〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
I aunswere the argument is not of the onely naming of two but of the whole argument of the Apostle which is to proue that â—he fathers in participation of the sacramentes were equall with vs which were not sufficiently proued if hauing named onely two there were other fiue wherein wee are superior to them So that the naming of two is in this place the excluding of all other except those two Nowe let vs discusse Bristowes reasons for the number of Sacraments to be seuen Wee read of the other fiue in other places Where I pray you Of Confirmation Iohn the 7. You reade more then I can finde there named or signified except you meane of the increase of Gods spirite in more excellent and euident graces which the faithfull shoulde receiue after the resurrection and ascension of Christe which differeth farre from confirmation of children by imposition of handes Of Penance you read Iohn 20. Of power giuen to the Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes I reade but of auricular confession and satisfaction I reade not Of extreme vnction you reade Iac. 5 of annoynting the sicke with oyle which by a speciall gift recouered health of body as well as remission of sinnes at the prayer of the faithfull I reade but of anealing men desperatly sicke which hath no hope of bodily recouerie I reade not Of orders you reade Math. 26. but I reade nothing at all although I reade that the Apostles were commaunded to continue the celebration of his supper instituted by him which were before ministers of his sacramentes and preachers of his worde but of Bennet and Collet coniurer subdeacon or masse priest I reade not in all the Scripture nor of Deacon in that Chapter Of Matrimonie both yet and I reade Math. 19 but not instituted at that time by Christ but long before in Paradise and is no more a sacrament of the newe testament then the raynebowe which yet with the couenant thereof remaineth in vse among Christians But you confesse you reade not in those places that they are sacramentes no more doe you reade 1. Cor. 10. that baptisme or the Lordes supper are sacraments or any where else This is a stale quarrell of the name of sacramentes which is not founde in Scripture although the thing signified by the name that is the seales of Gods promises and the name of signe of Gods couenants be often founde But your laste refuge is that the Apostle speaketh onely of the firste entrance into Christianitie which in antiquitie was by baptisme confirmation the complement of baptisme and the Euchariste and therefore speaketh not of the rest Beside that this fantasie is manifestly contrarie to the Apostles purpose which was to shewe that the externall sacramentes of Gods grace without a godly life woulde not serue to assure vs that God was pleased withvs it is cleare that the Corinthians among whome Saint Paul so long had preached coulde not bee without all other sacraments if any other were They had children to bee confirmed they themselues were married elders were to bee ordered offenders by penaunce were to bee reconciled manie were sicke and some were fallen a sleepe to bee anealed And Saincte Paule saith expressely they were behinde in no grace or gifte of Gods spirite 1. Corinth 1. Wherefore that they were younge nouices newely entred the barres and not knightes exercised in battell it is a dreame of Bristowes drowsiâ— heade and no trueth to bee verified of the Corinthians Secondly I say of the sacramentes in generall that they giue not grace ex opere operato of the worke wrought but after the faith of the receiuer and according to the election of Go◠〈◊〉 Corin. 10. Againe howe should the sacrament giue grace of the worke wrought if faith were requisite in them that receiue them This argument saith Bristowe holdeth aswell against the working of Christs passion Why sir the passioÌ„ of Christ giueth not grace but to the faithfull and electe of God But faith you say is no work nor instrumeÌ„t but only a dispofition as drynesse in wodde that the fire worketh vppon I will not enter into any philosophicall disputation with you whether it bee drinesse or moysture in the wodde that the fire worketh vpon perhaps you thinke that water is moyster then ayre which error if you had no more cannot make you an heretike But I meruaile what cause you will make faith seing you exclude it from efficients except you make it a matter for the sacraments to worke vpon or else I know not what you meane by that your disposition lyke drienesse in woode which in deede is the thinne ayer more apte to receiue inflammations then the thicke water but perhaps you make it onely a potentia like materia prima for you adde that by our indisposition wee doe not put obicem But you hold that the sacraments giue grace of the work wrought without the good motion of the vser onely so hee doe no part obicem that is so he doe not withstand the working as if a man be baptised sleeping and thinking nothing of it Neuerthelesse seing the scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in vs by faith faith must needes bee an instrumentall efficient when you haue saide all that you can except you will teach vs newe gramer and Lògike You confesse the scripture sayth that by beleeuing and other good actions wee worke our owne saluation Phil. 2. as by way of meriting but it saith not that we worke the effect of any sacrament neither doe I say that wee worke the effecte of any sacrament but that God worketh in vs according to faith which he giueth vs and his election You say further that the scripture teacheth that the passion of Christ giueth to our deedes vertue to merite where is that scripture written for vntill you shewe me where it is written I will say still to you as I saide to Allen the Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemie beleeuing stedfastly that we are iustified freely by his grace through the redemptioÌ„ of Christ Iesus without respect of our works Rom. 3. 4. But yet Bristowe will make men beleeue that I shew manifolde ignorance where I say Purg. 35. The meane on Gods behalfe by which we are made partakers of the fruites of Christes passion and so graffed into his bodie is his holy spirite of promise which is the earnest and assuring of our inheritaunce who worketh in vs faith as the onely meane by which the righteousnesse of Christ is applyed vnto vs Ephe. 1. And as for the sacramentes which you seeme to make the only conduites of Gods mercie we are taught in the holy scriptures that they are the seales of Gods promises giuen for the confirmation of our faith as was circumcision to Abraham when he was iustified before through faith Rom. 4. Bristowes eyes being daseled at the cleere light of this trueth turneth his heade away from the matter and wrangleth against diuerse points of Caluinisme as hee saith but in deede of
into That What say you Sander hath the Greeke article such strength alwayes If you say so you wil be thought to be a simple Grecian If only sometimes you must shewe better reason then you do why it hath such strength heere or els the Englishe translation is good inough For by the outwarde signe which is the partaking of one bread the Apostle proueth the spirituall coniunction of all the faithfull in one body and vseth not the name of bread siguratiuely for that which Christ calleth the bread of life c. And vnto this translation agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying The gift that is offered perteyneth to al the people quia in vno pane omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet because in one bread they are all signified for in that we are one we ought to receiue all of one bread Of the same iudgment is Hierom vpon the very place saying Omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread of one cup. The like is Chrysost. all the old writers in a maner You see what shamelesse cauilling racking he vseth to make a shewe of corruption in the English Bible against which his malice is so great that he chargeth not the translators but the English Bible to haue turned to haue falsified to haue corrupted as though that if there were any iust fault to be founde in the translation the English Bible should beare the blame for it and be despised of all English men God be thanked that although it may not be denyed but some faultes haue and may escape the best translations yet the translators haue a cleere conscience from falsifying and corrupting and the faultes are not so great that any pernitious errour may be grounded on them nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latine translation which the Papistes admit as onely Catholike authenticall CAP. III. The state of the question betweene the Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiniâ—â—es Catholikes concerning the Sacrament of the altar This Chapter containeth no proofe of any thing but onely setteth downe the bare assertions of Sander vpon euery matter which if they be false it shall be as easy for me to deny as for him to affirme them referring the tryall of euery cause as he doth vnto the treatise folowing First it is false which he affirmeth that from the beginning of the Christian Church vnto the yere of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greeke and Latine openly professed the carnall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine For the Greek church neuer receiued transubstantiation nor yet taught so grossely of the real presence as the Papists nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists doe For after the wordes of Christ vttered in their liturgye they pray thus vnto God Fac panem quidem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui quod autem in calice est honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante And make this breade the honorable body of thy Christe and that which is in the cuppe the honorable bloud of thy Christe thy holy spirite changing them This was obiected vnto them in the late Councell of Florence It is also false that he sayeth no man in open pulpet with the auctority or toleration of any spirituall pastor did preach the contrary for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer in open pulpet preached the same as his homilies remayning in writing are a playne testimonye as in Hom. 5. Sept. quad in 6. Ioan. Here it is needfull for men to wite that there ben two manner of meates ghostly and bodily but bodily is well knowne But nede were here to knowe how men should ghostlye eate Christ. For no man that hath witte dreadeth that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blode For els no man should be saued for no man is an etene to seede him thus bodily of Christ and therefore it were to witte how men should ghostly feede them thus For Christ telleth in his words how men should eate him ghostly and to this wite saith Christ here that the wordes that he speaketh to them be spirite and life for such is witte of his wordes These wordes in their owne kinde ben such as were his other wordes but wite of these wordes there is spiritual and mannes life Also Christ saieth there soothly that each man that shall be saued shal bee fed of Christ thus But this may not be vnderstonden of fleshly food of Christs body And so it mote be vnderstonden algatys of gostly foode for of bodily foode of Christ may not two be fed together and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food by which many bee fed farre and neere Also the sermon of Aelsriâ— in the Saxon tongue apoynted to be sayed in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine But I breake promise to stand in conâ—â—tation of so impudent lyes And where he sayth a beleeâ—e which had continued 600. yeares could not haue bene sodenly changed it is very true for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence was not come vnto full ripenes before the Councell of Laterane which was more then 600. yeres after the first age of 600. yeres And although the efficacy of error preuayled by Gods iust iudgment ouer a great part of the world yet had Christ alwayes his two witnesses to protest against it as Berengarius Scotus Waldo Henâ—icus de Gauduno Wickliefe c. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretikes yet seing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholike faith of the primitiue church grounded on gods worde their condemnation in an hundreth councels can be no preiudice to the trueth The meane that maketh present that blessed body sayeth Sander is transubstantiation which being made present thereby who can deny but that it is a sacrifice aboue all other external kindes of worshipping syth at the time of the consecration it is giuen for vs vnbloodily as the wordes of Christ sound Luke 22. which is geuen for you But seing S. Paule in exposition of the same wordes sayth which is broken for you who is either so ignorant or so blasphemous to deny that the giuing in S. Luke is to be referred vnto his death and bloudy sacrifice which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all Agayne when al the three Euangelists speaking of the sacrament of his bloud saye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for many and for you sith at the time of the consecration it is shed for vs as well as his body is giuen for vs who is so shameles to saye that it is giuen for vs vnbloudily iny e sacrament Or if the word of shedding being of the preâ—â—nt temps or preterimperfect temps must be referred to the
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
of Christ which he eateth not Verie well For he which abuseth the Kings seale is guiltie of the kings Maiestie which he acknowledgeth not But this argument out of Saint Paul hee referreth vnto another time returning againe to Iudas That thinge whereof Christ saide to the twelue Take eate and drinke was taken eaten and dronken of all the twelue and was but one thing onely concerning eating and drinking that is his body and bloud therefore Iudas did eat the same that Peter Iames and Iohn did Wee heard in the last Chapiter of the first booke that it consisted of two things by the iudgement of Irenaeus an earthly sub stance and an heauenly the one all receiued the other onely the faithfull therefore the antecedent of this argument is false But if that argument be not plaine ynough wee must take another Iudas and Iohn did eate one thing Eche of them that foode whereof Christe sayde this is my body but Iohn did truely eate Christes bodie ergo Iudas did truely eate Christes body I aunswere the maior is ambiguous for if one foode bee taken for one breade it is true but if one thing bee taken for the bodye of Christ it is the matter in controuersie and denyed of vs. Likewise the Minor is ambiguous For if ye vnderstande eating of Christs bodie truly eating by faith spiritually it is true and as the Apologie meaneth if you vnderstande eating Christes bodie carnallie it is false and denyed of the Apologie that Iohn did so eate the bodie of Christ. The argument is no better then this Iudas and Iohn did heare one Gospel each of them that whereof it is saide that it is the power of God to saluation But Iohn did heare the Gospel to his saluation ergo Iudas did heare the Gospel to his saluation But Sander cauelleth of deliuering of bakers breade and nothing else but Bakers breade Christ offereth two thinges earthly breade and his diuine bodie Nowe if Iudas receiue the one and refuse the other what folly is it to reason of Christes deliuering which is like as if a man will deliuer an obligation as his deede and the partie that shoulde receiue it will not receiue it but as a scrolle and so renteth it in peeces In deede therefore Christ offereth his bodie to all men but they onely receiue it which beleeue But eating by faith saith Sander is a preparation to worthie eating but the meate is all one euen as the baptisme is all one to the wicked and to the godly I will aske no better example then of the Sacrament of Baptisme where indeede the water which is the outwarde element is common to all that are sprinkeled or washed as the breade is to all that eate but regeneration the thing signified by the water is proper onely to the electe of GOD Euen so the bodie of Christ which is the thing signified by the breade is not receiued but of them which beleeue vnto eternall life CAP. III. The ancient fathers teach that euill men receiue truely the bodie of Christ. The first father cited is Origen in Psalme 37. who â—aith that those which come to the Eucharistie without examining and clensing themselues are like to men sicke of an ague who presuming to eate sanorum cibos the meats of whole men do hurt themselues Whereupon Sander gathereth that the meat of the supper which is prouided for whole men is truly but not profitably eaten of the wicked But that Origen was of no such iudgment it is manifest by his expresse wordes spoken of the eating of the sacrament of the eating of the thing signified by the sacrament In Math. Chap. 15. Et haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore Multa porrò de ipso veróo dici possunt quod factum est caro verusque cibus quem qui comederit omninò viuet in aeternuâ— quem nullus mallus potest edere Etenim si fieri possit vt qui malus adâ—â—c perseueret edat verbum factum carnem cum sit verbum panis viâ—â—s nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederit panem hunc vinet in aeternum And these things truly are spoken of the figuratiue or symbolical body Many thinges also may be spoken of the worde himselfe which was made fleshe and very meate which whosoeuer shall eate vndoutedly he shall liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it were possible that he which continueth still euill should eate the worde which is made flesh seing he is the word and the bread of life it had not beene written Whosoeuer shal eate this bread shall liue for euer The second father is Basil de baptismo lib. 1. Cap. vlt. Asking what shall a man say of him who dareth in vaine and vnprofitably eate the body and drinke the bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ To this I answere that Basil speaketh not of wicked men but of the faithfull in whome the spirit of God was and yet a great worke of mortification therefore it followeth after the wordes cited by Sander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and therefore much more giuing the holye spirite They are not wicked in whome the holy spirit is Therefore the Aduerbes Idely and vnprofitably are not spoken simplie but comparatiuely for not so diligently as they ought not so profitably as they might The thirde father is Cypriane de Coen Domini The sacraments for their part cannot bee without their proper vertue neither doth Gods maiesty by any meanes absent it selfe from the mysteries But albeit the sacraments permit themselues to be taken or touched of vnworthie men yet those men cannot bee partakers of the spirite whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse withstandeth such holinesse This authoritie is flatte against Sander the wicked may receiue the Sacramentes but not the spirite of Christ if not the spirite then not the bodie for Christ his bodie is neuer disseuered from his spirite The fourth father is Hierome but where hee sheweth not Opponis mihi c. Thou layest vnto mee the one measure of Manna called Gomor and wee take the bodie of Christe equallie According to the merites of them that receiue that which is one is made diuerse c. The Sacrament is one in it selfe c. There is no question but that the wicked are partakers of the Sacrament which is called the bodie of Christe but of the bodie of Christ in deede they are not partakers For it cannot bee truely saide of the naturall bodie of Christ that it is made diuerse but the Sacrament which is called his bodie is made diuerse according to the faith or infidelitie of him that receiueth it Augustine is the fifte witnesse In Epist. 162. Tolerat c. Our Lorde him selfe beareth with Iudas hee suffereth a deuill a thieefe and the seller of himselfe to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Nothing is our price saieth Sander but the bodie of Christ. Yet may the Sacrament bee called
