Ambrose sayth de ijs qui myster init Cap. 9. Ambrose saith truely that for asmuch as the bodie of Christ is a spiritual bodie it is not a corporal food but a spiritual food Why is it not a corporall food seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our soules Verily because it is not receiued corporally but spiritually which is the difference in which we stande Wee agreefully with Augustine in Ioan. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be vnderstanded spiritually so are spirite life to vs as they be of their owne nature howsoeuer vnfaithful persons esteem of them they worke whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to signifie to be wrought by them as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We beleeue as Chrysostom teacheth Hom. 47. in Ioan. That they conteine no naturall course but are free from all earthly necessitie And therefore when Christ promiseth to giue vs his flesh to be eaten deliuereth the breade calling it his bodie we beleeue his words to be spirite and life that is not to conteine any naturall course but to be free from all earthly necessitie that is we beleeue vnfainedly to be fed with Christes bodie and bloud although we do not eate drinke it corporally with our mouth which is a naturall course of eating we beleeue that by the flesh bloud of Christ both our bodies soules are nourished wonderfully vnto eternall life not thinking it necessarie that the flesh and bloud of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies as the Papistes teache for that is an earthlie necessitie from which the words of Christ are free yet the onlie thing that Sander vrgeth so vehemently without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the fleshe and bloud of Christ. But Sander coÌ„mandeth al heretikes to cease to mocke them for making so many myracles in the Sacrament of the altar because the wordes of Christ This is my body are spirite and life Nay verily this argument will stirre vp all men to mocke the Papistes more then they did before seeing they thinke it lawfull to faine what miracles they will in the Sacrament because Christes words be spirite trueth yet more to laugh at Saâ—ders reason which will prooue these wordes to be most proper least figuratiue because they partake most of the godhead in which there is no change wheras figures or tropes come of the Greeke worde which signifieth changing Notwithstanding this great clerk oftentimes before hath taught vs that whatsoeuer is spoken of bread and meat and eating in Iohn 6. Chapter vntill he come to this saying And the bread which I wil giue is my flesh doth pertaine to the godhead of Christ and the participation therof by faith in which wordes he cannot denie but bread meat eate hunger thirst c. must bee taken figuratiuely But what drunkennesse is it to reason of these words only This is my body when all the wordes of Christ as well figuratiue speeches as proper be spirite and life as well as these Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference betweene the wordes of the Gospel the interpretation of false gospellers betwen the old fathers the new brethren For Christ saith he was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eate his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before The newe brethren bid vs feede vpon him by faith alone as Noe Abraham did I trust it shal be sufficient to proue those new brethren to be the right children heires of those olde fathers when they haue all one matter of saluation the flesh and bloud of Christ all one instrument of eating faith alone And why should the new brethren eate the godhead or manhood of Christ otherwise in substance then the olde fathers did But Sander asketh where is the word of God so giuen me after his incarnation as it could not be giuen before And I aske Sander wherfore it should bee giuen nowe otherwise then it was before and why it could not be giuen before so as it is giuen now but that he will binde the worde of God to a naturall course not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessitie He demandeth further where is any euerlasting meat for his bodie I demaund likewise wher was any euerlasting meat for the bodie of Noe Abraham our fathers But Sander saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirite and hath neede to be fedde his bodie was the meane to poyson his soule therefore his soule must haue a medicine which shall be receiued into his bodie I answere the flesh of our olde fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirite had neede to be fed were a meane to poyson the soule c yet needed they not that the flesh of Christ should be receiued into their bodies that it might bee a medicine vnto their soules no more is it needful for the newe brethren that are their children But let vs see the other differences Irenaeus reprooued them that denyed the resurrection of mens bodyes because Godly men in scripture are called spirituall the newe brethren wrest the name of spirite or spirituall bodie to denie the real substance of flesh in the sacrament Nay they inferre that the maner of the eating must be spiritual in which respect it is called a spirituall bodie and not onely for the power of quickning which it hath of that spirit of Christ. But it is a great mysterie that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. woulde haue Deacons to be chosen of such men as haue the mysterie of faith in a pure conscience Sander thinketh hee meaneth the Sacrament which in their masse at the consecration of the bloud is called mysterium sidei in Iustinus time was deliuered by the Deacons O blockish imagination such be the arguments of poperie But if it be so why is not the breade so called in your Masse as well as the cuppe And if there bee a speciall reason why the cuppe shoulde rather bee so called what conscience haue your Priests and Deacons to spoile the people therof and not to deliuer it as the Deacons did in the time of Iustinus The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeteth come al to this end that we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable that we affirme that spirit to quicken vs wtout eating of Christ in his supper we wrest to the spirit of man that which Christ saith of the spirit of god al which is false slaÌ„derous for as I haue ofteÌ„ shewed We beleue it to be of necessity that we shold eat drink the flesh blod of Christ which by vertue of his spirit hath power to giue eternal life to al them that receiue it we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and lâ—â—e so as no mortall mans words can be neither did we euâ—â— say that flesh and bloude signifieth bread and wine
substance of his flesh and bloud not onely to our soules by wordes of promise but also to our bodyes vnder the formes of bread and wine Note here that the giuing wherein is the controuersie perteineth to our bodies and not to our soules Also that the giuing of Christes fleshe and bloud to our soules if I vnderstand this saying is not really but by wordes of promise whereof it ensueth that they which haue not eaten the flesh and bloud of Christ with their bodies from the beginning of the worlde are all perished because none can haue life in them but they that haue eaten his flesh and bloud which Sander holdeth cannot be eaten really and in deede but vnder the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament CAP. IIII. What the supper of Christ is according to the beliefe of the Catholikes He promiseth to shewe first out of the worde of god and next out of the monuments of the auncient fathers what the beliefe of the Papistes is concerning this sacrament Although he esteemeth euen Albertus Thomas Bonauenture Alexander c. worthie of credit by a rule of S. Aug. cont â—u li. 2. because they liued before this question rose betweene the Sacramentaries theÌ„ by which rule so vnderstoode we may esteme Berengarius Bruno Henricus de Gauduno Waldo Bertrame c. worthie of credite because they liued long before this question rose betweene the Papistes vs. Wherfore in this rule of Augustine is to be considered not betweene what persons but what time the question first arose betweene any persons and so the fathers of the first 600. yeares are the best and lest partiall witnesses Furthermore he sheweth that the supper of the Corinthians was not the supper of Christ but he had a supper of his owne And so rehearsing the wordes of the institution out of the Eua 〈…〉 listes S. Paul hee affirmethâ— that we are informed by these words the supper of Christ to be his owne body bloud giuen vnder the signes of the bread wine whereupon he gaue thankes turning by his almightie power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body bloud That Christ giueth his body to them that receiue the bread and wine worthily it shal be no controuersie betweene vs. But that he giueth it vnder the signes of bread and wine vnderstanding as he doeth signes for accidents he should haue prooued out of Gods worde if either he would or could haue kept promise likewise that Christ gaue thankes vpon the bread and wine and thirdly that he turned the substance therof into the substaÌ„ce of his body bloud But leauing other arguments for other places not being able to proue these things in any place he wil enquire whether the name nature of a supper be more agreable to their beliefe or to our meaning that is saith he whether Christ made his last supper of the substance of coÌ„mon bread wine or of his owne reall body and bloud As though we affirmed that the only substance of Christes supper were common bread wine not the body bloud of Christ. But to proceed let him goe with that lye his first argument to prooue how deintie costly a banket Christ made taking his leaue of his friends is taken of the great preparatioÌ„ promise made of it so long before which promise preparatioÌ„ how euil fauouredly he prooueth out of Melchizedeks bread wine Manna the table of Dauid Salomon the bread flesh of Elias c I omitt His conclusion is we must not suppose that Christ at his farewell gaue any other deinties beside common bread wine sanctified in vse onely and not consecrated in substance You may see howe absurdly he speaketh common bread sanctified which is as good as if he would say Christ gaue white blacke bread or whot colde wine We affirme that the bread wine were consecrated not in accidents but in substance to the vse of an holy sacrament that they might be the body bloud of Christ to as many as receiued the same worthily not by conuersion of the natural substance of one thing into another but by a wonderfull diuine vnspeakable change of that which is ordinatily a weake element of the world to be a mightie foode vnto eternall life The second argument he vseth to proue the excellencie of the banket is of the fine cookerie I vse his owne terme which also he doth exemplifie by making 16. or 20. dishes of egges alone which cannot be without many spices mixture great labour c. But Christ like a most cunning workman of simple litle stuffe and that without help of his disciples to prepare it made the gretest finest feast that euer was heard of vsing no shifts but only blessing or thanksgiuing The sinesse of this cookerie he setteth forth by a fine speculation of the furniture of the world by the Angels heauens elements froÌ„ whence it pleased God to make a reuolt of al things from the bottome of the earth vpward againe towardes him self And so made out of the earth vegitatiue thinges then sensible creatures last man with a reasonable soule as a briefe summe of all creatures a litle worlde who being seduced by the diuel was by the incarnation of the sonne of God restored then al thinges were briefely brought againe to God So that in this banket where Christ is giuen there is serued in one dish a composition most delicate of angels heauens elements of herbes fishes birds beasts of reasonable men and of God himselfe No kind of salet meates sauce fruits consectioÌ„ no kind of wine aqua vitae aqua composita liquors syrops can be found in nature made by art dâ—uised by wiâ—â—e but it is all set vpon this table and that in a small roâ—â—e c. Thus doe the Catholikes teach of the supper of our Lorde and beleeue it agreeable to his worde and worthie his worship What say you M. S. is this the doctrin of the Catholiks that the breade and wine being turned into the body and bloud of Christ are also turned into Angels heauens elements herbes fishes birdes beastes men God him selfe yea into all salets meates sauces fruits confections all kindes of wine aqua vitae aqua composita all liquors and syrops beside porredge puddings pyes pancakes and a great many other thinges which you haue not named but comprehended in generall wordes Is there a reall conuersion in deede by reason of your heraphicall reuolution And is this doctrine agreable to the word of God In what place is it written I pray you I suppose it to be this Eph. 1. It hath pleased God to restore in Christ all things which are in heauen which are in earth in him Where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth a briefe gathering into one certeine head and summe that all thinges in heauen and earth are brought vnto Christ
and in him as it were againe begonne and renewed And cannot this be done except the body of Christ do really conteine all things by your surmised reuolt for I dare not vnderstand you siguratiuely seeing you abhorre figures in this matter of the supper nor Hyberbolically for that you count no better then a rhetoricall lye Wherefore if these things be really conteined as you say I thinke it small for the worship of Christes banket whose excellencie I take to be so great that it conteineth not these grosse meates of the body but an heauenly refreshing of the soule And that will the olde fathers whome you cite for your cookery plainly testifie with me First Cyprian de Coen Dom. Vident haec sacramenta c. The poore in spirite see these sacraments and contenting themselues with this one dish they despise all the delicats of this world and possessing Christ they disdaine to possesse any stuffe of this worlde Beholde Cyprian sayeth nor that this dish conteineth al foules fishes sauces spices c. but that al these are despised of them that are partakers of this dish Againe speaking of the wicked Et a secretis diuinis omnium intra se continentibus summam diffugiunt recedunt c. They fly and depart from the diuine secrets which conteine within them selues the briefe or summe of all mysteries He saith not they containe meates and drinkes syropes and confections but the summe of al mysteries or heauenly diuine treasures But saith Sander when saint Cyprian saith intra se within them he meaneth within the compasse or formes of breade and wine for these onely are the thinges that we can poynt vnto within or without Belike he will teach vs newe Grammar and newe Latine also For in our old Latine and Grammar we learned that sui and suus were reciproca but Sander will teach vs that se signifieth the compasse or formes of breade and wine Or if the worde se signifie themselues as it was wont to doe Sander wil teach vs that the compasse or formes of bread and wine are the diuine secrets themselues For Cyprian saith that the diuine secrets within themselues containe the summe of al mysteries But marke his reason and you wil thinke that an Oxe hath lowed it out rather then a man spoken it The compasse or formes of bread are the onely things that we can poynt vnto within or without for other meat drinke we see not quoth he He will haue nothing but that he can point vnto with his hand and see with his bodily eye Whereas diuine secretes whereof Cyprian speaketh can neither be seene with the eye nor poynted at with the finger but onely be vnderstoode by faith in them to whom God hath reueiled them His next witnesse is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24 Quando corpus Christi c. When the body of Christ is set before thee say with thy selfe For this bodies sake I am no more earth and ashes For this I hope to receiue heauen and the good thinges which are in heauen immortall life the seate of Angels the companie of Christ. The very table is the strength of our soule the bonde of trust the foundation our hope saluation life If wee goe hence pure with this sacrifice with most great confidence we shall ascende to the holy porch or entrie as it were compassed rounde about with golden garments But what rehearse I thinges to come whiles we are in this life this mysterie causeth that the earth is heauen to vs. Whatsoeuer Chrysostome saith here we acknowledge to be true as he did meane it but nothing he saith for Master Sanders reuolution and as little for the carnall manner of presence or eating of Christes body For euen as we are no more earth and asshes as earth is made heauen which is after a spiritual manner by fayth and yet truly and vndoubtedlye so is the body of Christ present eaten at the table According to which meaning he saith in the same homily QuemadmoduÌ„ enim corpus illud vnituÌ„ est Christo ita nos per hunc panem vnione coniungimur For euen as that body is vaited to Christ so we also by this bread are joyned in an vnion Note heere that body this bread to be diuerse thinges in naturall substance againe our coniunction to be by the bread mystically for naturally and substantially wee are not ioyned one to another but in an heauenly kinde of vnion we are made one bodye of Christ and members one of another And this is not an emptye dish of faith as Sander calleth it but a full mysterie of saluation And although faith shall cease when we haue the full fruition of Gods promises in heauen yet doth Sander both absurdly and vnfaithfully gather therof an opposition of faith and trueth wheras faith hath thereof the name in Hebrue because it is grounded vpon truth But what meaneth he by truth that which he preferreth aboue the receiuing by faith Namely the carnall manner of receiuing Christes body which hee holdeth the wicked may doe to their damnation A worthy truth in respect of which saith is counted litle worth as an empty dish which yet by their owne doctrine must make their trueth effectuall to saluation But see I pray you howe cunningly he reasoneth of the finall cause Christ tooke flesh saith he that our bodies might haue a banket made to them as the soules of the faithfull neuer lacked God whom they might feede on by faith and spirit By which reason the godly of the old testament before Christes incarnation were but halfe nourished namely in soules onely and not in bodyes if Christes flesh bee not a meat otherwise then receiued into the body after the Popishe meaning Yet he supposeth that Cyrillus fauoureth this argument In Ioan. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Oporiuiâ— enim certâ— vt non solùm anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet verâ—netiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustâ— tactu cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur For it behoued truely that not onely the soule shoulde ascend by the holie Ghost into the blessed life but also that this rude and earthly bodic shoulde be brought to immortalitie by tasting touching and by meate which were of alliance with vs. Cyrill meaneth of the outwarde element by which our faith being instructed as our bodies are fedde so we are taught that the whole man is nourished to immortalitie Therefore he saith immediatly after in the same place Nâ—â— putet ex tarditate mentis suae Iudaeus inaudita nobis excogitata esse mysteria videbit enim si attentiùs quaerit hoc ipsum à Mosâ— temporibus per figuram semper factitatum suisse Quid enim maiores corum ab ira Aegyptiorum liberauit quando mors in primogenita Aegyptiorum saeâ—iebat nónne palà m est quia diuina institutione perdocti agni carnes manducauerunt postes ac superliminaria sanguine perunxerunt
propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse pernicies námque id est carnis huius mors aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat Terra enim â—s in terram reuerteris propter peccatum â—udiuimus Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur oâ—inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati Deo ita volente perniciem essugiebant Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris praefiguratam veritatem iam videns our inquam turbaris si Christus dicit Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis cùm oporteret Mosaicis te legibus institutum priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse Neither let the Iewe of the dulnes of his minde thinke that we haue inuented such mysteries as were neuer heard of for hee shall see if he will search more attentiuely that the same thing hath beene alwaies done by figure since the time of Moses For what hath deliuered their auncestors from the plague of the Aegyptians when death raged against the first borne of the Aegyptians Is it not manifest that they being taught by the institution of God did eate the flesh of a Lambe and annoynted the postes and vpper dore postes with bloude and therefore death departed from them For destruction that is the death of this flesh did rage against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne But because Christ by his flesh was to ouerthrow this cruel tyrant therefore that mysterie was shadowed to the old fathers and being sanctified with the flesh and bloud of the sheepe God so willing they escaped destruction Why therfore ô Iewe art thou troubled seeing the trueth alreadie prefigured Wherfore I say art thou troubled if Christ say Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of Man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in your selues whereas it behoued thee being instructed in the Lawe of Moses taught to beleeuing by the old shadows to be most readie to vnderstande these mysteries This place of Cyrill sheweth at large that he meaneth not by tast and touching or meate which is of alliance with vs the naturall bodie of Christ but the outward part of the sacrament namely the bread and wine for of the bodie of Christ there is neither taste nor touching bodily in the sacrament But euen as by eating of the Lambes flesh and anoynting of the bloude which prefigured the flesh and bloude of Christ and was a meate of kindred or alliance with them with whose taste and touching they were acquainted the Iewes were assured of their deliuerance so we by eating and drinking these outwarde signes of Christes bodie and bloude are assured of eternall life For you must note that he saith hoc ipsum the selfe same thing was alwayes done by figure from the time of Moses What was that namely that not onely our soules by the holy Ghost but also our bodies by externall sacramentes were brought to immortalitie But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christs incarnation therefore Cyrill is nothing lesse then of the Popish meaning The last witnesse is Tertullian de resur Carnis The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is oynted that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defenced The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hande that the soule also may be illuminated The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ that the soule also may be made fat of God They cannot therfore be parted in reward whom worke ioynesh We agree to that which Tertullian saith that our flesh is fed with that body bloud of Christ but not after a carnall or natural maner by receiuing the body and bloud at our mouthes c but after a spiritual manner as he himselfe sheweth in the same booke Nam quia durum intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis promisit spiritus est qui viâ—ificat For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eateÌ„ of theÌ„ verily that he might dispose the state of saluation into the spirit he saide before It is the spirit that quickeneth In these words Tertullian counteth it the error of the Capernaites to thinke that Christ determined that his flesh should be eaten verily meaning that his fleshe was not to be eaten after a grosse and naturall manner with the mouth and teeth but with faith and heart Againe the argument of the resurrection of our bodies which he draweth of eating the bodie bloud of Christ cannot stande but with a spirituall eating thereof For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ and so many thousand Christians as since that time haue neuer receiued the sacrament haue of the resurrection of their bodies if the vertue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating Therfore Tertullian meaneth plainely that the externall sacraments which are receiued with the body beare the name oftentimes of the thinges whereof they are sacraments are arguments and assurances that saluation perteineth both to the bodie and to the soule and not that the bodie eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine any more then the body receiueth the holy ghost vnder the forme of water or imposition of hands c. What the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof He affirmeth that we say Christ giueth to the bodie breade and wine but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith spirit and vnderstanding This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter But either he is ignorant what we teach or rather he is not willing to shewe it that by rehersing it imperfectly he might haue more aduantage to dispute against it We beleeue that Christ giuing vnto vs bread and wine as visible seales of his inuisible grace giueth to the whole man his body and blood to be receiued of him by faith after a spiritual and wonderful maner passing al vnderstanding of man wherby we are assured that we are spiritually fed vnto eternal life eueÌ„ as by the seale of baptisme we are assured that we are spiritually and wonderfully washed from our sins born anew to be the sonnes of God We say not therefore the god giueth himselfe by faith spirit vnderstanding to our soules onely but he giueth himself vnto vs to be receiued by faith spirituallie But
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
