Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
not so much with their faultes as with the office it selfe imputing the vices of euill men to a most holy vocation and ministerie against the commaundement of Christ. They withdrew vniustly their tithes and oblations they enuied the riches of the clergy and in euery alehouse dâ—…couered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their spirituall fathers When these great enormities were comme to the highest so that the cockle began to ouergrow and hide the good corne and now tyme required that iudgement should beginne at the house of God and those that in dede were good and faithfull should be disseuered from the euill Martin Luther a Frier of S. Augustines order in Saxonic was permitted like a proud â—…ing of Babylon to comme out of the north and to make spirituall bataile to the holy Citie of Hierusalem because her Citezens did not worship Christ in such puritie of good life as they ought to haue done Whereby it came to light who were the chaâ—…e which is with euery 〈◊〉 of windecaried vp and doune who were the true wheat which lieth 〈◊〉 against all tentations and perseuereth in the Church of God For those that were light and euill disposed when they vnderstode they might kepe their liuinges though they did not dischardge the office belonging therevnto seing they came to the office only to haue the liuing those I say embraced with all their endeuour the new religion of Martin Luther And that whether they were Monkes and religious men or secular Priestes only Make them sure of good 〈◊〉 they will assure the Prince to geue vp their Abbeys and monasteries And good reason why For they neuer loued neither the cote nor the vow but only the â—…ase and filling of their bellies Then God made it euident vnto the world which were those who had standered in dede the holy order of Priesthod Who they were that hauing 〈◊〉 kept wemen sayd afterward they were their wiues and who they were that 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 more them their vowes made to God I shall nede name no man But I thinke there are few men aboue forty yeres old in all England but they can of their owne knowledge reckon vp diuers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 who before the preaching of Luther shamed with their vnhouest behauiour the clergy of the realme And the same men shewed themselues when broching tyme came not to haue ben of the Church but of that religion whatsoeuer should be set foorâ—… most carual This good then Luther hath doâ—…e that whereas the euill were in profession mingled among the good now it should be no more so For two bodies are made ouâ—… of Catholikes an other of the Protestantes And the Churche of God remaineth 〈◊〉 purged from that wicked generation of men Not that Cathoâ—…kes lack their great 〈◊〉 or can be iustified in the sighe of God as no synners But it skilleth much whether a man doe syn with fear of 〈◊〉 and with desyre of repentance or els whether he desend his syn make a doctrine of his euildoing The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priest sayeth he doth not synne in marying though he 〈◊〉 not to marie Yea to amend the matter he sayeth no man ought to vowe chastitie condemning in that doctrine besyde an infinite number of holy professed virgins the blessed mother of God who woÌ„dered how she might haue a childe 〈◊〉 she knew not any man Whereunto her own reason migâ—…t 〈◊〉 haue replied that hereafter she might know a man except she had vowed her selfe not to know at all any man Now Luther was permitted to discouer such synners as were most desperate and of least purpose to repent This Luther hath shaken the walles of moe Chapels Churches Monasteries then euer any king of Syria did shake 〈◊〉 Castels or houses in the land of the twelue tribes of Israel and â—…uda He began with lesse matters but as the Prince of the 〈◊〉 throwing 〈◊〉 and conquering such small fortes as lay in his way alwayes made hast to besiege Hierusalem itselse the chiefe Citie of the land of Iury so Luther hauing his eye vpon the highest mysterie of all our faith as him selse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ouerthrow the great reuerence which all good men gaue to the blessed Sacrament of the altar He went about to be persuaded In Sacramento praeter panem vinum esse nihil that nothing was in the Sacrament besides bread and wine For these are his owne wordes But sinding the scriptures to plaine as himself also 〈◊〉 and the saith and consent of 〈◊〉 doctours and people to strong he 〈◊〉 gaue ouer thaâ—… 〈◊〉 and contented himselfe with 〈◊〉 the sacred â—…ower of 〈◊〉 He taught that bread and wine were not in their substance changed into the body of Christ 〈◊〉 withall the 〈◊〉 presence of our Sauiours flesh and blood Whose 〈◊〉 oâ—…ce being spred in Germanie a great multitude of 〈◊〉 Rutters voluntarily folowed his 〈◊〉 But when the Catholikes had euidently shewed that two diuers natures alâ—…ready extaâ—…t in the world as Christ and 〈◊〉 bread or wine could neuer without a maruelouse vnion be made one and be incorporated together the which vnion betwen Christ and materiall bread and wine neither is expreâ—…y acknowledged by the holy Gospell neither gathered thence by generall Councels or lerned Fathers â—…or who euer heard De Christo impanato of Christ imbreaded moreouer when the Catholikes declared their belefe of 〈◊〉 to be conformable to the Scriptures and expresly alowed by the holy spirit of God in generall Councels and in the bookes of auncient Doctours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Capitain Luther neither to be able to withstand the reasons brought against him neither yet willing to geue ouer the opinion which him selfe had chosen he much misliked with Luther and within foure yeres after began to publish at zurich in zâ—…cherland that the reall substance of Christes flesh and blood was not in the Sacrament of the altar as Luther had said but only was named and signified to be there To whom Decolamâ—…s a renegate out of S. Brigittes Cloister ioyned him selfe stoutly defending that figuratine doctrine both against the Catholikes and against Martin Luther The Catholikes out of hand shewed how much against the wordes and workes of Christ that opinion is how absurd vnsemely and vncredible it were that Christ who is the truth it selfe and by whom truth is made and who came to fulfill all figures should leaue in his owne supper contrary to the meaning of his owne sayinges nothing but figures and shadowes Satan therefore vnderstanding this doctrine of zuinglius to be much better impugned by the Catholikes then by Decolamâ—…dins defended fearing yâ— onerthrow of the whole armie spedily sent in a fresh band vnder yâ— conduct and gouernance of John Caluin who restoring yâ— fight protested yâ— he neither thought nor taught a bare figure to be geueÌ„ at yâ— supper of Christ as zuinglius did seme to teach In dede quod he a figure it is but
for his gift proueth the reall presence of his body and blood in the SacrameÌ„t of the altar euen as God the Father gaue hun reall fleshe and blood at his incarnation CHrist for the meate whiche he promysed to gene in his last supper alleaged his diuinity as who shoulde plainly say wonder not that I promise you suche a thing of so greate difficulty and miracle for I am God His wordes are these worke saith he to the multitude of the Iewes not the meate which doth perish but that which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you for him God hath signed that is God the father hath printed his diuine substance vppon him by eternal generation or hath oynted him with the oile of gladnes aboue al others because his humane nature is vnited to the godhed whereby he is able to do as much as his father It is not to be thought that Christ would haue alleged his equall auctoritie with his Father for a gift which were not of equall truth and of equall power with that which his Father is sayd to gene But his Father gaue him not only the vertue and 〈◊〉 of flesh but reall and natural flesh and blood at his incarnation thereâ—…ore God the Sâ—…nn 〈◊〉 to geue vs the same 〈◊〉 â—…ral fâ—…sh in his last supper For which cause he doth immediatly declare both God his Fathers gift and his own 〈◊〉 his Fathers gift he say 〈◊〉 My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen for it is the bread of God whiche cometh downe from heauen and geueth life to the worlde But what breade is this I saith Christ am the bread of life I am the liuely bread which came downe from heauen â—…ow we haue lerned that God the Father gaue Christ his Sonne from heauen when he sent him to take the flesh of man which flesh assumpted oâ—… the word is also by vnion to the word made the bread of life Christ therefore hauing shewed his Fathers gift and that him self is the bread of liâ—…e cometh to shew his own bread which he wil geue saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The brief discourse of yâ— who le doctrine is this work the meate which tarieth for euer which the Sonne of man wil geue you for this Soâ—…ne of man is equall with God his Father whose naturall image he hath printed in him God the Father hath geuen his Sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life Therefore God yâ— Sonne being equall with his Father wil geue vs the same true flesh of the Sonne of man as meate yâ— shall tarie with vs to life euerlasting But his Father gaue him â—…o the world not only in faith spirite but in real and substancial flesh Therefore God the Sonne by the drift of all his talk doth signifie that he wil geue in his supper whereof he speaketh not in spi rite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the 〈◊〉 same real and substanciall flesh First he sayth he wil geue that meate which shal tarye to life euerlasting Secondly that he is able to doe so as one signed of God his Father Thirdly he sheweth what bread and meate his Father hath geuen him that is to say the true flesh wherein â—…e spake to that preseÌ„t multitude of men Fourthly he sayth yâ— breade that he wil geue is his fleshe Last of all who so cateth it hath life euerlasting Doth not all this goe to proue that as he bad them work the meate which tarieth for euer and shewed him sefe concerning his 〈◊〉 to be made that meate sent from God his Father so he is able to geue them that meate which his Father gaue him and sayth he wil geue it them to the end they eating it may liue for euer he tarying in them and they in him And yet is not that his reall and substanciall flesh which he promiseth Or did he not perform in his supper that which he pro mised If he can not be false of his word we haue in our Lords supper where he perfomed this promise the reall and substancial body of Iesus Christ as truly as euer his Father gaue him reall and substancial flesh in this world And consequently we haue it not only by faith and spirite but in truth and substance This plainly is the discoâ—…rse of Christ him selfe who by his Godhead assureth vs of the gift of that incorruptible meat which is his flesh Whereupon S. Hilarie sayth that no man douteth of yâ— veritie of Christes flesh in vs except he deny Christ to be true God ¶ Seing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith spirit only suffiseth not but it self also must be really eaten GOd sent his Sonne who is by nature the bread of life as hym self hath witnessed to take flesh for vs that in his flesh he might geue vs the same diâ—…ine nature which is the 〈◊〉 bread of life Therefore when Christ had sayd The Sonne of man will geue you the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting straightways he sheweth in one word three causes of yâ— his promise For God the Father sayeth he hath signed this SoÌ„ne of maÌ„ that is to say he hath geuen him hys owne substance concerning the diuine nature of Christ and concerning his humane nature he hath shewed his will by hym as by a seale of his owne hand Farthermore he hath assigned hym to bring vs this meate which tarieth to life euerlasting The verb Signauit he hath signed may signifye the printing of the same forme and ymage which the originall seale hath as S. Cyrillus hath noted in this place also it may stand to shew or confirme a thing by witnes of seale as Theophilact expoundeth it Orels to assigne or appoint a thing to some certain effect and purpose as S. Chrysostome and Eâ—…thymius take it God the Father signed Christ after the first sort by geuing him his own nature And after yâ— secoÌ„d sort by shewing him through miracles wrought in his flesh to be his own Sonne And last of all in appointing to haue his will done most perfitly and executed by him as Christ him self said It is my meate to doe the wil of him that sent me According to this last sense it was the wil of God that Christ should geue vs the euerlasting â—…eate which naturally is his Godhead and by the mysterie of the incarnation it is his flesh And to signifie so much Christ sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate because my Father hath signed me to this purpose The whiche sense S. Chrysostome followeth in the first place of his interpretation writing thus Signauit hoc est misit qui hunc vobis
to that heauenly instrument of Christes flesh So that sometyme we say the Fathers gift is reall and externall but then we meane the visible flesh of Christ in his owne person Somtyme we say the Fathers gift is only spiritual and then we vnderstand the faith charitie and grace which the Father worketh in vs whom he bringeth to Christ by faith and spirit This distinction well remembred I trust to make the matter playne enough The state of our nature is suche that sith we consist of body and soule our soule being the chief part of vs and our body the inseriour parte God the Father in his gift intendeth to feed our soules which being fed our body shal be fed by reason it dependeth vppon the soule But Christ considering that our heauy bodies most commonly weigh down our soules to the pit of hell wold also inuent a way that our very bodies might not only not hindre but rather helpe our soules and not only through our soules but also through a meate that them selues should receaue be made lyght and meet to rise vpward and to obey the spirit gladly So that the meate which God the Father geueth to the soule Christ bringeth to the body And because the body hath no faith to apprehend the flesh of Christ withall neither vnderstanding nor spirite whereby to folowe the flesh of Christ into heauen it hath pleased his infinite mercy to leaue his flesh in so maruelouse a manner vnder the forme of bread that it might be geuen into our handes mouthes and breastes by which meanes we are able to receaue it corporally and naturally The Sonne therefore and the Father geue one thing on Christes behalfe but not one way on our behalfe For the Father geueth Christ vnto the world in dede but to vs in faith and spirit The sonne geueth him self to vs in faith and spirit with the Father and moreouer he is here sayd to geue him self in truth of body and blood to oursoules and bodies Because therefore the thing it self is one which the Father and the Soune geue one effect doth folowe in vs of both gifts For as it is sayd of the Fathers gifte He that beleueth in me hath euerlasting life So it is sayd of the Sounes gifte He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life But for so much as the Father and the Sonne geue not theire gifts after one sorte Therefore their two giftes are in this chapiter of S Ihon diuersly described First as I sayd before of the Fathers gift it is sayd He doth geue the true bread in the present tense Of that Sonne I wil geue in the future tense The Father geueth Christ in the forme of man and therefore it is sayd This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleueth on him may haue euerlasting life and again ye haue sene me and haue not beleued Behold by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithful may see that Sonne of man vppon whom they beleue But of the Sonnes gifte it is only sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh where it is not sayd that his flesh shal be seen but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder a couering of an other kinde of food which the naming of bread signifieth And in the supper where this prophecie was fulfilled it is most clere The Fathers gift is called Verus panis de coelo the true bread or meate from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not only true bread but also truly bread and meate in dede Caro mea verè est cibus my flesh is truly meate some true meate may chaunce not to be truly meate because it is not eaten but nothing is meat in dede and truly meate except it be in dede eaten There is difference betwene being the true vyne and a vyne truly Christ sayd him self was the true vyne but he sayd not that he was truly any certeyn vyne The Iewes and Disciples went not away from Christ for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gyfte For albeit they beleued not Christ to be yâ— sonne of God yet they well perceaued that suche a gifte of eating by faith myght stand with the custome of Gods people but when the sonnes gifte came to be declared they could abyde no longer Seing then it is playne that they lacked faith but yet lacked not vnderstanding we may be sure they sawe more apparaÌ„t absurditie in the sonnes gifte as they toke it then in the Fathers because it semeth straunger for mans flesh to be eaten as the sonne semed to saye then God to be made man which is the Fathers gift who sent his sonne to take our flesh The gifte of the Father is called by suche names only as belong to the persone of Christ or to his dyuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God only is absolutely the true bread of life or by the pronownâ—… ego which is to say I. but yâ— gifte of Christ is called also by yâ— names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and blood oâ—… the sonne of man An other difference may be to coÌ„sider that Christ endeth his talke of eche gifte with repeating the old figure Manna betokening yâ— as wel by the giste of the Father as of the sonne the shadow of manna was fulfilled But as it shall hereafter appeare Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doynges by the sonnes gift As therefore when he had longe reasoned of the belefe which they ought to haue in him whom God the Father had sent he last of al concludeth I am the bread of lyfe Your Fathers did eate manna in the desert and be dead yf any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer ryght so hauing at large reasoned of eating his owne flesh and of yâ— effect which ryseth thereof he at the last endeth This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your Fathers haue eaten manna and be dead he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer The like peroration vsed in both places with wordes somwhat vnlike doth declare that one substance is gyuen of the Father to be eateÌ„ of vs by faith and of the sonne to be really eaten so that the maner differeth because we eate only ex Christo that is to say of Christ by faith but we eate and receaue Christum Christ him self in the Sacrament of the altar For it pleased the whole Trinitie yâ— the fulnesse of our saluation should be in the manhood of Christ whose food it is to end his Fathers worke The Fathers gift is to beleue in Christ the soÌ„nes gifte is to eate and drink in very dede his flesh and blood In working the Fathers gifte a working faith is sufficient in working the sonnes gifte â—…aith is required with taking and eating that wherein we
beleue The Fathers gifte is to worke Christ in vs as Christ is God and man but more as he is God then as he is man for oure â—…aith and belefe is due to the Godhead first of all aâ—…d vnto the manhood because it is ioyned vnto the Godhead and therefore Christ sayd ye beleue in God beleue also in me But drinking and eating is first apperteyning to the manhood and afterward reacheth vnto the Godhead because yâ— Godhead is in that meaâ—…e and drinke which we take therefore Christ sayd he that 〈◊〉 my flesh dwelleth in me and I in him The Fathers gift is belonging first to our spirite and then to oure flesh because it is the flesh of such a spirit which beleueth in God and loueth him the sonnes gifte is first in our body and flesh concernyng the Sacramentall receauing of him and then in our spirite because it is a spirite belonging to such a flesh which receaueth the flesh of God thorough Christ. In the Fathers gift we are not sayd to receaue yâ— true bread it self which the Father gaue into the world but to receaue as it were an effect wrought by yâ— streÌ„gth thereof for after Christ had at large described his Fathers gifte he said this is the bread comming downe from heauen to the entent that if any man shal eate ex ipso of it he may not dye he saith not ipsum if any man eate it but of it Again Ego sum panis qui de coelo desceÌ„di si quis manducauerit ex hoc páne viuet in aeternum I am the bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer to eat of this bread is to receaue some grace and effect comming from it And this much coÌ„cerning yâ— Fathers gift But concerning the sonnes gifte Christ saith except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ He saith not of the flesh but yâ— wholè flesh it self Again My flesh is truely meaâ—… he that eateth my flesh tarieth in me and afterward he that eateth meâ—… he saith not now of me but me Last of all qui maÌ„ducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shal liue for euer he saith not now he that eateth of this bread as he sayd before speaking of spirituall eating but he that eateth this bread And yet to make the matter more playne such an eating is assigned to the gifte of Christ which is made in his supper as before was named of MaÌ„na for it was sayd thereof Our Fathers did eate Manna they sayd not of Manna but Manna in his owne substance which words are three tymes conformably rehearsed and euery where they did eate Manna not only of Man na as though they had only taken a certeyn vertue out of it but they did eate Manna as we eate common bread Seing then we may eate of a thing or els the thing it self the eating of it is a spiritual eating by faith and vnderstanding But the eating it is a reall eating in the nature and substance of the thing it self When I say that by the Fathers gifte we eate of Christ and by the Sonnes gifte we eate Christ I meane not to deny but that also by the Sonnes gifte we eate of Christ. For as he that hath syxe hath fower so he that eateth worthely Christes flesh eateth both Christ and of Christ but not only of Christ for he eateth Christ in his humane nature wherein the diuine nature dwelleth and is geuen thereby to be eaten of He eateth of Christ I say concerning that effect grace which by Sacramentall eating the Godhead worketh in his body and soule For the Godhead it self is the bread whereof we must partake But the meane to partake it most abundantly is to receaue worthely yâ— manhood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth Therefore Christ geuing all the spirituall gifts that his Father doth as meane to make vs partakers of yâ— Godhead geueth also besydes all them the truth of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar as yâ— meane far yâ— highest to ioyne vs most nigh to yâ— spirit of God And although his Father geue vs by his appointment the same flesh and blood which Christ doth geue yet Christ calleth it for a great reason his own gift because the substance of it procedeth from his own person where vnto he assumpted flesh and blood For in this Chapiter as in many other places by the Fathers gift the gift of God and of the whole Trinitie is meant And by yâ— Sonnes gift that chiefly is meant which peculiarly procedeth by meane of yâ— incarnatioÌ„ strength of Christes flesh ioyned always with yâ— dyuine nature the which flesh we receaue in the Sacrament of Christes own institution wherein he sayd in his own person Take and eate this is my body drink ye all of this for this is my blood Who seeth not nowe the difference betwene the gift that God geueth vs by charitie which he spreadeth in our hartes and the gifâ—… wherein he gaue his owne Sonne wheÌ„ he toke flesh and became man with vs and the gift which the Sonne being made man geueth in his supper No gifte of God could saue vs the prophecies standing as they did but only the geuing of his soÌ„ne into the world when he tooke reall flesh for vs. And yet was not that enough except the Sonne again had geuen him self to death for vs. Then the flesh of Christ is the meane for vs to be saued that is a ladder let down from heauen whereon we may steppe and so clyme vp God him self we could not eate thereby to be chauÌ„ged into him and made membres of him But God became man that we eating maÌ„ might receaue God as he dwelt in that flesh which we reâ—…aued The conclusion is that if the Fathers gifte which is the inâ—…arnation of Christ and his manhood be to be taken in spirite and faith concerning the feeding of our soules as you haue seen it plainly proued the sonnes gifte which is an other different maner of geuing and hath an other kynde of working appoin ted to it must be receaued not in faith spirit and vertue only but also in the substance of flesh and blood Our new preachers expound the whole matter as though Christ gaue his flesh in his last supper noâ—…e otherwise excepting materiall bread and wine then his Father geueth it vnto vs by faith And therefore they teache that we receaue in the supper of our Lord with common bread and wine Christ him self by faith and spirit But by that meanes Christ geueth a great deale lesse then his father gaue For bread and wine is lesse then the gift of faith when Christ geueth faith he doth it as God therein being one with his father Is then his owne gift only bread and wine Came he into the world to geue a lesse tokeÌ„ then God had