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
thou not promise the Preist when he cried Lift vp your minds and hearts and saiedst thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries The lambe of God is offered for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fire floweth from the table Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse But I pray you sir what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table O that is a figuratiue speech you will say alluding to the burned offering of the old law Nay if ye haue figures of rhetorike then you haue no trueth you haue but foolish dreames you haue nothing made by your wordes Is not this your owne Logike Master Sander CAP. XXV What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. The wordes of the Apologie are these Cyrillus saith that in the receiuing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Sander chargeth the fine penner of the Apologie with foule play in belying Cyrillus as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage that so dare be bolde to raile you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat ad Enoptium against Nestorius but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence which is merueilous euident against him I wil set down the whole sentence euen to the period and the sentences following also which giueth some light to the former Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronunâ—â—as irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura in exquisita fide accipiuntur Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini Scire autem operaepretium est quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat Quoniam autem est corpus vitae viuificum est Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam moâ—tiâ— imperium euacuat viuificat autem nos aequali modo sanctus spiritus Christi Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum eâ—â—sdem saluatoris vocem Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Heere Sander choppeth of but Cyrill proceedeth And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued by onely pure and vncurious or simple faith For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body But it is profitable for vs to knowe that as we saide before the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges is a proper body And seing it is the body of life it is of power to quicken For by this it giueth life vnto our mortall bodies and doeth make voide the power of death and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vs. For it is the spirite that quickneth according to the saying of the same our Sauiour Thus farre Cyrillus whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations by which it is saide that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as a naturall man and any otherwise receiued then only by faith Such are the imaginations of the Papistes that Christ is eaten carnally euen without efficacy of his spirite that he is included vnder the formes of bread and wine that he is receiued with the mouth pressed with the teeth swallowed with the throte essentially naturally turned into the substance of our bodies or our bodies turned into him and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations as the Papistes haue of digestion corruption of the accidentes eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes these be grosse imaginations of which Cyrillus speaketh that tende ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the eating of a man or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ other then by faith only And therefore Sander might haue spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations The first that wee should not imagine Christ to lie where he saith it is his bodie as though we did imagine any such blasphemy The second that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith Eo manifestè dicente sith himselfe saith manifestly Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure yet this is a grosse argument to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly that is it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body for he saith as manifestly this cuppe is the newe Testament The third grosse imagination that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten but the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten but not the proper body of God the worde We imagine no such matter but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onely as Cyrillus teacheth vs. The fourth grosse imagination that wee should eate the body of Christ dead and passible whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vs as Cyrill saith Quoniam c Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life naturally is made able to giue life when wee eate it then wee haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life According to this saying of Cyrillus wee beleue that we cannot eate that flesh except wee haue life thereby but the Papistes grossely imagine it may be eaten without effect of life The fift grosse imagination that we should eate Christes flesh rawe as the Capernaits as grossely do they imagine which teach that it is prepared with such cookerie that all spices confection sauces c. are conteined in it as Sander doeth The sixt grosse imagination that it shoulde be eaten by peeces one a shoulder and another a legg against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner whole of euery men and in so many places at once The seuenth grosse imagination is of the Lutherans which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade whereas Christe woulde not haue in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes which holde that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines
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
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
be caried in his owne handes and at length concludeth that Christ ipse se portabat quodammodo he caried himselfe after a certeine manner when he said This is my body The meaning of Augustine is when he caried the Sacrament of his body To this Sander ioyneth the ioy that Dauid had by the fruit of corne and wine Ps. 4. where contrariwise he preferreth the light of Gods countenance before all temporall benefites but it is ynough for Sander that he nameth corne and wine Likewise the bread that strengtheneth and the wine that comforteth the hart of the spiritual man Ps. 103. the meat that God giueth to them that feare him these if wee beleeue Sander were prophecies of the Sacrament in which is neither bread nor wine But of all other mee thinke Sander should haue held his peace of the Goodly chalice that maketh Christians drunke Ps. 22. seing he wil not suffer ChristiaÌ„s so much as to quench their thirst of that chalice much lesse to be made drunk with it Peraduenture it is because the Papistes will keepe true Christians sober that they will not suffer them to drinke of that goodly chalice that maketh men drunk O shameles hypocrites My soule yrketh to rehearse these grosse mockeries of Gods worde Elias is fedde from the ayer with breade and flesh and walketh 40. dayes in the inwarde strength of a peece of bread Yet in the first there was bread and flesh which would make well for the Lutherans in the other there was bread and water which would serue the turne of the Aquarians if these places were figures of the Sacrament The wheaten corne Es. 62. which Hieronyme interpreteth to be the corne of the Church shall no more be giuen to her enimies that vine wherin she hath labored shall no more be drunke of strange children the corne of the elect and the wine that ingendreth virgins as the vulgar text translateth Zachary Cap. 9. If they perteine to the Sacrament doe rather fight against transubstantiation then for it As for the bread in Ieremie 11. wherein the wodde is fastened is a palpable error of the translator as I haue shewed before The cleane Sacrifice of Malachie is to be offered of euery one of the faithfull and therefore is not the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse The bread of Angels was Manna Psa. 77. which spiritually was the body of Christ as the Sacramental bread is to vs. Last of all Salomon saith and repeteth often No other thing to be good vnder the sunne besides eating drinking with gladnes and mirth where vnto Sander addeth that the best thing vnder the sunne may be eaten and drunken which Salomon neither said nor meant but that amongst the troubles and vanities of the world nothing was better for a man then quietly to enioy those things which God giueth and to lead his life peaceably iustly Eccle. 3. v. 12. Finally where Sander concludeth that the custom of the scripture in commending so much bread and wine sheweth that the body bloud of Christ should be giuen vnder their forms I say it may more probably be gathered to shew that bread wine are appointed to be the seals of our spiritual feeding with the body bloud of Christ. For it is a strange maner of coÌ„mending to praise the substance for the only bare shewes accidents therof Although the scripture in most of these places cited intendeth in deede neither the one conclusioÌ„ nor the other CAP. XIII These words of Christes supper Hoc facite do not onely signifie do this but much rather Make this thing wherof it followeth that the bodie of Christ is commanded to be made Although Hoc facite might signifie nothing but make this thing yet it would not followe that the bodie of Christ is commanded to be made but rather a SacrameÌ„t of his bodie bloud which are two seuerall thinges which if he had commanded to be made he would haue said Haec facite make these things not Hoc facite make this thing But when Sander hath prated his fil of agâ—râ— facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the verbs facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifie to do which he cannot denie therefore will haue the verbe to fignifie in this place both to doe to make which is most absurd But S. Paul putteth the matteâ— out of question rehearsing the wordes of Christ perteining to the cup saith This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Hoc facite doe this thing as often as ye shall drink for the remembrance of me And telling vs what they should do he addeth a reason of that saying For as often as ye eat this bread drink this cup you shewe the Lords death vntil he come Behold what it is to do this thing in remembrance of him In eating drinking of this bread cup to preach the Lords death Sander will reply that This is general to all the Church but Christ saying Hoc facite speaketh onely to his Apostles and in them to all priestes I aunswere Christ speaketh to his whole Church neither can it be proued that the aposâ—lâ—s only were present And yet it followeth not that euery priuate man hath authoritie to minister the communion seeing God hath chosen special persons for the administration of all publike actions in his Church As for the saying of Dauid memoriam fecit c. He hath made a remembrance is to no purpose for although he spake of the sacrament as he doth not yet there is great difference betweene making the bodie of Christ and making a remembrance of his meruailous workes But Sander will faine the consent of the old fathers to proue that Christes bodie is made I will not denie but the fathers sometime vse so to speake when they vnderstande the sacrament signe and figure of Christs bodie and not as Sander doth his reall bodie to be made of breade yet none of them expoundeth hoc facite to be of a making as well as of a doing First hee alleageth the Liturgies of Iames Clemens Basil and Chrysostome although none of them is his whose name it beareth yet are they of some antiquitie and what say they Foâ—sooth there is a prayer in them that God would send his holy spirite vpon them and the holy giftes which may sanctifie and make this bread the bodie of Christ. Heere breade is made the bodie of Christ. Very good but by whom by the priest or by the holy ghost If by the holy ghost then it is not by vertue of these words Hoc facite which were not spokeÌ„ to the holy ghost but to men I omit that this prayer in the old Liturgies is vsed after the words of consecration rehearsed by which is giuen vs to vnderstand that the bread is made the bodie of Christ by the holy ghost in the faithfull that receiue the bread and not as it lyeth on the table The like
Christ left vs not the best token of remembrance of his death because he is not seene with the print of his wounds But we must esteeme the best remembrance according to his wisedome that hath ordained it who in all respects no doubt hath appoinâ—ed the best that might be for confirmation of our saith Yet in Sanders example or any that hee can deuise a remembrance will alwayes differ from the thing remeÌ„bred as the scarie and the fighting are not all one so the remembrance of Christ crucified and Christ crucified himselfe are not all one Neither must Sander baffuâ— vs with the remembrance of an action onely for wee are to remember the person with his benifites in or for the remembrance of me saith Christ vntill he come saith Paul That a thing may be present which is not seene as to a blinde man Sander needed not to proue but that a thing may be both absent and present in the same substance visibly or inuisibly that is the matter which would require Sander to shewe his witte in giuing vs either a reason or an experience But the reall presence of Christ saith he causeth the people to come with due preparation and mortification which as Basil affirmeth is a peece of the remembrance whereas in eating and drinking breade and wine Christe is so remembred that sinnes be neither confessed nor amendement minded nor faith exercised nor charitie vsed as nowe a daies in England it is handled by meanes of the newe preachers What fruitfull remembrance of Christes death the popish doctrine doth worke wee lament to see the remanents yet in diuerse places where the people are not taught that spend their time as they were wont to doe in poperie when they had receiued their maker as they were taught to speake Contrariwise where true doctrine and good discipline haue preuailed enuie her selfe may see examples sufficient to confute the shamelesse slaunders of Sander As for the glorious monument of the Masse which Sander describeth to shewe what remembrance of Christ is made therein he doeth well to compare it to a sepulchre which hath outwardly goodly painting carning but inwardly is ful of rotten bones corruptioÌ„ As good a shewing as that and better too may be made vpon a stage with puppets For what doctrine is there in the masse for the comfort of an afflicted conscience but dumbe shewes and idle ceremonies in exposition whereof the popish doctors themselues cannot agree in which if there were any profitable doctrine it were hidde from the people as it were with the grauestone of an vnknowen tongue But that which of all other is worst what remembrance of Christes death and sacrifice call you that which sacrilegiously challengeth vnto it selfe that which is singular and proper to the death of Christ But Sander hauing once entred into the allegorie of a sepulchre cannot so lightlie leaue it but teacheth that Christ hauing ordained the sacrament for a sepulchre woulde not make it an hearse or sepulchre without his bodie lying therein To this I answere that sepulchres are to laye in deade carcases but Christ is risen from death and ascended into heauen hauing left his sacraments as monuments of him that was deade but nowe liueth eternally not as graues wherein his deade bodie still shoulde remaine But Chrysostome is charged to call Christes bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase because it is present after the same rate as it was deade in the sepulchre not without life but without sensible mouing as Epiphanius hath noted I answere hee doth impudently charge Chrysostome to render that reason why hee calleth Christes bodie a carcase in 1. Corint Homil. 24. because hee is present without sensible moouing For there is no such thing in that homily although there bee some excessiue and hyperbolicall speaches as that Christ suffereth to bee broken in the Sacrament which was not broken on the crosse And euen as false it is that hee affirmeth of Epiphanius for hee saith not that Christ is without sensible moouing But speaking of the sacramentall bread Hoc â—st rotundae formae insensibile quantum ad potentiam Et voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc hoc This thing is of rounde shape and insensible as concerning power And yet by grace he woulde say This is mine This and this Epiph. Ancor But there followeth a substantiall reason of the Martyrs which haue left their bodies behinde them for our comfort or else some thing equiualent as Manna â—n the tombe of Saint Iohn as the fable of Abdias sheweth Therefore Christ woulde not bee inferiour to them in leauing his bodie But Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is profitable for vs that hee departe from the worlde in his humanitie to prepare vs a place in heauen and to supplie his bodily presence most comfortablie with the presence of his holy spirite Ioan. 16. It is most comfortable therefore for vs that Christ hath carried his bodie into heauen and placed vs in heauen with him Ephe. 2. sending vnto vs his holy spirite with all profitable graces from heauen Origen is cited Homi. 13 in Leuitic Si respicias c. If thou looke to that remembrance whereof our Lorde saide Doe this in the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely remembrance which may make GOD mercifull to men Marke saith Sander this propitiatorie kinde of remembrance Naye marke the treacherie of Sander that cutting off a sentence by the middle applyeth the conclusion to the latter parte onely which of the author is meant of the whole matter together For Origen shewing the insufficiencie of the shewebreade to make propitiation thus writeth Sed si referantur haec ad mysterii magnitudinem inuenies commemorationem istam habere ingentis repropitiationis effectum Si redeâ—s ad illum panem qui de caelo descendit dat huic mundo vitam illum panem propositionis quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius si respicias ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit dominus Hoc facite in meam commemorationem inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat hominibus deum But if these thinges namely the ceremonie of the shewe breade bee referred to the greatnesse of the mysterie thou shalt finde that this commemoration hath the effect of great reconciliation If thou returne to that breade which came downe from heauen and giueth life to this worlde I say that shewebread which God hath set forth to be propitiation through faith in his bloode and if thou looke vnto that commemoration of which our Lorde saith doe this for the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely commemoration that maketh God mercifull to men Nowe marke this propitiatory kinde of remembrance and you shall finde it to bee neither the masse nor the communion but the ceremonie of shewebreade noâ— barely considered but with faith applied vnto Christe whom it
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