our price as it is called the bodie of Christ for as touching that Iudas receiued not the same with the rest of the Apostles Augustine sheweth in Ioan. Tract 59. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They did eate that breade which was the Lorde hee did eate the breade of the Lorde against the Lord. What should I saye more when Sander confesseth that Saint Augustine saith de ciuitat Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. Euill men are not to be sayd to eate the bodie of Christ. But this hee shadoweth with a vaine glosse that they receiue not the effect of the body of Christ and citeth other words of August De verbis Dom. Ser. 22. Non quocunque modo c. Not howsoeuer a man eate the flesh of Christ and drinke the bloude of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certaine kinde of way As though S. Augustine said saith he Euery way the flesh and bloud of Christ is receiued in the supper of our Lorde But howe shamefully he belyeth S. Augustine you shall heare by his owne words Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi vt alia taceam non possunt simul esse membra Christi membra meretricis Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit saÌ„guinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neither are euill men to be said to eate the body of Christ because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ for to speake nothing of other matters they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not as farre as a sacrament goeth but in verie deede to eate the fleshe of Christ and to drinke his bloude This saying of Augustine may serue to expounde not onely what he himselfe but whatsoeuer any other ancient Father seemeth to saye of wicked men eating the bodie of Christ namely that they doe it Sacramento tenus but not reuera they eate the bodie of Christ as it may bee eaten in an outwarde sacrament but not in deede The sixte witnesse is Gregorie in prim reg libr. 2. C. 1. Salutis c. They receiue not the fruite of saluation in eating of the healthfull sacrifice Of these words Sander can gather nothing but that hee addeth of his owne that the healthfull sacrifice is nothing but the naturall bodie of Christ which Gregorie neither saith nor meaneth but the sacrament which is healthfull to them which receiue it faithfully The laste that speaketh for hee hath sixe or seuen more dombe names is Beda in Lucam Cap. 22. Whose antiquitie although it be not so great as that we should bee bounde to take him for a lawfull witnesse yet because he liued before the carnall eating of Christes bodie was receiued we will admitte him Hâ—â— compareth saith Sander that man to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate illud inestimabile inuiolabile domini corpus that inestimable and inuiolable bodie of our Lorde Howe coulde hee violate it with his members if no part of his bodie touched it I answere by violating the sacrament thereof which they receiue vnfaithfullie and contemptuously Howe can hee treade vnder his feete the sonne of God and esteeme the bloude in which he was sanctified coÌ„mon c. which neuer came neere the one nor the other with his bodie Heb. 10. Let the reader iudge whether the iudgement of the Fathers doeth fauour Sander more then the Apologie If any man will see more of this controuersie he may resort to mine answere vnto Heskins lib. 3. from the 46. Chapter to the 56. CAP. IIII. What is the true deliuerance of Christes bodie and bloude The Apologie saieth that in the supper there is truely deliuered the bodie and bloude of Christ the fleshe of the sonne of God quickening our soules the foode of immortalitie grace trueth life This doctrine Sander confesseth to bee sounde and Catholike but out of it he will prooue the Popish reall presence and that by two arguments The first reason is Christ deliuered but one thing at each time when he said This and This The Apologie confesseth that hee deliuered his bodie and bloude ergo hee deliuered neither breade nor wine but in appearance and his bodie and bloude onely in deede I denie the Maior for vnto the faithfull of whom the Apologie speaketh he deliuered two thinges of diuerse natures in one sacrament or one thing consisting of two diuerse natures the bread and wine corporally his bodie and bloud spiritually as Irenaeus saith Neither is there such force in this and this but that one thing of diuerse natures or two things in one mysterie may be signified thereby When God said This is the passeouer it were a madde conclusion to say it were no Lambe or This is the newe Testament therefore it is not his bloude because This can bee but one thing Yet ' Sander clappeth handes to his owne argument O masters trueth is straunge and by the aduersaries owne weapon getteth the victorie His second reason is When the bodie of Christ is truelie deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his owne nature The nature of a bodie is to be deliuered after a bodily maner therfore the bodie of Christ is deliuered bodily The Maior is false for the bodie of Christ may be truely deliuered when it is deliuered after a spiritual and diuine maner For in the saying of the Apologie truely is contrarie to falsly not to spiritually And all the Papists confesse that the body of Christ may be must be eaten spiritually Which of them dare say the bodie of Christ is eaten falsely when it is eaten spiritually or not eaten when it is eaten spiritually euen without the sacrament Againe if Sander like this Maior I will thus inferre vpon it When the bodie of Christ is truely deliuered it is deliuered according to the trueth of his owne nature But the nature of a bodie is to occupie but one place at once and that to fill with his owne quantitie c. Therefore the bodie of Christ is so deliuered as it occupieth but one place reteyneth quantitie and all other things required in the nature of a true bodie Finally whereas Sander in the determination of the Apologie misseth quickening of our bodies but that he is disposed to play Momus hee might haue founde that he misseth in the foode of immortalitie which toucheth our bodies as wel as our soules and more properly CAP. V. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ. The Apologie saith that by the partaking of the body and bloude of
to receiue the mysteries another thing to receiue the bodie in such manner as the Papistes doe teach And Chrysostome vsing the same wordes but not in such context ad Pop. Antiochen Hom. 21. hath also linguam sanguine tali purpuratam factam aureum gladium the tongue dyed purple with such bloude and made a golden sworde Likewise the eyes by whiche thou hast seene the secretes and dreadfull mysteries which sayings doe shewe that hee spake not of a bodily presence or receiuing but of a spirituall receipt and faith by which wee see Christe present and acknowledge our tongue to bee dyed purple with his bloude and to be made a golden sworde which is not done corporally but spiritually The last argument is that the Lordes supper hath beene of olde time called the Sacrament of the Altar by which saieth hee wee are informed that the sacrifice is made vpon a visible Altar or table and so S. Augustines mother confessed that from the altar was dispensed that holy sacrifice wherby the haÌ„dwriting that was contrarie to vs hath bene put out And we doe likewise confesse that from the holy Altar or table is dispensed in the holy communion the sacrifice of Christs death and passion by which onely that handwriting was put out and nayled on the crosse except you thinke S. Augustines mother was of another opinion then S. Paul Col. 2. v. 14. We coÌ„fesse that regeneration by the spirit of God is dispensed out of the holy fonte of Baptisme and yet it followeth not that the holy ghost is conteined in the fonte or water no more doth the dispensation of the sacrifice of Christes death from the table prooue that Christs bodie lyeth vpon the table The argument of the resurrection of our bodies which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyril doe gather of receiuing of the Sacrament is from the signe to the thing signified and therefore Tertullian maketh the same argument from the washing of baptisme and from other ceremonies of annoynting signing and laying on of hands lib. de resurrectione carnis Caro abluitur vt anima emaâ—â—litur c. The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is anointed that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defended The flesh is shadowed by laying on of handes that the soule may be lightened of the spirit The flesh eateth the bodie and bloude of Christ that the soule may bee made faâ—t of God What reason is there that there should be a transubstantiation in the last more then in all the rest The flesh is washed with water anointed with oyle shadowed with mens handes signed with mens handes therefore the flesh is fedde with breade and wine which Sander maketh such a daungerous matter yet the same is affirmed both by Irenaeus Cyrill and Iustinus Martyr CAP. XVIII Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to thâ— doctrine of the Sacramentaries We abase not the supper of the Lorde saith the Apologie or teach that it is but a cold ceremonie onely and nothing to be wrought therein as manie doe falselie slander vs. Yes saith Sander you plucke downe Altars c. and call the blessed sacrament of the altar by vile names c I answere we plucke downe none but Idolatrous altars neither giue we any vile names to the blessed sacrament of Christ but to the stinking Idole of the Papists which is no sacrament but a prophane execrament we call not the honour done to Christes bodie worshiping of breade for that which the Papistes worship is not Christes bodie but vile bread although they call it Christes bodie And when wee teach that Christ giueth vs in his supper an assurance of our spiritual nourishment by him and coniunction spirituall with him we teach a worke of Christ in the supper But you teach not saith Sander that any substantiall thing is wrought in the breade and wine In deede we teach no chaunge of the substance of breade and wine but that they remaine in their former nature and substance but we teach a supersubstantiall thing to be wrought by Christs word which being ioyned to breade and wine maketh of earthly and bodilie nourishment heauenly and spiritual foode to feede both bodie and soule vnto euerlasting life And this is sufficient to prooue that something is wrought in the supper of Christ by our doctrine bable Sander what he will to the contrarie although no transubstantiation be wrought except he will saie that nothing is wrought in baptisme because there is no transubstantiation taught either by them or vs in our doctrine of baptisme CAP. XIX The real presence of Christâ— flesh is proued by the expresse naming of fleshe bloude and bodie which are names of his humane nature Sander woulde beare men in hande that there is great fraude hidden in these wordes when the Apologie saieth that wee affirme that Christ doeth truely and presently giue his owne selfe in his Sacraments in baptisme that wee may put him on in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite For by these wordes His owne selfe his owne selfe his owne selfe so often repeated they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by faith spirite and vnderstanding whollie robbing vs of that fleshe whiche dyed for vs and of that bloude whiche was shedde for vs. If we did neuer vse the names of giuing his bodie his flesh his bloude wee might perhaps come in suspition of Maniâ—heisme but when wee vse these names and the other of Christe giuing himselfe and vs eating of Christe which the Scripture doeth affirme as well as the other none but a peeuish wrangler woulde take exceptions to our termes Of the two natures in one person Christe there neede to bee no question but that Sander by telling what Scriptures are proper to both the natures woulde by authoritie of one Saint Germanus I cannot tell whence hee came for the Louanistes are greate coyners of antiquities teach vs that these wordes of Christe Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the ende of the worlde may be meant as well by the nature of manhoode which wee haue with his godhead in the Sacrament as by the onely nature of the Godheade and that in this place of Matth. 26. The poore you shall haue alwayes with you mee yee shall not haue alwayes By the worde Mee hee meaneth not his Godheade but the nature of his manhoode as it was when hee spake in a visible forme of a poore man but not as it is in the Sacrament What Master Sander thinke you to playe bopeepe with the nature of manhoode in forme visible and not visible Is not the nature of Christes manhoode the same whether it bee in forme visible or inuisible If it bee the same and the nature of the manhood is simplie denyed to bee present howe can you make the same nature that is absent to bee present vnlesse you will
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
to giue his bodie did he speake more then he did perfourme For he gaue his bodie in deede and daily giueth it to be receiued spiritually vnder the sacrament of breade and wine But that hee shoulde giue it by conuersion of the elements into his bodie and bloud loue could not moue him to giue it otherwise than as it might be most profitable for vs and most honourable for him that was to giue it spiritually to be receiued The seuenth circumstance of washing the Apostles feete Because Christ washed his Apostles feete the custome of the Church saith he hath bene that all catholike Bishops and priâ—siâ— haue vsed before they came to consecrate to wash the verie tops of their fingers not to handle breade and wine for then Christ might haue washed his disciples handes before they had eaten the Paschall Lambe at the eating whereof was bread and wine but cleane consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread wine but the other must haue also the bodies purified for the more worthie receiuing therof This is newe diuinitiea nd newe Logike also Christ washed his Apostles feete therefore Bishops Priests vse to wash the toppes of their fingers before they consecrate when it were more reason they should wash the peoples feete who by his saying must haue their bodies also purified for the more worthie receiuing This is a poore circumstance to proue that Christs words are not figuratiue The eight circumstance concerning the place of the last supper If the house in which Christ kept his Passeouer had been material some of the Euangelists would haue noted that it stood in Zion as well as Nicephorus Damascen who could hardly know the place seeing Ierusalem was vtterly destroyed long before their time another city built not standing in place of the old Ierusalem That a great vnacustomed matter was done in the house so found by miracle we confesse but that proueth not that Christs speech was proper because it was not abroad in the temple or synagogue but in a close parlour But where Sander saith Christ gaue to euery one of his Apostles a loafe vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteined it is against yâ— scripture which saieth he brake the bread he gaue them against Cyrillus which saith he gaue them pieces of bread against reason that euery one should eate a loaf of bread although they wer but smal when they had supped twise before in that euening at the Paschall Lamb at an ordinarie supper But if the table be real saith Sander much more the meat is reall Wee denie not but the meat is real that is real bread wine to the bodie and the bodie and bloud of Christ to be receiued of the soule for if al things be reall why should not the bread and wine be reall The ninth circumstance of the taking bread wine Christ tooke bread wine who neuer touched the thing which he did not sanctifie Yes he touched Iudas lippes with his lippes yet did he not sanctifie them But he sanctified the bread wine to the vse of his supper Neither went the vertue from him as Sander saieth by touching of his garments but by faith for many at the same time did not only touch him but thrust throng him yet they all receiued not vertue from him Secondly he tooke vnleauened bread which was alreadie figuratiue bread therfore he goeth not about to doe that was done alreadie to make it figuratiue bread I answer the Paschall Lamb was eaten and therefore the bread was common bread although vnleauened which was to be eaten seuen dayes after But what letteth if it once figured one thing but that he might take it to make it a figure of an other thing for Saint Paul sheweth that it figured sinceritie and trueth nowe it is a seale of the remission of finnes by the death of Christ. Thirdly Christ taking bread and wine pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts as Caluine dreameth but in breade and wine wee must seeke the first worke of his supper And therefore Sander dreameth that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles brestes He begon with taking bread and wine ergo he did worke nothing in the Apostles breastes A sounde reason I promise you Last of all this putteth vs in minde of that great Priest Melchisedek as Cyprian teacheth But the Apostle writing to the Hebrues could haue taught vs more certeinly if he could haue seene any such comparison betweene Christ and Melchizedeck Heb. 7. And euery sacrifice saith he is changed in substance from the former nature it had sometime killed sometime burned sometime eaten therefore Christ must change the breade wine into his bodie and bloud If we should admitte a sacrifice as most of the olde writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thankesgiuing verily the change by eating and drinking were sufficient to make it answere to the change required in a sacrifice without transubstantiation which was not vsed in any sacrifice The tenth circumstance of blessing First when Christ blesseth it is not necessarie that hee should make any outward token of lifting vp his eyes or handes and least of all with making the signe of the crosse as Sander dreameth waking And although when he blesse he speake by the way of doing or bestâ—â—ing some reall benefite it followeth not but that his speach may be figuratiue which is not alwayes imperfect as Sander saith but being well vsed is better then comon speech Although what blessing meaneth in this place the other Euangelistes do declare which call his blessing thanksgiuing And yet I denie not but Christ blessed the bread and wine which he sanctified to be a diuine sacrament of his bodie and bloud for the assurance of remission of sinnes by the newe testament which is established in his bloud The eleuenth circumstance of giuing thankes The best thankes saith he are those that are giuen in worde and deede therefore Christ gaue not thankes figuratiuely neither be the wordes of thankesgiuing figuratiue as the Sacramentaries saye The wordes in which Christ gaue thankes are not expressed therefore the Sacramentaries saie not that they are either figuratiue or proper But Sander would haue these wordes This is my bodie to be the wordes of thankesgiuing because Irenaeus saith Panem in quo gratiae actâ—e sunt corpus esse domini that the breade in which thankes is giuen is the bodie of our Lorde as though thankes could not be giuen but by those wordes onlie which are not wordes of thankesgiuing to God but of declaring to men how to esteeme that which Christe giueth namely as a true pledge of his bodie and bloud as if one deliuering the broad seale to a condemned man saie this is a pardon for you That Christ gaue thankes to God both in worde and deede not onlie at this
thou contrarie to the order of all the foure witnesses which thou namest thou I saye defendest the giuing to be after the saying And whereas they all saye he gaue that hee tooke and hee tooke the substance of breade thou denyest that hee gaue the substance of bread Thirdly where Christ sayeth The bread which hee will giue is his flesh which he wil giue for the life of the world which was on the crosse thou affirmest that hee giueth it only at his supper And last of al wheras he gaue presently which then presently was eaten when he said he that eateth me c. thou restrainest his gift onely to his supper wherin although he gaue that before he promised yet he gaue it not only there nor first there nor there with his hands but with his spirite ioyning with his handes that gaue the externall signes For of giuing by hands onely without his spirit it may be truely said The flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. And therfore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christes bodie on the crosse saith he offered himselfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. The fourteenth circumstance of saying Wordes are vsed for profite and for necessitie therefore the wordes of God are greatly to be regarded and especially the wordes concerning the sacrament which is an hidden mysterie and therefore hath neede to be declared by wordes but the Sacramentaries looking to Christes deedes as taking bread c. trust not his words saying This is my bodie testified by foure of his disciples Yes master Sander those whome you call Sacramentaries trust them better more certeinly beleeue them to be true in that sense which Christe did speake them than you popish transubstaÌ„tiators do in your popish error which to make your selues godmakers of arrogancie and couetousnes you defend among the ignorant But deedes except they be expounded by words saith he may haue many interpretations And the deedes of the last supper seeme to him to be vndoubted parables which the words expounde and therefore be no parables for meere figuratiue words expound nothing Who is so madd to grant to Sanders seeâ—ings that the deeds of Christ in taking bread blessing thankesgiuing breaking giuing are parables but adâ—itte they were parables why may not meere figuratiue wordes expound parables Christ himselfe expoundeth the parable of the tares Matth. 13. altogether by wordeâ— as meere figuratiue as these of the supper He that soweth good seede is the sonne of man the feeld is yâ— world The good seede are the children of the kingdome the tares are the children of the wicked The enimie is the diuell The haruest is the ende of the worlde The â—â—â—pers are the Angels And yet it is so strange a matter to Sander that a meere figuratiue speech should expound a parable who thinketh and saith that this reason alone ought to persuade any man But he will bring a greater reason the wordes of the supper giue substance to the deedes for no Sacrament can be made without wordes ordeined of God If I should vrge this rule against fiue of your Sacramentes I might easily prooue them to be no Sacraments because they haue not wordes ordeined of God to giue substance of Sacraments to the externall deedes Well the worde of Sacrament saith hee must be common and knowen therefore not figuratiue I haue shewed often before that Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe were instituted by such figuratiue speeches as these wordes This is my body This is my couenant This is the Passeouer baptisme is regeneration c. The fifteenth circumstance of take Christ bad all the twelue take ergo saith he he had Iudas to take that which he called his body which was either bare bread a figure of Christ or his body vnder the formes of bread For an â—ffâ—ctuall signe no man corporally tooke because Iudas rocke that the rest tooke and a bare signe Christ was not sent to giue nâ—r onely spirituall gifts which were giuen to the olde pâ—triarkeâ— who tooke his manhood to leaue vs corporall meanes and 〈◊〉 of grace which might worke vppon our soules c. I haue proued before that Iudas was not present â—t the supper but 〈…〉 bâ—â—n pâ—esâ—â—â— as somtiâ—â— there are as 〈◊〉 as he yet â—othing is gained by t 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ gaue bread aâ—◠〈…〉 of his bodie and bloud crucified and shedde for remission of our sinnes And what inconuenience is it if one as ill as Iudas receiue this effectuall signe which hath none effect in him because he reiecteth and contemneth it Is not the Queenes broad â—eale an effectuall signe of her pleasure which a traitour may receiue into his handes contemptuously and breake in pieces maliciously But Augustine sayeth Ep. 162. Our Lorde suffereth Iudas to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Against Augustine who sayeth he was present I oppose Hilarius which sayeth he was absent in Math. Can 30. Against Sanders exposition of these wordes our price to be nothing else but the bodie of Christ and not onely a Sacrament thereof I oppose Augustine himselfe to expounde his owne meaning who sayeth of the rest of the Apostles and of Iudas Illi manducabunt panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra Dominum In Fuan Ioan. Tract 59. They did eate the breade which was our Lorde he did eate the breade of our Lorde against our Lorde The sixteenth circumstance of eating Christ sayeth eate ye once onely meaning that they should eat bodily that he gaue them and eat it also spiritually This I allowe for vnder the signe of bodily eating â—e willed them to be assured of spirituall participation of his flesh and bloud and all benefites of his passion But this will not satisfie Sander but seeing hee sayth eate ye but once hee would haue them to eate bodily the same substance which they should eate spiritually which is no good argument And therefore hee is shamefully graueled when he saith the verbe eate by this meane standeth not vnproperly for hee can abide no figures because eating belongeth naturally both to the soule the bodie which would make any Philosopher blush to heare but the reason more because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soule and the meane principally to the body which hath instrumentes to eate for a dead body can not eate nor a soule without a body can eate properly What say you Sander is the soule the principall cause of eating and the body the instrumentall cause By this meanes the soule goeth rideth lieth speaketh leapeth daunceth and all whatsoeuer a dead man can not do Well grant then this speculation what then what other spirituall eating can be meant by this word eate ye then by any other eating for euery man eateth whatsoeuer he eateth by this reason spiritually and bodily Wherefore in spight of your nosâ— if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually as Christians vse to speake and not according to your
