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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
wil stand sound when Caluin and all his scholars be out of memorie This practise did the Apostles leaue to their successours and scholars as Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus and Eusebiâ—…s witnesse Now consyder what an intolerable spirit of arrogancy was in Caluin who dareth oppose him self against the first hundred yeres after Christ. He dareth affirm that all the Priests and Bisshops of Rome before 〈◊〉 committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist to strangers That all Asia and Brece committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist by Deacons to men that were absent who heard not the words of promise If thou looke to be saued good Reader beware of that arrogant spirit Learning thou shalt not find in Caluin and much lesse honesty Only he hath a sort of smothe words which are poy soned with pride and ignorance If any of his scholars wil take vpon him to defend his errour I wil by Gods grace discouer more ignorance of that arrogant Master of theirs In the meane tyme I wil content my self with these reasons which I haue presently brought against him out of the word of God and out of the sayings and doings of the whole primatiue Churche ¶ The preface of the second Booke FOr so muche as contraric things one being set against the other are both made the more clere and plaine it semed best I should not only confirme the Catholike faith but also con fute the contrarie doctrine which is allowed for good and laudable in the Apologie of the Church of England to thâ—… intent the Reader might iudge whether the Catholikes or Protestauts doe more oftallege more syncerely interprete and more throughly beleue the word of God I feare me he shal find nothing beside the name of the gospell to be among the ProtestaÌ„ts But the true meaning and vse thereof only to remain in that Catholike Church of Christ. Let the thing it self speake I aske but an vpright and indifferent iudge Neither let any man be now shamed to heare that his new chosen opinion is a great deale worse then his old faith was For if he blushed not to forsake the faith of the Catholike Church vowed at the fonte of Baptism and to embrace a truthe lately espied as he thought in the gospell Muche lesse ought he to accompt it any reproche to reade further in the same gospell and there to lern his old profession made at the tyme of his Christendom to haue bene not only the receaued belefe of all Christians but also to haue bene grounded in the true word of God and practised of the Apostles and their Successours from the beginning The Chapiters of the second Booke 1. The Catholiks require their cause to be vprightly tried by the holy scriptures which they haue alwayes studied aud reuerenced 2. It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper 3. The auncient Fathers teache that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. 4. What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood 5. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supp of Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the vnion which is consessed to be made in the supper of Christ. 7. That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God 8. That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more then two Sacraments 9. That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknouledged of the Apologie according to the word of God 10. That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament 11. What signe must cheifly be respected in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper what a Sacrament is 12. Which argument is more agreable to the word of God It is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore the true body of Christ. 13. The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of token 14. That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and this is my blood be figuratiue 15. There all presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. 16. Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body 17. The true resurrection of our bodyes cometh by eating that body of Christ which is bothe true and truly in vs. 18. Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries 19. The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature 20. It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper 21. By eating we touche the body of Christ as it maye be touched vnder the form of bread 22. The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Christ withall 23. The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie 24. The contrariety of the apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harts to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar 25. What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 26. What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper 27. That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries the table of Iayes 28. The bread which is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ. 29. Sacramentall eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apologie ¶ The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightlye tried by the holy Scriptures which they haue alwayes studied and reuerenced THe Apologie of the Church of England boasting it self partly of the word of God partly of the primatiue Church requireth that we call the new gospellers no more by the name of heretykes neither accompt our selues hereafter Catholikes except we coâ—…ince them out of the holy Scriptures as the old Catholike Fathers did vse to conuince the old stubburne heretikes If we be heretikes saith the Apologie they as they would gladly be called be Catholikes why do they not as they see the Fathers which were Catholike men haue done alwayes Why do they not conuince and maister vs by the diâ—…e Scriptures Why do they not call vs againe to be tried by them Why do they not lay before vs how we haue gone away from Christ From the Prophets From the Apostles and from the holy Fathers Why sticke they to do it Why are they afrayed of it It is Gods cause why doubt they to commit it to the triall of Gods word To this proude bragge of the Apologie thus I answere To
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
fed at Christes supper with bread and wine that is not in the word of God where it is sayd Eate This is my body The Apologie semeth to say that our bodies be not noâ—…rished with the body and blood of Christ for it assigneth body and blood to our soules as our bodies are fed with bread and wine But Christ gaue his body to noâ—…rish our bodies also And therefore sayd Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you That is as Cyrillus expoundeth it In corpore vestro in your body And therefore on the other syde Christ sayd he that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting and I will reyse him again in the last day Ego sayeth Cyrillus Id est corpus meum quod comedetur I will reyse him that is to say my body which shal be eaten Reysing belongeth to the body which falleth into putrefaction by death As therefore the body is reysed by Christes body so the body liueth in the state of grace by Christes body and such life is by spiritual nutriment which is receaued of the flesh of Christ really present in vs. For which cause Tertullian confessed that not only our soule but also our body seedeth vpon the body and blood of Christ to th' intent our soule may be made fat of God Likewise Ireneus writeth that our flesh is nourishâ—…d of the body and blood of our Lord. We may now see what errour they fall into who assigne the body and blood of Christ to our soules and bread wine to our bodies whereas there is no substance left of bread or wine but euen our bodies feede vpon Christes body as Ireneus Cyrillus and Tertullian haue sayd ¶ Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries AFter the Apologie had spoken of communion vnder both kinds and of transubstautiation of which points as yet I speake not it returneth again in a confuse manner to the matter of the reall presence and thus it sayeth And in speaking thus we meane not to abase the Lords supper or to teache that it is but a cold ceremonie only and nothing to be wrought therein as many falsely slaunder vs we teache If they that pluck down altars and other ornaments of Christes supper if they that call the blessed Sacrament of the altar by so vile names as you and your scholars haue done be not of your number if they be not your derelings if they lerned not that coÌ„tempt of holy things and the denyall of the vnbloody sacrifice of you if they first persuaded not the licenciouse youth and faithlesse companie of men and wâ—…men in EnglaÌ„d rather by blasphemous names geuen to the Eucharist then by any word of God which you stil pretend and neuer allege then let it be thought that you meane not to abase the Lords supper But if you did set all the players and minstrels in the realme a work with such scoffes as your brotherhead inuented against the blessed body and blood of Christ I feare me you be not slaundered when you are sayd to teach it to be but a cold ceremonie sith you doubt not to call euen in this Apologie yâ— honour done to it the worshipping of bread whereas it is in deed the worshipping of the true body and blood of Christ. Wel you teach not that nothing is wrought or made in the supper Then by like you teach that somewhat is wrought there I wold fain see what it is which you teach to be wrought in the sup per. For where you say that Christ geueth him self in his supper that we may eate him by faith You teach a work of Christ in geuing him self a work of ours in eating him but not any thing wrought or made in the supper it self For the supper is that meate which is prouided to be eaten at the table of Christ. There you confesse bread and wine to be taken But seing you teache the same things notwithstanding he speaketh otherwise of them yet to tarie bread and wine stil I can not perceaue what substanciall thing you teachâ—… to be wrought in the supper concerning the matter of the supper which is bread and wine Now concerning the body and blood of Christ which you graunt to be geuen by faith I trow you teache not any thing to be wrought a new and made therein sithens they be impassible and therefore can not haue any thing made in them what is it then which you teache to be made in the supper Either bread and wine is the supper or the body and blood of Christ or both together For nothing els is there mentioned Bread and wine you say remayne still as they were before concerning their substaÌ„ce Then I say nothing is wrought in them The body and blood of Christ can haue nothing wrought in their substance because that wherein somewhat shal be made must suffer of that which worketh it therefore glose the matter how ye will you teache not any substanciall thing to be wrought in the supper of Christ except you call the geastes them selues the supper And then I weâ—…e they must be eaten vp of some body in so much as euery supper is prouided to be eaten We teache the substance of bread and wine to be made the substance of Christes body and blood And that is yâ— true work made in the supper of Christ where the mutable creatures are turned into the immutable substance of Christ. which work sith you deny bable what you wil you teache nothing to be wrought in the supper of Christ. ¶ The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature FOr we affirme that Christ doth truly and presently geue his owne self in his Sacraments in Baptisme that we may put him on and in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite and may haue euerlasting life by his crâ—…sse and blood Heare ye not how they affirme that Christ presently geueth his own self wold not a maÌ„ thinke they meant honestly and truly But sith they can make the words of Christ figuratiue when they lyst wonder not if they require their own words to be taken figuratiuely They meane not that Christ doth geue him self presently to our bodies and soules as is requisite to the presence of the flesh and blood of man why then vse they such words Uerily because they see the Scriptures so playne the Fathers and Councells so manifest the â—…aith and practise of the Church so euident for yâ— reall presence of Christ that in no wyse they may confesse any other thing then they doe And yet on the other side being fully determined to sticke to their desperate opinion that we really neither eate nor drinke vnder forme of bread and wine
touch it vnder the foorm of bread not hindering our touching by our belefe but rather furthering our belefe by our touching for so much as we touche that visibly wherein we beleue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly The Apologie supposeth holding by faith to be contrarie to touching with teeth But we think them bothe to agree right well and both to be true in their proper kind S. Ireneus writing against those heretiks who denied the resurrection of our flesh sayeth that S. Paule naming spirituall men doth call them so because they partake of the spirit Sed non secundum defraudationem interceptionem carnis but not as defrauding them or as taking their flesh from them Euen so it is true that we hold Christ by faith spirit and vnderstanding in the holy mysteries but we thereby ought not to take away the truthe of his flesh which is in the same mysteries It is an old custome of heretiks by the assertioÌ„ of one truth to imbarr stop an other truth whereas yâ— Catholiks beleue as wel yâ— one as yâ— other ¶ The â—…acramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Chriâ—…t withall ANd this is no vaine faith which doth comprehend Christ and that is not receaued with cold deuotion which is receaued with vnderstanding with faith and with spirit The faiâ—…h of receauing Christ in spirit which you speake of is not vaine when it denieth not some veritie of the Gospell But seing you denie this to be the body of Christ which Christ visibly deliuered now it is a vaine faith to beleue that who so denieth parcell of his faith doth notwithstanding comprehend and receaue Christ by faith or spirit What vnderstanding haue you that say This is my body doth not meane This is my body What faith haue you that beleue not the working and effectual words of Christ which were spoken with blessing What spirit haue you when you know not yâ— words of Christ to be spirit life as yâ— which make all that which they sound in that consecration of his holy mysteries It is a warme deuotion that hearing the body of Christ by him self affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye Godly honour to it God kepe me and all others from such faith such vnderstanding such spirit and such deâ—…otion ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie FOr Christ him self altogether is so offered and geuen vs in these mysteries that we may certeinly know we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be geuen vs in these mysteries he is present in thâ—…m For a gift is not made of a thing absent But he is not any where to be shewed present but only vnder the forms of bread and wine yet Christ shewed his body blood saying This is my body this is my blood This and this be words that shew things which are spoken of therefore the presence of Christ which you confesse and which him self sheweth must nedes be meant of his presence vnder the formes of bread and wine Again if we may certainly know we are flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones if we may know it as your words import by his presence in these mysteries Seing our knowlege must nedes rise of a certaine truth otherwise it were an errour and not a knowlege it is certainly true that in theis mysterics we are by the presence of Christ in them flesh of his flesh bone of his bones But yâ— can not be except yâ— flesh bones of Christ be really present yea so really present as Christes mother was really present to hym he to her when he toke flesh of her flesh For a coniunctioÌ„ betwixt yâ— flesh of Christ yâ— flesh of men caÌ„ not de made by faith spirit vnderstanding For yâ— is a coniunctioÌ„ oâ—… mind but not of flesh bones Flesh and bones haue no faith or spirit whereby the coÌ„iunction betwene them and Christ may be receaued they haue a natural substance as wel in Christ as in vs. And as the man and wife can not be one flesh by the consent of mariage except in dede they come bodily together Euen so caÌ„ not the flesh of Christ be made one with our flesh except both his flesh he present in the Sacrament for vs and we come to the selfe Sacrament to be ioyned to it And this example of mariage is so good and true that S. Paul him self vseth it in talking of this verie coniunction of flesh and bones betwixt vs and Christ. which now the Apologie semeth to allude vnto But the flesh of Christ cometh not from his Fathers right hand corporally to be ioyned with our flesh Therefore it remaineth that the bread is by consecration turned into Christes 〈◊〉 to thintent it may â—…e receaued and made one with our flesh Other meanes how either Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh the Gospel neuer taught the Fathers neuer lerned yâ— Catholike Church neuer knew But by this meanes S. Irenens S. Hilarie S. Cyril S. Chrysostome and other Fathers coÌ„sesse our natural ioyning with Christes flesh as it shall appere in diuerse places of this booke ¶ The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harrs to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar ANd therefore in celebrating these mysteries the people are to good purpose exhorted before they come to receaue the holy communâ—…on to lift vp their harts and to direct their minds to heauenward because he is there by whom we must be full fed and liue Who euer had to doe with so forgetfull men A eâ—…ueller name I wil not vse For Gods sake good reader suffer not thy self to be lead of them as if thou haddest nor wit nor sense Be a child in anoiding malice but in vnderstanding shew thy self a man I assure thee he is not worthy to be called a man who perceauing their extreme foly as now he may yet wil addict him self to folow their doctrine See I besech you how this geare hangeth together Christ said the Apologie in the last sentence geueth him self present in these mysteries we know we are flesh of his flesh bone of his bones and therfore we are byd lift vp our harts to heauen becauâ—…e he is there by whom we must be ful fed and liue Mark how this therefore cometh in it agreeth together as if it were sayd in shorter words Christ geueth him self present in these mysteries and therefore he is not here but in heaueÌ„ seeding vs from thence You deceaued deceauers how feare you not to dally thus with the dreadfull mysteries of God Doth Christ offer
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
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