is not to be adored Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples receiueth Christ but hee shal be an Idolater if he giue diuine honour to him which is due onely to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith de ijs qui myst cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament To Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God the heauenly breade the breade of life To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table To Cyrillus lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus nor Hilarius lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally and by a naturall participation for they say not so simplie but vnder a Sacrament vnder a mysterie c. that is the Sacrament doth assure vs that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe after an heauenly and diuine manner and not onely are ioyned to him in loue and faith and will but are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone by his incarnation and holy spirite vniting vs vnto him in a mystical bodie not in a personal vnion for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ must be adored with diuine honour the Church of God should bee so adored which is the bodie of Christ and so called in the Scripture Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life and the mysticall loaues which quicken vs c. gaue no diuine honour vnto it as personally vnited vnto Christ but as to an holy mysterie and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings buildeth that the Fathers affirmed that which was on the table to bee the diuine substance yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored and cannot be eaten corporally but in the Sacrament And yet no one father that hee hath cited saieth any such thing If Cyrill say we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance And to saye the Godheade can be corporally eaten in the Sacrament it is monstrous heresie When Cyrillus saith Christ dwelleth in vs corporally hee saith not by eating the Sacrament wee eate GOD or Christ corporally but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporallie by participation of the fleshe of Christ. But let vs yet heare a more full witnesse which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vpon it I will set it downe againe Hoc corpus c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion and barbarous they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at lest follow those barbarous men For when they sawe the manger and cottage and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest they came with most great reuerence and quaking But thou seest that thing not in the Manger but in the Altar not a woman which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy ghost copiously spredde vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither lookest thou barely vpon the bodie as they did but thou knowest the power of it and al the order of dispensing thinges And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges which were done by him and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs professe openly a greater deuotion then those barbarous men lest if we come barely and coldly we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire Out of this place Sander would haue the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued But this place prooueth neither of both For he speaketh figuratiuely of seeing the bodie of Christ of seeing the holy ghost spredde vpon the Sacrifice c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie but must needes haue a spirituall vnderstanding The bodie of Christ is so present as it may be seene but it cannot bee seene but spiritually therefore it is not present but spiritually This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence therefore not of their manner of adoration Nowe let vs see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place First we must note these comparisons The Altar the Manger the Virgin the Priest the Wisemen the Christians the adoration of the one and the other but this last comparison is forged for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling with earnest desire and affection not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures but to him that is seene by faith Further Sander chargeth him to say it is the same bodie in both places which Chrysost. saith not although it be the same body which is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament with that which the wise men did worship yet it followeth not that the same real body is present vpon the altar before it be receiued to bee there worshipped Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words vides in altari thou seest it on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not onely comprehended by faith but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen What say you Sander is the body of Christ seene then is hee present visibly It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread You were wont to tell vs that a substance is said to be seen where the proper accidents thereof are seene And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ O newe Philosophy and Theology but I pray you sir if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith but also seen by meane of the forme of bread by what meane is the holy ghost seen whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes in wresting the holy scriptures and sayinges of the ancient fathers As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament then the wise men did Christ in the cottage be in vaine For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament or the elementes thereof but of comming with reuerence vnto the bodye of Christ which is really in heauen whereof we are made partakers
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
the world made to be similitudes and images Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 6. Such was the crosse that Christ suffered vpon and all other crosses made to the similitude of it of which S. Paul by their fantasie shoulde say God forbidde that I should reioyce but in the crosse of Christ c. whose figures that they vsed in their consecration and baptizing it may appeare in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. where although the figure of the crosse be not named yet their termes of redemption confirmation diuision which they vsed in powring on of water annoynting them doe infinyate that they vsed some signes of the crosse to whome they gaue those titles as before is shewed Finally when it is certein by Iren. lib. 2. cap. 6. that they affirmed those similitudes and images in materiall thinges were made vnto the honour of their inuisible and spirituall phantasies there is no doubt but they had in great price the materiall image or signe of the crosse for reuerence of that high mysterie whereof they dreamed the same to be an image or similitude Concerning the images of Iesus which the Carpocratians and other like heretikes made and worshipped Bristow sayth it toucheth not the papistes because they also made and worshipped the images of heathen Philosophers like as the Samaritans ioyned the worshipping of false Gods with the worshipping of our Lorde If I shoulde obiect vnto you the worshipping of the images of saint Sonday saint Hardhuffe saint Vncomber yea saint Christopher and saint George on horseback which al were meere Idolls after your owne diffinition of Idols I wote not howe you coulde quite your selfe from the case of the Samaritanes But Irenaeus and Epiphanius charge the heretikes not onely for ioyning the images of Philosophers and Poets with the Image of Iesus but also for fayning the Image of Iesus and worshipping it Irenaeus againste Basilides lib. 1. cap. 23. saith absolutly Viuntur autem imaginibus incātationibus invocationibus c. They vse images and inchauntmentes inuocations and all the rest of superstitions Here he placeth the vse of images with inchauntementes inuocation of spirites and other superstitions of magike and chapter 24. against the Gnostikes and Carpocratians he saith Etiam imagines quasdam c. Also they haue certayne images painted and some made of other matter saying that the forme of Christ was made by Pilate in that time which Iesus was with men If it had not beene a faulte to haue had these counterfete images Irenaeus woulde not haue ioyned it amonge other hereticall practises of the Carpocratians The like sayth Epiphanius against Basilides and the Gnostikes Haere 24 Habent imagines c. They haue images paynted in coulers some also haue them of golde and siluer and other matter which they say are the images of Iesus and that these images of Iesus were made vnder Pontius Pilate when he was conuersant amongest men And these images they haue closely Moreouer they haue the images of certaine Philosophers c. Who seeth not by this context that Epiphanius accompted it hereticall to haue such images in any vse of religion although they had not made any other images of philosophers besides Also against the Collyridians which with certayne cakes offering as the Papistes doe candles worshipped the image of the virgin Marie he asketh what this desire of making images can be else but a deuilish enterprise yet the Collyridians worshipped no heathen Philosophers with the virgin Marie Neither doeth hee simply charge them that they worshipped her as a God but siue velut ipsam c. Whether these foolish women offer this cake to her as worshipping Marie her selfe or whether they go about to offer the saide stincking offering for her the whole matter is folishe and straunge and a fraude and deceite of the motion of diuelles Therefore that I extende my speech no longer let that which hath beene sayde suffice Let Marie be in honor let the Lord be worshipped And what thinke you woulde he haue iudged of the pilgrimage and offering of men and women to the images of the virgin Marie which coulde not abyde to see a vaile in which was painted the image of Christ or some sainct hanging in a Church of Christians but rent it in peeces at Anablatha Epiph. Epist. ad Ioan Hieron But for the defence of Images Bristowe referreth the reader to Sanders booke of Images and I likewise to my confutation of the same In the meane time it is a small matter that Bristowe vrgeth my confession that crossing at euery step which is saith he a making and great religion of Images is referred by Tertullian vnto tradition of the Apostles seeing that is shewed to haue a later and corrupter beginning and other fables beside by Tertullian referred to Apostolike tradition 2 Of inuocation of sainctes and worshipping of their reliques You remember since the 3. chapter sayth Bristow by your owne report that the true Church counted Vigilantius an heretike for denying the inuocation of Sainctes and the worshipping of their reliques I aunswere that I remember no such matter neither do I finde any where that Vigilantius was publikely condemned for an heretike in his time but onely in the priuate iudgement of Hierome although Bernardus long after account him litle better But of worshipping the reliques of Sainctes and of their images the case say you is all one then by Hieromes iudgement neither of both is to be worshipped For wee worship not sayth he the reliques of Martyrs no nor the sunne and Moone no not Angelles and Archangels Cherubim and Seraphim c But we honor the reliques of the martyrs that wee may worshippe him whose witnesses the martyrs are By which saying and other to the same effecte it is manifest that although Hierome defended some honoring or moderat reuerēce of reliques yet he abhorred idolatrous worshipping of them and much more of their images Where I say the superstition of reliques is receiued of the Ossenes Bristowe sayth it perteyneth not to them because the Ossenes worshipped them for Gods whose reliques they had in such estimation But that is false for they helde Marthys and Marthana for Sainctes proceeding out of the holy seed of Elxai whom they neuer worshipped but as a great Prophet and teacher although Epiphanius saith pro diis adorabantur they were worshipped as Gods meaning that worship which is proper vnto God onely was giuen to them as it is of Papistes vnto sainctes whome they worship as God geuing that worshipp vnto them which is proper onely vnto God as faith inuocation But Bristow would haue the snottie cloutes of Thomas Becket that were worshipped after his death to bee all one with the napkins and partletts that were caried frō the bodie of S. Paul the Apostle to cast out vncleane spirites when hee liued which napkins and partletts yet he cannot proue either that they were euer worshipped or that they were reserued for reliques after the worke of miracles
of the diuine scripture admonishing vs and will not be healed or reformed by the reprehensions thereof it is certaine that fire abideth vs which is prepared for sinners and we shal come vnto that fire in which of what sort euery mans work is the fire shall trie And as I thinke it is of necessitie that wee must all come vnto that fire Although one be Paul or Peter yet he commeth to that fire But they that are such do heare Although thou passe through fire the flame â—hal not burn thee But if any be a sinner like me he shal â—ome in deede vnto that fire as Peter Paul but he shall â—ot so passe through it as Peter Paul More of his geâ—eral purgation of al men and not the damned onely you â—ay read in Num. Hom. 25. Vides quomodo c. Thou seâ—st howe euery man that departeth out of the battel of this life hath neede of purification c. yet saith Bristow that of the purgation of such as die in gods fauour there is no word which although he speak of Augustin whose wordes he citeth Ad quod vult Hae. 43. yet he saith vntruely for thus he writeth in the same place Sunt alia c. There be other opinions of this Origen which the Catholike Church doth not receiue at all in which it doth not falsely accuse him neither can be so excused by his defenders especially coÌ„cerning purgation deliueraÌ„ce and againe after long time the reuolution vnto the same euils of euery reasonable creature I suppose he that speaketh of the purgation of euery reasonable creature speaketh of the purgation of such as die in Gods fauour also wherefore it is manifest that Origen erred not only about hell heauen and the purgation of the damned but also about the purgation of such as dye in Gods fauour Therefore Bristowe neede not gather mine argument as he doth in scorne There is no such Purgatorie as Origen Carpocrates would haue therefore there is no purgatorie at all But what should Carpocrates come in this title but for a sorie sophisme wheÌ„ we speake of Origen onely Wherefore if you wil giue mee leaue to frame mine argument although I meant not an argument out of Origens purging fire onely it should be thus There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that dye in Gods fauour such as Origens fire is the fire that the papistes would haue therefore there is no such purging fire as the Papists woulde haue Releeuing of the dead by prayer If the dead be not releeued we say quod Bristowe as S. Paul saith they must indure a fierie and therefore a most painefull purgation And for this saying hee quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristowe where saith S. Paul the deade must endure a fierie purgation or where maketh he any exception of their releeuing Hee saith the fire shall trie euery mans worke Is euery man onely some kinde of deade men or is euerie mans worke the man him selfe or is the triall of euerie mans worke of what sort it is a purgation either of the man or of the worke Arte thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that whereof hee saith nothing at all euen by the iudgement of S. Augustine But that Aerius was not the first that denyed prayers for the dead to be profitable I shewed by that of the most auncient writers The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to burye their dead with inuocations and to redeem them with oyle balme and water and inuocations said ouer their heades as Augustine and Epiphanius shewe out of Irenaeus Nowe commeth Bristowe and in many needelesse words rehearseth other partes of their heresie with their manner of seasoning or receiuing those that beleeue in them by a counterfait marriage and baptisme and by anoynting with balme c. concluding that this practise of theirs maketh as much against true baptisme solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead anealing or anoynting c. Likewise might they conclude that all their ceremonies are as good as baptisme and marriage But whatsoeuer wee reade of the practise of heretikes we must learne to distinguish that which is their owne inuention from that which is the ordinance of God And how shall wee knowe Gods ordinance from heretikes inuention but by the holy scriptures Separating therefore baptisme and marrying which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures from the rest that haue no ground in the same prayers for the dead which they vsed with such like matters were the inuention of heretikes Howbeit saith Bristowe of prayer for the dead in all this was neuer a worde No was Howe read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much could not see that after he hath spoken of their seasoning of their disciples aliue he telleth how they redeeme them when they are dead Alij sunt qui mortuis redimunt c. Other there be that redeeme the dead at the end of their departing powring on their heads oyle water or the foresaid oyntment with water and with the foresaid inuocations c Do you not heare the same prayers sayde by the heretikes for the dead which they vttered before for the liuing But if the Heracleonites should faile mee I affirme that Montanus had in all pointes the opinion of the Papistes because Tertullian a Montanist vttereth al those pointes in such bookes as he made being a Montanist and especially in his booke de anima That Terrullian vttereth the opinion of the Papistes in all pointes Bristow wil not denye But he asketh whether all be Montanisme that Tertullian hath in that his booke de anima and in so many other bookes as he wrote being a Montanist No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretike helde whatsoeuer he wrote in those bookes Howe then shall we discerne that which is proper to Montanus from that which he hath common with the catholike church I deliuered a rule euen nowe concerning the practise of the Heracleonites Prayer for the dead and Purgatorie are not found in the holy Scriptures but they are found in a disciple of Montanus therfore they stinke of Montanisme Adde hereunto that in so many bookes as Tertullian did write being a catholike there is no mention of prayer for the dead or suffering after this life of the faithfull Last of all Tertullian him selfe telleth you plainly that Paracletus the comforter by which he meant the spirite of Montanus had reuealed very often that euery small offence must be punished after this life in that the soule of any except martyrs shall not go immediatly into Paradise but tarie in prison vntil it haue payde the vttermost farthing What needed he to cite the authoritie of his Paracletus if he had spoken nothing but that which was commonly receiued in the catholike Church Which saying sith I haue set downe in Tertullians wordes in the page of Purg. 417. by