physicall argument either he commanded it by an other worde or els this worde is vnproper For to eate by faith is to eate vnproperly and not to eate physically as all other meats are eaten The seuenteenth circumstance of these wordes This is my body He will speake of these wordes but as of a circumstance if the â—â—â—be Is import no more but a bare signe Christ is greatly promoted to giue thankes for leauing a bare signe I answere Christ gaue not a bare signe but his body to be spiritually receiued with a seale and an effectâ—â—ll signe but euery figure and token saith he which d 〈…〉 th in substance from his trueth is alwayes bare and naked in respect of the trueth it representeth M 〈…〉 â—â—we the dâ—gge barketh against the dignity of baptisme and all the Sacrament of the old time and caâ—â—lleth foolishly by disioyning of thinges to be conioy 〈…〉 d. But Chriâ—â— saith he hauing a body presented not bread and wiâ—e as figurâ—s of his body and bloud in 〈…〉 e to 〈◊〉 â—â—ther and gaue thankes for them This is a pâ—lting 〈…〉 ion of that in question for we denie the Sacrifice pretended yet Christ at other times gaue thankes for bodily meate much more nowe for spirituall food of the soule as the Sacrament is beeing worthily receiued As for Melchisedek his Sacrifice in breade and wine we finde none that he offered to God but a refreshing to Abraham whome in deede he blessed as the Priest of God and so hath Christ blessed vs with eternall happines Therefore all this babling of Sander that Christ offered bread and wine to his father which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fatte Oxe and giue him in a paper writen this is a fat Oxe c. is not worth one Goates heare Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once shedding his bloud the great mystery of which redemption he deliuered to his Apostles in the outwarde creatures of breade and wine But let vs see howe he prooueth that these wordes are not figuratiue First Ambrose saith In the diuine consecration the selfe wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke and Chrysostome saith that by this word This is my body the thinges set forth are consecrated but figuratiue wordes worke nothing therefore they are not figuratiue This minor is a starke lye often times confuted These wordes in the very institution of the supper are figuratiue This is the new Testament in my bloud and yet worke as much as these This is my body Likewise the wordes of Christ are spirite and life therefore not figuratiue is a beastly argument vnworthy answering which wold denie al figuratiue speches to be the words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum we leaue neuer a one in his own signification plucking them from their gender and case when we expound it thus This doth signifie my body which is a toy to mocke with an Ape For who can expound a sentence in other wordes to keepe the same case and gender and kinde of wordes alwaies But it is a weighty matter that Sander hath obserued in Saint Paules order of wordes placing the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 next to the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vttering the wordes after this manner This of me is the bodie whereas the other Euangelistes say This is the bodie of me Verily there is not here so much oddes as betweene a milhorse and an horsemill But what is the great mysterie that lyeth in this obseruation forsooth it giueth coniecture such as in the order of words may be had that the Pronowne This onely resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Bodie and cannot be referred vnto Bread For it were an hard speech to say this bread of me is the signe of bodie But if I say this bread doeth signifie of me the bodie what other sense hath it then if I saye this bread doeth signifie the bodie of mee I blame not Sander for scanning narrowly whatsoeuer is vttered in the scripture but in vrging the composition of the Greeke speech which is not like the English tongue where there is no difference in sense seeing the Latine composition wâ—l wel admitt that which soundeth hardly in the English speeche Hic panis mei signum est corporis The eighteenth circumstance of these wordes which is giuen for you Sander playeth the foole out of measure to vrge the accidents of grammar in a figuratiue speech Saint Luke sayeth Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur If you take corpus figuratiuely saith he then the sense must be Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my bodie which figure is giuen for you and so not his true bodie but a figure thereof was giuen for vs. Sander thinketh he hath to do with young laddes that learne their accidentes of grammar which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections But what if wee expound it thus Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei as Tertullian doeth and reteining the gender of the Relatiue say quod pro vobis datur This is a figure of my bodie which bodie is giuen for you Sander hath his answere readie that the relatiue must repete his whole antecedent which cannot haue at once both a proper and vnproper meaning What coulde Priscian or Aristarchus haue vttered more learnedlie But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me vos c. This is my couenant which you shall obserue betweene me and you c. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti the signe or seale of the couenant as it must needes be for circumcision whereof he speaketh was not the couenant how doth the relatiue repete the whole antecedent howe hath one word a proper and vnproper vnderstanding Againe Exodus 12 Haec est religio phase Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo This is the religion of the Passeouer No straunger shal eate of it Heere co is a relatiue agreeing in the newter gender with phase his antecedent and yet phase the passeouer signifieth a Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe when it is saide Hoc est postrâ—mum pascha quod comedit Iesus cum discipulis This is the last passeouer that Iesus did eate with his disciples hath not quod the same relation which it hath in these wordes quod pro vobis datur But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar what if the figure bee laide in the verbe est after this manner Hoc est id est significat corpus â—â—um quod pro uobis datur this signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents and relatiues But hee hath founde another mystery in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉
it Sander Haymo Remigius Pascasius Lanfrancus Iuo Guimundus Anselmus Rupertus Algerus were all learned men and all aboue 300. yeres old Fulke Yet you shewe not where any of them although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius did vse the termes really substantially c. Sander Bernard whome you haue often alleaged writeth in ser. de sanct Martyr Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had seene in his manhood but yet spiritually forsouth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say the apparition which was made to the fathers of the olde Testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to bee denied in these our daies For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the fleshe it selfe is present nowe also to vs no doubt verily but that it is so in the Sacrament Fulke This testimony affirmeth the presence of Christs flesh spiritually which we grant and denieth the terme carnâ—lly which is one of the termes in question Iewel Their doctrine is without comfort They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies but onely vntill the formes of bread and wine begin to alter Sander It is not without comfort seing a merueilous commoditie by this touching riseth to our spirite and soule as to those whom Christ healed by touching Fulke They were as well healed whome he touched not but onely cured by his word But what is become of that mingling of Christes flesh with ours and his inseparable dwelling corporally in vs out of Chrysostom Hilarius and Cyrillus Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this booke if Christs body tary no longer with vs where is the hope of resurrection if the quickning flesh of Christ bee not still in vs Sander Moreouer I haue often said our coniunction with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnall copulation betwene the wife and husband where twaine are in one flesh yet tary not alwaies corporally ioyned togither Fulke You haue often made a shamelesse beastly and filthy comparison betwene so high a mystery and so grosse and carnall copulation Iewell Some others saye that so soone as our teeth touch the bread streightwaies Christes body is taken vp into heauen The wordes be these Certum est quòd quà m citò species dentibus teruntur tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi Sander The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases Fulke The best grace you haue is in railing and slâ—ndering Sander You haue falsely translated the glosse you haue englished teruntur touched and species bread In Berengarius confession you could terme it by the worde grinded Fulke So he could do nowe if he had purposed rather to translate then to shewe that writers opinioÌ„ which according to the custome of Papistes nowe which grind not but swallowe down there what yee call species for shapes I cannot name it because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it must be vnderstoode of touching with teeth and not of grinding where no grinding is and yet if it were grinded with teeth that grinding followeth so neere the touching that there is small difference of time betweene them Iewell Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike Sander He spake against the heretike by the authoritie of Cyrillus which taught vs to be corporally ioyned by naturall participasion to Christ as branches are ioyned to the vine and not by faith onely Fulke And euen so may he speake against Master Harding by the authoritie of Hilarius which saith against the Arrians that we are corporally inseparably vnited in Christ which is contrarie to this popish doctrine of Christes departing from vs. Sander Bring if you can M. Iewel a saying of aboue a thousand yeares olde by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresie Fulke He hath brought in his two bookes written against D. Harding more them fiue hundred such sayings Iewell Commeth Christ to vs from heauen by by forsaketh vs Sander His bodie commeth not downe from heauen but the bread is changed into his bodie as at his incarnation he came not from heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assumpting flesh of the virgin Fulke His godhead which filleth all places needed no locall ascending or descending Therefore it is ill compared with his body which is circumscriptible except you will become an Eutychian and vbiquist Sander As after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread wine being consumed Christ ceasseth to be corporally with vs. Fulke A wise similitude The consuming of the formes of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection the ceassing of his being corporally with vs to his ascension But how commeth this ceassing by a newe transubstantiation of the body and bloud of Christ into bread and wine or Christ forsaking the formes by a newe 〈◊〉 of substance vnto them or else are the formes left emptie both of their owne substance and of the substance of Christ Against this ceassing of Christ to be corporally with vs Hilarie saith in eo nobis corporaliâ—er inseparabiliter vnitis We are vnited to him not only corporally but also inseparably Iewel Or that wee eate Christ and yet receiue him not or haue him not or that he entreth not c. Sander Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadowe troubleth you Fulk Those popish doctors that teach that the body of Christ is rauished into heauen as soone as the species are grinded with the teeth Iewel He saith this presence is knowen to God onely then it followeth Master Harding knoweth it not Sand. He saith not this presence but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why doe you falsifie his words Fulke Woulde any man thinke the manner of the presence shoulde be vnknowne to him which affirmeth it is reallie substantially corporally carnally sensiblie c. Iewel So this article is concluded with an ignoramus Sand. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christs presence but of his reall presence though the manner be vnknowen Fulke Nay the question is not of the reall presence which we alwayes confesse but of the maner of presence whether it be spiritually or corporally Sand. A non credimus is a worse fault then an ignoramus Fulke It is no fault not to beleeue that which scripture doth not teach Iewel The old fathers neuer left vs in such doubts Sand. S. Cyrillus willeth vs to giue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way knowledge of his worke vnto God The first part ye haue broken Fulke The first part we haue not broken for we beleeue the mysteries to bee the same that Christ saieth they are but you haue broken the laste part because you adde really substaÌ„tially corporally c. which you haue not learned
of them that are hence departed c. This saying proueth a remembrance but not a prayer neuerthelesse of this remembrance vsed in the elder times they gathered prayers to be profitable But more clearely that it was a remembrance without prayers it appeareth by Epiphanius which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ cont Aer ser. 75. 5 Of sacrifice and for the deade The name of sacrifice which the fathers vsed commoÌ„ly for the celebration of the Lords supper they tooke of the Gentiles you might adde and of the Iewes also for that somewhere I doe affirme But howe proue you they had it of the scriptures Because Christ saide not this is I that was borne of the virgin but this is my body this is my bloude The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely that he is guiltie of Christ but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe doest thou dreame we speake of the name of sacrifice whether it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper But if I knewe saith he what is the sacrifice of a liue thing I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner as he was properly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth when hee exhorteth vs to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice Rom 12. yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie vnder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade Also as blinde as you make me I see the Altar Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate so long as they remaine in Iudaisme but that sacrifice is the death of Christ whereof none that continue in obseruation of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers As for the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels in one forme of speach 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes table opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils but the feast of the Lordes table contrarie to the feast of the idoll offerings whereof the controuersie was and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentils For if hee had ment of the sacrifices of both he woulde haue na 〈…〉 ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels For 〈◊〉 alter is proper for a sacrifice as a table for a feast or â—past So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion I canâ—ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture of â—ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper But â—ontrariwise I finde in the scripture that he offered onâ—y one sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once vpon the â—rosse Heb. 9. 10. Purgatorie Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima cap. de recepâ—u that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did seing all philosophers that graunted the immortalitie of the soule as Pythagoras Empedocles and Plato assigned three places for the soules departed Heauen hell and a thirde place of purifying This argument saith Bristowe proueth as wel that heauen hel â—he immortalitie of the soule had their originall of the â—hilosophers He is a perillous Logician that can so coÌ„â—ude For heauen hel and the immortalitie of the soule â—re founde in the scriptures which are before all philosophers but of the thirde place of purifying we may say as Augustine doth contra Pelag. hypognost lib. 5. Tertium peâ—itus ignoramus The thirde place we know not at al neither doe we finde it in the holy scriptures But if I would reporte the trueth Bristowe saith there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying but that those philosophers made onely two sorts of receptacles But if I find three and the third a place of purifying what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth First hee graunteth supernas mansiones the high mansions for the soules of the Philosophers and wise men onely secondly Inferos hell or the lowe places whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell 3. What say you Bristowe al the soules except Philosophers soules Could you not see betweene them imprudentes animas the foolish soules remayning according to the Stoikes about the earth which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules What was this but a third place and a place of purifying But if you woulde haue your purgatorie more plainely described you may resort to Virgil Aeneid 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged Quin supremo cum lumine vita reliquit c. After this life hath left them saith he yet is not all euill nor all the infections of the bodie departed froÌ„ them and it is necessarie that such things as haue beene long gathered together shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away Therefore they are exercised with paines and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills some soules are hanged vp against the voyde windes to some their sinne remayning is washed away vnder great raging waters or burned vp with fire Euery one of vs suffer our punishments and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes c. Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing as the papists doe theirs Bristow saith by this argument I wil winne much honestie bicause the purgatorie that Carpocrates inuented was a wallowing in all sinfull operation c. What is that to mine honestie I saide he inuented a kinde of purgatorie and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie I said he proued his purgatorie as the papists doe theirs but to that Bristowe aunswereth neuer a worde But this is small honestie for Bristow that such things as are ioyned together by me to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection they are seuered by him as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes to confute their purgatorie Purgatorie fire I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules then the papistes doe 〈…〉 r some soules and the name of purgatorie fire began 〈…〉 bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origens error which was of purging all soules 〈…〉 i th the erronius practise of praying for the deade out â—f which they gathered the purging of some soules That I say of Origen although Bristowe confesse it to 〈…〉 e true in effect yet he saith I speake it without proofe My proofe is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contemâ—imus c. But if in this life we contemne the words
of the condition of all infantes which is not chaunged by baptisme although sinne be not imputed vnto them Wherefore to speake after your Popishe supposition of Baptisme that by the worke wrought all sinne committed before baptisme is abolished in baptisme what if the infant not knowing the mysterie of baptisme be angry with them that haue taken him out of his warme clothes and plunged him in baptisme is this no sinne But what infant can examine himselfe of this sinne And what can the examination of other men profite him whome the holy Ghoste will haue to examine himselfe As for the distinction of Votum explicitum implicitum he sendeth vs to Allens booke de Euch. lib. 1. Cap. 31. c. For how can we be assured that children haue a close desire to baptisme more then to the cōmunion Or how can it be proued That they haue any desire explicite or implicite to either of both the sacramentes If 〈◊〉 be lawful to imagine of infantes against all reason and without all scriptures wee may fill bookes with distinctions and deuises innumerable Last of all hee chargeth mee with falsification by adding because the councell of Trent saith that manner was aliquando in quibusdam locis some times and in some places But I pray thee Bristowe what haue I falsified the councel of Trent which thou affirmest that I did neuer read Thou sayest they that did communicate infantes were not so many as Fulke doeth make them Why howe many doe I make them I sayde that the Pope of Rome and all they that tooke his part in S. Augustines time were in this error that the sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ was to bee ministred to infantes And haue I not playnely and now also plentifully prooued it out of Saint Augustine where is then this falsification If I had not prooued that which I sayde yet there is difference betwixt falsification and a false affirmation And because the Tridentine councell sayth it was Aliquando as though that error had not long continued it is manifest that it began to bee ministred to infantes before Cyprians tyme and continued fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Witnesse Beatus Rhenanus in Tertulli de Coron mil. where he sheweth that this manner was continued vntill the times of Ludouicus Pius and Lotharius and after citing these wordes out of the bookes of ceremonies called Agendae of infantes newely baptised Si Episcopus c. If the Bishop be present it must bee immediately confirmed and then communicated If the Bishop bee not present before the infante doe sucke or taste any thing let the Prieste giue him the communion of the body and bloude of CHRIST yea before the Masse if necessitie require By this Testimonie it appeareth not onely that this custome was long obserued but also that it was ioyned with opinion of necessitie so that masse should not be taried for if the infant were in any danger Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later tymes and not of olde and 1. touching the bodies of Angels According to the demaunde of the challenger which requireth any one error or false interpretations of the scripture made by the Popishe Church to bee shewed him I bring certayne examples of diuerse kindes of errors which are not the matters in controuersie betweene vs but such as if the Papistes bee not impudent they them selues will acknowledge to bee errors Now commeth Bristowe in this his balde and confusd reply and as though I were able to note none errors of the Popish Church but those which I note vpon such occasion willeth all them that would know the true Church to consider that these errors if they bee any are so fewe and so light that they may bee a sure confirmation to Papistes and a iust motiue to all other to embrace the Church of this time no lesse then of olde time considering it is no lesse but much more vnreproueable of the aduersarie Neuertheles as few and as light as these errors seeme they are sufficient if they were but one to proue that which I intend namely that the Popishe Church hath erred which being proued the surest piller of Poperie is broken and all the rest of their opinions which they holde against the scriptures the true Church of God when it is shewed that the popish Church hath erred will shewe themselues to bee errors which had nothing else to gayne them credite but this one false principle That the Popishe Church can not erre And touching the bodies of Angels where I say Ar. 60. the seconde councell of Nice determined that Angels and soules of men had bodies were visible and circumscriptible and therefore must bee paynted affirming this to be the iudgement of the Catholike Church Bristowe answereth that I misreport the matter for it is not the councells determination nor saying but the saying onely of Ioannes Bishoppe of Thessalonica rehearsed in the councell with an admonition giuen by Tharasius B. of Const against the madnes of them that ouerthrew the images of our Lorde his vndefiled mother seeing this holy father doth shew that Angels also may be painted But the trueth is as may apeare to euery man that wil read the Councel act 5 that this is a vaine glosse of Bristow to elude the matter After the saying of Ioannes is rehearsed in which this grosse error is conteined Tharasius the archb of Const. thereupon concludeth Ostendit autem pater quòd angelos pingore oporteat quando circumscribi possunt vt homines apparuerunt This father sheweth that we ought to paint the angels also seeing they may be circumscribed haue appeared as men by which it is manifest that Tharasius approueth the opinion of Ioannes Would you now haue the determination of the Councel It followeth immediatly Sacra synodus dixit etiam domine The holye synode sayde yea forsooth my lorde By this it is manifest that not I but Bristow hath misreported the matter Where I sayde If this be not to induce an errour to make men beleeue that angels and spirites haue bodies visible and circumscriptible there was neuer any errour since the world began Bristowe pulleth me backe and saith Soft man other manner of errours haue beene defended since the world began I wot well greater but if any of them be a manifest errour this is as manifest as any of them all Yet is Bristowe so zealous in excusing this error that he shameth not with that ignorant bishop of Thessalonica to slaunder many of the most catholike and auncient fathers with it Basilius Athanasius Methodius yea Augustine he sayeth make a question of it In which poynt he sheweth great ignorance or wilfull malice For whatsoeuer is founde in any of those auncient writers sounding to such a purpose it onely by mistaking the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or corpus which they vsed generally for that which nowe in the schooles according to Aristotle is called 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or substantia substance comprehending both bodies and spirits not that euer they thought that angels spirites soules of men had visible and circumscriptible bodyes such as may be set forth by painting or such as the bodies of men beastes are or that they consisted either of ayery of fyery matter as that blynd Bishopp so imagined out of that verse of the Psalme 104. He maketh his Angels spirits and his ministers a burning fyer Last of all he sayeth there is no determination of the Church to condemne the assertion as heretical thoughe there be sufficient to count it temerarious erronious whither it be hereticall I will not nowe dispute seeing by Bristowe it is granted to be an errour I haue sufficiently proued that it was mainteined by the whole Councell which was as much as I required for that point 2 Touching the Popes superioritie ouer the Councell The determinations of the Pope and of the generall Councell being accompted among the Papistes as the rules of trueth I sayde are 63. and 85. for so much as it is not agreed of among them which of them is superior to other the Pope ouer the Councell or the Councell ouer the Pope that one of these hath controlled the other there can be no certeintie of trueth in either of them To this Bristow answereth that he thinketh him selfe able to satisfie me or any other reasonable man if he saith that then we are in a right beliefe when we hold those determinations that are the determinatioÌ„s iointly both of the Pope of the Councel as those of Trent But he is gretly deceiued for while it is in doubt whether may erre ech part chargeth other with erring it may be there is none other likelyhod to the contrary but that they do both erre so that neither I nor any other reasonable maÌ„ may safely tye our faith to any of their determinatioÌ„s For they wherof either part may err being seuered may also erre but when they are ioyned together you will say the Councels determination is vncerteine except it be coÌ„firmed by the Pope But if the Pope also may erre how is it made certein by his confirmation Another wil say the Popes