cibum ferret God the Father hath signed that is to say hath sent the Sonne of man to bring you this meate And Eâ—…thymius agreeth with S. Chrysostome therein Christ therefore being sent of his Father to geue vs the euerlasting meate of life first fayeth I am the bread of life And then sheweth how he will geue the same bread saying And the bread which I will geue is my flesh S. Cyrillus vppon those words I am the bread of life writeth thus His verbis subostendit sanctissimi sui corporis vitam gratiam qua in nobis vnigeniti proprietas id est vita ingreditur permanet In these words he sheweth priuily the life and grace of his most holy body whereby the proprietie that is to say the life of the only begotten both entreth into vs and tarieth Likewise S. Hilarie hath these words Si verè verbuÌ„ caro factum est nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est If the word be truly made flesh and in our Lords meate we truly re ceaue the word made flesh how can it be but he must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Christ being for euer God in the fulnesse of tyme toke flesh and when the hower of death was at haÌ„d he gaue vs that flesh to be eaten by the which eating we reâ—…eaue the word it self that is to say the naturall Sonne of God into our bodies and so Christ dwelleth in vs not only by faith spirit or vnderstanding but naturally Wherefore S. Hilarie sayth we take and receaue the word truly Verè verbuÌ„ sumimus We receaue truly and in dede the word which was with God in the beginning and which was God But how can we receaue God truly or naturally God is a spirit and our nature consisting of a body can not fede truly and naturally vpon a spirit but only by faith and charitie How â—…hen receaue we God truly For south because 〈◊〉 toke flesh truly and we receaue truly the word made flesh Noman doubted but we can truly receaue flesh seing then the word is made flesh we thereby can receaue the word it self not only by vnderstanding but also whiles his own proprietie that is to say whiles the life Godhead which corporally dwelleth in Christes flesh entreth into vs with his flesh tariâ—…th in vs if we receaue worthely his most holy body Thus it appeareth that Christ in his flesh geueth vs the bread of life which he was sent to geue and he geueth it because that flesh is vnited to the word of God which is life by his own nature But if this flesh of his be geuen to vs by faith alone and vnderstanding or spirit alone and not in very dede We haue not yâ— bread of life in dede geuen to vs but only geuen to vs by faith spirite or vnderstanding And so it was geuen to vs before yâ— incarnatioÌ„ of Christ. For God was euer beleued on of the iust men â—…oth to be and to be the rewarder of them who seeke him as S. Paule sayth And faith by nature is due to God as Christ sayth 〈◊〉 beleue in God beleue also in me Therefore although Christ hath taken flesh yet if his flesh he geuen to vs only by â—…aith and spirit the bread of life and nature of God which dwelleth corporally in that flesh is not geuen vs after the coming of Christ by any other meanes then by faith And so by the incarnation of Christ we haue not the bread of life geueÌ„ to vs by any other way then we had it before Which is expresly against the word of God where the euerlasting meat and the bread of life is now first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the world to bring vs this euerlasting meate And the bread which he will geue is his flesh Therefore to saue the truth of yâ— Gospell which neuer caÌ„ faile we must beleue that by the incarnation of Christ and by his gifâ—… at the last supper we haue his reall flesh and in it the bread of life geuen to vs more then by faith or vnderstanding or spirit that more is the gift of the true substance of flesh and of blood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth And by it the Godhead is receaued of vs not only by an effecte of grace by a certain verâ—…ue but in such truth of nature as it is corporally dwelling in the person of Christ who is one in substance with his Father For although God be euery where by nature and fill both heauen and earth yet as Iustinus Martyr witnesseth he is in the Sonne of man by so excellent a meane of vâ—…g man to God that he is no where els after that sort And by that singular meane he was promised vnto vs as who is only the euerlasting meate which alone satisfieth the hunger of man whose harte as S. Augustine confesseth is without rest vntil it rest in God because it was made to come to God And nothing is at quiet vntill it hâ—…ue obteyned the end wherevnto it was first made Seing then God is by nature yâ— only euerlasting meate which perisheth not and seing he must be geuen to vs in his own nature and we are not able to receaue him as he is a spirit he hath done for vs as good mothers and Nourses doe for their babes The mother eateth bread by her eating turneth it into milk and that milk she geueth to the infante and by that meanes the infante eateth bread made milk This similitude S. Augustine bringeth for the same purpose whereof I now speake In the beginning was the worde and the worde was with God and the word was God Ecce cibus sempiternus Behold sayeth S. Augustine the euerlasting meate Sed manducant Angeli But the Angels eate it Quis homo posset ad illum cibum What man were able to attayne to that meate Oportebat ergo vt illa mensa lactesceret ad paruulos perueniret It behoued therefore that foode should be turned into milk and so come to litle ones Vnde cibus in lac conuertitur nisi per carnem traijciatur By what meanes is meate turned into milk except it be conueyed through flesh Quomodo ergo de ipso pane pauit nos sapientia Dei How then hath the wisedome of God fed vs with yâ— bread it selfe Quia verbum caro factum est habitauit in nobis Because the worde is made flesh and hath dwelte in vs. And so S. Augustine coÌ„cludeth yâ— man hath eateÌ„ Angels food and that as he sheweth there in the new sacrifice of Christes supper For of that sacrifice Sacrament he intreateth Thus we see that God him self must be eaten of vs not only by faith for then he neded not to haue bene made man but he must be eaten also as infants eate milk by mouth
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
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
geue it them This is a hard talk sayd they they were hard and not the talk for if they were not hard but gentle they wold say to them selues He speaketh not this thing rashly but because there lieth priuie some Sacrament â—…eing gen tle not hard they wold â—…arie with him and should learn of him that thing which after their departure those lerned who taried for when yâ— twelue had taried with him the other being departed they as who were sorie of yâ— others departing warned Christ that they were offended with his word so were departed but Christ instructed them and sayd It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh profiteth not the words which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life vnderstand that which I haue spoken spiritually Ye shall not eate this body which ye see ne shall not drink that blood which they shal shed who wil 〈◊〉 me I haue commended to you a certain Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstanded shal make you liue and although that Sacrament mustenedes be visibly celebrated yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded thus much S. Augustine First I note in these words against the Lutherans that S. Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament of his last supper for there only a Sacrament of his death is visibly folemnized and inuisibly vnderstanded Secondly I note against the Zuinglaâ—…s that the figuratiue speache which S. Augustine acknowlegeth in Christes words is to be measured and meant according to the natural and customable speaking and vnderstanding of carnall men who yet be not fully faithfull for they thought they should haue eaten Christes flesh torne into peeces to fâ—…l their bellies there withal for in dede the eating of flesh naturally imploieth cutting or tearing before it come to our month and afterward chawing with the teeth and so the filling of the bellye but in respect of all suche meanings the words of Christ be figuratiue For seing it is against the honestie of maners to order mans flesh after such a cruel fashion the Iewes should haue deuised how to make an honest meaning of his words whom they confessed to be a great Prophete or at the least they should haue asked of Christ the true meaning of his own words For seing Christ had multiplied siue loaues miraculously to feed them and did so many other miracles and so much good in al the countrie that all men who were voide of malice confessed him to be of God reason geueth they should harken obediently to his words as the which they might perceaue to be spoken by no meane or common man and that therefore they should not measure them by their own phantasie experience Now then to say that except ye eate my flesh is a siguratiue speache is no more to say but you must not take the eating of Christes flesh so as at the first sight it cometh to your mind neither concerning the vsuall maner nor concerning the customable end of yâ— eating for that is vnhonest Tarie therefore vntill you find a better sense Whiche sense is found when it is knowen that Christ vnder the forme of bread geueth the substance of his flesh whole sound and quick with the Godhead corporally dwelling in it to the end we should liue spiritually for euer by worthy receauing it into our bodies and soules Thirdly I note much the kind of speaking which S. Augustine vseth For he calleth that thing a Sacrament vpon yâ— words of the Psalm now alleged which in his bookes of Christian doctrine he called a figure Shewing him self to take the name of a figure for all that when a farther and higher thing is to be vnderstanded then was outwardly expressed in which case the thing expressed is a Sacrament to wit a figure or a holy signe of that higher truth which is to be vnderstanded but he meant not by the name of a figure either to exclude the truth of eating Christes flesh or the truthe of drinking his blood but only the grosse maner of eating and drinking it to a carnal end which the Iewes thought vpon for as the killing and eating of the Paschall lamb was not only natural but also gaue yâ— faithful to vnderstand that Christ â—…ould be both killed on the crosse and eaten in a Sacrament and as the figure which was in that Lamb did not diminish the real killing and eating thereof but only did refer it to a higher truthe so the figure which is in eating Christes flesh doth not diminish the true eating thereof but only declareth that eating to be a figure because it is referred again to a higher truthe both in Christ whose flesh that once died is now eaten and in vs who eate it not so much for to eate it corporally as to fede spiritually of God him self who maketh that flesh profitable and that S. Augustine thought so it is euident by his own words vpon S. Iohn ye know not what is that maner of eating this flesh but except ye eate it c. Lo the maner of eating was secret but the thing that should be eaten was naturall flesh Again Carnem sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur non quomodo spiritu vegetatur They so vnderstode flesh as it is torne in a carcase or solde in the shambles And not as it is quickened with the spirit or Godhead Here it is reported wherein the Iewes did erre They toke the word flesh amisse not concerning the substance of it which must be really eaten but concerning the maner of eating it Is not modus Latin for the maner Is not quomodo as much to say as by what maner The Iewes vnderstode yâ— name of flesh Quomodo dilaniatur non quomodo vegetatur After such maner as it is torn into pecces and not after such maner as it is quickened with the spirit of God Do not these words import that the Iewes erred in the manner of eating Christes flesh Doth not he that findeth fault only with the maner of eating flesh sufficiently allow the eating of the flesh it self if it be done after a good maner Yea farther doth not he that sheweth the maner how it may be well eaten approue that kind of eating it As we must not â—…ate Christes flesh after such a grosse maner as is vsed in eating such flesh which is commonly cut into peeces Right so we must eate Christes flesh after such maner as it is quickened with the Godhead So doe S. Angustines words import I beseche thee good Reader see the oddes betwene the argument of a Catholike and of a SacrameÌ„tarie He reasoneth thus we must not eate Christes flesh carnally and butcharly therefore we must not eate really yâ— substance thereof We reason thus We must eate Christes flesh as it is quickened with the Godhead therefore we must eate really the substance thereof The argument of the Sacramentarie is naught
because a certain vse or maner of a thing forbidden doth not infer that the substance of the thing it self is forbidden Yea contrariewise the forbidding of one maner semeth to licence the same thing in an other maner As if the law say let noman were a sword in the city it semeth to graunt that men may were a sword in the highe way And yet because S. Augustine sayth we ought to take Christes words figuratiuely in respect of such a foule maner of eating his flesh as the Iewes imagined the Sacramentarie will conclude that Christes flesh it self must not be eaten really and substancially at all See on the other syde why the Catholikes argument is good and laudable Euery maner and qualitie which is graunted coÌ„cerning the vse of any substance doth infer of necessitie the hauing of that substance But we may externally in a Sacrament by our fact and dede as wel as by faith eate Christes flesh Quomodo spiritu vegetatur after such maner as it is quickened with the spirit therefore we must haue it substancially and really present to the end we may so eate it in the sayd Sacrament The not eating it after a grosse maner doth not take away the eating of it in substance but the eating of it in a Sacrament whereof we now speake as it is dwâ—…t in of the 〈◊〉 which is a moâ—… pure maner of eating it doth include the eating of it in substaÌ„ce where dwelleth the Godhead but in the substance of Christes flesh Or how can I eate it as the spirit doth quicken it if I eat not the substance of it which only is quickened and vnited to the Godhead which thing sith it is so S. Augustine meaneth noâ—… by calling Christes words figuratiue to exclude the eating 〈◊〉 his flesh substancially but to exclude the eating of it by peece meale or els for the filling of the belly And therefore vppon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he writeth Quomodo illi intellexerunt carnem non sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam After such maner as they vnderstode flesh I do not so geue my flesh to eate What is this to say but I gâ—…ue my flesh to be eaten after an other sort but not in an other substance then the Iewes thought of The Iewes erred in the maner of eating as thinking they should eate it in that visible quantitie wherein Christ spake and so they erred in the maner but not in the substance of Christes flesh But the Sacramentaries erre in the substance it 〈◊〉 The Iewes thought Christes slesh should haue bene eaten properly and naturally as other meates are eaten which are diuided and perished in the eating The Sacramentaries think that Christes flesh must not be eaten substancially or in truth of his own nature but 〈◊〉 and by faith alone The truth receaued in the whole Catholike Church is that Christes flesh is eaten both substancially and figuratiuâ—… in such sort that the 〈◊〉 eating is referred to an eating by faith we eate Christes flesh substancially because his true substance was both shadowed in the law of nature and of Moyses to be eaten and prophecied of before as meate and drink and promised by Christ vnder those names And deliuered by his own hands with these words This is my body and this is my blood take and eate and beleued in the whole church and adored vnder the formes of bread and wine through all Christendome we beleue that same substance of Christes flesh to be also eaten figuratiuely because it is not remoued thereby from his place in heauen but is made present by wordes which signifie worke the presence of his flesh and blood It is not sene in his own shape not felt nor tasted in his own proprieties not cut into peeces although diuerse take it together it is not perished by eating it â—…deth not the belly or yâ— sensible but the reasonable spiritual life it is not eaten only to be eateÌ„ but to make vs remeÌ„bre effectually and to conforme our selues to the death and life of him whose flesh it is And thereby to make vs to loue him to beleue him to be the bread of life to all the faithsull and no lesse to gather diuerse men into one mysticall body of his church then diuerse bodies of wheat and of grapes are made into one artificiall body of bread and wine the which mysticall body he will no lesse change from mortalitie then he hath changed the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his flesh and blood Seing the flesh of Christ may signifie so many things vnto vs through the maner of the presence it were more then madnesse to say it is not a figure or is not eaten figuratiuely But because it signifieth so many things therefore to deny it to be present is to take away no lesse the figures whiche come by the presence of it then the thing it felfe Christ is the figure of his fathers substance the image of God who can not be sene he is 〈◊〉 in shape as a man But what is he not therefore the same substance with his father 〈◊〉 God with him and true man in dede who reason thus but 〈◊〉 who but ArriaÌ„s but Marcionits but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did S. 〈◊〉 gustine euer meane suche a figure of Christes 〈◊〉 whiche was voide of the truth sigured taught he not that we must adore the body and blood of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 it â–ª but of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 doth not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 or twain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that bread is there to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lose is both bread 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread in 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 so is the 〈◊〉 of Chri. a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vs. It is the flesh it self and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 owne substance without any 〈◊〉 or lacke and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of death whiche the same 〈◊〉 hauing 〈◊〉 once 〈◊〉 not now suffer but would by his own 〈◊〉 make it 〈◊〉 to vs in suche sort that we should 〈◊〉 the death of 〈◊〉 and partake the fruites of the death as oft as we came to receaue that 〈◊〉 worthely what nede more wordes To geue a brief resolution of S. 〈◊〉 mynd it is to be noted that both by his iudgemeÌ„t and by the 〈◊〉 of the Sa cramentaries these words except ye eate the flesh c. belong to the mysterie of Christes supper therefore if they be figuratiue they must shewe some figure in one parte or other of the supper The supper coÌ„sisteth of bread wine as of material parts â—…of it must be made and of pronouncing vpoÌ„ or ouer them as S. Iustinus the martyr speaketh the wordes instituted by Christ this is my body and this is my blood the which words wheÌ„ they come to