left proper to God nothing proper to our Sauiour Christe nothing proper to any thing that the Scripture maketh peculiar vnto it The next title is fasting about which Bristowe reporteth that I say Purg. 391. You are they that attend to spirites of errors doctrine of deuils forbidding to marry abstaining or commaunding to abstaine from meates which God hath created to bee receiued with thanksgiuing 1. Tim. 4. There is the brandmarke of Romish religion that all the water in Tiberis nor in the Ocean sea shall not be able to wash out Against this Soft alitle sayeth Bristowe and you shall see mee drawe inough inough againe euen out of your owne puddle to wash all sufficiently But what draweth hee I confesse that Aerius Iouinian condemned fasting or fasting dayes what then Abstinence from certeine meates is a question distinct from fasting which is abstinence from all meates But Iouinian sayeth hee taught abstinence from certeine meates to profite nothing Well Aerius contrariwise taught abstinence from fleshe to be a religious matter as you Papistes doe For to absteine from wine fleshe fishe spices fruites or any thing which perteyneth to sobrietie is not to thinke it vnlawfull to eate or drinke any of these at this tyme or that time as it is thought of you Papistes and a matter of more holynesse to fill your belly with fishe then with fleshe although the fish wyne fruites spices and such like confections as you eate be tenne times more dangerous vnto sobrietie and chastitie then a piece of beefâ— or bacon which a poore man eateth on a fryday to satisfie his hunger and giueth God thankes for it Your publike admitting of all incentiue meates drinkes except flesh or white meate on your fasting dayes sufficiently declareth that neither fasting nor chastisement of mens bodyes is your intent but as the Apostle sayeth false speaking in hypocrisie But whome and what doeth Saint Paul meane sayeth Bristowe Hee aunswereth the Manichees the Tacianistes and other heretikes which sayde that certeine meates were the creatures of the diuell Nay Bristowe not them onely nor principally but all other heretikes that sayde fleshe was vncleane although they confessed it to be the creature of God as the Aeriaus and Priscillianistes and specially the Papistes which vnder pretence of holynesse as fasting and chastitie commaunde to abstaine from meates and marriage For they that abstaine from these things saying they are the creatures of the diuell speake not a lye in hypocrisie but an open blasphemie As for the example of them whose voluntarie abstinence from meates or marriage Saint Augustine defendeth contra Faust. lib. 30. Cap. 6. cannot excuse you which forbid meates and marriage more imperiously to some men at all times and to all men at some times then euer the Manichees did to their cleargie or priests which they called perfect ones Another saying of myne Art 46. Bristowe repeateth If Iouinian taught that fasting abstinence from certeine meates and other bodily exercises of them selues profite little his doctrine agreeth with the doctrine of Saint Paul 1. Timothie 4. But if he taught as hee is charged that such thinges profite nothing at all wee agree not with him in that opinion To this Bristowe sayeth I woulde fayne wype myne handes of Iouinians heresie but it will not bee For his heresie was that fasting and abstinence is not more meritorious then eating with thankesgiuing If you call this heresie I am nothing ashamed of it there is no more merite in the one than in the other But howe prooue you that was his heresie Forsooth Augustine De dogm Eccles. Cap. 68. so sayeth But who shall graunt vnto him that bastarde collection to be of Saint Augustines penning Well then the vndoubted Augustine ad Quodvult enim sayeth meritis adaequabat hee made equall to the merites of chaste and faithfull matrimonies the virginitie c. But hee that is acquainted with Saint Augustines writinges shall perceiue that by merites often times he meaneth not as the Papistes doe the desert of good works but the dignitie excellency commendation For merites in that signification as the Papistes vse he alwayes condemneth them in the Pelagians and all other saying that God crowneth or rewardeth in vs his giftes not our merites For our merites are nothing but sinnes in Psal. 70. Con. 2. in Psa. 101. in Psa. 144. Now haue we to see what Saint Paul calleth bodily exercise Bristowe sayth walking ryding hunting hawking and such like exercises vsed for preseruation of mens bodies And thinke you Timothie which to chastice his bodie vsed to absteine from wine was doubted of S. Paul lest he should giue him selfe ouermuch to walking riding hawking hunting At least wise heare what S. Ambrose writeth vppon the text Exercitium auteÌ„ corporale c. He saith that bodily exercise is profitable to litle For to fast and abstaine from meates the authoritie of the creator remaining doth not profit much except godlinesse be added vnto these things c. Let Bristowe sâ—ye that S Ambrose knewe not white from black as he saith of mee and looke better to his conference of S. Paules abstinence 1. Cor. 9. from all things the were offensiue But where he concludeth the measure of all abstinence is to tame the bodie and bring it in subiection to the spirite but with such moderation that it fainte not in our necessarie worke I agree with him that so it ought to be but that so it is not nor yet entended in the popish commaundment of abstinence as I haue shewed before sufficiently As for the fasting of that children of the bridegrome like to the fastes prescribed by the disciples of Saint Iohn and of the Pharisees it is impertinent to speake of where the question is not of Christian fasting but of apostaticall abstinence from meates and marriage although Christian fasting is nothing like to the Pharisaicall fasting but onely in refraining from meate in the ende and manner altogether differing and vnlike Math. 6. Luke 18. About the Sacraments in generall Of the Sacraments in generall I say Pur. 450. Wee â—eleeue that there are but two sacraments of the newe â—estament baptisme and the Lordes supper instituted by Christe 1. Cor. 10. Bristowe asketh if these be sacraments of the newe testament instituted by Christ which Saint Paul speaketh of baptisme in the clowd and sâ—â— and of the spirituall meate and drinke in Manna and the rocke Because he doeth onely aske it shall suffice to aunswere onely yea they are sacraments of the newe testament and instituted by Christe the mediatour of the newe testament by which our fathers were saued although by Christe comming in the fleshe they were â—nstituted differing somewhat in externall fourme and matter though in inwarde grace and signification they were all one Secondly supposing they are sacraments of the new â—estament by Christ instituted he asketh what reason â—t is to argue of one place negatiuely onely two are â—amed ergo onely two are instituted
meere Bristowisme For Caluin neuer helde any such matter as he imagineth He asketh whether this be to say that all men are iustified before they come to the sacrament as though Caluin said they were Whereas a great number are iustified neither before nor after the receipt of them But this is to say that as Abraham was iustified by faith without respect of the sacrament so are all they that are iustified iustified by faith without respect of the sacrament Secondly he asketh whether all sacraments be seales of such a matter Yea verely or else saint Paul proueth the iustification of the Gentiles by faith very feebly after the example of Abraham Thirdly hee asketh whether all Iewes were iustified before they came to circumcision which I neuer hearde any man to affirme but that as many Iewes as were iustified were iustified by faith as Abraham was circumcision no more regarded in their iustification then it was in the iustification of Abraham Last of all he asketh whether circumcision were to the Iewes a seale of such a matter still he calleth it such a matter because he dare not name iustification by faith O the stinge of a wicked conscience But to the question I aunswere that to the Iewes which were iustified by faith circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith which is imputed to them as it was to Abraham without merite or respect of their circumcision Other pointes of mine ignorance he saith are about the holy spirite of promise whereof Saint Paul speaketh Ephe. 1. which I say is the meane to make vs partakers of the fruites of Christes passion Item the meane to graffe vs into his bodie Item that it worketh in vs faith In the conclusion he noteth the ignorance of the Protestantes where they holde this spirite promised to be nothing else but the gifte of tongues that is to say Christs greatest gifte to be his least gifte Out vpon the shamelesse lyer which of the Protestantes canst thou name that so holdeth We all holde that the holy spirite of promise Ephes. 1. is the spirite of adoption by which we are assured of eternall life Rom. 8. And as for the spirite prophecyed by Ioel and Iohn Baptist promised by Christ to be sent after his ascension we holde not to be specially of the spirit of adoption which the Apostles al the faithfull had before Christes death and much lesse of that spirit which your Bishops giue by imposition of hands in their counterfeit confirmation which is the spirit of vanitie whose fruites appeare not in any of the receiuers But we holde that promised gifte of Gods spirit to be that wonderful reuelation of knowledge and vnderstanding vtterāce in all states degrees of true Christians generally beside a great number of particular giftes not perpetuall bestowed vpon the Church in diuerse speciall members for the certifying thereof in the first publishing of the gospel As for your conference of scriptures whereof you prate so much is a meere confusion of matters of diuerse senses According to which manner of conference not weighing the sense of euery place by the proper circumstances thereof but following onely a sounde and similitude of some wordes euerie heretike might colour his heresie were it neuer so absurde as the Valentinians of whom Irenaeus testifieth that they patched diuerse sentences together to make a shewe as though their heresie were contained in holy write which was nothing else but as if a man breaking a goodly image of a king in peeces shoulde of the peece after his owne manner ioyned together make the image of a dogge or a foxe or other foule beaste Iren. lib. 1. Chapt. 1. such is your conference of the spirite of promise wherewith the faithfull are sealed Ephes. 1. with the spirite of tongues and prophecie which came vppon the twelue on whom saint Paul layed his hands Acts 19. The last errour of faith hee chargeth mee to bee the onely meane which hee saith is no meane but a disposition hee thinketh it sufficiently discouered before wherevnto I also thinke that I haue made answere sufficiently About the sacramentes in speciall The necessitie and effecte of baptisme Concerning baptisme I say it is necessary for al christians to receiue that are not by necessity excluded from it 1. Pet. 3. Bristow saith it is necessarie for all men but when it cannot be actually had the effectuall desire of it supplyeth the want which desire infantes haue not and therfore onely the actuall hauing of baptisme doth quicken them in Christ being dead in Adam Touching the saluation of infants of the faithful dying without baptisme I said nothing but by implication that there is no such necessitie of Baptisme that the want of the outwarde sacrament shoulde condemne the seede of the faithful perteining to gods election couenant where there is no default either of contempt or neglect of it Ro. 9. Ge. 17. And seeing Bristow alloweth the effectuall desire in men of yeares to supply the want which yet the wordes of his text Iam. 3. of which he taketh colour and authoritie of his doctors that condemne all vnbaptised infants wil not beare what reason is it why he should not extende his supply vnto the effectuall desire of those infants parents and friends whose faith he acknoledgeth to supplie the want of actuall faith in the infants that are baptised Beside this hee saith that he did mark wel ynough where I said that the sacramēts giue grace according to the election of God As though all infants baptised so dying be not of Gods electe or that some be not saued although they be baptised asketh what scripture I haue for this geere But in deede he bow leth at the wrong marke for in saying that the sacramentes tooke effect according to the faith of the receiuer and according to gods election I ment that God in baptisme giueth grace to infāts which haue no actual faith of their owne according to his eternal electiō in mercy But whether al infants baptised so dying be of the nūber of gods elect as I do not know so I wil not contend But this I know that if they were not elected of God before the foundations of the world were laide the receiuing of baptisme cannot make them Gods elect Ephe. 1. Where Bristowe vrgeth the saying of saint Peter 1. Pet. 3. baptisme saueth vs now it is a weake argument to proue the baptisme of infants either to saue them all that receiue it or to condemne all that receiueth it not For explicating him selfe of what baptisme hee speaketh he addeth not the putting away of the filth of the flesh as you woulde say outwarde washing which is the externall sacrament but the interrogation of a good conscience towardes God which is the thing signified by outwarde washing and yet not founde in infantes but in them that haue knowledge among whom whosoeuer hath it not hee shall no more bee saued then any was preserued
sufficient for thee my strength is perfected in infirmitie c. First he belyeth vs whome hee calleth heretikes to say that to burne is nothing else but to bee troubled with the pricking of the flesh for wee holde there is no praise of virginitie where there is no naturall prouocation vnto luste But to burne wee say is to bee so troubled as men are that are inflamed with lust and haue no lawfull meanes to quench the same Secondly beholde howe shamefully hee slaundereth Saint Paul to be much troubled with such pricking of the flesh where he complayneth of the generall rebellion of the fleshe against the spirite the messenger of Satan to buffet him euen that lawe of his members of which hee complayneth Rom. 7. which brought him captiue vnder the lawe of sinne As for that pricking which Bristowe speaketh of to bee so much in a bodie so exercised with afflictions and trauels with hunger and fastings and in a man of such age as Sainct Paul was at that time when he wrote vnto the Corinthians the second Epistle it is altogether incredible And confessing a generall rebellion of the fleshe against the spirite vnto all sinne it is not probable that he should in this place complaine of that one kinde onely from which age and weakenesse of bodie woulde priuiledge him if godly exercise did not ridde him What is it then to burne saith Bristowe or to be burned saint Paul himselfe telleth vs it is not to containe If they doe not conteine let them marrie for it is better to marrie then to burne for marriage is honorable and vndefiled but fornicatours and adulterers God will iudge The conference whereof is this Let married folke vse their owne bedde c. and let the vnmarried folke enter into marriage rather then not to containe to burne to commit fornication So that to burne not to containe and to commit fornication by Bristowes conference is all one So that hee which committeth not fornication although hee bee continually inflamed with filthie luste yet by Bristowes iudgement hee burneth not he is continent hee is a virgine Againe if not to containe and to burne be nothing else but to commit fornication it woulde followe in saint Paules wordes that men are not commaunded to marrie before they haue made triall of their incontinence by committing fornication which seeing it is horrible absurditie it followeth that the Apostle to preuent fornication exhorting men to marrie which containe not seeing it is better to marrie then to burne vnderstandeth incontinence and burning for an inflaÌ„mation of lust without fornication or actuall filthinesse committed But whatsoeuer saint Paul speaketh of marriage of them that doe not containe hee meaneth it of such as haue made no vowe to liue vnmarried For of those that haue vowed his sentence is saith Bristowe that they incurre damnation if they marrie because they haue broken their first faith 1. Tim. which faith with S. Augustine hee vnderstandeth for their last vowe of widowhood notwithstaÌ„ding that I shewed both by conference in the same chapter by the title of first and by the name of faith that it cannot properly bee so taken but for the faith of Christianitie euen as he saith if any prouide not for his family he hath denied the faith Where I finde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture is neuer vsed for a vowe or promise made to God Bristowe aunswereth why doe not you say your selfe that both there once afore in the same chapt it is vsed for the vow or promise made in baptisme no sir. I neuer said it I said that the first faith may aptly be taken for the faith of baptisme and Christianitie except you wil say that the faith of Christianitie embraced by baptisme is nothing else but a vowe or promise made to God Againe can you remember neuer a place saith he where the faith of god is the promise of God looke Rom. 3. yea sir I remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the trueth of Gods promise but I finde not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the vowe or promise made to God which because you your selfe so great and daily a conferrer of scriptures coulde not finde you curâ—olled my saying repeating my wordes for a vowe or promise and leauing out that I added made to God The Latine phrase of the faith or promise of marriage vsed by Saint Augustine and other Latine writers aunswereth not to my demaunde of the vse of the greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scriptures which if the Apostle had taken for the promise of widowhood made in their admission it is more like he woulde haue called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their former faith and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their first faith Againe the conference whiche Bristowe vrgeth of them that are alreadie turned back after Satan most aptely agreeth to theÌ„ that had forsaken not onely their widowhood but also their Christianitie Loe saith Bristowe your selfe are compelled to graunt that which you denyed to wit that they shall be damned because they forsake widowhoode and how forsake they widowhoode but by marrying ergo Saint Paul saith they shall be damned for marrying so inuincible is the texte in our exposition Fulke it goeth harde with you And all this because I saide such wanton young huswiues proceede so farre that at length they forsake widowhood Christianitie and al. Saide I onely because they forsake widowhoode No but because they waxe wanton against Christ because they haue forsaken the first faith which is Christianity and not only because they haue married and giuen ouer theyr widowhoode whereof whether there were a vowe or no it is not proued Although it be probable there was a promise made vnto the Church because such poore widowes susteined of the Churches almes were imployed to be helpers 1. Cor. 12. in the office of Deacons Rom. 16. Considering that it was not sufficient for the sicke and impotent that men should be collectors and distributers of the almes but womeÌ„ also were necessary for diuers seruices about them which were not conuenient for men to exercise But if I should graunt vnto you that the first faith here signifieth the last vowe of widowhoode yet it foloweth not of this place that all that haue married after rashe vowes made to the contrary are damned For Saint Paule speaketh not of them that were constreined by the necessity of incontinencie which it is not euery mans gift to auoyde to flye to the generall remedy appoynted by God for auoyding of fornication that euery man should haue his wife and euery woman should haue her husband without any exception but only of them he speaketh that waxed wanton against Christ which being liuing to the worlde were dead to God What is this against them which ignorantly rashly or constrainedly made a vowe to performe that which they were not able namely continence or chastity without mariage the