geuen before vnder Moyses For who can doubt but manna dyd in his owne substaÌ„ce farre passe bakers bread and wine of the grape Is this the end of this long disputation of so many differences put betwene Moyses God the Father and Christ betwene manna Christes incarnatioÌ„ his supper betwene eating by body alone by faith alone by bodie faith together Is this al to haue by yâ— gift of Christ only a token of him selfe in bread and wine how is then the bread which is eaten able to make vs liue for euer if the eating it by faith only at Christes supper make vs lyue for euer and yet we had it by faith before of the fathers geuing then Christe geneth him selfe by none other meane sauing bread and wine then his father had done and doth he in vain trow ye distinct his own gift from his fathers so many waies is it then all one to eate of Christ alone and to eate Christ and of Christ Uerily if concerning our taking of it the thing were throughly one sauing bread and wine he wold not make so many differences But if Christes gift concerning our partaking differ front his fathers gift in tyme in maner in degree why should it be so but that Christ geueth for a greater ioyning of vs to him â–ª yâ— same in truth of nature whiche his father in faith and spirite gaue before as the necessarie preparation to the sonnes gifte His father is only spirite and truth and therefore geueth Christe really to the worlde to be fed of spiritually by vs. But the sonne is fleshe for the worde is made flesh and so geueth really to vs the gifte of that flesh whiche he toke not for his own sake but for ours to th ende we might really eate the spirite of God which is in it Neither let it be strange to you yâ— Christ semeth to geue more to vs then his father for he geueth more both for vs vppon the Crosâ—… and to vs in his supper then his father doth outwardly geâ—… but yet all his gifts come srom his father because his father gaue his only begotten sonne to vs in the truth of our fleshe to th end he should geue the same flâ—…she in his owne person both for vs to vs that by such an excellenâ—… meane we might 〈◊〉 the nerer ioyned to God him self Although the conference of the words of the Ghospel do proue sufficiently that which I haue sayd yet I wil shew also that S. Chrisostom toke this chapiter in the same sense that I haue done First he noteth the diuersitie of persons in that Christ sayd se non patâ—…em dare him selfe to geue and not his Father Secondly the distinct places of the chapiter where Christ speaketh in the one of eating his Godhead by faith in the other of eating his body Primum de diuinitate c. de corpore circa fineÌ„ inquit Panis quem ego dabo c. Christ speaketh firâ—…t oâ—… his Godhead of his body he sayth toward the end the bread which I will geue is my flesh Thirdly S. Chrysostom noteth that the word panis bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluatioÌ„ and faith in him or els his body By which words who seeth not yâ— he distincteth eating by faith alone from eating yâ— body it self The body therefore is it self eaten otherwyse then by fa th Fourthly he sayth vpon these words my flesh is verily meat that Christ sayd so to th end they should not thinke him to speake in parables And yet by flesh to meaue the signe of his flesh or by eating to meane beâ—…uing is to speake in parables Last of all he sayth it is brought to passe by the meat which he hath geuen vs that we should not only by loue but also in dede it selfe be turned into yâ— flesh of his And again Christ mingleth him selâ—…e with vs not by faith only but he maketh vs his booy in it self But if we 〈◊〉 Christ by faith only loue surely we should be reformed to him by none other meane theÌ„ by faith loue But now we are turned from our corruptible nature and are made able to liue for euer not only by the gift of faith and charitie but euen by that we receaue Christes flesh in dede it selâ—…e in his owne substance truthe and nature All these things did S. Chrysostom gather out of Christes words I nede not to shew in many lines that Theophilact and Euthymius folow that same order in expounding S. Ihon which S. Chrysostom before had vsed For I think no man who knoweth their trade of wryting doubteth of it The former saith vpoÌ„ these words The bread whiche I wil geue is my flesh that Christ manifestly in that place speaketh of the Sacramentall communion of his body and that yâ— bread which is eaten of vs in yâ— mysteries is not only a certein resembling of our Lords flesh sed ipsa caro Domini but the flesh of our Lod it selfe Euthymius likewyse agreeth that Christ is bread two ways according to his diuine and humane nature Non autem dixit quem do sed quem dabo He sayd not which I doe geue but which I will geue For he minded to geue it in his last supper Now as Christ is bread two ways so is he eaten two ways As God he is eaten by faith alone as man geuing his flesh to vs at hiâ—… last supper he is eaten not only by faith but in very dede The later way of eating the Sacramentaries take away ¶ The like precept made to men oâ—…lawful age for caring Chrisâ—…es flesh as was made generally for 〈◊〉 sheweth his 〈◊〉 to be as really present iâ—… his 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 is in 〈◊〉 WHen Christ had promised to geue his flesh to be eaten and the Iewes had asked how he was able to doe it Christ answered Except yâ—… eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting and I will reise him in the last day These words first were spoken to men of lawfull age as it appereth by the circumstance who are bound to receaue the blessed Sacrament of Christes supper if no lawfull impediment stop them to th end they may nourish and maitein the life which they toke in baptism and increase it to a higher degree of vnitie with Christ him selfe But baptism by our aduersaries confession may and ought to be geuen to infants and yet it could not doe them any good if it conteined not in it self the strength to regenerate them in Christ seing they are not able for their parts to beleue actually Mary if baptism really make them a new creature saue them as S. Paule speaketh the nourishment which we receaue in yâ— SacrameÌ„t of â—… altar being now of perfect vnderstaÌ„ding must nedes be also reall For as â—…regorius of
a stroÌ„g stout effectual figure ioyned with words of promise stirring vp the hart of him that heareth the promise and worthely râ—…aueth the pledge therof to mounte into heauen and there by faith to fede in spirite vpon Christes owne body and blood as he in earth corporally feedeth vpon bread and wine For Caluin teacheth bread and wine to be the figures and signes of Christes body and those wordes This is my body to be wordes of preaching or of promising Christes body to them that doe beleue O pitifull tossing and tearing of Gods holy mysteries Are those words which make and shew the body of Christ present words of promise But hereof I will speak more hereafter Now concerning that he willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith know ye not that because our nature was not able to 〈◊〉 â—…y to the seat of God in heauen therefore y◠〈◊〉 oâ—… God came 〈◊〉 from heauen to earth to leade and list vs vp to the â—…ition oâ—… his Father Know ye not that because our body more quickly â—…weth our soule dounward then our spirit is able to draw our body vpward therefore Christ 〈◊〉 not only yâ— soule but also the body of man geuing vs in his last supper that body of his to th'inthent our bodies taking hold in the Sacrament of the altar of his body might be caried into heauen to haue the sight of God And because faith without th'incarnation of Christ cannot lift vp our bodies therefore Christ fulfilled â—…aith with truth and hauing taken of the virgin oure nature gaue his body in dede to our bodies and soules yâ— we again might in body soule be lifted vp with it As a man that is cast into a depe pit calleth by the meane of his tonge for help but when a cord is let doune to him for the aide and 〈◊〉 of him it is not then sufficient to vse his tong still and to let his handes alone euen so our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to help vs to let doune the corde of his humanitie of his flesh and blood And shall we now when it is let doune to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottom of our hartes by eating it really shall wee now refuse it and saie wee will goe into heauen by faith ourselues and there take holde of Christ whereby wee maie be saued and deliuered out of the depe vale of misery As though the corde should haue neded to haue ben let doune if wee could haue fastened our bodies to any thing in heauen and yet our bodyes are they which weigh doune our soules châ—…ely But what meane I to reason in this place of that point whereof in all the booke folowing by Gods grace I will fully intreat For as it happeneth they are the scholars of Calnin with whom specially wee must haue to do at this time Of whose lerning and prâ—…ncie â–ª I most crueâ—…y craue this fauour that none of them all thinâ—… me to speak against their persons but only against their opinions and so to speak against them as I am instructed by the holy Scriptures not graunting that either they loue more intierly or study more carefully or reuerence more hartily the word of God then my Fathers brethren and I my selfe doe in the Catholike Church of Jesus Christ. Only about the meaning of it I rather would trust the common iudgeâ—…ent of auncient Doctours and practise of the whole Church theu mine owne priuate election and phantasie or the deuise of a newly planted congregation A Catholike man must kepe the most auncient path and most commonly troden high waie Priuie bypathes carie mâ—…n a side to the 〈◊〉 dennes of 〈◊〉 My purpose is to proue out of the word of God specially against zuinglius and Caluin that Christ geueth in his last supper the true substance of his flesh and blood not only to our soules by words of promise but also to our bodies vnder the formes of bread and wine And for as much as the present Church of England in the Apologie thereof hath set forth to the world an other doctrine contrarie to that wce reâ—…ued of our fore Fathers I will first disproue and confute the wordes and reasons oâ—… the Apologie and afterward will by the grace of God proue the Catholike faith out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers But first of all I must declare what we Catholiks and what the Protestants and Sacramentaries beleue the supper of Christ to be That seing I make the Title of my booke Of the supper of our Lord it maie straight appere whose 〈◊〉 is more worthy to be instituted of Christ that which we through his word beleue or that which they assigne him against y◠〈◊〉 truthe of his own words ¶ what the supper of Christ is according to the belâ—…e of the Catholikes BEcause my purpose is to intreat of the blessed supper of our Lord I thought it best to declare before hand what we take that supper to be shewing withal how the Sacramentaries vnder the pretense of refoorming the abuses thereof haue taken away the whole supper of Christ and geuen vs a bare drinking of their own 〈◊〉 And whence maie that be more truly and soundly proued then chiâ—…fly out of the word of God next out of the monuments of the a aâ—…cient Fathers The word of God is a most faithfull witnesse oâ—… the institution of Christ the monuments and writings of auncient Fathers doe shew the right vnderstanding of the word of God which thing I speake not as though the Catholike Doctours of this later tyire had not the self same holy Ghost which the first had but seing our aduersaries refuse Albereus magnus Thomas of Aquine Bonauenture Alexander of â—…ales Dionyâ—…ns the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra Gabriel Biel and such other men of excelleÌ„t vertue wit and lerning who not withstanding by a rule that S. Auguâ—…stine geueth ought to be of credit in so much as all they liued before this question rose beâ—…wene the Sacramentaries and vs and therfore can not beare nor shew more affection to the one syde then to the other but seing our aduersaries refuse them for 〈◊〉 and yet follow men of later 〈◊〉 as Luther zuinglius 〈◊〉 we are content to put all the matter into the hands of the old Doctours And to beginne as we promised with the word of God thus writeth S. Paul in his first 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians Conuenientibus vobis in vnum iam non est dominicam coenam manducare vnusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit ad manducanduÌ„ when yow come together now there is no eating of our Lords supper For euery man taketh 〈◊〉 his owne supper to eate By the name of supper in the old tyme that one meale was meant wich ordinarily was made after noon and it serued for diner and supper The Corinthians coming together to yâ— holy communion taried not one for the other but
euery man as he was most riche so he made hast to take his owne meale neglecting to call other poore men to it S. Paule mislyking this custome in them sheweth that Christ did other wise who communicated his supper to all his Apostles equally For as S. Cyprian saith Aequa omnibus portio datur An equal porcion is geuen to all men And S. Hieroine sayeth Christi corpus aequaliter accipimus We take the body of Christ equally And Theodorite sayeth All men are indifferently partakers of our Lords supper At this time we chiefly consider that Christ hath a supper of his own as yâ— Corinthians had one of theirs And it is our question what Christes supper was If we shall beleue the holy scriptures 〈◊〉 toke bread wine when he had geuen thankes he said This is my body which is geuen for you and this chalice is the new testament in my blood By which words we are informed the supper of Christ to be his owne body blood geuen vnder yâ— signes of yâ— bread wine whâ—…re vpoÌ„ he gaue thaÌ„kes turning by his almighty power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood The Sacramentaries take the wordes of Christ to be spoken figuratiuely and therefore they put bread and wine to remaine in their olde substance sayng we are 〈◊〉 by faith with the body and blood of Christ. Leauing other argumentes for other places we now only deâ—… whether the name and nature of a supper be more agreable to our belefe or to their meaning Whether is more like that Christ made his 〈◊〉 supper to his Apostles of the substance of common bread and wine or of his owne reall body and blood When a man departeth from his frends taking his leaue with a banket it is lyke that his banket shal be according to his habilitie full of deinty dishes and costly cates specially if it be published before and long tyme loked for as Christes banket was The which Melchisedech had prefigured more then two thousand yeares before 〈◊〉 had foreshewed it shuld contein al that might be delectable to the taste Dauid had called it a table prouided by God Salomon a table set forth by the wisedome of God whereunto poore men in spirit and the fooles of the world were called Elias lying hidden at the Torrent of Laryth was sed by crowes that brought him bread and flesh euery euening Christ in a parable describing the great supper made at the mariage of the kinges sonne which him self was telleth of oxen and other satlings kylled and made readie for that purpose And now shal we suppose that the sonne of the king of heauen making a parting supper unto his best beloued and the pillours of all his Church doth geue them ouâ—…wardly at his farewel none other deâ—…uties besides common bread and wine sanctified in vse only and not 〈◊〉 in substance A 〈◊〉 before he had 〈◊〉 with the same Apostles the paschall lambe and rising from that table as being the table of Moyses rather then of Christ he 〈◊〉 his Apostles feere to make them meete â—…or a greater mysterie And sitting doune againe he toke bread and wine not as the dishes of his banket but as matter and stuff wherof he wold make his owne supper For it is to be well weighed that this banket is called our Lords supper that is to say made and ministred and â—…ornished by Christ himselfe He now did not send S. Iohn S. Peter to prepare his supper as he sent them to make ready the Paschall lambe Christ in his owne supper is the prouider and maker of it He taketh bread and wiâ—…e into his holy handes inteÌ„ding lyke a most conning workeman of simple and litle stuff to make the greatest and finest feast that euer was hard of It is a great glorie in the profession of cookery to be able to make of one kinde of stuff as for example of egs alone sixtene or twenty diuerse dishes But to doe that feate much labour many spices and sauces great compositions and mixtures are required Christ in stede of all those shyfts vsed blessing working words of thankes geuing which were so sure to worke their intent that some men haue doubted whether he gaue thanks first because he forsaw the whole purpose out of hand should be obtained as him selfe wished or else which is more probable whether the very working of the feate were not the selfe thankes geuing for the worke For his blessing and thankes geuing was the sayng ouer the bread This is my body and ouer the wine This is my blood By the vertue of which wordes his body and blood being made of the creatures of bread and wine as well were a thankfull sacriâ—…ice them selues to God euen vnder the forme of bread and wine as Christ also in his visible foorm hauing wrought this worke did praise and thanke his Father for such an excellent effect The which body and blood his Aposâ—…les eating drinking were made partakers of the greatest baÌ„ket that euer was made in earth For the better vnderstanding wherof it maye please the reader to repete in his minde how God in the beginning adorned this world first with angels and heauenly spirits Secondly with the heauens them selues Thirdly with the elements of fyer ayer water and â—…arth And as the angels occupie the highest place so doe the heauens with the lights and starres in them occupie the second place the foure elements are beneth them When 〈◊〉 were come after this sorte from the highest order of 〈◊〉 to the earth which is the lowest element of all then it pleased the wyâ—…edome of God to make as it were a reuolt of all things and to returne his creatures from the bottom of the earth vpward againe towards him selfe He therefore made the â—…arth to bring sorth grene grasse with all such kind of things as haue animam vegetatiuam that is to saye as liue and are quick by the strength which they haue in them selues to grow and encreace of which kinde all herbes springs and trees be Aboue those in a higher degre were byrdes fishes beasts which haue a life sensitiue being able those that be perfit to moue from place to place Last of all God made man who hath not only the vegetatiue power and sensitiue in his soule but also reason and vnderstanding In whose body are the vertues of the foure elements with the 〈◊〉 of the heauâ—…ns in whose soule is free will and power to gouern agreable to the nature of angels and of heauenly spirits For which cause this creature hath bene worthely called euen of the Christâ—…n Philosophers 〈◊〉 a lytle world for that he alone hath in him all the degrees of creatures both liuing and without life both sensible and reasonable and therefore he is called in holy scripture Omnis creatura â—…ll creatures Now when the sonne of