washing hath a farther and higher end then only to cleanse the body That speache therefore wherein Christ commaÌ„deth his flesh to be eateÌ„ is figuratiue not that we should denye the true eating of his flesh but because that eating is referred to a greater purpose then to the feeding of the body for Christes flesh is meate in dede that is to say is eaten in dede as I shal proue vpon that place but it is not eaten only that it should be corporalâ—…y receaued but to th end we should partake of the spirit and godhead which is in it and so by the merit of that flesh really present in vs obteyn life euerlasting with it now from what a worthy meaning wold these figuratiue Gospellers bring the words of our sauiour whose hard harts I beseche God to mollify that when they heare the truthe their stomake do not kendle to maynteine their old fashon beâ—…ore they haue well loked about them rather choosing to confesse a fault and to amend it then to make a new synne by myssexcusing the former fault ¶ Christes slesh being meate in dede must nedes be really receaued into our bodyes HE that wil know exactly why the flesh of Christ is called meate in dede must put before his eies three thinges The first is that the Iewes hearing Christ say he wold geue them his flesh asked how he could geue it to be eaten The second is that although Christ answered not directly to their captious how and vnsaythful question yet he sayd the eating of his flesh to be necessary for them as without the whiche they could not haue life and profitable as whereby they shold haue euerlasting life that not in their soules only but also in their bodies for so much as he wold reise them vp in the last day after whiche two things well pondered the third is to marke that Christ confirmeth all these former sayings of his by suche wordes as geue a reason of them for my flesh saith he is meate in dede and my blood is drinke in dede as if he had sayd wonder not yâ— my flesh geueth you life euerlasting reiseth vp your bodies for it is meate in dede that is to say it hath truly in dede those proprieties which any man wold wish for in true meate Two thinges may be considered in meate the one that it is trulie receaued into the body of that liuing creature for whose vse it is appointed the other that it is receaued as a medicine whiche may preserue vs against death for meate is neither properly attributed vnto the feeding of the sowle but only by a metaphor and an vnproper speache neither is it worthy to be called true meat if it gene not a true remedie against death there fore when Christ saith My flesh is meate in dede he meaneth thus my flesh bothe shal be receaued into the verie bodies of my people and shall geue life euerlasting as well to their bodiâ—…s as to their soules â–ª the whiche interpretation S. Chrysostom maketh writing thus Quid significat c. what meane these words my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is truly drinke either it meaneth that flesh to be the true meate whiche saueth the soule or els he speaketh it to confirm them in the former wordes Nâ—… obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scirent omnino necessariuÌ„ esse vt corpus comederent that they should not thinke him to haue spokeÌ„ in parables darkely but that they should know it to be by all meanes necessary to eate his body thus far S. Chrysostom By whiche interpretation Christ geueth a reason both of his first wordes wherein he sayd the bread which I wil geue is my flesh and of the second when he sayd he that eateth my flesh hath life euerlasting for my flesh is meate in deede both in that respect that it shal be geuen to you as true meate is wont to be deliuered to them who truly take and truly eate it and also in that respect that it nourisheth truly as true and eâ—…erlasting meate ought to nourishe he that denieth any one sense of the twaine deuieth one veritie of the ghospell he that graunteth both senses must needes graunt that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truly the signe of flesh because he spake not obscurely nor in parables as S. Chrysostom affirmeth and yet it is an obsâ—…nre saying to put flesh for materiall bread or eating for beleuing it is a parabolicall speache if when flesh blood eating and drinking is named yet we shal â—…derstand that bakers bread must be eaten and wyne drunken and Christ must be loued beleued vppon these parables neither Christ thought of nor the Fathers knew If Adam had not synned the opinion of ancient doctors is that notwithstanding his body consisted of contrarie elements by whose continual fight and battail it should naturally haue drawen to corruption and dissolution yet through the maruelouse grace of God saith S. Augustine his body shoâ—…lo haue bene far from disseases from old age from death from all corruption by tasting of the wood of life whiche was in yâ— middest of paradise Tanquam caetera essent alimento illud Sacramento vt sic fuisse accipiatur lignum vitae in paradyso corporali sicut in spiritali hoc est intelligibili paradyso sapientia Dei de qua scriptum est Lignum vitae est omnibus amplectentibus eam So that other meates in paradise were to nourish Adam corporally the word of life was also in stede of a mysterie or Sacrament to th' end the word of life should be vnderstanded to be after such sort in the corporal paradise as the wisedom of God is in the spiritual paradise which is atteined to by only vnderstanding the which wisedom of God as it is writen thereof is the wood of life to all that embrace it As now the wood of life which should haue preserued man froÌ„ incorruption was to be bodily tasted of and yet to worâ—…e a Sacramentall and spirituall effect in preseruing mans body aboue al course of a corrutible nature so is it meant that Christes flesh which is in dede the wood of life should be a SacrameÌ„t vnto vs by the corporall eating and spiritual working thereof for bothe these canses together it is called meate in dede Take a way yâ— corporall tasting of Christes body and charitie â—…aith hope or any like vertue is proportionably in his degree meat in dede or drinke in dede as the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is For all those vertues coming from God feed vs in dede to life euerlasting therefore haue that second proprietie of trut meat which is to nourish for euer But they haue not yâ— first proprietie which is to be receaued after an external maner into our bodies To this externall maner Christ had also respect when he â—…ayd My flesh is meat in dede or
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
him self to be almyghty God He said also that it was profytable because he that dyd eate his flesh and drinke his blood should be raised againe to life euerlasting If they had beleued him in these pointes they might haue asked yea without asking they had knowen at or not long after his last supper the maner how it should haue bene coÌ„ueniently done as those Apostles did know who continued in their belefe And the way of knowledge was at his last supper where taking breade with speaking of these wordes this is my body he changed the substance of the breade into his body and wylled his disciples to take and eate his body This much those could not fre because thei would not beleue but to say that Christ hyndred their belefe by words more hard then neded that is more cruelly sayd thê it neded Oportebat c. they ought saith S. Cyril first of al to cast the rootes of faith in their mind and then to aske the thinges that were to be asked but the Iewes asked importunely before they beleued for this cause our Lord shewed them not how it might be brought to passe aâ—…terward S. Cyrill declareth how Christ in his last supper shewed yâ— maner also to theÌ„ who dyd beleue although they asked not for it ¶ The right vnderstanding of those words It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing I May be the shorter in this point because none of those who are meanely conuersant in the bookes of auncient writers though otherwyse they beleue not well haue applied these words against the reall presence of Christes body in his last supper for how can it be that Christes fleshe which is geuen for the life of the world should profite nothing Therefore S. Basil S. Chrysostom and S. Augustin do expound the name of flesh after one sort for the fleshly and carnall vnderstanding of the Iewes who thought they should haue eaten Christ as men eat mutton and beefe whereas Christ meant to geue his flesh in a secret maner as the faithful know which notwithstaÌ„ding the Luciferian spirit of Caluin reproueth this first vnderstanding in his comments vppon this place But it is sufficient to say that he difsented from those three notable pillers of Gods Church before named The second vnderstanding is on Christes behalf whose flesh should not profit any thing if the spirit that is to say the Godhead did not make it able to geue vs euerlasting life The which sense is chiefly followed by S. Augustin also and by S. Cyrillus Now seing the flesh of Christ is geuen so to vs vnder the foorm of bread that the Godhead is present with it we are sure to haue much profit by it What nede moe words If this saying appertem not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our belefe If it doe appertein to it the words are Propheticall because they speake before hand of a thing which most certeinly shall come to passe in the last supper and then the fulfilling of them will make them plaine For as Procopius saith A prophecie at the first sight is not clere but when it is come to the euent which was forespoken and is coÌ„ferred with the thing it self then draweth it to a perfit clerenes If now the sayd words were fulsilled at the supper and take a clere vnderstaÌ„ding thereof what meaning can they haue but that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spiritual sort not after a fleshely maner He gaue not a shoulder to one Apostle and a legg to an other a brest to the third and a ribbe to the fourth but the whole body to euery 〈◊〉 not visible in the forme of flesh but inuisible in the forme of bread so making plaine why he had so often called him selfe bread and said that the bread which he would geue is his flesh He gaue not his body without his soule and Godhead neither his blood without his bones and flesh but the spirite quickened al things eche kinde had whole Christ. He lost not his visible body by geuing of it but by his words which are spirit and life turned bread and wine into his body and blood shewing yâ— as he was at the table in his whole body notwithstanding they did eate the same body so he might be in heauen although the sub stance of his true body and blood were geuen in his Sacrament in earth What shall I say more If the vnderstanding of these words depend vpon the last supper they must not geue vs a rule how to vnderstand the last supper but they must take their vnderstanding of it Who dare say that bread was crucified for vs because Ieremie sayd Mittamus lignum in panem eius let vs put wood into his bread Do we not rather say that because we are sure that the true flesh of Christ was crucified therefore in Ieremie bread is taken for flesh Who dare say that Christ had hornes in his hands because Habacuk said Cornua in manibus eius Do we not rather say that by hornes he meante the corners of the crosse because we are sure that Christ had vpon the crosse no materiall hornes in his hands If then these words the spirit quickeneth be referred to the supper and there we finde bread wine taken and after blessing body and blood geuen we may be well assured that one truth doth not take away the other Spirit doth not take away flesh but spirit must be taken for the Godhead which maketh the flesh both to be present and profitable to all such as receaue it worthely ¶ The words of Christ being spirit and life shew that his reall flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of nature and reason VErba quae ego locutus sum vobis spiritus vita sunt The words which I haue spoken or as the greke text readeth which I doe speake to you are spirit and life The Capharnaits hearing Christ say he wold geue his flesh to be eaten partly thought it not possible for him to geue partly not semely for them selues to take They imagined a diuisioÌ„ of yâ— flesh which should be deliuered and consequently the person whose flesh were cut in such peeces must die but how could a dead man geue his own flesh to be eaten Again though he could doe it what a cruel thing were it for them to eate mans flesh Christ knowing this theyr grosse concept sayth that the sonne of man wil ascend into heauen where he was before Thereby declaring first his almighty power and Godhead Next that the gift of his flesh doth not import the lacke of life either in yâ— geuer or in the thing geueÌ„ For theÌ„ in dede the gift should be litle worth because it is the spirit life which quickeneth dead flesh profiteth nothing to euerlasting life My words sayth Christ be spirit and life that is to say they
be words of him that is by nature euerlasting life who meaneth to geue his flesh aliue and that not only so aliue as our flesh liueth whiles the soule is in it but so liuing as that flesh liueth which is 〈◊〉 and ioyned in one person to the Godheâ—…d Think no more you grosse Capharnaits of dead flesh geueÌ„ by peece meale which is not auayable to brâ—…g you to heaueÌ„ but think of such a flesh as God hath assuÌ„pted to geue life by it to the world of such a flesh as will ascend by his own vertue into heauen of such a flesh as being conceaued not by the sede of man but by the holy ghost hath power to become spirituall without losse of his true nature and substance My words be spirit and life Spiritus est Deus God is a spirit In ipso vita erat life was in the word verbum caro factum est and yâ— word was made flesh Of that flesh Christ words must be vnderstanded That is the flesh which he will geue which we must eate that flesh liueth with God and in God and geueth them life who receaue it worthely This doutlesse is the literall meaning of Christes words and therefore S. Cyrillus douted not to write Spiritum hic c. Christ hath called here the very flesh â—…pirit not because it hath lost the nature of flesh and is changed into the spirit but because the flesh being very nigh ioyned with the spirit or Godhead hath receaued the whole power of quikning or of making thiÌ„gs to liue The words then which I haue spoken to you are spirit that is to say spirituall Et de spiritu vita id est de viuisica naturali vita sunt And they are of the spirit and life That is to say of the naturall life and of that which maketh other things to liue This phrase Verba mea de spiritu sunt my words are of the spirit doth meane that the words of Christ haue in them some of his spirit and of his diuine power Which meaning sith it is most true these words of Christ doe not shew that the naming of flesh and blood which went before was figuratiue and that now Christ declareth only a spirituall vnderstanding of them as the Sacramentaries teach but all is cleane coÌ„trary For Christ now geueth a reason why his former words be possible easy true and proper The reason is for that he is God that spake them and he spake them of that flesh which is vnited to the sonne of God Spiritus viuificans est caro Domini c. The flesh of our Lord sayth Damascen is a spirit which quickeneth because it was coÌ„ceiued of a quickenâ—…g spirit sor that which is borne of the spirit is spirit Which thing I say not taking away the nature of the body but intending to shew the Godhead thereof and the power which it hath to make things liue As therefore the flesh of Christ was not thereby no flesh because it was ioyned to his diuine substance but rather had by that vnion the power to make vs liue for euer euen so yâ— words which before did shew the flesh of Christ to be meate in dede and his blood to be drink in dede are not now declared to be figuratiue or vnproper words but rather they are declared to be most proper and true because they are witnessed to be spirit and life For as the Godhead is in his own nature most infinite almighty simple and vncompounded and the truth it self So those words which partake of the Godhead are declared to be of most strength to work that they sound to be most simple and to haue least figures parables in them as the which conteine the vertue to make that truth which they signifiâ—… So that the name of spirit doth not stand to depriâ—…e vs of Christes reall flesh but only to make it profitable to vs and to shew that Christ by his word is able to geue vs his flesh wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth Corpus Dei sayeth S. Ambrose Corpus est spiritale corpus Christi corpus est diuini spiritus quia Spiritus est Christus The body of God is a spirituall body the body of Christ is the body of the diuine spirit because Christ is the spirit that is to say God Non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritalis est It is therefore no bodily but a spirituall food The food is spirituall as the body of Christ which he toke of the virgin is spiritual But the body is not spiritual as though it lacked the substance of true flesh but because it was wrought and made by the holy Ghost in the virgens womb Therefore the heauenly bread which we receaue from the altar is a spirituall food noâ—… that it lacketh the true substance of Christes flesh but because it is wrought and made present vnder the foorm of bread by the spirit of God and by the holy Ghost aboue all course of nature It is clere saith S. Ambrose that the virgen did beare Christ otherwise then the course of nature was and this body which we make is of the virgen What sekest thou here the course of nature in the body of Christ seing our Lord Iesus him self is brought foorth of the virgen besyde the course of nature As who should say the reall flesh of Christ is made present vnder the foorm of bread by the holy Ghost euen as Christ was incarnate in the virgens womb by the holy Ghost It is the Godhead the spirit the life that worketh all things in yâ— holy mysteries The flesh without yâ— Godhead profiteth nothing From yâ— Godhead the words came which Christ spake That Godhead is it which maketh Christes flesh profitable Per carnem spiritus sayth S. Augustine aliquid prosalute nostra egit caro vas fuit quod habebat attende non quod erat By the flesh the spirit or Godhead did somewhat for our saluation The flesh was the vessel or instrument mark what the flesh had or held and not what it was by his own nature And again The charitie of God is spread in our harts by the holy Ghost which is geuen to vs. Ergo it is the holy Ghost which quickeneth The words which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life What is it to say they are spirit and life They are to be vnderstanded spiritually If thou hast vnderstanded them spiritually they are spirit and life if thou hast vnderstanded them carnally they are spirit and life but not to thee Thus farre S. Augustine The word spirit may stand to signifie God Angels the soule of man the life the gift of God made to any reasonable creature the wind or breath or ayer or briefly any thing that moueth But among all significations the chief is to signifie God who is by nature the only spirit which quickeneth and moueth all other spirits