altar alludeth to the sacrifices of thankesgiuing in the lawe because he vseth also the name of Leuites by which he calleth Gods ministers Let Bristowe nowe goe and say that Leuites also offered sacrifice propitiatoriâ— in the lawe The second flower of mine ignorance is where to deface the sacrifice of Iudas Macha 〈…〉 aeus I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and vngodly man to wit either Iason Menelaus or Alcimus and namely Menelaus the worst of them all three and also that the other Priestes of that time were giuen to the practises of the Gentiles 2. Machab. 4. In so much that it is like that Iudas Machabaeus if hee deuised not the sacrifice of his owne heade yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles Frst hee maruelleth howe I could thinke that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers against whom all his fighting was seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priestes without spot hauing their heart in the lawe of God I aunswere being such as they were described 2. Machab. 4. hee had hard choise to finde a sufficient number of vnspotted priestes But although he were an enimy of gentility in that corrupt time and state he might be drawen into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a shewe of pietie although it were not agreeable to the lawe of God His next accusation is that I call them high priestes which were but antipontifices and vsurpers I aunswere I iustifie not their title more then their maners and religion but whereas by his greekelatine word he supposeth that there were other true high priestes in their time he bewraieth his owne grosse ignorance For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priestes for that time was this Onias Mathathias Iudas Ionathas Simon The truth is that Mathathias and Iudas were neuer high priestes neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth shewe any thing to proue that they were It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest but not that he was the high priest And Iosephus who did write an history of the Maccabees testifieth plainly that from Iacimus to Ionathan for 7. yeares there was no high priest which Ionathan was made high priest in the yeare 160. Ioseph Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many yeares after Iudas his brother was slaine Therefore at such time as Iudas should send the offering to Hierusalem there was no such good Bishop as Allen saith but euen Onias cognomento Menelaus as Iosephus calleth him which was depriued both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Machabes saith at Berea 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Machabees Bethzetha But whereas Bristow maketh Ionathas or Simon chiefe priestes in the absence of Iudas and not Menelaus he forgetteth that in those expeditions which Iudas made from Hierusalem for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plaine in the same chapter that Simon was sent with an hoast into Galilee and Ionathan went with his brother Iudas ouer Iordane into Gilead which story how he wil reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons I haue great meruaile But that Menelaus as he was then in office of the high priest though vnworthy so that he was at Hierusalem it appeareth by this record of the time The Temple was purged as Bristowe confesseth and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the Moneth Cislewe and in the same yeare Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the Iewes whereof Lysias writeth to the Iewes the 24. of the moneth of Iupiter Corinthus and king Antiochus himselfe with letters bearing date the 15. of the moneth Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the Iewes 5. Mac. 11. And the next yeare after Anno 149. Antiochus came into Iewrie and did execution vpon Menelaus and made warre vpon Iudas c. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained Iacimus high priest which continued in that place 3. yeares Iosep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second booke of Maccabees agree not with the story of the first booke as in deede it doth not let Bristowe looke â—â—to it that defendeth these bookes to be Canonicall it is sufficient for me to iustifie that I cited out of this latter booke by the report of the same booke and by Iosephus who knewe the succession of the high Priestes of his nation better than Bristowe whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious that hee would charge me with ouersight in that hee is most ignorant him selfe and that against his Maister Allen who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop and not Iudas him selfe The third chapter of my grosse or rather malicious ignorance is saide to be about Antichrist As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way or worke his mysterie But this is a fable of Bristowe neuer affirmed by me As for the other assertions of the time of his reuelation of the Churches fleeing into the wildernesse of the time of Antichristes reigne c. because they are condemned by the onely authoritie of Bristowe without any argument or testimonie of Scripture or Fathers I will referre the reader to such places where I affirme any of them to consider my reasons and to iudge indifferently The fourth point is that the body of Christ is not offered to him selfe but thankesgiuing is offered to him for the offering of his body for vs. Pur. 316. Against this his reasons are these Why sir did not he vpon the crosse offer his owne body as a Man and a Priest to him selfe as to God Sir the Scripture telleth me that Christ being an high Priest by his eternall spirite offered him selfe vnreproueable to GOD Hebr. 9. verse 14. Ergo you will say to him selfe as God because the persons of the godhead are vndiuided Yet I trust you will distinguish the humanitie from the deitie so Christ offered not his body to him selfe that is neither to his humanitie nor to the person of the mediatour which is God and man For though God was made man yet God the Father was not made man nor God the holy Ghost but God the Sonne onely And although it were graunted that Christ offering him selfe to God was offered to him selfe yet it followeth not that men of whome I spake can offer the body of Christ yea whole Christ to him selfe then the which nothing is more absurd An other reason Bristow bringeth that I noted others for saying it is not lawful to pray to God the sonne As though it were al one to pray to Christ to offer his body to Christ him self to him self The fift That I call it a vaine amplification and fond suppositioÌ„ to extend the force of Christes death beyond the limits of his will My words are 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
haue no spirite in Sanders corporall iudgement when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite life because he neuer giueth his flesh but with effect of his quickening spirite And that is a grosse spirite and a deadly life which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth for then the cuppe should be made bloud and the newe testament in his bloud What is They are spirite and life sayth Augustine in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt they are to be vnderstood spiritually therfore not according to the sounde of wordes but according to the minde of the speaker It is colde deuotion saith Sander that hearing the body of Christ by himselfe affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye godly honour to it We eate not without adoring Master Sander although wee adore not that which we eate bodily but that which wee eate spiritually giuing this diuine honour vnto him that wee put our whole trust confidence in his redemption wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance CAP. XXIII The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vs in the mysteries that wee may certeinly knowe we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be giuen vs sayeth Sander in these mysteries he is present in them for a gift is not made of a thing absent Yes Master Sander if the Prince at Westminster giue a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster hath the manor truely giuen vnto him which is in Yorkeshire Therefore a gift by sufficient assurance may be of a thing absent in nature thereof and so is Christes body giuen vs in the mysteries which are the seale of Gods promise truely giuing Christes body vnto vs which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence is in heauen and not on the earth Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones except it be by the reall corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries Yes forsooth wee knowe it by the worde of God which so testifieth Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vs Rom. 8. and last of all we haue assurance therof by the holy sacrament as by a seale confirmation and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vnto vs. But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ the flesh of men cannot be made saith he by faith spirite and vnderstanding As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage except in deede they come bodily togither Yes sir wee holde that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man by his incarnation but this coniunction profiteth not all men but only them to whome he is ioyned by spirite faith vnderstanding and so the incarnation of Christ made all the fathers of the olde testament flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone For otherwise it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing What auaileth it the reprobate that God is become man ioyned in the same substance of fleshe bloud and bones and humane soule Nothing because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith Last of all where he saith that man wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation it is a beastly opinion For he that sayde they shall bee two in one flesh spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage according to Gods institution before carnall copulation by which the acte of generation is sanctified and the bed made to bee vndefiled not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie husband and wife although there were no comming together of their bodies And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament when the coniunction in one flesh which is the effect thereof cannot be wrought by the worde of God but is left in the choise of the man and the woman Last of all where Sander saith there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell howe Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh but by meanes of transubstantiation it will fall out that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell neither was thought vpon sixe hundred yeares in the Church but the contrarie manifestly proued that Christ is not present in flesh at all nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes Such trueth is in his assertions CAP. XXIIII The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the bodie of Christ from the altar First he chargeth vs with great forgetfulnesse Afterwarde to make a shewe of contrarietie he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries c. therefore he is not here but in heauen feeding vs from thence This worde Present hee nowe addeth which because he missed before he would seeme to proue it by reason Shall I saye who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man or rather with so shamelesse an heretike Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries but alwayes that manner of presence which the papists affirme and is now in controuersie betweene vs. That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes is no good argument to proue that Christ is onely in heauen he vseth much foolish babling as though that saying onely were brought for an argument or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument or that saying for any argument But where the Scripture sayth that Christ after his ascension concerning his humanitie hath left the worlde Ioan. 16. which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly and without all parable and that he sitteth in heauen and not on earth Col. 3. the Apologie sayth this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes and not as Sander peruerteth it because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers was to acknowledge the mysteries vpon the table to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to denye the reall presence of Christ saith Sander Doe you not looke for some sound argument to proue this geare especially of him which immediatly before charged the author of the Apologie to vse an argument more like a tinker than a diuine you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom Hom. de Eucharistia Diddest
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
otherwise be brought to incorruption and life vnlesse the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it This is true but the manner of the coniunction is all the matter we stand vpoÌ„ which we affirme must be such as may ioyne euery body of Gods elect that hath bene shall be to the body of the naturall life which cannot be the SacrameÌ„tal coniunctioÌ„ or corporal receiuing of Christs naturall body into our bodies which was denied to al the fathers before Christes incarnation And yet except euery one of their bodies had bene ioyned to the body of Christ which is the body of naturall life they could not be partakers of incorruptioÌ„ life as Cyril saith Therefore the manner of our coniunction is not the receiuing of Christes body in at our mouthes but an heauenlie diuine manner wrought by the spirit of God apprehended by faith in all that haue heard the word of God â—â—d are partakers of it CAP. XVIII The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was 〈…〉 ght with the losse of many disciples If Christ had not meant to giue his flesh in deed saith Sander he would not haue cast a stumbling blocke in his disciples way nor hindered their faith by wordes more hard then needed I answere he ment to giue them his flesh in deede to be eaten not only in his supper but euen then presently if they had bene faithfull to haue receiued it And therefore he saith to them he that eateth me shall liue for me or by me my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Sander must remember what he hath taught vs before that Christes fleshe cannot bee meate in deede except it bee eaten but Christ saith it is meat in deede before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirite and he speaketh not there of Sacramentall eating onely Neither doth Cyrill say that only in the Sacrament Christes flesh is eaten although he shew that Christ instructed his Apostles when he gaue them fragmenta panis pecces of bread how his flesh might be eaten in Ioan lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally CAP. XIX The right vnderstanding of these wordes It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Basil Chrysostome and Augustine saith Sander expounde the name flesh for carnall and fleshlye vnderstanding of the Iewes which Caluine of Luciferian pride reprocueth And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l doe chiefely followe another vnderstanding which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth that Christes flesh should not profit any thing but that by the spirite of his Godhead it is made able to giue euerlasting life See the ranâ—or of Sander which condemneth Caluine of diuellish pride for refusing one interpretation of some fathers taking the exposition of others and that which one of the same fathers doth cheefely followe as Sander doth confesse But now saith he what neede more adoe If this saying apperteine not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our beleefe If it doe apperteine they are wordes propheticall fulfilled in the supper I haue often shewed how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ perteineth to the supper and howe it perteineth not And this I prooue out of this saying against your Popish opinion wherein you holde that wicked men eate Christes flesh Our sauiour Christe shewing whence his fleshe hath power to giue life namely not of it selfe but of the spirite doth also shewe the necessary effect of his spirit which is neuer separated from his flesh The spirit saith he quickneth or giueth life seeing therefore that no man can receiue the fleshe of Christe separated from his spirite no man can receiue his flesh but he that receiueth it quickning or giuing life But where Sander saith that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spirituall sorte and noâ— after a fleshly manner It might seeme that he fully agreed with vs in minde as he doth in wordes but when he coÌ„meth to expounde spiritually and fleshly he declareth that he meaneth not to exclude all fleshly manners but only one maner of eating his body by pieces as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner but when he coÌ„meth to spirituall sort he expoundeth it only by inuisible sort as though he which giueth a piece of golde closed in a paper so that it could not be seene did giue it after a spirituall manner As for the conuersion of bread and wine into his body and bloud his presence at the table and in their mouthes and in heauen c. shew not a spirituall manner of giuing his body but a monstrous alteration of bodily thinges which are affirmed to be so really and corporally and yet contrary to the nature of all thinges and bodies spoken of I omitt his ridiculous interpretations of Ieremies saying Let vs put wood into his bread which he applyeth to the crucifying of Christs flesh where yet wodde was not put into his flesh but his flesh put vpon wodde But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his aduersaries which threatened to giue him wood in steede of bread that is to famish him in the stockes Likewise of Abacuks saying Hornes are in his hands which he meanein of the almightie power of God often called figuratiue hornes Sander referreth it to the corners of the crosse which yet were not in the hands of Christ but his hands stretched out toward them CAP. XX. The words of Christ being spirite and life shewe that his 〈◊〉 flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of 〈…〉 reason Sander as his manner is can rest in no certeine 〈…〉 sition but wil haue euery interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place if it affirme any thing that 〈…〉 first because the flesh of Christ is vnprofitable 〈…〉 the spirite which giueth it power of quickening 〈…〉 haue this saying all one in effecte with the wo 〈…〉 ing before it is the spirite that quickeneth 〈…〉 vpon occasion of a phraâ—e vsed by Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈…〉 wordes are of the spirite he wil haue the meaning to â—e that the wordes of Christ haue in them some of his spirite diuine power therfore the naming of flesh bloud before was not figuratiue but proper I graunt the conclusion but I denie the argument for he vttered other words before which weâ— figuratiue vnproper as I am the bread that came c. yet were these wordes spirite life and so are all the words of the Gospel that is giue hâ—â— if they be spiritually vnderstood I say not alwayes figuratiuely but always beleued to be true in that sense they are vttered ment by him whether they be figuratiue or proper as concerning the prhase Thirdly the wordes of Christ are spirite and life because they make the spiritual bodie of Christ which is a spirituall food as
