies we speake of that which is particularly proper to euery man in his own persoâ—… and not of that which is common to all mankind But yet certeyn general benefites are deriâ—…ed out of Christes 〈◊〉 euen to euery man Due is that our nature is in him marucilously honoured and auanced in so much that it is truly said man is God and God is man Moreouer S. Cyrillus affirmeth that euery particular man shal rise in his owne body at the later day because of the mysterie of Christes resurrectâ—…on who as man conteined all men in him self But seing they that haue done euill shall rise to be punisheâ—… and that more greuously then death it self is as there S. â—…llus witnesseth and yet sith no damnatioÌ„ is vnto them who are in Christ Iesus we may well say that Christ doth not only not dwell in euery mans body by his natiuitie but also that he dwelleth not in their bodies or soules who either did not partake of his flesh at al by faith or els did vnworthely partake thereof either by Baptism or by the Eucharist or any other way All this notwithstanding M. Iuel will proue that Christes body dwelleth euen really in our bodies by his natiuitie And when all is done it will proue either an heresie or noâ—…ing or a dwelling rather in the whole truth of mans nature assumpted then in any mans body after that sort of dwelling which is properly called reall or substanciall But let vs heare his proof Iuel S. Bernard sayth the body of Christ is of my body and is now become mine San. S. Bernard sayth Corpus Christi de meo est the body of Christ is of mine He saith not of my body as you traÌ„â—…ate it But of mine yâ— is to say of the same kind of stuffe whereof I am Of the same stock and 〈◊〉 of like flesh blood but not of my proper flesh of my proper blood not really dwelling in my bowels or in the partes of â—…y body Again when he sayth 〈◊〉 est and the body of Christ is mine he meaneth it is mino to take commoditie thereof mine to vse mine to 〈◊〉 mine to offer to enioy but not mine through this only condition because it is born but because I am ioyned to it by faith by Baptism by Penaunce and by râ—…auing it into my body at Christes holy table and by such like meanes Iuel A babe is born to vs. San. That is to say to th' end we should take 〈◊〉 by the birth of it But by the only birth it is not really in our bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not only to vs or for vs. Iuel A Sonne is geuen vnto vs. 〈◊〉 Unto 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 in him but not to them who receaued him not For he came into his own and his own receaued him not Iuel S. Basill We are partakers of the word by his incarnanation and 〈◊〉 called all his mysticall conuersation flesh and blood San. We partake him in his nature comming to ours and in ours communicated to him but not yet in our bodies coâ—…ing to his bodie except we also be ioyned to him by som other mean beside his natiuitie Iuel Nyssenus sayth His body is all mankind wherevnto he is mingled San. You haue abused this testimonie turning the due construction of the words â–ª and haue put that before the verb which should haue come after the verb. The true construction is The whole nature of man wherevnto he is mingled is the body of Christ. And he meaneth not the natural body of Christ which he toke of the virgen by his natiuitie whereof you intreate but he meaneth the mysticall body of Christ whereof he said before The subiection of the body of the Church is referred to him which doth inhabitie the body And immediatly before yâ— words 〈◊〉 out by you Our Lord is the life by whome it doth happen to all his body that it is brought to the Father Againe Si Pater diligit â—…lium caet If the Father do loue the Sonne and we all that through faith whereby we beleue in him are made his body be in the Sonne consequenâ—…e he that loueth his owne Sonne loueth also the bodie of his soâ—…e euen as he loueth his Sonne himselfe And we are that bodie Lo we are that bodie He spake not therefore of Christes naturall body Iuel Christ being in the womb of the blessed virgin beâ—… â—…esh of our slesh and bone of our bones San. Of the same kind of â—…sh and