holy porche or entry as it were compassed round about with golden garments But what reherse I things to come Dum in hac vita sumus vt nobis terra caelum sit facit hoc mysterium Whiles we are in this life this mysterie causeth that the earth is heauen to vs. By the iudgement of Chrysostom the fame body of Christ which is our saluation and life is set besore vs vpon the verie table to th' intent whiles we liue the earth should be heauen to vs and when we departed heuce carying that body with vs we should be safe conueied vnto heauen it self When he saith the earth is heauen to vs through this mysterie he meaneth nolesse to be set vpon the table it self or altar then is at the right hand of God the Father And this is the supper of our Lord which the Catholiks beleue and not an emptie dish of faith which although it be much worth when truthe is absent yet as in heauen where clere vision is no faith abydeth euen so when earth is through this mysterie made heauen to vs we receaue and eate the body of Christ not only by faith from heauen but also in truthe from the verie altar and table For as there is a truthe lesse of our bodies then of our soules and as the soules of the faithfull neuer lacked God whom they might feede on by faith spirit so Christ therefore toke flesh that our bodies also might haue a banket made to them and so the whole man might be noâ—…rished to life euerlasting Oportuit enim certe sayth Cyrillus vt non solum anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam alcenderet verum etiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu tactu cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur For it behoued truly that not only yâ— soule should ascend by the holy Ghost into the blessed life but also that this rude and earthly body should be brought to immortality by tasting touching eating the meate which were of alliance or kynred with it that is to say of the same nature and substance whereof our bodies are Thus in the Câ—…tholik banket of Christes supper not only the soule but euen the body eateth tasteth and toucheth such meat as is of the same blood and kynred with it That is to say our flesh eateth Christes flesh our body his body It was flesh that made vs all borne in originall synne it is flesh that maketh vs all regeâ—…erate in Christ. Our soule was spâ—…tted by the entrance into that flesh which was spotted Thereiore our soule is made cleane by the wasshing of that our flesh which was borâ—… in syn The flesh sayth Tâ—…rtullian is washed that the soule maie be cleansed The flesh is oynted that the soule maie be consecrated The â—…esh is sigued that the soule maie be defenced The flesh is shadowed with imposition of hand that the soule also may be defenced The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ that the soule may also be made sat of God Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniung it They cannot therefore be parted in reward whom work ioyâ—…eth Hitherto hath Tertullian commended to vs the great priuileges which God geueth to our flesh The greatest of all which is the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. As therefore we Catholiks beleue most vndoutedly not only that our soules be 〈◊〉 and redemed of Christ but euen that our flesh is the creature of God made with his own hands redemed by Christ and shall 〈◊〉 again at the later daie really and liue for euer with the soule of the iuste man euen so we beleue and professe that not only our soules but euen yâ— same flesh receaueth â—…to it the benefits of Chriâ—…s paâ—…on the Sacraments which he left to vs eating draiâ—…ing really vnder the formes of bread and wine the true substance of Christes body and blood This is the last supper of Christ which we Catholiks beleue and prosesse ¶ whâ—…t the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestants and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof NOw let vs consyder on the other syde what kinde of banket our new brethern teache They saye Christ geueth to the body bread and wyne but to the soule he geâ—…eth hym selfe by faith spirit and vnderstanding This opinion shall by Gods grace be straight waies proued faulâ—…ye and erroneous In dede before that Christ was made man such a banket as they speake of had bene much worth and was kept of Melchisedech and Abraham of the children of Israell eating Manna of the priests eating the bread and cakes which was offered according to the lawe For then with an earthly banket of bread of flesh and of wyne the ioyning of a spirituall eating by fayth and vnderstanding was the highest banket that could be made For as the spirit and fayth was vertuously occupied in lifting vp it self to God So was the body occupied in making a figure and signe of the true banket of Christ which was to come But when Christ had taken flesh of the virgyn Marye tunc 〈◊〉 Christum facta est then the truth was made by Christ. Truth perfoormed outwardly in fulfilling the corporall figures doth adde much vnto fayth and spirit In the fayth of good men and in the spirit of God Christ was euer man but not euer man in truth of nature Whilâ—…s Christ was only a spirit and only God so long the feast or banket which was geuen for hym had no better thing in it then the fayth and spirit of the eaters and drinckers for that was the highest gyft thâ—…t God as yet had geuen to man But all those eatings and drinkings which were in nature and in the law of Moyses though they had corporall meate with faith and spirit are so farre behind the supper of Christ after his manhod really assâ—…pted as the fayth of Christes incarnation is behind the incarnation it felfâ—… Mark the point good reader and thou shalt not be deceaued by false doctrine As Christ by his incarnation did geue a reall truth to the fayth of the old fathers and not a new spirite so in his last supper he geueth the same spirituall gyft to vs that he gaue to Abel Noe Abraham Moyses Dauid Daniell and such others but he geueth vs an other kind of truth then euer he gaue them The truthe made by Christ is the true flesh and blood which he tooke of his mother and the geuing of that truth to be eaten is the geâ—…ing of that flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wyne Therefore they that now say Christ geueth bread and wyne with spirituall gyfts wherein our soule eateth and drinketh Christes flesh and blood they graunt a good thing one way but an other way they take away the greatest goodnes that euer was geuen to man Their
that none other thing can 〈◊〉 inferred vpon those words then what thing this is as we saie or what thing this bread doth signifie as the Sacramentaries teache Admit now it were expresly said this bread is the signe of Christes body which sense is salsely ascribed to those words by the Zuinglians yet it wold not follow therevpon that the body of Christ is promised to our soules but only that by this bread we are brought to remember Christ. Now as for eating it is commanded and not promised Caluin had the cheif property of an heretike which was to be singular And therein he delighted so much that albeit he was determined not to tarie in the faith wherein he was Christened yet he wold neither goe to Luther who first withdrew himself from vs nor to Zuinglius whose sect he fauored rather but he wold make a religion of his own And therfore he deuised a new sense of Christes words Affirming This is my body not to be spoken to the bread as both Catholiks Lutherans and Zuinglians after diuers meanings doe confesse but to be words of preaching made vnto the people that stand about the Priest and that these words promise the body of Christ to al that beleue his death and resurrection as verily as that bread is really eaten into their bodies and yet neither be the words conceiâ—…ed in the manner of promising neither do they speake of faith or death or of the resurrection of Christ or of eating bread Is not this a strang sense to pick out of these words This is my body as if it were said Masters beleue that Christ is dead and risen again and then as this bread is eaten of your bodies so certainly shal you fede of his body in faith spirit Did â—…uer any man heare of such a 〈◊〉 Hoc This doth signifie and shew to Caluin the bread which must be eaten at the supper of Christ and pointeth also to a spirituall food which is promised Est Is doth stand both properly for the present time in yâ— it is a signe of Christes body at the tyme of speaking and also vnproperly for the tyme to come in that it is a promise of his body to be eaten spiritually Corpus meum My body doth signifie to him the signe of my body taken by mouth and the streÌ„gth or vertue therâ—…of that shal be taken by faith and spirit Put together This bread which you bodily eate is the signe this thing which I promise that your soules shall eate shall be the streÌ„gth or efficacie of my body and yet he addeth farther of his owne to them that beleue Christes death and resurrection This is the sermon which Caluin saith was made at Christes supper Wherein euery word must signifie at once two or three things and one verb in one tense must signifie two tymes and the same word body must signifie two proprieties and yet neither of them both properly For whether body stand for signe of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of bread it standeth vnproperly or whether iâ—… stand for efficacie of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of the communicants it standeth vnproperly whereas the proper signification thereof is to signifie the substance of Christes body If we presse him out of S. Paul and out of the Fathers that euil men eate the body of Christ then he will answere they eate the signe of his body without promise or efficacie If we saie that good men eate the body of Christ he expoundeth it in such sense that they first haue it promised them â—…ate both a certain pledge bodily and in their soules a spirituall efficacie thereof O crafty deuiser If thou canst thus deceaue a sort of miserable and either vnlerned or vngraciouse men thinkest thou to deceaue God or to escape his terrible iudgement Agree at the last how euery word shal be so taken that thy interpretation maie be like it self Let not the same word be now a signe now a pledge now a promise now an efficacie now again no efficacie no promise no pledge but only a signe We beleue that euery word standeth properly And that both euill and good receaue one and the same substance of Christes body But as one medicine receaued of two diuerse complexions worketh not one effect so the good men haue a good effect by eating worthely the body of Christ the euill haue condemnation by eating it vnworthely Thus we take the word body for the reall substance of the body the verb est is we take properly because it is in dede Christes body when the words are spoken This we saie doth finally point to the substance of Christes body as then prâ—…ently made vnder the foorm of bread In our interpretation there is no inconstancy no impropriety no changing of significations in the same words no bare promising of a thing to come bâ—…t a present perfoormance If any man aske by what scriptures I conuince Caluin I wold first â—…now by what scriptures he proueth his lewed interpretation Shall he speake a thing without scripture beside all truthe and reason and shall not we be credited vnlesse we conuince him by scripture Howbeit let vs forgeue that iniurie and confute his fond â—…pinioÌ„ by the word of God Caluin saith This ys my body be words of promise against which saing thus I reason S. Paule intending to shew that God was not bound to the carnall Iewes because they were the childern of Abraham by flesh but that rather he wold reward them who were the children of Abraham by faith and spirit declareth Isaac to haue ben the child of promise because the Angell said to Abraham Secundum hoc tempus veniam erit Sarae filius I will come according to this tyme and a sonne shal be vnto Sara out of which words S. Paule proueth a promise How so Promissionis enim hoc verbum est For this word or saing is a word of promise which word is that Veniam I will com filius â—…rit a sonne shal be as if S. Paule said wil shall be words of promise For when a speache is conceiued for the tyme to come with 〈◊〉 circumstance that it maie appere the speaker meant to warrant the thing spoken it maketh a promise If I will come and 〈◊〉 sonne shal be are words of promise I am come and a sonne is be words of perfoormance and that is also conâ—…irmed out os the word of God Where it is writâ—…n the Lord visited Sara as he had promised and fulfilled the things which he spake and she conceiued and brought foorth a sonne at yâ— tyme wherein god had foreâ—…old 〈◊〉 that which was before in S. Paul named a promise is â—…ow called also a foretelling or prediction For albeit euery prediction be not a promise yet euery promise is a prediction and a telling before hand so that we haue in the word of God that a promise telleth a
cause we doubt not to commit it to Gods word And that no man maie suspect we take the words of the Apologie to short that we expound them to hardly that we seeke aduantage vpon small occasion I will bring foorth their owne words which they haue more fully writen in an other place of the same Apologie concerning this matter We do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of godly and of faithfull men and such as are endued with the spirite of Christ. These felowes do teach that the very body of Christ maie in very dede and as they terme it really and substantially be eaten not only of wicked and vnfaithfull men but also it is horrible to speake it of mise and dogges Whether mise and dogges maie in some sense eate the body of Christ or no it is not worth while to discusse for so much as the Catholikes kepe the body of Christ so warely that neither mouse nor dogge maie come nigh to it But as yâ— Arrians threw downe the body and blood of Christ and trod thereon with their filthie feete and as the Donatists brake the chalices which as Optatus saith caried the blood of Christ so the Sacramentaries of England haue taken out of the holy pixes and troden vnder their prophane fecte the blessed body of Christ they haue sold broken and abused to filthy ministeries the chalices which haue holden Christes blood If the wicked men be able to pollute to tread on and to defile as much as lieth in them the body of Christ A thinke that to be worse then if mise and dogges did eate it Not that the immortall body of Christ can take any harme at all But yet a terrible damnation is reserued to them who being able to do it no hurte shewe not withstanding their vnsatiable malice against the highest mysterie of our redemption tredding vnder foote the sonne of God counting the blood of the new testament prophane and vnholy Leauing therefore this question we returne to the principall matter coÌ„fessing our selues to teache that the wâ—…ked men â—…ate in dede really the body of Christ in our Lords supper Thus we teach not only because the greater part of the Fathers haue deliuered so vnto vs but also because thus we learned of Christ. Who after bread taken hauing blessed gaue to Iudas one of the twelue bidding him take eate saying This is my body A worse man then Iudas I think is not lightly heard of Which amoÌ„g other things causeth vs to beleue that be the man neuer so euill yet if he take and eate after consecration and benediction he taketh and eateth really and in dede the body of Christ. Which vnworthy receauing of so precious a thing although it mislike Christ as all synne doth yet as he permitteth synne for the goodnes which he worketh by the occasion thereof so he thought it lesse euill that euil men should eate his body then that his Sacraments by any our infidelity should be made void or that the gift of his grace should be vncertaine For Christ in the institution of his SacrameÌ„ts dependeth not vpon our faith or vertue but vpon his owne mercy and truth Wherefore when so euer by a lawfull Priest intending to execute the ministerie commaunded by Christ it is dâ—…ely sayd ouer bread and wine This is my body and This is my blood Christ would it so to be as the wordes declare and who so euer receaueth that kind of food receaueth the body of Christ. whether well or â—…uill that dependeth vpon his worthy or vnworthy eating If any man eate vnworthely then will Christ complaine of him as he coÌ„plained of Iudas For straight after the deliuery of the blood he sayd as S. Luke doth witnesse and S. Augustine hath noted the same to pertaine to the Sacrament Veruntamen ecce manus tradentis me mecum est in mensa But yet see yâ— hand of him yâ— betrayeth me is with me on the table As if he had sayd You see what loue I shewe to you by geuing mine owne body to be eaten mine owne blood to be drunken in this my last supper this only greueth me that a very deuill doth eate drinke these preciouse giftes together with me and you Except our new brethren will say Iudas to haue bene a good faithfull man I see not but they must coÌ„fesse that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ deliuered to them Which thing S. Paul most euidently confirmeth of all euill Christians saying Therefore who so euer shall eate this bread or drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shall be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Doth not he that speaketh of vn worthy eating coÌ„fesse a true eating True I say in nature of the thing eaten but vnworthy coÌ„cerning the effect of grace ensewing And yet doe not euill men who receaue the body of Christ vnworthely eate really the same body It is written in the booke of the Machabees that King Antiochus hauing slaine foure score thousand within three dayes entred also into the holy Temple Et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa contrectabat indigne contaminabat And taking in his wicked hands the holy vessels he handled or touched them vnworthely and defiled them I aske whether it doth not folow Antiochus touched vnworthely the holy vessels therefore he tou ched the holy vessels If that argument be good it is like to say an euil man doth eate the body of Christ vnworthely therefore he doth eate yâ— body of Christ. Or did not Adam and 〈◊〉 eate of the â—…uit of the tree because they did eate the same against the commaundement of God For these defenders seme to make an vnworthy eating no eating Whereas if it were no eating it were not an vnworthy eating Perhaps they wil say S. Paul writeth not that synners wicked men eate the body of Christ vnworthely but that they eate this bread vnworthely Uerily S. Paul speaketh not of bakers bread in yâ— place But hauing shewed that Christ taking bread after thanks geuen sayd This is my body straight he inferreth that as often as this bread is eaten the death of Christ is shewed therefore who so eateth this bread vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body of our Lord. This bread is one certayn kinde of meate or foode for so bread in the holy scripture doth signifie which food before was declared to be the body of Christ. And S. Paul doth so warely describe this kind of bread that he putteth both an article and a pronoune to it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if it were said in English who so eateth vnworthely this certayn kinde of bread For so the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth â—… certayn bread spoken of before But then foloweth besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most vehemently restraineth that certayn bread
blood This can be but one thing Therefore Christ deliuering that whereof he sayd This and this deliuered at eche tyme but one thing in all but two things He deliuered his body blood as him self sayd and you coÌ„fesâ—…e he truly deliuered them wherevpon I conclude that he deliuered neither bread nor wine and consequently that the bread taken was changed in to the body of Christ and the wine was changed into his blood For seing Christ toke both bread and wine and deliuered truly his body and blood yet deliuered but one thing at eche tyme and that also keping the forme of bread and wine it must nedes be graunted that the substance of bread and wine which was truly taken and not truly deliuered because an other thing was truly deliuered was in the meane tyme truly changed into that body and blood which was truly deliuered O masters truth is strong and by the aduersaries own weapon getteth the victorie Again remember that the name of body and the name of blood are names belonging to the manhod of Christ to which manhod when you adioyne any act or work which may truly be verisied thereof it must be meant according to that truth which properly belongeth to the nature of the manhod When we say Christ was truly scurged nailed to the Crosse bound and buried it is not here to be vnderstanded that these things were don in figure in spirit in faith But that his body suffered according to the fâ—…esh all these things And he that saith the contrarie is an 〈◊〉 which heresie wold the manhod of Christ to be changed into his diuine nature If then the body and blood of Christ be truly dâ—…red you must not vuderstand a figure only to be dâ—…red neither a spiritual dâ—… only For if the body of Christ be deliuered truly and yet by spirit only then the truth of his body is by these men brought vnto the truth of a spirit and the flesh of Christ hath losi his true nature and propâ—… Mark wel the reason when the body of Christ is truly deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his own nature The nature of a body is to be dâ—…d after some bodily maner verily by hands or by some other corporail action And they to whom it is delâ—…red likewise receaue it by some part or sense of their body For so requireth the true nature of flesh and blood not immediatly to be geuen to the spirit and soule but to come to it by meane of the body Whereof it is inferred that the body and blood of Christ which are truly deliuered in the supper are bodily deliuered and bodily receaued But from the body of Christ who made the dâ—…ance vnto the bodies of the Apoâ—…es who receaued the things deliuered none other thing can â—…syde that which semed bread and wine therefore vnder that foormes the body and blood of Christ were truly contâ—…ined and by yâ— meanes truly deliuered and truly receaued Thirdly when you say the â—…sh of God quickeneth our soules you should haue sayd also that it quickeneth our bodies as in other places I haue proued out of the sixth of S. 〈◊〉 anâ—… out of S. Jreneus â—…tullian Cyrillus and other auncient Fathers ¶ what it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ â–ª ANd that the same supper is the coâ—…ion of the body and blood of Christ by the partaking whereof we are qâ—…ned we are 〈◊〉 and sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which 〈◊〉 and â—…th can not be 〈◊〉 from them whom it nourisheth and when it is cut of their reache they can not haue it before it be geuen If then we haue in 〈◊〉 yâ— body and blood of Christ we receaued it by his gift at his supper And surely it was the thing whereof he sayd Eate and whereof he sayd Drinke Other food was not deliuered in Christes supper beâ—… his body and blood Nor possiblie can we haue the food of his supper at any other mans table then at his Wel. If we be nourished by the meate which Christ gaue vs when he sayd Eate and yet we be nourished by his body and blood vndoubtedly he sayd Eate of that which he gaue with his hands and which the Apostles toke into their mouthes and that was bread to see vnto therefore vnder that â—…orme of bread we take the nourishment whereby we are sed to immortalitie Otherwise what warrant haue we to come by this food which is cleane out of our reache vntil God geue it saying Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood By those words oâ—…â—…ate one liquour only is geuen which also â—…deth vs to immortalitie as yâ— Apologie coâ—…h But none other food that man may receaue bodily can feed vs to immortalitie besyde the reall substance of Christ. therefore that substance is receaued nourisheth vs when Christ sayd Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood ¶ The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must nâ—…s be a naturall vnion â—…ore it be a mysticall ANd by the which we are coupled we are vnited and grafted into the body of Christ that we might â—…well in hinâ—… and he in vs. Christes â—…sh is deliuered to the end we should be nourished therewith And the end of nourishing is to make one thing of yâ— which is eaten and of him that eateth it The flesh deliuered to nourishe vs is not any mysticall flesh but only the natural flesh of Christ neither can it be any other food For none other thing that coâ—…th in at the mouth of man is able to seed him to immortalitie besyde the substance of Christes flesh and blood If then it be the naturall flesh which feedeth and the vnion doe come by seeding the vnion must of necesâ—…ty be made with the naturall flesh of Christ. And because that is such a flesh as being vnited to God hath power to geue life and â—…mortality out of the naturall vnion which is made with it by eating an other spiritual and mystical vnion floweth which maketh all the members of Christ to be one mysticall body So that we haue now fiâ—…e degrees First the slesh of Christ is deliuered to vs in his supper Next we eate the same flesh Thirdly we are fed by it if we eate it worthely Fourthly of yâ— feeding conuneth a reall and naturall vnion and ioyning with Christes flesh as S. Hilarie teacheth and other auncient Fathers Of that naturall vnion procedeth a spirituall vnion with the whole body of the Church Because being made one with Christes flesh we are vnited thereby to his spirit and Godhead liuing for him as he â—…th for his Father whereof I will speake more hereafter The Apologie acknowledgeth a ioyning with Christ by eating But it surely meaneth the last spirituall ioyning which ariseth of the other naturall vnion Whereas that spiritual ioyning doth â—…ude the other natural as euery effect presupposeth the necessarie