consideration of the time which was the night before he suffered forbad him not to vse figuratiue spech sufficiently to be vnderstoode by the vsuall phrase of the scripture speaking of Sacramentes And therefore hee said This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud neither is he to be burthened with the misunderstanding of heretikes which vpon colour of his words imagine a presence that can not stand with the trueth of his bodie like vnto our bodies contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3. The thirde circumstance concerning the persons who were aâ— the last supper The Apostles that were present haue sufficiently in their writinges testified those wordes to be figuratiue although they haue not expressedly saied they are figuratiue S. Mathew calling that which Christ dranke and gaue to be drunk the fruit of that vine which is not bloud but wine S. Paul calling it bread which is broken c. and the cuppe the newe Testament in his bloud beside many other argumentes of the nature of Christs humanitie like vnto ours in all substantiall pointes which must of necessity inforce a figuratiue speech And whereas Sander saith that parables are spoken so that men hearing doe not vnderstande ergo Christ spake not in parables to his Apostles to whom the mysteries of the kingdome were knowen The argument is naught For although parables are to blind the reprobat yet are they to giue vnderstanding to the elect and therefore Christ spake many thinges in parables which are for better edifiyng of the Churche then if they had beene spoken plainely without all parable Thirdly the Apostles which taried at CaparnauÌ„ by his doctrine there deliuered had learned how to eate the body of Christ to drink his bloud not as Sander saith really vnder the formes of bread and wine but spiritually by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric The 4. circumstance concerning the ending of the olde Passeouer and the making of a newe The ending of the olde Passeouer which was a signe doeth no more hinder the institution of a new signe which is not corporally that which it signifieth no more then the ending of circumcision hindreth the ordeining of baptisme which is not actually that which it representeth That Sander denieth Moyses Phinees to haue eaten the flesh of Christ because the law brought nothing to perfection it is a slender reason for Moses and Phinees did not eate the flesh of Christ by vertue of the lawe but by promise of the Gospel by force whereof Christ was the same matter of saluation to them that he is to vs. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuerse in signes equall in the thing that is signified In Ioan Tr. 26. The fifth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper The preface he speaketh of are these words of Christ I haue desired with desire to eate this Passeouer with you before I die Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lambe or to the new If they be referred to the newe Christ desireth onely to eate his owne bodie with his Apostles as Chrysostome sayeth to encourage them not to bee afraide thereof which he could not doe by faith onely therefore he did it really wherein is none absurditie to eate it Angels feede of it seeing other men haue eaten their own flesh in a grosse manner either for hunger or for anger or phansie c. To this I answere first if a lyar could alwayes remember himselfe it shoulde skill to Sanders purpose that these wordes should not be referred to the newe Sacrament for then Christ in calling it this pascall lambe or Passeouer should begin to speake figuratiuely Secondly I marueile why he saith it is a thing cleane impossible that Christ should eate it by faith How did he at other times eate the Paschal lambe did he not eate it with faith how was he baptized did he not also beleeue Although Christ partaking the Sacramentes instituted for sinful men had a singular manner of partaking which no man else had that is for the profite of other not himselfe who needed them not yet there is no doubt but bearing our person he did partake them with faith For of whome is it saide he trusted in God c. Psa. 22. And to that which Sander sayeth he did eate of it as Angels feede of it which cannot be corporally but spiritually I agree with him that it is no absurditie so he will graunt mee two things the one that he did none otherwise eate his bodie in the supper then he was borne againe in baptisme The other that it will suffise him that we so eate the bodie of Christ as Angels feede of it which are thereby nourished and established in eternall life and yet cannot receiue his body corporally into their spirites As for the argument taken of other men eating their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie to prooue that it is no absurditie for Christ to eate his owne flesh corporally is verie absurd For aâ—â—eit some men haue eaten their flesh for hunger angeâ— or phansie yet was it an absurditie for them so to doe Then of an argument which is Consentaneum to coÌ„clude negatiuely it may be called absurdum absurdorum Againe if it had beene none absurditie for men to eate their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie yet no maÌ„ did euer eate his whole bodie and therefore the absurditie of Christ eating his owne bodie after that manner is not by their example auoided But if the desire of Christ saith he be referred to the old Paschal Lambe yet was it in respect that at the ending thereof the newe might be instituted which Chrysostome calleth the trueth that was perfourmed when the figure was past in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth the trueth which is his owne substance which is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure To this I answere a desire is of that which is absent Christes substance of his flesh was neuer absent since his incarnation therefore it was not that which he desired but another trueth of the olde figures namely the sacrifice of his death of which the Apostle sayeth Christ our Passeouer is slaine offered vp 1. Cor. 5. Againe where he saieth his owne substance vnited to his godhead is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure he speaketh contrarie to Christ which saith My meate is to doe the will of my father and finish his worke which was brought to passe in his suffering which also he nameth expressely in the wordes of the preface It was the last Passeouer that hee did eate before his suffering so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence The sixt circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament Euen the same loue moued him which moued him to institute the Sacrament of regeneration neither in promising
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 〈◊〉
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
of Christ by faith As for Sanders cauill that the bread is not one still seeing it is broken is an impudent Sophisme For neither can Christ at one time and in one respect be called whole and broken Do not they all eate of one sheepe which eate of it after it is deuided in partes The lawe commanded one sheep for euery houshold which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect that the one bread and cup is vnto vs. So we all eate of one material bread and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie not so many aâ— eate the materiall bread but so many as eate it worthily by faith Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth as Sander would haue it seeme but in the mightie working of the spirite of God who not onely in this Sacrament but in all Sacraments of all times haue wrought the same spirituall vnion in all the faithful of all ages who al make one Church and one bodie whereof Christ is the head and euery one of the elect is a member CAP. V. Howe we are one mysticall bodie Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in this mysticall bodie faith and the Sacraments but in verie deede the spirite of God is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect sometimes not onely without the Sacraments but also without actuall faith as in infants which perteine to Gods election Faith in men of yeres is an assurance of this coniunction The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith Wherefore the bread which we breake is so a coÌ„municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith by which we are assured of this communication before wee come to the communion and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence vnder the fourme of bread For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ then wee are made one bodie and one bread But wee are made one bread and one bodie spiritually and sacramentally therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually sacramentally Sander asketh Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing I answere if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing and the selfe-same thing that the Sacrament is then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ but his mysticall bodie by â—â—rtaking of this bread Sander replieth that this vnion is in respect of the nanâ—rall bodie of Christ which I doe not deny but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vnto vs by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies which also Augustine in serm ad infantes aâ—â—d Bedam cited by Sander doth plainly testifie Nulli est allquatenus c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cuppe although before he eate the bread drinke that cuppe being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament for so much as himselfe hath found that thing which the Sacrament doth signifie whereas Christ said except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud ye shall not haue life in you Out of this place although it be directly against transubstantiation yet Sander is able to prooue it If the body of Christ saith he were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptised be partaker of the benifit of this SacrameÌ„t was he made partaker of bread and wine No forsooth but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is signified by that bread and cuppe So saith Augustine or who so euer was author of that sermon and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present in the supper then in baptisme But take away that bodie of Christ saith Sander from the forme of breade and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ for euery loafe betokeneth vnitie but not in Christ. Againe let the substance of breade remaine and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ which is absent the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder as heauen is distant from earth I answere this is poore Sophistry yet much vsed by Sander disioyning thinges that ought to be ioyned togither beside that this wise reason would proue likewise that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ because Christ is not really present with the forme of water but the substance of water remaining on earth and â—he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate is in heauen Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries such presence I say as is meete for his glorious maiestie namely by his spirite which ioyneth heauen and earth together and maketh our vnitie to be perfect although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie which if hee haue not like vnto ours in all thinges except sinne and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vnto through sinne in vaine should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him and the conformation of them vnto his glorious bodie The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of wee allowe lib. 8. de Trinit If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie and wee take truelie vnder a mysterie the flesh of his bodie and by this wee shall bee one because the father is in him and hee in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie In this saying Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father was not an vnitie of nature and substance but of will only But seeing the vnitie that wee haue with Christ which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely and by giuing his flesh truelie vnto vs vnder a mysterie in the Sacrament to bee an vnitie in substance and not in will onely it is absurd to say that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will Now let vs see what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower First he noteth that we truely take the flesh of Christ I graunt vnder a mysterie as Hilarie saith so many as receiue the SacrameÌ„t worthily for els wicked men should be vnited to Christ as he is to his father Secondly the mysterie with Sander must be the forme of bread
but that I denie for the forme of bread is no secrete but a visible and naturall thing Wherefore the mysterie vnder which we truely take the flesh of Christ must be that secrete and wonderfull manner by which Christ doeth communicate his flesh vnto vs. Thirdly he sayeth that worde Proprietie doeth signifie a person because Augustine saith Christ is a vine by similitude non per proprieâ—atem not by propertie where by propertie Augustine meaneth properly and not a person Wherefore Hilarie meaneth that the naturall propertie of incorporating that meate that is eaten in the Sacrament is a Sacramentoâ— holy signe of a perfect vnitie such as is made betweene the meate and the eater and not such an agreement only as is betweene friends that are of one mind Therefore Sander doeth openly and violently falsifie Hilarie where he saith the naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a sacrament interpreting property for person After he hath thus abused Hilarie he commeth to Augustine de ciuitate Dei lib. 10. Cap. 5. This is the Sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ the which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of that altar knowne to the faithfull where it is shewed to her that in that sacrifice which he offereth her self is offered Here Sander maketh a foolish Dialogisme betweene Christ and his father reprouing him that he hath gotten such a goodly mysticall bodie of the bakers making c. But Augustine speaketh of an Eucharisticall sacrifice offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper by the Church in which the Church her selfe is offered in a mysterie or holy signe of our coniunction with Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament And so doeth Augustine interpret hemselfe Cap. 5. Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum sigrâ—â—m The visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifice which inuisible sacrifice is by him expounded to be mercie and charitie yelding vp of our selues vnto the obedience â—f God vnto which the reall presence of Christ is nei 〈…〉 er necessarie nor at all required seeing he hath once 〈…〉 fered vp a full sacrifice of perpetuall effect for the reâ—emption of all the elect of God His allegorie of building as it is vaine and no arguâ—ent but of Sanders owne authoritie so I passe it ouer 〈◊〉 vnworthie any answere But I cannot passe ouer that 〈◊〉 the conclusion of his fantastical building he saith Once 〈…〉 enie the flesh of Christ to be really present in the Sa 〈…〉 ament of the altar c and there is no reason why wee â—ould be called his mysticall bodie or flesh of his flesh and bone 〈◊〉 his bone By which saying he denyeth all the Patriarks 〈◊〉 Prophets to be members of Christ flesh of his flesh â—nd bone of his bone But we knowe that by Christs inâ—arnation and communicating of his fleshe and bloud â—nto all his elect by his spirit they with vs and we with â—hem are all members of Christ flesh of his flesh and â—one of his bone without that grosse and fantasticall presence in the Sacrament and this communication is sealed vnto vs as well by baptisme as by the supper Sander citeth Irenaeus Chrysostome Cyrill and Theodoret to prooue that it is the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereunto we are ioyned and further vrging the similitude of mariage whereunto our spirituall coniunction is resembled not more grossely then filthily compareth our perfect vnitie with Christ vnto the acte of generation in marriage about which matter he spendeth two or three leaues Whereunto I answere shortly that we do acknowledge that we are truely vnited to the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ which he tooke of our nature by such meanes as is common to all the elect of God which can be nothing else but his spirite although the same be assured vnto vs by faith our faith therein effectually confirmed by all the Sacraments of God and especially by the supper of our Lorde but not onely thereby As for the presence of the bodies to be ioyned which Sander requireth is no naturall presence in one proper place more of Christes bodie comming downe from heauen into euery one of our bodies then of al our bodies comming from all partes of the world into one But the bodie of Christ keeping his owne proper placeâ— heauen as Augustine affirmeth by his spirite wee are all brought vp vnto him as the Apostle saith Eph. 2. not â—e brought downe vnto vs. Finally where Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. saith He hath mixed the nature of his fleshe vnto 〈◊〉 vnder asacrament he meaneth not of anie carrâ—ll manner of mixture but such as is sub Sacramento vnder a sacrament â—nd mysterie that is by the visible sacrament taught to bee truely but yet after a spirituall manner Likewise where Chrysostome saith in Ioan. 24. It is brought to passe by the meate which Christ hath giuen vs that we may bee conuerted into that fleshe not onely by loue but in deede No Christian man can vnderstande this conuersion that is made in deede or in the thing it selfe to bee carnall but onely spirituall For what madnesse were it to say that wee are turned into the naturall fleshe of Christ after a corporall manner To conclude Sander cannot prooue his fleshly presence without manifest falsifying of Cyrillus both in words sense For thus he citeth him in Ioan. lib. 10. cap. 15. iu deede it is cap. 13. 〈◊〉 mystica benedictio in noâ—is fiat nonne corporallier quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi For as much as the mys 〈…〉 al blessing is made in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally through the communicating of Christes fleshe Can the mysticall blessing make Christe dwell corporallie in vs if it selfe haue not Christes flesh corporally in it But Cyrill saith not that the mysticall blessing is made in vs but the vertue of the mysticall blessing which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs. For thus he writeth against the Arrians Anfoâ—tesse putat ignotam nobis mys 〈…〉 benedictionis vir 〈…〉 tem esse Quae cùm in nobis fiat nonne â—â—poraliâ—er quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare c. Or else perchance doth he thinke that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknowen vnto vs which when it is wrought in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs also corporally by communicating of the fleshe of Christ It is therefore the vertue of the mysticall blessing and not the reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament that maketh Christe â—o dwell in vs corporallie and by naturall paticipation â—s hee saith afterwarde By which tearmes yet Cyrill doeth not vnderstande any corporall or naturall manner of coniunction but a true and vndoubted vniting of vs to the nature and bodie of Christ which is performed by the vertue of his