bone but not thereby really dwelling in our bodies which belong to our persons Iuel In that sense S. Ihon saith the word was made flesh and dwelt in vs. San. In what sense Whether that Christes bodie by his natiuitie dwelleth substantially in our bodies for so you said but S. Ihon said not so God gaue men power to be made the sonnes of God to such as beleue in his name to such as are borne of God and when S. Iohn had said we had power to be the sonnes of God if we were borne of God he consirmeth that power geuen to vs saying And yâ— word is made flesh hath dwelt 〈◊〉 vs. Therfore saith S. ChrysostoÌ„ he hath dwelt in vs that it might be lauful to come to him selfe to speake to be câ—…uersant boldly with him He was not in our bodies really straight vppon the incarnation but when he dwelt 〈◊〉 our nature wheÌ„ he was a trúe man as we are then might we come to him Priusipsu verbum voluit nasci ex homine vt tu securius nascereris ex deo The word wold first be born of a woman to thâ—…d 〈◊〉 mightest be born of God without feare Iuel Therefore Christ calleth himself the vine and vs the braunches San. It is vntruly sayd 〈◊〉 Iuel For albeit Christ by his humane birth be as it were the 〈◊〉 of the vine for his owne part yet he is not to vs the vine nor we be not the braunches 〈◊〉 we are graffed into Christ which is don by saith and Baptism S. Augustine saith he is made maÌ„ that the nature of man should be a vine in him whereof we that are men might be also the braunches If his only birth had made vs braunches what neded a new birth in Baptism When S. â—…yrill wold shew that Christ according to his humane nature was the vine which thing the Arrians denied he went not for the matter to Christes birth only for then Iudas and â—…ain had bene braunches but he went to the Sacrament of Christes supper to proue that we depend of Christes flesh as braunches doe of the vine Iuel S. Paul calleth Christ the head and vs the body San. S. Paule speaketh of Christes mysticall body and you should proue that his natural body is really in our bodies Now if to make his body to dwell really in our bodies more then his birth be necessary it is not true that M. Iuel with such vain brags hath hitherto sayd that his body by â—…is natiuity dwelleth really or substancially or naturally in our bodies But only that he dwelleth in vs to wit in our nature being made Emanuell nobiscum Deus God with men But thereby Christ dwelleth but in one body really to wit in that which he made to himself out of the virgins most pure blood Wherefore S. Cyrillus saith Habitauit in nobis Dei verbum in templo vno quod propter nos de nobis sibi condidit vt omnes in seipso habeÌ„s in vno corpore patri reconciliaret The word of God hath dwelt in vs or among vs in one teÌ„ple yâ— which he made to himself for our sakes and out of vs that hauing al in himself he might reconcile them to the Fathâ—… in one body One thing M. Iuel I must put you in mind of You 〈◊〉 that Christes body may not be in many places at once which doutlesse you meane of his naturall body and his body is by no meanes more natural then by the natiuity thereof But you say now that Christes body by his natiuity dwelleth really substan cially and fleshly in our bodies and certeinly our bodies dwell in many places therefore you are against your own doctrine as who confesse Christes body by his natiuity to dwell naturally in all our bodies which are not only in many places of yâ— earth but a great number also are vnder the earth in al which Christes body according to your doctrine must dwell corporally and therefore it must be in many places together ¶ Whether Christes body dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. IVel. Towching faith S. Paul saith Christ by faith dwelleth in our harts San. The word hart in holy scripture doth not alwayes signifie that fleshly part of a mans body commonly so called but S. Paule meaneth that Christ dwelleth in our minds and wills by faith and charitie which is made very plaine by the words going before secundum interiorem hominem according to the inner man Therefore no dwelling of Christes body really or substancially in our bodies is proued by this place of S. Paule except we shall say that Christ hath no real and substanciall body of his own For if is be a reall substance what meaneth M. Iuel to affirm it dwelleth really and substancially where the real substance thereof it not if it be a reall dwelling of Christes body in our bodies in that we beleue in Christ and yet Christ haue but one reall and substanciall body by M. Iuels phrase of speache that body may be sayd to haue dwelt really in yâ— virgins â—…omb in that she only beleued in Christ. and by such worthy interpretation the truthe of the incarnation is vtterly taken away Iuel S. Peter saith Hereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature San. Those wordes generally pertein to all the giftes of God and specially to yâ— incarnation of Christ whereby we communicate most perfitly if yet we be faithsull with the nature of God For when we beleue in Christe who is man with vs and God with his Father then wee communicating with his manhood coÌ„municate also with the Godhead whiche dwelleth corporally in Christ. But that coÌ„municating may be made either by faith or baptism and other Sacraments And as the Godhead dwelâ—…eth incomparably more excellently in Christes own body â—…then it doth in any other thing which dependeth thereof so the vnion with his nature is made far better by the meane of the Eucharist with faith and Baptism ioyned together then by one or two of them alone And that this place of S. Peter doth pertein to the communicating of Christes flesh in the Sacrament also Cyrillus of â—…ierusalem doth witnesse writing thus Under the forme of bread the body is geuen and vnder the forme of wine the blood is geuen c. And so we shal be made partakers of the diuine nature as S. Peter sayth Now M. Iuel hath most improperly placed this Testimonie in the second kind of Christes dwelling in vs sith it apperteyneth to all foure ways generally but most especially to that coÌ„munion or ioyning which is made by the holy Eucharist Iuel So sayth Ignatius By his passion and resurrection that is by our faith in the same we are made the members of his body San. S. Ignatius in two places oâ—… that Epistle speaketh of such a matter as M. Iuel wold
in which word yâ— greatest weight of his iudgeâ—…ent resteth For he intendeth not to denie but that the sacraments of the new lawe conteine and geue grace but he saith Thei conteine it not essâ—…ntially as a veâ—…el coÌ„teineth water or as a box holdeth a medicine Whiche notwithstanding he sheweth two other waies how thei conteine grace But I pray you to what end allege you Bonauenture if not to disproue yâ— reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacramente For say you though Christes bodie were in our bodies really it woulde not therefore be concluded that it is really in the Sacrament how is tâ—…at proued forsoth by S. Bonauenture did he then say that Christes bodie though it be really in vs yet it is not râ—…allie in the Sacrament Did he meane any such thinge You shall nowe heare his own words in the same verie place concerâ—…ing the con ference of the Eucharist with other Sacramentes In illo Sacramento est transubstantiatio Vnde illud quod significatur ibi vera est substantia quam congruit esse per se. In that Sacrament there is 〈◊〉 whereby that thing which is signified there is a true substance which substance is fit to be by it self ¶ That Christes body is proued to be really in the Sacrament by S. Chrysostoms words HArding By this Sacrament sayth Chrysostom Christ reduceth vs as it vvere into one lumpe vvith himself And that not by faith only but he maketh vs his ovvn body in very dede Re ipsa VVhich is no other to say then really Iuel This place wold haue stand M. Harding in better stede if Chrysostom had said Christ mingleth his body with the Sacrament and driueth himself and it into one lumpe San. If the Sacâ—…ament of Christes supper were a thing so distinct from Christes body as Christes body is distinct from vs S. Chrysostom might haue sayd perhaps that Christ mingleth himself with the Sacrament But now it is a great ignorance that M. Iuel marketh not the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper to be of it self the reall body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore to say Christ is mingled with the Sacrament were to say that Christ is mingled with him self S. Chrysostom was wiser then to say so but speaking of the Sacrament he sayth that Christ mingleth himself really with vs who worthely receaue that Sacrament Iuel Neither will M. Harding say that Christ mingleth himself with vs simplie and without figure Whereof it foloweth that much lesse it is so in the Sacrament San. This is a fine kind of Rhetorick to make D. Harding beleue he will not say that which he doth say He meaneth that Christes own reall body is ioyned to our bodies and that simplie concerning the substance thereof and without any figure of Rhetorike or of grammar but not without a mystical figure because it is geuen vnder the formes of breade and wine The whereof that you inferre vppon your false surmise is â—…louse vnsensible and fond Iuel It is a vehement and a hot kind of speache such as Chrysostom was most delighted with San. To speake without sporting it is so hot that if you amend not your opinion it may help to promote you to the 〈◊〉 of hell