In whom we liue are moued and haue our being Therefore the words which are called spirit and life are called in effect diuine and almighty Spirit sometyme standeth to signific the words of God as when S. Paule sayth the letter killeth the spirit quickeneth the letter in that place doth signiâ—…ie the law and the spirit doth signifie the words of our Lord as S. Basile doth expound it For Christ our Lord geueth grace to his words that they should not only signifie things as the words of the law did but also make and work the things which they signified The words that be spirit must be vnderstanded spiritually that is to say diuinely and as it becometh the words of him who is God him self whose words haue power in them selues to worke that which they betoken To vnderstand the words of Christ spiritually it behoueth we beleue them first as they sound to humble reasonable men for if we beleue not we shal not vnderstand but if we do beleue then we may be assured as S. Chrysoâ—…tom vppon this place hath writen that they conteine no naturall course but are free from al earthly necessity and from the lawes of this life Which being so when Christ taking bread and blessing saith this is my body we may not say with our selues how can this be so what other body can here be then a peece of bread which mine eye seeth and my tong tasteth If we speake after this sort we call the words of Christ from the spirit of God to the course of nature and of reason and we do not beleue them to be spirituall that is to say diuine and aboue the course of nature but we vnderstaÌ„d theÌ„ carnally loking for no miracle to be wrought by them and yet they are spirit and life able to quicken what soeuer they list they can make bread to be Christes body wine to be his blood they haue power to change natures and to worke inuisibly In a parable it is not nedefull that all things be in dede as the words doe sound but when Christes words are sayd to be spirit and life then it is declared to vs that they partake the nature of his Godhead that they worke a thing aboue our capacitie and make all that which they say Yea but say you shew me the body which they haue wrought I answer they are spirit and haue wrought a spiritual body not such as lacketh the truthe of flesh but such as through the vnion which it hath with the Godhead hath disposed the substance of flesh vnder the form of bread in such sorte as our soules are disposed within our bodies which are vndoubtedlie there but they can not be touched or felt by any sense euen so we beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread and wine because the words of Christ are spirit life albeit no scuse or reason can attein to that highe mysterie Seing then these words of promise the bread which I wil geue is my flesh be spirit and life these words of performance which after bread taken say presently this is my body must nedes be much more spirit and life yâ— is to say of diuine power to worke that which they sound Let now al heretikes ceasse to mock vs of so many miracles as we teache to be in the sacrameÌ„t of the altar for so much as Christ hath witnessed it should be a miraculouse sacrameÌ„t and aboue al course of nature as being made by words which are spirit and life Let them likewise no more abuse the name of spirit to make men beleue that Christ spake not properly sith Christ calleth his words spirit because they be so proper that they come nere to yâ— nature of the Godhead as being his words who is naturally God then the words of men are able to doe and as the Godhead is most immurable and not at al subiect to any change euen so those words which partake most of the Godhead are most vnchangeable and least figuratiue for al figuratiue speaches are changed and abused hauing the name of tropes among the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab eo quod vocabula mutantur a propria significatione in alienam figuratiue speaches are called in greake tropes that is to say chaÌ„ges because yâ— words are changed from their proper significatioÌ„ to an vnproper meaning but God is not changed nor those words be not changed froÌ„ their proper signification which God hath called spirit life but as they partake yâ— Godhead so doc they partake the proprietie of not being changed from their most accustomed meaning proper nature It is a world to see what difference there is betwene yâ— words of Christes Ghospell the interpretation of the false Ghospellers betwene the old Fathers and the new brethern betwene Catholikes Protestants Mark I pray thee good Reader the differences diligently Christ by his incarnation was made to vs the bread of life to the end we might eate his Godhead otherwise then the Fathers had done before the new brethern after the incarnation and supper of Christ wherein we should haue the Godhead geuen vs bid vs beleue vpon Christ in heauen and so to fede vpon him by faith alone as Noâ—… Abraham did Their councâ—…l is not 〈◊〉 in bidding vs sede by saith but where is yâ— Godhead 〈◊〉 by this meanes is that also receaued by faith why so it might haue bene receaued and so it was receaued before Christ was man Where is the food of Angels made the food of man where is the word of God so geuen to me after his incarnation as it could not be geuen before Where is any euerlasting meate for my body Where is the supper which may fede the whole man faith fedeth my vnderstaÌ„ding but my wil affectioÌ„ hath as much nede to be fed my flesh is rebelliouse to my spirit it hath nede to be fed my body was the meane to poyson my soule therefore my soule must haue a medicine which shal be receaued into my body and so be communicated vnto my soule S. Ireneus reproued those heretiks who because men were called in scripture spirituall denied the true resurrection of their flesh as though their spirit only should tary for euer and yet our new brethern where so euer mention is made of spirit or of a spirituall body and flesh so wrast it as though the reall substance of flesh in the Sacrament were by that word denied or diminisshed whereas it is rather increased for so much as that flesh which is spirituall is not thereby the lesse true flesh but it partaketh the more of the spirit And because a spirit once created is by the natural gift of God immortal a spiritual flesh is likewise like to the spirit in that case S. Augustine writeth that after resurrection the body shall no more haue nede of corporal
nourishments because the only spirit shall suffise to nourish it qua causa etiam spiritale erit for which cause also the body shal be spiritual now as after resurrection the spiritual being which our bodies shal haue doth not diminish the truthe of their nature but declareth a wonderful abettering of them in that they be made in maner equal to spiritual substances euen so the body of Christ in his supper is spiritual not for any lack of his true substance vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine but because it is wholy possessed and replenished with the Godhead and is present after the maner of a spirit as being neither sene nor felt nor tasted but only beleued And therefore this blessed Sacrament is worthely called of the Churche at the consecration of the blood yea as I think it is called of S. Paule also mysterium fidei the mysâ—…erie of faith because it secretly coÌ„teineth vnder the formes of bread ond wine the flesh the blood the soule and the spirit or Godhead of Iesus Christ. The which mysterie of faith the Deacons vsed to deliuer to the faithful after consecration as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse and therefore S. Paule willed the Deacons to vse that mysterie of faith with a pure and cleane conscience To be short The Sacramentaries abuse yâ— word of God miserablie when they talk of the spirit and of the flesh of Christ in such sort as they do For Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing meaning only the corruptible flesh of a bare man who is no God The Sacramentaries expound it as if it were sayd it is nothing worth to eate Christes own flesh really but only it is profitable to fede on it by faith Christ sayd it is the spirit that quickeneth meaning the Godhead to make his flesh profitable vnto vs. They take it so as though the spirit alone did qâ—…icken vs at his last supper without eating his fleshe really Christ by naming the spirit reuoketh â—…ot the real gift of his flesh the eating whereof he auouched to be necessarie for vs. They vse it contrarily to proue his flesh to be geuen vs really in his last supper as though he had corrected his former words Christ meant to adde more dignitie and worthinesse to the eating of his flesh then is in other mens flesh because the spirit made it alone quick aliue and profitable They endeuour by the precense of the word spirit to say he wold not geue his flesh to be eaten in dede and so abuse that name to the diminishing of his inestimable gift Christ sayd my words are spirit that is to say of diuine power proceding from God They imagin he sayd my words be vnproper and cropicall or parabolicall as being only true by an allegory Christ meant his words to procede from his own spirit and maiesty and thereâ—…ore to be true aboue the course of nature They expoâ—…nd theÌ„ as if he had sayd you must care my flesh in your spirit only not in very dede Thus they wreast that to the spirit of maÌ„ which Christ said of the spirit of God and vnder this ambiguitie of words they couer theyr poisoued doctrine Christ would vs to vnderstand spiritually the reall â—…ating of his reall flesh because he would geue it vs without losse of his own body without lothsomnes of our stomacks and without remouing from his own place in heauen They apply the spirituall vnderstanding of eating his flesh to take away the real â—…ating of it as though he that vnderstandeth a thing spiritually should not therefore eate that really which he vnderstandeth to be mysticall The substance of Christes flesh eaten is the ground of that mystery figure Sacrament or spiritual vnderstanding which Christ spake of Because he would them to eate his flesh not to fil theyr bellies but to signifie and partake yâ— merits otherwise done in that flesh They taking away the ground of the figure which is Christes fleshe adde of theyr own iâ—…ention bread wine to be the grouÌ„d of this figure and of the spirituall vnderstanding They making Christes spiritual words tropicall and gramatically â—…iguratiue abase theÌ„ beneth yâ— condition of coÌ„mon words For a proper word iâ—… of more dignitie then an improper and meÌ„ for the most part speake properly Christ sayd my words are life meaning theÌ„ to be so proper that they performe whatsoeuer they promise or speake as hauing the propriety of the Godhead which is most far from all figures shadowes and changes They make them dead words For seing the mind of the speaker vttered in plain words is yâ— life of the words the same words vttering the speakers mind obscurely are as dead and without life vntil they be expouÌ„ded What shal I say more they take these words to be figuratiue in such sort that they make theÌ„ inferiour to the common words of mortall men who neuer ligthtly vse yâ— words flesh and blood for the signes of flesh and blood but for the substances of them and muche lesse doe they vse flesh and blood so to signifie bread and wine that the same bread and wine must again signifie Christes fleshe and blood as I haue noted before that the Sacramentaries are constrained to say if they will defend theyr false and 〈◊〉 doctrine the which I praie God they may haue grace to see and to amend The preface of the fourth booke VUe haue shewed what proufes may be brought out of Christes promise at Capharnaum for his reall and corporal presence in the Eucharist it remaineth we nowe declare the same truth by that whiche he performed in his last supper And because the chefe controuersie is whether the words of Christ do meane as they sound or els must be taken otherwise I wil first make it plaine that they ought to be taken properly as they sound to men of common vnderstanding vntill an euident reason be brought why they must be meant vnproperly therewithal I shew that no reason is now to be heard for the vnproper interpretation of them because the tyme of all such allegatioÌ„s is expired more then fiften hundred yeres past for so much as the whole Church is in possession of the proper meaning Afterward I wil proue the proper literall meaning of those words by the circumstances of the supper by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old and newe testament and last of all by the commandement whiche was geuen the Apostles to continue the Sacrament of Christes supper vntill he come to iudge the worlde If in conferring the promise with the performance or by any other occasion I chance to say somwhat whiche was before touched I must aske pardon thereof as who endeuore partly to make al things playne partly to confirme the present matter whereof I speake by such conuenient allegations as for the tyme come to my remembrance Once I am sure it is not a thing affected of me to say the same thing oft albeit either the affinitie
his word 〈◊〉 this whereunto he pointeth to be in substance his oâ—…n body but his dedes perform only a signe of his own body as the Sacramentaries teach May I not now say to the Sacramentaries the like to that which Malachie the Prophet sayd to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Iewes who offered in the temple of God â—…ind lame and feint or sicke oxen and shepe Offer illud 〈◊〉 si placueret ei aut si susceperit faciem tuam Offer such halting presents to thy Lord or capitain tel me whether it wil please him or whether thou shalt be welcome to him or no. If one should come to a greate personage and with solemne thaÌ„ks make him a preseÌ„t in words of a fat oxe or of a couragiouse horse and when the noble man were come forth to accept the present he should geue him a peâ—…ce of paper wherein it were writen this is a fat oxe or a couragiouse horse wold the noble man take it well Now come these new preachers and whereas they confesse yâ— Christ gaue thanks to his Father and sayd in words This is my body yet they feare not to teache that he offered more to him in words then he performed in dedes Yea they doubt not to teache that the words wherewith he maketh his present are vtterly vnproper and figuratiue not withstanding that S. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 supper sayth In coÌ„secratione diuina verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur In the diuine consecration the selfe words of our Lord and 〈◊〉 doe worke â–ª The words doe worke how theÌ„ are thei 〈◊〉 A figuratiue word is like a paited image which may be somewhat if the thing meant thereby be real and true but otherwise it is an idole and nothing at all But as an image of neuer so liuely a truth absent in substance froÌ„ it can not it selfe worke or doe any thing because it is dead no more can words grammatically figuratiue worke of them selues for that they are dead as not hauing theyr meaning which is theyr life present with them S. Chrysostom likewise writeth hoc est ait corpus meuÌ„ hoc verbo proposita consecrantur This saith he is my body with this word the things set foorth are consecrated And yet can this word whiche doth so wonderfull an act can it be in the meane tâ—…me so weake so feble so dead that it hath not in it self so much as the naturall proprietie of common wordes Commonly wordes do meane as they sound and those whiche do not so be concerning the vse and seruice of words which is to vtter a maÌ„s minde of baser condition then other wordes are But Christes words be so liuely that they haue power to work and make that which they sound in so much that he called them in S. Iohn life and spirit therefore it is vnreasonably said that they are figuratiue Hoc est corpus meum are but foure words of which foure they leaue neuer a one in his own significatioÌ„ and some of them they pluck from his gender other they pluck from their case which they were put in hoc this is the neuter gender with his noune substantiue corpus body they draw it to the masculine gender that it may agree with panis bread Est is a verbe substantiue signifiyng the substance of that noune substantiue with whom it is ioyned They draw it from that signification to signifie an accident in bread which in these words is not named They put corpus meum which is by Christes setting the nominatiue case into somtime the accusatiue somtime the genitiue case for they â—…ay this doth signifie my body then is it in yâ— accusatiue case or this is the figure of my body and then it is the genitiue case what miserable taking is this of so heaueÌ„ly words but hereof I think to say more vpon those words this is my blood least I now excede the measure of a circumstance Yet this one thing I can not but warn yâ—â—…eader of although it may seme to some man of no great weight But I thinke with S. Chrysostom no syllable or prick in the word of God to be superfluously placed S. Paule reciting the words of Christes supper placeth them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body For where as the other Euangelist had writen the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last place as we likewise in latin put meuÌ„ last the holy Ghost foreseing the heresy yâ— now should rise caused S. Paul to ioyne that proâ—…oun belonging to Christes person vnto yâ— other pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc this For although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ruled of the noun body and in sense must nedes follow after it yet it pleased God to place the same pronoun with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this shewing thereby that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must finally be referred vnto the noun corpus body as wel as the other pronoun meum mine as if it were in latin hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body That ioyning I say of this and of me together doth geue such coniecture as in the order of words may be had that as of me is the genitiue case coming after yâ— noun body so this likewise apperteyneth to the noun substantiue body and only resteth and endeth his signification in that word Whereas on the other syde if this were only referred vnto bread no reason could be brought why S. Paule should ioyne the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of me vnto it This bread of me is the signe of body iudge what a hard speache it were Let noman wonder if I so narrowly scan euery syllable For you shall see before all is done that God hath caused the wordâ—… of his last supper by so many circumstances of writing and speaking to be opened vnto vs that when the rest is all heard it wil seme probable enough not so much as the setting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue bene superfluouse ¶ The. 〈◊〉 circumstance of these words Which is geuen for you ALthough S. Mathew and S. Mark thought it sufficient to report that Christ sayd This is my body as the which words both were plaine enough able to make the mysterie of Christes supper yet the holy Ghost stirred vp S. Luke to adde the other words which Christ had also vsed to thâ—…ntene the literall meaning of Christes words might be most câ—…tainly confirmed and therefore he writeth that Christ sayd This is my body which is geuen for you In all the which words there is none other noune substantiue named besides the only substance of Christes body With it agreeth Hoc This with it quod the which It cometh after the verb est is and goeth before the verb datur is geuen If now we interpret the noun corpus body by figura corporis the â—…igure of
seede of man but formed and conceaued of the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin in the which manhod of Christ the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth corporally As for those places where Christ sayth Poore men shall ye haue with you always but me ye shall noâ—… haue And he is rysen he is not here And whiles Christ blessed his Disciples he went from them and was caried into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father vntil the end of the world with such like they â–ª are not to be conferred with these words This is my body because they speake of a naturall being of Christ and not of such a being as is peculiar vnto the Sacrament of Christes supper Neither is it possible that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉 should impugne yâ— other sith Christ hath ordâ—…ed both the Church did 〈◊〉 always both together Christ ascended into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father and leauing vs the beleefe thereof as a chief article of our faith Christ made his own supper saying This is my body and commaunded his Apostles and their succâ—…s to make the same saying Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore neither the making of Christes body neither the belefe thereof can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father Agayne sith nothing is impossible to God albeit that which imploietâ—… coÌ„tradiction in it self be therefore impossiple because it repugneth to the truth it self which is in God it is not possible to God yâ— yâ— body of Christ should both be in heauen after one visible sorte and in the Sacrament after a mysticall sorte It were in dede impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heauen and not to be in heauen Or to be in the Sa crament and not to be there in the same respect but to be in heauen and in the Sacrament or to be in many places at once that maketh no 〈◊〉 but onely sheweth an allmighty and infinite power in him who worketh it Of this minde all the Church of God hath bene hitherto and therefore it hath beleued as well the sitting of Christ at his Fathers râ—…ht hand in heauen as the reall presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar Yea it hath beleued the one because of the other For in so much as Christ is so almighty as to sit at the right hand of God he is able to performe his owne word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar And therefore in the sixte of S. Ihon when he spake of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood which he wold geue he also declared that he wold goe vp into heauen in his manhood where he was before in his Godhead And that thing he spake as S. Cyrillus hath noted to declare that he was God and therefore able to worke that which he spake of in so much as his words were spirit and life For this cause Chrysostom cryeth out ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem Qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodnes of God He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same very momenâ—… of tyme is touched with the hands of all men and deliuereth himself to those that wil receaue and imbrace him Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur Seme these things to thee worthy to be despised neglected Sacra nostra non modò mira esse videbis sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia Thou shalt perceaue our holy things not only to be wonderfull but also to excede all wondringe and astonyng of the mynd Yf then we vnderstand that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lords supper and no contradiction at all to any other partes of our belefe we may be sure that none other article of our crede doth driue vs to miscredit the reall presence of Christes body and blood in his owne supper And therefore where we dispute of his last supper we must examine yâ— meaning of yâ— words which were spokeÌ„ there according to other places of yâ— Scriptures which belong vnto yâ— last supper The places apperteyning to Christes last supper according to the interpretation of ancient doctors are these the later part of the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn the supersubstantiall bread in the 6. of S. Mathew and the supper it self in the 62. of S. Mathew in the 14. of S. Marke the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapiter of the first epiâ—…le of S. Paule to the Corinthians in the 5. to the Ephesians in the 2. chapiter of the first epistle to Timotheus in the 13. to the Hebrewes in the 2. 