the flesh blood of Christ they haue inuented such kind of speaking as may both seme to agree with the Scriptures and yet withall mayntein their false doctrine The which thing that thou mayest the better vnderstand this is to be consydered The Catholike faith is that Christ in one person hath two natures The nature of God and the nature of man which two natures are ioyned and vnited together into one person after such sorte that what so euer is said of the one nature may be sayd of the other if we speake by that worde which signifieth the person For example we may say that man was in heauen before the ascension of Christ and that God died not because the nature of God could be borne of a woman or dye or the nature of man could be in heauen before the ascension of Christ but because that which was borne and dyed was also God and that which was in heauen was also man albeit his byrth and death was by the nature of man and his being in heauen by the nature of God The natures then tary distinct but yâ— pâ—…rson of God man is but one Now shall you see the meane whereby these new prechers go about to deceaue you They say Christ geueth him selfe in his SacrameÌ„ts The word Christ doth signifie his person wherein he is both God man Likewise the word him self is a word belonging to his person wherein both natures of God man are conteyned Now when they say Christ geueth him self they meane that he being God man geueth by some spiritual way the vertue of his flesh blood which they call him self for that he as God being euery where may dwell in vs more excellently by charitie as the Father and the holy Ghost doe But they meane not by geuing of him selfe the reall gifte of his person and of both natures which are ioyned therein after such sort that our whole nature might receaue his nature For then they should teache that which we doe But howsoeuer they bable of our soules they will graunt our bodies no touching nor tasting of him no not so much as vnder yâ—â—…oormes of bread and wine You haue heard what they say Now heare what Christ sayeth Christ speaketh of him self in diuerse places diuersely Due where he sayeth I will not leaue you Orphans I will come vnto you There he speaketh of his person and concerning the nature of Godhead as it appereth afterward where it is written If any man loue me he will kepe my word and my Father will loue him and we will come vnto him and make a mansion or dwelling with him or at his howse Here he speaketh first in such sort of his own coming that his Father as it appered afterward might come after the same sort Then was it the coming of God and not of man At his departure when he ascended from the world into heauen he sayd Behold I am with you all dayes euen vntill the consummation of the world These words may be meant as well by the nature of manhod which we haue with his Godhead in the Sacrament of the altar and so some holy Doctors haue taken them as also by the only nature of the Godhead which is euery where by maiestie and in good men by grace In an other place he sayd Poore men ye shall haue allwayes with you me ye shall not haue allwayes Where by the word me he meaneth not his Godhead which is allways euery where but the nature of his manhod and that not as it is in the Sacrament but as it was when he spake in a visible forme of a poore man who had not any howse of his own where he might reste his head Last of all let vs marke after what sorte he sayd that he wold be in his blessed supper Dyd he say I will geue my self to be eaten and to be drâ—…nken If he had sayd so yet seing he had mentioned eating and drinking which according to the letter rather belongeth to his manhod then to his Godhead we should rather haue thought that the words must haue bene taken properly then improperly To eate the substance of a man may be sayd properly for in deed it may be eaten with mouth and teeth but to eate the substance of God it is sayd vnproperly For it can not be eaten with teethe and mouth as also S. Cyrillus hath noted but only with vnderstanding and faith If then Christ had sayd before supper I will geue my self to be eaten and had sayd at his supper I do geue my self to be eaten These words with a circumstance of a supper had made so stroÌ„gly for the bodily geuing of him selfe that their part had bene more probable who had vnderstanded it of his manhod With whom if the tradition of the Apostles had stood there were no doubt but he should haue bene a wicked heretik who when Christ had sayd I geue my self to be eaten wold haue denyed that we had eaten the humane nature of Christ. But now attend what words Christ vsed He forcseing this hearesie made 〈◊〉 agaynst it and therefore he sayd not I will geue or do geue my self to be eaten as heretiks now delight to speake but I geue my flesh my body my blood These are not wordes of personage which may be applyed two wayes but they are the words of nature and only of mans nature For God by yâ— nature of his Godhead hath neither flesh ne blood ne soule ne body ne bone Christ as man hath all these things Now do the heretiks and false preachers of our age maruclously deceaue the people of God who alwayes say that they diminish not Christes benefite nor do not abuse the Lords supper 〈◊〉 say they we teache that Christ geueth his owne self and they repete agayne and agayn his owne self his owne self And thereby they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by fayth spirit and vnderstanding Wholy robbing vs of that flesh which dyed for vs and of that blood whiche was shed for vs. For although God was able to haue saued man otherwyse yet he swetely disposed our saluacioÌ„ by sending his dere soÌ„ne to take of the virgyn our flesh and blood This flesh and this blood worketh our saluacion Which he yâ— taketh away from the Sacrament of the altar depriueth vs of the meane whereby to come to life euerlasting For as by this flesh and blood we are redemed So that redemption is applyed to all that be of lawful age by worthy eating and drinking thereof Now when these preachers cry vnto you of God of fayth of spirit of vnderstanding of vertue they seme perhaps to say goodly things but they craftily put you from that only meane of fleshe and blood whereby God hath ordeyned our saluacion Abraham was the sather of al beleuers because neuer any mans belefe was so
outwardly celebrated thereof and not only diuerse predictioÌ„s were made by the Prophetes concerning the same but also when Christ him selfe was come into the world he did both make an introduction to the promise of his supper by a miraculouse blessing and breaking of fiue and seueÌ„ loaues to the Iewes and more ouer in expresse words foretold that he wold geue his flesh to be eaten euen the same flesh which he wold geue for the life of the world But for so muche as some men thinke that Christ in the sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon speaketh not properly at all no not so muche as by the way of promise of his last supper I must as well proue against them who thinke so that Christ spake in that place of the gift which he afterward made in his parting banket As also that the reall presence of his flesh and blood is euidently proued by such words of promise as he there vttered For it can not be doubted but the truthe it self performed all that in deed it self whiche his words had before promised for the tyme to come Neither ought it to be a grief to any man if in handling these matters I seeme to intreat of hard questions which are aboue the capacitie of the vulgar people For the nature of all holy mysteries is such that as S. Augustine sayeth it may soner be impugned popularly and plausibly then be so defended Which notwithstanding I haue done what I can to vtter all things plainly And yet who is there that now can iustly find fault with me for handling deepe and obscure matters Is not euery man sufficiently instructed by this tyme to iudge of all points in diuinitie Is not that man who in parlement scared not to sit iudge of this high mysterie and without the consent of any one Prelate in that howse to condemne the vnbloody sacrifice of the blessed Masse is not that man able to vnderstand suche writings as are set foorth in that behalf He that must if a parlement be called prescribe a faith vnto me what say I vnto me he that will take vpon him to prescribe it to all the realme to generall Councels yea to the whole Churche he that will accuse his Fathers and graundfathers euen to the tenth generation of ignorance of superstition and of idolatry he that accompteth him self spirituall and therefore sufficient to discerne doctrines spirits will he say that a poore scholar of Oxforde doth write to high for his vnderstanding If it be so let him vnderstand that the sayd scholar is a very base member in Christes Church and a very ignorant man in re pect of those notable Bisshops other diuines whom he heard and sawe at the Councell of Trent with suche admiration that 〈◊〉 deed he was neither able nor worthy to speake among them Let him vnderstand that those Fathers did so exactly serche out the truth of the present controuersies as well by conferring together the holy Scriptures as by vewing the bookes of the aun cient Doctors ánd Councels that they spent in some one matter fower moneths coÌ„tinual To be short let him vnderstand yâ— seing the tenth part of the learned men 〈◊〉 Christendome came not to yâ— Councell and yet there were in it aboue two hundred persons of suche excellencie for wit learning vertue that it passed much more the wisedom of any one realme then the graue Senate of a whole realm doth excede that particular Councell of neuer so meane a Litie Let him I say vnderstand what wisedom what knowlege what iudgement is and hath bene in the whole Church of God by the space of fiftene hundred yeres together The preaching practise and gouernement of which long tyme a few such feared not of late by their open voices to coÌ„demne as to whom if a maÌ„ should at their own howse propose a very meane probleme or doubt in diuinitie they wold not only refuse to answer therevnto but they wold also confesse plainly that they neuer studied the science of Diuinitie They wold swere if nede were that they neuer attended principally to any other thing then to serue God and their Prince and to hauke or hunt Whereof I put them in mind to the end they should depely coÌ„syder with what temeritie they attempted to determine the high and secret points of Christian faith and that knowing their fault they should bewaile amend the same I beseche God to geue vs al grace to know our selues and tâ—… beware that whiles we couet to be as Gods in vnderstanding the Scriptures we tast not of the tree which is named the knowlege of good and euill and afterward be cast out of Paradise because we contented not our selues with the order and condition which our Lord had appointed for vs. I trust although the matters which I intreat of be very hard to make them yet plain by such help as the auncieÌ„t Fathers haue left vnto vs in their most learned works and commentaries According to whose wisedome I wil expound those places of S. Ihon which specially appertein to my purpose The Chapiters of the third booke 1. The Argument of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn is declared 2. It is proued by circumstances and by the confereÌ„ce of holy Scriptures that Christ speaketh in S. Iohn of his last supper 3. The same is proued out of the Fathers and Councels 4. Answer is made to them that teache the coÌ„trary out of the Fathers 5. Item to them that teache the contrary out of the Scriptuâ—…es 6. The gift of the euerlasting meate is shewed to be the gift of Christes flesh at his supper 7. The equalitie of substance alleged betwene Christ and his Father proueth one substance to be geueÌ„ both of God the Father to Christ and of Christ to vs. 8. Christ is not the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh except we eate really his own flesh 9. Whereas three giftes are named in S. Iohn Christes gift partaketh of both the other therefore conteineth his reall flesh vnder a figure 10. The midle state of the new Testament betwene the law and glory requireth the same truth which is in heauen to be geueÌ„ vnder a figure 11. The bread that Christ will geue which is his flesh must nedes be meant of the substance of his flesh 12. Christ himself sheweth that the eating of him by faith or in a figure only differeth far from the real eating of his flesh in his last supper 13. Christes flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is at baptism In so much that childern were somtyme communicated 14. That S. Augustin did not teache these wordes except ye eate the flesh caet to betoken only eating by faith and spirit or by figure alone 15. Christes flesh being meate in dede must needes be really present to be eaten 16. By the maner of Christes tarying in vs it is ê“ued that we eate his
reall flesh 17. VVe are one with Christ by eating his flesh in the naturall substaÌ„ce thereof as he is one nature with his Father by eternall generation 18. The reall presence of Christes hody vvas so true that it vvas taught with the losse of many disciples 19. How the flesh profiteth nothing vvithout the spirit 20. The wordes of Christ being spirit and life make and witnesse his flesh to be present miraculously and aboue the course of nature ¶ The argument of the sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon is declared WHereas Christ may be receaued either by faith spirit only without the Sacrament of the altar or els in the Sacrament of the altar only without liuely faith and grace or in both together which is the most fruitfull kinde of communicating some haue thought that in the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn there is no talke of the second and third kinde of receauing which is referred to the Sacrament of the altar but only of the first which is by faith and charitie Merily those men are not to be blamed for saying yâ— Christ speaketh not there of yâ— second kinde of eating which is by SacrameÌ„t alone without spirituall eating and drinking for thereof in deed he speaketh not but they are to be reprehended if they denie yâ— he speaketh of such SacrameÌ„tall eating as is vsed in our Lords supper when it is as it always ought to be worthely receaued My purpose is at this tyme to shew that albeit Christ in the former part of that Chapiter speaketh for the most part of spirituall eating and drinking only yet afterward he speaketh also of that eating which is by receauing worthely the Sacrament of that altar at yâ— Priests hands for to that ende chiefly goeth all the talke of it not as though spirituall receauing alone were not better then only Sacramentall receauing but because both together are better then one alone Christ presseth his Disciples to such a receauing of him selfe as is most perfit of all For proofe of which thing I am constrained briâ—…fly to touche the tyme and order of Christes talke A litle more then one whole yere before his passion Christ about the greate feast of Easter went beyond the sea of Galilee and wrought that notable miracle wherein he fedde about fiue thousand men with fiue loaâ—…es and two fishes Wherby yâ— people were induced yâ— rather to seeke him that next day at 〈◊〉 Whom he no 〈◊〉 sawe but he did put them in mind of yesterdays miracle telling them that they followed him not for the signessake which they had sene but because they had eaten their bellies full of bread as though he had sayd my intent was that you should rather haue noted the miracle then haue respected your bellies â–ª which 〈◊〉 sith you haue not done of your selues I warne you thereof willing you to worke not the meate which perisheth as yesterdays bread fish did but that which tarieth vnto life euerlasting which the Sonne of man will geue you In these words Christ doth manifestly declare as also S. Chryâ—…ostom hath noted that the miracle of fiue loaues appertained in some part vnto his last supper whereof he intended at that tyme to speake taking an occasin of that bread which by blessing and thanksgeuing he had multiplied For which cause he sayd worke 〈◊〉 other kind of meaâ—…e then ye did yesterday for yâ— meate is now perished and ye are a hungred againe Worke a meate that may tary longer with you yâ— may tary vnto euerlasting life Hitherto the words of Christ may be meant â–ª by spirituall eating and drinking only Bâ—…t the words that follow do meane also a further kinde of eating and drinking For when he sayth which the sonne of man wil geue you he plainely meaneth that gift of his last supper as Theophylact doth witnesse but yet vttereth his meaning after a secret sort as S. Cyrillus doth write vpon the same place And in dede that is the gift which is namely reserued in this Chapiter to the sonne of man as it shall appere afterward But because they could not come to yâ— worthy working of Chrstes own gift vntill yâ— worke of faith were by y◠〈◊〉 wrought in them he straight declareth by an occasion taken of the olde figure manna how they must haue faith from God to beleue vpon him for that he was the bread of life who came downe from heauen to geue life euâ—…rlasting both in body and soule to all such as his Father brought vnto him for who so euer should eate of that bread which him selfe was should liue for euer After which preparation made he retourneth to expound his owne gifte which he named the gifte of the Sonne of man shewing most expressely that which he will geue in his last supper And the bread which I will geue is my flesh for the life of the world The gift of spirituall eating by faith charitie was not to come when Christ spake vnto his Disciples For it was then present therefore he sayd presently I am the bread of life meaning that he was presently so coÌ„cerning spiritual feeding in so much as if any man would haue beleued in him euen at that instaÌ„t he might through grace haue eaten of Christ. But Christ sayth his own peculiar gift was to come and there fore he continueth expounding his gift in many sentences vntill at the last he sayth he that eateth this bread which him self had before promised to geue to be eaten shall liue for euer I will by Gods grace make the proofe hereof so plaine hereafter as any reasonable man shall desire Only first protesting that I folowe not myne own braine herein but that iudgemeÌ„t of all yâ—â—…cient Fathers who with one accorde haue taken this Chapiter to speake by way of promise of the Sacrament of the altar which was iustituted by Christ in his last supper ¶ It is proued by circumstances by the coÌ„ference of holy Scriptures yâ— Christ speaketh in S. Ihon of his last supper HE yâ— doth well consider the only time when this talke was had he that weygheth how Christ hauing made that greate miracle in blessing fiue loaues doth the next daie about the time of Easter one whole yere before the celebrating of his last supper as it wer make both a prophecie and a promise what he would do yâ— Easter twelue moneth after he that conferreth as well what was done and sayd abonte the sea of Tiberias and at CapharnauÌ„ as what was done and said in the last supper which was kept the night wherein he was betrayed he that noteth the fathers gift to be accompted present and that to be the working of belefe in that hartes of the faithful which is a spiritual eating of Christ but yâ— soÌ„nes gift to be rekoned as a thing to come hereafter and to be called eating his flesh and drinking his blood Wich if it