but to good faithful men it is a mild and calme saying Iuel It is a speache farre passing the coÌ„mon sense and course of truth San. I thought you wold bring it to a phrase or figure of speache But he 〈◊〉 it for a truth as we shal see anon Iuel Himself thought it necessarie to correct and qualifie the rigour of the same speache by these words vt ita dicam which is 〈◊〉 it were or if I may be bold so to say San. You stand altogether vppon phrases and 〈◊〉 but S. Chrysostom meant not to correct or qualifie the doctrine which he taught concerning Christes reall ioyning with vs. But only he shewed himself in teaching it to 〈◊〉 or rather to allude to a similitude and Metaphore at the vse whereof he stayed somwhat As if he had sayd at large euen as many graines of corne are by the baker brought into one lumpe of dough right so Christ and they that doe communicate are made all one with Christ and 〈◊〉 with him in this Sacrament Now because this similitude is not set foorth at large but briefly alluded vnto therefore S. Chrysostom saith vt ita dicaÌ„ that I may so say to wit that I may at this time vse this allusion and this briefsimilitude So that the correction is referred only to the word Massa which is a lump of dough or of any like thing and not to the correction of the doctrine whiche is mainteined both by S. Chrysostom and others without any correction or qualifiyng He writeth vpon S. Ihon that Christ sayd he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me to shew cum ipso se admisceri That himself is mingled with him Again he sayeth It is brought to passe by the meate which he hath geuen vs that we should be turned into that flesh not only by loue but by the thing it self Again Cum suum caet WheÌ„ Christ wold shew his loue toward vs he mingled himself with vs through his body And he brought himself into one with vs to th' end the body should be vnited with the head Many like words he hath in his sermons to the people of Antioche in the which he neuer vseth the phrase vt ita dicam that I may so say because he vsed not the similitude of the lump of dough wherevnto that correction perteyneth Yea what shall we say if euen in this place S. Chrysostom vse no such qualifying nor say not vt ita dicaÌ„ for albeit the Latine text reade so yet the edition of Parise doth wiâ—…nesse that his Greke words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seipsum miscet nobis he mingleth himself with vs. Where is now M. Iuels discrete phrase Where is his corrâ—…ction His qualifying of the rigour of the speache To be shorte where is his answere Iuel In such phrase Anacletus sayeth the power of the holy Ghost is mingled with the oyle San. Mercifull God whither will not this man runne for phrases He now appeleth to a Pope whose Epistle he estemeth as muche as his shew sole only meaning to make some not of the wisâ—… sort to beleue yâ— he hath answered well when he hath writeÌ„ somewhat although himself beleue not that which he writeth Doe you beleue this very sentence M. Iuel which you allege How say you Is the iâ—…isible power of the holy Ghost mingled with the oyle If you thought so you wold vse holy oile more then you doe One thing I must tell you which I had almost forgotten it is not in Anacletus in oleo in yâ— oile as you name it but sancto Chrismati to the holy Chrism It was not
for naught that you talked of a phrase His phrase was such that you were afeard to vse it The Chrism had such vertue of the holy Ghost mingled in it that one who was not of the holy Ghost could not abide to name it No not so much as when he had â—…ede to vse the words of the same sentence to serue his turne Iuel Alexander sayeth the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments San. Yet shall we haue an other Pope I feare me this man wil be come Popish shortlie The world goeth hard with his note booke when he fleeth to these Decretall Epistles for the profe of any thing and specially for â—…atine phrases But one thing I promise you M. Iuel You may better proue Masses oâ—…t of that Epistle yea I goe nere you out of that self senteÌ„ce which you allege then you may proâ—…e any other phrase which shall presently serue your purpose But if you had not lest out the middle words which he speaketh of Masse your brethern wold haue ben so angrie with you for bringing this testimonie that they wold altogether haue misliked your phrase The words of Pope Alexander be these In Sacramentorum quoque oblationibus quae inter missarum solennia Domino offeruntur passio Domini miscenda est In the oblations also