13. and 20. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles In all which places other if there be any like we finde much to conâ—…e the reall presence but nothing to leade vs to a siguratiue meaninge These wordes which be in S. Iohn the flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quickeneth my wordes be spirit and life be declared in the former booke when we disputed of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn ¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament for that it semeth in many places to be called bread euen aâ—…ter consecration and that aswell in S. Iohn as in S. Paule and in the Actes of the Apostles noman I say ought vppon this slender argument to change his belefe otherwise grounded vpoÌ„ so plaine scriptures the faith of yâ— Church so generally receaued but rather he ought to lern the cause why the body of Christ is most iustly called bread in this SacrameÌ„t The custome of speaking in holy scriptures came chefely from the Hebrew tonge wherein the old Testament was writen as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paule to the Hebrewes were The residue of the Apostles and Euangelistes albeit they wrote in Greeke they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their wordes Bread in the Hebrew tonge his called Lehem and commeth of the verbe Laham whyche signifieth to â—…ate so that al which man may eate is meant by the Hebrew worde Lehem as wel bread as flesh or fruytes in so much that sometyme it signifieth only flesh as the Hebrew Doctors haue noted out of the sixte and seuenth chapiter of Iob. Now yâ— Apostles and Euangelistes writing also in Greeke haue put for the Hebrew word Lehem the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that translated the scriptures into latin haue turned it into panis and we in our vulgar tonge name it bread by which meanes it cometh to passe that the Greeke Latine and English worde must be takeÌ„ in holy scriptures
of Iob. THe men of the tabernacle of Iob sayd Who might geue vs of his flesh to the intent we may be filled The tabernacle or houshold of Iob whome some of his seruants hated some loued was the figure of the Church wherein are good and bad The bad wish for one that might geue them Christes flesh to fill their hatred vpon it as the proude Pharises bought Christ of Iudas and now a daies the Iewes wil geue any mony for the blessed body of Christ in the forme of breade that therevpon they may shew their malice against Christ whom the Heretikes of our age folow in that point Therefore these souldiours of darknes when they can finde Christ visible or inuisible shewe all the spite they can against him But on thother side good men that be in the tabernacle of Iob with loue and reuerence wish for his flesh and desyre to be filled with it to their inestunable comfort Christ gaue his visible body to the handes of the Pharisees and Iewes Wherein hauing their desires satisfied they nailed it to the crosse And how much more is Christ to be thought to haue fulfilled really the desyre of good men who long for the inuisible substance of his owne body especially seing his owne desire was so vehement to eate this passouer of his owne body with his Apostles at which tyme he sayd to them Take and eate this is my body which is geuen for you If we had not as really yâ— flesh of Christ geueÌ„ to our handes and mouthes as the Pharisees had the same deliuered to their cruell handes it might seeme that the worse parte of the tabernacle of Iob had obtined more truth and more fulfilling of their desire then the better which is a thought vnworthy of Christen men The iust men of the tabernacle of Iob loued him so well that they desired to be filled with his flesh euen for the loue they bare to him which loue the greater it is the greater vnion it wisheth and 〈◊〉 Christ fulfilled to his people that which the sernantes of Iob figured in their vehenient affection which they had to be filled with their maisters flesh They of the tabernacle of Iob wished not only to see him or heare him speake nor they wished not at all to fâ—…ede vpon him in spirite and vnderstanding for they knew well he was not God but they would fill their flesh with his flesh and their soâ—…le with his soule and so make a perfite vnion for so much as them selues consisted as well of body as of soule This vnion Christ hath truly graunted vs making vs one with his very flesh saying his flesh to be meate in dede which who so eateth worthily 〈◊〉 in Christ and Christ in him for euer That is the vnion of reall flesh which was prophecied of in Iob and which is made betwâ—…e Christ and vs when we receiue worthelie his naturall fleshe vnder forme of bread into our naturall bodies and soules and are made one with it re ipsa in dede it self as meate is made one substance with him that eateth and digesteth it well ¶ The prophecies of Dauid and Salomon THou hast prepared a table sayeth Dauid to God in my sight against them who afflicte me And my chalice which maketh me drunke how excellent is it Wisedome hath offered his sacrifices set foorth his table and sayeth to the innocent and simple Come eate my bread and drink my wine which I haue mingled vnto you They falsyfie the holy Scriptures who teache the substance of common bread and wine to be by Christe prepared at his last supper But his preparing was to conuert the substance of them into his flesh and blood And those were the sacrifices which wisedome made That was his bread his wine which if it were only receaued by faith and spirite how sayeth the Prophet that the table was prepared in his sight No man is able to see that which is only spirituall But according to the word of God the Catholikes beleue that their meate is prepared set and layed vpon the table before they receaue it and it is set foorth in their sight in that visible forme of bread which is consecrated Againe the table is but one come good come bad They eate the same meate and surely none other at the supper of Christ besydes yâ— which is vpon his table Iudas did eate the same meate that Peter and Ihon did although diuers effectes came of it because them selues were not like affected But the Sacramentaries make Christ to haue two tables one where the good men receaue Christ him self with bread and wine as they â—…each an other where only common bread and wine is geuen to the wicked men And yet Dauid Salomon and S. Paule speake but of one table and it is prepared and set foorth not by faith and spirite but in our sight It is not only drunk of by mind and vnderstanding â–ª but the very chalice of it is of strength to make vs drunk because it conteyneth the blood of life and saluation ¶ An other Prophecie of Dauid ALl that be fatte vppon earth haue eaten and adored which thing the Prophete spake thereby to shew as it may appeare in the same place that all the nations of the world were by faith subdued to Christ. And he bringeth a most vndouâ—…ed token thereof in so much that they adore that which they eate which thing is peculiar to Christians because none other people doth â—…ate the reall flesh of God which only may and must be adored This propertie and token of the true faith they take away who say we eate in our Lords supper the substance of coÌ„mon bread forbidding vs to adore the blessed SacrameÌ„t of the altar the footestole wherein the 〈◊〉 of Godhead corporally dwelleth ¶ Many figures and prophecies ioyned together for breuities sake WHat shall Isay that Noë being made drunke with yâ— wine of his owne planting lieth naked is lawghed to scorne of his own childe to shew that Christ hauing drunke in his supper of the same blood which he planted for him selfe in the virgyns womb hangeth afterward naked vppon the crosse and is lawghed to scorne not only of the Iewes for his nakednesse but also of the SacrameÌ„taries for so grosse a dede as they repute it to be that he drank his own blood vnder the form of wine What shall I reherse that Abraham did set cakes made of â—…ine wheaten meale befoâ—… the Angels they allowed his dede not for the 〈◊〉 which they nâ—…ded not but for tâ—…e excellenty of the mysticall cake which was come in Christes supper That Isaac hauing stablished his sonne Iacob with corne and wine sayth to Esau demanding his blessing what more can I doe now to thee as who should say al goodnesse is already figured in that which I haue assigned to thy yonger brother which betokeneth yâ— faithfull people of
not born is made I say Therfore hoc facite signifieth make this thing 〈◊〉 sayth Inefficabili operatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traÌ„sformatur etiam si nobis videatur panis although it seme bread to vs it is made an other thing or transformed by an vnspeakeable working 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after this sorte If the word of God be liuely and of efficacy and all things what soeuer it wold it hath made if it sayd Let light be made it was made let the firmament be made and it was made If the 〈◊〉 be establyshed by the word of God and all the vertue of them by the spirit of his mouth if heauen and earth water fier aier and all the decking of theÌ„ and man himself a lyuing creature spred and made common euery where were made perfecte with the word of God If God the word him self of his owne wil was made man and hath vpholden and staied in his own person flesh without seed of maÌ„ out of the most pure and 〈◊〉 blood of the holy virgine is he not able to make bread his own body and wine and water his blood He said in the beginning let the earth bring forth 〈◊〉 spring to this day reyne being made it bringeth forth springs holpen and strengthned with the commandement of God God hath sayd This is my body and this is my blood and make this thing for the remembrance of me Et omnipotenti eius praecepto donec veniat efficitur and by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made 〈◊〉 he come Marke whether Damascene doth not ground all his authorities vppon making and the authoritie of Christes supper vpon these words make this thiÌ„g 〈◊〉 expouÌ„ding these words Hoc facite sayth Hoc inquit nouum mysterium non illud vetus make this new mysterie sayth he and not that old Haymo sayth Hoc facite id est hoc corpus sanctificate sanctifie this body that is to say make holy and consecrate this body 〈◊〉 Archbysshop of Cantorbury although he sheweth first that by this word Hoc facite eating and drinking for the remembrance of Christes death is commamded to al Christians yet declaring also a farther sense of yâ— same words he sayth Aut corde vos qui Sacerdotes estis hoc facite quod ego 〈◊〉 feci id est calicem vini consecrate vt 〈◊〉 sanguismeus hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemorationem vt in hoc facto sitis memores mei eorum quae pro vobis passus sum Or els ye that are Priests make that which I haue now made that is to say consecrate the chalice of wine that it may be made my blood make this thing for the remembrance of me and of those things which I haue suffred for you 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople sayth that the holy Ghoste maketh the mysteries by the hande of Priestes and toâ—…g Nicolaus Methonensis sayth the body and blood of Christ to be those thinges quae hoc ritu perficiuntur which are made peâ—…fit with this ryte If sanctificare efficere panem corpus Christi panem facere corpus Christi vinum sanguinem if consecrare operari diuinissima fieri eucharistiam facere panem corpus Christi conficere corpus Christi ore conficere oblationem Christi conficere paneÌ„ calicem mysticum fieri panem sui ipsius corpus facere nouum mysterium sacere corpus effici corpus hoc sanctificare coÌ„secrare calicem vini vt fiat sanguis Christi If al these phrases and kindes of speache can not be â—…nglished by doing but only by making and yet the aucthority and commandement that any Priest hath to make the body and blood of Christ commeth only from these words Hoc facite it must nedes be confessed that these words do signifie much more make this thing then doe this Otherwise we should not make the body of Christ at al whereas S. Iames Dionysius Areopagita S. Iustinus S. Ireneus Tertâ—…llian S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Augustine Theophilaet Euthymius Haimo Damascene Germanus Methonensis yea al the whole Church doth say with one accorde that Priestes doe make and are commanded to make the body of Christ. Is it now possible that the body of Christ which is thus made froÌ„ of wheaten bread by yâ— coÌ„mandement of God him self should not be for al yâ— present with vs vnder the form of the same bread If when the word was made flesh in the virgins wombe it was present with vs not only by saith and spirit but dwelt really in the world being conuersant among men and was sene in earth likewise when the body of Christ is made from of the creature of bread by the Priests mouth in the vertue of Christes word it is present with vs not only by faith and spirit but in deede and trâ—…th it self it dwelâ—…eth not only among vs but euen within vs as meate dwelleth in him who receaueth it weth a sound stomake and digesteth it well For seing Christ hauing taken bread and blessed sayd this is my body and â—…ad his Apostles make this thing bread is in such sorte made his body yâ— when y◠〈◊〉 of the words is past the body of Christe remaineth still according to the distinction of S. Basill as the work which was wrought by yâ— sayd words and it is receaued of the faithfull people vnder the form of bread to nourish theyr soules and bodies to euerlasting life ¶ What these words doe signifie For the remembrance of me that they much help to proue Christes reall presence vâ—…der the formes of bread and wine IT may be some man will say I deale not honestly â–ª for Christ sayd not only make this thing which I haue most pressed vpoÌ„ but he added other words thereunto which declare that a figure should be made and not his true body For he sayd do this in the remembrance of me If it be a remembrance of Christ how is it Christ him self The remembrance of a man differeth from the man him self Thus much if any man say against me I feare nothing but I shall satisfie him concerning my doing if now I shewe that the words of remeÌ„brance whereof he taketh holde doth much more help my saying theu his Which that I may the better perform I besech him to remember that Chist said not hoc agite in coÌ„memoratione mei doe this in my remembrance or in remeÌ„brance of me but hoc facite in meam commemorationem which signifieth as wel to make as to do this thing not only in but rather for the remembraÌ„ce oâ—… me and yet so haue these words bene commonly Englyshed and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 as though he had said only hoc agite doe this not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite which is both doe this and make this thing Again as though he had said in mea commemoratione in the ablatiue case in the remembrance of me and not 〈◊〉
ioyned together in the top it self which is the flesh of Christ. For they that are one mysticall howse by faith and charitie alone they are one in the fundation through the spirit of God but not yet one in the top And the vnitie of that fundation wold not cause them to be a perfite howse if some stones being reised thereon did not at the length mete really together in the top of the building which is the flesh of Christ through the connexion of which stones those also which laie in the lowest place may be sayd to mete in the top for that they are necessary and substancial parts of that howse which is builded from the lowest parte of the ground vp to the very highest top Faith is the fundation and ground of the things which are hoped for Baptisme goeth nerer the top because beside the grace of faith it partaketh some other grace proceding not only from the spirit of Christe but also from his flesh in that the water according to the minde of S. Chrysostom of Leo is as it were the wombe wherein and the worde is the sede wherewith man is regenerated as wel in body as in soule Confirmation geueth strength to the new building wherein the stones are as it were with strong barres of iron holden together But when Christe geueth him selfe to vs vnder the forme of bread then are we come to the top of the building and are ioyned really to him that is yâ— end of the law For which cause this Sacrament of Christes body blood is called of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectio the end or perfitenes of our heauenly building This flesh is also in the fundation but by spiritual efficacie not by reall vnion It is in Baptisme by the vse of corporall instruments of water and the word and so by spirituall efficacie and also by meane of bodily instruments proceding from the flesh by that Sacrament of Baptisme which he constituted in his body and sanctified the element thereof with his body In the Sacrament of perfection this flesh it self is present to make a moste perfite end of the whole spirituall building Thus are the baptized Christians built vpon yâ— faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets and the faithfull who receaue Christes body in his last supper are built in a higher degree aboue the faith of the Fathers and aboue the Baptisme of those who died before they partaked Sacramentally Christes flesh And seing all these concurre to make vp one howse the top whereof may touche Christes naturall body which he toke to make the reall coniâ—…nction with vs who consist of bodies all the mysticall body of Christ is perfitly one through them who being one with the rest in faith spirit and baptisme be also one with Christes flesh in truth of naturall and corporall vnion to Christes flesh really partaken at his holy table Let vs once deny the flesh of Christ to be really in the blessed Sacrament of the altar and here is no perfite building toward the flesh of Christ and consequently no reason why we should be called his mysticall body or flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones For as if Eue had not bene taken really out of the naturall body of Adam she should not haue bene in truth bone of his bones so we are not flesh of Christes flesh in truth it self except the flesh of Christ in the naturall substance thereof be the meane by our natural coâ—…ction to it that we are framed wrought into a spirituall man These last wordes of S. Paule where he toucheth how we are â—…esh of Christes flesh doe also leade vs to an other notable example of our natural vnion which is to be made to that flesh of Christ. For when S Paule had said that the husband is head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church he prouoketh the husbands to loue their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche Who haue loued it so intierly that he hath cleansed it in the washing of water and the word to th end he might make him self a gloriouse Church without spot or wrinkle Behold baptisme is a token of Christes loue but to what end That he might haue a cleane spouse To what purpose Will he then come nere to his wife and as it were be cloupled with her Yea verily not for any fleshly pleasure but to nourish her by his reall flesh And therefore S. Paul goeth forward saying Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their own bodies He that loueth his wife loueth him self And surely noman euer hated his own flesh but he nourisheth and cherisheth it as Christ doth his Church What meane you S. Paule Is then the Church the flesh of Christ For your words import so much He answereth it is so For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones For this cause the man shall forsake Father and mother and shal be ioyned to his own wife and they shal be two in one flesh This is a great Sacrament or mysterie but I meane in Christ and the Church Hitherto S. Paul hath prouoked the husbands to loue and to cherish their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche in cleansing it through baptisme and as he cherisheth it as being members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Note that as the loue of husbands toward their wiues is coÌ„pared to baptisâ—… so the cherishing of them is compared to the cherishing nourishing which Christ vseth toward his Churâ—… â–ª whiche is knowe to be done after baptisme for no man cherisheth that which is not yet borne When we are borne again in Christ we are made members of Christes body and therefore those words Membra sumus corporis eius we are members of his body may be ment of baptisme â–ª where we are made members of his my stical body according as S. Paule had said before Sumus inu icem membra we are members one of an other But when he addeth de carne eius de ossibus eius of his flesh and of his bones he then speaketh not of any mysticall flesh and blood but euen of the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereof we are made members not by faith and mystery alone as in baptisme but by naturall participation of them in the last supper So doth S. Ireneus take these words For S. Paule spake not saith he of any spirituall or inuisible man sith a spirit hath neither bones nor flesh but of that disposition which is agreable to man the which consisteth of flesh of sinewes of bones the which disposition is nourished of the chalice which is his blood and is increased of the bread which is his body So doth S. Chrysostome also take these words saying we are members of his flesh and bones And again he hath mingled him selfe with vs and brought him selfe into