of God to make you beleue neither doe they differ onely because in the supper a bodily signe of that thing is eaten where vpon we feed by faith but because that thing is receaued into our bodies where vppon we feed by faith In so much that of purpose Christ impugneth destroyeth the SacrameÌ„tary doctrine by these his wordes in this Chapiter wherein as I haue heretofore noâ—…ed diuerse kindes and tymes of geâ—…ng because God by Moyses gaue naked figures in the tyme past the father him self geueth presently the true naturall flesh of his naturall sonne to our eyes and hartes and Christ will geue hereafter the same true fleshe vnder the forme of breade to our mouthes and mindes so now must I note diuerse workings of the sayd gifts One worke aunswered to Gods gift by Moyses another to the fathers gist and the third to Christes gift By Moyses his minister God gaue Manna This bread was only corporall and the people wrought the substaÌ„ce thereof only with their teeth bellies other thing was there not in it whiche myght be wrought for although it were ordeined to be a figure oâ—… a greater thing to come in Christ yet that was no parte of the Manna it self but consisted and had his whole ground in the appointemeÌ„t of God and in the vnderstanding of yâ— people of God to whom if they were well instructed and so toke it MaÌ„na was a figure and whether they toke it so or no it was ordeined to be a figure but not to them profitable who toke it onely for bodily food Again those which vnderstode wel what Manna signified had not any good by the meat it self but looked for it of the truth which Manna shadowed for whiche cause Christ saith your fathers haue eaten Manna in the desert and are dead as who should say Manna by his owne vertue could saue none of them all but that true breade Iesus Christ only saueth whiche Manna dyd signifie The second gift is the present gift of the Father whereof Christ sayeth My 〈◊〉 doth geue you the true bread froÌ„ heauen This gift of the father muste be wrought not by teeth and bellies as Manna was but by fayth and spirite And therefore S. Augusâ—…ine saith vpon this place Vt quid paras dentem ventrem Cre de máducasti What doest thou prouide tooth and belly beleue and thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third gift is that where Christ promiseth to geue his flesh and the working of it is to eate worthely the same fleshe vnder the forme of bread God the father is sayd to gene the true bread whiche is Christ him selfe in such sorte as he is God and man in one person and the same one God doth worke faith in all that heare his voyce by the which faith they may worke vpon Christ and eate of him by spirit Of this worke it is sayde This is the worke of God that ye beleue vpon him whom he hath sent of this kind of working it is sayd He that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer To be short of this worke doth Christ speake specially and in maner wholy from that place where he sayd that the Father geueth the true bread for twenty sentences together vntyll he conclude that kind of working by these words If any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer â–ª Take the payne to reade ouer once or twise the Chapitre of S. Jhon from that place where it is sayd operamini worke not that meat which perisheth and so forth to the end and conferte therewith that which I now write and you shal see as clevely as can be that Christ distincteth as thre giftes so thre workings of theÌ„ As God by Moyses gaue the delicate bread called Manna so they wrought vppon it by eating the same bread with their teth As God the father geueth yâ— true bread Iesus Christ so the faithfull must worke it by beleuing and their reward shal be life euerlasting But as thou doest tender thy soule health so goe forward with me to the third giâ—…t and the third working or eating which in dede yf it be done profitably conteineth both a bodily and a spi rituall working a bodily with manna a spirituall with the gifte of God the father a bodily to 〈◊〉 the manhod of Christ a spirituall to eate it fruitfully the eating is spirituall because it requireth faith in Christ and loue towards God and our neighbours the same eating is bodily becauâ—…e it in dede eateth vnder that forms of bread and wine that fleshe of Christ whiche it beleueth in saith and harte First Christ sheweth his gift saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world That this gifte doth differ from the gifte of Moyses who gaue bare breade it is easily sene For the sonnes gift tarieth for euer but MaÌ„na perished and they that dyd eate it concerning any vertue that Manna had in his own substaÌ„ce to saue them from death The working of this gift is also named eating and drinking but yet after another sort then the eating of Manna was vnder Moyses for here the truth is eaten that was figured in Manna But how it differeth from the fathers gifte and the worke whiche belongeth to the fathers gifte there standeth a great part of this question Here I must warne the Reader that he coÌ„found not him self for in ofte repeating what the Father and what the sonne why the Father and why the sonne geueth this or that it is to be seared least the mynd gorâ—…et the chief distinction and so take one part in stead of the other The Father and the sonne yea the holy ghost also be all one God and giue al one thing But the holy scripture for the instruction of vs and by reason of Christes flesh assumpted doth attribute sometyme one thing to the Father an other to yâ— sonne an other to the holy ghoste meaninge most commonly by the name of the Father God and the whole Trinitie according to the whiche appropriation of workes and giftes we now intend to speake The Father is sayd to geue many waies in this chapiter he geueth faith into our hartes he geueth Christ to the world in flesh he geueth Christ to vs and geueth vs to Christ. Therefore the gift of the Father may be respected speciallie two wayes either in Christ him self or in vs toward Christ. The Fathers gift in Christ him â—…elf is reall and externall because he sendeth and geueth his only begotten Sonne in the true flesh of man to be seen heard and felt The Fathers gift in respect of yâ— we receaue of him is reall but internal spiritual and without working outwardly that same sensible gift which is wrought inwardly For after the Father had once geuen flesh to his Sonne all sensible and externall working was worthely committed
Nyssa reasoneth our nature is not at any certain state but continueth in his substance by perpetuall motion drawing to it that which it lacketh and expelling superfluoâ—…se things As therefore our baptim is made by real washing with water real renewing of yâ— holy Ghost so nowe in the supper of Christ it behoueth we be really fed with the fruit of the 〈◊〉 of life which is â—…one other thing besyde the flesh of Christ. That flesh thâ—…n 〈◊〉 be really eaten of vs and not only eaten by spirit 〈◊〉 is conuenient for Angels but satisfieth not the necessitieâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature but eaten by mouth and body For of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ at this tyme neither is it worth while to say that the body shall eate bread while the soul feedeth vpon the flesh of Christ. For the bread and wine haue no promise made in this place of them For albeit bread and wine be necessarie to the consecrating of the Sacrament yet the substance of theÌ„ is not necessarie at yâ— tyme of receauing the Sacrament it is only the flesh which died for vs that Christ promiseth to geue to be eaten it is the flesh of the sonne of man which if we eate not we shall not haue life in vs. It is Christes flesh which if we eate he will reise vs vp at the last day That flesh of his must be eaten his only blood must be drunken This threatning which is made if we receaue not worthely the flesh of Christ must be vnderstanded in his kind like the other threatning precept made before concerninge baptism where it was sayd except a man be borne again of water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen bothe are Sacraments both necessarie to faithful men and both profitable to life euerlasting that whiche water doth in wasshing vs the fleshe of Christ must do in feeding vs. for this cause the ancient Fathers haue alwais both ioyned these two Sacraments together and haue alleged these two places for them the one out of the third the other out of the sixth of S. Iohn and they haue named the one baptism of wasshing and the other is called Christes body and blood of that substance whiche is geuen in it What should I name here S. Cyprian S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Augustine all the rest who reckon euery where the same truth of flesh to be in the 〈◊〉 which is concerning water in baptisme Therefore as the water which washeth vs is present really so must the fleshe of Christ which feedeth vs be made really present As baptisme can not be truely kept without naturall water so can not the supper of Christ be truely kept without his naturall flesh As if an euil maÌ„ come to baptism he is truly washed though not profitably to him self so if an euill man come to the supper of Christ he truly though not worthely receaueth his flesh As it is not enough for the Sracrament of baptism to haue water present in faith only and in spirite or vnderstanding so the presence of Christes flesh by faith spirite or vnderstanding only suffiseth not to make the Sacrament of his supper I pray you what vnderstanding had children wherewith they might receaue the body and blood of Christe and yet seing it is 〈◊〉 by the witnesse of S. Cyprian of S. â—…unocentius and of S. Augustin that children although without euident 〈◊〉 receaued the 〈◊〉 in many places of christendoÌ„ euen while the Churche was yet in his cheife floure it can not be denied but in that age all those Bishops Doctors and preachers which vsed to do so dyd well vnderstand that the receauing of the Eucharist consisted not in receauing Christ by actuall faith and meditation of his death and resurrection but in the vertue of those visible giftes which were sanctified by the Priestes vpon the holy altar of God and thence distributed to the faithfull people Tâ—…at custome of so auncient time vsed more for a securitie theÌ„ for necessitie yet was approued of God thus farre that we thereby might haue an 〈◊〉 witnesse of the learned farthers aucthority against them who doubt not to affirme all the writers and preachers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ to haue beleued of our Lords supper as the new preachers do now proâ—… in England But the new preachers make the substance of Christes supper to 〈◊〉 in faith in spirite and in vnderstanding And that not in 〈◊〉 saith whiche another man 〈◊〉 for me as it is dâ—…ne for 〈◊〉 antes at the 〈◊〉 bâ—…t teache tâ—…e â—…upper â—…o conâ—…ist in 〈◊〉 faith as euery man for him self bringeth and 〈◊〉 So that if a man thinke not of Christes death and lifting vp his hart doe not swetely feede vppon Christ sitting at the right hand of his Fa ther they say he doth not receaue our Lords body And they teach that he eateth nothing but breade and wine and toucheth nor the body and blood of Christ at all Of whoÌ„ I aske what S. 〈◊〉 what all the other Bishops of Aâ—…rica thought If they had thought so as these men doe they would not haue geueÌ„ the Eucharist to children and infants who could not â—…uminate Christes passion nor thinke vpon him sitting in heauen They doutlesse beleued farre otherwise of the Sacrament then so They beleued the body and blood of Christ to be really conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine and therefore that children might haue profite by receauing it into their verie bodies soules albeit they could not lift vp their mindes actually to heauen The matter in those daâ—…es dyd not stand vppon the faith of men but vpon the word of God who said this is my body This I say which I bid you take this whiche I geue this whiche I bid you eate What a toy is it nowe for our Sacramentaries to imagin an eating aboue the sky whereas the body is geuen to the Apostles hands mouthes by Christ himself and to the haÌ„ds or mouthes of other faithfull men by his ministers in earth ¶ That S. Augustine did not teach these words except ye eate the flesh c. to betoken the eating oâ—… Christ onâ—…y by faith and spirit nor yet the eating oâ—… materiall bread with 〈◊〉 remembrance of him but the eating of his flesh to theâ—…d we may be the better wyned to the spirit of God IF any speache sayth S. Augustin seme to command a dishonorable acte or vncharitable deed or to forbyd a profitable or benesiciall thing that speache conteineth some figure Fxcept ye eate sayth our Lord the slesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you He semeth to command a dishonorable act or an euyll deed It is therefore a figure coÌ„manding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord and yâ— we should swetely and profitably remember that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. This place of S. Augustine
to an other wax doth make one thing of twain which is the similitude made here by S. Tyrillus What like ioyning to that other similitude of the leauen can be if no leaueÌ„ that is to say no benediction or no flesh of Christ be receaued into vs which may draw vs to it What mingling together is made of things that be so far distant as heauen and earth If you say faith and spirit doth ioyne mingle knitte Christ to vs and vs to Christ and make vs to tarie in him and him to tarie in vs either you geue a cause of yâ— ioyning which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ or els you correct his cause and put a better If the faith spirit whereof you speake shal stand with Christes cause it must be such faith as doth concurre with the eating of his flesh For he now sayd not he that beleueth in me tarieth in me but he yâ— eateth my flesh tarieth in me Therefore though ye beleue neuer so wel yet your present tarying in Christ is not assigned to faith but vnto eating Faith is necessarie to worthy eating and coÌ„sequently to our tarying in Christ. But not euery ground which is necessarie to a thing is by and by yâ— cause thâ—…reof Or though it be one cause it is not the only cause In the former part of this chapiter saith had his due commendation But now Christ speaketh of eating his flesh and saith it maketh vs tary that is to say to be ioyned to him wholy and to be mingled with him as well in body as in soule which thing can not be otherwise then through that we eate his flesh substantially He that leauing that eating of Christes flesh staieth vpon feeding by faith alone correcteth the cause assigned by Christ and also depriueth vs of that naturall tarying in him whereof he now intreateth ¶ We are made one with Christ by natural participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his Father hath assumpted our nature into his own person HE that eateth Christes flesh tarieth in Christ and receaueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirit only but also by natural participation of his flesh which thing Christ declareth by this example As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue for the Father also he that eateth me shal him self liue for me But Christ liueth not for his Father by faith at all because he seeth his glorie face to face nor yet by the meane of spirit alone as we take spirit for deuotion or els for spiritual gifts and qualities but he liueth for his Father hauing his Fathers whole substance really present in him self therefore we that eating Christ liue in like maner for him must haue his whole substance really present in vs and so must we receaue life not by faith or spirit alone but by taking the flesh of life it self into our bodies and soules Thus veriâ—…ic Christ doth meane That we may reache to the true ground of this comparison it behoueth we lerne first how Christ liueth for his Father and then we may vnderstand how we receauing his flesh worthelie shall liue also for him Christ hauing two natures in one person may be sayd to liue for his Father according to either of bothe natures As God he liueth for his Father for that he is eternally begotten of him to whom the Father geâ—…eth his whole nature substance life glorie so that uo diâ—…ference is betwene the Father and the sonne but that the sonne is begotten of the Father and the Father is altogether vnbegotten and without any relation to a farther beginning This order wherein the sonne otherwise equall God 〈◊〉 his Father doth yet alwaies refer his generation and life to an euerlasting beginning is the cause why Christ as God liueth for his Father the which interpretation S. Hilarie S. Basile S. Chry sostom and S. Augustine doe confesse may well agree to this place Christ as man liâ—…eth for his Father because his Father sent him to take flesh whose flesh being of it self neither able to geue life euerlasting nor to haue it in his own nature yet for the word wherevnto it is vnited in one person both hath life and geueth life now the word is naturally one God and one life with the Father this second sense doth better please S. Basile S. Augustine and S. Cyril although they allow the former also but this second sense doth more agree with those words sicut misit me pater as my Father sent me For the sending of Christ was the taking of flesh at his incarnation bothe senses agree herein that both life is really and corporally dwelling in Christes flesh through the Godhead and the Godhead is naturally with Christ through that he is the sonne of God the Father Two things are to be noted in this comparison the one is the real presence of life the other is the hauing of it by gift and by relation to a farther cause or beginning For as Christes flesh liueth for the word of God to whom it is really vnited and the word of God liueth for the Father whose whole substaÌ„ce it hath really receaued by generation without beginning of tyme so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ hauing the substance of his flesh really present with him and thereby partaketh life euerlasting This verie sense Christes words haue both by the conference of the text it self and also by the interpretation of S. Hilarie who by this scripture confuteth the Arrians that sayd Christ to be inferiour to his Father not to be equall God with him To mainteine the which heresie they brought foorth a similitude of vnitie which is made in holy scripture betwene God the Father Christ and vs affirming Christ to be one with his Father as we are one with him but sayd they we are one with Christ only by will and consent therefore Christ is one with his Father only after the same sort to which argument S. Hilarie answering turneth it vpon their own heads in this wise Viuit ergo per patrem quomodo per patrem viuit eodem modo nos per carnem eius viuemus omnis enim comparatio c. Christ then liueth by his Father and as he liueth by his Father after the same maner we shal liue by his flesh for euery comparison is presumed to be made according to the forme and concept of our vnderstanding to thintent the matter whereof we intreat may be so perceaued as the example geueth which is proponed This truly is the cause of our life in so much as we haue Christ abyding by flesh in vs who consist of flesh and he shall liue through him by such condition as he liueth through his Father Yf we then liue through him naturally according to flesh that is to wit hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can he but haue naturally the Father
in him self according to the spirit or Godhead sith he liueth through the Father S. Hilarie sheweth first in these words y◠there is a similitude of liuing betwene vs and Christ and betwene God the Father and Christ. we liue for Christ by eating his flesh as he liueth for his Father who sent him but we saith S. Hilarie liue for Christ by eating his flesh in such sort that we haue the nature of his flesh in vs. Therefore Christ liuing for his Father hath his Fathers nature in him self Thus haue the Arrians gained nothing by saying that the Father was one with Christ as Christ is one with vs. For Christ is found to be one with vs naturally and thereunto it suffiseth not that Christ toke our naturall flesh in his mothers womb for Christ spake not of that vnitie otherwise the gentils Iewes heretiks and heinouse synners should be naturally one with Christ which thing is not so for to be one with Christ it behoueth that as he toke our nature into his own person we take his nature into our bodies soules Two reasonable parties which haue both free will consist of bodies be not properly made one in nature if they bothe do not as well consent thereunto in mind as also approche in bodies Lett vs put an example betwene Dina and Sichem for although Sichem had by force oppressed Dina corporally yet she not consenting in hart thereunto was not throughly and in her whole nature made one with him for that the cheif part of her dissented Again lett vs put the ca◅e that two other persons be together in hart wisshing to be man and wise but yet that they can not come together because bothe or one of them is inclosed in prison these also are not one naturally as long as their bodies be asonder euen so albeit Christ haue the same nature which all men haue excepting synne yet he is not naturallie that is to say in the whole truth of nature one with vs thereby except we both in hart and body approche vnto him If we come to him in body alone we come vnworthely if in hart alone it is a spiritual coniunction which will serue if either necessitie or infamie kepe vs from natural coniunction but if we come to lawful age haue opportunitie we must approche both in body and soule to the Sacrament of Christes supper to be made one with him naturally that is to say to take his body really into ours to th' end the spirit and Godhead which dwelleth corporally in that body of his may fede our spirit and soule which beleueth in him to life euerlasting Of this kind of liuing Christ spake when he sayd he that eateth me lineth for me as I liue for my Father And it is to be consydered that Christe brought the similitude of his own liuing for his father to shew thereby how we doe line for him when we eate him But S. Hilarie was so sure of this later part of the similitude to wit that we liue for Christ by naturall coniunction of his body and spirite to our bodies and soules when we eate him that thereby he proued Christ to be one with his father in nature and substance And now come our new Sacramentaries teaching the argument of S. Hilarie to be nothing worth because they presuppose Christes fleshe not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his own nature and substance whereby they also affirm that the father is not proued to be in Christe naturally by these wordes of our sauiour as the liuing father sent me and I liue for the father also he that eateth me shall liue him selfe for me For if here the comparison be only in this point that as Christ referreth his life to another beginning which is his father so we liue by Christ who is the cause of all the grace we haue if I say nothing els be respected in both partes but that a thing whiche is lesse receaueth a benefite by the greater these words rather seme to proue against the Godhead of Christ then for it Yea the māhood is not by thē shewed to be really vnited to the worde And so that which the Catholike fathers bring for the truth which is beleued in Christ the Sacramentaries make altogether voyd Let vs adde to the former consyderations that we eating Christ liue for Christ. we then so liue for him as we eate him For seing the eating is the cause of the life such is the life as the eating is But the Sacramentaries auouche that we eate bodily nothing els at Christes supper beside bread and wine therefore by theyr iudgement we shall liue bodily none other way then to that end whereunto bread wine cā fede vs. They can not feed vs to life euerlasting therefore it foloweth of the Sacramentarie docrine that our bodies haue no meate whereby they may liue for euer What say ye masters Haue we not bodies as wel as soules ▪ Doe not our bodies eate in theyr kind as wel as our soules Do not our bodies line by theyr proper meat as our soules doe liue by the meat which is conuenient for them If Christ be meat vnto vs is he not meat to vs as well in respect of our bodies as of our soules Doth he not heale the whole man regenerate the whole feed the whole and saue the whole ▪ Then by like he feedeth our bodies to life euerlasting What food it that Where is it geuen how cometh it vnto vs The Catholiks answere It is the flesh of Christ which is geuen to vs vnder the form of bread But ye Zuinglians who deny that real presence of Christ shew what meat our bodies receaue which is able to make them liue for euer Either say they shal not liue or shew the meane of life You say our bodies eate sanctified bread at Christes supper Be it so But is that sanctified bread stil bread or is it made the flesh of Christ which is the bread of life If it be made Christes fleshe ye agree with me our bodies haue the true food of life But if it tarie bread stil it can not geue our flesh life euerlasting Ye will say Christ is able to vse wheaten bread tarying bread for his instrument or tokē to geue vs by that maane euerlastiug life As common water tarying water is in baptism y◠instrumēt meane as wel to our bodies as to our soules of life euerlastig In which reason ye vaunt your selues ouer much and think ye haue found a goodly defence But beware least ye triūph before the victorie As hitherto I haue resorted to the word of God to confute your vain doctrine so now I wil repair to the same vndouted fountain of true wisdome It is most certain that God were able to saue vs by what mea nes he would But his will is now committed to writing that heretiks might