of the Sacraments which are offered vnto God at yâ— solemnities of masses the passion of our Lord is to be mingled And farther expounding his own meaning he saith that his passion may be celebrated whose body and blood is made If now as the passion of Christ being absent in quality concerning that Christes body sâ—…ffereth nothing at this present is yet present in his whole value concerning that the felf same substance is here which suffered death for our sakes if I say as the passion is in this wise presentlie mingled with the Sacraments and offered vnto God so M. Iuel wâ—… graunt that Christes body being absent in shape and quality concerning that it is not sene presently in his own foorme is yet present in his whole valuâ—… â—…oncerning that the self same substance is vnder the foorme of bread which walked visiblie vpon the earth if I say M. Iuel will graunt such a presence of Christes body throughe which it may be mingled and really ioyned to vs then the phrases of S. Chrysostom of Alexander shal be somewhat like and he shall gaine nothing at all Iuel â–ª Nyssenus saith S. Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy Ghost San. Which saying of his doth right wel proâ—…e that the gracâ—… of the holy Ghost was really in S. Stephen and not only imputed vnto him euen as Christes body is really mingled with our bodies Iuel Chrysostom meant that we should consyder that wonderfull coniunction which is betwene Christ and vs euen in one person San. This man denâ—…ed hitherto that Christ is really mingled with vs by the reall presence of his body and now he confesseth more then we aske For the coniunction which is made in onâ—… person is much greater then euer any other could be in so much that the ioyniâ—…g of our nature to the Godhead in the person of the sonne of God is the highest mystery that euer was heard of I am not ignorant that S. Paul calleth as well the head of the Churche as all the members by the only name of Christ nor that S. Cyrill saith we are all in Christ and that the common person of mankind was reâ—…ed in Christ nor that S. Paul saith of Christ and the Churche two shal be in one flesh nor that Christ concludeth thereof therefore they be not now twain but one flesh but all this doth not import that Christ is in vs we in him euen in one person For S. Cyprian saith our coniunction with Christ doth neither mingle the persons nor vnite the substances Therefore seing we stand now vpon precise truth of doctrine not writing at pleasure but disputing of a matter in coÌ„trouersie in this case you might haue forborn this your more bold then wise phrase of speache For as Damascene hath well noted whereas the blessed Trinity is one substance and we of one substance and Christ one with God one with vs through his dubble nature yet according to his person which he calleth Hypostasim differt a patre a spiritu a matre â—… nobis Christ in his person differeth from the Father from the holy Ghost from his mother and from vs. And yet M. Iuel will bring vs euen into one person Iuel Leo saith â–ª the body of him that is regenerate is made the flesh of him that was crucified San. Here is the thitd Pope in whose phrase M. Iuel doth solace himself He saith that by Baptism we are made the flesh of Christ and I beleue the same But he speaketh of his mysticall flesh whereof no question is betwene vs and M. Iuel For we only dispute now of Christes naturall flesh which is not in Baptism but only in the Sacrament of the altar Iuel S. Augustine saith â–ª we are made Christ c. and both he and we are one whoâ—…e man San. Albeit the matter be not great yet S. Augustine saith not one whole man as M. Iuel doth â—…nglish it but the whole man for he now speaketh not of any one maÌ„in nuÌ„ber nor of any one singular person but of a mystical body which coÌ„sisting of diuers persons as of diuerse members is made vp perfited into a whole collegiate body but S. Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning him self to euery faithfull man one by one at the tyme of receauing his body into our hands and mouthes as I wil shew anon Iuel As we are by baptism made Christes flesh and Christ in the same sense Chrysostom saith we are made one lump with Christ and Christ hath tempered and mingled himself with vs. San. If we wil without fraude vnderstand the mind oâ—… S. Augustine of Leo and of S. Chrysostom we must not only consider that they speake of our vnioÌ„ and ioyning to Christ but also by what meanes they vtter that their mind S. Augustine speaketh generally of euerie kind of vniting vs to Christ. Leo doth not only saie we are made the flesh of Christ but shewing the meane he saieth 〈◊〉 The bodie of him that is regenerated is made the flesh of Christ. The name of regeneration importeth the meane of Baptism by which we are grafted into Christe S. Chrysosâ—…ome speaketh of an other meane which is the Eucharist But what is that meane Baptism al men confesse to be the wasshing with water in the name of the Trinitie What is then the Eucharist What is the substance I saâ—…e whiche in the Sacrament of the aâ—…ltar worketh our vnion with Christe Is it water No. Is it bread and wine Yea saith M. Iuel No saeâ—… we Now then let vs
flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones by his natiuitie whereas thereby Christ is of vs because he toke our nature rather then we of him except by faith we begin to depeâ—…d of him Moreouer he thereby makethe Christe the vine and vs the branches after which râ—…te 〈◊〉 Iudas are braunches of the true vine which is Christe For Christes natiuitie perteineth to their nature also He tâ—…neth out of Priâ—…asius in stede of the breade whiche we breake the breaking of the bread attributing that to the actioÌ„ of breakinge which S Paule did attribute to the substaunce of the bread which we breake He bryngeth late writers to buyld his doctrine vppon their words such as he hath refused to admyt agaynst himselfe as S. Bernard Scotus Nicolaus de Lyra BonaueÌ„ture D. Fisher B. Tunstall D. Smith and the gloses of the Cannon lawe and yet he leaâ—…eth so to their authoritie that in the matter of churche â—…eruice he hathe no higher doctors to proue that in the primitiue church yâ— praiers were in a knoweÌ„ tonge besyde S Thomas and Lyra whose resolution notwithstanding he wil not followe therein He setteth all diuinitie vppon phrases of speache thinking he hath aunswered sufficiently if he can shewe a speach any thing like vsed in an vnlike matter by yâ— which order he may disproue the diuine nature of Christ because men are also called Gods c. And the vnitie of substance in the Trinitie because the faithfull are called one as Christ and his Father are one He may defend yâ— word to be none otherwise made flesh then he graunteth bread to be made Christes bodie And yâ— water at Cana of Galile none otherwise to be made wine then he graunteth the wine of Christes supper to be made blood To be short he hath begunne the high way to set all the mysteries of Christ only vppon phrases And consequently to bring the most helthfull knowledge of diuine matters to a talke and maner of speach But in handling his phrases he neuer maketh any discourse out of yâ— Scriptures to shew like reason betwene diuerse places by him selfe alleged but as children in grammar scholes picke Latin phrases out of Plautus Terence or Salust not being able to iudge how yâ— one phrase differreth from the other so hath he most ignorantly done in the Scriptures and in the Fathers He compareth the Eucharist to Baptisme both for like presence of Christ in both and for like adoration of both and would haue most things like betwene them Whereas though in somewhat they agree yet in most things they diâ—…fer excedig much as I haue declared He allegeth phrases coÌ„cerning the holy Chrism and yet he beleueth not the phrase which himself bringeth He missexpoundeth yâ— sayings of the Fathers interpreting spirituall flesh whereof S. Hierom intreateth to be so named because it is the flesh of the Sonne of God thereby denying if that interpretation be true the flesh of Christ as it was crucified to be the flesh of God For it is sayd of S. Hierom to differ after that maner from the spirituall flesh He taketh yâ— word flesh in Leo and the word bodie in S. Augustine and the same word bodie in Gregorie Nyssen for Christes naturall flesh and naturall bodie which were spoken of his mysticall flesh and his body the Church He missenglisheth many words Atteri at one tyme to be grinded at another to be touched Which is properly neither of both Accedere he calleth to reache And in the same senteÌ„ce he turneth hoc corpus yâ— body because he wold haue it thought absent whereas it ought to be englished this body which pronoune this doth declare that S. Chrysostom spake of the body which was present vppon the altar Valet he turneth this is the vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature whereas it is of one planting or perteyning to one nature De meo est it is of my body SecunduÌ„ quendam modum after a certain phrase and maner of speach He repor teth of S. Hilarie who sayd