determination is vncerteine except the general councel giue consent approbation therto But if the general councel may err what certeintie is in the approbatioÌ„ therof So the doubt is as great as it was before wher Brist affirmeth that no man wil bind vs to beliue the determinatioÌ„s of any Councel that are not certeinly coÌ„firmed by the Pope he sayeth more then he is able to warrant for beside that D. Cole in his answere to the Bishop of Sarum manifestly defendeth the authoritie of the councels against the Pope many popish diuines were and are of that opinion that the Pope may erre and is vnder the authoritie of the councell But where I shewe a manifest errour in the popish church by the interchangeable condemning and approuing one of another of the Pope and the councell Bristowe sayeth the matter is not so vncerteine amongest them as I make it For first he graunteth that the councell of Ferrara and Florence determined that the Pope was aboue the councell and that the councell might erre and that Pope Eugenius 4. was of the same iudgement He graunteth also that the councels of Constance and Basil determined the contradictorie namely that the councell was aboue the Pope and that the Pope may erre But where I sayde that Martinus quintus chosen Pope by the councell of Constance was of the same iudgement there he cryeth hoe you proue not that nor neuer shall proue No shal Maister Bristow why sir is it like that the councell which had deposed three Popes would choose a fourth man Pope that was of a contrary iudgement vnto them Yea how coulde he accept the Papacie beeing not voide if the councell had not authoritie to depose the Pope whosoeuer hee was of the three that was the right Pope But seeing Iohn the 23. was of the Emperour and the councell accounted the right Pope who also before his deposition affirmed that the councell of Constance was a most holy councell and could not erre it is manifest that this Martyn beeing a Cardinall consented to the deposition of Iohn the 23. session 12. therefore he was of the same iudgement that the councell was But if you would saye that as soone as he was made Pope the spirite of Peter comming vpon him he was soudenly changed into a contrary iudgement his Epistle written to the inquisitors is plainly against you where you saye that at the petition of the Polonian Ambassadour he confirmed 〈…〉 ose determinations alone of the councel of ConstaÌ„ce which were 〈…〉 ainst the errours of Wickeliefe Hus and Hierom of Prage 〈…〉 or he did so generally confirme all decrees of that 〈…〉 uncell that he commaunded it to be enquired of persons suspected in articles as followeth Item vtrum credat teneat asserat quòd quodlibet concilium generale 〈…〉 am Constantiense vniuersalem Ecclesiam repraesentet Item whether he beleeue holde and affirme that euery generall councell and namely the councell of Constance doeth represent the vniuersall churche If Martyn the 5. would haue euery man to beleeue that the councell of Constance representeth the vniuersall church he would also haue them beleeue that the councell of Constance cannot erre which councel condemned the Pope of heresie and deposed him of his Papacye Again another Article Item vtrum credat quòd illud quod sacrum concilium Constantiense vniuersalem Ecclesiam repraesentans 〈…〉 probauit approbat in fauor em fidei ad salutem anima 〈…〉 m quod hoc est ab vniuersis Christi fidelibus approbandum 〈…〉 endum Et quid condemnauit condemnat esse fidei vel 〈…〉 nis moribus contrarium hoc ab iisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato credendum asserendum Also whether hee beleeueth that that which the holy councell of Constance representing the vniuersall Church hath approued and doth approue in fauour of the faith to the health of mens soules that the same is of all faithfull Christians to be approued and holden And that which it hath condemned and doth condemne to be contrary to faith or good manners that the same is of them to be holden beleeued and affirmed as a thing condemned But the councell of Constance approued this assertion that the councell cannot erre and that the councell is aboue the Pope to condemne him of error which is a matter greatly pertaining to the faith the health of mens soules therefore Pope Martyn the 5. was of the iudgement of the councell of Constance Finally in the end of the councell of Constance the approbation of Pope Martyn is recorded of all things decreede â—nd determined in matters of faith Among which wee must needes account this question of the Popes erring and the councels not erring which is accompted so
All true doctrine is taught in the scripture Purgatorie is not taught in the scripture therefore purgatorie is no true doctrine Bristowe denyeth both the maior and minor The maior I haue prooued in this chapter part 1. after the examination of the 8. text of scripture The minor hee would prooue to be false by these reasons First purgatorie is taught in the scripture in the Machabees Which he saith is in the canon of the true Church which I also confesse to be the true Church in the thirde counce 〈…〉 of Carthage and therefore it is canonicall if any other scripture be Canonicall Supposing that which is false that the Macabees were canonicall yet is not Purgatorie prooued by them prayer for the deade doeth not necessarily drawe purgatorie after it The Grecians of longe time haue vsed prayer for the deade yet they doe not receiue the doctrine of purgatorie But to prooue the Machabees to be Canonical he citeth the third councel of Carthage wherein the two bookes of Machabees are accounted amongest the rest But there are also fiue bookes of Salomon whereas wee knowe there are onely three namely the Prouerbes the Canticles and the Preacher Therefore that canon prooueth a manifest error of the councell to allowe fiue bookes of Salomon in steede of three Let Bristowe now bring out the fourth and fifth booke of Salomon and say they bee Canonicall if any other scripture bee Cano nicall The Councell of Laodicea more auncient nameth not the Machabees Hierome a Priest of Rome expressely denyeth them to bee Canonicall Praefatione â—n Prouerbia Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede affirmeth the Church not to receiue them as Canonicall beside so many argumentes as the bookes them selues doe minister which agree that they were writen by the spirite of man and not by the spirite of God To proceede Bristow saith that purgatory is taught so plainely 1. Iohn 5. that I could not auoyde the place but by falling into this horrible absurditie that wee may not praye for all men liuing I saide in deede we ought not to pray for them that sinne vnto death of which Iohn saith I say not that you shoulde pray for it or that any man should pray for it as your vulgar traÌ„slation hath it But howe it is prooued out of that place he saith neuer a worde Last of all purgatorie is taught saith Bristowe Specially against you sir. Iohn 11. For you say after your manner passing confidently that Martha and Marie as the scripture is manifest did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his bodie before the generall resurrection If that bee so manifest what else was it then but the rest of his soule that Martha woulde haue Christ to pray for when shee saide thus vnto him But also nowe I knowe that what soeuer thinges thou shalte aske of God God will graunt thee To which purpose also some auncient writers expounde the place Thus farre Bristowe But I pray you sir why doe you not tell vs the names at least of those auncient writers that so expounde the place Peraduenture they were not worth the naming But are you such a cunning disputer ex concessis to wrest that I say of Martha and Marie before the comming of Christe to all times after as though I sayd that they neuer hoped for their brothers restitution because they hoped not before Christe came to Bethanie as Allen impudently coniectureth that Lazatus was restored to his bodye at their prayers made at his tombe where there is no mention of any prayers but of lamentation only I can not tel whether I shuld here require in you more wit or honestie or else lesse impudence malice But this was your purpose of cauilling and quarilling when you durst not attempt the confutation of my bookein such plaine order as I aunswered Allen but in this confuse manner to bring all my argumentes first out of ioynt and then to play with them at your pleasure 2 Ab authoritate scripturae affirmatiuè First about certaine foundations of purgatorie and prayer for the dead I saide the worde of God ouerthroweth the popish distinction of sinnes mortall Veniall shewing that all sinnes of their owne nature deserue eternall death and yet all by the mercie of God are pardonable or veniall except the sinne against the holy ghost Bristowe saith that I here graunt the doctrine and yet deny the distinction which is vtterly false for that all sinnes deserue eternall death and yet be pardonable it ouerthroweth the doctrine and distinction both For the Papistes holde that there are some sinnes so small as they deserue not in their owne nature eternal damnation as Bristow immediately hereafter confesseth where he denieth that the curse of God pronounced Deut. 27. and Gal. 3. against all them that abide not in all thinges written in the lawe extendeth not vnto eternall death saying that hanging on tree or crucifying is not eternal death and yet is accursed of God Deut. 21. Againe euery one in the saying of the Apostle is not meant of Christians but of them which trust in the lawe it selfe c. Doe you not heare playnely the olde serpentes voyce Nequaquam moriemini Tush you shall not die the curse of God doeth not bring eternall death you neede not be so greatly affraide of it c But where learned you Bristowe that the curse of God which is vppon him that hangeth on tree is not a visible token that hee deserueth eternall death Is â—ot the text plaine against you Deut. 21. When a man â—ath sinned worthy of death and is iudged to death â—anged on the tree his carcase shall not remaine vppon 〈…〉 e tree but shal be buryed the same day for he is accur 〈…〉 d of God that is hanged on the tree therefore thou 〈…〉 alt not defile the lande which the Lord thy God hath â—iuen thee to possesse He is not therefore accursed beâ—ause he is hanged on the tree if he were innocent but â—ecause he hath sinned worthie of death so is hanged 〈◊〉 which respecte our sauiour Christ being hanged on 〈…〉 e tree though most innocent in his owne person 〈…〉 et bearing the guiltinesse of all our sinnes became â—ccursed for vs not to discharge vs of such a curse 〈◊〉 did not bring eternall death but by your imagi 〈…〉 tion might fall vppon an innocent person but 〈◊〉 redeeme vs from the curse of the lawe whiche wee â—aue incurred more then tenne thousand times through 〈…〉 r manifolde sinnes and transgressions And that 〈…〉 e curse pronounced Deuteronom 27. bringeth with it 〈…〉 e payne of eternall death I wishe euerie man 〈…〉 at will not bee deceyued with the flattering voyce 〈…〉 f the Serpent to giue eare to the worde of GOD â—here hee shall see that this is a conclusion of the 〈…〉 rses solemnely to bee pronounced by the Levites 〈◊〉 which Amen was to be aunswered of all the people â—gainst idolaters cursers
olde Fathers in their Apologies declare whatsoeuer was done in their assemblies As for oblations for the dead that Tertullian speaketh of cannot be proued to haue beene vsed at the communion but rather at the buriall of the dead But Arnobius saith Bristow about the very same time as a witnes to the contrarie complayning that the connenticle houses of the Christians were pulled downe by the Paganes in which God is prayed vnto peace pardon is asked for al men for the Magistrates for friends for enemies for the liuing and for the dead Such a saying there is in Arnobius Lib. 4. Con. gra I confesse but how proueth Bristowe that he was about the time of Iustinus or Tertullian when he confesseth it was 300 yeares since Christians were named Lib. 1 and vnder Dioclesian he florished saieth Hierome which was sixe or seuen score yeres after Tertullian the later of the two who florished vnder Seuerus The olde liturgie of the Greeke Church in Epiphanius time had a memorie of the dead but seeing it was an oblation for the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles c. in the first institution thereof it could be but an offering of thankes giuing although Epiphanius expounded it after the errour of this time to be a prayer for the sinner a separation of Christ from the order of men This is the effect of that I saide Bristowe saith I am deceiued by thinking it is but one memorie whereof Epiphanius speaketh and sendeth me to the countefeit liturgies of Saint Iames Chrysostome and Basil which were written long after their age according as well to the error of the time in which they were writtē as in some expressing the name of the Emperour and Bishop in whose time they were written Also he sendeth me to diuers places of S. Augustine but which I knowe not for the place Encherid C. 110. Dulci q. 4. are of one sacrifice offered for all baptized persons that are departed which he saith for the very good are thankesgiuing for them that were not very ill asking of mercie for the verie ill no helpe but a comfort of the liuing Chrysostome also speaketh of a generall memorie of all that were departed instituted by the Apostles Ad Philip. hom 3. in which if there had bene an expresse forme of prayer for the dead he needed not of that memorie to haue proued prayer to be profitable to the dead The place of Origen he mangleth euen as his Maister Allen doth but he more vsually suffering no sentence of any writer almost to be read together without preiudice of his interlacing In Iob lib 3. The former men did celebrate the day of their birth louing but one life and not hoping for any other after this But now doe we not celebrate the day of natiuitie seeing it is the entrance of sorowes tēptations but we celebrate the day of death as that which is the putting away of al sorowes the escaping of al tēptations We celebrate the day of death because they doe not die that seeme to die Therfore also do we make memories of the Saints deuoutly kepe the memories of our parents or friends dying in the faith as much reioycing in their rest as desiring also for our selues a godly finishing in faith So therfore we do not celebrate the day of natiuitie because they which die shall liue perpetually And thus we celebrate it calling together the deuoute men with the Priestes the faithfull with the Cleargie inuiting also the needie and poore filling the fatherlesse and widowes with foode that our festiuitie may be done in remembrance of the rest which is vnto the soules departed whose memorie we celebrate and may be made of vs a sauour of sweetenesse in the sight of the eternal God First concerning my translation Bristowe will haue Religiosos to signifie Monkes as though none were deuout but they or as though the Church in Origens time were so full of Monkes as it was afterward Secondly he saith that death is a putting away of the sorowes of this life only where Origen saith of all and it were small cause of reioysing to put off the small sorrowes of this life if men should enter the horrible torments of Purgatorie Againe the rest of the dead he will haue to be onely of their bodies That were a poore refrigerium if their soules should frie in Purgatorie The sauour of sweetenesse he wil not haue to be a sacrifice of thankesgiuing but a worke meritorious as though it was a worke meritorious that Noe offered cleane beastes after the floode when the text saith the Lorde smelled a sweete sauour Gen. 8. and not rather a sacrifice of thankesgiuing for his deliueraunce The like ignorance he saith I shewe to thinke that memorie for one cannot be a prayer for him As S. Paule to the Colloss Remember my giues and to the Hebrues Remember them that are in giues c. But where did I say so ignorantly that prayer may not be ioyned with remembrance For I trust Bristow is not so brutish to say that all memorie is a prayer But how skilfull is he to compare the memorie of imprisonment which is an admonition to pray for the imprisoned with the memorie of rest which beeing obteined what should we pray for As for the wordes in S. Iames his Masse which was written by some Sir Iames many hundreth yeares after Origens death I cannot be persuaded that Origen should allude vnto them Where Cyprian saith that Victor deserued not to be named at the altar in the prayer of the priests I shewed by diuerse good reasons that he meaneth not of prayer for him but such as was of thankesgiuing for the dead and for the like godly departure of the faithfull liuing For his offence in making a Clarke executor was not to be punished with eternall torments wherto Bristow answereth by telling of three things done in their Masse which he saith were done in Cyprians time but that is the matter in controuersie my reasons alledged Pur. 284. he toucheth not at all I noted Pur. 259. that Allen had falsified 2. Councells at once the Councell of Carthage the 4 Cap. 95. the Councell of Vase which speaking of such executors as defrauded the Church of the oblations of the deade which they had bequeathed to the vse of the poore Allen saith to excommunicate them that hinder the oblations for the deade Now commeth Bristowe and saith it is but meere cauelling to distinguish oblations of the deade oblations for the deade because Cyprian saith there should be no offering for Victor I haue shewed Pur. 284. that this offering was but a thankesgiuing and this discipline was not to cutt him from the Church but an admonition to other As for the other Councells of Toledo 11. Bracharense with this of Carthage and Vase I haue answered Pur. 426. against which Bristowe here saith nothing but repeateth them with his vsuall interlardings The Councell Bracharense which I twise promised to shewe
forth against Purgatory when I came to it Bristow saith I plainly confesse the contrary to wit a memory for the deade I said that for them that kill them selues that Councell decreed that no commemoration should be made Ca. 34. what this coÌ„memoration iâ— I said it appeareth in the next Canon where they cal it the commemoration of the holy oblation that is they decreed that no communion should be celebrated in which being a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ no mention of them that so died should be in their thankesgiuing as was vsed for them that died well Out of the 3. Toletan Cap 22. I shewed that it was decreed that the bodies of the faithfull should be buried only with singing of psalmes which must be thought sufficient for all Christians this I said excluded both prayers and oblations for the deade Bristow cauelleth that although in carrying the corps to the grane they vsed to singe psalmes yet they might haue prayer oblation for their soules in the Church I answere the councell thinketh singingof psalmes sufficient for the office of their buriall therefore prayer and oblation were thought needelesse But that they had prayer and oblation in Spaine for the deade he would proue by a saying of Augustine De cur pro mor. Cap. 1. where he saith the custome of the vniuersall Church is that in the prayers of the priest which are made to God at the altar the commendation also of the deade hath his place This commendation might be without prayer as in the olde liturgie the oblation for all the Patriarkes Prophets Apostles c. or if it were in speciall forme of prayer for the deade in Affrica it proueth not that it was in Spaine For Augustine speaketh of the vniuersall Church no farther then his owne knowledge or if it were in his time it might afterward be reformed in Spaine as diuers other errors were namely in that Councell of Toledo and other before it But Bristowe vrgeth me farther and saith I might as well say the Papists pray not for the deade because they carry the corps with psalmes But he will neuer see the litle worde only ioyned in the Canon to psalmes nor the sufficiency of the office for the buriall of all Christians Againe he demandeth of De profundis being a psalme Is it not a prayer for the deade trowe you I trowe no. Except all prayers that men make for them selues be prayers for the deade As for the buriall of papists claimed by ministers in England I thinke you belie them for they could be content you had all the obstinate papists in your bosome at Loueine quicke and deade But such as die among vs we are not nice in denying them buriall in the vsuall cemiteries although we communicate not with them in their life yet alwaies protesting that more seuere discipline were meete for them in their life and to be executed vpon them euen in their death after the example of Cyprians time although we think worse of them then Cyprian did of Victor I saide farther that the place of Possidonius speaking of the funerall of Saint Augustine proueth that the sacrifice offred for the commending of his bodies deposition was the sacrifice of thanksgiuing Here first Bristowe accuseth mine ignorance in antiquity that I vnderstand deposition for the putting of his body by death where it is the laying downe of it in the earth as Leuatio corporis is the taking vp of Saints bodies or reliques a worshipfull witnesse of antiquity For Cyrillus testifieth that they were not in his time taken out of the earth Lib. 10. Cont. Iulian. But marke how skillfully Bristowe expoundeth Possidonius saying The sacrifice was offred to God for the commending of his bodies deposition That is saith Bristowe expositione prima for the laying downe of it in the earth by burying Why might not his body be laide in the graue without a propiciatory sacrifice The second exposition is that by commending the deposition of his body which is the laying it downe in the graue he meaneth the commendation of his soule to God With such expositions hee may prooue what hee will out of the Doctors But to admitt this monstrous interpretation how agreeth it with popery or Augustines owne opinion that seing he was a perfect man died in persecution while his City was besieged the same day it was taken that any sacrifice should be offred for his soule seeing he himselfe saith it is iniury to pray for a Martyr De Verb. Ap. 517 But that prayers for the deade were vsed in Saint Augustines time and at the celebration of the Lords Supper it is not of me denied and therefore needed not of Bristowe to be proued But he will make me both answerer and replyer Because I graunt that S. Augustine prayed for his parent and yet taunt Allen for translating Memoriam sui a memorie of her to be a memorie for her as though she would haue her sonne to be a Chantrie Priest to sing for her First I say that if the Pope himselfe translate Memoriam sui a memorie for her the translation is false Secondly where he saith the sacrifice of our price was offered for her I shewed that before that so he called the celebration of the Lordes Supper vnderstanding it neuerthelesse not to bee the sacrifice it selfe that beeing once offered did perfectly redeeme vs but a memorie and thankesgiuing for the same as I shewed out of Augustine and other Doctours Pur. 316. and so forth in the rest vnto the leafe 327. Finally Bristowe citeth Augustine De Verb. Ap. Hom. 34. This as a tradition of our Fathers the whole Church doth obserue that for them which are departed in the communion of Christes bodie and bloud when at the healthfull sacrifice they are remembred in their place prayer is made and it is rehearsed that it is offered for them also I answere this oblation being generall for all that are departed in the faith of Christ can be but a sacrifice of thanksgiuing considering that the sacrifice of bread and wine as they called it in remembrance of the onely and insacrificable sacrifice of Christ as S. Augustine calleth his propitiatorie sacrifice coulde be no propitiation but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prosperitie or praise August Contra Faustum lib. 6. lib. 20. Cap. 18. 21. Contra aduers. Leg. Prophet lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. 19. 20. and many other places through out his workes Of particular Doctours Whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatorie That Saint Augustine allowed prayer for the dead Bristowe citeth many places but without neede seeing I conâ—esse it but that he neuer doubted of Purgatorie that is not proued thereby The Grecians at this day deny Purgatorie yet do they allowpraier for the dead Whereas I cited Saint Augustine Encher Chapter 69. It is not incredible that such a thing is done euen after this life and whether it be so or no it may be enquired And either