the naming of Christes body it is ioined in S. Luke The which is geueÌ„ for you And to the name of the cup the which is shed for you Last of all the naming of the cup or chalice was prouided of God for a maruelouse declaration and setting foorth of the reall blood of Christ made within it For whereas the new preachers bid vs list our mindes to heauen to receaue yâ— blood of Christ by faith spirit and vnderstanding as though it were not present at Christes own table the holy Ghost knowing that afterward such false reachers should arise prouided that the words of Christ should not only be reported This is my blood of the new testameÌ„t as S. Mathew S. Mark write but also as S. Luke S. Paul haue penned theÌ„ this chalice is the new testament in my blood this cahlice that is to say the thing câ—…nteyned in this chalice to the intent we should be sure that the said blood was euen within the compasse of this chalice and not only apprehended by saith and spirit so that euen the word chalice although by exact accompt of grammer it stand figuratiuely yet by common vse it signifieth the liquour in it and that liquour is expresly named the blood of Christ and that blood is declared to be present in the very chalice ¶ That the words of Christes supper be proper though many other be figuratiue and vnproper VUhy these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood can not be like the other where Christ is sayd to be the dore the way the true viue and Iohn Baptist to be Elias or the rocke to be Christ it shal be more particularly declared in the last chapiter of the booke Nowe it shall suffise to say that they were neuer taken to meane as they seme to stand therefore the general consent of al Christians taking them for figuratiue is an euident cause why they must be confessed to be figuratiue And that vninersail consent is of more importance then the proper signification of the words But on the other syde yâ— words of Christ in his last supper haue not only no such vniuersal iudgement and consent against them but rather they always haue bene taken to be meant of the presence of his own body blood accordingly as they doe sound Again none of all those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like yâ— which Christ sayd in his supper This is my body For partly they do name two seueral natures as Thâ—… Baptist Elias wheras these words this is my body name but one partly they speake not of any certeine thing as Christes body or if they doe so yet they point not to it as to a thing present A dore and the doore is not this dore this doth expresse a great deale more theÌ„ a or the. A dore is meant generally of any dore the dore of a certein dore spoken of before but this dore pointeth preseÌ„tly to yâ— dore whereof he speaketh Christes wordes were directed to one thing only which is made shewed together when yâ— Godhead maketh yâ— which by his maÌ„hod he pointeth to saying this is my body so that in dede in al scripture there is no like speach to that which Christ vsed in his last supper much lesse any like is figuratiue and least of all that it selfe can be proued figuratiue while it is compared with other speaches Let all the Sacramentaries shew where that proposition is figuratiue whiche first instituteth and maketh any thing and presently pointeth to the same saying this is this or this is that as it is sayd this is my body and this is my blood For whereas it is sayd in Ezechiel this Hierusalem it is nothing like because it was sayd rather by the occasion of expounding a parable then at the doing or making of any thing by him that said this is Hierusalem But Christ when he made his supper and instituted his chefe Sacrament said of that whiche was in his hands this is my body What ignorance then is it to say these words be vnproper because other words from which they differ be vnproper ¶ It is shewed by the circumstaÌ„ces of Christes supper that he made his reall flesh and blood present vnder the formes of bread and wine and consequently that his words are proper NExt vnto the proper signification and common sense of speaking the circumstances of the talke are to be considered of which kinde of handling matters belonging to diuinitie S. Augustine geueth vs a lerned rule writing thus Solet circumstantia illuminare sententiaÌ„ cum ea quae circa scripturam sunt praesentem quaestionem contingeÌ„tia diligenti discussione tractantur The circumstance of yâ— scripture is wonte to geue light to the meaning thereof when those thinges which are about the scripture to wit which goe before and folowe after concerning that which is presentlie in question are diligentlie examined by this rule we haue nowe to consyder about the supper of Christ and about the meaninge of dedes wordes there in who spake or did when where to whome vppon what occasion how and in what maner what were the words for what cause to what effecte or purpose he spake or did with suche like respectes For I wil at this tyme so examine the last supper to proue thereby the reall prensence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine that I will shew euery part thereof whether it consiste in dede or in worde to helpe much rather then to hinder any thinge the catholike belefe of the sayd reall presence and consequentlie that no reason at all should either sufficientlie or meanly moue any man to thinke the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue or vnproper and truly whether the wordes be proper the body and blood which they signifie as present must nedes be present or els whether the body and blood be proued present yâ— wordes which signifie so much must nedes be proper ¶ The first circumstance of Christes last supper is to consyder who made it THe maker of the supper is almightie as being the naturall sonne of God so that no man may discredit his wordes for lacke of power to bring them to passe The same Sonne of God was sent of his Father to take mans flesh to th' end he might in that flesh bring vs the euerlasting meate of the diuine substance Neither came he in flesh to bring vs the meate of his Godhead in faith and spirit only for so the Godhed was eaten â—…y Abraham Moyses Dauid and other 〈◊〉 men 〈◊〉 not so plentifully before the incarnation of Christ but Christ â—…me not only to make vs beleue the better in God but also to make our weake bodies and imprisoned sonles partakers of his Godhed by a better and higher meane then by our faith alone â—…or our faith is receaued in measure but the
the Gentils whose greatest mysteries be made of corne and wine That Iacob prophecied of the fat bread of Aserwhich should geue spirituall delicats to the faithfull kings of Christes Church and yet how caÌ„ any bread be fat except it be the bread of life which is the flesh of Christ which is made fat with the presence of his Godhead Who seeth not that God promiseth as the highest reward in earth for keping his coÌ„mamdements to blesse the loaues of his people and to geue abundance of bread and wine That wheateÌ„ meale is appointed for fit matter to make a sacrifice of that the shew bread must stand continually in the temple before the face of God That Priests shall offer the loaues of theyr God therefore shal be holy Or what is the loaf of God besyde the flesh of Christ And who would not wonder to consyder that euen the chief Priests of the Iewes whose lips kept once the law of God after the comming of the faithfull Priest Iesus Christ to whome God hath built a new Church which shal neuer be vnfaithful to him are constrained to aske a morsell of mysticall breade at the haÌ„ds of those Priests which God hath appointed ouer the faithful Gentils if they wil haue any part of the euerlasting heritage in the house of God so that all the sacrifices of the law must be supplied fulfilled and made perfit by the Priests of the new testament in that cake or peece of the liuely bread which is the body of Iesus Christ geuen for vs. Dauid flying from Saul king of the Iewes to king Achis a Gentile changeth his countenaunce appearing like a foole or mad man to the vnfaithfull courtiers driueling on his beard stumbling and being caried in his own hands to shew yâ— Christ should appere vnder an other form to the conuerted Gentils theÌ„ he had commonly appered in among the Iewes For now he semeth contemptibly vnder the fâ—…rme of bread add wine who appereth daily of great authority to the Iewes in the natural forme of his true manhod but at his last supper he driueled like a child to theyr seming that be wise in the world he offended euen his own Disciples at Capharnanâ—… with the promise of geuing his flesh to cate he changed his countenaunce caried him self after a sort in his own hands when holding and geuing to be eaten that which semed bread he by his almighty Godhead dowted not to say as the thing was This is my body which is geuen for you The same kingly Prophet had great ioy in his harte considering the increase that came by the fruit of corne wine he praysed the bread that strengtheneth and the wine that maketh mery the faithfull hart of a spirituall man The goodly chalice that maketh true Christians drunke The remembrance which God hath made of his maruelous workes geuing meate to them that feare him How can it be thought a smal mysterie that Elias is fed from the ayr with bread and fleshe that he walketh forty daies in the inward streÌ„gth of a peece of bread very weake feble to see vnto that Esaias saieth the wheat corn of the Church of God shall no more be geuen to her ennemies and that the vine wherein she hath laboured shall not be the drinke of strange children That â—…ieremie calleth the flesh of Christ the bread wherein the wood of the Crosse is fastened That Zacharie asked what good thing there is besides the corne of the elect and the wine which engendreth virgins That Malachie complaining how the Iewes had polluted Gods â—…ble with vncleane bread promiseth a pure and cleane oblation made to his name among the Gentils â–ª That God him selfe would be called the bread of Aungels That Christ hauing taken â—…eshe would be called through his diuine nature the trâ—…e bread which came down from heauen and through his humane nature wherein the Godhead dwelleth meaâ—…e in dede and drinke in dede And last of all that the holy Ghost would cause the preacher to say and very ofte to repete none other thing to be good vnder the sonne besides eating and drinking with gladnes and mirth Which saying who so vnderstandeth of the eating common bread or meat and drinking common wine he doth not wel to think that the holy Ghoost commendeth 〈◊〉 liuing Neither doth the Prophet meane such a kinde of eating drinking 〈◊〉 yâ— same booke he saith It is better to goe to the house of moorning then to the house of feasting for there a man is warned of the ende that all liuing thinges shal haue and in his life time thinketh what thinges are to come On th' other side he that so vnderstandeth it onely of spirite faith vertuouse meditatioÌ„ that he leaue no possible meanes to eate and drinke bodily such a kinde of bread and wine in comparison whereof nothing may be iudged good vnder yâ— sonne he semeth without iust cause to deny that Sacramentall eating and drinking there to be meaâ—… whereof the prophete may be right wel thought co speake For as the holy scriptures by the vsuall manner of attributing to God the passions qualities and natures partly of other creatures but especially of man did thereby geue vs warning that one time or other God should become trew man himselfe after that sorte fulfilling those propheticall phrases of speach euen so the ciâ—…toine of commending so much â—…orn wheat meale bread and wine and of eating and drinking doth declare that such a thing should at the last be eaten and drun ken vnder the formes of bread and wine as might be called not only good but euen the best thing absolutely vnder the sonne except any thing can be better then Christ or any action more acceptable to God then the receiuing of that flesh and blood worthely which both maketh al iust men to be one body among them selues and to be one with Christ through eating his flesh who is one with his Father in diuine nature and substance Whereby three persons in the holy Trinitie and one God two natures in Christ and one person many persons in the Church and one nature al be made one in a maruâ—…lous mysterie The Sacrament of which vnitie because our Lords supper is both in shewing manie graines to be actually molded into one loaf and in making many persons really to be members of yâ— one flesh which euery of them vnder the forme of bread worthely receiueth and is changed into it therefore in comparison of this eating and drinking none other thing is good vnder the sunne And he well saith vnder the sonne for aboue the Sonne there is I will not say more goodnes yet more fruition of the same goodnes when the forme and couer of bread wine being taken away we shal see face to face eating and drinking vpon the table of God in his kingdoâ—… ¶ These words of
one with vs. Vt corpus cuÌ„ corpore vniretur That the body might be vnited to the head Behold we that by baptisme were the body must yet be vnited with our head what by only vnitie of wâ—…l or faith and loue all that we had before but we must be vnited now in nature in real coniunction of body and blood S Cyrâ—…l writeth thus If we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christ suffereth not himselfe to be diuided or separated Therefore the Church also is made the body of Christ and â—…uery one of vs according to S. Paule yâ— members of Christ. For we being ioyned to Christ alone through his body because we haue receaued him in vs who can nat be diuided our members are rather applied to him then to vs. Theodoritus toucheth as well the vnion of baptisme as of the Eucharist saying As Eue was formed out of Adam so we out of Christ our Lord. For we are buried together with him in baptism and we rise together with him and we eate his body and drink his blood Thus we are members of Christ either by faith and mysterie which is done in baptisme or by â—…is body blood which is done in the Eucharist That is the beginning of our vniting this is the end that is the foundation of the house this is the top that is in spirit chefely this in chefely in flesh But now let vs graunt that when S. Paule saith we are meÌ„bers of his body of his fleshe and of his bones that he meant we in baptisme are members of Christes mysticall body and we are members as it were taken out or proceding from his flesh bones that is to say we are one mystical body because the flesh bones of Christ haue geueÌ„ vertue to the font of baptism wheÌ„ce we are regenerated Let vs admit S. Paule had meant so the contrarie whereof al the auncient fathers teache yet the wordes which folow in S. Paule can by no meanes 〈◊〉 auoided For he vseth the example of Adam and Eue shewing it to be a great mysterie in Châ—…ist and the Church and that mysticall example may be applied to the vnity which is betwene Christ and vs either in baptism or in the supper of our Lord. For coÌ„cerning baptisme as Eue was not corporally begotten of Adam but was taken out of his syde whiles he slept so our regeneration is made by the water which flowed from Christes side whiles he slept vpon the Crosse without the personall begetting of Christ him selfe in his owne substance But what â–ª stayeth S. Paule in this part of the similitude Goeth he not forward to a greaâ—… mysterie Saith he not for this cause the man which is Christ shall forsake Father and mother and shall cleaue to his own wife which is the Church and they shal be two in one flesh Eue was taken out of Adam and was flesh of his flesh but as the spirit of God and not Adam wrought that birth so yâ— vnion of baptism is wrought rather by the spirit of Christ then by his flesh Albeit his 〈◊〉 flesh is yâ— material patern according to which God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flesh in baptism euen as Adam was yâ— material patern according to which God formed Eue. But Eue was borne beside the customable course of nature to betoken that the Church should be born of the vertue of Christes flesh not by company of two sexes but by the working of God without the natural seede of man But when Adam knew his wife carnally then the flesh taken before out of him by God was not only ioyned again to his flesh by God but also by the actuall cooperation of Adam him self â–ª theÌ„ two were made not only out of one flesh which was the miraculouse work of God in forming Eue out of Adam but also two diuerse persons already made by God are by natural coÌ„iunction of both theyr bodies made really one flesh euen as man and wife when they beget children are not now two as Christ him selfe testifieth but one flesh This is a great mysterie I meane sayth S. Paule that it is great in Christ and the Church For when the faithfull members who were incorporated to Christ in baptisme by the vertue of his flesh really absent in substance but presente in efficacy when those members come againe to Christ in the sacrameÌ„t of his last supper they then find not his flesh absent in substance as before but two that is to say Christ and his spouse the Church are in dede one flesh they are in deede soyned together in truth of substance on eche part Christ by his power and vertue prepared our flesh in baptism and by cleausing it there he made it a mete spouse to receaue his naturall flesh in his own real substance But in the supper we are not only of him but we are him selfe For we two are one flesh for the tyme that the coniunction dureth for as the man and wife be not always ioyned in the act of begetting children no more is yâ— real flesh of Christ always ioyned in his own substaÌ„ce with our flesh albeit his spirit and the vertue of his flesh tarie stil with vs and make vs tarie in him but when we come to the Sacrament whereof he said take eate this is my body then we really haue yâ— substance of Christes flesh in our mouthes and bodie In mariage there are diuerse degrees of coupling the first is by words of promise for mariage to ensew The second is by words of present bargayning the third is when the man wife deliuer theyr bodies eche to other for begetting of children Christ was made one with his Church in the way of spousage from the beginning when he promised that the sede of yâ— woman should tread downe the serpents head The which promise the Patriarches beleuing were euen then ioyned by faith aud loue vnto God The signe whereof Abraham and his sede caried in theyr flesh and it was renewed to Dauid and denouÌ„ced by many Prophetes as by the lawfull proctours of God At the length Christ by taking fleshe came to the house of his spouse to see whether she would goe forward in mariage or no. And although the vnfaithfull Jewes forgetting the couenants of spousage plaied the harlots parte with Christe whereof he greuously complaineth in his Prophets yet Christ keping his promise went forward in mariage with them who would receaue him Who consenting to his conditions by the aunswere of a good coÌ„science in baptisme were by present words made surâ—… vnto him for euer renouncing all other â—…orain husbands aâ—…ter which consent eche part hath right vpon the others body newe may the party baptized call for the Sacrament of Christes body if he be of the yeres of discretion And likewise him 〈◊〉 is on the other syde boâ—…nd to obey the
word vere verilie â–ª doth not shew that they toke it to be eaten in substance without al grosse humours or carnal diuision of his members but yâ— they thought they should eate it carnally as the flesh of oxen is eaten with the destructioÌ„ of Christes flesh TertulliaÌ„ did not referre the errour to the mouth as you say but vnto yâ— maner of taking into the mouthe For him selfe teacheth in the same booke that our flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ. Iu. Nicolas de Lyra saith these wordes of Christ in the sixth of S. Ihon pertein not vnto the Sacrament SaÌ„ Ye shal neuer haue honestie by allegâ—…g yâ— gloses which your self haue condemned But I know your disease saine you would haue a witnesse that the 6. of S. Iohn perteineth not to the supper I will geue you in yâ— third chapiter of my third booke aboue twentie honest witnesses to proue that Christ in S. Iohn spake of his last supper and all they shal be elder then Nicolas of Lyra. But what saieth he as you report He neuer in his life thought vppon that whiche you attribute vnto him What seeke you to know his mind vppon the 110. psalme sith he hath writen vppon the whole sixth chapiter of S. Iohn Perhaps he speaketh not of the matter vppon the psalmes or if he doe it is but by the way and not of purpose Wel it wil serue you whatsoeuer it be your hunger and neede is such Let vs then here Nicolas de Lyra vpon those words Memoriam fecit Our Lord hath made a memorie of his marueilouse thinges Thus he writeth Eucharistiae cibus sapidus est gustui spirituali propter quod dicit Saluator Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternuÌ„ The meate of the Eucharist is a sauerie meate to the spiritual taste Wherefore our Sauiour saieth if any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer Is Eucharistia the Sacrament or no Are the other wordes in S. Iohn or no It is then perceaued by his comments vppon that psalm that you speake falsely of him and in verie deede so falsely that he is wonderful plaine iâ—… al his workes concerning that the sixth of S. Ihon perteineth to the last supper As for the Replica which of late is printed with Nicolas of Lyra remember that it is no part of Lyra and that you are conuersant in gloses neither with truth nor with diligence ¶ M. Iuel hath not conferred the supper with the sixth of S. Ihon as it ought to be IVel. Christe in S. Ihon speaking of spirituall eating by faith made no mention of any figure but in his supper he added an outward sacrament to the same spiritual eating which the Fathers oft call a figure San. You can not tel what you say For if in S. Ihon spiritual eating by faith be only spokeÌ„ of why is it said dabo I wil geue Whereas spirituall eating was alreadie geuen to al that euer beleued and therefore it was not to come But the bread whiche Christ wil geue is his flesh and the gift thereof is to come therefore it is more then a spirituall eating by faith whiche was both past and present but there is no mention of any figure say you in S. Iohn Thereforâ—… say I seing the promise of his fleshe whiche is to come is not a promise concerning the figure thereof it is surely a promise coÌ„cerning the substance thereof If it be so and yet it must nedes be more theÌ„ a promise of eating by faith which was not come it wil folow that it was a promise of a bodily eating aswell as by faith As if Christ said the bread whiche I will geue to be receaued bodily at my last supper as I haue and presently doe geue the same to your soules that doe beleue in me that bread is my flesh But leste I should leaue this matter only in confutinge your surmise it is to be knowen that when a promise and a performance of God belong to one thing the promise is made plaine by the performance thereof and seing this word dabo I will geue is a word of promise concerning Christes fleshe we must seeke the performance of it which will neuer be found to be fulfilled any where but only in the last supper and there the old Fathers sought the performance of it as in my third booke I haue declared Therefore as all the promises made before Christes coÌ„ming were plaine when he had taken flesh and when God from heaueÌ„ said of him This is my derebeloued sonne so is the promise made in S. Ihon very plaine when Christe hauing taken bread and geuen thanckes brake and gaue saying take eate This is my body The words this is doth answere yâ— word dabo I wil geue for as Tertullian wel noteth this is ar words af performing of fulfilling the promise Thus he writeth of God the Father who hauing promised his sonne did also performe his promise in geuing him really Itaque iam representans â—…um Hic est filius 〈◊〉 vtique subadditur quem repromisi Si enim repromisi aliquaÌ„do posteâ—… dicit hic est eius est exhibâ—…ntis voce vti in demoÌ„stratione promissâ—… qut aliquando promisit God therefore making him present saieth this is my sonne surely it is to be supplied whoÌ„ I haue promised For if he promised him at any tyme and afterward saith hic est this is he it belongeth to him who sometyme made the promise to vse the word of bringing foorth really or of deliuerance in shewing the thing promised Applie this now to our purpose Christ saied the bread which I wil geue is my flesh which I wil geue for the life of the world At his supper after bread taken and blessing vsed he saith take eâ—…te This is my body which is geueÌ„ for you This is are words which shew present and bring â—…oorth really and deliuer the flesh before promised But these wordes take eate this is my body make present and shew and deliuer Christes body to vs bodily therefore the promise wherein Christ said I wil geue was also meant I will geue to you bodily euen by the ministerie of mie hands and you shal receaue it with your hands or mouthes or with both together Which being so the Fathers who cal Christes supper a figure must nedes meane such a figure as was promised But when the promise was made at Tapharnaum M. Iuel confesseth as the truth is that no mention was made either of bread or of wine but only of Christes own flesh therefore in the last supper the selfe same substance of Christe is called of the Fathers a figure because it is in such sort present Iuel M. Harding putteth no difference betwene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Sander Origines doth speake of them who reading