sub mysterio as if he had sayd in a mysterie Whereas it is to be englished vnder a mistery but that sub vnder greaueth him to the hart because it betokeneth the presence of Christ so real that it is vnder the mysterie which we take into our hands and mouthes at the holy communion He slaundereth vs in saying we expound est for erit and erit for transubstantiabitur and datur for dabitur benedixit for he blessed it away in place of it he putteth another substance For we teach the chaunging and not the putting away of a substaÌ„ce He burdeneth D. Harding with contradiction which is none With Eutiches heresie which heresie is directly against yâ— which D. Harding defendeth He sayth D. Harding will haue children condemned who receaue not the Sacrament which he neuer meant nor sayd He calleth for Doctors before the time and place and when they are come he heapeth them altogether and disputeth coÌ„fusely of their sayings so that any man may perceaue his euill conscience vaine bragging For where the points are most easy there the staieth longest where they are moâ—…t hard there he iuggleth and runneth in and out hoping to cast a myste before the Readers eyes He denieth adverbs taken of nounes to signifie the substance of any thing which is a childish ignorance as likewise in the words of Gregorie Nyssen to beginne the construction with corpus and to make humana natura to followe the verbe est whereas he should haue done the contrarie in his construction though the words there be placed out of order He addeth words of his owne betwene the Doctors words not only such as may expound things otherwise hard but euen such as weigh downe the question betwene vs and him which thing is so common with him that almost no longe senteÌ„ce escapeth a parenthesis of his owne patchinge in He missapplieth things attributing that to the Sacramentall eating which S. Augustine spake to an vnfaithfull Iew. not regarding how he mingleth vnlike things that which Cyrillus spake against the heresie of Nestorius concerning that we eate the flesh of no bare man but of God he reporteth as if it had bene a Catholike doctrine taught without disputation and as if the sense were we eate not by mouth at al the flesh of Christ. And that which S. Augustine speaketh either of the figures of the old law or generally of all signes he maketh serue against the holy mysteries of Christes supper which do farre excede other sigâ—…es figures It were to much to reckoÌ„ vp how oft he erreth in this behals yet this may not be omitted yâ—
psal 98. Coloss. 2 Gen. 9. Cypr. li. 3. epist. 3. ad Caecilium Gen. 18. Gen. 27. Gen. 49. Exo. 22. Leuit. 2. Iustin. in Triph. Leui. 24. Leui. 21. 1. Reg. 2. Mala 2. Aug. de ciuâ—… Dei li. 17. c. 5. Luc. 22. 1. Reg. 21 secuÌ„d 70 Aug. in Psal. 33. Ioan. 6. Luc. 22. Psal. 4. Psal. 103. Psal. 22. Psal 110. 3. Reg. 17 3. Reg. 19 Esaiae 62 Hieron ibidem Iere. 11. Zach. 9. Mala. 1. Psal. 77. Ioan. 6. Eccl. c. 3. 5. 8. Eccl. c. 7 Aug. de eiuitate Dei li. 17 c. 20. The best thing vnder yâ— Soâ—… may be eaten and drunken Origin tractatu â—…o in c. Math. 22 The custom of scriptures in coÌ„mending so much bread and wine sheweth that the body blood of Christ should be geuen vnder their formes Eph. 5. Ioan. 17. Now all things are one by the Sacrament of yâ— altar Eccles. 3. 5. 8. Luc. 22. The xiâ—… Chapiter Facere Hoc facere The supper had both doing making Creare Facere Cont. Marc. l. 4 Facere ex aliquo Facere de aliquo De Sacâ—… li. 4. c. 4. Basilius hom 1. in hexame specular Agere Facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ireneus li. 4. c. 32. The pricst hod of the new testament Aâ—… sauing yâ— body of Christ is rather a like thing then this thing Ioan. 13. Psal. 110. A memorie is made Can. 32. â—…acobus in liturgia Clemens li. 〈◊〉 constâ—…ut Apoâ—…ol Cyrillus in Caâ—…a myst 5. Dionys. de eccle hierar cap. 3. The most 〈◊〉 things be made â—…ustin in Apol. 2. Ireneus aduersus 〈◊〉 l. 5 The 〈◊〉 is made 〈◊〉 aduersus Marcionem li. 4. To 〈◊〉 bread his body Amb. de iis qui 〈◊〉 myst c â—… The body is made We make Christes â—…ody because he said make this thing Hoc 〈◊〉 in Epist. ad Heli. The body of Christ is made 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. â—… The priest maketh yâ— holy oblation Chry. de sacerdotio li. 3. Chrys. hom de prodit Iudae Man maketh not Christes body by his own vertue Aug. coÌ„tra Faust. Man lib. 20. ca. 3. Ourbread is made vnto vs mysticall Theoph. in Math. 26. Damasc. de Orth. fide li. 4. ca. 14. Psal. 113. 