succession being a grosse error I will not stand to confute because it is none of the principall matters in controuersie Where I saide that if succession of persons and places were sufficient the Greeke Church is able to name as many as the Latine Church and in as orderly succession Ar. 27. Bristowe asketh what of that but onely this that they therefore may better claime the Church than we Yes this one thing more that by this my shewing of succession in the Greeke Church which you can not denie Allen is bound to recant and that the Greekes by title of succession may claime the Church as well as you But those hereticall and schismaticall Greekes saith Bristowe can no more shewe succession than your false Bishops which are in the sees of Poole Bonner Thirlby c and yet I â—roâ—e he will not thereby claime succession We may by as good right as you claime succession to the Apostles and godly Bishop of Rome whome you succeede not in doctrine For neither haue you any right succession but from them that began your heresies and separation from the Christian Church Boniface the third and his fellowes But Gregorie saith the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Church of Rome But so doth not the Councels of Constantinople which before Gregories time decreed that the Church of Constantinople should be equall in all thinges with the Church of Rome the title of senioritie onely reserued because Constantinople was newe Rome Socr. li. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen li. 7. ca. 9. Euag. li. 2. ca. 4. Conc. Constantinop 1. ca. 2. c. In the 44. Demaund of the Apostolike see where I say it auaileth not the Papistes that the Church was planted at Rome by the Apostles except they can proue succession of doctrine as well as of men Bristowe saith In prouing the succession of men only we do as much as the Fathers did But I say that is false for the fathers alledge succession of doctrine in the persons succeeding In the 45 Demaund of chaunging where I cite the Epistle of Hulderichus Bishop of Auspurge witnessing that Gregorie was the first that compelled Priestes to liue vnmarried Bristowe answereth that seeing I confesst that he reuoked his error he made no change froÌ„ his fathers faith Yes sir although he reuoked his decree yet was the same receiued by them that came after him But the storie of that Epistle is derided by Cope which affirmeth that Pope Nicholas the first was dead 56. yeares before Vdalrichus was made Bishop Thus these impudent Papists when they can neither corrupt nor wrest to their purpose the monuments of antiquitie they will vtterly denie them Whereas the Papists contrarie to the old vsage of the Church by Allens confession doe absolue before satisfaction Bristowe saith both manners haue bene alwaies vsed and bringeth example of men absolued iâ— sicknesse which if they recouered performed their satisfaction after But Papistes absolue them that are in health before satisfaction which is contrarie to the old vsage Where I tell them that Sabinianus condemned the decrees of his predecessor Gregorie and Stephanus of Formosus Bristowe saith not one Pope hath condemned any decrees made of doctrine It were hard for him to proue that none of those Popes all whose actes their successors disanulled made any decrees of doctrine And certaine it is that Gregorie made decrees of doctrine or else the Popes Canon lawe doth lie al whose decrees yea and bookes also as containing heresie his successor Sabinianus condemned and burned But supposing saith he that Pope Honorius was a Monothelite both in opinion and in some secrete writing yet did he not change nor go about to change the Romanes into Monothelites What meant he then to write hereticall Epistles but to drawe other into his heresie Did not his writings to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople plainely discouer him to the Councel that he followed that heretikes minde in all things and confirmed these vngodly opinions Con. Constantin 6. Action 13. And to what end but betwene them to change the faith of the whole Church both of the East and of the West into Monothelitisme But that you may see a plaine contradictorie vnto Bristowes bolde and lying affirmation I will rehearse the wordes of Pope Leo the second in his Epistle vnto the same Councel Act. 18. Pariterque anathematizamus c. Also we accurse the inuentors of the newe error c. naming them among them Honorius which did not lighten this Apostolike Church with doctrine of Aposto like tradition but by prophane treason did go about to ouerthrowe the immaculate faith Yet against al this testimonie of antiquitie Sander in his Monarchie proueth that Honorius was no Monothelite and that Iohn 22. did not as Caluine and we belie the storie denie the immortalitie of the soule and resurrection of the bodie neither was any such thing laide against him by his contentious enimies but whether the soules doe see God before the generall resurrection but he also denied that error c. To this I must needes say that Bristowe is either an ignorant reporter or an impudent lier except he will say that Caluine or some of vs wrote the report of the Councel of Constance where he was accused and conuicted by witnesse to haue denied the mortalitie of the soule and the resurrection of the body and life euerlasting Session II. And in the next Session he confessed that the Councel of Constance was most holie and could not erre As for the assertion of Pope Ioane the feminine Pope I referre the reader to Maister Iewels replie to Harding where he proueth it by auncienter testes than Martinus Polonus howe so euer Bristowe sawe it in a marginall note I wot not where not in what Protestantes hand as he reporteth In the sixe and fourtie Demaund of our auncetors saued or damned he maruelleth where my wit was when I alledged against Canonization the example of burning Hermannus the heretike in Ferraria where he was worshipped twentie yeares Apocryphally But if he had not bene canonized as you say where was the Popes care of the Church that so neare him in Italie he would suffer such grosse idolatrie so long time to be committed and continued Wherefore except you bring better prose for your negatiue the affirmatiue that he was canonized which so long had bene worshipped without contradiction is more probable seeing you hold that the Romish Church can not suffer any vngodly vsage so long to be vncontrolled Where I saide the Papistes can not proue that the Pope and Popish Church hath canonized the Apostles principall Martyrs Bristowe asketh if making of holie daies and to name them in diptychis among Saintes in the holy Canon of the Masse is not proofe sufficient of their canonization No sir if that be canonization which your late Canons and practise doth allowe but if it were I say the Apostles and principal Martyrs had daies of remembrance of their godly life and doctrine names
the holie Ghost or else he acknowledgeth him present vnder the formes of breade and wine without distinction of persons and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case seeing he wil admit no figure but a most proper speach in these wordes This is my bodie Whereas it is euident to all men that are not obstinately blinde that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is and would haue declared the same in proper speach he would not haue saide This is my bodie and this is my bloud which is but a part of him and the lowest part of him but he would haue saide take eate this is Iesus Christ or this is al that I am But when he saith this is my body this is my bloud which if it be not a figuratiue speach should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud he sheweth manifestly that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud but an heauenly and diuine mysterie teaching vs and assuring vs that God the sonne being ioined with vs in the nature of his humanitie which he hath taken vnto him by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vs on the crosse doth wonderfully feede vs and nourish vs as it were with meate and drinke vnto eternall saluation both of body and soule If any man think that I referre the words of Sander to the Sacrament which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally let him reade the whole Epistle and comparing it with the title of salutation which I haue set downe in his owne wordes consider whether Sander professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ after any other sorte then vnder the formes of breade and wine Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication tending to so grosse heresie were a declaration of his proude stomake nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onely Sauiour and Redeemer whome we adore and worship as our King and God not vnder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine but aboue all principalities and powers sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen to whom with thee and the holie Ghost we giue al honor praise for euer vouchsafe if it be thy holy wil to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie vnto the true vnderstanding of thy blessed word or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit so require shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion that we thy humble seruantes beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes may laude and magnifie thy holy name as well in the saluation of thine elect as in the destruction of thine enemies to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer Amen The preface to the Christian reader THe proposition of this painted preface is that the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde which Sander assumeth to be the vse custome and practise of the Catholike Church This assumption is false although if it were true it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times for any error which they maintaine against vs. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures is of the holy Ghost whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde but in the scriptures them selues wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God is of greater auctority then the practise of men The scriptures inspired of God are able to make vs wise vnto saluation they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people must be examined by the scriptures and not the scriptures expounded after it Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith Rom. 12. But faith is builded vpon the worde of God and not vpon the custome of men therefore exposition of the scriptures must be according to the word of God and not after the vsage of men The example which Sander vseth to confirme his false assumption is of baptising of infants of Christians before they be taught which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations To this I aunswere that the vse and consent of all nations were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places As is manifest in the institution of circumcision According to the couenant whereof the Apostle saith that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy therefore to be admitted to baptisme 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant according to which scriptures they are baptized the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused and not onely vpon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin as Sander affirmeth which custome is good because it is grounded vpon the Scriptures but the scripture is not authorized by that custome Wherefore popish confirmation and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament although he falsely affirmeth that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures but are proued contrarie to the same But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ to be against transubstantiation and adoration Sander replyeth that things vncertein must be iudged by things certeine and not contrariwise This principle is true but it is false that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine as also that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth be either all certeinties or certeinly on his side The first is the wordes of the scripture This is my body about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation The breade which we breake c. so often as ye eate of this bread c. The second is false that in the Catholike church all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnder the formes of bread c. for it is the practise onely of the Popish Church and that but of late yeres neuer admitted by the Orientall churches beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West that euer did abhorre it Thirdly the Councell of Laterane
passion which was afterwarde who is so madde as D. S. to referre the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is giuen to a present giuing or sacrifising But proceeding in his vaine purpose he sheweth that the faultes of the popish clergy aduanced by transubstantiation caused them to bee contemned of the people which contempt by Gods iustice stirred vp Martin Luther like a proude king of Babylon to come out of the North to fight against Ierusalē Can you forbeare laugh ing They that were carnal in the Popish Church priests bishops to holde their liuings Abats and Monkes for good pensions receiued this doctrine and gaue vp their abbies to the Prince But this good hath Luther done that he separated the good from the badde especially from the Popish votary the maried Monke and vowed Preist which sayeth No man ought to vowe chastity condemning therby not only an infinit number of virgins but also the blessed mother of God To this I answer that first of all he slaundereth them which denye the vow of chastity or rather celebrate for euery man is bound to liue chastly to be lawfull for they denye it to be lawfull only to those which are not certeine that they haue the gift of continency to continue with them long as they liue And as for the vow of the virgin Mary I pray you how proueth he that she made any Because saith he she wondered how she might haue a child seing she knew not any man Wherunto her own reason might haue replyed that hereafter shee might knowe a man except shee had vowed her selfe not to knowe at all any man I answere that though her reason might haue so replied for hauing a child yet for hauing such a child as should be the sonne of the highest reason could not satisfie her and therfore shee desired to be instructed by the angel by what meanes it should be without that any vow of virginity can be concluded in any lawfull forme of argument out of this place by any Logician in the world But contrariwise that she was betrothed vnto a man it is an vndoubted argument that she vowed not virginitie For if she should haue made any vow before her mariage she would not haue deluded her husband to promise her body to him when she had determined the contrarie If they say she vowed after mariage it is plaine by the Gospel she did it without her husbandes knowledge and therefore her vowe could not be lawfull For before Ioseph was instructed by the Angel of her case his purpose was to haue taken her home to him and vsed her as his wife vntill she was perceiued to be with child and then he would haue priuily forsaken her After this he sheweth what were the opinions of Luther Zwinglius and Caluine which he maketh to be three in number when by the consent of the Churches of Heluetia Sabandia it is manifest that the iudgement of Zwinglius and Caluine concerninge the manner of eating and drinking of Christes bodye and bloud in the sacrament of his supper was all one Now concerning that Caluine willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith there to feede of Christ spiritually Sander liketh it not because our nature not beeing able to climme vp to the seate of God in heauen the sonne of God came downe to vs to life vs vp into heauen in taking vpon him our humaine nature So when our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to helpe vs he let downe the corde of his humanitie and of his flesh and bloud And shall wee nowe when it is let downe to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottome of our heartes by eating it really shall wee nowe refuse it and say wee will goe into heauen by faith our selues and there take holde of Christ whereby we may be deliuered out of the deepe vale of miserie As though the corde shoulde haue needed to haue beene let downe if wee coulde haue fastened our bodyes to anything in heauen and ye◠our bodies are they which weigh downe our soules chiefely In deede if the sonne of God had not come downe vnto vs and ioyned our nature vnto his the anchor of our faith could haue had no hould in heauen But seing the sonne of God did not only come downe vnto vs but also is ascended from the earth and hath caried vs vp into heauen with him Eph. 2. ver 6. he letteth no more downe vnto vs the corde of his humanitye but we cast vp the sure anchor of our soules which is fayth entring into the inward parte of that spirituall tabernacle which is heauen whither our forerunner Iesus is entred being an high preist for euer after the order of Melchizedek Heb. 6. ver 19. And vnto this ascension by fayth the Apostle exhorteth vs Coll. 3. 1. If you be risen againe with Christ seeke those things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God set your minde vpon things that are aboue not vpō things that are vpon the earth These authorities proue sufficiently that we must goe into heauen by fayth our selues for the sonne of God after his dispensation fully accomplished in this world cōmeth no more downe to vs in his humaine nature vntil he come againe to receiue vs actually into the participation of his glory according to his promise Iohn 14. 3. But now let vs see what wholesome doctrine Sander teacheth in those his wordes euen nowe set downe First that fayth perteineth onely to the fathers before Christ and in them called for Christ to come downe vnto vs which when he is come dayly letteth down the cord of his humanity we haue no neede of faith to fasten it in our bodyes and hartes but of our hands For fayth he compareth to the tongue by meanes whereof helpe is called for but when a corde is lett downe the vse of the tonge is needeles and the handes must be occupied Therfore he saith It is not sufficient for a man to vse his tongue still and to let his handes alone So that by this kind of reasoning eating it really being let downe is the hand that without the tongue of faith fasteneth it to our bodies hearts Thirdly he holdeth that Christ neded not to haue ben incarnat if men could haue fastened their bodies to any thing in heauen Whereby he denieth that the fathers of the olde Testament by fayth were fastened in heauen before the incarnatiō of Christ restreining the vertue thereof not onely vnto the time since the same was actually perfourmed but also to the actuall and carnall manner of coniunction of the body of Christ with our bodies which they imagine to be in eating the flesh of Christ really To conclude professing that hee intendeth not to speake against the persons but against the opinions of the Sacramentaries specially against Zwinglius Caluine his purpose is to proue out of the worde of God That Christ giueth in his last supper the true
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
of all I praye you marke Sander his phrase of speech The flesh of Christ was truly rosted vpon the crosse To omitte the grosse figure of rosting and to register it among the other pointes of fine cookery in the chapter before described Marke that he saith it was truly rosted vpon the crosse and yet I dare say he meaneth not that the crosse was a very spitt nor yet burning with fire to scorche it But when we affirme that Christ is truely eaten he can by no meanes allowe our saying except we should meane as he doth that Christ is putt in at our mouthes and if not chewed with our teeth which some of them holde yet swallowed downe our throte and so receiued into our bodies to nourish them But if he saye well that Christes flesh was truely rosted vpoÌ„ the crosse because his body being broken on the crosse was made meate for vs although it were not rosted with fire c. then may we rightly saye that Christes body and bloud is truely eaten and dronken of vs by faith although it be not put in at our mouthes nor swallowed down our throtes c. He saith â—â—was truly rosted on the crosse and truly rising from death to thâ— intent it might be truly eaten of vs. c. As truly as his flesh was rosted so truely is it eaten but we acknowledge no cooklike rosting but a mystical preparation euen so we beleeue no eating with champing chawing swallowing but a mysticall and spirituall feeding and nourishing of which wee are assured by the visible seales of bread and wine which we eate and drinke bodily After this he alledgeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Catheâ— to proue that it is necessary as the poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect vs with original sinne so that the body of Christ be receiued into our body as really by our mouths as euer the apple came in the mouth of Adam That he nameth not the 37. Chapiter where such a matter is spoken of it may be the copy he saw had no diuision of Chapiters but rather I feare he suppressed it of fraude because that Chapiter is confessed euen by Sonnius a Papiste not to bee found in many copies of that Catheticall booke of Gregory and in deede the argument of that part of the oration which goeth before and of that which followeth after being of regeneration in baptisme which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper sheweth that it is foysted in by some late writer which would haue the new doctrine of transubstantiation to bee credited vnder colour of the authority of this ancient father For if Gregory had ben purposed to haue spoken of the Lords supper in this booke of instruction which he did write for to shewe the order and doctrine of Catechizing he would first haue finished his treaty of baptisme and regeneration and afterwarde haue descended to the other parte of Gods dispensation which consisteth in preseruing and feeding his children that are borne vnto him which grace is represented in the Lordes supper I passe ouer that Nicephorus testifieth euen that book in his time to haue bene corrupted by diuers heretiks Origenists by name which corruption and diuersity of copies gaue some transubstantiator good hope that his addition in such variety of bookes might happilye of some be accounted for the authentical authoritie of Gregorie And he was nothing deceiued For M. Sander whether he think it to be such or onely would haue vs to acknowledge it for such dissembling the vn certeintie thereof which other papistes confesse setteth it foorth as the sounde and vndoubted authoritie of Gregorie Nyssene As for his vaine cauilling that the figure of a medicine healeth not is foolish and absurde for so he might reason that baptisme is no medicine for originall sinne but a figure of a medicine We make not the sacraments figures of medicins but outward signes of inward and spirituall healing The vertue of cleansing sinnes is not included in the water no more then the spirituall feeding is in the breade and wine And more absurde it is that hee chargeth vs with shadowes in the sacraments And where he sayeth that all spirituall giftes are inferiour to the flesh of Christ being in our mouth if he meane inferior in vtility it is false for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh which he imagineth in our mouthes the Papists confesse that we may be saued but with that fleshe in our mouthes by their owne doctrine we may be damned From this place he beginneth to raue against Caluin although he haue appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error Caluines supper he sayth in respect of Christs real substance is but a meere sauour of sweete meates As though Caluine did not acknoweledge that Christ is truly eaten of them that worthily receiue the sacraments Beside this he chargeth Caluine as one that setteth forth the kingdom of the diuel abaseth the kingdom gifts of God Because he hath diligently eloquently set forth the doctrin of mans fall daÌ„nation but in the doctrine of saluation renouation by Christ he hath dealt faintly weakly God be thaÌ„ked they which wil read Caluin of this point with indiffereÌ„t iudgemeÌ„t wil coÌ„fesse that he hath shewed no lesse diligence eloquence therin then in the other And wherfore hath he set forth yâ— one but for the glorie of the other And euen by those things which be not slanders in Sand by which he saith he hath abased the kingdoÌ„ gift of God he hath greatly magnified the glorie thereof which is that all power vertue helpe comfort grace giftes come onely from God by the onely meanes of Iesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christes litle flocke is contemptous in the eyes of the worlde that many are called and fewe are chosen that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatorie no popish priesthood no one sheepheard on earth but onely the death eternall priesthood and greate sheephearde Iesus Christ. As for the colde supper small offering of sufficient grace baptisme like a sheepemarke no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saintes no reall ioyning and vniting with Christes fleshe and bloud in the holy mysteries c. be Sanders lyes and slanders not Caluins assertions After he hath railed a crash at Caluine vnto whose felicitie this may be added that he is slandered by so euill a person as Sander is he repeteth the diuerse suppers of Luther Zwinglius Caluine ioyning to them also the fantasticall opinion of that epicurian gospeller Carolastadius and disseuering Caluine from Zwinglius with whome he agreeth fully And Caluines supper he saith were good for Angels to feede vpon immortall meate in their soules but Christ hath giuen his bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feede on Verily euen as he hath giuen the holy ghost to wash vs body and soule from all our sinnes and to regenerate vs to be the sonnes of God Sander