miraculouse 26. Ye expound to be gilty of Christes body and blood for eating that is to say for not eating or resusing to eate For you teache euill men not to eate the body of Christ which is against S. Paule 27. Ye will not haue Christes supper to be an externall sacrifice but to be worse in that point then the Iewish or idolatours altars and tables who both did sacrifice and also S. Paule compareth Christes table with theirs 28. Ye so expound the shewing of Christes death by eating bread a figure of him that you rather shewe him not to be truely dead because your figure is yet emptie voide which can neuer proue Christes death truely past 29. Ye expound the not making a difference betwene Christes body eaten and other meates in suche sort that ye wil not haue the body present wherein the difference is to be made 30. Ye deny our vnion with Christes flesh by corporall participation which S. Paule teacheth by the example of Adam Eue being two in one flesh 31. Whereas S. Pauie saieth Christe to be so muche better then Angels by how much he had a more excelleÌ„t name theÌ„ they you regard not yâ— name body blood geuen to yâ— mysteries of Christ but affirme them to be still that they were before and therefore not to be that excellent substance which they are named to be 32. In all the scriptures so great and oft mention being made of Christes supper as there is yet no promise can be found made to him who eateth materiall bread and drinketh wine But all the promise is made for eatinge Christes fleshe and drinkinge worthely his blood Therefore you affirm bread to be eateÌ„ and wine to be drunken in Christes supper beside the word of God 33. Although Dauid prophecied of cating and adoring yet you wil graunt no such meat to be geueÌ„ to vs which may be external ly adored 34. Notwithstanding that the prophets teache that by Christes comming al externall idolatrie shal be taken away yet you feare not to say that Christes owne Sacrament bearing the name of his owne body and blood is it selfe an idol which was left with vs to kepe vs from all idolatrie 35. The sonne of man came as to saue so to fede the whole man why then denie you the food of life to our bodies affirming them to eat common bread and to drinke common wine whiles the soule is fed by faith with the body and bloode of Christ 36. If in the Sacrament of the altar we fede vpon Christ by faith alone why is that Sacrament called a supper more theÌ„ baptism where also we must fede on Christ by faith 37. Seing a figure may also be the truth it selfe whereof it is the figure as Christ is the figure of his Father and yet the same substance what reason haue you why you would rather detract this hoâ—…our from Christes Sacrament then geue the same vnto it 38. Christ being equal with his Father made promise to vs of his â—…ne fleshe whiche his Father had geâ—…en Why then denie you the gift of Christ to be as real to vs as his Father gaue him real fleshe 39. How teache you the words of Christ which are spirit life to be notwithstanding figuratiue and consequently deade and voide of al life or strength 40. Because yâ— word of God who was only able to be fed vpon by faith and so was the food of Angels or soules woulde be also the meate of man in respect of the body it toke flesh aâ—…d at his supper sayd to vs take eate this is my body And yet you make him still to be only the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded frome hauing God corporally in vs through the fleshe of Christe 41. To coÌ„clude whereas ye find flesh bodie blood ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking geuing breaking distributing coÌ„municating dâ—…udicating ye expound all those words figuratiuelie as though God by so manie waies repeating those words had not strengthned the coÌ„mon and proper significatioÌ„s of them Let this suffise for this time to shew that you obserue nor gender nor number nor nominatiue case nor verb nor antecedent nor relatiue nor the condition of the maker of the supper nor the nature of the sacrament nor the state and perfection of the Gospel nor the sayings of the prophetes nor the â—…ulfilling of the old law nor the oft repeting of the matters belonging to Christs supper but onlie to serue the eye and the senses deny al the marueilous workes of the new testament yâ— remeÌ„brance of al which this one mysterie is affirmed to be â—…rag no more M. Iuel of our figuratiue expositions sith you haue thus erred in graÌ„mar in Logick in Diuinitie in truth in faith in coÌ„mon sense Iu. If in these words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ ye follow the letter it killeth San. To follow yâ— letter is to take words as thei sound to an inâ—…del as to haue flesh torn in to peeces and so eaten but he that taketh them as Christ in his supper by his fact did expound them doth folow yâ— spirit and not the letter ¶ A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel IVel. S. Augustine sayth The Sacrament of Christes body after a certain phrase or manner or trope or â—…igure of speache is the body of Christ. Sander This place is wickedly abused because it is nakedly alleged and falsely englished whereas it dependeth wholy vpon the words going before which are these Nónne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in Sacramento caet Was not Christ once offered vp in him selfe and yet in the Sacrament he is offered vp for the people not only at euerie feaste of Easter but euerie day Neither surely doth he lye who being demanded Eum responderit immolari Doth answere that he is offered vp For if the SacrameÌ„ts had not a certain likenes of those thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes they were not at all Sacramentes Out of this likenes they take also for the most parte the names of the things theÌ„ selues As therefore according to a certaine â—…anner the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christe the Sacrament of the blood of Christe is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith In these words of S. Augustine it is to be seen euidently that he putteth a difference betwene the thing and the Sacrament of that thing The thing therefore it selfe must be first knoweâ—… and then we shal see how the Sacrament thereof is both like vnâ—… it and taketh the name thereof The thing it selfe in ouâ—… question is Iesus Christ not only so but the true body of Iesus Christe neither only true in substance but euen
so that the substance of flesh and blood shal be excluded by all meanes And as for the qualitie of Christes fleshe he wil haue it corporally in our bodies without any substance thereof wherein that qualitie may rest which his opinion is against all the course of nature Agayn when S. Hilarie saith that Christ tarieth naturally in vs what qualitie wil M. Iuel assigne to that aduerb shal he tary in vs in the maner of a natural tarying and yet shal not his true nature be in vs let vs go a litle farther S. Hilary saith Christus natualiter secundum spiritum in se patrem habet Christ hath the father in him according to yâ— spirit naturally How wil M. Iuel expound the worde naturally whether that Câ—…riste hath a qualitie of his fathers nature in him not the whole true substaÌ„ce Last of al S. Hilarie expoundeth his owne wordes euen as D. Harding hath done For as he saith in one place Ipso in nobis naturalitr permanente he tarying in vs naturally so he saieth in an other place a litle before Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem Therefore he is in vs him selfe by flesh Aâ—…d again Naturaliter secundum carnem per eum viuimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti We liue by him according to the flesh naturally that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh Consider good Reader that naturaliter viuere to liue naturally is by S. Hilarie thus resolued to liue by hauing the nature And to liâ—…e naturally according to the flesh is to liue by hauing yâ— nature of Christes flesh Who is now the more ignorant in grammar D. Harding or M. Iuel And yet M. Iuel in that childish eloquence of his triumpheth vpon D. Harding saith childern are taught these things Iu. God regardeth not the doing of any thing but the manner of doing But M. Harding will ouerloke the grammar rules San. That rule is to be vnderstande in matters belonging to manners But now we dispute of substances and not of doings We say Christes body is in our bodies naturally this truth is to be discussed and not any morall action of ours Iuel Our childern must lerne a new grammar for thâ—…se mens pleasure otherwise these mens dâ—…initie can not stand San. Priestes childern may 〈◊〉 a new grammar but as the old faith so the old grammar wil â—…erue other mens childen It is verily a verie new graÌ„â—…r to say that aduerbes taken of nounes neuer signifie the substance Good Scholmasters wil not admâ—…e such rules Iu. Haue these old Fathers nor names nor wordes San. As though you knowe that they folowe hereafter when you are come to them you wil be quickly werie of them ¶ Of the first Author of the Sacramentarie heâ—…sie HArding Berengarius first began openly to shevv the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes body in the Sacrament Iu. Before M. Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Harding The Messalians opinion VVas the Sacrament of the altar did nor good nor euil And therein they VVere the first parents of the Sacramentarie heresie San. That which the Messalians did begin priuily by generall disgracing the Sacrament Berengarius began openly by denying this speciall vertue thereof which is the real presence and so there is no contradiction at all and you are founde but a cauiller Iu. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteinâ—…d the same doctrin before Berengarius Sander If these men did barke in priuie corners at anie ceremonie which thing yet is not euident to vs but if it were so yet thâ—…y mainteined it not For then they had bene condemned of heresy But if that also were true you haue gained litle more theÌ„ two huÌ„dred yeres and those but by surmise without knowledge thereof left in any good historie And what is that to 〈◊〉 hundred yeres of continuall practise and open doctrine suche as we Catholiks haue had Iuel For farther declaration hereof it shal be necessary to open Berengarius iudgement San. Nay Sir it is enough to vs that you are at a stay can bring your faith no higher then to Ihon Scote and Bertram If your faith began priuily almost eight hundred yeres after Christ shall we here the declaration thereof if that may be permitted the heresy of the Arrians may be heard againe who was before Bertram Iuel Thus Berengarius wrote San. I care not what he wrote sith he recaÌ„ted yâ— same The 〈◊〉 wil standeth in his force and no wise man knowing that he repeuted his follie will afterward allege his authoritie for that which he recalled Iuel But his iudgement is confirmed by the Fathers San. It is not possible that the Fathers should confirme his iudgement who impugned their vniuersall tradition in so muche that he him selfe 〈◊〉 his own iudgement For seing he recanted his whole opinioÌ„ he recanted also that verie errour which he had coÌ„ceiued as by pretense of yâ— fathers words What a madâ—…es is it for you to allege any of both in his name for he in his recanting hath answered his own authorities alleged before out of the Fathers Iuel Let vs see the confutation hereof San. Seing Berengarius is the coÌ„futour his own true word is enough to vndoe as muche as his word had falsely stablished before Iuel Berengarius was forced to recant in this wise San. Force is not done to the free 〈◊〉 of man Iuel I beleue that the bodie of our Lorde Iesus Christ sensibly and in very dede is touched with the hand of the Priest brokeÌ„ and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull San. You haue englished the wordes very spitefully you haue added rent of your owne head and atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to be wasted which may be done without grinding You are so accustomed to falsify things yâ— no mans wordes may escape your poison Iuel The very glose saith vnlesse you warily vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fal into a greater heresy then euer he heald any San. The glosse warneth vs that all the touching breaking and wasting or coÌ„suming is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine the which thing if you had not left out you had alleged some one glosse without falsifying the same Iu. These Fathers redresse the lesse errour by the greater San. The cause whie Berengarius recanted by those wordes rather theÌ„ by anie other were two the one for yâ— he had taught in the tyme of his errour the body of Christ not to be before our eyes Against whiche words he now saith it is sensiblie handled The secoÌ„d was for that the body being vnder the form of bread and touched by the Priestes hands and broken by reason of the same form is thereby shewed most really present to witnesse the whiche reall presence S. Chrysostame had
vsed the same kind of speach before saying NoÌ„ se tantum videri permittens desyderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desyderio sui omnes impleri Christ permitteth him self not only to be seen of theÌ„ that long after him but also to be touched eaten the teeth to be fastened to his fleshe and all men to be filled with the desire of him Which notwithstanding M. Iuel writeth in the margent of Berengarius his consâ—…on This is an horrible blasphemie not knowing that the denying of this reall presence vâ—…der those formes of bread and wine is that horrible blasphemie whereof he speaketh And not to speake as S. Chrysostome and other holy Fathers haue spoken Iuel Bertram and Ihon Scotus wrote openly against it with the contentation of the world San. Against which it did they write Iuel Against this if it be the Catholike faith Sander Which this Whether against the confession of Bereugarius You say theâ—… were two hundred yeares before hun what then wrote thei against the Catholike faith if they did so howe could the Catholike world be content therwith again where are the words which the world was contented withal thinck you it lawfull to faine or glose what you list Iuel That M. Harding calleth the Catholike faith is in dede aCatholike errour Sander No errour can be Catholike because Christe said hell gates should not preuaile againste his Church And it is a citie built vpon a hill which can not be hiddeÌ„ The rest of your words shall hereafter be proued vayne ¶ Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded HArding The body vvhich vvas before the death thereof thrall and frail is novv spirituall Iu. M. Harding in the end concludeth against him selfe San. You say so but you proue it not Iu. Only Stephen Gardener geueth the world to vnderstaÌ„d that Christ is not yet fully possessed in this glory thus he saith the time of the despensation or seruice of his hâ—…militie remaineth stil vntil 〈◊〉 deliuer vp the Kingdom vnto God his Father Sand. B. Gardiâ—…er dot noth say that Christ is not fully possessed in his glory for his own part that is your addition Again the word seruice was of your putting in least any authority might escape you vncorrupted How be it B. Gardiner semeth to meane no more therein then S. Paule sayd before him witnessing that Christ sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in heauen minister sanctorum the minister of holy thinges for he is yet a minister stil by reason of his mysticall body If it were any part of our principall purpose to stand vppon that matter I wold shew you what holy things they were and how he ministred them by dispensation of his humility during the time of the peregtination of his members notwithstanding his own glory at the right hand of his Father wherein he is fully possessed Iuel To what end allegeth M. Harding the spirituall state of Christs body Eutiches sayd it is changed into the very substance of God which heresie is like M. Hardings if it be not the same Sand. I know not what you meane by burdening D. Harding with the heresie of Eutiches sith the defence of the reall presence is as directly against that heresie as may be for how can the naturall and substantiall flesh of Christ be present in the Sacrament if his flesh were turned into the substance of the Godhead as Eâ—…tiches sayd could that be in the Sacrament which were not in it self Therefore the places alleged out of S. Augustine S. Dionysiâ—…s S. Cyprian and other holy Fathers concerning the truth of Christes humane substance and nature â—…ill remaining and not changed into the diuine substance or els concerning our â—…mitation or likenes of God is wholy confessed of vs. neither doth D. Harding meane by the body deiâ—…ed other then yâ— body immortal spirituall yet so farre aboue our bodies as the vâ—…ion in yâ— person of the naturall sonne of God excedeth our adoption by grace But for so much as you doubted not M. Iuel to burden D. Harding with the Eutichian heresie I will briefly shew that your opinion is far more like vnto it then D. Hardings belefe As Eutiches destroyed the truth of humane flesh in the person of Christ so the Sacramentaries destroye the truth and reall presence of the same flesh in the Sacrament of the altar And yet the old Fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two things of the signe or foorm of bread and of yâ— body of Christ so Christ consisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane But seing the Sacramentaries take away yâ— reall presence from the visible signe of bread they falsifie the argumeÌ„t of the old Fathers and further the cause of the Eutichians For as the Eutichians turned the naturall flesh of Christ into the Godhead so the Sacramentaries turn the Sacramental eating of naturall flesh into mere diuine and spirituall eating which is made by faith alone But as the old Fathers proued against the Eutichians that Christ who truly suffered death could not suffer it in his diuine nature so I tell the Sacramentaries that Christ who â—…aid take eate this is my body can not be taken into our hands or eaten with our mouthes by faith and spirit aloue We must haue such an eating as may proue Christ to haue had reall flesh because we eate by mouth his reall flesh So S. Hilarie proued our naturall vnion with Christes flesh against the Arrians S. Gregorie Nyâ—…sen that Christ had taken true flesh of the Uirgin For how can a thing saith he which hath no body be made meate vnto the body So S. Cyrill proueth that there is but one person because the flesh which we receaue doth geue lifâ—… to our soules and bodies which it could not doe except it were the proper flesh of God who only geueth life Thus M. Iuel may perceaue that his opinion agreeth with the Arrians Ualentiâ—…ians Neâ—…orians Eutichians And the like might be sayd of the Marcionites Manichees Apellians briefly of all those heretikes who denying a reall truth of Christes diâ—…ine or humane nature were always confuted by the Fathers by the reall truth of Christes manhod and Godhead confessed of the Catholikes in this blessed Sacrament Harding S. Hierom shevving tvvo vvays of vnderstanding Christes flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it vvas crucified declareth the maner of eating it only to differ from the maner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iuel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence San. He meaneth both Iuel S. Hierom speaking of the dubble vnderstanding of Christes flesh meaneth that we haue our saluation in Christ eating him and liuing by him not for that his flesh was