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
as Christ said it sicut ipse dixit as him selfe said it without glosing without additioÌ„s without figures orparables euen as Christ spake it so it was beleued and beleued of euery man And who so did not beleue it was rekoned a damned person without grace without saluation without life euerlasting Thus haue we heard two notable witnesses of the faith of the whole Churche the one a Latine S. Hilarius the other a grecian Epiphanius But now I will bring foorth not as before the old Fathers bearing witnesse of the belefe of the people but I will bring foorth the whole people it selfe yea the people of the primatine Church You shall heare al the citizens of the house of God through out the world witnessing with one voice in one word their most constaÌ„t faith touching the Sacrament of the altar Amen is an hebrew word which partly wisheth and partly affirmeth signifying as it were at once be it so and it is so It signifieth be it so when it is ioyned with praiers and petitions It signifieth it is so when it foloweth any parte of Christes doctrine which is alredy pronounced or affirmed Thence we reade so oft in holy scripture Amen amen I say vnto you which is to say verely verely S. James the Apostle S. Iustin the martyr S. Clement S. Cyrill of Hicrusalem S. Basil S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostom doe witnesse that the people vsed at Masse tyme to answer Amen Which thing they did specially twise once at the consecration as well of the body as of the blood and againe at the tyme of communion At the consecration the Priest in the person of Christ pronounceth most determinatly ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my bloood Therefore when the people answer to those blessed sayings Amen they affirme the same that is affirmed as though they said with one voice It is verely the body of Christ and it is verely the blood of Christ whereof you speak And least you should thinke this coÌ„ment to be of myne making S. Ambrose expounded yâ— same word before me saying Ipse clamat dominus Iesus hoc est corpus meuÌ„ our Lord Iesus him selfe crieth this is my body He calleeh the crying of our Lord when his minister crieth so in his name For of that crying he speaketh as it may appere by the word folowing Wel Our Lord Iesus him self crieth out this is my body before the blessing of yâ— heauenly words it is named another kind after consecration that body is signified him self calleth it his own blood before consecration it is called an other thing after consecration it is called blood and thou sayest Amen that is to say as S. Ambrose him selfe expoundeth it verum est it is true That the mouth speaketh let the inward mind confelse that the speache soundeth let the hart think Hitherto S. Ambrose who would not bid the people thinke that whiche the speache soundeth if the speache were figuratiue for a figuratiue speache soundeth otherwise then we ought to thinke thereof as when we say God is sory Christ is made synne the rok is Christ. As it was the custome of the primatiue Church for the people to say Amen straight vppon the consecration of the body and blood whereby they shewed them selues to beleue the wordes of Christ and the work of the Priest euen so was it also the custome that when the tyme of communion came as S. Clement and diâ—…erse others doe witnesse the Bishop should geue the oblation to the people saying â–ª Corpus Christi the body of Christ and he yâ— toke it should say Amen it is true And yâ— Deacon wheÌ„ he deliuered yâ— chalice did say sanguis Christi calix vitae â–ª yâ— blood of Christ yâ— chalice of life he that drank said Amen so it is or that is true To which custome being in vse at his tyme S. Ambrose alluding writeth thus Dicit tibi Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis amen hoc est verum quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The Priest saith to thee the body of Christ and thou saiest Amen that is true that which thy tonge confesseth let thy hart kepe But what speake I of S. Ambrose Would the Apostles haue made all the people to cry amen to that which had not bene so as the word did sound Would they haue made the simple men to witâ—…esse their belefe to such words as neded a farther commeÌ„t or interpretation It is rather to be thought yea to be most assuredly beleued that they ordeined that custome to thend all men might know that the thing consecrated vppon the altar was in dede the body of Christ S. Augustine beareth witnesse to the same custome saying Habet magnam vocem Christi sanguis in terra cùm eo accepto ab omnibus gentibus respondetur Amen the blood of Christ hath a greate voice in earth when after it is taken all nations aunswere amen Haec est clara vox sanguinis quam sauguis ipse exprimit ex ore fidelium eodem sanguine redemptorum This is the cleere voice of the blood the which voice the blood it selfe forceth out of the mouth of the faithfull being redemed with the same blood Pope Leo the greate agreeth with S. Clement S. Ambrose and S. Augustine Sic sacrae mensae communicare debetis caeâ—… Ye ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and blood of Christe for yâ— thing is taken in the mouth which is beleued in faith And Amen is in vayne answered of them who dispute against that which is receaued This place declareth that some disputation was moued by some of the heresy of Manicheus who liued in Rome vnder Leo against the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the forme of bread For seing the Maniches beleued not Christ to haue a true body at all they might well doubt of the truth of his body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar But that holy Bishop biddeth the people not doubt thereof shewing that we do not eate the body of Christ only by faith but also by mouth Now because Leo setteth the receauing of the truth of Christes body by mouth against the receauing thereof by faith only we may coniecture that heretikes euen in those days were of the mind that their ofspring is now of verily to draw as much truth from Christes works as may be and to set all things vpon faith spirit and vnderstanding But Leo proueth his doctrine by the generall custome of the whole Church â–ª wherein the people answering Amen did in open words witnesse them selues to beleue that it was true which the Priest sayd concerning the body of Christ. Now because some of them who vsed to say Amen disputed whether the substance and truth of Christes body were present in the mouthes of
the receauers or no that Shepherd of Christes flok sayth that if it were not his true body and receaued in the mouth it were in vaine to say Amen It is true For seing the Priest bringing meate vnto their mouthes did say The body of Christ if notwithstanding it were only to be receaued in hart not in mouth also it were in vaine to say Amen or to answere it is so it is true and yet to think in hart otherwise To end this matter at the length The whole Church before Berengarius beleued the reall presence and they toke that their belefe of their auncestours from hand to hand euen vntill we come to the Apostles and by them to Christ. In the primatiue Church the Priest cried out at the altar This is my body and this is my blood All the people answered it is so It is true S. Ambrose biddeth them think as they speake yea euen as the word soundeth S. Leo sayth they say in vaine it is true if they dispute against the truth thereof And he teacheth the truth to be that the same thing is receaued in the mouth which is beleued in faith S. Hilary sayeth No place of doubting is left sith both by our Lords profession and by our faith it is verily flesh and verily blood Epiphanius witnesseth that euery man beleueth our Lords saying wherein he sayd This is my body And who so doth not beleue it eueÌ„ as him self spake it he is fallen from gracâ—… and saluation Seing all these things doe euidently proue the faith of the whole Church to haue bene that Christes body and blood was really present in the Sacrament of the altar and really receaued into the mouthes of the faithfull people it remaineth that thosâ—… who haue bene deceaued in this behalf do returne agaiâ—…e to their former belefe and that as wel in al other points as iâ—… this they do for euer beleue the Catholike Church the piller of truth Knowing for surety that it can not be a Catholiâ—…e doctrine which is begun in our age or any tyme after thâ—… preaching of the Apostles and that specially when it is conâ—…rary to the faith always preached and beleued ¶ That no man possibly can be condemned for beleuing the body of Christ to be really present in the Sacrament of the altar WHen Christe had almost ended his talke at Capharnaum and shewed his wordes to be spirit and life perceauing all the fault why the Iewes thought his sayinges so absurde to be for so much as they estemed him no more then a naturall man weighing his doctrine by theyr senses earthely reason he for declaration of theyr incurable dyssease for the detection of the cause thereof sayd Sed sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt But there are some of you who beleue not For Iesus knewe from the beginning who they where which beleued not Here we may see the chefe fault in all matter and question of the supper of Christ to consist in not beleuing He that beleueth is safe but wo to him that beleueth not S. Peter beleueth and confesseth Christ to haue the wordes of euerlasting life Iudas beleueth not and therefore he is called a deuil The chefe point of ChristiaÌ„ belefe is to acknowlege Christ to be God to be almighty to be able to make and to doe what soeuer pleaseth him This point he lacketh who so denieth Christ to be able to make the substance of his owne body present in diuerse places at once vnder diuerse formes of bread and wine If â—…herefore any man wil not beleue this he may be assured his portioâ—… is rekned with Iudas who as Leo hath witnessed beleued not thâ—… almighty power and Godhead of Christ. But if all men agree 〈◊〉 this point it is very well then let vs passe to the nexte Christ said â–ª The bread which I will geue is my flesh the which I will geue for tâ—…e life of the world Now are we come from the power of Chist to the will of Christ. We all were agreed that he was able to make the substance of his body present vnder diuerse formes of bread and wine Nowe these wordes affirme that he will geue a kind of bread the substance whereoâ—… is his own flesh euen that flesh the which he will geue for the life of the world And if we goe to his last supper we see bread taken and after blessing and thankes geuen he said This is my body which is geuen for you And he gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragmeÌ„tes or peeces bidding euery one of them take and eate in which deede he sheweth him self to make the substance of his body present vnder the formes of bread in diuerse places at one tyme allthough not after the manner of locall situation because his body hath not in the Sacrament actually that naturall dimention and occupying of place which it hath otherwise But as he hath ordeined it to be so is it vnder twelue diuerse formes of bread Here I am sure many will stand with me and say they beleue not so to whom I answere yâ— by so saying they haue condemned them selues to be of those of whom Christ said there are some of yow who beleue not For yf Christ said by yâ— which was bread before his blessing which still seemed bread yf Christ said thereof this is my bodie gaue it vnder twelue peeces or formes seing they confesse him to be able to make his body present vnder diuerse formes and to haue promised to geue his flesh and to haue said this is my body and to haue geuen it to twelue how can they deny that his body was present at that supper vnder twelue diuerse formes of bread being whole and all vnder eche forme The confessing of that which Christ said is a thing that apperteineth vnto faith because the speaker is God to whom all faith beloÌ„geth To beleue this that God saith must nedes be a vertue and to discredite it is a great vice You will perhap allege that fleshe profiteth nothing the wordes of Christ are spirit and life â–ª that is true therefore I beleue that when he said take eate this is my body he gaue his body not without life spirit but yet as really as euer by saying Let the light be made he made yâ— light for his wordes be not dead flesh which profiteth nothing but quicken and geue lyfe how and when so euer it pleaseth hym muche better then the spirit and soule of man is able to quicken make liuely the body wherein it is These two sayinges this is my body and my wordes are spirit and life stande so well together that I beleue the one for the others sake Christes words neuer lacke spirit and life and power to quicken other thinges euen as his flesh neuer lacked al kynd of spirit in it selfe for when the soule was out of
eate the same spirituall meate but an other corporall meate they did eate manna we â—…ate an other thing What is that other thing where might we learne the name or nature of it let vs not goâ—… to any other man but to the same blessed S. Augustine who neuer had any fellow in the Church of God for his 〈◊〉 knowledge in holy scripture but the more profound he is the lesse he is able to be vnderstanded at the first sight of those who reade him not â—…o great diligeÌ„â—…e Thus he writeth Quid est manna c. what is manna I am saith Christ the liuing bread which came down from heauen and again It is knoweÌ„ what God had rayrayâ—…ed from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what the Christians take let them blush then because they know it not let them passe ouer by the read sea Let them eate manna that euen as they haue beleued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit himself to them Thus S. Augustine doth teache that Iesus himself is our corporall meate in the manna of the new TestameÌ„t For of corporal meate â–ª now he speaketh of that I say wherein we differ from the old fathers and not of that wherein we communicate with them Christ eaten by faith is their and our meate al in coÌ„mon yea the Catechumeni may so eate of him But Christ neither being receaued into the bodies of the old Fa thers nor now of that Catechumeni who lern their faith is only yâ— corporall meate or true manna of the faithfull baptized which is no lesse really taken into our mouthes vnder the forme of bread then the Iewes did really eate manna fortie yeres together in the desert Iuel Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ in Baptism whiles he findeth that vnity which is signified by the Sacrament therefore the faithfull eate Christes body otherwise then in the Sacrament Sand. Who denieth but that Christes body may be otherwise â—…aten then in the Sacrament But it is not therfore eaten there really That only D. Harding affirmed you proue that he is otherwise eaten but yet that other eating whereof S. Augustine Beda spake proueth the real eating which D. Harding defendeth For if the body of Christ it self were not vnder yâ— form of bread he that is baptized should not partake at all of the Sacrament of Christes supper â–ª because he neither partaketh in Baptism of bread nor of wine but is only made a member of that mysticall body which in the Sacrament is signified And how is it signified let vs heare S. Augustine expounding that vnto vs who speaking of heretiks and schismatiks which are out of the Church saith Non sunt in eo vinculo pacis quod in illo exprimitur Sacramento they are not in that bond of peace which is expressed in that Sacrament The bond of peace expressed in the Sacrament is not only the wheaten cornes molded into one loaf for that bond is in euery loaf and not only in that of Christes supper but the bond of peace is the body of Christ present vnder the formes of bread and wine whereof I haue spoken at large in my v. booke in the v. chapiter ¶ M. Iuel hath not replied wel touching the Capharnaites HArding If Christ in S. Ihon had spoken tropically the Ievves and disciples vvho vvere vsed to figures vvold not haue sayd this is a hard saying Iuel His reason hangeth thus The Capharnaites vnderstode not Christ ergo his body is really in the Sacrament Sander No syr but thus They vnderstode Christ to speake without parables and Christes words appertin to the Sacrament as it was sayd before therefore his body is really in the Sacrament â—…ark the words of the Capharnaites and you shal finde by their answers and by their demands that they vnderstood what Christ promised but beleued it to be a thing either not possible or not conuenient Therefore Christ sayd there be some of you who beleue not He sayd not saith S. Augustine there be some among you who vnderstand not but he told the cause why they vnderstood not there be some among you who beleue not therefore they vnderstand not because they beleue not Iuel He sayd â–ª The bread which I will geue caet of spirituall eating It is the spirit that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith S. Augustine San. There is a spirituall eating without the Sacrament of Christes supper either by faith or by Baptism Of that Christ spake not now because it was not to come but was already geuen at the least concerning faith to all the iust men from the beginning of the world There is an other both spirituall or worthy and also reall eating of the Sacrament of Christes supper it self Thereof he now speaketh promising to geâ—…e it and at his supper he gaue it both really and spiritually that is to say not in a grosse maner but diuinely and miraculously whereof ye may see in my third booke the. xix and. xx Chapiter Iuel Ye shall not eate sayeth S. Augustine with your bodily mouth this body that you see caet I geue you a certeyn Sacrament San. Of this place I haue spoken at large in my vi b. the. iâ—… Chapiter and in my 3. b. the. xiiij Chapiter I will now briefly note the chief points First M. Iuel doth abuse this place because S. Augustine had sayd before that Christ gaue that same flesh to be eaten wherein he walked and which he toke of the virgin Wherevnto M. Iuel hath no regard at all Secondly he taught that it ought to be adored before it was eaten Thirdly he nameth it the Sacrament willing vs to consyder it spiritually Fourthly he nameth it quamlibet terram any earth calling â–ª the â—…sh of Christ earth now in saying that we adore any earth he manisesily declareth that he speaketh of the adoration which is made in diuerse places or altars Whereas otherwise the flesh oâ—… Christ in heaueÌ„ is but one earth in one place These things presupposed all which are in the place of S. Augustine which M. Iuel now allegeth it will â—…olow that S. Augustine meant both that Christes flesh is eaten with our bodily mouth in the Sacra ment and also adored Therefore when he sayth ye shall not eate this body that you see he meaneth ye shall not eate it in suche forme as you see it in such mortall quantitie or in such a corruptible sort But if it should be meant ye shall not eate the substance of my body as M. Iuel taketh it S. Augustines owne words were clean contrarie to them selues for the causes alleged before Besyde this great dissembling of M. Iuel who knew the other words of S. Augustine and yet only wold haue these to be consydered he hath also misordered and misenglished diuerse words 1. He hath translated commendaui I