134. Ge. ca. 1. Psal. 32. God was made maÌ„ Christ ma keth bread his 〈◊〉 body Gen. 1. Euthy in ca 26. Matt. Make this mysterie Ansel. in epist. 1. Cor. c. 11 Make yâ— whiche I haue made Germ. in rerum Eccles. theoria in tract ad eos qui haesi Aâ—… authority of ma king Chri stes body â—…ometh froÌ„ these wordes make thâ—… thing Ioan. 1. Barâ—… 3. Basil ho. 1. in Hex The 〈◊〉 Chapiter An obâ—…tion The aâ—…swere The wordes of Christ were not wet Englished by the Prote 〈◊〉 What the remembraÌ„ce is whereof Christ spaâ—…e 1. Cor. 11 The remeÌ„ brance of Christ is the shewing of his death by fact Ambros. in ca. 11. 1 ad Cor. Christes body and blood made vnder diuerse kinds doth shew and make vs remember his death The reall body with the signes of breakig is the remeÌ„brance yâ— Christ spake of The presence of yâ— benefactour is yâ— best meane to make his good dede 〈◊〉 bred The presence of a man hyndreth not his 〈◊〉 A perfect remeÌ„braÌ„ce requireth yâ— real presence of yâ— thing remembred A thing may be pre seÌ„t though it be not seen The faith of Christ his body is as much to vs as the sight of it The new preachers What kiÌ„d of fruitful remeÌ„bran ce the belief of Christes bodily pre sence did worke Basil. de baptis li. 1. cap. 3. How Christ is remeÌ„bred in eating bread in drinking wine The tuÌ„bs of the Egyptians The body of a faithful man is the tumâ—… of Christ. The monument of Christ. What remeÌ„brance is made of Christ at the masse tyme. Malac. 1. Esaiae 11. Psal. 100 Two 〈◊〉 des of sepulchers Caenota phium Christes remeÌ„braÌ„ce is no void monumeÌ„t The body is yâ— tumbe of yâ— soule Chrys. in 1. Corin. Hom. 24 Epipha in Ancorato Psal. 115. Heb. 11. Abdias historiae Apostol li. 5. 1. Co. 15. Math. 3. The body of Christ is the best mean to re member his death The inteÌ„t of Christ is furthered by taking the words 〈◊〉 Origen Hom. 13. in Leuit. A propitiatorie re meÌ„brance Aug. de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Euidenter osten ditur Mark the difference betwene a figurauue signifying an euident shewing If we had not Christes body present yâ— old shadowes wold shew 〈◊〉 is death better then bread and wine Concil NicenuÌ„ secuÌ„dum In vnblo dy sacrifice in the remeÌ„braÌ„ce of Christ. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Fol. 102. M. Nowels words The aunswere to M. Nowell What traÌ„substaÌ„tiation meaneth 〈◊〉 real substaÌ„ces be requisite to a transubâ—… Two grounds of traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ Breade is not â—…ited to Christ. Leu. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 bread is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christâ—…s body Gen. 14. Psal. 109. Cyp ep 3. lib. 2. The true vine is no particular substance distincted froÌ„ Christ How Christ iâ—… the true vine Ioan. 2. In these words eyther christ is changed or nothing Câ—…rist coÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mala. 3. The bred is 〈◊〉 to change M. Nowels 〈◊〉 assertion Eche part of M. N. propositioÌ„ is against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eche part in this pro position beareth a transubstaÌ„ tiation The obietion The aunswere The signi fication of the verbe Sum es fui how sâ—…nne is said to be God is most properly Exo. 3. Particular â—…ces haue their being next vnto God Ioan 1. Ioan 6. Matt. 12. 〈◊〉 1. Maâ—… 16. Matt. 21. Why the verbe Sum â—…th not â—…gnifie Christ to bâ—… the substanâ—…e of a 〈◊〉 It is against reason to take away Christes subâ—… by words which signifie a vertue thereof Ioan. 10. 14. 15. 1 Co 10. Math. 11. Two sub stances be neither na med nor meant in This is my body This can not be referred to bread or wine The body of Christ is not com moÌ„ bread The consequent whereby â—…substan station is gathered Euery â—…ord of y◠〈◊〉 â—…ropo â—…tions is against 〈◊〉 Noâ—… That is grated for argumeÌ„ts sake which is not true The more semely traÌ„ substantia tion wold be the â—…ter proued The both not shew a thing present 1. Co. 10. Exo. 17. Num. 20 The true vine might be 〈◊〉 to the â—…posties Proufe He proueth best who sheweth the thing moste really present Bread was turned into Christes body whiles he liued In orat Catech. Li. 4. ca. 14. in Ioan 6. in Math. 26 Noman euer tokâ—… any vine or 〈◊〉 to be Christ. TransubstaÌ„tiation 〈◊〉 TransubstaÌ„tiation decreed taught In Apo. 2 2. li. 4. ca. 34. 3. l. 4. coÌ„t Marc. 4. de caen Dom. 5 de ijs qui init cap. 9. 6. hom 60. ad P. Antio The faith 〈◊〉 doctri ne of the Church is a reason of the thing taught 1. Co. 15. M. Nowell Act. 15. Galat. 1. Ioan. 21. Chryso ibidem These words be