supper wherin Christ being receiued by faith dwelleth in vs by his spirit we are fed vnto the saluation both of body and soule Last of all howe can it be called the supper of Christ which euery man may make at home without coÌ„ming to the table of Christ For euery man may eate bread and drinke wine at his owne house with his wife and children and remember that Christ died for them neither will Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ consisteth and is fulfilled Beside the shamelesse slander that our supper is fulfilled in such a priuate presumptuous acte marke how he alloweth the sacrilegious arrogance of him ' that should vsurp if any were so madde to doe as he is to imagine such a ridiculous counterfeting and mocking of Christes institution hee doth assure him that Christ will not leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded But this is but a cold assurance Like as it is but a cold preparation which is made by transubstantiation whereby after so greate broiling rosting and saucing to compasse such cookery as Sander taught vs in the first booke Cap. 4. such a presence is wrought as maketh the body of Christ none otherwise present to a faithfull man then to an infidel than to a dog a cat or a rat Alas that is a cold presence a cold body that is wtout efficay of spirit and life in them which receiue it But certeinly the flesh and bloud of Christ is of another nature where it is receiued by faith which is able to warme the stomake of a penitent sinner whose hart was cold for feare of Gods iustice and punishment dew for his sinnes And when Sander hath prated neuer so whotly and reasoned neuer so coldly it will be but a cold comfort that he can minister with his surmised bodily presence except he borrowe the chafingdish of faith and spirituall eating to warme it which though he confesse that wee acknowledge yet he affirmeth it maketh but a sleight and a colde supper whereas by his owne confession there is no heate in his fantasied presence without faith and spirituall feeding and faith and spirituall eating is a good warme recreation euen without the Sacrament CAP. XXI By eating we touch the bodie of Christ as it may be touched vnder the forme of breade That is sayeth Sander as wee are truely sayd to kisse the Kinges knee when wee kisse his hose vnder which the knee is conteined But that is not properly to kisse the Kinges knee which is to kisse his hose for kisse and not kisse as I take it be contradictories But who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper which shal bee without touching the meate with teeth and mouth saith Sander Christ sayeth my meate is to do the will of my father that sent me Iohn 4. And he promiseth his Apostles that they shall eate and drinke at his table in his kingdome Luc. 22. This eating and drinking is without teeth or mouth And Saint Augustine speaking of eating the body of Christ sayeth Vt quid par as dentes ventrem Crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teethe and thy belly Beleeue and thou hast eate it In Ioan. Cap. 6. Tr. 25. Againe Panis quippe iste interioris hominis quaerit esuriem For this bread seeketh the hunger of the inner man Tr. 26. And vpon these wordes If any man shall eate of it he shall not die Sed qui pertinet ad virtuteÌ„ sacramenti non qui pertinet ad visibile sacramentuÌ„ Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente But he which perteineth to the vertu of the sacrameÌ„t not he which perteineth to yâ— visible SacrameÌ„t He which eateth within not without which eateth in his heart not hee which presseth with his teeth Likewise Cyprian de Coen Dom. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syâ—â—â—ra panem sanctum frangimus partimur As often as wee doe these things we do not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide that holy breade Thus you may see howe we may eate that which wee touche not with teeth and mouth And whereas Chrysostome and Cyrill as we heard before saide that Christ giueth his flesh to be touched they speake improperly and meane a touching by the mouth of faith like as they affirme also that he giueth himselfe to be seene which is not but with the eye of faith And it is strange that Sander dare not as well say We see him as we may see him vnder the forme of breade as that wee touche him vnder the forme of bread but the matter is that then he shoulde destroy his doubtie distinction of the bodily presence visible and inuisible Although Cyrillus as is shewed before affirmeth that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament of his body Touching by beliefe Sander will not deny at length although in the beginning he marueiled how touching could be without the mouth teeth but that touching by beliefe he sayeth is furthered by touching that visibly wherein we beleeue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly A sorie furthering by touching a bare accident of that which is not there nor is the proper accident of that which is said to be there But howe much more furtherance is it to our feeding by faith to eate substantially that which is Gods seale and assurance of that foode which nourisheth both bodies and soules vnto euerlasting life It is an olde custome of heretikes he saith by assertion of one trueth to imbarre and stoppe another truth but so do not we for we barre not any trueth that is admitted by the Scriptures but it is a custome of the diuell to be enimie to all trueth whome the Papistes followe in this their heresie of transubstantiation denying the breade and wine to be in the Sacrament whereas they be in deede and affirming the naturall body of Christ to be substantially conteined vnder the accideÌ„ts of bread and wine euen in the mouth of wicked men of brute beastes which is both false and blasphemous CAP. XXII The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor saith nor spirit nor deuotion to receiue Christ withall We haue no vnderstanding he saith because we say This is my body doth not meane this is my body Yes sir Sophister we say the wordes to meane his body after a certeine manner as Augustine saith although not after your grosse manner And howe do you vnderstande these wordes spoken of the other part of the Sacrament This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud Will you not say in some sense it is not the new testament Secondly ye haue no faith that beleeue not the working and effectuall wordes of Christ which were spoken with blessing Yes forsooth sir wee beleeue they wrought and brought to effect whatsoeuer it pleased him to doe by them Thirdly we
to our greate shame and reproch receiue this pure and immaculate bodie which is the Lorde of all which is partaker of the diuine nature c. Heere saith Sander Chrysostome sheweth vs to receiue the bodie of Christe from the holy table or Altar as truely concerning the substance thereof as wee may truely touch another mans garment I answere hee speaketh in this place neither of Altar nor Table and seeing hee hath before shewed howe and from whence Christes bodie is in deede receiued if afterwarde he call the externall Sacramentes by the names of that which they signifie and performe to the worthie receiuer What proofe is that for the carnall presence Neither doth he shewe at all how truely Christes bodie is taken but what iniurie it is vnto his bodie to haue his sacraments despised or vnworthily receiued CAP. XXVIII The breade which is the meate of the mindâ— and not of the bellie can be no wheaten breade but onely the breade of life which is the bodie of Christ. This saying of Cyprian saieth Sander prooueth that the substance of breade remaineth not for materiall breade cannot be meant of the minde but of the bellie Yes forsooth as well as materiall water câ—n serue for the washing of the minde And yet Saint Peter saith it is not the washing of the body but the aunswere of a good conscience which is baptisme that saueth vs. Wherefore it may be materiall breade though not prepared to feede the body but consecrated as a sacrament to feede the minde The plaine meaning of Cyprian is that the body of Christ entreth not into the body of man but into the minde being no bodily foode but spirituall foode as the Apostle calleth it 1. Cor. 10. As for that which Tertullian saith The fleshe is fed with the bodie and bloud of Christ that the soule may be made fatte in God I haue shewed before howe it must of necessitie be vnderstoode of the externall sacrament which beareth the name of that whereof it is a sacrament seing he speaketh there altogether of the externall signes receiued in the bodie and vertue thereof applyed to the soule But Cyprian saieth further in the same treatise de coen dom Panis iste c. This breade which our Lorde gaue to his disciples being chaunged not in shape but in nature is made flesh by the almightie power of the worde This place is often alledged by the Papistes for transubstantiation but Cyprian did meane no such matter but onely that common bread by the almightie power of the worde of God is chaunged from the nature of common breade whiche is a bodily foode to bee an heauenly and spirituall foode as I haue declared more at large in answere to doctor Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 17. and shall haue better occasion to speake of the same place repeted afterwarde CAP. XXIX Sacramental eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof onely Saint Augustine speaketh in the place alledged by the Apologie The Apologie to shewe the naturall bodie of Christ not to be sought on the earth but by faith in heauen citeth this place of Aug. Tr. 50 in Ioan. How shall I hold him that is absent How shal I reach forth mine hand inâ—o heaueÌ„ that I might hold him there sitting Reach out saith he faith and thou hast caught him Here Sander scoffeth out of measure saying that Augustine in that place spake not one whit of the Sacrament but of beleeuing in Christ that hee speaketh not to the faithful but to the vnbeleeuing Iewes and therefore it is one thing to receiue Christ by faith alone another thing to receiue him by faith and sacrament together In deede it is true that Christ may bee receiued by faith alone without the sacrament and it is as true that Christ is receiued by faith alone with the sacrament seeing by this place of Augustine it is shewed that Christ is absent from the earth and to be sought in heauen onely by faith No saith Sander although he be absent to infidels that are not baptised yet hee is not absent to the faithfull that are admitted to the Lords table As though Augustine in the same treatise sheweth not at large that the bodie of Christe is not with the Church on earth vpon these words The poore you shal haue alwayes with you but me you shall not haue the place I haue ciâ—ed at large before and in the same treatise sheweth how Christ is present in the holy sacrameÌ„ts namely in one as he is in the other Quid est enim non semper quid est semper Si bonus es si ad corpus Christipertines quod significat Petrus habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum Habes Christum in praesenti sed habebis semper quia cùm hinc exieris ad illum venies qui dixit latroni Hâ—die meâ—um eris in Paradiso Si autem malè versaris videris habere in praesenti Christum quia intras ecclesiam signas te signo Christi baptizaris baptismo Christi misces te membris Christi accedis ad altare Christi in praesenti habes Christum sedmalè viuendo non semper habebis What is meant by not alwayes and what is alwayes If thou be a good man if thou pertaine vnto the body of Christ which Peter doth signifie thou hast Christ both in this preseÌ„t time and in the world to come In this preseÌ„t world by faith in this preseÌ„t world by the signe of Christ in this present world by the sacrament of baptisme in this present world by the meate and drinke of the Altar Thou hast Christ in this present world and thou shalt alwayes haue him For when thou shalt depart from hence thou shalt come vnto him which saide vnto the theefe This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise But if thou leadest an euill life thou seemest to haue Christ in this present world because thou comest into the Church signest thee with the signe of Christ art baptised with the baptisme of Christ ioynest they selfe with the members of Christ commest vnto the Altar of Christ thou hast Christ in this present worlde but by euill liuing thou shalt not alwayes haue him By these wordes it is euident howe Christ is present in the meate and drinke of the Altar namely as he is present in Baptisme which is not corporally but spirituallie Secondlie that the vngodly so receiue Christ in the sacraments that they onely seeme to haue him when in deede they haue nothing but the signe of him Thirdlie that all the faithfull in Augustines time receiued as well drinke as meate at the Altar Last of all while Sander iesteth at the penneâ— of the Apologie hee sheweth him selfe most ridiculous of all For although Augustine speaketh of the Iewes by Apostrophe which hee wisheth
was by the Sacrament in young children he was deceiued yet Sander saith it was not of necessity but of surety whereas Augustines error is manifest to vrge it of necessity An verò quisquā etiā hoc dicere audebit quòd ad paruulos haec sententia nō pertineat possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us sanguinis in se habere vitā quia non ait Qui non manducauerit sicut de baptismo qui nō renatus fuerit c. Is there any man that dare say this also that this sentence pertaineth not vnto young children and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them because he sayeth not he that shall not eate as of baptisme he that shall not be borne againe I will make answere to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians but in discouering of his error Regeneration is vndoubtedly proued necessarie for infants by that place of Iohn 3. as eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ in this 6. of Iohn which is ynough to ouerthrowe the Pelagians but neither in the one place nor in the other the necessitie of the external sacrament is required but as it may possibly and ought to be profitably receaued according to the worde of God Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text vnto the sacrament in arguing from the signe to the thing signified or contrariwise must be vnderstoode according to his deliberate exposition in Ioh. Tr. 26. or else he should bee founde contrary to himselfe And whereas Sander sayeth This text so appertaineth to the supper as it appertaineth not to baptisme and therefore can not be taken of the spirituall vniting with Christ which is in baptisme I deny the argument for although it doth not so properly pertaine to the sacrament of washing as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing yet doeth it also pertaine to baptisme in as much as by baptisme we are not only washed by Christs bloud from our sinnes but wholy regenerate borne a newe to be the children of God which wee cannot be but by participation of flesh bloud with our brother Iesus Christ and therefore we are also in baptisme spiritually fed with his body and bloud To that which is brought out of Basil Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical comming flesh and bloud Sander answereth that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper because he that receiueth worthily is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applyed to the Sacrament which is all the question his owne wordes shall declare Edimus enim ipsius carnem bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes sensibitis vitae verbi sapientiae Carnem enim sanguinem totum suum mysterium aduentum nominauit doctrinam actiua naturali ac theologica constantem indicauit per quam nutritur anima interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur For wee eate his flesh and drinke his bloud being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisedome For hee named his whole mysticall comming flesh and bloud shewed his doctrine consisting of actiue naturall and theologicall by which the soule is nourished and in the meane time prepared vnto the beholding of the trueth Thus by Basils iudgement by faith in Christes incarnation and doctrine wee eate his flesh and bloud whereof wee are assured by the Sacrament therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christes naturall flesh to be after a corporall maner receiued in the Sacrament CAP. V. Their reasons are answered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Iohn The reasons are for the most parte such as Papistes haue made which thinke in their conscience that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt against whome Sander opposeth him selfe not regarding with what conscience but with what shewe of wordes he may maintaine his false position against all men The argumentes as he numbreth them are fiue The first is this There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter ergo it speaketh not of the supper This argument Sander denyeth because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shal be made Good stuffe I warrant you Againe he saith the matter of a sacrament is not more necessarie then the forme of wordes But Christ saying to Nicodemus Except a man be borne againe of water c. although he name the matter sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament yet speaketh he there of baptisme ergo here of the supper I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there otherwise then of the supper here by comprehending the seale of assurance vnder the promise of the thing it selfe But this argument Sander alloweth wel Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs to receiue vnder both kindes but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnder what kind soeuer wee receiue it If this be true it were well done to take the bread from the people another while to serue them of the cup consecrated for a whole communion But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege as though Christ doth not name drinking almost as often as eating although he name neither bread nor wine And if his bloud be drinke in deede then is it not receiued with the bread which is not drunke but eaten The second argument is Christ speaketh of eating him by faith therfore saith this is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whome he hath sent He that beleeueth in me shall not hunger but there be some of you which beleeue not so that the eating is beleeuing the not eating is not beleeuing To this argument grounded vpon the authoritie of Scripture he hath nothing to answere but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ that is of his grace by faith eating Christ that is his whole flesh bloud soule godhead into our bodies by colour of these words Manducare ex hoc pane manducare hunc panem which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth vseth for all one But that you may see his grosse folly madnesse you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh c. Now the whol context is this I am that liuing bread which came downe frō heauen if a man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction To eat of this bread is to be partaker of grace by faith which he confesseth may
be wtout the Sacrament But that bread wherof he shall eate is the flesh of Christ which he will giue for the life of the worlde therefore to eate the flesh of Christ is to receiue Christ by grace although it be without the Sacrament The third argument is Christ was presently the breade of life when he spake to the Iewes saying I am the bread of life and my father giueth you the true bread from heauen therfore Christ was the bread of life when hee was first incarnat for euen then hee came downe from heauen Therfore his wordes cannot be applyed to his last supper which was not yet instituted Sander confesseth that Christ was by his godhead and manhod the bread of life to be eaten of the Iewes presently by faith and not corporally But he saide also Worke the meate which the sonne of man will giue you and the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which gift is fulfilled in his supper For no reason can be shewed saith he why Christ shoulde say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift then to eate him by faith alone which was lawfull at that instant To this answere of Sander I replye first that he groundeth vpon a strange translation of his owne of working the meate c. Secondly of a patching together of twoo textes that stande farre a sunder Thirdly the worke of meate spoken of in the former text whereunto they are exhorted is expounded of faith by Christ himselfe immediately after This is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whom he hath sent Fourthly the gift which Christ saith in the Future tense he would giue prooueth not that it was yet present but promiseth it to them that will receiue it presently For if a mā haue a Ring in his hand he may truly say to them that stande before him I will giue a Ring to them that shall first come to me Heere the worde of giuing is in the Future tense promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it yet for all that is the Ring still in his hande Fifthly this reason I shewe why Christ saieth hee will giue his flesh for the life of the worlde which presently might be eaten and was eaten almoste foure thousand yeares before because his passion by which it is communicated to the faithfull of all ages at that time when he spake was not perfourmed in act although in effect he was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde The fourth argument which hee consesseth to be of Caietane is that Christes gifte is not meant of his supper because it was the gift of himself to death vpon the crosse such as shall redeeme the worlde Which gift was onely perfourmed vpon the crosse and was partaken alwayes of the olde fathers and may be daily and hourely partaken of vs which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes supper This argument saith Sander is wittily deuised no doubt because it was vsed by Caietane a Papist but yet it is insufficient for many causes The first cause is because Christ spake of a meate that he would giue euen vnto our bodies and not onely vnto our soules Howe proueth he that he spake of such a meate because he ordeined the miracle of multiplying the fiue loaues to be an introduction vnto this talk which loaues were eaten corporally as also that he shewed himself to be the true bread that would fulfil and exceede Manna the figuratiue bread of the Iewes Two blinde causes as though he might not take occasion of corporall eating to speake of spiritual eating as in the fourth of Iohn of corporall drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria of spiritual drinking and in the same Chapter his Apostles of corporall eating hee teacheth them what spirituall meate was As for the figure of Manna of which he speaketh as of a corporall meate whereof they that did eate died our Sauiour Christ was euen to them that did eate it faithfully life euerlasting Manna was the flesh of Christ vnto them But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread is that which is necessarie to be betweene the bare signe and the thing signified from which to reason as Sander doeth Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually therefore the fleshe of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually is to ioygne together things that are to be deuided which is a poore shift of Sophistrie Beside that it is a ridiculous argument to reason of the similitude of those thinges wherein the auctor sheweth them to be vnlike For our Sauiour saith not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes of which saying it is much more probable to reason your fathers did eate Manna corporally therfore you shall not eate this breade which I will giue corporally But he obiecteth that Origen saith as it is alleaged in the decrees De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac No man eateth properly the flesh of Christe as it was crucified Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christe corporally for hee was crucified corporally But Sander will haue vs to marke that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ whereof he speaketh in Saint Iohn from the respect which the same flesh hath being crucified in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Ierom saith the flesh of Christ is two wayes to be considered that spirituall and diuine fleshe whereof he speaketh when he sayth My flesh is meate in deede c. except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. and that flesh which was crucified This distinction is of the maner of receiuing the one which is onely spiritually and of the maner of handling the other which was corporally or it is that distinction which is betweene the effect and the cause Such difference is by Ierom betweene Christ crucified and Christs bodie eaten and drunken which Sander would haue to be all one in substance and differ onely in eating The second reason that Christ speaketh of his supper as well as of his death is that the Greeke text mentioneth two giftes The bread that I will giue is my fleshe which I wil giue for the life of the world Here saith he is I wil giue twise ergo two gifts and then he defendeth the Greeke text to be true although the Latine haue I wil giue but once You see the cunning of the man that can make them both serue his purpose But it is Popish Logike to conclude two giftes of saying twise I will giue as in this example The lande which I will giue you is the maner of Dale which I wil giue to you and to your heires Here is I will giue twise therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike O wonderfull learning of Popish Doctors The third reason is that Christ speaking of the meat saith the sonne of man dabit vobis
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
for we affirme that euery one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world hath beene fedde truely with the verie naturall flesh of Christ but spiritually receiued and by other meanes then vnder the forme of breade in the supper namely by faith and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion and might come to them and euen without faith and without Sacraments in such of Gods elect as lacking age were preuented by death before they could be partakers of sacraments by the onely working of Gods holy spirite who no lesse worketh in this wonderfull spiritual nourishment then in any spirituall regeneration And therefore Sander reasoneth like a grosse Philosopher when he sayth that no signe is able to comiey that heauenly bread to vs. It is horrible blasphemie to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my soule and bodie seeing faith is but a creature onely wherein the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore is not able to attaine to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to giue it mee And yet for all this that Sander sayeth the Apostle prayeth that Christ in whome the fulnesse of the godhead dwelleth corporally may dwell in our heartes by faith In deede not by the worthinesse of faith but by the grace of the holy spirite who giueth strength to the weake elements of the worlde and to our vnperfect faith to bring to passe wonderfull effects as we may see in baptisme Wherefore to reason of the weakenesse of signes and vnablenesse of faith seuerally from the spirite of God is as much as if you would go about to proue that because a mans body without his soule can do nothing therefore being vnited to his soule it is not of force to do any thing To prooue that wee cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh he alleageth Cyrillus and Augustine whose authorities it is needeles to repeate seeing wee grant as much as he would haue to be proued by them But beside them he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit Si verè verbum c. If the worde be truely made flesh and in our Lordes meate wee truely receiue the worde made flesh howe can it bee but hee must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Hereof he gathereth that wee receiue Christ into our bodies after a carnall manner of receiuing which is farre from Hilaries meaning although he vse the worde naturally which euen Sander must confesse to be vnproperly vsed or else hee shall admitte many vnnaturall conclusions Wherefore by naturally he meaneth properly verily and truely yet after a diuine and spirituall manner not after a grosse naturall and sensible manner of habitation Againe this dwelling of Christ in vs naturally doeth not prooue that hee is corporally receiued into our mouthes and settled in our stomakes But this is sufficient to prooue that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually receiued in that hee affirmeth it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receiue his flesh in the Lordes meate Sander addeth worthily But Hilarie sayeth truely Therefore whosoeuer truely receiueth the flesh of Christ in the meate of our Lord Christ must needes dwell in him naturally but Christ dwelleth not at all in the vngodly therefore the vngodly receiue not his fleshe in the Lordes meate as the Papistes say in whome also hee shoulde dwell naturally if hee were receiued truly or as they say corporally CAP. IX By the three diuerse giuings which are named in Saint Iohn it is shewed that Christ giueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of another thing The three times of giuing doe not prooue that three diuerse things are giuen neither doeth Sander saye one worde to prooue that they doe and where is then the grounde of this disputation God by Moyses sayeth Sander is sayde to haue giuen in time past he hath giuen them breade from heauen to eate But Christ sayeth Moyses gaue you not breade from heauen but my Father giueth you the true bread from heauen Euen he which gaue them Manna for a Sacrament of the true breade euen he gaue then giueth nowe and shall giue for euer the true breade from heauen which is the fleshe of our Sauiour Christe incarnate crucified reuiued and ascended into heauen for our saluation And howe can Sander prooue that Christ saying hee will giue his flesh meaneth any other gift then God his father did alwayes giue except he referre his giuing to the time of his passion the fruite whereof was and is giuen vnto the ende of the worlde That the breade which Christ giueth is true vnder a figure that is the forme of bread fulfilling the figure of Manna is a dreame of Sanders owne head for Christ speaketh not of any giuing vnder a figure or forme of breade or of giuing the bread of his supper but of the generall foode of eternall life which it is necessarie that al they be partakers of which shal be partakers of eternall life And therefore it is out of measure absurd that Sander would proue his figuratiue forme by Irenaeus which saieth that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and wine the other heauenly c Irenaeus saith not that the formes of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament but bread and wine in deede for those externall formes or accidents bee not any earthly thing which is a substantiall matter Irenaeus saieth of the bread and wine our bodies are increased and nourished so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But hee will shewe the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion If Christes gift saieth he consisted of the substance of breade sanctified in qualitie and made a signe of his body as the sacramentaries teach it shoulde neither bee the true bread which his father gaue him nor better then Manna c But where doe the Sacramentaries teach that Christes gifte spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in qualitie c. Wee teach that Christs gifte is his owne naturall bodie and bloude giuen in his passion to all the faithfull of the worlde to bee the foode of eternall life as for the substance of bread giuen in his last supper wee teach that it is a Sacrament and seale of this gift Therfore he must seeke other Sacramentaries to fight against if any such be For wee teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments according to the worde of God making difference as all Christian diuines haue done before vs of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament CAP. X. By the shadow of the law past and by the naked trueth to come in heauen it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnder the forme of breade He groundeth vpon the 10. to the Hebrews The Law hath the shadowe of good things to come