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
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
spiritual flesh by mouth and not only by faith eating by faith is rather more due to the flesh of Christ as it hangeth crucified then to any other maner of the same slesh For we must swetely remember his death and be partakers of his passioÌ„ by faith but not by mouth On the other syde we must eate Christes diuine and spirituall flesh as it is vnderstanded in another way distinct in maner from his crosse and passion therefore that other eating is an eating by mouth and not only by faith Iuel ClemeÌ„s AlexaÌ„drinus saith there is a fleshly blood wherewith we are redemed and a spiritual wherewith we are anoynted and this is to drink the blood of Christ to be partaker of his immortality As Christes blood is not really present to anoint vs â—…o it is not really present to nourish vs. San. Clemens Alexandrinus diuiding Christes blood into carnall spirituall agreeth with S. Hierom in the former part of the diuision that is to say in carnall blood but in the later part he speaketh of an other thing For whereas S. Hierom toke spirituall flesh and blood for the substance of them as they are eaten and dronken in the Sacrament which thinge may appere for that he citeth these wdrds of Christ my flesh is verily meate and except you eate my flesh ye shall not haue life euerlaâ—…ing which words are meant of the SacrameÌ„tal eating Cleâ—…eÌ„s doth not respect so much the Sacrament of the altar it self as the effect and fruite of Christes carnall blood how soeuer it be partaken and that is euident by his owne words where he saith this is to drincke the blood of Iesus to be partaker of his immortality To partake the immortalitie of Christ is an effect which may rise of faith of Baptism of penance of the Sacrament of the altar and of all other meanes or instruments whereby the saluation of Christ may be deriued vnto vs. Clemeâ—…s therefore speaking of an effect which may â—…e wrought by one meritoriouse cause only that is to say by the death of Christ but vnderstanding the meanes to applie that cause vnto vs to be diuerse he spake not directly of these mâ—…anes but of that spirituall fruite which either one or moe of them doe bring foorth in vs. For the oynting whereof Clemens doth speake is to be referred to the spirituall grace which is gâ—…en to the soule and not to the substance of the Sacrament whereof we dispute It will not therefore folow that because the blood whereof Clemens doth speake sometime is not really present when through grace we are ointed with it that the blood also whereof S. Hierom speaketh should not be really present sith they two speak not of one kind of spirituall blood Iuel This nouris hing and this anoynting are both spirituall San. That is true but not both after one sort For S. Hieroâ—… speaketh of the spirituall blood in the substance thereof as it is verily drink in yâ— Sacrament Clemens as it is fruitfully partaken of vs and not as it is considered in his own substance S. Hierome speaketh of the Sacrament Clemens of the end and fruit of al our belefe That S. Hierome speaketh of the SacrameÌ„t it is proued because he citeth suche wordes out of S. Iohn as all yâ— Fathers and manifest reasons conference of the scriptures proue to appertein by the way of promise to the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper Which thing I haue proued in twentie chapters together in my third booke to which reasons vntil M. Iuel hath answered he shal geue me leaue to put it for an vndoubted truth that Christ in the later part of the sixth chapter of S. Ihon speaketh most literally of the gift of his fleshe blood to be made at his last supper But Clemens doth speake of that spirituall drinking Christs blood whereof S. Augustin saith Hunc cibum potum societatem vult intelligi corporis membrorum suorum quod est sancta Ecclesia This meate and drinke Christ willeth to be vnderstanded the felowship of his body and members which body the holy Church is Now to be partaker of the vnity and spirit which is made in Christes myâ—…ical body that is to be partaker of the immortalitie and glorie of our Lorde For as S. Paule saith he is the Sauiour of his body Iu. S. Augustine saith Iudas betraied Christ carnal thou hastâ—… betraied Christe spirituall For in thy fury thou betraiedst the holy Gospel to be burnt with wicked fier These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreing so nere in 〈◊〉 â—…nd phrase with the words of Hierom may stand for sufficiente exposition to the same San. These wordes goe so nere yâ— one to the other thâ—…t in sense they differ exceding much For now S. Augustine taketh Christe spiritual an other way cleaue diuerse from Clement or S. HieroÌ„ and that may be easily seen if a man will reade the line which foloweth next in S. Augustine For he saieth Iudas betraied the lawmaker vâ—…to the perfidious Iewes thou hast betraied to meÌ„ as it were reliquias eius his reliques to wit the lawe of God to be destroied S. Augustin then taketh Christ spiritual for certaine reliques of Christ which although they be no partes of his corporal body yet they belong to him for yâ— of his great prouidence toward vs he lest theÌ„ to be deuoutly readen kept what meane you M. Iuel to miâ—…gle things impertineÌ„t together Think you wheresoeuer you find yâ— word spiritual yâ— by by it perteineth to your purpose or do you only inteÌ„d to abuse that not lerned reader The word spirituall being maned of spiritus a spirite mâ—…ste nedes be taken â—…s manie wayes as yâ— word spirit is taken which doth signifie God that is to say the whole Trinitie For God is a spirit 2. The holy Ghost of whom Christ was lead into the deserte 3. Christ him selfe as S. Cyrillus hath noted 4. Angels 5. 〈◊〉 6. Spiritual gifts 7. The soule 8. The imagination 9. The breath of mans â—…outh 1â—… Anger or punishmeÌ„t and many other things By which diuerse taking of this one worde aâ—… of diuerse others in the holy scripture such difficulty riseth to a man though not vnlerned that without the help of vniâ—…sal tradition he can not vnderstand them That whiche you bring out of Athanasâ—…s appertemeth to the Capharnaites to no man els Iu. Thus M. Harding reasoneth we eate not the flesh of Christ that was crucified ergo Christes flesh is really in the Sacrament Sander You leaue out the chefe part of the argument We eate Christes diuine and spirtual flesh and yet we eate it not so as it was crucified therefore S. â—…icrom spake of that eating whiche is not only made by faith for so the crucified fleshe may be eaten but of that which is made by mouth also Iu. We can notthen eate the flesh that was crueified
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—
not proue that Christ hath a bodie But Christ is so made meate vnto vs that the reall truth of his body is proued thereby Thereâ—…ore it is taught that his body is made meate to our bodies in a corporall truth of his naturall substance This only is the discourse of S. Nyssenus This meate sauoreth to euery maÌ„ who receaueth it as Manna did Therefore it is meant that it is receaued to fulfill the figure of Manna which can not be throughly fulfilled without the self meate which came from heauen being receaued into our mouthes and bodies geue thence that spirituall tast sauour for Manna gaue his swete taste in the mouthes of the Israelits This kind of bread which is able to be turned to all things and yet not able to be wasted is no materiall bread but the food which was born of the virgin He that prepared this table was Christ who neuer prepared for vs any table so literally as at his last supper Yet al this to M. Iuel is not one word concerning the dwelling of Christ naturally in vs or concerning his reall presence in the Sacrament Nay here is not one word touching the Sacrament at all besyde that where he nameth herbs and milke For those words M. Iuel thought mete meate for his diuinitie and therefore spied them out and vttered the same to destroy all the discourse of Gregorie Nyssen whereas they signifie the effect of grace proceding from the reall â—…esh of Christ. Tell me good Reader of thy conscience if thou sawest a mad man running with a naked sword in the streat which were full of children slaying and killing all that euer he could come by tel me I say wold you not crye out to all men to beware of him Wold you not run to saue yâ— poore babes wold you not if nede were rather lame the mad man â–ª theÌ„ he should so destroy a number of persons God is my iudge I haue no quarell to the person of M. Iuel But for as much as I see him run mad and to kill innumerable soules of poore men with greef of hart I crye out against him and say to you all beware the mad man who is so much the more 〈◊〉 mad because it appeareth not outwardly But what shal we 〈◊〉 If whâ—… he came to reade Gregorie 〈◊〉 he saw neuer a word of that which I haue now declared and which euery man may see if he will open the booke If he I say saw not one word thereof doe you not perceaue that his eyes are possâ—…ed with seme horrible spirit of blindnes Is not all reason and vnderstanding takeÌ„ from him But if he saw all that which I haue told and therein found so many words spoken of the Sacrament and those so effectuall against his errour what shall we then think or say Is it possible that so great a malice may be in any man as to delight in deceauing willingly poore and ignorant men and to lead them al to infidelitie If such malice may be in man whome shall we trust and in what danger are the simple and 〈◊〉 people Whether it be blindnesse or malice in him take this rule to thy comfort against all 〈◊〉 that euer shall chaunce Trust no one man aliue Trust no one generation of men the beginning of whose doctrine thou hast knowen or heard of Trust only the whole bodie of Christ the whole Catholike Church the whole cumpaine of the faithfull the whole succession of Bisshops of Priests ioyned also with the faithfull forefathers That which hath once prâ—…led through all the knowen Church that beleue in Christes name For to dispute against it S. Augustine saith it is the point of a most proude 〈◊〉 But the whole Churche can not faile It is a citie built by God vppon a hill which can not be hid It is the piller of truth as S. Paule sayth To that vniuersall practise and belefe if thou committe thy soule and doe as it commaundeth it shal be saued in that 〈◊〉 body of Christ whereof only he is the Sauiour Leaue Iuel Cranmer Ridley Latymer leaue all that tarie not in the tried faith and stick only to that interpretation of Gods word which the Caâ—… receaued and deliuered euen from the Apostles tyme to this day Iuel The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was only to speake of Christes birth San. His purpose was to speake of the miracles done in the wildernes vnder Moyses of yâ— which MaÌ„na being one of yâ— chefe it did both signify the birth of Christ by the falling of it from heauen vpon the earth the Sacrament of the altar whiles it was afterward taken into the bodies of the Israelits as we eate really the flesh of Christe which he toke of the virgin Iu. In like manner of speache S. Hierom saith the wheat wherof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lord said my flesh is meate in dede San. I marâ—…le what you meane to say the manner of speache is like whereas by your assertioÌ„ Gregorie Nyssen speaketh only of Christes birth But S. Hierom speaketh not thereof but of Christes body and blood as it is receaued in the Sacrament Thus you are againste your self For in deede as S. Hierome speaketh of that wheat and of that wine which is Christ himself not only being borne of the virgin but also eaten at his supper euen so doth Gregorie Nyssen speake as wel of the supper as of the birth of Christ. Iu. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius onlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not bene borne spiritually San. To what purpose did he say it For I see not howe your wordes hange together but only that you patche vp a number of sentâ—…nces as sone as one is done you bring in an other with a therefore or in like manner or to this purpose or in this sense and he saith so foorth But if they were particularly 〈◊〉 â–ª it is but a heape of words without order dependaÌ„ce or any good reason To what purpose I praie you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not bene borne spiritually I see noâ—…e other purpose therein but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and thâ—…t because if the birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the Sacrament whiche had not bene at all borne Iu. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becoÌ„meth strong meate vnto the perfite herbs vnto the weake c. San. Here you presuppose that Gregorie Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread and nothing els But I haue shewed you that he saith howe can a thing bodilesse be made mâ—…ate vnto the body As for the wordes whiche you name I finde them not in Gregorie Nyssen so vttered as you report them He saith Christ is bread but D. Harding forced not
is not possible to vnderstand the mingling of two waxes to be other then reall and substanciall For wax hath neither faith nor spirit 3. D. Harding hath alleged fiue or six most plain sentences which may â—…e sene in his booke To none of all which M. Iuel hath iustly aâ—…swered or scant sayd any word reade also S. Cyrâ—…l in Ioan. li. 3. cap. 36. lib. 4. cap. 18. c. Now touching the corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament it is to be vnderstanded that S. Cyrillus calleth the Sacrament of Christes body and blood mysticam benedictionem the mysticall blessing and therefore he exhorteth the faithfull peple to come to receaue it to be partakers thereof as the which putteth away both death and disseases Of this benediction and Sacrament thus he writeth 1. It differeth from Manna because the benediction is verily meate whereas Manna was a figuratiue bread But if the Sacrament conâ—…sted of materiall bread and were not Christs flesh it were no more the true bread then Manna was A litle blessing to wit a litle peece of the consecrated foode draweth the whole man to it Et sua gratia replet and filleth him with his owne grace Therefore the Sacrament hath grace of his own and is no common bread because then it shoâ—…ld not drawe vs vnto it but it should be turned into vs â–ª but nowe the benediction that is to say the Sacrament draweth vs to it therefore it self in his own substance is the flesh of Christ. He declareth the worde of God to be life according to nature yâ— it hath made his flesh able to geue life Et hac ratione facta est nobis benebictio viuificatrix And by this meane the Sacrament is made of power to geue vs life Marke the degrees the life it selfe is first in the sonne of God and afterward in the fleshe assumpted and so is the Sacrament able to geue life how hangeth this discurse but only because he presupposeth it for an vndouted truth that in the Sacrament the flesh of the sonne of God is really present After he had shewed that the Catechumeui can not partake of our mystical benediction he saith The ministers crie with a loud voice to those who come to the mystical blessing Sancta sanctis holy things for holy men Meaning the touching the sanctification of Christes body to agree only to those who are sanctified with yâ— holy Ghoste He calleth the mystical blessing the body of Christ and sheweth that those who come to it doe touch Christ whiche is of necessity vnderstanded by the meane of the foorme of bread vnder the which Christ is But if Christe were not really vnder that forme of bread why are the Catechumeni kept frome it For seing they confesse the faith with a loud voice as there S. Cyrillus doâ—…h witnesse and seing they may by their faith â—…eed vppon Christ in heauen shew me a reason M. Iuel if you be able why he that may eate Christe in faith may not eate the bread as you terme it which is the signe of him Specially sith S. Augustine confesseth that they also had a kind of halowed bread but not yâ— body of Christ geueÌ„ to them We geue this reason hereof because in the Sacrament of the body of Christe his own body is really present whiche is of suche honour that no meane sanctification should suâ—…ise for the admitting therunto And for as much as the Catechumeni who be not yet baptized haue not that grace of the holy Ghost which is geuen in baptism they are not sufficieÌ„tly prepared to receaue this marueilouse sacrifice and dreadfull myâ—…erie whiche you not withstandinge repute so vile that you crum your potage dishes with it sometymes caste that which is left in the cup of your own blessing vpon the ground as I my selfe sawe it done in king Edwardes tyme at a communion in Gloceter shere You make in words muche of it but your dedes do shew your blasphemouse hartes Harding The Catholike fathers sithence Berengarius haue vsed the termes really substancially c. to exclude Metaphores and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion vvith Christ by meane of his natural flesh really though not locally present Iuel These Doctors liued within these three hundred yeres and are such as M. Harding thought not worth the naming San. He named none that were sithens the six hundred yeres after Christ because he saw your impudeÌ„t proclamation to haue bound him to yâ— tyme. But otherwise he neither lacked sufficient witnesses elder then Berengarius nor iudged them vnworthy the naming And because by these your insulting wordes you sâ—…e to loke for some witnesses aboue three hundred yeres olde I will geue you a taste euen of the best that were from the first six hundred vntil the last three hundred yeres after Christ. Within which time many notable fathers haue liued How thinke you by Damascene who saith the bread wine and water is superturally changed by the inuocation and the comming of the holy Ghoste into the body and blood of Christ. And that he proueth because our Lord said this is miâ—… not figure of body but body and not figure of blood but blood Saith not Theophilact that the bread is with secrete wordes by mysticall blessing and comming of the holy ghooste changed into our Lords fleshe saith he not it appereth bread but in dede is fleshe again why doth it not appere flesh because we should not abhor from the eating thereof For if it had appered flesh wâ—… had bene vnpleasantly affected towarde the communion Is there any dout but he who telleth that the bread is changed into flesh and sheweth why yet it doth appere bread and not flesh did verely beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread or is he not more impudent then any haâ—…lot who wil staÌ„d in deâ—…nse that Damascene Theophilact beleued not tâ—…ansubstantiation as we do and yet these two are not only aboue three hundred but also aboue seuen hundred yeres old Saith not Haymo licet panis videatut in veritate corpus Christi est although it â—…me bread it is in truth the body of Christ Saith not â—…igius that after consecration it semeth bread and wine but in truth it is the body and blood of Christ Saith not Paschasius although the figure of bread and wine be hâ—…re yet after coÌ„secration they are to be beleued to be nothing at all but the flâ—…sh and blood of Christ What shall I speake of Lanfrancus Iuo 〈◊〉 Anselmus â–ª 〈◊〉 Algerus Euthymius who were al notable men for lerning and al aboue three hundred yeres old I come to S. Bernard whom you haue alleged manie tiâ—…s in this your work Thus he writeth Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had sone in his manhod but yet