body is receaued by mouth not by faith onely Iew. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only and none otherwise Sand. You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresie and affirme the same which the Arrians did Fulk Master Iewel is more free from Arrianisme then you from Eutychianisme Sand. Christ saide after bread taken c. Take eate this is my body but he spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and the thing eaten to bee his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also Fulke That which was to be eaten with mouth was breade in nature and his body in mystery which body was to be eaten by faith and not by mouth as the bread was to bee eaten by mouth and not by faith Sander All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christes supper came from Christ but all that he is writen to haue giuen came from his handes therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all or his bodye came then from his owne handes Answere the Gospell master Iewel or els blaspheme no more Fulke I denie your minor For it is writen The spirite it is that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. Life remission or sinnes participation of his death c. were giuen but not all nor at all by his handes but by his diuine spirit Sander The fathers teach that we eate Christes body by our mouthes and not dy faith onely Fulke They teach we eate the Sacrament which is so called and which after a certaine manner is the body of Christ but not absolutely Sander S. Cyprian saith of euill men Ser. de lap 5. Plus modo they sinne now more against our Lord with their handes and mouth then when they denied our Lord. Fulke They sinne against our Lord in receiuing the Sacrament vnworthily more then in denying because denying was of weakenes this other of hypocrisie Sander Cyprian saith the sinne is inuading and doing violence to our Lordes body and bloud Fulke That is to the Sacrament thereof for our Lords body is impassible Sander Chrysostom witnesseth vs to take in our handes in our mouthes to touch to eate to receiue into vs Christes flesh is all this done by faith onely Fulke Chrysostom witnesseth we see All the people to be made red with the bloud of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith Desacerd lib. 3. Hee saieth Christ iâ— broken in the SacrameÌ„t which he was not on the crosse Is that done really in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Sander Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter ye ought so to communicate that ye doubt nothing c. Fulke Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sander Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. sheweth vs to eate Christ corporally Fulke You slander Cyril he saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwel in vs corporally by participation of the flesh of Christ not by faith and loue onely Iewel Christes body is meat of the mind not of the belly saith S. Cyprian Sander I find no such wordes in Cyprian but whosoeuer spake them it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not materiall bread Fulke If you finde not the wordes in Cyprian you may finde them in Gregory who by error of the printer is called Cyprian and you may finde the sense in Cyprian wee sharpen not our teeth nor prepare our belly but with syncere faith we breake the holy bread You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread we agree with you and euer did Iewel Beleeue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body Sander These words are not offacramental eating but of spirituall eating Fulke He saith vt quid paras dentes ventrem to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Therefore he sheweth that Christ is not receiued by mouth and belly but by faith onely Iewel It is better to vse the worde figure than the wordes really corporally Sander It is better to vse the wordes body bloud flesh which are the wordes of scripture than the worde Figure which is vsed of the fathers only Fulk Master Iewel compareth not the worde figure with the wordes of scripture but with the wordes really corporally vsed neither in scripture nor in the fathers CAP. IIII. Sander Master Iewel hath not replied well touching the sixt Chapiter of Saint Iohn but hath abused as well the Gospell as diuerse authorities of the fathers Harding The promise of giuing the flesh which Christ would giue for life of the worlde beeing onely perfourmed in the supper prooueth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper which was offered vpon the crosse for the life of the world Iewel Master Harding supposeth no man to eate the flesh of Christ but onely in the Sacrament Sander He denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eaten spiritually both by faith and by baptisme but not really saue onely in the supper Fulke If Christ speak there onely of his gift in the supper then all are void of life eternall that receiue not the supper Except ye eate c. Iewel The wordes bee plaine and generall vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man yee shall haue no life in you Sander He saith ye shall not haue life in you Fulke A diuersity without a difference Sander He meaneth of him who hauing discretion to prooue himselfe refuseth to receiue the Sacrament of Christes supper Fulke This is a glosse of your owne discretion and not the meaning of Christes wordes who denieth life to all them that are not fedde with his flesh and bloud Iewel Seeing Christian children receiue not the Sacrament by Master Hading it will followe they haue no life Sander It will followe they haue not in themselues the flesh of life as Cyrillus â—aith in their bodies but it is an vntrue sequel to say they haue no life at all for they haue spirituall life in baptisme Fulke They could haue no life in baptisme if they were not fedde with the flesh and bloud of Christ without which there is no life at all whatsoeuer it please Sander to glosse Iewel S. Ambrose saith Christ giueth this bread to all men daily and at all times Sander He may meane of the gift which is in spirite or which is daily ready in the Sacrament Fulke He doth meane that the breade is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which is not giuen to all men nor at all times Iewel S. Augustine saith They eate Christes body not onely in the Sacrament but also in very deede Behold not onely in the Sacrament Sander S. Augustine speaketh of the mysticall body which is the company of the elect and the holy Church of God not of the naturall bodye which sitteth at the right hand of God Fulke Augustine saith qui ergo est c. He then that is
of Christes passion Sander The speach is figuratiue not in the substance to be eaten but in the manner of eating therfore when Christ had consecrated bread into his bodie that speache was not figuratiue because the maner of eating was determined vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulk Saint Augustine hath stopped that starting hole expounding the meaning of that figuratiue speach not of eating Christ vnder the forme of bread but of communicating with the passion of Christ which is represented by the Sacrament and is perfourmed without the Sacrament So you faile both in your substance and manner of eating Sander Of the whole saying of Augustine I haue entreated more fully lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulke And I haue answered more fully Iewel Tertullian saith The Capernaits thought his speach was harde and intollerable as though he had determined to giue them his flesh verily and in deede to be eaten with their mouthes therein saith Tertullian stoode their error Sander The worde ve 〈…〉 doeth not shewe that they tooke it to be eaten in substance but that they thought they should eate it carnally they thought not of eating vnder the forme of bread Fulke Not onely the worde verè must needes shewe they thought the substance of his fleshe shoulde be eaten verily but also the argument of Tertullian doeth plainly proue it For he answereth the obiection of them that denyed the resurrection of the fleshe because of the Angelike perfection whereunto the children of the resurrection shal be changed shewing that the perfection shall not bee through vertue of the fleshe but through the incorruption which the flesh shall put on Vsing a similitude of the flesh of Christ which of it self doeth profite nothing but by vertue of the spirit which maketh it able to giue life Wherefore the error of the Capernaits was in that they imagined the substance of Christes flesh should be eaten bodily which Tertullian affirmed should be eaten spiritually and by faith of his worde onely As for the authoritie of Lyra which followeth is not worth the contention CAP. VI. Sander Master Iewell hath not conferred the supper with the sixt of S. Iohn as it ought to be Iewell Christ in S. Iohn speaking of spirituall eating faith made no mention of any figure But in his supper he added an outward Sacrament to the same spirituall eating which the fathers oft call a figure Sander If spirituall eating by faith be only spoken of why saith he dabo I will giue when spirituall eating was alreadie giuen Fulke Because he would continue his giuing as he had done before and accomplish his passion by which his flesh was made meate Sander The perfourmance doeth expound the promise especially when he saith this is c. Fulke Here is no newe promise but a continuance of the olde of spirituall eating by faith Sander The fathers who call Christs supper a figure must needes meane such a figure as was promised Fulke There was no figure promised in the sixth of Iohn therfore they meane another thing then was there promised or spoken of Iewell Master Harding putteth no difference betweene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Origen in Cantic Sander Origen doth speak of them who reading that book would perhaps apply the names of loue there vsed carnally Fulke Prolog in Cantic he speaketh of diuers meate of the inward man and of the outwarde man The meat of the outward man is agreable to his nature bodily and earthly The meat of the inward man is the bread which came downe from heauen c. Sander You haue set forth the booke of canticles in the vulgar tongue contrary to Origens iudgemēt to be reade of euery wanton boy or girle Fulke As though that booke was not in the vulgar tongue in his time when it was in the Greeke tongue Beside that he saith the litle ones can take no great hurt if they reade it although it bee meate for perfect men Iewell The bread is a figure Sander Before consecration S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure but not after the wordes are said ouer it Fulke He confesseth it to be bread before and to be called the bodye of Christ after consecration and that the body of Christ is signified thereby De myst Cap. 9. Yea he calleth it a figure of the body bloud of Christ De Sacram lib. 4 Cap. 5. For it can be no figure of Christ before consecration Touching Damascen and Rabanus Maurus I will not striue because they are both later wnters then 600. yeres although the later be cleare against this peece of Popery the other not clearly for it Iewell The Sacrament saith Augustine is receiued from the Lords table Of some vnto life of some vnto destruction The thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament that is the body of Christ is receiued of euery man to life of no man vnto destructiō whosoeuer be partakers of it Sander Here is a heape of falshood and lies Fulke Here is an impudent cauillation Sander The thing of the Sacrament is not the body of Christ sitting in heauen but the company of Saints and the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ not his natural bodie but his mysticall bodie the church Therfore he saith not simply The Sacrament but the Sacrament of this thing that is to say of the body and bloud of Christ which fiue words M. Iewel hath left out Fulke These fiue words help you as much as fiue egges whereof foure be rotten For Augustine by them vnderstandeth the flesh bloud which Christ promised to giue which if it be not the same bodie which sitteth in heauen that bodie which sitteth in heauen is not giuen by his iudgement in the Sacrament For thus he writeth vpon these words of Christ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therefore he hath not this life which eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall they cannot haue at all Therefore he that eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath not life in himselfe and he that eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud hath life eternall And that he saith euerlasting life answereth to both it is not so in this meate which we take for sustentation of the life of this bodie for he which taketh it not shall not liue and yet he shall not liue which shall take it For it may be that by olde age or sickenesse or some chance many which shal take it may die but in-this meat drink that is in the bodie and bloud of our Lorde it is not so for both he which taketh it not hath not life he which taketh it hath life that verily eternal Therefore he will haue this meat drink vnderstood to be the fellowship of his body his members which is the holy church in his saints and faithful ones predestinated called iustified glorified Wherof
exposition of Augustine be conferred with that which Sander maketh â—ee which is more Catholike CAP. X. Sand. The signification of aduerbes discussed Hard. By these words really substantially c. The fathers meant only a trueth of being and not a meane of being after carnall or naturall wise Iew. All aduerbs taken of nownes signifie euermore a qualitie and neuer the substance Sand. An aduerbe hath his name because it is ioined to the verb and it doth make plaine and fill vp the signification thereof which if it signifie a substance the aduerbe doth make it to signifie the same substance more perfectly As Your God is verily the God of Gods This man was verily the sonne of God Fulk The aduerb verily toucheth not the substance but the maner of trueth which is a qualitie Sand. Christ walked corporally vpon the water that is in trueth of a mans body but not in any such accustomed maner as other mens bodyes are wont to walke Fulk Yes verily he walked vpon the water as other men walked on the drie lande giuing strength to the water to beare him not changing the nature of his body otherwise then the nature of Peters body was changed who walked likewise on the water Sand. The maner of the walking did exceede the maner of a meere naturall bodie Fulk TheÌ„ belike Peter had not a meere natural body Hard. When the fathers teach Christ to be in vs carnally corporally or naturally for al these termes Saint Hilarie and S. Cyril haue then they meane that Christ is in vs by the true substance of his flesh and not in such maner as common flesh is wont to be any where Iewel The fathers meane that Christ is in vs after a corporall carnall and naturall manner and not in substance Fulke Yea after some kinde of corporall c. manner that is truely soundly and not shadowedly effectually c. not after euery corporall carnall or naturall manner Sand. The qualities of the body and blood of Christ cannot be in vs without the substance of his bodie and bloode Fulke But the general qualities of a bodie of flesh c. may be in vs as in their subiect without the proper subiect of Christes bodie and blood Sand. S. Hilarie saith Christ hath the father in him according to the spirit naturally Hath Christ a qualitie and not the whole true substance Fulk The question is not what he hath but what he hath by force of the aduerbe naturally which is not of force to giue him the whole substance but signifie that hee hath it after the manner of nature which is truely Sand. Hilarie saith he tarieth in vs naturally Fulk That is truly which is some maner of naturall being Sand. He saith further he is in vs himselfe by flesh Fulk Which he tooke of vs and doth againe giue vnto vs. Sand. And againe Naturally according to the flesh we liue by him that is to say wee haue obteined the nature of his flesh Fulk I aske no better interpreter then Hilarie him selfe Whosoeuer liueth by him hath obteined the nature of his fleshe which is able to giue life but manye liue by him which hath not receiued the supper therfore Hilarie speaketh not of giuing the substance of his flesh in the supper as Sander vnderstandeth but of giuing the nature of his fleshe which is power of life confirmed to vs by the sacramentes of his supper and baptisme CAP. XI Sand. Of the first author of the Sacramentarie heresie Hard. Berengarius began first openly to shewe the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes bodie in the sacrament Iew. Before master Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Sand. The Messalians began priuilie by generall disgracing the sacrament Berengarius began openly by speciall denying the vertue thereof Fulk The Messalians spake as openly as Berengarius and he that vtterly denieth the sacrament to be of any vertue taketh away the special vertue also wherefore Hardings tales agree not but that is a small matter Iew. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteined the same doctrine before Beâ—â—ngarius Sand. If they barked in corners at any ceremonie which is not euident to vs yet they mainteined it not For then they had ben condemned of heresie by them you haue gained litle more then 200. yeres Fulke They preached and wrote openly the one of them dedicating his booke to the Emperor which is extant the other condemned in the Councell of Vercells holden against Berengarius But while they liued their doctrine therein was not controlled Two hundreth yeeres is small gaine to vs which count from the beginning but it is great losse to you that build vpon antiquitie not regarding how it came from the beginning Iewell It shal be necessarie to open Berengarius iudgment Sand. It is ynough you are at a staye and can bring your faith no higher then Ioannes Scotus and Berengarius Fulke We beginne at Christ and bring downe the continuance of our faith herein for 600. yeres and more which you cannot impugne Iewell This is the enforced recantation of Berengarius I beleeue that the body of our Lord Iesus Christ sensiblie and in verie deede is touched with the hande of the Priest and broken and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull Sand. You haue Englished the wordes very spightfully you haue added Rent of your own head Atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to bee wasted which may be done without grinding Fulk What great spight is in Rent more then in Broken and why should alteri signifie to be broken wheÌ„ we had the word broken before and what honestie is it for you to say the body of Christ may be wasted with the teeth Finally when you haue dentibus halteri I meruaile why you dare not say ground except it be that you teach the people to swallow the cake and not to grind it with their teeth Iewell The verie glosse saith vnlesse you warely vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fall into a greater heresie then euer he helde any Sand. The glosse telleth you that al touching breaking or washing is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine Fulke Then the confession of Berengarius was false that the body is touched broken grinded with teeth Iewel These fathers redresse the lesse error by the greater Sand. They teach him to speake as Chrysostome hath spoken in Ioan. Hom. 45. Non se c Christ permitteth himselfe not onely to bee seene to them that desire but also to be touched and to be eaten and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh all men to be filled with desire of him Fulke Chrysostome speaketh figuratiuely except you will say it is a proper speech that Christ is seene in the Sacrament These fathers abhorre all figuratiue speaches in this case and it is nothing like that a recantation of a figuratiue vnderstanding should be expressed by