it to passe that both we maie be in Christ and Christ in vs. Besyde this it followeth Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem Christ is him selfe in vs by his â—…leshe Note how he is in vs and by what meane not by the meane of bread and wine but by the meane of his fleshe And afterwarde he is beleued to be in vs by the mysterie of the Sacraments ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente Him self tarying naturally in vs which is the effect of the SacrameÌ„ts At the length he concludeth his chefe intent against the third argument of the Arrians saying Si ergo nos naturaliter fecundum carnem per eum viuimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti c. If then we liue naturally according to the fleshe by him that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his fleshe how can he but haue the father naturally in him self according to the spirite seing he liueth for the Father Out of whiche place it appereth that as the substance of God the Father is really in the person of Christ so S. Hilary meant that Christes naturall substance by meane of the Sacrament receaued is within our own persons For the naturall being of Christ through the SacrameÌ„t in vs is the meane to proue that God the Father is naturally in Christ. But if Christe through the Sacrament were in vs as only eaten by faith God the Father should be proued to be in his sonne by faith only and not by nature whiche thing the Arrians would haue concluded whom M. Iuel doth help al that he may and hindereth the prouss of the consubstantiality of Christ with his father But S. Hilary saith By the Sacrament of flesh and blood the propriety of naturall communion is graunted Againe by the sonne tarying carnaliter fleshely to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Laste of all the mysterie of tâ—…ue and of naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabilirer vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Thus S. Hilarie hath proued most directly and hath affirmed by diuerse words of one meanig about twelue times that Christ is ioyned to vs by nature of his flesh And not by the nature of faith or of baptism as M. Iuel most desperately affirmeth For Christ neither hath anie faith in him whiche maie be of the nature of our faith Nor anie baptism of the same nature of forgeuing synnes which our baptism is of it is the nature of flesh and blood onlie whereby Christ is naturally carnally and corporalâ—…y ioyned vnto the faithful men at what time thei reâ—…aue his mysteries This point so euident when M. Iuel dissembled and forged an other had he not don better if he had subscribed teÌ„ times Iuel These words that Christ corporally carnally and naturally is within vs in their own rigour seme very hard San. They must nedes seme hard to him who beleueth not a hard talke saith S. Augustine but to hard harted meÌ„ incredible but to them who beleue not Iuel Hilarius saieth We are one with God the Father and the Sonne not only by adoption or consent of minde but also by nature which according to the letter can not be true San. Why bring you not the latin words where he saith it wil you now spet 〈◊〉 your poyson of lying also against that blâ—…ssed father S. Hilarius He teacheth that Christ and his Father are one nature and likewise that we and Christe are one nature because he toke our flesh of the virgin Marie and gaue vs the same flesh in the Sacrament whereunto we being ioyned prosiceremus ad vnitatem patris might go forward to the vnitie of the sather And again he saith that he rehersed these things coÌ„cerning our natural vnitie with Christ because the hereâ—…ikes falsely affirming the vnitie of will only betwen the father and the sonne did vse yâ— example of our vnitie to god as though we were vnited to the sonne and by the sonne to the father by obedience only and deuout wil without anie propriety of natural communion being graunted to vs by the SacrameÌ„t of flesh and blood where both by the honour of the sonne of god geuen vnto vs and by the soÌ„ne tarying fleshly in vs and we being vnited in him corporally and vnseparably the mysterie of true and natural vnion is to be prea ched taught It is answered therefore of vs to the folly of suriouse meÌ„ Hitherto S. Hilarie where he teacheth in dede that we are ioyned to the Father but per filium manenteÌ„ in nobis carnaliter by the Sonne tarying in vs carnally to witte in truthe of flesh which thing he also teacheth to be doâ—…e per SacramentuÌ„ carnis et sanguinis by yâ— SacrameÌ„t of flesh blood But that we are one with God yâ— Father by nature or one with God yâ— Sonne in his diuine nature it is a most impudeÌ„t lye forged vpoÌ„ S. Hilarie you that do forget it haue passed herein al the bounds of honestie to accuse S. Hilarie of so blasphemouse a saying as that had bâ—…ne Iu. The Fathers hauebene fain to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kinds of speache San. Now you shew your self in your own colours M. Iuel Whatsoeuer you haue hitherto pretended you thinke in your harte that the Fathers doe not speake well for violent speaches be no good speaches and excessiue speaches be not literally true You would not call them hyperbolicall speaches least any man should thinke you inteprete and excuse their wordes by a figure oâ—…hetorike But yet al is one to them which vnderstand greke to say theyr speaches are more then true and to say they are excessiue But I muste nedes cal you accompt you a wicked man for such 〈◊〉 speaking and I require you by the force of this confession of yours to subscribe For it is enough yâ— the Fathers doe speake so plainly againste you that you are constrained to cal it a violent and excessiue speache It standeth not now in you to say that they spake more then is true You haue promised to subscribe if any one sufficient senteÌ„ce were brought foorth out of the first six hundred yeres S. Hilarie is nere vpon the first three huÌ„dred yeres He sayth that Christ is naturally in vs by his flesh communicated in a Sacrament receaued vnder a mystery and carnally and corporally tarieth in vs. Therefore you muste subscribe not only through promise but to saue your soule frome hel fyre But what say we doth S. Hilarie speake more then is true Could the Arrians haue wished a better Patrone for their faction then M. Iuell is or is not Christe muche bound to M. Iuel whose diuiâ—…e nature S. Hilarie defending is said to speake excessiuely Is not God yâ— Father much beholden to M. Iuell who impugneth yâ—
doe you 〈◊〉 his wordes Iuel So this article is concluded with an Ignoramus San. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christes presence but of his real presence though the maner be vnknoweÌ„ But did you call that an â—…gnoramus if we know not how Christ is vnder the foorm of bread I am sure you know not howe the vnion was made in the virgins womb are you therefore reproued as ignorante In dede if ye belâ—…ue not Christes presence ye haue concluded this article with a Non credimus whiche is a worse fault then Ignoramus For he that beleueth not shal be con demmed Iuel The old lerned Fathers neuer left vs in suche doutes San. S. Cyrillus in this very matter willeth vs to geue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way and knowlege of his worke vnto god the first part you haue broken The first and last D. Harding hath obserued and you shal be concluded with a dam naberis if ye repent not S. Chrisostom saith it is the part of a scholar not to serch out curioufly the things which the master affirmeth but to here and to beleue and to looke for a conuenient time of soyling the question Iuel Emissenus saith Christ is present by his grace San. You haue put a false nominatiue case 〈◊〉 doth say that Christ consecrated the Sacrament of his bodie and blâ—…od to thend Perennis illa victima viueret in memoria et semper praesens esset in gratia that euerlastig sacrifice should liue in remembraÌ„ce and be alwaies present in his grace It is victima the oblatioâ—… or sacrificed hoste which is present in grace for in dede the act of crucifying is vtterlie past but the sacrifice is present in his grace for so muche as it is present in that flesh whiche suffered death Againe he saith not yâ— it is present bi his grace as you haue turned it but in his grace You wold haue grace to be the meane of presence but it is not so Grace is the effect of presence But the meane of the grace in this Sacrament is the presence of Christes own body Iuel S. Augustine saith Christ in vs by his spirit San. That is true also when he is in vs by his flesh for in that flesh his spirit dwelleth And he that denieth Christ to be in vs by his owne flesh taketh away the chefe way by whiche the spirit of God may be in vs. Iuel Ye shall not eate this body that ye see it is a certain Sacrament that I deliuer you San. The words of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set foorth a certain Sacrament to you and not I deliuer you a câ—…rtain Sacrament For this was spoken of S. Augustine in Christes person in respect of the talke had aâ—… CapharnauÌ„ Where the Sacrament was commended before it was deliuered But that which was commended at Capâ—…naum was only the same flesh which 〈◊〉 for vs Therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible and sensible maner but yet in truth of geuing by body and of taking by body For of such geuing and taking Christ spake as by the last supper it may appere where he perâ—…oormed his promise But M. Iuel was lothe that relation should be made to the talke had at Capharnanm For then he saw that the very reall flesh must be the thing which should be deliuered again he wold not haue either the commendatioÌ„ past or the gift to come and thereforâ—… he turned commendaui into trado I haue coÌ„mended into I deliuer Indede M. Iueâ—… Christ deliuered his flesh as well at Capharnaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Ghospell Where the promise is shewed to be made at Capharnaum and the perfoormance at the last â—…upper In which supper neither the body which the Iew s saw was deliuered and much lesse bread or wine which was not promised but vnder the forme of bread wine that flesh and blood was deliuered which at 〈◊〉 was promised Iuel Thus the holy Fathers say Christ is present not corporally San. Both S. â—…yril and S. Hilarie haue the word corporally as I haue shewed concerning the Sacrament Iuel Not carnally San. S. Hilarie hath the word carnally in the 23. chapit the number 37. of this booke Iuel Not naturally San. S. Hilarie hath the term naturally diuerse times S. Lyrill calleth it naturall partaking and naturall vnion Iuel But as in a Sacrament by his spirite and by his grace Saâ—… Here appereth what stuff you haue fed the reader with all in your whole booke For partly you deny a truthe which is that Christ is not corporally present and that you doe against the expresse word of God and the Fathers as I haue shewed partly you proue that your heresy by an other truthe which rather stablisheth then hindereth the real presence For Christ can not be better present in spirit and grace theÌ„ if he be present in his flesh therein to conuerte to vs his spirit and grace for the cause of his taking flesh was to make his flesh an instrument to deliuer his spirit and grace to our flesh to thend no meane of prouiding for our saluation might be omitted by so louing a Father In consideration whereof S. Ambrose saith Thou that takest his flesh art made partaker of his diuine substance in that food Note that the spirit substance of God cometh to vs by taking Christes flesh ¶ The Conclusion COnsider first good Reader that of moe then twenty articles there is but one answered yâ— not the longest wherein if aboue two 〈◊〉 faultes and vntrutâ—…es without curiouse searching be 〈◊〉 what may a man thinke of the wholâ—… booke of M. Iuell how many hundred yea 〈◊〉 thousand vntruthes may you think to be conteined therein who when he proueth his matter bâ—…t and least of all abuseth himselfe his proufe is none other then to say one thing is not true because another is true Thus he teacâ—…th Christ to be eaten by faith and spirite and thinketh that thereof he may conclude Christ is not eaten in the sacrament by moâ—…th Christ is corporally in heauen therefore his bodie is not vnder the forme of bread The Sacrament is a figure therefore by his iudgemeÌ„t it is not the truth As well he might say a man hath a soule and therefore no bodie or Christ is man and therefore not God In Disputinge of the holie scriptures he neuer answereth to these words which is geuen for you beyng the most principall poynt of D. Hardings answere he neuer considereth the promise made by Christ in yâ— tyme to come Dabo I wil geue but talketh of it as if it were past and present He hath Englished non habebitis vitam Ye shall haue no life He expoundeth that we are
his derebeloued phaâ—…tasy such is the stubburnesse of heretiks The holy Bishop and Martyr S. 〈◊〉 doth witnesse as 〈◊〉 allegeth him that the Bishops of Rome before the tyme of Pope Uictor to wit Soter Anicetus Pius Higinius Telesphorus Xistus did all kepe Easterday alwayes vpon the sunday and yet withal kept peace with ohter Churches which did otherwise For a demonstration of that peace 〈◊〉 allegeth generally that all the Priests which were before Uictor which were in number from S. Peters time twelue at the least vsed solemnely to send Eucharistiam the Eucharist which is the Sacrament of Christes supper to suche Priests who came out of those quarters where Easter was kept otherwise then it was at Rome By that sending of the SacrameÌ„t from the Pope to other Priests aâ—…d Bishops Jreneus concludeth all those to haue communicated together To our purpose I note that there is a certain thing so â—…crated in Christes supper that it hath in it the whole vertue of yâ— sâ—…pper And it is a torporall and real thing which may be â—…ued caried sent vp and down and so at the last receaued Mark wel the Historie Al the Bisshops of Rome vsed to send to straÌ„ge Bishops comming to Rome the holy Eucharist in token that they were al of one communion of one Church and one religion This Eucharist was the Sacrament of Christes supper this Sa crament was first made and then kept for straÌ„gers and sent vnto them when they came Which they receaued as the bond of peace loue The consecration of that Eucharist could consist in none other thing so essentially as in the pronouncing ouer bread these words This is my body Now remember I beseche you what Caluin iudgeth of our Lords supper He teacheth those words to be words of promise and of preaching Which being heard of the faithfull stirr vp their harts to receaue Christ by faith But the custom of the primatiue Churche euen of the first hundred yeres after Christes death manifestly reproueth his opinion For the Eucharist was made then and sent afterward to those who were not present at the making thereof Who neither heard any preaching nor toke hold of any promise but came like strangers to Rome and so had the blessed body of Christ deliuered them wherefore his body was not only coÌ„secrated in the harts of men but also in a corporall thing which might be sene touched caried deliuered and râ—…ceaued The consecration was fulfilled in that external thing which was called the Eucharist And so it is proued without any escape that when bread was taken and blessed these words This is my body were said to the bread and ouer it and changed it into the substance of Christes body And by that meanes the body of Christ was conteined vnder the foorm of bread and so caried vnto the faithfull Prelats which came to Rome The Eucharist it self was caried The body of Christ was sent from one Bisshop to an other The words which Caluin dreameth to be words of promise were not suche but in dede were wordâ—… working the reall presence of Christes body And truly when Christ gaue his Apostles authoriâ—…ie to make his last supper He â—…ad them not make a promise of any thing But he said Hoc facite Doe and make this thing A certayn external thing was made and don by Christ which he wil led his Apostles to doe make He said not to them preache thâ—…s nor say thus nor doe thus albeit the homilies corrupt the gospel after that sort but he said doe this thing make this thing to wit make my body with the same words of blessing which you heard me vse when I toke bread and hauing gâ—…uen thanks sayd thereof This is my body make this thing Which thing the Apostles and their successours haue alwayes made not in pulpits as Caluin who wold haue them words of promise and of preaching must nedes allow best But they haue made the body and blood of Christ vpon the blessed altars holy tables where they oâ—…ered vnblody sacrifice and sanctified the holy mysteries with that mind oâ—… celebrating of daing and making but not with the mind of promising or preaching Neither only was this the custom of Rome to send the Eucharist already consecrated vnto other Bisshops but wise and learned men think the like vse to haue bene in euery other Churche And certeinly Iustiâ—…us Martyr of sufficient antiquity to them that care for Apostolical doctriâ—… or traditioâ—… doth witnesse that the Eucharist was made in the assembles of the 〈◊〉 and afterward sent by the Deacons to those that were absent by Deacons I say who could in no wise them selues either consecrate or iterate again the words of consecration already spokeÌ„ For as S. Hierom writeth Priests differ from Deacons because at the prayer of Priests the body and blood of Christ is made Which thing the Deacons can not doe They on'y can minister vnto the people the body and bâ—…od already consecrated and made by the Priests And therefore Iustinus Martyr writeth thus of them and of the whole making of the mysteries Panis vinumque aqua afferuntur tumque is qui primum locum tenet eodem modo preces gra tiarumque actionem pro virili mittit populusque acclamat dicens Amen Et ijs quae cum gratiarum actione consecrata sunt vnusquisque participat Eademque ad eos qui absunt Diaconis dantur perferenda Bread wine and water are brought And then he which is chief prayeth and geueth thanks to the vttermost of his pâ—…wer after the same maner which was described before and that people reioysingly crieth Amen And euery man partaketh those things which are consecrated with thanksgeuing And the same things are geuen to the Deacons to be caried to these which are absent What can be more plainly spoken Bread wine and water are consecrated by the words of prayer which we toke of Christ. those words are This is my body and this is my blood After which consecration the people cried Amen And the consecrated things to wit the body and blood which are made by the consecration of bread wine and water the body and blood I say are deliuered by the 〈◊〉 to them first which are present And when they haue communicated to others also which are absent Therefore the holynes rested in yâ— things that were consecrated and was not made by 〈◊〉 in the eares and 〈◊〉 of yâ— people but the consecrated mysteries were geuen and caryed geuen to yâ— present caryed to the absent geuen by hands not by words geuen to their hands or mouthes and not to their eares they were caried to the absent as hauing real vertue made in them by the words of Christ. what saith Caluin to these practises of the primatiue Churche what spirit will he in this point shew to vs whether will he shew the spirit of humility in wondering at and in following those Fathers which lerned all their
seruice and orders of the Apostles them selues If Caluin had that spirit he were farr from hearesy But now see what spirit Caluin hath Thus he writeth in this matter Immediatly after the words which I rehersed in the 〈◊〉 of this chapiter thus he writeth His rationibus constat repositionem Sacramenti c. It is euident saith Caluin by those reasons the reseruation of the Sacrament which some men presse to th end it maie be distributed extraordinarily to the sick to be vnprofitable For either the sick shall receaue it without rehersall of the institution of Christ or the minister together with the signe will ioyne the true explication of the mysterie If the institution of Christ be not spoken of it is an abuse and a fault If the promises be rehersed and the mysterie be declared so that they who shall receaue maie receaue with fruit we nâ—…de not dowt this to be the true consecration To what purpose then is the other whose strength reacheth not so farr as to come to the sick But you will saye they that doe so to wit that reserue the Sacrament haue the example of the old Churche Fateor I graunt but in so weighty a matter wherein errour is not committed without great danger nothing is more safe then to follow the truthe it self Hytherto Caluin hath reasoned who putteth the whole streÌ„gth of the Sacrament of Christes supper in promising and preaching therefore if any where preaching and promising be not vsed in the geuing of the Sacrament he calleth it an abuse and fault And seing the primatiue Church euen whiles the Apostles were â—…liue did by the witnesse of 〈◊〉 reserue the SacrameÌ„t so long after consecration as to send it to such Bishops which might come to strange dioceses out of an other prouince and seing the deacous vsed to carie it in the tyme of Iustinus Martyr who liued within a hundred yeres of Christes death to those which were absent Caluin I saie perceauing the vse of all Apostolicall Churchs to stand against him will seme to conâ—…ute them all with this fond reason Either the sick and absent persons for all is one concerning this matter shall receaue that which was consecrated in the Church without a new rehersall of these words This is my body And then it is an abuse saith Caluin a fault he calleth it an abuse which the scholars of the Apostles vsed or â—…ls saith he the words shal be ioyned with the signe and it is a true consecration And then saith he the first consecration made at the Church was in vain concerning the sick and absent men But the second is good which is made by preaching and rehearsing the words of promise to the sick persons I haue most faithfully behersed the opinion of Caluin But let vs now examine why it is an abuse and fault to deliuer to the sick or to the absent persons the holy hoste which was consecrated in the Churches without a new rehersall of Christes words why is that an abuse who told Caluin it was an abuse or a fault For south his own mind gaue him so his wisedom thought so his grauitie said so his blasphemonse penue wrote so But other cause reason or scripture he bringeth none for it â—…e first 〈◊〉 that the consecration of Christes supper consisteth in saying to the people This is my body which is geuen for you And proneth it not at all but graunt him once his dream consequently he inferreth that if such an hoste whereupon the words of consecration were once dewly pronouÌ„ced be afterward geueÌ„ to him that heaâ—…d not those words of promise because he was sick or absent if the â—…ost I say he geuen without a new rehersall of the words it foloweth that it is an abuse Yea but some Papist will saye the old Churche did so For now he calleth the primatiâ—…e Churche the old Churche I graunt saith Caluin But it is better yet to follow the truthe it self Why 〈◊〉 doest thow only know what the truth it self is we allege the old Church to proâ—…e that the truthe 〈◊〉 Christes gospell doth stand for vs and to proue that consecration is not made by preaching and by the hearing of the people but by the vertue of Gods word which spoken ouer the elements of bread and wine saith by the one This is my body making it so And by the other This is my blood making it so We saye these words make the body of Christ vnder the form of bread and his blood vnder the form of wine For our saying we bring the gospell where â—…t is writen this is and this is When other 〈◊〉 the gospell we shew that the Apostles and their successours practised this which we beleue For they all vnderstode by these words directed to brcad and wine that the body and blood of Christ was really made vnder the formes of them How proue we that Because if once the words had ben spoken by a Priest vpon those elements the things consecrated were afterward kept and caried as a most holy sacrifice to men abâ—…ent as the which things coÌ„teined really within them the body blood of Christ. Why els should they be caried to others that were absent A 〈◊〉 maye say that when they came to the absent persons the words were again rehersed First that appereth not in Iustinus or in Ireneus of whom the one sayth the 〈◊〉 was sent to straâ—…gers the other saith that the things consecrated which were receaued of the present Christians the same were caried to the absent How is the Eucharist sent if it be no Eucharist vntill it come to the stranger and then be made a new Or is it 〈◊〉 to iterate the consecration of any Sacrament Hath Caluin lerned so farr Did the first consecration lack â—…ertue so that an other must be made or the first be repeted Last of al the Deacons caried the Eucharist who possibly could not reherse the words of consecration This is my body and this is my blood And yet if they were words of promise preaching the Deacon who may 〈◊〉 and in preaching may 〈◊〉 yâ— spiritual seeding of our soules might also reherse those words But from the Apostles tyme to this day it was neuer heard that â—… Deacon might consecrate the body and blood of Christ. For noman is able to doe any more then wherevnto he is lawfully called But no Deacon hath the power to coÌ„secrate geuen him And that his name sheweth which is to say a 〈◊〉 or a waiter on For he waiteth vpon the Priest at Masse and is not as yet promoted to the office of 〈◊〉 Seing then the Deacons caried the Eucharist and they could not say the words of consecration doubâ—…lesse they that receaued it of their hands receaued neither words of promise nor of preaching but they receaued that blessed body and blood of Christ which was coÌ„secrated before vnder the foormes of bread wine This faith