nature of Christ bee giuen of the father the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift The 6 difference That Christ endeth his talke of eche gifâ— with repeting the old figure Manna betokening by both the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift This is an agreement rather then a difference except in the last illation which is a meere begging of the matter in question But there is a great difference in that it is said of the one If any man eate ex hoc pane of this breade in the other he that eateth hunc panem this breade and heere is made a great difference betweene eating of Christ and eating Christ himselfe the one is onely by faith the other in the Sacrament of the Altar the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ the other to receiue the substance of Christ. c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue with the preposition for all one I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition but what is this bread of which he that eateth shal liue he answereth The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whereof he saith afterward Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c where he vseth the Accusatiue by which it is plaine that with Christ to eat this breade to eat of this bread is all one Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference shewing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock which was Christ vnworthily where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread But Sand not satisfied asketh if this be the end of our long disputatioÌ„ that Christ came into the world to giue a lesse token then God had giuen before vnder Moses c as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giue the sacrament As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift and his we finde not any one but that they may all agree in one gift which was not his supper but himselfe to death for the life of the world wherof euery one of his elect is made partaker as of spiritual foode by faith his holy spirit But this difference is learned saith he out of Chrysostome vpon Iohn Ho. 45. c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons saying Se non patrem that he not his father dare to giue saith Sander but he falsifieth Chrysostome which saith dedisse to haue giuen which proueth that it is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which then was not instituted 2 That hee saith Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie and about the ende of his bodie prooueth not that he speaketh onely of the Sacrament For Hom. 45. he saith plainely as Sander confesseth that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluation and faith in him or else his body Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation who will not haue the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named But Chrysostome saith vpon these wordes my flesh is meat in deed c. that he so saide to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables but by fleshe to meane the signe of flesh or by eating to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables I answere that wee say neither of both but that Christ is verily eaten by faith and by the spirite of God yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying Aâ—â— quòd is est verus cibus c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule or else c. But he saueth not the soule onely by eating the Sacrament therefore this meate is not eaten onely in the sacrament Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vnto vs not by faith and loue onely but in verie deede Wee confesse but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation in as much as they all were members of his bodie And so confesseth Chrysostome in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ shall bee partaker of the resurrection and therefore Christ saide He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day The testimonies of Theophilact and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison I will not stande vpon CAP. XIII The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chrisâ—â— flesh as was made generally for baptisme sheweth his flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is in baptisme Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme neither the other of the Lordes supper And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is not â—aide onely vpon men of lawfull age because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men seeing Nicodemus to whome Christe saide Except a man be borne c. was of lawful age For spiritual food which is nothing else but the body bloud of Christ is as necessarie for al ages as for perfect age But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as water in Baptisme to wash vs it is a froward and foolish comparisoÌ„ for water washeth not our soules nor regenerateth vs but the holy ghost whereof water is a signe so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as the holy ghost to wash vs and regenerate vs which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vs without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them The right Analogie is betweene water and breade and wine and betweene the spirite of God and the flesh and bloud of Christ not betweene outward water spirituall flesh of Christ which is as preposterous a comparison is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme with the breade and wine in the sacrament But of the error of Cyprian Innocentius and Augustine he will prooue the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper because they gaue the communion to infantes that coulde not receiue it with faith vnderstanding therfore they thought the very body blod of Christ to be really coÌ„tained in the sacrameÌ„t I answere it was not because they thought so but because they thought the one sacrament as necessarie as the other which might and may in deede be ministred to infants that haue not faith nor vnderstanding actually Therfore that
time but at all times there is no question for in all things hee was obedient to his father euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse neither was it necessarie that he should make transubstantiation so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede Neither are those our ancestors which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of whom IgnaÌ„tius spake for wee both receiue it and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe in such sense as hee meant it and as Ignatius tooke his meaning The twelfth circumstance of breaking First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes vsed by all the Euangelistes in placing breaking before the wordes of consecration because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Christ which is no good argument for Saint Paul thereby sheweth that the bread is not altered from his substance although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vs and of vs one with another 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter by saying the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together and then expresse his wordes The deeds he saith are taking bread blessing thanksgiuing deliuering mark that here he maketh blessing thaÌ„ks giuing to be only deeds which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying This is my body But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased with all saith he let it go for a truth that Christ did breake and giue after the words of consecration Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it a starke lye must goe for a truth contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes because that order is contrary to Popery and the Popishe custome which first consecrateth and then breaketh But taking it for a truth the breaking of that which appeared bread doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in euery piece thereof whereas Christ eaten onely by faith is receiued according to the measure of euery mans faith which is more or lesse contrary to the figure of Manna I answer whole Christ is receiued by euery one that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer although Christ bestowe not his graces equally For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith ergo he is wholy present by faith Eph. 3. And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna Et not c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant c. although according to the merites of the recâ—iuers that is made diuers which is one By merites Hierom meaneth not workes but worthines of faith by which the grace of God is effectuall vnto good workes in some more than in other Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth is as greate in the small peece as in the whole loafe Of this bread when part is taken euery man hath no lesse then altogether one hath all twaine hath all moe haue all without diminishing These words saith Sander cannot be vnderstanded of materiall bread nor of inward grace neither of which are equally receiued But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf as Sander himselfe translateth bread is not the name of accidentes neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread nor of breaking of accidentes of bread before the Laterane Councell But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople Post eleuationem c. after the eleuation by by a partition of the diuine lody of is made But truly although he be diuided into partes yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided vncutt and whole in euery parte of the thinges that are cutt Where he saith the diuine body is parted he meaneth the bread which is called his body for the Greekes to this day doe not acknowledg transubstantiation Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vpon beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time But what speake I of fathers saieth Sander The breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of our Lordes body Because wee being many are one bread one body For so much as wee all partake of the one breade If the breade bee broken saith he how partake wee all of one breade that which is broken is not one in number No sir but it was one in number before it was broken whereof when euery one receiued a parte wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole But the Corinthians saith he haue more then one loafe broken among them How prooue you that sir the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise and if they had twentie loaues yet was it al one bread in kind wherof the Apostle saide wee all partake of one breade which if it be not materiall breade how is it broken for the body of Christ is not broken And Saint Paul saying wee partake all of one bread which is broken meaneth not that the visible Sacrament is nothing els but many accidentes and no breade at all The thirteenth circumstance of giuing Sander will haue the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread contrary to the order of all the Euangelistes for else Christ should not giue a sacrament and he promised to giue his flesh c. I answere he gaue a Sacrament and his flesh at his supper although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it but in the whole Where he sayeth the meate of Christes supper came from his hands and that it is horrible blasphemie to say it came another way because he onely sayeth it it shall suffice plainly to denie it He gaue bread and wine from his handes but he gaue his flesh and bloud from his eternall spirite which giueth life vnto his fleshe and the working of the holy ghost the thirde person in Trinitie maketh it to be effectuall which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe giueth vs in his supper Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe Saint Marke Saint Luke and Saint Paul which saye he did giue with his handes and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giue his flesh to be eaten what other perfourmance of his promise is there then this gift by his hande and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules where is that meate giuen but at Christes table c Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules we haue no Gospell but the Gospell of Christ written by his Apostles and Euangelists But
of flesh with naked soule and pure minde looke rounde about vpon those thinges that are in heauen These wordes declare plainelye that Chrysostome dreamed not of transubstantiation but spake of a spirituall handling and receiuing of Christ as of a spirituall dipping and making redde the people with his pretious bloud and of feeding on Christ in heauen by faith And so it is more wonderfull that wee in body remaining on the earth doe feede on Christ sitting in heauen not by bringing him downe vnto vs but by lifting vs vp vnto him The places of scripture that Sander quoteth as perteining to the supper although they all pertaine not vnto it yet when he can make any argument out of any of them for his carnall manner of presence I shall easily answere it CAP. XI Why the Sacrament is called breade after consecration If Master Sander had first prooued that the Sacrament is not bread after consecration wee might easily haue yelded to the reason that might be brought why it is called that which in nature it is not As wee can yeld many reasons why the Sacrament is called the body of Christ although it be not the body of Christ in the nature of it yet it is meete that first wee prooue that it is not his body after that manner that the Papistes defend and then shewe reasons why it is called by the name of that which it doth signifie But let vs heare Sanders reasons First the Hebrue tongue which the Euangelists Apostles writing Greek doth follow vseth the name bread for all maner of food Secondly a thing is called by the name of that which it was and not which it is as Aarons rod is said to haue deuoured the roddes of the coniurers yet was it turned from a rodde to a serpent Exod. 7. Thirdly a thing is called not onely as it is but as it seemeth outwardly to be so the Angell which the woman sawe at the sepulchre is called a yong man Marke 16. And in all these three respectes the Sacrament is called bread when it is not naturall bread For it is a kind of foode it was bread and seemeth to be breade But I will prooue that in none of these respectes it is called bread but because it is naturall bread in deede without conuersion of the substance First whatsoeuer is saide in Saint Iohn Cap 6. is not particular to the Sacrament for bread is there taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode which wee haue without the Sacrament Secondly when S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread after consecration there is no reason why the name of bread should not be taken for materiall bread changed in vse not in substance as the name of breade taken before consecration 1. Cor. 11. and where the Apostle saith the breade which wee breake he sheweth plainlie that he speaketh of material breade for the bodie of Christe nor spiritual foode nor general foode are not broken Secondly in the conuersion of Aarons rodde there was a sensible change there is none such in the Sacrament Thirdly as the Angel had some appearance of a man in externall shape of bodie so he had other manifest tokens in him that declared him to be an Angell and no man but the Sacramentall bread hath in it all tokens of material bread and no sensible token of the bodie of Christ therefore the comparison is nothing like The water turned into wine was iudged by the taste to be wine not water There can be no such iudgement in the Sacramentall bread for as materiall bread it tasteth and partaketh all accidents yea it nourisheth and corrupteth which neither bare accidents nor the bodie of Christ doeth or can doe The authorities that Sander citeth to proue that the Sacramentall bread is called the bodie and flesh of Christ do not denie that it is material bread yea many of the old writers expressely affirme that it is so Yet let vs consider his authorities Ignatius Ep. 2. ad Rom. saith Panem Dei volo quod est caro Christi I desire the bread of God quod which thing is the flesh of Christ. Verily Ignatius saith no more here then Zwinglius saide which was no friend to transubstantiation Secondly Iustinus saith Hic cibus c. this meate is called with vs the Eucharist or thanksgiuing after he saith We take not these things as common bread drink but wee haue learned that the meate which is consecrated by the words of praier taken of him to be the flesh bloud of Christ. He that denieth the Sacrament to be coÌ„mon bread doth not denie it to be naturall bread And Iustinus interlaceth that which Sander omitteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That meat of which our bloud flesh by transmutation are nourished we haue learned to be the flesh bloud of that Iesus that was incarnate That which nourisheth our flesh bloud is material bread although it be not coÌ„mon bread Thirdly Hilarie saith Nos verè c. we truly take the word flesh in our Lordes meate The same Hilarie saith afterward verè sub mysterio truely vnder 2 mysterie we receiue the flesh of his bodie Fourthly Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith Christ offered bread wine that is to say his owne bodie bloud Here Sander cutteth off the beginning of Cyprians words which manifestly proue material bread wine Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchizedech obtulerat id est panem vinu suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedek had offered that is to say bread wine namely his bodie bloud Speake Sander tel vs was it not material bread wine which Melchizedek brought forth the selfsame thing saith Cyprian offered Christ which yet was his bodie bloud after a certeine maner After what maner you may learne In these wordes you haue not onely the spirituall manner after which the breade and wine are called his body and bloud but also the same breade and wine to be made of cornes grapes which I trow caÌ„ be none other but material bread and wine Fifthly Irenaeus saith it is not now common bread but the Eucharisty lib. 4. C. 34. The same Irenaeus in the same place saith that Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constant terrena coelesti the Sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly thing and an heauenly Likewise he saith that of the bread wine being made the Eucharisty augeâ—ur consistit carnis nostrae substantia the substaÌ„ce of our flesh is increased and consisteth lib. 5. that is not of accidents nor of the reall body of Christ. Sixtly Ambrose de Sacr. lib. 5. calleth our daiely bread supersubstantiall breade and yet I weene it be still naturall food of the body But he saith more Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed illa panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit It is not the bread which goeth into the body but that
bread of euer lasting life which holdeth vp the substance of our soule I like this saying of Ambrose or whosoeuer writ that booke very well The Sacrament is not that bread which goeth into the body ergo the Sacrament is not the naturall body of Christ which the Papistes affirme to be a kind of bread that goeth into the body Seuenthly Gregory of Nyssa saieth in vita Mosis panis est c. It is bread prouided for vs without seede without plowing without any other worke of man But he saith immediatly before that it is receiued with a pure and cleane mind and is an heauenly meate therefore a spirituall food spiritually to be receiued and not bodily Eightly S. Augustine Tra. 26. in Ioâ—n saith when would flesh vnderstand this thing thâ—â— he called bread flesh In deed the spirituall manner of nourishing is not possible to be vnderstood of the flesh but the fleshly transubstantiation may be vnderstood of euery fleshly man Ninethly Isychius in Leuit. li. 6. C. 22. nameth the bread which S. Paule saith is eaten vnworthily nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis the nourisher of our spirituall substance He meaneth if it bee worthily receiued otherwise it is damnation to him that eateth vnworthily Lastly Sedulius in Op. Pasc. saieth of the bread which Christ gaue to Iudas Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat To whome he himselfe gaue bread which bread was to be betrayed A great miracle if a Poet speake specially But nowe directy against transubstantiation speake many doctors Origen saith in Mat. Cap. 15. The sanctified meat by that which it hath materiall goeth into the belly and is cast foorth into the draught Likewise the matter of the bread profiteth not c. Theodoret Diâ—l 1. saith Simbola c. The symboles or tokens which are seene he honoured with the name of his bodie and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to the nature Likewise Dialog 2. he saith Manent in pâ—iori substantia the bread and wine after sanctification abide in their former substance Gelasius a bishop of Rome cont Eutich writeth of the bread and wine in the Sacrament Et tamen esse non definit substantia natura panis vini The substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine These sayings with diuerse other are direct against transubstantiation and therefore lewdly doth Sander abuse the readers with a number of places of the old writers to proue it of which not one of them hath a reasonable colour when it is examined CAP. XII The presence of the bodie bloud of Christin his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old testament In deede of scriptures he bringeth ether vaine allegories fantastical figures of his own brain or els shamefully racketh the sentences of the old testament to make them prophecies of transubstantiation which were not once spoken of the Sacrament And first he slandereth S. Paul to haue said that to the Iewes al things chanced in figures where he saith of such things as came to passe in the wildernes all these things happened to them as figures or examples are written for our instruction And although Saint Paul had so saide as hee reporteth yet it followeth not that he may drawe their figures whither he will He beginneth with the figure of Abel whom he maketh the first shepeheard Priest Martyr and perpetuall Virgine in all which he would haue him to be a figure of Christ. Although that hee was the first shepeheard it is not like for it is not to bee thought that Adam altogether neglected the feeding of Cattell before Abel tooke it in hand no more then it is like that he occupied no tillage before Cainefell vnto it But that he calleth Abel the first Prieste it is vtterly false For Adam was the first Prieste and receaued or God the lawe of sacrificing which hee taught vnto his sonnes except Sander thinke that Adam liued so many yeares without exercise of religion vntill Abel and Caine were made Priestes For Caine is named to haue offered sacrifice as soone as Abel Whereby it is probable that neither of them both was Priest but Adam the heade of the familie to whom they brought their seuerall oblations vnto that place which was called the presence of the Lorde from whence Caine was bannished after his murther committed Concerning Abels virginitie I will not contend although if I should followe the Iewish traditions as Sander doth in his allegoricall comparison in diuerse pointes I must say he was a married man hauing to wife his sister Delbora But to the comparison Sander saith that Abell first offered himselfe vnder the shape of other things and after went forth to be offered in his owne person being traiterously slaine This is nothing else but a drousie dreame of Sanders sleepâ—e heade The sacrifice of Abel was a figure of the sacrifice of Christes death and not of his last supper Neither did he offer himselfe vnder the shape of his satte lambes but he offered his lambes in signe that God by the mediation of Christs death should accept him Neither did Abel go forth of purpose to be offered in his own person when he was murthered as Christe did neither was the death of Abel a sacrifice whose bloud cried vengeance whereas the bloud of Christs sacrifice crieth mercie Heb. 11. Wherefore this is nothing else but a grosse abusing of the Scriptures to faigne such foolish figures which haue no grounde in the worde of God but are such as euerie one will inuent out of his own imagination Euen as that iest of Sander that Caine did beare a figure of the English communion in which nothing but a few bsse fruits of the earth are offered when much rather I might say that Cain did beare a figure of the murdering church of Rome which hath slain so many Abels because her sacrifice of the fruits of the erth is no better accepted But what should I trifle after so vaine a ma ner The second figure is of Melchizedek which in deed seemed plausible to many of the old fathers Against all which I oppose the credit of the Apostle to the Hebrewes who omitting nothing that in Melchizedeks priesthood might be referred to Christ maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread and wine which Melchizedek brought forth of princely liberalitie not of priestly dutie And yet it is a vaine thing for the Papists to brag of Melchizedeks bread wine when they in their sacrifice wil acknowledg to remain neither bread nor wine But of al that euer I heard it is a most impudent comparison that Sander maketh of Melchizedek consecrating AbrahaÌ„ by blessing of him that was really present as it were in his haÌ„ds And Christ consecrating his owne bodie bloud present in his hands at the time of his blessing consecrating and tanteth the Sacramentaries for acknowledging the one denying