there once really Howe coulde the Councell say wee beholde the lambe of God placed vpon the holy table which neither nowe nor at any time was really there Fulke By faith as we behold him in his ministers and in baptisme washing our sinnes with his bloude where he is not really present nor euer was after that manner Iewell In the Councel of Chalcedon it is demanded in what scripture lye these two natures of Christ it is the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures Sander The heretike asked for very materiall and reall wordes Fulke If the natures may be said figuratiuely to lye where the wordes are found why may not the lamb of God be saide to lye where the bread and wine which are signes of him do lye Iewell That word signifieth a naturall situation of place order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christs bodie hath not in the sacrament Sander It hath such situation as the forme of bread requireth Fulke Then the forme of bread is situated not the bodie of Christ or the lambe of God which you might as well vrge to be taken in his proper sense for a natural lambe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laide Iewell The Councell is plaine that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before vs. Sander He considereth them basely who saith they remaine still in earthly substance Fulke He considereth them not at all who saith they are no part of the Sacrament Iewel It is said lift vp your heartes so that there is nothing in the action to be considered but only Christ. Sander I haue spoken of this matter at large lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles Cap. 27. Fulke And there I haue briefely answered Iewell S. Ambrose saith it is better seene that is not seene Sander Therfore the bodie of Christ is better sene then bread and wine Fulke Who doubteth of that Iewel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent For they are tokens of things being one thing and signifying another Sander As they be tokens they be one thing signifie another and therefore the substance of Christes bodie is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Church which thing vnder the forme of bread it doeth signifie but it is another manner of thing to wit a bodie immortal impassible c. Fulke If S. Augustine had beleeued the Sacrament to be the immortall bodie of Christ he would neuer haue said In Sacraments we must not consider what they be but alway what they signifie Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22. Iewell Touching our beholding of Christ in the Sacrament S. Aug. saith It worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord himself present vpon the crosse Sander S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnitie of Easter which was kept by preaching shewing some image of Christ by creeping to the crosse Fulke Hee speaketh generally of signes as for images and creeping to the crosse is a moste impudent lye Iewel This is that Eusebius writeth that the bodie might be worshipped by a mysterie that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spirituall sort not fleshly Christ is laide present vpon the altar Sander You leaue out that he saith the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting by which wordes Eusebius declareth that the Sacrament is such a mysterie as offereth vs that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. Fulke Eusebius declareth no such matter but a memoriall of the euerlasting and one onely sacrifice quod semel offerebatur in pretium which was but once offered for a price or redemption Sander The same Eusebius saith the inuisible preist turneth the visible creatures with his worde into the substance of his body and bloud Fulke So he saith that man is by the workmanship of the heauenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptisme wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation but of a spirituall mutation such as is in baptisme Iewell S. Augustine saith you are vpon the table you are in the cup. As the people is laid vpon the table so and none otherwise the councell of Nice saieth the lambe of God is laid vpon the table Sander What Master Iewell is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned c Fulke Euen such a conuersion is of the bread into his body as is of the table and cuppe into vs namely spirituall For without some kinde of conuersion it were not possible that wee should be on the table and in the cuppe Sander Wee should not bee there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder the forme of bread wine where in we are signified but of this more lib. 5. Cap 5. Fulke As we are there so is our head Iesus Christ and none otherwise Iewell The Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really But these two wordes truely and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the Iewes the one doth vtterly exclude the other Sander If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh is is all one in speaking to say truely and fleshly but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh it is not all one Fulke The spirituall sense of eating Christes flesh truely in which he spake to the Iewes doth vtterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh Iewell He that eateth most spiritually eateth most truely as Christ is the true vine the true Manna and we are verily one breade and the Apostles verily the heauens And these are the Paschall feastes wherein verily the lambe is slaine Sander In comparison of bodily eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort but a thing both eaten in body and spirit is farre more truely eaten both waies then by one way alone Fulke Master Iewel hath well prooued that the word Truly may wel exclude fleshly bodily really As for the bodily eating is the matter in question therefore not to be brought in argument Sander When the name of any thing affirmed of Christe apperteineth to the true nature of his manhod which he hath assumpted it is to be verified of him not onely by a metaphore but in very deede therfore he is man in deede offred in deede killed in deede buried in deede eaten in deede Fulke For a man to bee eaten in the shape of bread apperteineth not to the true nature of his manhood which he hath assumpted therefore it is not to bee verified of him but onely by a metaphor or figuratiue speech by your owne rule Iewel S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the naturall office of the body what preparest thou thy teeth beleue and thou hast eaten Beleeuing in him is the eating of the bread of life
within or lesse foode of the heart Fulke If Christ had not taken reall flesh to his diuine nature he could not haue bene the foode of eternall life to vs but there is no such necessitie of giuing his bodie in the forme of bread therefore the similitude is vnlike Iewel The thing that is receiued in spirit is receiued in deede Sand. Spirituall receiuing is good and true when it shouldreth not out reall receiuing Fulke If reall receiuing bee receiuing in deede spirituall receiuing shouldreth not out reall receiuing Iewel It is an holy mysterie and an heauenly action forcing our mindes vp to heauen and there teaching vs to eate the bodie of Christ not outwardly by the seruice of our bodies Sand. Is not verè sumimus spoken of taking by the seruice of our bodies Fulke As concerning the outward sacrament but not concerning the bodie of Christ. Sand. Christ hath mingled that nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated vnto vs which you passe ouer in Hilarie as you were vtterly blinde The nature of Christs flesh is I trow real It is coÌ„municated vnto vs vnder a sacrament which is receiued by the mouth therfore the nature of Christs flesh is receiued by our bodies and not by faith alone Fulke And is the reall flesh of Christ mingled with his diuinitie what can followe thereof but confusion of the natures If that be hereticall then the nature of his flesh mingled with the nature of his euerlastingnesse is not his reall flesh nor his reall diuinitie but the natural propertie as he termeth it afterward of his diuine flesh which is communicated vnto vs vnder a sacrameÌ„t As for your rotten reason that whatsoeuer is receiued vnder the sacrament is receiued by the mouth because the sacrament is receiued with the mouth is confuted before Iewel The truth hereof standeth not in any reall presence but as Hilarius saith in a mysterie which is a sacrament Sand. Hilarius saide wee receiue verily the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie you report him to say in a mysterie Is that no false dealing Fulke It is all one before God and al wise and honest men Sand. Well we receiue Christ verily vnder the sacrament and that sacrament is by your confession also outward and commonly called a figure therefore we verily receiue the flesh of Christs bodie vnder an outwarde figure which is the figure of bread although you meane the substance of bread Fulke There is both an outward sacrament and an inward mysterie S. Hilarie speaketh of the whole dispeâ—sation of the sacrament which is both outwarde and inward and not of the signe of bread onely or principally M. Iewel neuer confessed that the outward figure of bread although in some sense it be called a sacrament yet that it is the whole sacrament Iewell Our regeneration in Baptisme in a certaine bodily sort teacheth vs the purgation of the minde as Diony sius saith so it is in the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sand. Saint Augustine saieth that must be eaten in the trueth it selfe spiritually which is visibly taken in the sacrament and not one thing outwardly taken and another thing inwardly as M. Iewel would haue it De verb. Apost Ser. 2. Fulk Are you such a bussarde that you cannot see the opposition betweene eating in a Sacrament and eaâ—ing in trueth visibly and spiritually I trow the reall substance of Christes bodie is notvisibly eaten in the sacrament but the breade which is so called because it is a sacrament thereof Iewell Although Christ be not bodily present yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mysterie Sand. The substance of the mysterie must needes be hindred where it is absent Fulke Christ is not absent although not bodily present Sand. The substance of the mysterie is the naturall substance of Christ vnder the Sacrament Therfore Saint Hilarie saieth The naturall propertie by the sacrament is the sacrament of the perfect vnitie The naturall propertie is the naturall substance for so S. Hilarie vseth the word proprietas verie much for the substance and personall being of God Fulke So often that you can bring none example but li. 5. cap. 5. you fetch your example our of Augustine Sand. These words can haue none other literal meaning but this The substance of Christ through the forme of bread wherin vnitie is figured is the sacrament of perfect vnitie Fulke Lib. 5. Cap. 5. you shall finde another literall sense more agreeable to the minde and purpose of Hilarie Sand. S. Hilarie saith There is no place to doubt of the trueth of flesh and bloude For nowe both by the profession of our Lorde himselfe and â—by our faith it is flesh in deede and bloude in deede Answere I pray you M. Iewel what is flesh in deed what is the nominatiue case to est I knowe none other beside the word sacramentum c. Fulk The more foolish Priest you For caro the flesh of Christ the bloud of Christ of whose truth we ought not to doubt is by his profession and our faith flesh in deede and bloud in deede Sand. It is meant by S. Hilarie of an outward thing for he saith immediately haec accepta these thinges taken and drunken doe bring to passe that both we may be in Christ and Christ in vs. Fulke You that could construe so pretily before do now forget your concords for haec accepta will not agree with sacramentum in number that should haue bâ—â—â— the nominatiue case to est And what can these thinges being taken haue relation vnto but to the flesh and bloud of Christ which immediately before was auouched to be flesh and bloud truely which being receiued maketh Christ to dwell in vs and vs in Christ. The outwarde thing that is receiued bringeth not to passe that Christ dwelleth in them that receiue it Wherefore the flesh and bloud of Christ are receiued inwardly not outwardly Sand. He saith further Christ himselfe is in vs by his flesh not by the meane of bread and wine Fulk Who saith otherwise Sand. And afterwarde he is beleeued to be in vs by the mysterie of the sacraments ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente himselfe tarying naturally in vs. Fulke This cannot be after the popish vnderstanding by which Christ tarieth no longer in vs then the formes of bread and wine remaine vncorrupted Sand. He concludeth against the third argument of the Arrians Si ergo nos c. If then we liue naturally according to the flesh by him that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can hee but haue the father naturally in himselfe according to the spirit seing he liueth for the father By which it appeareth that as the substance of God the father is really in the person of Christ So S. Hilarie meant that Christes natural substance by means of the sacrament receiued is within our owne persons Fulke Then Hilarie should meane that Christ
true but with Cyril in these speaches it is nothing but true as he expoundeth himselfe Sander That which you saide of Saint Augustine Corporaliter non vmbraliter sed verè solidè I could not finde it vpon the 67. Psalm Fulke Then you sought it verie negligently for there it is written vpon the 16. verse of that Psalme in these words In ipso quippe inhabitat omnis plâ—nitudo diuinitatis non vmbraliter tanquam in templo a rege Salomone facto sed corporaliter id est solidè atque veraciter For in him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the diuinitie not shadowedly as in the temple made by king Salomon but corporally that is to say soundly and truely This exposition of the worde corporally pleased you not and therefore you coulde not finde it for if you had red ouer little more then halfe the discourse vpon the Psalm you must needs haue found it Sander Saith not Cyrill that the mysticall blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in vs Fulke He saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing when it is wrought in vs maketh him to dwell also corporally in vs. Iewel Saint Paul saith The heathens are become concorporall and partakers of the promise in Iesu Christ. Sander The word corporall signifieth no more but that the Iewes and Gentils are of one fellowship but the meanes of making them one remaine notwithstanding to be declared Fulke They are declared by S. Paul to be In Christ by the Gospell Iewell By the wordes corporally naturally a full perfect spirituall coniunction is meant excluding all manner of fantasies Sander Is not that coniunction which is by faith syncere loue wherof Cyrill saith we are not onely ioyned thereby but quoque also corporally a full perfect spirituall coniunction Fulke It is not full perfect by faith and loue except we be spiritually fed with the bodie blod of Christ. Sander If corporally be nothing else to say but truly without imagination How construe you these words of S. Paul All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ Fulke I construe them as S. Augustine doth in Psa. 67. before said which place you list not to find And I pray you do you coÌ„strue corporally so that you vnderstand the godhead to be a bodie as in your next argument a coniugatis Sander How can you auoid the yoke the dependance the mutual respect that is betweene bodie bodily if bodily be truely then corpus with M. Iewel is latine for trueth Fulke The yoke is auoided when the aduerb signifieth only a similitude vnto that which is meant by the Nowne as spiritualiter enforceth not the presence of a spirite but after the similitude or maner of a spirite So angelicè viuere ventoâ—èiactare regaliter epulari To liue like an Angel To boast vainly like the winde To feast like a king c. As for corpus although it be not Latine for trueth yet to signifie trueth sometime it is not harde to finde in the scripture S. Paul saith The Iewish feastes are vmbra futurorum corpus autem Christi the shadowe of things to come but the bodie is of Christ what is the sense of bodie here but trueth As for Sanders feare least Christes naturall bodie might so be transformed into a trueth of faith or charitie or bones without fleshe or skinne without flesh or bones is vaine and foolish yea spiteful and malicious for if bodie and bodily be somtimes taken for trueth and truely according to the circumstance of the place it will not followe that those wordes should always be so taken where the text openly reclaimeth Iewel Otherwise there must needs follow this great inconuenience that our bodie must be in like maner cor porally naturally and fleshly in Christs bodie For Hilarius saith We also are naturally in him And Cyrillus We are corporally in Christ. Sander It is most true during the time of the coniunction Fulke The time of the coniunction is perpetual for Hilarie saith We are inseparably vnited in him lib. 〈◊〉 Teach your Papistes that the bodie of Christ is none owise in their mouth bodie then they are in the body of Christ you may whistle for your Popish real presence Iewel That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporall being Sander That were a fine being M. Iewel that Christs bodie should be in vs corporally yet the being shoulde not be corporall Fulke This is a fine wit M. Sander being demanded of an horsmill to answere of a milhorse M. Iewell would knowe whether any corporall being is required that we I say we should be in Christ corporally You answere of Christes being in vs because you cannot auoide the absurditie of our beeing in Christe corporally after your corporall and carnall vnderstanding Iewell It requireth not any locall being Sander It is a locall being in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place vnder the forme of bread which the substance of bread did occupie before Fulke That is a fine place for a man of perfect stature But why answere you of Christes being in the Sacrament when M. Iewel speaketh of our being in Christ corporally I perceiue your infirmitie you cannot heare on that side Iewel Christ fitting in heauen is here in vs not by a naturall but by a spirituall meane of being Sander The being of Christ in vs by his spirite is also natural concerning the nature of his godhed which is euery where Fulke Still you take chalke for cheese Wee enquire of the beeing of his humanitie whether it may be naturally sitting in heauen and here with vs. Iewell Saint Augustine sayth After that Christ is ascended he is in vs by his spirite And S. Basil and againe S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places And Christ spake in S. Paul c. Sander Shall one trueth alwayes displace another with you These be sowters arguments Christ is God therefore he is not man he is in heauen ergo he is not in earth c. Fulke Saint Augustine by his ascension and presence by his spirite concludeth the absence of his humanitie from the earth Ascendit in Coelum non est hîc he hath ascended into heauen and he is not here In Ioan. Tr. 50. This is no sowters argument except Saint Augustine be a sowter in fine Master Sanders deintie iudgement Iewell This coniunction is spirituall therefore needeth not neither the circumstance of place nor corporall presence Sander The coniunction is spirituall but the maner of working it is brought to passe by the corporall substance of Christ. Fulke The corporal substance needeth not to come vnto vs that a spirituall coniunction may be made betweene Christ and vs the spirite of God is the onely necessarie meane to make a spirituall coniunction Iewel The coniunction that is betweene Christ vs neither doth mingle persons nor vnite substances but it doeth knit our affects togither and ioyne our willes saith S. Cyprian Sander S. Cyprian