〈◊〉 Chapiter Psal. 61. Thre 〈◊〉 Three workings 1. Manna was wrought corporally 2. Ioan 6. Christ wrought on by faith Augu. in Ioan. c. 6 Christ receaued cor porally Christ geuen Faith geuen Ioan. 6. The reward of faith The diuision of the Chapiter The third gift is cateÌ„ with body â—… soule Christes gift â—…issereth from manna The who le trinitie worketh How manie ways yâ— Father geueth The Father feedeth the soule Sap. 9. Christ 〈◊〉 yâ— spirituall food euen to the body The Faâ—… and 〈◊〉 geuâ—… one thing not one way Thereward is one of both gifts The diuerse wayes of geuing The â—…irst difference The 〈◊〉 difference The 〈◊〉 difference The iiij difference The v. difference The vi difference Manna was fulfil led in both gifts To eate oâ—… this bread To eate this bread Ioan. 4. Ioan. 14. 4. 5. We eate of Christ by the Fathers gift We eate Christ by yâ— Sonnes gift 6. We eate Christ in his supper as Mana was eateÌ„ He that eateth Christ may eate also of Christ. Colos. 2. Mat. 26. Theword made 〈◊〉 Christ maâ—…e our sacrifice Christ made our food The Sacramentaries exâ—… Ioan. 1. In Ioan. hom 45. In Ioan. hom 44. In Ioan. hâ—…m 45. In Ioan hom 47. In Ioan. hom 45. In Math. hom 83. Theophi lact in 6. Ioan. Euth in c. 6. â—…oaÌ„ The xiâ—…ij 〈◊〉 Ioan. 6. 2. Cor. 5. T it 3. Greg. in orat cathecheâ—… ca apud Euthy in Panoplia li 2. Hor. 21. Cyp. ad Quiri li. 3. cap. 26. 26. Basil. de baptis li. 1. c. 2. 3. Ambr de sacrameÌ„ de 〈◊〉 qui initiaÌ„ Aug de 〈◊〉 mer. remis cap 20. 〈◊〉 in ser. de lapsis InnoceÌ„t epist. 92. to 2. apud Aug. Aug. epi. 106. The comâ—… 〈◊〉 of infants doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 taries Cypr. in 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 The xiii Chapâ—…ter â–ª Aug. de doctrina Christ. li. 3. c. 16. The obiectioÌ„ of the â—…utheraÌ„s The aunswere Luc. 22. â—… Co. 11. Aug. de pec me li. 1. c. 20. in Leuit 9. q. 57. in ep 106. c. in Ps. 68. contra Crescon li. 1. cap. 25. The obieâ—… of the 〈◊〉 The annswer Aug. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. cap. 10. What a fi guratiue speache is to S. Augustine â—…agitiuÌ„ facinus L. 3. c. 10. August tract 26. in â—…oan Aug. in Psal. 98. 1. 2. Ioan. 6. Ioan. 9. Colos. 2. Psal. 98. lib. 3. ca. 10. August in Ioan. tractat 26. 27 Modus The Sacramentarie The Catholike Why the Sacramentaries argument faileth Why the Catholiks argu ment is good tract 27. Gen. 14. Exo. 〈◊〉 16. Pro. 9. Hila. li. 8 de Trin. Augu. in Psal. 98. Hebr. 1. Coloss. 1. Phil. 2. Tert. coÌ„ Mar. l. 5. 〈◊〉 ep 46. Aug. in Psal. 98. Iustin. in Apol. 2. Bread 〈◊〉 are not â—…ned at Ca 〈◊〉 Cyr. li. 3. ca. 35. in Ioan. Chrys in Ioan. ho. 44. Wherein yâ— SacrameÌ„ taries â—…re in 〈◊〉 ding thâ—…e worâ—…es Ambr. in 1. cor ca. 11. Li. 3. â—… 1â—… de doct Christ. 〈◊〉 that figureth another thing must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secoÌ„d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a 〈◊〉 of it self Breade â—… 〈◊〉 are not the 〈◊〉 which S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. de doctr Christ. li. 3. c. 16. Flesh can not signifie bread Vlpia de leg 3. l. 4. Gen. 14. Leu. 2. 1. Cor 10 Ioan. 6. Rom. 10. How flesâ—… must be eaten in a figure 1. 2. 3. These words coÌ„ firm the former talk Two proprieties in 〈◊〉 Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 46 Note that Christ â—…pake not now in parables It were a parable if flesh stode for bread and 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 Aug. de â—…iuit dei lib. 13. c. 20. Gen. 2. Prou. 3. Corporall â—…asting is â—…ecessarie to make yâ—â—…eat true â—…eate Iacob 1. verè â–ª Truly The theme of y◠〈◊〉 of S. Ihon. Verus panis How the Sonnes gift is differeÌ„t from the Fathers gift Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitat Accepta Naturally Truly Lib. 8. de Trinitat Gregor Nyssen in vita Moysit Nyssenus proueth the truth of Christes body by the truth of the eating it The faith of the primatiue churche The xvi chapit The effect of Christes supper Chryso hom 46. in Math. Cyril in Ioan lib. 4. ca. 16. Cyril li. 4. in IoaÌ„ cap. 17. Benedictio Hilar. 8. de trinit Theophi lact in Ioan. 6. 〈◊〉 tary â—…ng in Christ is assigned to eating and not only to 〈◊〉 The xviâ—… Chapiter Christ â—…ueth not for his Fa ther in faith How Christ liueth for his Father as God Hilar. li. 8 de trinitate How he liueth as man â–ª Wherein both senses agree Wherein be similitude standeth Arrians Ioan. 17. Hilar. li. 8. de Tri nitate Christ in vs by flesh The 〈◊〉 nation ma keth not Christ to be in vs naturally Gen. 34. One in bo dy without mine One in mind with out body One in bo dy and mind 1. The Sacramenta ries be agaâ—…st S. Hilarie 2. Against â—… Godhead of Christ. 3. Against â—… life of our bodies 4. Against that food our bread Ioan. 7. Our bodies bo fed to liue for euer Bread is no food of life The obiec tion The aunswere Scriptures wer prouided against he retikes Marc. 16 No promise is made to bread Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. 1. Cor. 10 11. In the. 1. booke It suffiseth â—…ocate Christ. Our bodies receaue Christ. Cyril in Ioan. lib. 10. ca. 13. The 〈◊〉 Chapiter Matt. 18. Christ gaue no offence Ioan. 6. The disci ples shuld haue beleued The natu rall order of questions The Iewes beleuing not the â—… first points ler ned not yâ— third Matt. 26. Cyril li. 4. c. 14. in Ioan. The xix Chapiter 1. de bap li. 1. ca. 2. 2. in IoaÌ„ hom 46. 3. in IoaÌ„ tract 27. The pride of Caluin Aug. in Psal. 98. in IoaÌ„ Cyril in Ioan. li. 4 c. 23. 24 Procop. in praefationem genesim HowÌ„e Christes flesh was geuen spiritually Hie. c. 11. Habac. 3. The xx Chapiter The errour of the Capharnaits The spirit of Christ is his Godhead Ioan. 4. Ioan. 1. Cyril in Ioan. lib. 4. ca. 24. Spiritus De spiritu Note Damasc. de Orth. sid li. 4. cap. 14. Ioan. 3. How the words be spiritâ—…al Ambros. de ijs qui init myster c. 9. Spiritual food Ambros. ibidem August in Ioan. tract 27. Roma 5. what spirit may signifie Acto 17. Basil. de baptis l. â—… cap. 2. Spiritually Esaiae 7. Chryso hom 47. in loan The Sacramentaries make Christes words no spirit The wordes of parables A spiritual body This Sa crament is miraculouse Tropi Malach. The errour of yâ— SacrameÌ„ taires Psal. 77. Ireneus aduersus Her li. 5. August lib. 1. retractat cap. 13. de ciuit Dei lib. 13. cap. 22. 12. The mysterie of faith 1. Tim. 3. The first Chapâ—…ter The gift or legacy of Christ. The law of Christ. The writing of both Neâ—…e doubts â–ª The question decided of old Paulus ff de leg
he applieth the answere made by S. Hilarie concerning the vnion betwene our selues by faith as though he had sayd it of Christes vnion with vs. a matter of great weight is so shamefully belied He writeth things expressly contrary as that by faith Christes body dwelleth in our bodies really and corporally and that Christ dwelleth in vs not really or bodily but because his faith is in vs. Againe what contradiction is it to say all accidentall coniunction is remoued and yet not to graâ—…nt a reall and substantiall coniunction to say the Sacrament is taken with our mouthes and that we vndontedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament and yet that Christes body is not receaued into our mouthes really but by faith only That our coniunction with Christ is called corporall because it is spirituall He vseth a point of so great and shamefull dishonesty as one boy in scholes wold not vse in reasoning against an other Making D. Harding to reason so as he neuer thought os as to say 1. The Capharnaites mistoke Christes words 2. Christ speaketh of his ascension 3. We eate not the flesh that was crucified Uppon euery of which propositions and many suche like he maketh D. Harding conclude ergo Christes body is really in the Sacramâ—…nt Either falsifying the whole argument or leauing out a principall part or putting that in one part which should haue stode in an other And when he hath done his feat then to amend the matter he is wont to come in with a But M. Harding will say cet A man of good conscience and of learning wil rather make his aduersaries reasons stronger and then answere them when they are at the worst then to dissemble the strength of them and only to blere mens eyes with defacing his Aduersaries strong argument by falsifying his proof D. Harding requireth only that men of vnderstanding wil vouthsafe to reade his words againe after M. Iuel hath made his argument and then to consider his vnhonest report a witnesse of his euill conscience He falsifieth the doctours by making them to say more then they do say He putteth into S. Hierom these three words into heauen that whiche doe vtterly change the sense He reporteth that S. Augustine teache th the olde Fathers to haue eaten the selfe same body that is receaued now of the faithful all the which wordes are forged In the words of Cyrillus he did put in these three wordes non aliud quà m He maketh S. Hilarie to say that we are one with Christ by faith naturally He leaueth out certein words of the doctours whiche were of importance touching the principall question The nominatiue case in the B. of Rochesters words conueying in also a false nominatiue case in steede of the true In S. Augustines wordes in one place he left out the genitiue case vnitatis and huius rei and in the same place the verbe praeparatur in mensa Domini In the third place the noune adiâ—…ctiue spiritualem wherein the whole weight of the cause rested in the fourth the ablatiue case in ipso eius corpore constituti In Anacletus he left out Chrismati putting in oleo for it In Alexander he omitted MissaruÌ„ solennia In englishing yâ— wordes of BonaueÌ„ture he left out the adueâ—… essentially In S. HieroÌ„ he left out repellamus Iudaicas fabulas which wold haue shewed whereof he spake In alleging â—…usebins Emissenus he left out three linesin yâ— miâ—…dest ioyning yâ— foormer part with the later He affirmeth Gregorie Nyssen not to speake one worde of the Sacrament and therein formeth D. Hardings argument Christ is borne of the virgin ergo his body is really in the Sacrment whereas Gregorie Nyssen said cleane contrarie Christ is made meate to to the body ergo he was borne of the virgin and thereof D. Harding concluded ergo he was as really made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament as euer he was really borne sithe his being real meate proueth his birth He saith one Iohn Scote and Bertram wrote openly against the real presence with good contentation of the world a more impudent lye was neuer vttered by man He disgraceth S. Hilarie and priuily fathereth vppon him a great blasphemy as though he taught that we are one with God the Father and the sonne in nature of the Godhead whereas his mind was nothing so as I haue declared before He calleth the Fathers wordes spoken in the matter which is in question betwen D. Harding him hot violent rigorouse excessiue therein plainly yelding him selfe giltie that he ought to subsribe as who would not find fault with those three most lerned and auncient Fathers words Hilarie Chrysostome Cyrill vnlesse he clerely saw them to speake vtterly against his doctrin I beseche God to geue him grace to amend these enormouse faults It is better M. Iuel once to subscribe hartely then to be damned for euer Now to leaue M. Iuel and to speake these few words to thee good Christian Reader I chose to speake so copiously of this argumeÌ„t partly because it is the safer way to offend in that side partly because this one questioÌ„ is the ground of a great number â—…oe whiche depend of it For if the body and blood of Christ be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine which thing nowe is most fully proâ—…d there is no doubt of transubstantiation as the which is the most conueâ—…ient way to make the body present Againe wheresoeuer that body is it can not be but a propitiatory sacrifice sith it is the substance once bloodily sacrificed wherein the merite of that sacrifice still remaineth Thirdly seing that body being risen from death dieth no more the whole must nedes be vnder eche soorme and therefore albeit the consecration muste be necessarily made in two kindes to represent the death of Christ where his blood was apart from his flesh yet no lesse merite vertue grace cometh to him who receaueth worthely one kind alone then if he receaued both together Fourthly there can be no dout but the body of the sonne of God both ought to be adored being present for vs may be preserued for our necessity So that all these truthes and many moe depend of this one wherein the reall body of Christ is proued to be present in the Sacrament And seing it is proued present by the word of God as it hath bene declared in the third fourth and fifth bookes seing it hath bene taught to be adored as it is declared in my sixth booke seing it is 〈◊〉 to be taken into our 〈◊〉 mouthes and bodies and to nourish our very flesh to resurrection to be made meate to our bodies which haue neither faith nor spirit but only flesh and bones to receaue
it withal seing the doctrine taught by M. Iuell and his fellowes against the real presence is by the word of God found to be vaine false wicked and is directly coÌ„futed in the first second and seuenth bookes last of aâ—…l seing as in this one article M. Iuels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are in parte discouered so 〈◊〉 many other they shal be shortly God willing layed 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of all 〈◊〉 it remaineth that the whole Catholike faith so 〈◊〉 defended and iustified be most eruestly bâ—…leued and according to the commaundement of Christ most strongly confessed to th' end he that coÌ„fesseth now this truth of Christ before men may be acknowleged of Christ before his Father at the day of iudgement where God send vs a comfortable sentence that we may liue with him in glorie for euer Amen Approbatio septimi Libri QVoniam Librum istum legerunt approbant 〈◊〉 Theologiae idiomatis Anglici eruditissimi quibus ego summam hac in re fidem deberi iudico tutò vtiliter emitti potest Cunerus Petri Pastor Sancti Petri Louanij 20. Decemb. Anno. 1565. A briefe table of the vvhole vvorke 1. First because the whole booke doth concerne specially the real presence of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t if the Reader wil see any thing perteining thereunto he shall finde it in the chapiters which are prefixed before euerie booke 2. Secondly of adoration it is intreated in yâ— six first chapiters of the sixth booke And that the SacrameÌ„t of the altar can be no idol 292. 3. Of transubstantiation as occasion serued he shall find fol. 234. c. item 314. B. 315. 4. Of the sacrifice of yâ— masse fol. 32. 33. 34. 197. 217. 216. 217. 223. vsque ad 233. 5. Of reseruation 35. b. 36. 37. 6 Howe the Sacrament of the altar is a figure 59. 60. vsque ad 72. 137. b. vsque ad 146. 280. 7. That euill men eate Christes body in the Sacrament 43. vsque ad 50. 276. 8. Of the mysticall body of Christ whiche is the Church fol. 260. vsque ad 269. 9. Of the figures and prophecies of the old Testament 214. b. vsque ad 223. 10. The faith of the whole Church concerning the Sacrament of the altar 316. b. vsque ad 324. Faults Fo. Pa. Li. Corrections 〈◊〉 5 1. 7. liue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 2 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meanâ—… 11 1 4 name is more like 17 2 29 is it more like aboue 19 1 24 alone doctrinethis 20 2 11 doctrine of this a truth lesse 21 1 21 a truth no lesse â—…che 28 1 24 such redy by dede 29 2 12 ready either by dede diuine ibidem  31 liuing saying 50 2 13 sauing that filleth 73 2 20 that he filleth denieth parâ—… 82 1 8 denieth any parcel made meate 86 2 9 made meete now came 87 1 9 now come vs neâ—… 89 2 15 vs a new maner prices eodeÌ„ that the sonne   18 other prices  107 1 28 yâ— which the sonne of his bread 108 1 20 of this breade be said 112 1 5 be saued the â—…ycal â—…15 1 2 mystical weth howhe 118 2 2 sheweth that he geue the flesh 120 1 16 geue that fleshe of grace 123 2 18 of glorie signa quo 124 1 31 signa quae mysteries 126 1 6 mysteries Cyrillus besyde that besyde     wil geue it 127 2 29 I wil geue but one 128 2 11 spake but once but teache 136 2 31 but thei teach out al quest 137 2 31 out of al question old fashon 143 2 5 old falshod word of life 147 2 17 wood of life â—…tem lin 18.     not to be 148 2 3 Christ to be where yet 167 2 â—… wel yet of God ibidem  15 and if it be the honour of God hoc that 172 2 24 hoc this seme to staÌ„d 177 1 15 seme to sound this Hieru ibid. 2 15 this is HierusaleÌ„ they should 179 2 7 as they sound and really 180 2 11 and real Chrystom 182 1 â—… Chrysostom meaneth vs 184 1 5 moueth vs. 〈◊〉 ibideÌ„  â—…2 to change Faults Fo. Pa. Li. Corrections and gather ibideÌ„  25 and to gather God man ibideÌ„ 2 7 both God man miraculoush 186 2 19 miraculously vnder your 191 2 7 vnto your miserable 194 1 4 miserable racking taking     corpus 185 1 3 corporis the cause 198 2 4 the sense faithful wheÌ„ 202 1 31 faithful when cup is the 203 1 6 this cup the same meÌ„ber 209 2 6 same number it is not 211 1 7 is it not by naturall 212 2 3 supernatural corde vos 227 1 24 certè vos of me and ibidem  30 of me to th end in yâ— dede ye may be mindfull of me and I say vnder 233 2 16 I say the body that died vnder dâ—…edes that â—…34 2 13 dedes in that am a vine 252 2 28 am the true vine any mystical 266 1 12 only mystical corpore vni ibid.  25 capite vniretut â–ª but in the 268 1 23 but by the. carnis Chri sti ibid.  31 carnis Christi c. his Church 269 1 24 All the foloweth froÌ„ these words and his church to the end of the v. Chap. should come in at the end of thâ—… vi chap.  did it 272 1 8 so did it was dead ibidem  9 was dead els past in 273 1 19 els in 〈◊〉 274 1 4 Christ. Certenly by act 180 1 31 by art not once to 299 1 3 not omitte to CorinthiaÌ„s was not 300 1 4 CorinthiaÌ„s was â–ª not corpus 302 1 10 corpus est Chri sti Christi     did al the ibid 2 1 did not al the. in dede 306 1 18 in dede the things things     that meÌ„ber 317 1 12 that number or beleue 320 1 â—…9 or 〈◊〉 no. no â–ª     â—…aults Fo. Pa. Li. Corrections of a shape ibid. 2 8 of a rounde shape specially 322 2 31 specially twise awise     very faut 325 2 15 very fact no leading 333 2 1 no word leading is a figure 332 2 15 is the signe thee they 331 2 2 thee that they also also     sixteÌ„th cha 334 2 9 tenth chap. yas ibidem  10 say yet we 335 1 12 yet now we the word ibid. 2 13 the wood But it is 346 2 2 But is it or flesh 356 â–ª 1 26 or fleshly to what 359 1 31 to be what Faults Fo. Pa. Li. Corrections the coÌ„secra 364 2 21 the consideratioâ—… tion     the vine 365 2 14 the true vine speake vnto 381 2 2 spake vnto yâ— Iewes the. the     and drink 382 1 30 and to drinke be coÌ„mon 385 2 26 be the common 〈◊〉 is be 388 2 15 iâ—… it be therof it not â–ª ibid.  17 thereof is