prayer he citeth out of Cyrillus of Ierusalem That the holy ghost woulde make the breade the bodie of Christ and the wine the bloud of Christ in Cate. myst 5. But this is merueilous that Sander saith hee is desired so to doe of the priest who were not otherwise able to make so great a mysterie if Christ had not commaunded him to make this thing But I replie if Christ had commaunded the priest to make his bodie what neede he desire another to make it And in that the holy ghost must make it it is certaine that Christ commaunded not the priest to make it Out of Dionysius the counterfeit Areopagite hee vrgeth the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie a making or working of holie thinges which may well stande with making and working of the sacrament although there bee no making of Christes hodie commaunded To lustinus we answered before in the 〈◊〉 circumstance But Irenaeus hath these wordes Quando mixtus calix c. when the Chalice mixed with water and the breade being broken taketh the worde of God then the Euâ—harist of the bodie and bloude of Christ is made It is made saieth Sander Yea verily but it is one thing to say the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloude is made another thing to say his naturall bodie is made But what is the Eucharist with you Papistes the verie bodie and bloude of Christ. Then the sense of Irenaeus wordes must be thiâ— the verie bodie and bloude of Christ of the verie body and bloud of Christ is made which were more then ridiculous Tertullian against Marcion saith lib. 4. Acceptum panem c. The breade which he had taken and distributed to his disciples hee made it his owne bodie Loe saith Sander he made the breade his bodie Yea sir but within six wordes following he sheweth howe breade was called his bodie namely because it was a figure of his bodie Ambrose de iis qui mysteriis init saith Cap. 9. Sacramentum c. This sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the worde of Christ. And hoc quod conficimus corpus ex virgine est This thing which we make is the bodie taken of the virgine But let Ambrose expounde himselfe in the words following soone after vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo Carnis illius sacramentum est c. It was the true flesh of Christ which was crucified which was buried wherefore it is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe ciâ—eth out This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloude before consecratino it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloude Likewise when Hierom in Ep. ad Hel. saith that Priestes doe make the bodie of Christ with their holy mouth hee meaneth the sacrament of his bodie as he saith immediately after â—hat we are become Christians by them meaning by the â—acrament of baptisme ministred by them Against Iouinian lib. 2. hee saith that Christ offered wine in typo sanguinis sui in token of his bloude and the whole sacrament he calleth mysterium quod in typo suae passiâ—nis expressit the mysterie which he expressed in the token of hâ—â— passion Out of Chrysostome are cited diuerse places al which are rather against Sanders making then for it as these The priestes make the oblation which Christ gaue to his disciples in 2. Tim. 2. He meaneth the sacrament vnproperly called of the old writers an oblation or sacrifice Againe The sacraments are begun and made perfect by the priest de sacer lib. 3. Againe Non homo est qui corpus c. It is not a man which maketh the bodie and bloude of Christ but the same Christ which was crucified for vs c. Yet Sander saith Christ saying Hoc facite commaunded men to make his bodie Aug. Cont. Faust Manich. lib. 20. cap. 3. saith that our breade chalice is made mysticall vnto vs not borne made I say Therefore hoc facite signifieth make this thing I deny the argument especially vnderstanding this thing for the naturall bodie of Christ. The same Augustine contra Adimantum saith Our Lorde doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe of his bodie Wherefore if hoc facite be make that thing which Christ gaue it is make a signe of his bodie The rest of the authorities of Theophilact Damascene Euthymius Anselmus c. I will not stande to rehearse because they being late writers speake often more neere vnto the Popish heresies And some of them were ranke papists yet in this matter for the signification of hoc facite make this thing not one of them speaketh directly as Sander defendeth But that the olde writers vse often the worde of making the bodie of Christ the sacrament c. It proueth not that they vnderstoode facere in Christs wordes to make one substance of another although by doing as Christ commaunded such a bodie as he spake of and such a sacrament was made CAP. XIIII What these wordes doe signifie For the remembrance of me and that they much helpe to prooue Christes reall presence vnder the formes of breade and wine To the obiection that the remembrance of a man differeth from the man himself Sander answereth that Christ said not onely do this but also make this thing because facere signifieth both to doe and to make and the remeÌ„brance of Christ is the shewing of his death as S. Paul teacheth by facte and by making Christs bodie vnder diuerse kinds to shew the separation of the bodie from the soule the breaking and eating of it in signe sheweth the breaking of it on the crosse c. To this I reply that facere can haue but one signification at one time and seeing facere in commemorationem is expounded by S. Paul as Sand also confesseth to shew the Lords death which is by doing not by making except you meane the making of the sacrament hoc facite is still do this thing In deede the verie ministratioÌ„ of the sacrament according to Christs in stitutioÌ„ is a preaching of the Lords death but it followeth not therof that the Lord is present whom the Apostle by implication saith to be absent for he addeth vntill he come which were not properly saide if in person he were present but rather vntill he be seene which is there present inuisible To come is to remoue from one place to another place where the remouer was not before he came But Sander saith the presence of the benefactor is the best meane to make his good deede remembred as the scarre in a mans face being seene is the best remembraÌ„ce of his fighting for his friends defence I haue often shewed the vanitie of this kinde of reasoning by which it shoulde followe that
of our spirituall feeding by the body of Christ and therefore as sufficient to testifie our communication with Christ as water in baptisme the cleansing of our soules with his bloud In handling the word of communicating he bringeth in a distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Chrysostom which is vaine and to no purpose seeing the Apostle vseth both the wordes for one For when he had said we are one bread and one body being many he giueth a reason thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we all are partakers of one bread Now concerning the matter of communicating of Christ Sander saith it can not be by a bare signe and token And wee say euen the same but by a Sacrament wherein Christes body and bloud is not really present it may be For els how are they that are baptised only made members of Christ and haue a true communicating of his body and bloud yea how had all the fathers before Christes incarnation this communicating of Christes body and bloud without which they were no members of Christ the like I say of raysing of our bodies not by a figure of Christes body but by the vertue of his body it selfe which vertue if it could not be communicated to our bodies otherwise then by reall presence in the Sacrament as Sander falsly dreameth that Irenaeus shoulde meane by what meanes should the resurrection of all them be wrought which haue not receiued the Sacrament O shameles and yet most blockheaded kinde of reasoning As for Irenaeus hee prooueth the resurrection of our bodies against the heretiks by that they are fed with the body bloud of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne confession But he doth not hold it necessary that who so euer iâ— partaker of the resurrection of the righteous must receiue the Sacrament or the naturall body of Christ really present in the Sacrament For we haue communication with God the father with Iesus Christ by faith as S. Ioan teacheth 1. Ioh. 1. in the Gospell preached and receiued And whereas Sander saith that S. Irenaeus neuer dreamed of bloud that should be receiued from heauen I demande what is the heauenly part of the Sacrament When Irenaeus affirmeth that it consisteth of two thinges an earthly thing and an heauenly thing lib. 4. Cap. 34. I suppose that the heauenly thing can be nothing but the body and bloud of Christ which seing he affirmeth it to be a heauenly thing verily it can not be conteined in an heauenly vessell nor be receiued but from heauen CAP. III. The presence of Christ in his supper is prooued by the one bread which being receiued of vs maketh all one body Nay this vnion which is spiritual of vs and Christ and of vs one with another inuincibly prooueth the presence of Christ to be spirituall and not carnal for it is the spirit of God which maketh this vnion and not the flesh of Christ which is one of the termes to be vnited and not the meane of the vnion For by the spirite of God wee are as verily vnited vnto the body of Christ in baptisme as in the supper therefore the reall presence is not necessary for this vniting I passe ouer how ignorantly Sander abuseth the example of fire conuerting all things into it selfe to shewe how Christ which is a consuming fire turneth vs into his body whereas God in respect of his Iustice and not of his mercy is in scripture called a consuming fire Where he saith the vnion can not be made by wheaten bread I agree with him but wheaten bread and the fruit of the vine receiued according to Christes institution may testifie that vnion vnto vs as well as elementall water in baptisme which is made by the spirit of God So saith Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 6. ad Magnum that QuaÌ„do c. when Christ calleth bread which is made of many graines his bodi he signifieth our people which he bare to be vnited vnto him and when he calleth wine which is pressed out of many grapes and bunches and brought into one his bloud he signifieth likewise our flock coupled togither by commixion of the multitude that is ioyned in one Cyprian saith bread and wine made of graines and grapes and not the forme of bread which was made of graines is now no bread as Sander saith doth represent this vnion Neither did any auncient writer say or thinke that by the accidentes and not by the substance of bread and wine our coniunction is represented CAP. IIII. The reall presence is prooued by ioyning together all the former wordes Now must we haue a further tast of Sander his tedious Sophistrie in ioining the wordes together The bread which we break is the communicating of Christs bodie because we being many are one breade and one bodie for we all partake of the one breade Here bread being thrise named saith hee is put to expresse one and the same mysterie But that is false for in the first and last place breade is put for the earthly matter of the mysterie or sacrament Against this Sander replyeth and saith that if we once take the substance of common bread to be the thing which is broken neither is that substance the communicating of Christes bodie nor wee are all one materiall breade I might likewise reason thus if the bread that is broken be the substance of the bodie of Christ neither is 〈◊〉 the communicating of the bodie of Christ neither aâ—â— we the substance of the bodie of Christ for the bodie of Christ and the communicating thereof differ as much as the substance of a thing and the accidents of the same S. Paul affirmeth it to be the accident ergo it is not the â—â—bstance Wherefore to auoide all cauilling the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes toâ—ie spiritually sacramentally not really corporally substantially Against this Sandâ—r riseth vp and saith that if to bee is interpreted to signifie then in the next verse where it is saide we that are manie are one bread and one bodie we are said to be the figure of one bread because it is one verbe and one nowne in both places A simple cause as though one verbe and one nowne in diuerse places may not be diuersly taken And yet we can not be called one bread but figuratiuely that is like vnto one loafe of bread made one of many graines one bodie that is like vnto one bodie consisting of diuerse members spiritually vnited together But Sander vrgeth vs further by the wordes of breaking and partaking if the bread broken be materiall bread saith he wee partake of the materiall bread and yet the bread whereof we partake is by Saint Paul named one for seeing it is broken it is not still one I answere wee partake all of one materiall breade which is either one in lumpe or kinde to signifie that wee doe spiritually communicate with the onely bodie
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes
significat in the consecration of the bloud hic remaineth without a substantiue Fulke A bable answered lib. 4. circumst 23. Sand. 18 In these words this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud Fulke Ye fable we take it properly and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes This is my bloude Sand. 19 If you take bloud properly in these words it must also be proper in these This is my bloud Fulke That followeth not Sand. 20 The construction of these words This cup is shed for you prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed which you say is wine Fulke This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst 26. 27. Sand. 21 In Christs words The breade which I will giue is my flesh you expounde I haue giuen and I doe giue Fulke Yea I will giue as I haue done and doe Sand. 22 In Saint Paul The breade which wee breake is the communicating c. you expounde signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs Fulke And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments haue like with theirs the ceremonies of the Gentiles also not what difference there is You are wel studied in Saint Paul Sand. 23. The cuppe of blessing you wil haue to be a cuppe of wine as though the blessing wrought nothing in it Fulke As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation Sand. 24. You make Christ giue thankes to his father in beginning the state of the new testament in better words then deede for his words are This is my body yet you will haue him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing Fulke Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament was at the institution of the supper Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament Secondly howe prooue you that This is my bodie are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god Sand. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to giue to our mouthes lesse then Moses for Manna was better then common breade Fulke Sacraments be no shadows Neither did Moses giue Manna but God for ought that I knowe And it is most conuenient that the signes of the new testament should be lesse glorious then of the old because the doctrine is more cleare Sand. 26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating that is to say for not eating or refusing to eate For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ. Fulke For wee expounde guiltie for eating to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily that is in some vnreuerently or negligently in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby Sand. 27. You will not haue Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables who both did sacrifice and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs Fulk We will haue no more sacrifices but the onely and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption The repetition of sacrifice sheweth an imperfection in it and not a betternes Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar table of diuels not in sacrifice but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars tables which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is and ouerthroweth your carnall presence Sand. 28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure whereby you shew him not to be truly deade Fulk You shewe it by eating him aliue whereby there is no argument of his death We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element without which it is lame dead and vnperfect Sand. 29 Ye expounde the not making difference c. in such sort that hee will not haue the bodie present wherein difference is to be made Fulk As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence Sand. 30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe by corporall participation which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh Fulk Our corporall participation is by his incarnation which is applied vnto vs by faith through his spirite vniting vs vnto him and testifyed in the supper Sand. 31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels by howe much he hath a more excellent name you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries but affirme them to bee as they were before c. Fulk The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name but because he hath it by inheritance for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God and princes are called Gods You haue not sought Christ in the scriptures but the confirmation of your heresie Againe we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries that wee beleeue them to bee the same that they are called after a spirituall manner although they haue not that name by inheritance but by grace affirming in the elementes a greate alteration from that they were before not in substance but in vse and effecte Sand. 32 No promise in the scriptures can be found made to him that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper beside the worde of God Fulk The promise is made in scripture to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution although not for eating bread and drinking wine onely This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme because no promise is made to him that is washed in water but to him that is washed according to Christes institution Sand. 33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored Fulk Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament Sand. 34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament Fulk The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall shall be taken away by the comming of Christ but among true Christians which do renounce all worshipping of idols Sand. 35 Christ came to saue feed the whole man◠why deny you the foode of life to our bodies Fulk We affirme that Christ feedeth bodie soule vnto eternall life without the sacrament and with it although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates nor swallowed and disgested as they are Sand. 36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone why is it called a supper more then baptisme
deprauing M. Iewels meaning which is that Christ in deede not phantastically or imaginatiuely but truely after a wonderful manner hath ioyned vs both body soule vnto himselfe by baptisme CAP. XX. Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar or no. Fulke Euen as really as he dwelleth by baptisme none otherwise Sander He promiseth to declare that Christ dwelleth foure wayes in our body really when he commeth to the fourth way he spendeth all his strength to declare that Christs bodie is not really dwelling in our bodies Fulke I pitie your beggerly sophistrie grounded vpon the diuerse taking of the worde really CAP. XXI Sander That Christes bodie is proued to be really in the Sacrament by S. Chrysostomes wordes Harding By this Sacrament saith Chrysostom Christ reduceth vs as it were into one lump with himself and that not by faith only but he maketh vs his own bodie in deede Re ipsa which is no other to say then really Iewell This place would haue stand M. Harding in better steede if Chrysostome had said Christ mingleth his bodie with the Sacrament and driueth himselfe it into one lumpe Sander M. Iewel marketh not that Sacrament to be of it selfe the reall bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread wine therfore to say Christ is mingled with the sacrament were to say Christ is mingled with himselfe Fulke Sanders best argument is the whole matter in question alas poore wretched begger Iewell Neither wil M. Harding say that Christ mingleth himself with vs simply without figure whereof it followeth that much lesse it is so in the Sacrament Sander He meaneth that Christes own bodie is ioyned to ours simply without any figure of Rhetorike or Grammar but not without a mysticall figure Fulke If he meane that he mingleth himselfe with 〈◊〉 into one lump wtout al figure of Rhetorik then without all figure simply we are one lump with him as a lumpe of dough is one As for our wonderfull coniunction with him it is not that which is the figure but the mingling into one lumpe which are the words of Chrysostome Iewel It is a hot kind of speach such as Chrysostom was much delighted with It is a speach farre passing the common sense course of trueth Sander I thought you would bring it to a figure of speach but he taught it for a truth as we shal see anone Fulke As though an hyperbolical speach may not be true in any sense because it is not true in the common sense Iewell Himself thought it necessarie to correct and qualifie the rigor of the same speach by these words vt ita dicam which is as it were or if I may be bold so to say Sander In other places he vseth the terme of mingling without correction Fulke But in the same sense that he vseth it nowe with correction Sander The correction must be referred to the similitude or metaphor of a lump of dough wherunto he alludeth Fulke You are welcome home to a figuratiue speache Sander What if he vse no such correction or qualifying for as the edition of Parise doth witnesse his Greek wordes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seipsum miscet nobis he mingleth himselfe with vs. Fulke If no other edition witnesse for the Latine translation let the translator answere for himself But his words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are most aptly translated in Latine subigit seipsum nobiscum he kneadeth himselfe with vs which if it be not a figuratiue speach I report me to you Iewell In such phrase Anacletus saith the power of the holy ghost is mingled with the oyle Sander Pope Anacletus whose Epistle you esteeme as much as your shooe sole nameth not olcum oyle but holy chrisme Fulke And is not your chrisme oyle Although the Epistle be counterfeite and not worth a shooe latchet yet the phrase is vsed in it by him whosoeuer fained it and by you allowed in another sense then by transubstantiation Iewel Alexander saith the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments Sander The worlde goeth hard with his note booke when he flieth to these decretall Epistles for the proofe of any thing especially for Latine phrases Fulke And why may not your owne suborned witnesses be examined to see if they can depose any thing against your owne selues that haue set vp such knightes of the post as those decretall Epistles are whome you your selfe flout for their Latine phrases which in deede can scarse keepe themselues within the bondes of congruitie Master Iewel hath plentifully displayed their forgerie so that he feareth not any mention of Masse or chrisme to be founde in them Iewell Nyssenus sayeth Saint Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy ghoste Sander That saying prooueth that the grace of the holy ghost was really in S. Stephen as Christes body i◠really mingled with our bodies Fulke It might likewise prooue that S. Stephen was really in the gifts of the holy ghost for if you take grace for the fauor of God it was not really in Stephen but in the holy ghost himself If the one be absured so is the other except it be taken figuratiuely Iewel Chrysostom meant that we should consider that wonderfull coniunction which is betweene Christ and vs euen in one person Sander He confesseth more then we aske for we are not one person with Christ. Fulke Not as he is one of the three persons in trinity nor as his humanity assumpted into the deitie maketh one person with his death but as he is our head and the Church his body which is the fullnesse of him that filleth all in all things Where Sander confesseth the matter it is folly to striue for the phrase Iewell Leo saith the body of him that is regenerat is made the flesh of him that was crucified Sander Pope Leo speaketh of his mysticall flesh Fulke B. Leo speaketh of his naturall flesh but by a spirituall and mysticall kinde of making such as our regeneration is Iewell S. Augustine saith we are made Christ c. and both he and we are one whole man Sander He saith not one whole man but the whole man Fulke What number is man Master Doctor the singular or the plurall Sander Hee speaketh of a mysticall body of diuerse members made vp and perfected into a whole collegiat body But Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning himselfe to euery faithfull man Fulke Sander vnderstandeth not the mysticall body of Christ which compareth it to a collegiat bodye or ciuill corporation with which it hath small similitude The scripture compareth it to a naturall body receiuing life and sense from the head Christes ioyning of himselfe to euery one of vs maketh vs all one body in him Iew. As we are by baptisme made Christes fleshe Christ in the same sense Chrysostome saith wee are made one lumpe with Christ and Christ hath tempered and mingled himselfe with vs. Sand.
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale