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
it was expedient for vs the flesh assumpted of Christe to tary flesh still in dede seing God is by all meanes immutable neither could the word be changed into flesh neither flesh into the word but sith the substance of common bread doth not helpe vs to life enerlasting and may be chaunged into the flesh of Christ it is by the power of Christ chaunged into his flesh when he taking bread and blessing saith this is my body Hereby we may see how the name of brâ—…ad and the figure of Manna is ioyned with the flesh of Christ as the processe of this chapiter teacheth Hereby we may vnderstand how the blessed seed of Abraham which is the body of Christ is ioyned with the apparent shewe that Melchisedech made of bread and wine how the vnleauened bread eaten with the old lambe is the couer of the trew paschall lambe Iesus Christ and to be short how the substance of the old figure is gone into the substance of Christes flesh and how the outwarde forme of the figure remayneth vntill we come to heauen where we shall see face to face without any vayle or shadow put betwene vs and the gloriouse flesh of Christ. Hence it cometh that as S. Ireneus doth witnes the Eucharist consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and of wine of the other heauenly which is the substance of Christes body and blood But if Christes gift consisted of the substance of bread being only sanctified in quality and made a signe of Christes body as yâ— Sacramentaries teache it should neither be that true bread which his Father gaue him nor be in substance better then manna but rather worse for that Manna was miraculously wrought by angels whereas at Christes supper common bread is taken nor it should not be disâ—…ncted from the gift made in the law for as much as there also while Manna was eaten the iust men had grace frome God geuen them because it was a Sacrament of the law It is not therefore grace and commoÌ„ bread which Christ geueth but the substance of his flesh made vnder the forme of common bread by his almighty word ¶ By the shadow of the law past and by the 〈◊〉 truthe to come in heaueÌ„ it is perceaued that yâ— midle state of the new Testament requireth the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of breaâ—… THe occasion of the thre tymes the past the present and the future and of the gifts made in them which are named in S. Iohn doth prouoke me to eÌ„tre into a farther discourse whereby it may appeare to those that delight in conferring the holy scriptures what wonderfull witnesse euery part of them doth beare to that truthe which our forefathers beleued and we that are not bastarde children doe kepe and mayntaine The law saieth S. Paule hath the shadow of good things to come not the very image of things whereby he meaneth that as the lawe had but a shadow so the ghospell hath the thing it self but yet not clere and playne for as the same Apostle sayeth we in this world walke by fayth and not by vision and clere sight If Christ gaue not vnto vs his reall and substanciall flesh vnder the forme of bread how gaue he vs the thing it self How were he by that gyfte proued greater then Moyses and equall with his Father If on the other side he gaue vs his flesh naked how were our state an image of the things them selues Christ is our mediatoure A mediatour is in the myddle to ioyne two partes that otherwise do not agree then if he will make man agree with God he must haue â—…oth the nature of God and of man ioyned in one person likewise if he wil make the state of the ghospell present agree with the law past and with the state of glorye to come he must take the similitude of the law and the nature of the glorye of heauen and ioyne these two into one mystery and so he hath done For as he is in one person very God and very man so he hath perfectly expressed the old state of the lawe and the state of heauen in oâ—… Sacrament The nature of the law of Moyses was to shew Christ and to be a guyde vnto the schole of Christ which thing it did by diuerse figures The nature of glory is to see face to face to haue all truth with 〈◊〉 any figure Now the state of the new Testament being the middle state betwixt the law and the glory of heaueÌ„ must haue the very truth that is in heauen which is the true flesh of Christ whereon Angelles desyer to looke and the true Godhead which is the full blessednes of all sainctes and this thing it must haue vnder a figure Therefore the theâ—…e Sacrament thát Christ left vnto his Church which also he called the new Testament in his blood must by the same reason haue yâ— true flesh of Christ wherein the Godhead dwelleth corporally and yâ— vnder a very figure which is the forme of bread Aâ—…d truly this forme of bread and of wyne is only a true figure because there is in it none other substance but the bare figure Other figures of the olde lawe were set to signify being them selues 〈◊〉 other substance in nature as the arke the tabernacle the vayle the â—…hewebread and all the sacrifices but the bare figure of bread without the substance of bread set to signifie the bread of life really present vnder it that is the only true figure as the whiche hathe none other truthe in his own substance but only the truth of a figure because the substance thereof is turned into that flesh of Christ who vnder the figure of yâ— ordre of Melchisedech whereof he is priest fullfilleth all figures that euer haue bene of him in his real and substanciall flesh which real flesh yf we had not in our SacrameÌ„t of the altar Christ gaue no more in his outward mysteries then was geuen by Moyses he were not equal with his Father by his gyfte he were not yâ— corner stone ioyning the state of Moyses law which was only 〈◊〉 aâ—…d the veritie of glory together But if these are great â—…rrours let vs stedfastly beleue that Christ left vs his very crue rcall flesh in the blessed Sactament of the altar vnder the forme of bread and wyne For as in other precepts we may vnderstand the old law not to be taken away concerâ—…ing the spirit which laie hid in it but only to be fulfilled and made more perfect so notwithstanding the old figures be dead and changed yet the state of fulfilling them is suche that the new Testament is not it self without all figures but rather conteineth the truth couered with a conuenient figure Uerily Christ sayd so much in effect when he taught that he came not to putt away the law but to
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
that it so feedeth vs as the water in baptism doth wash vs and that as water toucheth our body so it entreth into our body Which thing is so true that Christ hauing taken bread blessed stretching forth his hand said Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you Where not without a great mysterie Christe gaue his body vnder the forme of bread not only to feede vs presently through yâ— grace which procedeth froÌ„ his flesh by touching eating yâ— same but also to shew vs that this is the same bodie which before had incorporated vs into it self For as of manie graines of wheate one loaf of manie persons one Mysticall body of Christe was made so when Christ turneâ—…h the substance of bread into his own substaÌ„ce and so maketh him self present vnder yâ— form of bread he both feedeth many persons who partake of that one bread and by the form of bread sheweth how they being neuer so many are yet one in him because they are all incorporated into him Of this Sacrament S. Paule intreating sayd The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body because through it we both partake of the one bread which is Christ and are our selues shewed to be one bread and one body What are we in mystery but only members of Christ And for as much as Christ is him self present vnder the forme of this bread and is the very substaÌ„ce which is receaued there we are no lesse named one mystical bread of this one bread then we are named one mystical body of Christes true body out of which discourse it is vndoutedly proued that the bread which we breake is the body of Christ. How could we otherwise be called thereof one bread How could one bread and one body be put to signifie one thing but that in dede bread and body are here in substance the same selfe thing we are named the mysticall body in respect of yâ— vnion which we haue with the natural body of Christ and amoÌ„g our selues But we are also called one bread in S. Paule Therefore out of dout S. Paul meaneth that one bread which is Christ in respect whereof we are named to be yâ— mystical body of Christ. The Church taketh her names froÌ„ Christ that which Christ is in truth the Church is in mystery so that nothing can be verified of the Church which was not true before in Christ for the members folow the state of theyr head But the meÌ„bers are called one bread one body for mysteries sake therefore the head is in truth one bodie he is the one bread whereof we partake and we partake of that which is broken by meanâ—… of yâ— forme of bread therefore Christ is really present vnder that forme of bread whiche at his supper we breake and partake We are members of this bread before we take it in the Sacrament of the altar because this bread is that substance of Christe vnder the form of bread to whose mystical body we were ioyned in baptisâ—…e whereof S. Augustine writeth thus Nulli est aliquâ—…tenus ambigendâ—… cae No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body blood of our Lord when he is made a member of Christ in baptim neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cup although before he eate that bread and drinke that cup being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benefite of that Sacrament for so much as him self hath found that thing which that Sacrament doth signify Whereas Christ sayd Except ye eate my flesh and drink my blood ye shal not haue life in you a man wold haue thought that euery person were bound to receaue actually the Sacrament of Christes body and blood but S. Augustine sheweth that thing not to be after that sorce necessarie to all men For he that is made a member of Christ in Baptism is therein made partaker of yâ— body blood of Christ. How so Because he receaueth that thing which the Sacrament of Christes body and blood signifieth What doth it signifie The mysticall body of Christ. By what meanes S. Augustine expounded yâ— meane a litle before saying Bread is not made of one grayne but of many likewise one liquour is made of many grapes Thus our Lord Iesus signified vs. he wold vs to apperteine to himself Mysterium panis vnitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecrauit he hath consecrated the mysterie of our peace and vnitie in his table Note that our mysterie was not made by the baker but consecrated by Christ the consecration was to turne the substance of the bread into his owne flesh keping still the olde forme of the same bread But if the body of Christ were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptized be partaker of the benefite of this Sacrament Was he made partaker of bread and wine No verily but of the mysticall body What hath the mystical body to doe in this Sacrament For â—…oth so much that here is both the thing which maketh vs all one which is Christ and he is so present that he sheweth him self to haue ioyned all vs to him as he hath ioyned the graines of wheat vnto his flesh For as the bread which we breake hath none other substance besyde the substance of Christ and yet it hath an outward appareuce of an other thing so the mysticall body of Christ hath none other substance through which it is one body besydes yâ— body of Christ although it haue an oâ—…tward appareÌ„ce of an other thing For be we neuer so many in number persons we are one body in Christ. How so euer we appere mortal men as we once were yet in truth we are ioyned to the body of Christ and are members of him our only head Take away that body of Christ from the forme of bread and here is no signe of vnitie in Christ. A signe of vnitie here is but not in Christ. Euery loaf 〈◊〉 vnitie but none other betokeneth our vnitie in Christ but that bread the substance whereof is Christ yâ— forme whereof is the forme of common bread If the naturall substance of Christ be absent from the bread which we consecrate and so be signified without the reall presence thereof if again the natural substance of bread remaine and signific the mysticall body of Christ who is absent him self in substance no signe is by that meane more effectually made then that Christ and his members are as far a sunder as heauen is distant from the earth and that as Christ is signified present being in dede not present so his members be signified to be ioyned to him and in truth be not ioyned to him These are the mystical signes which do folow necessarily vpon the
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
it yet the godhed remayned corporally dwelt in it and the soule returned to it agayne the third day Therefore when Christ saith This is my body which is geuen for you I am bound to beleue that his body is neither without soule nor godhead for ells it were not truly said it is geuen for vs yf it were not profitable to vs. Thus you se that I beleue al that words of Christ together and that you not doing so are without ye do repeut certeine to be condemned for not beleuing these words take eate This is my body You wyll say ye beleue these words yet not carnally but spiritually as it is mete for Christes wordes to be beleued O syr he that assigneth a meane howe he will beleue Christes wordes in that very faut sheweth hym selfe not to beleue them for belefe inuenteth nothing of his owne but followeth the autoritie of God that speaketh I beleue in deed that Christes words can not be carnal as you take carnal words for foule and grosse meaninges But I see it to be a very cleane and pure meaning that the moste pure substance of the flesh of Christ should he geuen vnder the form of bread to thend it may be eaten of vs and the chiefe and cleanest thing that we vse to eate is bread To geue therefore the chiefe and most healthfull flesh in the world to be eaten vnder the form of the purest eatable thing is a very pure and cleane work far from all carnality You will say it is more pure if it be rather beleued to be eaten only of yâ— harte of man by faith spirit then by mouth and body I answere that is no pure eating of a corporall thing which taketh away the truth of corporall eating Againe both ways of eating are better then one of them alone I beleue his real flesh to be eaten with hart and mouth to be eaten with body minde to be eaten in deede and in faith Here faileth your belefe because of two true thinges you beleue but one the other you discredit To be short let vs imagine him that beleueth the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to stand before the seate of Christes iudgement and that Christe asketh him why he did beleue and worship his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine May he not wel answere in this wise I beleued so and did so because your maiestie taking bread and hauing blessed douted not so say This is my body which words al my forefathers vnderstode to be spoken properly and to be true as they sounded therefore at the commandement of my prelats I adored your body vnder the form of bread If Christ reply that he had preachers who tought him otherwise and cryed to him to beware least he committed idolatrie first that obiectiâ—… might not be made to any man that died aboue fiftie yeres past because no preacher taught publikely any such doctrine Secondly if so much were said to one of our time he might answere that he had 〈◊〉 forefathers and moe preachers and those much more anncient and more honest men who required him to beleue Christes wordes and to worship the body of his maker Well now we are come to the point all the Catholikes haue preaâ—…hed with one accorde that it is the true body of Christ and the Gospell witnesseth that Christ 〈◊〉 This is my body Here is the word of God and the tradition and preaching of man ioyned together I aske whether it be possible for Christ who requireth nothing so earnestly of vs as briefâ—… to 〈◊〉 that simple man who being otherwise of good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his word and his forefaâ—… and the preachers agreable with both or not Answere me for what fault shall this poore man be condemned First to beleue Christ it is no fault Secondly Christ faid this is my body Thirdly he being yet an infant was of his parentes taught that to be the body of Christ which was holden ouer the Priests head Fourthly as many and moe preache vnto him when he cometh to laufull age and say this is the body of Christ as there are that aâ—…terward preache the contrary Tell me then what was his fault for which he may be coÌ„demned If you say his eyes told him it was not yâ— body of Christ he will answere that for the reuerence he bare to the word of God he denied the fensible instruction of his eyes as geuing more credit to Christ then to him selfe Is that a fault If you reply that by that meaâ—…es he might haue worshipped the roâ—… in steâ—…de of Christ he wil answere he knoweth not what you meane he neuer had any rok shewed him by most graue authority which was said to be Christ. If any suche thing had bene taught him he for his parte was so obedient to beleue so willing to adore Christ that he would haue done any thing which had bene commanded to him vnder the name of Christ or of his religion Is this a fault why the poore man should be condemned No surely seing the Prophet Dauid saieth Vt iumentum factus sum apud te I am become as it were a beast before thee It is â—…andable saith Euthymius that in the sight of God we take our selues as beastes which being so I can deuise no fault in this poore and simple man who if he be deceaued he is deceaued by Christ by his forefathers by diuerse Catholike and vertuous Preachers by yâ— vertue of humility of obedience of pure loue towards God But on the other side if Christ call one of them before him who denieth his reall presence aske him why he did not beleue the Sacrament of the altar to be the body of Christe what will he answer for himselfe â–ª Will he say Syr I beleâ—…ed your body to sit at the right hand of God the Father and therefore that your body was not in the Priestes hand Why then thinkest thou that I am not able to make the same which is at the right hand of my father to be alsâ—… present vnder the form of bread Sir whether you be able or no I can not say but I haue hard many preachers tel that one body caÌ„ not be at one time in diuerse places O howe dreadfully would Christ answere in this case Did not those preachers whom thou preteÌ„dest to folow say alwaies they preached to thee the sincere word of God Did they not by that colour ouerthrow monasteries Churches altars images of Saintes and mine owne image and crosâ—…e Did they not denie the sacrifice of the Masse praing for the dead and such like auncient vsages only for pretence of the word of God And now see how inexcusable they thou art I said Take eate this is my body I said this to twelue men I gaue eche of them my body â—…ad
them make that thing as it is written in the Gospel I shewed at 〈◊〉 that I was signed of my Father and equall with him in power they them selues beleue that I made al creatures places times of nothing and now is it doubted how I am able to make my body present vnder the â—…orm of bread in diuerse places Yea to maintaine the better that argument against my allmighty power they say I entred not into my disciples the dores being shut But eyther preuented the shutting of them contrary to the wordes of my Gospell or came in by the window as theues do or by some hole as crepers doe yea any thing is soner beleued then my diuine strength and working Thou hypocrite seing the word of God hath it written foure tymes in the new testament This is my body how comest thou to talke with me of my 〈◊〉 in heauen as though one of my workes were contrary to the other If in dede thou haddest bene humbly perswaded that I were God thou wouldest not measure my allmightie power by thy simple wit Thou art twise condemned first for deniall of a truth and againe for denying it against my expresse word which thou pretendest to esâ—…e and yet pronouÌ„cest it false If the pore mâ—…n say he knew not so much nor saw not the falsehod of that argumeÌ„t and beginne to accuse the salse preachers who deceiuâ—…d him Christ maie well say that he was not deceaued for before those false preachers began their false doctrine he had said This is my body and this is my blood and all the world beleued and taught the râ—…all presence of Christes body blood fiften hundred yeres together What cause nowe haddest thou to beleue a new Gospell and new preachers thereof Forsoth Sir they said the Bishop of Rome had deceaued vs and we heare say he is a very euil maÌ„ therefore we thought he had deceaued vs. If in this case Christ tell him that the Bishop of Rome were yâ— successour of S. Peter and so his vicar hauing promise by him not to erre in faith and yet that he alone taught not that doctrine but that all the Bishops doctors pâ—…ers of the whole Church taught the same from the beginning and that Christ him selfe had sayâ—… the same that all the 〈◊〉 and the Apostle S. Paule had written the same that al faithful 〈◊〉 beleued the same what excuse can he haue who 〈◊〉 Christ the Apostles the Bisshops the Fathers the preachers and the whole Church to followe an vpâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who began his doctriue so amhitiously and proudly who â—…ed so euil died so terribly that his very â—…ominable dealing with great Princes his shamfull 〈◊〉 and horrible death might make any good man wearie to think vpon him much lesse should so many haue folowed him To 〈◊〉 shor â—…wer the pore maÌ„ for him selfe â–ª what he may yet he can not denie but that both Christ said this is my body the Church taught the same and yet he beleued not this to be the body of Christe and therefore is one of them who beleue not without faith which is but one there is no saluatioÌ„ no pleasing of God no part in the kingdoÌ„ of heauen Which thing if they that be aliue will consider they maie returne againe to the Catholike Churche and so be made liuely members of that body whereof Christe is the Sauiour Herevnto is added the seuenth booke conteining a con â–ª â—…utation of the fifth article of M. Iuels Reply against D. Harding concerning the reall presence of Christes body in the supper of our Lorde The preface of the seuenth booke Iâ—…d thought to haue ended my treatise of our Lords supper with such matter as had bâ—…ne set foorth in my former six boks But when I had seen M. Iuels â—…eply against D. Harding and had 〈◊〉 not only contrarie doctrine to that which the Catholike Chruch beleueth vttered therin but also the same vttered with such enormouse misconstruing of the worde of God and with suche abusing of auncieÌ„t writers that it semed expedient to detect the falshod thereof I toke vpoÌ„ me to answere specially to that article whiche did unpugne the reall presence of Christes body â–ª whereof I had intreated And because I could neither well confute M. Iuels â—…ply without some respect had to D. Hardings answere nor conueniently put both D. Hardings and M. Iuels whole wordes in â—…ny booke which alredie was greate enough I was constrained to take such order that neither al their wordes might be at large laied foorth nor the pith of them in any part dissembled Wherein I haue so behaued my selfe that M. Iuel shall haue no 〈◊〉 cause to coÌ„plaine of me For I haue to my knowledge omitted no scripture no authoritie no argument of any force whereunto I haue not aunswered As for yâ— bookes of D. Harding of M. Iuel they being extaÌ„t in most mens handes nede not to be printed again by me How fully M. Iuel is answered the discrete Reader shall iudge when he commeth to the matter This much I will say it was more pain to staie my penne in suche abundance of stuffe as the goodâ—…es of the cause and euill dealing of M. Iuel gaue me then to 〈◊〉 at any tyme what might be 〈◊〉 answered One thing I beâ—…che the Reader to note most diligeÌ„tly that in all this treatise M. Iuel vseth none other meane so coâ—…on to proue his intent as to set one truth against an other As though Christes body could not both be in heauen visibly and in the Sacrament miraculously or as though because the Saâ—…rament is a figure it could not also contein the truth which it sigureth Or because Christ is eaten by faith his body might not be eaten also realy in the Sacrament But this thing is common to M. Iuel with other of his faction Marie to leaue on t the true nominatiue caâ—…e and to put in a false to leaue out the 〈◊〉 word which is the keie of all disputation to conueye wordes of his own which the authour neuer thought of to mispoint mis-english the testimonies of the fathers to 〈◊〉 their meaning that I can not tel whether any man hath vsed so much in so litle a treatise as in this one article of the reall â—…sence â—…e is â—…ound to haue done Neither is it vnknoweÌ„ to yâ— lerned who hath seen his booke yâ— hâ—… hath vsed the like falshod in yâ— other articles also 〈◊〉 by Gods grace the world shal see or it be long In the meane tyme iudg the rest by this which I shall set before thiâ—…e eyes And praie vn â–ª to God yâ— either M. Iuel may see his vnhonest dealing 〈◊〉 him selfe or els that his folly maie be 〈◊〉 to al men to thintent none may perish beside those who will not â—…denour by all meanes to lerne 〈◊〉 folow and to embrace the true doctrine of Christes Gospel and of the 〈◊〉 â–ª tholike Church The
his argument vppon that worde alone For he may be bread and herbs and milke vnto vs both in the Sacrament and without it but he is bread herbs and milke to vs in our mouthes as Manna was vnto the Iewes only in the Sacrament Iuel Gregorie Nyssen holdeth that we receaue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament for he saith who so hath abundaÌ„tlie drunk of the Apostles springs hath already receaued whole Christ. San. You misse in your prouf For you should proue that whoso drinketh of the Apostles spring he receaueth Christes bodie you proue that he receaueth Christ. A man maie receaue Christ in his hart and yet not haue Christes bodie in his bodie Christ being the name of the person maie be verified as wel of the diuine as oâ—… the humane nature But there Gregorie Nyssen spake of his diuine nature which thing is most clere because he speaketh of eating by faith so as it agreeth to the whole Trinitie And therefore it foloweth I mie father will come vnto him Lo he wil come so as his father cometh to wit by his diuine nature But beside that S. Nyssen speaketh of his birth and of hys being meate vnto our bodies which is oâ—…lie done in the Sacrament of the altar Iuel M. Harding reasoneth thus Christ was borne ergo his bo die is reall in the Sacrament San. O dissembler he reasoneth cleane contrarie with Gregorie Nyssen Christ is made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament Therfore he was reallie born as I haue alreadie shewed Iuel This conclusion is childish San. Yours is childish But D. Hardings is so stronge that if the eating of Christ proue his birth it will followe that as he is born reallie so much more he is eateÌ„ really otherwise if he were onlie eaten by faith thence we could coÌ„clude no more but a byrth by faith which is against Gregorie Nyssenes purpose Iuel If he conclude not this he concludeth nothing San If you speake as you think you are byside your sell. For as by the real eating of Christes fleshe his birth is concluded of S. Nyssen so â—…y D. Harding the reall eating is noted as a most knowen truth presupposed by S. Gregorie Nyssen ¶ That M. Iuel hath not well answered the places of S Cyrillus HArding Cyrillus saith vvhen the mystical blessing is become to be in vs dothe it not cause Christe to dvvel in vs corporally by receauinge of Christes bodie in the communion The same thing he saith in diuerse other places Iuel Cyrillus expoundeth him selfe natural vnion is nothing els but a true vnioÌ„ we are by nature the childern of anger that is in dede and truly San. The words which you allege as out of Cyrillus be 〈◊〉 in him His words are Si naturalem vnionem dixerimus 〈◊〉 dicemus If we cal it a natural vnion we shal cal it a true 〈◊〉 But you haue put in a certaine phrase of your own addinge these words non aliud quà m none other thing but that is nothing M. Iuel but alitle falshod There is ods whether it be said a natural vnion is a true vnion or els a naturall vnioÌ„ is none other thing but a true vnion For that which is natural is true but there is sumwhat more conteined in the name of nature which the name of truthe doth not expresse We are the true sonnes of God but we are not yâ— natural sonnes of god wheresoeuer thereforea thing is called natural it is at the lest true but not by and by nothing els but true That which you said of S. Augustine Corporaliter noÌ„ vmbraliter sed verè et solidè I could not find it vpoÌ„ yâ— 67. psal But thinke you M. Iuel that when S. tyrâ—…l teacheth Christ to be the natural sonne of god he wolde be contented if an Arrian should slep foorth and say that to be the natural sonne of god is nothing els but to be the true sonne of god Whiche beinge once graunted he that is a child by adoption is also the true sonne of god Therfore the Arrian wil conclude that Christ is the sonne of god by adoption But let vs come nere to the purpose let natural dwelling staÌ„d for true dwelling What of that saith S. Cyril only that Christ is naturally vnited vnto vs saith he not also that yâ— mystical blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in vs wil that word also be excluded by a true dwelling or hath M. Iuell an other phrase to answere it withal Iuel S Paul saith the Heathens are bâ—…come concorporal and partakers of the promise in Christ Iesu in the same sense San. In whith sense M. Iuel meane you that as natural so â—… likewise corporal conâ—…tÌ„ioÌ„ meaneth nothing els but a true conâ—…ction True in dede it is but true in the truth of nature of bodie but not 〈◊〉 true in the truthe of faith and speaking S. Pâ—…e saith The Heatheâ—…s are coÌ„corporal with the Patriarches Prophets that is to say of one body mystical of one society 〈◊〉 Theresore saieth M. Iuel when S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ to dwel corporally in vs by reason of the holy communioÌ„ he meaneth that Christe and wee are all of one mysticall body Meant he nothing els M. Iuel as though it went not before Non negamus caet We denie not but that we are ioyned spiritually to Christ by right faith and syncere loue Lo there is the coniunction which maketh vs one way members of that bodie whereof Christ is yâ— head But S. Tyrill goeth to an other higher meane of the same coniunction adding that the mystical blessing which is the Eucharist maketh Christ to dwel also in vs corporally by communicating his body S. Cyril nameth dwelling in comparison of ioyning corporally in comparison of spiritually by communicating Christes body in comparison of these words by right faith and syncere charitie Therefore it must nedes be that the corporal dwelling of Christ in vs according to his fleshe which also S. Cyril nameth is an other kind of vnion theÌ„ faith and charitie loue But the giftes are corporall with the faithfull Iewes not by faith alone but as S. Hilarie declareth by the nature also of baptism by the nature of Christes flesh For they are grasted into the cumpanie of the elect by all these meanâ—…s which Christ prouided for yâ— end they beleue in yâ— same God are baptized in the same fount are reconciled by the same SacrameÌ„t of penance fed nourished and consuÌ„mated by eating really the same fleshe of Christe What doth that word corporall helpe you now M. Iuell It signifieth no more but that the Iewes and Gentils are of one feloship but the meanes of making them one remaine notwithstanding to be declared Iu By the wordes corporally and naturally a ful perfite spirituall coniunction is meant excluding all manner of fantasie San. So that with you corporally and
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
spirituall eating is not euill but it lacketh some truthe How so because the whole man is not fed For faith feedeth bue the soule and yet the name of feeding is proper to the body and thence is transferred to the soule that feeding therefore is not fully true which eateth not that in the mouth which it eateth in the harte whereas the true supper of Christ is meat in dede and drink in dede and must be the eating of that in our body which our mynde and soule doth eate So sayd Leo the great of Christes supper Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur For that is taken in the mouth which is beleued in fayth The reall flesh of Christ is beleued in faith therefore the same real flesh must be eaten with mouth And what other cause can be deuysed why allways from the beginning of the world to this day eating by mouth hath beâ—…e ioyned to the highest sacrifices and chefe kind of worshipping of God that euer was vsed what meaneth the â—…ating of the Paschall laâ—…be of Manâ—… of shew bread wheateâ—… meale and all such offerings as were in the law Could not God haue inueuted an other waye to haue occupied his people in seruing him but only by eating and drinking Surely the meaning of all those diners and suppers and feasts were to shew that in tyme to come the same Messias that they loked for 〈◊〉 in whom they beleued should so truly come for our sakes into the earth that he should come also into our bodies to dwell by his flesh caten in vs that we might dwell in him Neither let this seme a laughing matter to thee good Reader For sith Christ was born to vs and geuen to vs as Esaie saith he sought not his owne commoditie but ours and perceauing that in paradyse the whole nature of man was ouercome of the deuill specially by cating with mouth of the fruit which was forbiddeÌ„ him As against the deuill persuading Eua to disobaye God he sent the arâ—…hangell Babriell to persuade the blessed virgin Marie to consent to his will as against that appletree he planted the crosse of our redemption as for yâ— disobedience of Adam him selfe came to be obedient euen to death right so for the apple of the forbiddeÌ„ tree 〈◊〉 eaten he gaue him selfe the fruit and apple of the crosse which is the tree of grace lawfully and medefully to be eaten and his blood to be drunken Bibimus sayth S. Cyprian de sanguine Christi ipso iub eÌ„te vitae aeternae cum ipso per ipsum participes animalis vitae peccata quasi sanguinem impurum horrentes fatentes nos per peccati gustum â beatitudine priuatos damnatos nisi nos Christi clementia ad societatem vitae aeternae suo sanguine reduxisset We drink of the blood of Christ him self commanding being partakers of euerlasting life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of bare natural life as vnpure blood and graunting ourselues to haue ben depriued from blisse and damned through the taste of sinne except the clemencie of Christ had brought vs again to the fellowship of euerlasting life by his blood S. Cyprian setteth the drinking of Christes blood against the taste of syn which man fell into by tasting vnlawfully the apple which was forbidden to be tasted of The like phrase also Prosper Aquitanicus hath vsed who firsâ—… declareth our fall by eating and drinking and afterward our arising again by eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. Concerning our fall thus he writeth Liberum ergo arbitrium id est rei sibi placitae spontaneus appetitus vbi vsum bonorum quae acceperat fastidiuit vilescentibus sibi felicitatis suae praesidijs insanam cupiditatem ad experientiam praeuaricationis intendit bibit omnium vitiorum venenum totam naturam hominis intemperantiae suae ebrietate madefecit Free will therefore that is to saie yâ— voluÌ„tarie appetite of the thing which pleased it being ones 10thsome of the good things which it had takeÌ„ and without regard or care had to the aydes of his own blessednes hauing bent his impoteÌ„t gredines to the triall and experience of disobedience and preuarication drank in the poyson of all vices and drowned the whole nature of man with the drunkeÌ„nes of his intemperance Thus was poison drunk in Let vs now coÌ„sider whence helth maie be recouered Inde priusquam edendo carnem filij hominis bibendo sanguiuem eius lethalem digerat cruditatem labitur memoria errat iuditio nutat incessu neque vllo modo idoneus est ad illud bonum eligendum â–ª concupiscendum quo se sponte priuauit Thence it commeth that man faileth in memorie erreth in iudgement wauereth in his going neither is he by any meanes mete to choose and desier that good thing whereof he depriued himself of his own accorde before that by eating the flesh of the sonne of man by drinking his blood he digest the deadly surâ—…et which he toke As therefore the apple that Adam did really eate against the commandement of God doth make vs all yâ— were in his body at that tyme gilty of disobedience and the children of wrath so the reall eating of Christes flesh according to the worthy eating thereof which Christ commanded doth make vs all free from the pain of euerlasting death and the children of grace and glorie But as euery man did not eate the prohibited apple in his own person and by his own act but by the act of our father and mother and as being in them and of them so it is not nedefull that euery man in his own person eate the flesh of Christ which is geuen vs in the Sacrament to be eaten but it is absolutely nedefull that some or other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body maie be one perfitly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with them who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse and truly rising from death to th' intent it might be truly eaten of vs without any corruption or perishing therof Thus we find that the supper of Christ can not in any wise consist of eating the flesh of Christ by faith and spirit alone But we that is to saie some of the mystical body that are of lawfull age must eate it to saluation as the apple was eaten to damnatioÌ„ And because before Christ was incarnat we had no apple to damnatioÌ„ he toke flesh and went of his own accord to death that thence we might plucke the apple of life and the fruit of the wood of life which preserueth vs to euerlasting ioyes For as Gregorius Bishop of Nyssa brother to S. Basil doth teache the medicine must be according to the poyson which we
blood This can be but one thing Therefore Christ deliuering that whereof he sayd This and this deliuered at eche tyme but one thing in all but two things He deliuered his body blood as him self sayd and you coÌ„fesâ—…e he truly deliuered them wherevpon I conclude that he deliuered neither bread nor wine and consequently that the bread taken was changed in to the body of Christ and the wine was changed into his blood For seing Christ toke both bread and wine and deliuered truly his body and blood yet deliuered but one thing at eche tyme and that also keping the forme of bread and wine it must nedes be graunted that the substance of bread and wine which was truly taken and not truly deliuered because an other thing was truly deliuered was in the meane tyme truly changed into that body and blood which was truly deliuered O masters truth is strong and by the aduersaries own weapon getteth the victorie Again remember that the name of body and the name of blood are names belonging to the manhod of Christ to which manhod when you adioyne any act or work which may truly be verisied thereof it must be meant according to that truth which properly belongeth to the nature of the manhod When we say Christ was truly scurged nailed to the Crosse bound and buried it is not here to be vnderstanded that these things were don in figure in spirit in faith But that his body suffered according to the fâ—…esh all these things And he that saith the contrarie is an 〈◊〉 which heresie wold the manhod of Christ to be changed into his diuine nature If then the body and blood of Christ be truly dâ—…red you must not vuderstand a figure only to be dâ—…red neither a spiritual dâ—… only For if the body of Christ be deliuered truly and yet by spirit only then the truth of his body is by these men brought vnto the truth of a spirit and the flesh of Christ hath losi his true nature and propâ—… Mark wel the reason when the body of Christ is truly deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his own nature The nature of a body is to be dâ—…d after some bodily maner verily by hands or by some other corporail action And they to whom it is delâ—…red likewise receaue it by some part or sense of their body For so requireth the true nature of flesh and blood not immediatly to be geuen to the spirit and soule but to come to it by meane of the body Whereof it is inferred that the body and blood of Christ which are truly deliuered in the supper are bodily deliuered and bodily receaued But from the body of Christ who made the dâ—…ance vnto the bodies of the Apoâ—…es who receaued the things deliuered none other thing can â—…syde that which semed bread and wine therefore vnder that foormes the body and blood of Christ were truly contâ—…ined and by yâ— meanes truly deliuered and truly receaued Thirdly when you say the â—…sh of God quickeneth our soules you should haue sayd also that it quickeneth our bodies as in other places I haue proued out of the sixth of S. 〈◊〉 anâ—… out of S. Jreneus â—…tullian Cyrillus and other auncient Fathers ¶ what it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ â–ª ANd that the same supper is the coâ—…ion of the body and blood of Christ by the partaking whereof we are qâ—…ned we are 〈◊〉 and sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which 〈◊〉 and â—…th can not be 〈◊〉 from them whom it nourisheth and when it is cut of their reache they can not haue it before it be geuen If then we haue in 〈◊〉 yâ— body and blood of Christ we receaued it by his gift at his supper And surely it was the thing whereof he sayd Eate and whereof he sayd Drinke Other food was not deliuered in Christes supper beâ—… his body and blood Nor possiblie can we haue the food of his supper at any other mans table then at his Wel. If we be nourished by the meate which Christ gaue vs when he sayd Eate and yet we be nourished by his body and blood vndoubtedly he sayd Eate of that which he gaue with his hands and which the Apostles toke into their mouthes and that was bread to see vnto therefore vnder that â—…orme of bread we take the nourishment whereby we are sed to immortalitie Otherwise what warrant haue we to come by this food which is cleane out of our reache vntil God geue it saying Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood By those words oâ—…â—…ate one liquour only is geuen which also â—…deth vs to immortalitie as yâ— Apologie coâ—…h But none other food that man may receaue bodily can feed vs to immortalitie besyde the reall substance of Christ. therefore that substance is receaued nourisheth vs when Christ sayd Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood ¶ The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must nâ—…s be a naturall vnion â—…ore it be a mysticall ANd by the which we are coupled we are vnited and grafted into the body of Christ that we might â—…well in hinâ—… and he in vs. Christes â—…sh is deliuered to the end we should be nourished therewith And the end of nourishing is to make one thing of yâ— which is eaten and of him that eateth it The flesh deliuered to nourishe vs is not any mysticall flesh but only the natural flesh of Christ neither can it be any other food For none other thing that coâ—…th in at the mouth of man is able to seed him to immortalitie besyde the substance of Christes flesh and blood If then it be the naturall flesh which feedeth and the vnion doe come by seeding the vnion must of necesâ—…ty be made with the naturall flesh of Christ. And because that is such a flesh as being vnited to God hath power to geue life and â—…mortality out of the naturall vnion which is made with it by eating an other spiritual and mystical vnion floweth which maketh all the members of Christ to be one mysticall body So that we haue now fiâ—…e degrees First the slesh of Christ is deliuered to vs in his supper Next we eate the same flesh Thirdly we are fed by it if we eate it worthely Fourthly of yâ— feeding conuneth a reall and naturall vnion and ioyning with Christes flesh as S. Hilarie teacheth and other auncient Fathers Of that naturall vnion procedeth a spirituall vnion with the whole body of the Church Because being made one with Christes flesh we are vnited thereby to his spirit and Godhead liuing for him as he â—…th for his Father whereof I will speake more hereafter The Apologie acknowledgeth a ioyning with Christ by eating But it surely meaneth the last spirituall ioyning which ariseth of the other naturall vnion Whereas that spiritual ioyning doth â—…ude the other natural as euery effect presupposeth the necessarie
agreed for all scâ—…iptures call it the body and some doctours call it a signe But if these thinges can not both be true together awase with signes awaie with tokens let the worde of God be heard which saieth This is mâ—… body This is my blood Is it reason we obeie men or God If both stand in one degree men keping them selues vnder God let both be obeyed But if men draw from God he is more worth alone then all the men of the world What 〈◊〉 we now Will the sigâ—…e of the body and the body it selâ—…e stand together or no If not let the signe of the body which is not in scripture geue place let the body it selfe which is often times found there tarie still If the signe and the truth can not stand together the Sacramentaries must nedes be condemned who denie the truth which is in the scripture and preferre the signe before it which is not in the scripture If the signe truth doe both stand together yâ— Sacramentaries onlesse they repent be condemned because they denie the one part of yâ— twaine For they denie the true presence of Christs body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine In what case stand these defenders which still be in state of damnation whatsoeuer be concluded true We verely teach and beleue the figure and the truth to stand together the supper of our Lord to be the signe of Christes body and to be his owne body The weaker part is the signe the greater is the truth But both doe not only stand together in one Sacrament but farther more the true nature of euerie Sacrament of Christ is to haue both that is â—…aie to haue oue certaine truth one certaine signe of the same truth The truth is hidden vnder the signe the signe is witnes of the truth Which thing once being declared you shall see the vaine doctrine of this Apologie with what kind of worthy Schoolâ—… the English Church is nowe gouerned to the greate 〈◊〉 and destruction of Christian soules Pardon me good reader if I stand somewhat long vpon the name of a Sacrament for in that word lieth hidden all the poyson of the Sacramentarie doctrine ¶ That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament GEue diligent care good Reader to the doctrine folowing Because as it is most true and profitable so is it somewhat hard I will shew that suche a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must nedes haue the same truth present whereof it is the Sacrament or holy signe The naturall sonne of God tooke naturall flesh of the virgin Marie to th' intent he being oâ—…e persone and there in hauing his humane nature common with men and his diuine common with God might by that meanes reconcile man to God againe His diuine personne staied in it the nature of man his manhod partly couered the diuine nature from the eyes of mortall men partly by maruelous signes and workes shewed the same to the faith of 〈◊〉 men Liâ—…ewise man consisteth of two parts of a soule inuisible and of a visible body The soule ruleth and gouerneth the body And the body sheweth to others by outward tokens what the soule thinketh and inwardly worketh Christ therefore intending to leaue certayn holy mysteries vnto his Church thereby to 〈◊〉 to her the fruite of his passion and death as well for regard of his owne selfe in whose personne two natures were vnited as for regard of vs who coÌ„siste of body and soule made the sayd holy Sacramentes to be of a dubble sort and nature so that the one part thereof might appere to the senses the other should lye priuie and only be seene by faith But as the outward workes and doctrine of Christ were vndoubted testimonies of the inward Godhed really present so the outward signe which is in the Sacraments is a most euident witnesse of the inward grace which they worke really present in them Aâ—…ter this sort Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme that we might be newly borne and regenerated of water and of the holy Ghost as him selfe sayd to 〈◊〉 For the outward wasshing of the body in the naâ—…e of the Trinitie is an euident signe that the holy Ghost at the same instant by the meane of the word and water inwardly wassheth yâ— soule from synne Therefore S. Paul sayeth God hath saued vs by the wasshing of water and of the renewing of the holy Ghost The which holy scriptures S. Augustine embracing sayeth Aqua exhibens forinsecus Sacramentum gratiae spiritus operans intrinsecus beneficium gratiae regenerat hominem in vno Christo ex vno Adam generatum Water geuing outwardly the Sacrament or holy signe of grace and the holy Ghost working inwardly the benefite of grace begetteth man againe in one Christ which was begotten of one Adam Water is the outward signe Grace is yâ— inward benefite The outward water which wassheth the body is the signe of the inward grace which is wrought vpon the souâ—…e Here thou seest good Reader the signe of a thing and the thing it selfe to agree so well that the one is alwayes depending of the other Much lesse doth one of them hinder the other Except any man will say that Christ was not God in dede because his works were tokens signes of his Godhead which were a detestable saying Likewise the supper of Christ is both a signe of his body also his true body A signe outwardly the true body inwardly A signe by yâ— sound of words when it is first made a truth by the inward working of the holy Ghost by the meanes of the words of the censecration For as when the Priest spâ—…inkleth or dippeth the child in water saying 〈◊〉 wass he the in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost At the same moment the holy Ghost wassheth the soule of the person baptized Right so when Christ or any lawfull Priest in his name taking bread blesâ—…ing duely sayeth This is my body making in those words an euident token of his body â—…eally present at the same instant the holy Ghost worketh inwardly the true substance of Jesus Christ really present vnder the forme of bread The outward pronouncing of the words ouer bread and wine is the Sacrament or holy signe that maketh and sheweth Christes body and the inward 〈◊〉 ning of the substance of bread into Christes reall body is the grace which is at the same tyme inuisâ—…bly wrought Thus in holy Scripture the signe of body and the true body stand so welâ—… together that both are true because one is true The which doctrine S. Chrisostom confessing writeth Sacerdotis oreverba proferuntur Et Dei virtute proposita consecrantur gratia Hoc est ait corpus meum hoc verbo proposita
haue power to make that thing whereof Christ spake then the token was true and the outward signification of the words agreeth with the inward effect and working of them For which cause we say that Christ in those words instituted a Sacrament of holy orders For he gaue vnto his Apostles at that tyme by those words the order of Priesthod The holy signe of this Sacrament is the pronouncing of these words Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me The inuisible grace wrought therein is the power which the Apostles toke to make the body of Christ. Euen so As sone as these words This is my body and this is my blood are duely spoken straight the body and blood is made present If indeed it be not present here is no Sacrament at all Note well what I say here is no true signe at all but an hipocriticall and fonde Imagination of a thing the truth whereof is not so as the word soundeth and therefore the sigâ—…e is false Neither will it helpe any thing at all if one say that Christ spake figuratiuely For a figuratiue speache can not be an euideÌ„t token of any thing except it be such a figure as through the custome of speache hath now obteined some easy and knowen 〈◊〉 among all men that vse the same language as when by the name of a cuppe we meane the drinke in it or by the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen we meane authoritie to bring men to Christ and God or by opening the mouth we meane speaking which kind of speache though it be called figuratiue for some respect yet in dede it is all one with proper speach because vse and custome maketh euery speach propre Otherwise a very figuratiue speach signifieth no certain thing vntill it be plainly vnderstanded And consequently no figuratiue speach can be a Sacrament or a holy signe of an other thing For a signe is euer plaine euident and able to instruct as being according to the iudgemeÌ„t of S. Augustine the thing which besides the shew it maketh to our senses causeth an other thing to come to our knowledge But a figure not made common by vse is obscure darke vncertaine as all ridles be vntill they are opened So that if Christ saying This is my body had meant this doth signifie my body and in dede is not so truly no Sacrament had bene made as I will shew hereafter because no euident token had bene geuen of any thing It can not be called an euident token when I may more truly veryfie the contradictorie then that which is spoken For if the Sacramentaries teach wel it is a truer token to say This is not my body then to say This is my body But this is my body caÌ„ neuer signifie to me by any figure of â—…hetorike this is not my body For doubtlesse as long as I am not driuen to thinke this is not my body or to thinke of an other thing as of trees stones water bread wine or any like thing which is cleane diuerse in nature from Christes body which to do after the name of body once heard out of Christes mouth is allmost impossible so long it may still be a signe to me that it is Christes body And seing it can neuer come to passe that I hearing Christ say This is my body can exclude the thought of his body from my vnderstanding will I or nill I This will be to me either a falshod or it will be the Sacrament or signe of his body If it be so then seing the Sacrament and holy signe must nedes be true the body must likewise be truly present for so the token doth report If when I heare Christ say This is my body I must stand musing and diuising how is may be taken vnproperly and signifie a certayn betokening without a true being surely because all ignorant men studie they neuer so long are able to conclude no such thing for that no such example cometh to their minde and they are not exercised in scriptures as diuines be thereby it will folow that Christes words shall signifie one thing to one man and an other to an other To some learned men after some conference they may signifie by the waye of coniecture the betokening of his body To others who coniecture that Christ pointed to his own person when he sayd so they will sound otherwise But to the simple and ignorant who can not so put matters together they will signifie allways the reall presence of his body Uerily the twelue Apâ—…tles were very simple ignorant and as the scriptures call them 〈◊〉 without lerning neither was their mind opened to vnderstand the scriptures at yâ— tyme. And yet I dare say they knew what they did receaue wherefore they toke the words of Christ literally as they sounded to them Now seing these words This is my body signified the body of Christ it will insewe that seing Christ maketh allways a true signe to them it was the truth of Christes body Marye to Ihon Caluine who is more deeply lerned and who studieth ful sore to make and proue Christ a lyer it may well be they will sounde otherwise O Lord to what case are these signes and Sacramentes brought if according to some menne they shall sound one way and to others an other way And yet the truth of them standeth chiefly wholy dependeth vpon the signe which they make As though all other men being able to make their last willes with wordes plaine enough thou Lord alone haddest neither vtterance nor witte nor mind nor remembrance to make a token of thy inuisible work And yet the Apologie sayth that the Eucharist is an euideÌ„t token of the body and blood If the token be euident all men do quicklie vnderstand it why then striue we vpon an euident matter Call wemen children to ask of them what token yâ— words of Christ make I warrant you they will not say that is doth stand to betoken nor body for figure of body That kind of tokens is not very euident to them But in deed the token of Christes body is euident by his own words and therefore the truth which he doth betoken to be present is really present for as his token is most euident so is it most true Christ after his resurrection gaue power to his Apostles to forgeue and retaine synnes This thing was the institution of the Sacrament of Peuance Let vs there see the Sacrament or holy signe of this giâ—…t whose synnes ye forgeue sayeth he they are foregeuen them And whose ye retaine they are reteyned 〈◊〉 in those words a signe of remission of synnes be instituted suâ—…ely when that signe is made by a Priest duâ—…ly absoluing the peniteÌ„t his synnes are in deed remitted For loke how much the words doe signifie to men of common vnderstanding so much is geuen by them How proue I that
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
substance And it is so truly made and the Lamb so truly prosenâ—… that he is offered not in hart alone but euen outwardly of the Priests not by shedding of blood as vpon the crosse but vnblodely as it becommeth the cleane oblation of the new Testament whereof Malachie did prophecie That sacrifice which Priests offer can not be but present for they offer with their hands moâ—…thes and other externall members of their body After that the sacrifice is made the faithfull people who stand by doe partake with the altar which could not be except a perma neâ—…t substance were made by consecration The Lamb is vpon the table He is offered there by yâ— Priests It foloweth in the Councell We take truly the precious body and blood We take it and truly take it That is to say in deed really and bodily For the truth of Christes body and blood is not an imaginarie or fained truth it is not a thing conceaued only as a man might conceaue in his mind men flying in the aier it is not only beleued or hoped but he in naturall existence and among external things hath as true a body and blood as any creature hath a substance of his owne The true taking of the which precious body and blood is the taking of it in suche a truth of subsâ—…ce as it self hath And because it is true in yâ— thing it selfe the taking of it is in the thing it self The taking of that which sâ—…andeth before vs on the table is by instrument of our bodyes therefore it is deliuered according to the same external truth by the corporall ministerie of yâ— Priests So that all is truly and externally done by the iudgement of this auncient councell Wel we truly taking them beleue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some bookes read of our resurrection For as our redemption was by the â—…ame body and the same blood really wrought vpon the crosse so hauing them selues present vpon yâ— holy table and truly taking them we take the sure witnesses and euident tokens of our redemption But if the things which stand vpon the holy table were in substance bread and wine how could they be the tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeme vs Or did they rise from death for vs It is the body and blood of Christ which redemed vs and which arose from death and the self same body and blood are now made present to vs offered vnbloodely for vs to shew in fact and dede our redemption already wrought by them and to distribute the fruits of yâ— Crosse by none other thing so much as by the same body and blood that redemed vs. For least we should assigne any part of our saluation to any other creature besydes to the only body and blood of Christ he made the selfsame body both the price wherewith he redemed vs and the token and dispensour of the redemption It was proued before that if these things be the tokens of our redemption instituted by the expresse words of Christ then they are the things them selues which they betoken because they are mysticall tokens of the new Testament But they are here not as redeming vs new and therefore as tokens of yâ— old redemption that no man should thinke Christ to die again or should doubt as S. Chrysostom hath noted of his death already past or of any maner prices of our redemptioÌ„ to be payed then one or that it hath any other token left thereof in the holy mysteries besydes it selfe For it was so worthy a truth and raâ—…som payed for vs vpon the Crosse which was able to be painted worthely or set foorth to the remembrances of the faithfull by none other image then such wherein yâ— truth might be set foorth after an other sort more mystical concerning the manner But no lesse true then the thing which died was concerning the substance Who so is faithfull and humble is now able to vnderstaÌ„d how the shew of bread and wine standeth with the truth of body and blood present on the holy table How the vnbloody sacrifice is made of the Priests whiles by pronouncing the words of God they turne the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of Christes body and blood how we both truly take the precious body and blood of Christ coÌ„cerning the substance of them vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet beleue them to be tokens instituted of Christ of our redemptioÌ„ betokening the price paid by making present the body and blood which payed it Was not this a worthy place for the Apologie to allege But I warrant you it alleged the weakest part therof leauing out the situatioÌ„ of the Lamb of God on the holy table The vnbloody sacrifice made of Priests the true taking and receauing of the pre cious body and blood Only bread and wine which are named to shew the formes within the which the body and blood are them they name as a great matter to further this new broched heresie But he is a faithfull trier and examiner of auncient Fathers who faithfully citeth the whole place neither adding nor diminishing which honest dealing we may not looke for at these defenders hands ¶ That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iaies ANd as Chrisostome writeth wel we say that the body of Christ is the carcas and we must be the Egles that we may know that we ought to flye highe if we will come to the body of Christ. For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes It is a weake stake that these meÌ„ wold not take hold of being now plunging for life vnder the water S. Chrysostome so plainly expoundeth his owne meaning immediatly where he speaketh of the carcas and of the Egles that I can not sufficiently wonder at the impudeÌ„cie of him who allegeth this place For the alleger wold haue the wordes taken as though the body of Christ were not vpon the altar But we only shold by faith ascend into heauen whereas S. Chrysostome speaketh of going in to heauen by good life also and not by faith only His words are these The body of our Lord is through death become the carcase for vnlesse he had fallen we had not risen Christ vseth the name of Egles to declare that it behoueth him who shall approchevnto his body to seeke for high things and not to medle with the earth nor to be draweÌ„ down or crepe vnto earthly matters which are a low but to flee allways vp to higher matters And to behold the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eye and the mind quick of sight for this is the table of Egles and not of Iaies Hetherto S. Chrysostome Who first sheweth why the body of Christ is called the carcase Not because it is without life but because it once hath died for
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
may be alleged against me first by the Lutherans who wold proue thereby that Christ in S. Thou spake figuratiuely wheâ—… he named the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood For there wil they say he toke eating and drinking for perfect beleuing and remembring Christes death which is no sacramentall eating To whom I answere that S. Augustin by calling this speach a figure meaneth not to deny that it apperteineth to the last supper but only that it is a figure of speache in respect of the maner of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood because it semeth to commaund the visible and external eating of a mans flesh which is a heynouse thing but in dede Christ meant that they should caâ—…e his fleshe and drinke his blood swetely and profitably in a Sacrament in a mysterie in a remembraunce of his death who purchased our life which was done at Christes last supper when taking bread he said after blessing this is my body which is geueÌ„ for you take eate which body who so eateth worthely he must nedes communicate with the passion of Christ in so much as he eateth that body which suffered so bitter a passion for him Now by the fact of eating to communicate also with the spirite godhead of Christ that is the figure whereof S. Augustin speaketh but otherwise it is out all question that S. Augustine meant not by the swete remembraunce of Christes death to exclude the necessitie of receauing that Sacrament the which if we caâ—…e not when we shold cate it we shal not haue life and the whiche is commanded to be made for Christes remembrance Or is any man able to make a more swete remembrance of his own deuotion then Christ hath iustituted for vs at his last supper therefore S. Augustin â—…oth meane that whiles we eate the SacrameÌ„t we should communicate with Christes passion by doing yâ— in soule which our body doth Farthermore S. Augustin expoundeth these present wordes of Christes last supper in diuers other places of his workes in so much that he disputing against the Pelagians expresly affirmeth them to be sayd De sanctae mensae Sacramento of the Sacrament of the holy table and vppon the booke of Leuiticus he asketh why the Iewes were forbidden to drink blood sith Christ exhorteth all men that wil haue life to receaue the blood of his sacrifice in alimentum to nourish them which thing is knoweÌ„ to be done in the Sacrament of the altar and the exhortation therevnto is made in S. Iohn This much is sufficieÌ„t to answer the Lutherans concerning that they leane to S. Augustins authoritie in whom he that listeth to see more may reade the places noted in the margeâ—…t Secondarilie the Zwinglians graunting this place to be vnderstanded of Christes last supper and building vntruly therevppon the necessitie of both kindes make an argument that in his last supper we haue not the body of Christ present vnder the forme of bread after consecration but only that by eating materiall bread the figure thereof we must remember it absent and swetely repete in our minde what paines Christ suffered â—…or vs and with how great loue he redemed vs. and this their saying they wold father vppon this present place of S. Augustine because he calleth Christes speache figuratiue For the better vnderstanding of this present controuersie it is to be noted that S. Augustine writing rules or precepts of christian doctrine taketh and defineth a figuratiue speache after a certain peculiar maner which he him self describeth in this sort Quicquid in sermone diuino nequè ad morum honestatem neque ad fidei veritatom propriè referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas Whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred neither to the honestie of maners nor to the truthe of faith be thou sure it is figuratiue Whereby we may perceaue that he measureth a figuratiue speache by true faith and good maners to either of which all that cannot be properly attributed he doubteth not to call figura tiue in such sort as he now vseth that word for a thing that meaneth a farther truthe then the word naturally soundeth The figure that S. Augustine findeth in Christes words is because if we rest in their natural sense they can not be referred to the honesty of maners for it semeth a dishonorable dede and against charitie to eate a mans flesh for it is both against that charitie which a man oweth to him self and therefore is called flagitium dishonour and also against yâ— which we owe to our neighbour and therefore is named facinus an vncharitable or hurtsull act For as S. Augustine him self sheweth how he taketh a figuratiue speathe so doth he tell how he taketh flagitium and facinus It is surely a wilfull abusing of good lerning if a man knowing how a master and teacher taketh his termes will notwithstanding dispute with him vsing them in other seuse which thing sith it is not landable we knowing what S. Augustine calleth figuratiue and what he calleth dishonour and vncharitable must so talk of those things as he hath done Why then is it a figuratiue speache when Christ â—…ad the Iewes â—…ate his flesh S. Augustine him self geueth the cause saying Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere he semeth to command a thing dis honorable and hurtfull dishonorable to yâ— cater hurtfull to him whose flesh is eaten for it is a thing muche against the honestie of nature to fede vpon our brothers flesh and it can not be naturally and properly done without the losse of his life whose flesh we eate for these two causes or els for any one of them we ought to think this precept to be a figure that is to say that it must be more profitablie vnderstanded then yâ— words doe properly sound what sound they properly See good reader whether I deale syncerely with thee or no. It is a weighty matter to haÌ„dle diuine mysteries and therefore I endeuour to vse therin such warinesse as becometh me I will bring none other mans words but S. Augustines own to shew what the precept of eating Christes flesh at Capharnaum did seme to sound properly S. Augustine speaketh in this wise of the Iewes CarneÌ„ sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur caet The Iewes vnderstode flesh after such sort as it is torne in peeces in a carcase or as it is sold in the shambles and not as it is quickened with the spirit And in an other place S. Augustine writeth also of the very same matter Durum illis visum est quod ait nisi quis manducauerit c. it semed a hard saying to the Iewes except a man eate my flesh he shal not haue life euerlasting They toke it foolishly thei thought of it carnally and supposed that our lord minded to cut of certain smal peeces of his body and to
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
the elements of bread and wine the SacrameÌ„t is made what is that Sacramente we say it is the making present in a miraculouse sorte the true body and blood of Christ. Our aduersaries say it is the appointing of bread and wine to be a figure of Christes body and blood through the remembrance of his death For our belefe I bring S. Augustines authoritie who saith except ye eate my flesh are words figuratiue and out of it thus I reason The â—…ating of Christes fleshe and the 〈◊〉 of his blood being reall 〈◊〉 which must be performed in Christes supper yet being called 〈◊〉 good 〈◊〉 siguratiue 〈◊〉 must nedes 〈◊〉 the sigures of somwhat the 〈◊〉 dedes words being referred to the supper os Christ 〈◊〉 nedes betoken somewhat as they are there 〈◊〉 But the eating of flesh in Christes supper can betoken nothing at all 〈◊〉 his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof may be the 〈◊〉 of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of 〈◊〉 that in Christes supper the 〈◊〉 of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drunken It is not sayd of Christ except ye eate bread drinke wine Of those elemeÌ„ts he in the promyse of his supper made at Capharâ—… speakethnot one syllable for which cause we must not aske at this time what they figure signisy in Christes supper because nowe there is no mentioÌ„ of theÌ„ except any man be so frontike as to say that yâ— flesh of Christ is here made yâ— figure of bakers bread his blood yâ— figure of wine whereupon it would folow that y◠〈◊〉 blood as being 〈◊〉 of these dead 〈◊〉 were worse and baser then the elements theÌ„ selues for euery figure is some way or other behind the truth which it figureth If then we must leaue of the consyderation of bread and wine if likewise no respect must now be had of the words of consecration which are not yet spoken os what other thing can these 〈◊〉 ratiue words except ye eate my flesh signifie in Christes supper but this except ye eate my flesh in that mysticall and wonderfull maner which I will geue it in and to that 〈◊〉 end for the which I being true God wil geue it you that is to say except ye do both take it in the Sacrament and spiritually remember my death 〈◊〉 me thanks for it and conforming your selues to it ye shall not haue 〈◊〉 in you By whiche interpretation Christes 〈◊〉 are figuratiue in so much as they meane neither that maner of â—…ating pâ—…ces of fleshe whiche the Iewes vnderstode noâ—… that end of eating it which they thought vpon mynding altoge ther as S. Cyrillus and S. Chrysostom note the feding of their bellies But if Christes flesh be not present at all whereof is it a figure when it is eaten can that which is not signifie or figure anie thing caÌ„ the flesh which is only figured at the tyme of our eating bread as the Sacramentaries teache be made a signe and figure by eating it if the eating of Christes fleshe be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue For if eating â—…e throughly taken for beleuing and for no eating at all theÌ„ these wordes do not apperteine to the SacrameÌ„tall eating of Christes supper But seing the Sacramentaries teache them to speake of the supper as in truth they doe the eating must so be figuratiue one way that yet it be true another way For if there be no true eating there lacketh a grouÌ„d which may be the figure of another eating that is to say of spirituall communicating with Christes passion If some reall eating must be had to warn vs of that spirituall eating surely that real eating can not in S. Iohn be meante of bread and wine sith Christ neuer named them therefore it is imployed that Christ meaneth except ye eate my flesh so as it is a figure both of my death and may be a cause of your spiritual life ye shal not liue euerlastiÌ„gly Thus doubtelesse did Christ meane thus dyd S. Augustine expound his wordes The Sacramentaries doc erre in making Christes words to be figuratiâ—… only passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely That is to say the Sacramentaries so take this matter as if it were only said the fleshe and blood of Christ be figured signiâ—…ed in his supper as to be spiriâ—…ually fed on But it is not so said only but also the actuall eating of Christes flesh is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating Therefore we eate really flesh one way to signifie another way the â—…ating and beleuing in flesh spiritually And that is proued out S. Ambrose most maniâ—…estly where he saith In edendo potando 〈◊〉 sanguinem for there is the point albeit the Sacramentaries go about to corrupt his wordes by euil distincting of them quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus In eating and drinking the 〈◊〉 and blood we signifie those things whiche were offered â—…or vs. Behold the â—…ating 〈◊〉 doth signiâ—…ie and make a figure of the self same flesh as it was offered for vs. And so doth both Christ S. Augustine â—…ane at this tyme. our Lord coÌ„maunding vs to eatâ—… his flesh doth command vs to coÌ„municate with his passion saith S. Augustine and profitably to remember his death that is to wit he commaâ—…deth both to eate the body which died to eate it worthely to eate it in hart as wel as in mouth to eate it in remembraunce of his loue toward vs as wel as in the SacrameÌ„t to eate it as the Godhead doth quicken it and as it figureth the entring and tarying in his mysticall body the Church This eating of Christes â—…eshe is swete is profitable is not hard not carnall not without a figure or mysterie For to eate without any mystical meaning is only to fill the belly whereof Christ spake not he commanded a figuratiue eating of his fleshe the which figuratiue â—…ating should not take away the real eating of his flesh for that eating whiche is not reall can not be actiuely figuratiue sith euerie figure is made vpon a true ground of one thing done really of another thing meant mystically But the figuratiâ—…e eating importeth a farther thing then to rest in the eating it selfe It is therefore insensibly said of the SacrameÌ„taries that those wordes which naming a certain actuall and real dede as the eating of mans flesh is be â—…iguratiue because the flesh is not really â—…ten But they be in dede figuratiue because the fleshe of that 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 also and vnderstanded to be more then â—…ally eaten for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritâ—…lly eaten also The Sacrameâ—…taries comâ—…ted an otâ—…er foule error in these wordes 〈◊〉 whiles they wil draw this place of S. Iohn to their purpose they are constrained to expound the wordes of Christ iâ—… this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye eate tâ—…e 〈◊〉 of the sonne of man that is to say
verily meat For he sayd not only my flesh is true meat but it is truly meat It hath not only yâ— true nature of meat but also yâ— true maner of it for as verus cibus is true meat so is verè cibus truly meat As true meat is sayd in respect of the essentiall proprietie and effect of meat which is to nourish so is the flesh of Christ truly meat in respect of the maner of it because it is receaued in at the mouth goeth into the body after such sort as other meates doc although it nourish spiritually I haue sayd often tymes that Christ in this chapiter speaketh both of spirituall eating alone and besydes that of Sacramental eating together with spirituall He speaketh of spirtuall alone about the middest of the chapiter â—…raight after those words work the euerlasting meat which the sonne of man will geue you Which words are the generall theme to the whole Sermon folowing But of Sacramental eating as being the sâ—…cond part of his Sermon Christ speaketh specially and expresly from these words forward and the bread which I will geue is my flesh Whiles Christ was yet about the first part of his Sermon which beloÌ„geth to spiritual eating alone he sayd Patermeus daâ—… vobis panem de coelo verum My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen Qui credit in me non sitiet vnquam He that beleueth in me shall not thirâ—…t at any tyme. As Christ is only beleued on and only receaued by faith so he is panis verus the true bread or meate But when he was come to the second part of his Sermon where he spake of Sacramentall eating as well as of spirituall there he sayd for Pater meus dat ego dabo For verus verè In stede of my Father he sayth I in stede of doth geue he sayth I will geue In stede of him self to be true food he sayth His flesh is truly food There is in the second parte none other substance then was in the first to th' end we should vnderstand that Christ geueth in his Sacrament the same reall flesh which his Father gaue him when he came down from heauen by taking flesh But there is an other tyme of Christes gift at his last supper and an other sorte or maner of his geuing For that which God the Father gaue vnto the soules of the faithfull God the Sonne geueth to their bodies also And by that meanes he is not only true meate but also truly meate And that without all dark speaches or parables S. Hilarie well vnderstanding the strength of the same word Verè truly or verily or in dede presseth the old Arrians and new Sacramentaries therewith in this maner De naturali in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus nisi ab eo discimus stultè atque impiè dicimus ipse enim ait caro mea vere est esca caet Thus they are in English That we say concerning the naturall truth of Christ being in vs except we learue it of him we say it foolishly and vngodly For him self sayth My flesh is meate in dede and my blood is drink in dede he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him There is no place of doubting left concerning the truth of flesh and blood for now both by the profession of our Lord and by our own faith it is truly flesh and truly blood And these things taken and swallowed are the cause that we tary in Christ and Christ in vs. Is not this thing the truth It may well chaunce not to be true to them who denye Iesus Christ not to be true God S. Hilarie disputing in those words against the Arrians who wolde Christ to be one with his Father in will only doth proue that we also are one with Christ naturally by some â—…anes that is to say by naturall partaking of Christes flesh in his last supper And to proue that thinge albeit he might hauc brought many places out of the Ghospell or out of S. Paule yet 〈◊〉 to bring this place out of S. Ihon as the which he thought no lesse plaine then any other was And twise he repeteth that the flesh of Christ is truly meate Dâ—…ce as being spoken of God an other tyme as being also beleued of vs. and farther he affirmeth vppon this place that the flesh and blood of Christ being taken and swallowed bringe to passe that we are in Christ and Christ in vs. The taking of Christ by faith doth not proue S. Hilaries purpose for he must shew that we take Christ in body and nature euen as he defendeth Christ to be one nature and substance with his Father The being of Christes flesh in our bodies and the reall ioyning of the one to the other is that which S. Hilarie forceth vppon And therefore he sayth afterward that Christ naturaliter in nobis permanet tarieth naturally in vs. By that word naturally S. Hilarie expoundeth how he taketh the word Verè truly For he taketh it as if it were writen my flesh is to be naturally receaued of my Disciples as meate The which thing he had twise expressed before saying nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus We take yâ— word made flesh truly in our Lords meate And again Verè sub mysterio â—…arnem corporis sui sumimus We take the flesh of his body truly vnder a mysterie Lo by thies meanes the naturall veritie of Christ is in vs according as we learned of him saying My flesh is meate in dede All men knowe what we receaue into oure mouthes and bodies in Christes supper That very thing is affirmed of Christ to be his flesh And by that receauing of ours his flesh is truly meate S. Gregorie of Nyssa brother to S. Basile the greate warneth vs puro defaecatoque animo coelestem cibuÌ„ sumere To take the heauenly meat â–ª with a pure â–ª and cleane mind The which meat sayth he no sowing brought forth vnto vs by the arte of tilling the ground But it is bread prouided for vs without seed without sowing without any other worke of man It flowing from aboue is found in the earth for the bread which came downe from heauen which is the true meate which is obscurely meant by this historie of Manna is nor a thing without a body For by what meanes caÌ„ a thing without a body be made meate vnto the body The thing which is not without a body is by all meanes a body This blessed man alludeth euidently to the wordes of Christ in S. Iohn where he saith my flesh is meate in dede for the bread whiche came downe from heauen whiche is the trew meate is none other thing then the flesh of Christ. this kind of thing is not a spiritual thing that lacketh a body but it is a trew body how doth S. Gregorie proue it to be a trew body because it is made
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
of S. Paule but as S. Paule and S. Luke take the noun blood it can not possibly be taken figuratiuely â–ª except any man wil be so desperate as to say that the â—…w promise and Law of Christ is established in a figure of blood or in the substance of common wine Which if it were so we are in worse case then the Patriarâ—…hes and Iewes who at the least had true blood to coÌ„firm their temporall truses Testaments and promises as it may be seâ—…e both in Genesis Exodus although it were the blood of beastes it must nedes be that the heaueuly things them selues be cleansed with better sacrifices saith S. Paule If then the name of blood being put in these words this cup is the new testament in my blood be taken for the substance of Christes blood which is that better sacrifice whereof S. Paule speaketh without al question in these wordes this is my blood of the new testament it stondeth likewise for the substance of Christes blood It is one supper one Sacrament one parte of the supper and one part of the Sacrament yea one self same thing whereof all foure do speake If new do answere to new testament to testament this to this is to is how can it be that blood should not answer to blood But this cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood can not be meant in yâ— figure of my blood least yâ— signe of blood and not the truthe thereof be that which establisheth the new truse therefore in these words this is the blood of the new testament the noune blood standeth not for a figure and signe of blood but for the real substance thereof ¶ The xxv Circumstance of these words this cup or chalice AS euery Apostle or Euangelist wrote later then other so he made the supper of Christ more plain geuing vs euidently to vnderstand that the words of Christes supper are so far of from figuratiue speaches that rather the propriety of them is by all meanes fortified I haue shewed before how the name of cup or chalice doth not hinder any whyt why all yâ— rest of Christes words may not be proper and literally true but now I affirm also that it increaseth much the reason of their pro prietie Why so Because the cup is named to shew the maner of fulfilling of the old figures In the old Testament the blood of the oxen was put in crateras into great cups or basins and so the people were sprinkled therewithall Now to bring the Apostles and all vs in mind thereof Christ nameth the cup or chalice Declaring thereby that his own blood is now to vs as the blood of oxen was to the people of Israel His in the chalice as the blood of oxen was in the basiâ—…s His presently drunk as that other was presently sprinkled Erat autem veteris Testamenti calix caet There was a cup or chalice sayth S. Chrysostom of the old Testament and sacrifices and the blood of brute beasts For after sacrifice the blood being taken in a chalice and cup they made after that sort libations or offerings of that which was liquide and renning CuÌ„ igitur pro sanguine brutorum sanguinem suum induxisset ne quis his auditis perturbaretur illius veteris sacrificij meminit Seing therefore he had brought in his own blood in stede of the blood of brute beasts least any man hearing of these things should be troubled he maketh mentioÌ„ of the old sacrifice Decumenius also writeth thus concerning the naming of the chalice or cup Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem Et bene in poculo vt ostendat vetus Testamentum anteà hoc delineasse Our Lord geueth his own blood in stede of the blood of vnreasonable creatures And he doth well to geue it in a cup to shew that the old Testament did shadow this thing before Behold why the cup is mentioned Uerily to shew Christes blood to be as really in the cup of his own supper as euer the bruâ—…e beastes blood was in the cup of the old testament yea much more also For the blood of the oxen was really put into that old cup to shew that Christes blood should be really present in the cup of his supper the old blood did not shew that wine should be in Christes cup for that had bene lesse then the old testameÌ„t it self because the blood of oxen is better then wine of the grape but that blood in the basin did signifie that Christes blood should be in our chalice not only as in a figure for so it was in the basin also of the old testament but euen in very dede vnder the forme of wine It is not now sufficient to say we drink Christes blood in hart or by faith it must be drunken really out of the chalice and cup of Christes supper thence the hart must take it at Christes supper thence it must be receaued both in faith and truthe ¶ The xxvi Circumstance of the verb est left out in S. Lukes words IT is the custome of writers in the Hebrew tonge to leaue out many tymes the verb sum es fui which is latin to be and that because common sense and vse doth easily teache vs to supply that verb as being both most necessarie of al other and most frequent in common speache S. Luke writeth thus This cuâ—… is the new testament in my blood shed for you this sentence is imperfit for lack of a verb which may knit the parts thereof together I ask what verb we shal vnderstand to make it perfit The Sacramontaries say that Christ meaneth this cup doth signifie the new testament in my blood will ye then vnderstand the verb significat doth signifie if ye do so I wil shew that as well the noun cup as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testamentum are both put in the nominatiue case but if S. Luke had meant to vnderstand the verb significat he wold haue put one of them in the accusatiue case If ye supply the verb est is to make the sentence perfit that verb must nedes be takeÌ„ in the same sense wherein it is wont to be supplied but it is coÌ„monly supplied as a coÌ„mon verb whose nature is to declare the substance and not the figure of the thing which is spoken of therefore so it must be taken at this tyme. Otherwise what a folly were it wheÌ„ a verb is at the first left out to call it of purpose into the speache and as sone as it is placed there to say it staÌ„deth not properly but to remoue it again put an other verb for it What was the verb est being once left out brought in for this intent only yâ— as sone as it was in his place it should be immediatly cast out chaÌ„ged into the verb significat If ye say ye were compelled to cal it in I agree with you and say further ye are
as takeÌ„ before the begnining of Christes wordes which was bread to the other as made present at the end of them which is yâ— body of Christ. For this which is bread when Christ taketh it into his hands afterward when he sayth of it This is my body by chaÌ„ging of the former substance is made from bread the substance of Christes own body Here are two paticular substaÌ„ces of yâ— which oâ—…e both may be right well changed into the other so muche is signified by Christes dede word but in these words I am that true vine sithens two particular substaÌ„ces are not but only oneÌ„ the like change could neither be ment nor be made by any meanes Again in euery traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ as two substaÌ„ces are presupposed first or last really extant so when the change is made one of yâ— twayne must ceasse to be for so much as it is chaÌ„ged into yâ— other substance as when water was made wine the water was no more extant but the wine only was extant into whiche the water was changed If in these words I am yâ— true vine any change at all might be Christ were the thing that should be changed for he is personally affirmed to be the true vine in whose person two natures are beleued Seing therefore in the proposition he occupieth the inferiour place whiche thing is clâ—…rely signified in that he is constrned before the verbe and as it were is made to serue to be subiect vnto the true vine either nothing is meant â—…o be changed or els Christ himself is the thing Now it is clerely impossible yâ— Christes person should change his owne substance because he is God Who saith of him self by the Prophete Ego Dominus non mutor I am the Lorde and am not changed Therefore Christe can be changed into no substance at all muche lesse he may be changed into the true vine whiche it selfe is no determined or peculiar substance 〈◊〉 from Christes person But when after bread taken it is said This is my body the breade may be right well changed because it is a mere creature subiect by nature to mutatioÌ„ So that looke how much ods there is betwene God who is immutable and his creatures whiche are alwaies changed so much soner may the bread be made Christes body then Christ can be made the true vine Whereupon it insueth that M. Nowell auouched that which was vtterly false he said it maruelouse â—…gnoraÌ„tly when he affirmed these words I am the true vine to proue a transubstantiation as wel as this is my body What M. Nowel take you vpon you to chalenge all the Papists in so weake a matter wherein a yong Logician would not only be able to aunswere you but also to driue you out of the scholes You bring foorth a proposition whiche importeth two substances the one signified by the pronoune ego I the other by the noune vitis a vine in whiche proposition eche word doth so violently withstand al maner of substantiall change that the one can not suffer it through the excellency thereof which is the substance of Christ the other can not beare it for lack of the existeÌ„ce thereof because the true vine whereof Christ spake is no peculiar nature at all distincted from Christ but only sheweth the similitude of a truth whiche truth is found no where els besyde in Christ him selfe in so much that if Christ should be changed into the true vine he should be changed into a property of his owne howbeit that could be no change from one substance to another sith it is only one substance in all But is it like in that supper of Christ where he sayth This is my body Is the bread ouer which these words were spoken a substance which can not be changed Is it any more then a creature without reason and seâ—…se On the other side is not the body of Christ a reall substance into which a change may be really made Is it not a substance different from the substance of bread both in number and in the kind of nature Perhaps M. Nowell wil say that albeit so great a difference be found betwene I am the trâ—… vine and This is my body coÌ„cerning the two extreme and vttermost parts which are Christ and the vine bread Christes body yet at the least the verbe which doth couple them together is like in both propositions For as in the first person Christe sayth I am the 〈◊〉 so it is sayd in the third This is my body Now M. Nowell ment by like that the verbe est is doth signifie no otherwise in this is my body theÌ„ the verb sum I am doth meane in these words I am the true vine As though the matter things them selues which are signified by the two vttermost parts of a proposition were not of more importance then the verbe alone which serueth to couple them and to shew the agrement of yâ— one toward the other But what if the verbe also be otherwise put in this is my body then it is in I am the true vine Then surely these two propositions which M. Nowell compareth together as in all points like touching transubstantiation shal be found in euery point diuerse touching the same 〈◊〉 The words sum es fui doth serue to signifie yâ— kind of being â–ª which euery thing hath according to yâ— matter case wherein it is vsed Sometime it signifieth thâ—… general or special or personal proper nature of a thing â–ª sometyme that differeÌ„ce thereof sometyme the proper or the common accidents belonging to it Yea sometyme it only meaneth such a being as is in the mind or vnderstanding without any reall existence at all as when we say synne is nothing or synne is euill yâ— verbe is doth sâ—…rue to shew after what maâ—…ner the reasonable mind conceaneth synne the which conceyâ—…th it as being indeâ—…de nothing because it is no creature made by God but yâ—…t the mind speaketh of it and consydereth iâ—… as somewhat Uexily as the lack of a perfectioÌ„ which should haue bene really where synne is now said to be Among al these 〈◊〉 of being the verbe 〈◊〉 fur doth most propâ—…ly serue to â—…ignifie God him self who as he said to Moyses is he that is by nature therefore he named him self Ego sum qui sum I am who 〈◊〉 Next vnto God it signifieth euery substance most principally as euery one partaketh of God a most excellent and pâ—…fit being And as among all substances they are most principally such which are most râ—…ally deâ—…rmined and limited by nature as this man that bread this body and such like peculiar substances which are 〈◊〉 named theÌ„ 〈◊〉 and chefe substances and can not be 〈◊〉 into aâ—…y creatures more particular then them solues are euen so they are most specially meant by the verbe sum es â—…ui 〈◊〉 they may be so 〈◊〉 They nede haue
no reason brought sor proufe that thâ—…y are really ment to be that which they are called wheÌ„ they are named together with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if there be not euident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 theâ—… proper meaâ—…ing naturally they are included Thus when it is said The word was Gâ—…d the word was made flesh there was much grasse in that place the â—…onne of man shal be three days in the haâ—…t of the earth John was in 〈◊〉 those particular substances really to be that which they are named but if it chaunce otherwise we aske why it doth not signifie â–ª as it should chiefly doe Which being so we must seeke the reason why these words I am the true vine doe not signifie Christ 〈◊〉 self to be yâ— substance of the true vine whiche thinge the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 someth to import But as the truthe is when Christ sayth I am the true vine he can not meane I am the substance of a vine for if he were so he were not Christ. Because the substance of Christ who is God and man differeth wholy 〈◊〉 the substance of a vine But Christ prâ—…eth of him self I am this or that â—…fore we are compelled so to expound his words that his 〈◊〉 may stil be saued He sayth not I am changed into a vine or I am made a vine the which words 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â–ª of being with the losse of the former Being but 〈◊〉 sayth I am the true 〈◊〉 wherein somwhat is rather attributed or geuen to his former substance â–ª then any thing taken from it and much lesse the former substance it self is wholy taken away If then it repugne to the nature of Christâ—… wordes that he should in theÌ„â—…e thought to 〈◊〉 spoiled of his 〈◊〉 by which words his substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 nedes find oâ—…t some other way of expounding those words then â—…o aâ—…e that â–ª Christ is the substance of any materiall vine Seig then these two substâ—…es for so in word they seme to 〈◊〉 although in deâ—… they can not so be ment seing I say these two 〈◊〉 substances â–ª Christ a vine can not either be wholy one whiles they be diuerâ—… or be wholâ—… 〈◊〉 whilâ—… 〈◊〉 be said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise man auoiding as nigh as may be all absurdity seeketh out such a meaning that both natures may remayne still 〈◊〉 concerning their differeÌ„t substances and that they may coâ—…municat and agree in some â–ª â—…uality which is common to â—…th The which consyderation made al the lerned Fathers in these phrases of speache I am the dore I am the way I am the true vine the rock is Christ â—…on Baptist is Elias and in such like to shew what coÌ„dition qualitie or propertie was common betwene these natures without any surmise at all that any transubstantiation could be meant in those words in all which propositions the verb sum es fui doth stand to signifie an accidental and not a substantiall agreement betwene diuerse natures substances But it is far otherwise when Christ hauing taken bread saith after blessing This is my body for in those words two seuerall natures are not ioyned together and thereby affâ—…ed still to be the substances they were before It is not sayd This bread is my body No Enangelist no Apostle no Disciple reporteth Christes words in that sorte such additions comme from Luther from zwinglius from Decolampadius from Caluin but not from S. Matthew S. Mark S. Luke or S. Paule The true Apostles of God by the inâ—…inct of the holy Ghoost were so far from the minde of saying this bread or this wine that they did put the pronoune this in such a gender as neither could agree to bread nor to wine whereof I haue spoken sufficiently before The proposition then being such as nameth one substance only and that moste particular there is no cause why the verb est is ought not to stand in his moste proper and vsuall signification verily to signifie this one thing which was knowen to haue bene bread by Christes word to be the substance of Christes owne body which if it be once graunted it will necessarily folow that this which is the substance of Christes body is not also common bread because those natures were not at any time appointed to be together in any one proprietie of person If it be not common bread and yet it doth seme so it will insew that the substance of yâ— bread is changed into Christes owne substance which is really present vnder the forme of common bread Thus I haue shewed cause why the verb est is doth signifie otherwise in this is my body then in these words I am the true vine by reason of which proper vnderstanding of the verb substantiue transubstantiation is of necessitie inferred For as when I heare it reported for certeine that Peter who was in the morning at Douer was seene the same night at Calis I doe thereby vnderstand that Peter passed ouer the sea not because so much was spoken but because it foloweth vpon that which was done Euen so when I reade that Christ in his supper toke bread and sayd after blessing Take eate this is my body I vnderstand the bread which by nature is not Christes body by blessing and speaking to be made his body and consequently to be changed from his own substance into the substance of Christes body None of all which things can be reasonably applied to the other words I am the true vine For which reason I conclude that whereas in euery proposition three parts are either expressed or imployed the one which goeth before the verb the other which foloweth after and yâ— verb it self euery one helpeth to proue transubstantiation in these words This is my body and euery one hindereth the proufe of the same transubstantiation in the other words I am the true vine So discrete a chalenge M. Nowel made in comparing these two sayings together But who can looke for better stuffe at his hands sith he hath forsaken the notable wisedom of the Church of God and taketh Caluins dreame to be Gods word Hitherto M. Nowell I haue shewed the true meaning of euery word of the two propositions by you alleged But now I haue such confidence in the cause of those Catholikes whom you 〈◊〉 Papists that I will graunt you for farther disputations â—…ake euery thing to be otherwise then it is in dede Let vs imagine that Christ were not God and therefore might be changed in substance that the true vine were a certeyne particular vine â—…eueral from Christ into the which a real change might be made that the verb sum I am did stand to signifie a being in substaÌ„ce and not in qualitie alone yet these words I am the true vine wold not proue as well a transubstantiation as This is my body for that transubstantiation wold be better proued in all doutes moued therevppon which were the more semely
for Christ to worke But it is a great deale more semely for him to turne bread into his body then to turne him self into a vine Because it is to be thought he being the wisedom of God changeth allways for the best Which were not so if in stede of him self he should leaue vs a materiall vine and yet in turning bread into his body the change is made for the better by infinite degrees Therefore these words I am the true vine though al other thigs were equall could neuer proue that vnwise change so well as This is my body wil proue a most wise happy change of common bread into the bread of life Morcouer these words the vine albeit they were ment of a certeyne vine yet there is no necessitie that they should shew it present Sith those words may be verified of a vine which being a hundred mile thence were knowen to Christ alone as likewise wheÌ„ S. Paule sayd The rock was Christ the rock whereof he spake was not present 〈◊〉 him but in his mind he noted a certeyne rock which yet in truth it self was not very certeyne touching any one materiall rock because two diuerse rocks were stryken out of which water flowed at diuerse tymes But as I was about to say the true vine being only described by those termes might be vncerteine to the Apostles and to the hearers of Christ either because they neuer knew it or because they haue forgotten it So that these words I am the true vine will not as well proue a transubstantiation as the other words This is my body For both the bread which was changed was first present and the body wherevnto the change is made is presently shewed taken and eaten vnder the forme of the same bread It is doubtlesse a great help in prouing transubstantiation to know both the vttermost partes and to be able to bring that foorth into the which the other is changed For the nature of proof among men consisteth in making a thing plaine to reason by the meane of senses and among faithfull men it consisteth in making it plain to faith by the meane of the same senses If one should aske where the vine is whereof Christ sayd I am the true vine and ye could not bring it foorth and on the other syde if I could bring foorth the body of Christ into which yâ— bread were changed although you might as wel beleue the transubstantiation of Christ into the vine through the word of Christ as I do beleue the transubstantiation of bread into his body yet you could not so wel proue it because you could not shew it so well The vine is lesse then this vine and the proof that this maketh doth far excede the proof that the can make If an inquisition were made who had done a certeyne murder and you said the man hath done it but I could say this man hath done it I suppose all the Iudges in the world wold say that I proued the murder done better then you When it is sayd the man hath done such a murder albeit the Iudge beleue the saying yet his vnderstanding is not quieted but he asketh farther which man is that But when you come so nigh to the point as to say this man hath done it nothing caÌ„ be asked more plaine Which being so albeit I graunted a transubstantiation in eche saying yet M. Nowell had not sayd truly in affirming that these words I am the true vine do proue as well a transubstantiation as This is my body By how much this in making proof doth passe the by so much the later words wold better proue a transubstantiation then the first Besydes this when two transubstantiations are affirmed of the which one hath bene in some like sorte practised before but the other hath not bene likewise practised those words which affirme such a transubstantiation the like whereof hath bene before done do proue the sayd transubstantiation better then those that speake of a thing that neuer was done Bread was vsually turned into Christes body whiles he lined in earth for his body was nourished with bread the which bread was turned into his flesh Quamobrem rectè nunc etiam Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credimus im mutari Wherefore now also we beleue well sayeth Nyssenus brother to S. Basile the bread which is sanctified with yâ— word of God to be changed into the body of God the word This argument also Damascene Theophylact and Euthymius do make So that it is no newes for bread to become Chri stes body but for Christ to become a vine that as it is throughly impossible because Christ is God and vnable to be changed so albeit we did graunt it possible yet it were yâ— harder to proue it because it had not benâ—… done before Last of all there was neuer any auncient Father or Generall Councell nay there was neuer no learned man were he Catholike or otherwise there was neuer none of the lay people no woman no childe no naturall foole which tooke or thought any vine or rock in the whole world to be the naturall substance of Christ Notwithstanding that Christ had sayd I am the true vine and S. Paule that the rock was Christ. But if we come to these words This is my body and consider them so pronounced as they were we shal finde not only thousand millions of faithful people to haue beleued the bread ouer which those words are spoken to be changed into Christes body but also whole Generall Councels wherein many hundred of Bisshops and of great clerks haue bene gathered together to haue taught and decreed directly or by manifest sequele yâ— doctrine of transubstantiation as the Councels of Lateran of Basile of Constance of FloreÌ„ce of Trent Which all are knowen to haue agreed in this behalf Besides many auncient Fathers haue moste constantlie writen the same as S. Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom with all the rest The prosecuting of which argumeÌ„t were at this present to far distant from my principall intent but in case I may vnderstand that these few reasons doe not satisfie M. Nowell or any other man to whome my labour may doe good I will proue moste fully the doctrine of transubstaÌ„tiation both out of the holy scriptures and out of the holy Fathers Now for M. Nowell not withstanding al these sâ—…ueÌ„ differences to affirme that no Papist shal euer be able to shew cause why I am the true vine doth not proue as well a transubstantiation as these words This is my body it was an ignorance in a preacher not pardonable For if I should only staye vppon the last argument wherein all Christendom is shewed to haue beleued transubstantiation through these words This is my body and that as well before in dede as by confession of our aduersaries euer sence the great Councell of
very same that is put to death for you but concerning the true vine he saith As the braunche can not beare fruit vnlesse it be in the vine so can not we beare fruit except we tary in him The particles as and so be words of similitude and not of substance Behold how he is a vine by a similitude and by a metaphor by an exaÌ„ple by hauing a like propriety towards vs as the vine hath towards his owne braunches These be other manner of circumstances for the pithy and plaine setting forth of his reall body vnder the form of bread theÌ„ you can bring any to make so much as an apparence that Christ should be a vine And is yet the one with you so plaine so pithy as the other To what case would you bring the words this is my body if your power were to your will S. Iustinus the Martyr calleth them words of praier because they were spoken with thankesgeuing S. Chrysostom words which consecrate the things set forth because they make a Sacrament of yâ— bread and wine S. Ambrose calleth them words of blessing and a speache which worketh because they are spoken with the intent of working that they souÌ„d S. Augustine nameth them a mystical praier of consecrating of vowing or offering because they consecrate vow and offer vnto God the substance of bread and wine to theâ—…d it being accepted of him may be made the body of Christ our only sacrifice wherein the oblations of the new law must end You making these words no more pithy theÌ„ I am the true vine would haue them worke no more then metaphorical words do work which is to say that they teach only a comfortable doctrine but worke no essentiall thing in the substance of bread whiche is set forth to be consecrated Christ after his body was consecrated sayd to his Apostles Make this thing for the remembrance of me but after the wordes of the true vine were spoken he bad no thing to be doâ—… or made for any purpose or effect The making of Christes body was eâ—…r accompted a greate sacrifice as the greeke Liturgies and latine â—…bookes delare but there neuer was hard of auy vine that was in that opinion among the faithfull The words which consecrate Christes blood shew likewise what is to be thought of this is my body but the true vine is not so conâ—…d by any other like consecration annexed The blood is pointed vnto within a cup or chalice declaring the body also to haue bene pointed vnto vnder the form of bread but the vine was not so limited within a certaine place where it might appere to any sense of the Apostles It is called the blood of the new tostament or the new testament in Christes blood the like addition is not made to yâ— true vine The very cup of Christes supper is said to be shed for vs because the blood is conteined in it which was only shed for vs yâ— like is not said of any thing wherein yâ— vine might be conteined The wordes of Christes supper be so playne and so pithy that if we take them not as they sound the pronoâ—…nes hoc and hic shall lacke theyr noune substantiue The verbe est is being once taken for significat shall haue no substantiue at all to be his nominatiue case The noune corpus body being expounded for the figure of Christes body shall not agree with his participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or els the relatiue quod which shall not agree with his antecedent corpus body except we defend a figure of Christ to haue bene crucified for vs. None of all these things compell vs to take these wordes I am the true vine in suche sorte There is no pronoune no Relatiue or Participle which may so restrain the nature of the wordes but that we may take Christes kind of being the true vine for hauing the qualitie of a true vine and not being any vine in a seuerall substance Three Euangelists haue writen This is my body one after an other confirming the propriety of the words but only S. Ihon wrote that Christe said I am the true vine Nowe that is not so plainly said whereof four men write conformably as that which one writeth alone For if an other had writen the parable of the vine perhaps he would haue added other words to haue made it plainer although it be plaine enough already For the honour of these wordes This is my body Churches and Altars haue bene builded where that blessed body might be coÌ„secrated vnder the forme of bread For any vine I neuer thinke the like to haue bene done You your selues allow at the least a square table where this is my body may be solemnly pronounced but not so for these words I am the true vine The body whereof Christ spake hath bene taught to be adored vnder the forme of bread by S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine all the Fathers You are the first M. Nowell who would either a vine to be adored equally with Christes body or els his body to be no more adored in the Sacrament of the altar then a parabolicall vine For to that end your words runne that as wel Christ should be a vine as that whereof he spake in his supper should be his body to say that his body is only present in a parable at Christes supper S. Chrysostom calleth these words I am the true vine a parable and theresore saith Quid vult haec parabola significare what will this parable meane And againe Vide quà m diligenter hanc parabolom exequitur See how diligently he prosecuteth this parable But thought he trow you that This is my body was likewise a parable No no it neuer was his minde For writing vpoÌ„ these words Take eate this is my body and hauing asked why the disciples were not troubled hearing that thing he aunswereth Quia multa iam magna de hoc anteà disseruit because Christ hath disputed of this thing many and great things before Where no dout at al can be but that S. Chrysostom meaneth the the disputation kept at Capharnaum where Christ promised the bread whiche is his flesh affirming his fleshe to be not only true meate but to be meat truely therein shewing that it is meat not only concerning the truth of nourishing but also concerning the mancâ—… of caâ—…ing it vpon whiche place S. Chrysostome writeth that Christe called his fleshe truely meate either because it is the true meate which saueth the soule or to confirme them in his former sayings ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scâ—…rent omnino necessarium esse vt corpus comederent least they should thinke him to haue spoken darkly in parables but should know it to be by all meanâ—…s necessary thaâ—… they should eate his
similitude which fully doth open his minde S. Cyrillus expresly affirmeth Christ to be in vs and vs to be in him by the communicating of his body and blood euen after that sort as if a man taking wax which is melted by the fier do so mingle it with other melted wax that one maner of thing semeth to be made of both How think you M. Nowell Is one wax mingled with an other by faith and spirit alone or is it mingled by signes and tokens 〈◊〉 the one part without the reall presence of both waxes What wicked men are ye who will make vs beleue yâ— S. Cyrill did not meane the reall substance of Christes fleshe to be reallie and corporallie in vs by communicating his bodie blood If you beleue him not why do ye not deny his aucthoritie If ye beleue his doctrine why teache you not the same These be the points M. Nowell which you must aâ—…swer vnto For euery word that foloweth is in S. Cyrill euen in that place where he disputeth of the true vine though not in such order as I now put them Which thing I doe to make his whole mind appeare at once Thus he sayth * 1. The mysticall blessing or the communicating of Christes body and blood â–ª * 2. maketh * 3. Christ or the life or the flesh of life * 4. to be or to be made or to be ioyned or to dwell * 5. in vs or with vs and vs to haue it in our selues or in our bodies * 6. according to the flesh or corporally * 7. and not only by habit or power or by â—…aith or charitie or spiritually * 8. but also by naturall partaking * 9. euen so as one melted wax is mingled to an other melted wax and in maner made one therewith * 10. By this meanes we are both corporally and spiritually braunches of Christes flesh which is also the true vine See now M. Nowell how yâ— parable of the true vine rightly expounded maketh altogether for our purpose As Christ is the true vine according to his flesh so are we the braunches according to his flesh He is the vine by hauing his flesh really present and vnited to himself therefore we be the braunches by hauing the same flesh really present in vs and by being really vnited vnto it as the braunche is vnited to his roote As Christ is the true vine two ways by his Godhead and by his manhod so a maÌ„ may two ways liue by Christ by partaking of his Godhead and manhod by habit only if he haue a good faith and by partaking his manhod corporally also if he receaue worthily the Sacrament of the altar But that Sacrament could no more make vs be braunches according to the flesh of Christ then our faith and charitie doth make vs to be braunches thereof except it had his flesh really present For otherwise our faith it self is a better meane to graâ—… vs into Christ then bread and wine is because it is a ioyning of vs to God in a higher degree But the mystical blessing in S. Cyril is made the meane to ioyne vs to God in a higher degree then faith or charitie Therefore S. Cyrill and all the Fathers before him whose minde he professeth himself to folow beleued the reall presence of Christes flesh in the Sacrament of the altar And that by the way of turning the bread into his flesh For the flesh of Christ could not be really present to dwell corporally with vs and in our bodies except it were corporally receaued of vs. And other way how to receaue it corporally I see not except the bread be changed into it Thus you see what aduantage I am the true vine doth bring to the Catholike faith but no hinderance in the world can be thence deduced against the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar M. Nowell ¶ Nay if Christ had sayd likewise this is my true very body as he sayd I am a true or very vine what a rule had we then had I Marueile if M. Nowell think more strength to be in these words my true or very body theÌ„ in these My body which is geuen for you as though yâ— true very body were not geuen for vs. But if the true body were geuen for vs Christ saying This is my body which is geuen for you sayd also This is my true and very body And therein M. Nowell shal haue a rule to know that Christ spake not metaphorically for the relatiue quod which can not agree with any other word then with the noune substantiue corpus body which noune corpus body if it stand vnproperlie the relatiue must nedes repete it so as it standeth and then if this be the sigure of Christes body which is geuen at his supper the figure of his body is geuen for vs vpon the crosse I confesse M. Nowell I could be content to goe to schole to â—…rne of so auncieÌ„t a scholemaster as you are how a word which is but once named as yâ— noune corpus body in Christes supper may be antecedent to the relatiue quod which as the Latins reade or noune substantiue to the participle datum geuen as the Greeks reade and yet be otherwise ment in his relatiue and participle then it was being the antecedent or the noune substantiue Christ sayd This is my body geuen for you wil you diuide the participle geuen from his noune substantiue body If you will not as the body geuen for vs was the substance of Christes body so this is the self same substaÌ„ce of Christes body which the Apostles are commanded to take to eate and to make In that you turne the words vitis vera not only a true but also a verie vine you are much deceaued The word vera is not now to be pressed as if it were set to signifie a naturall vine where vnto your words run but to signifie a perfect vine in respect of an imperfit for so we say he is a true man meaning a truth in his words and dedes but not in nature for a lier and falsifier is also a true man in nature Euen so Christ meaneth himself to be a moste true and perfect vine concerning the swete frute which a vine ought to bring foorth and to communicate vnto his branches For the Iewes being a vine well planted by God became through synne a â—…oure vine and brought foorth none other but wilde grapes but Christ is a true a perfit a moste excellent vine which bringeth foorth swete grapes in his faithfull members of yâ— Church Thus doth S. Augustine expound yâ— word vera true saying that when Christ calleth him self a true vine he maketh a difference betwene him self and that vine to which it is sayd How art thou turned into the bitternes of a strange vine Euthymius declareth the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie either an excellent an incorruptible a spirituall
vine or els a vine which for his fruit bringeth foorth veritie and truth Now such an addition doth rather detract sum what from the naturall and very vine whereof M. Nowell speaketh then help it any thing For which cause he should not haue had such a rule with vs as he thinketh if it were sayd This is my true body sith the word true might haue ben taken for the effect or frute proceding from his body which wold not haue bene so much for our purpose as when it is sayd This is my body which is geuen for you Thus euery way M. Nowell is deceaued in his construction And no wonder sith he buildeth not vpon the rock planted by Christ in the Catholike Church but vpon Caluins new inuentions which are more feble then the sands them selues M. Nowell ¶ Christ saith Ego sum panis I am bread and yet no transubstantiation of his body into bread Why should these words Hoc est corpus meum this is my body more transubstantiate bread into his body HOw long will you continew in falsifying the holy Scriptures M. Nowell When shall a man find you to deale vprightly Where is it writen I am bread Where sayeth Christ those words Uerily if he had sayd them yet you may know he meant him self to be bread only by a similitude or Metaphore as it was expounded before in the words I am the true vine And therefore I am bread could import no transubstantiation for seuen causes * 1. The bread he speaketh of is no certayne or limited substance * 2. Christ can not be personally changed for that he is God * 3. The verb sum I am being ioyned with two natures cleane distant doth always signifie a like condition or propertie and no identitie of substance * 4. It were a change made for yâ— worse such as Christ vseth not to make * 5. It wold be yâ— harder to be proued because the thing whereinto the change should be made is not pointed vnto as present * 6. It had bene a change the like whereof had not bene vsed before * 7. It was neâ—…r taâ—…ght nor beleued in the Church But in these words This is my body * 1. The body is certayne * 2. The bread taken is a creature made to be changed * 3. The verb est is doth not stand betwene two diuerse substances but betwene the pronoune and his only noune substantiue * 4. The change is for the better * 5. It is better to be proâ—…ed because it poynteth presently to the thing made * 6. Bread was before changed into Christes flesh whiles he eating bread liued thereby * 7. The Church beleued the Fathers taught and the Generall Councels decreed the change of the bread into Christes body It had not bene haâ—…d to haue answered thus if Christ had sayd I am bread But phy vppon that impietie of yours M. Nowell who in so few words commit so many faults You reporte that Christ sayd I am bread and therein you falsify the word of God It is not sayd any where I am bread For what call you the saying of Christ It is writen Odiui omnem viam iniquitatis And again Omnem viam iniquaÌ„ odio habui I haue hated euery way of iniquitie I haue hated euery vniust way Were it now truly reported that God had sayd I haue hated euery way And thereof to conclude that noman may either walk by the high way or walk in the path of God because God hath hated euery way After the like maner doth M. Nowell reporte the words of Christ who sayd twise I am the bread of life And once he sayd I am the liuing bread Now cometh M. Nowell and leaueth out the genitiue case in the two first sayings and the participle in the last and the article in both and affirmeth that Christ sayd I am bread In dede M. Nowell these words be found as likewise we find I haue hated euery way but it is no small sacrilege to allege Gods word leauing out any essentiall part thereof And specially when the word left out is so ioyned with the rest as yâ— genitiue case is ioyned to the noune which it foloweth or as the participle is ioyned to his noune substantiue It had bene bad enough to haue sayd in our tong which hath articles I am bread of life for euen so the article â—… the had bene left out because it is writen I am the bread of life or I am the liuing bread And not I am bread But to leaue out both the article the and the genitiue case of life or the participle liuing and to argue vppon that false ground that Christ is not transubstantiated into bread it is so dissolutely done that it may warne you M. Nowell of your owâ—… blindnesse of hart and of yâ— blindnes of all such other falâ—…e preachers as you are Who through what other great synnes I can not tel but certeinly through schisme are so wonderfully forsaken of God that you see not now not only what his true meaning what his worde and Ghospell â–ª what the moste syâ—…cere faith of his Church is but you see not that which naturall Philosophers which men of common reason which children in yâ— Catholike Church see You see not the dependence betwene the pronoune adiectiue and his noune substantiue but referre hoc to panis and hic to vinum you see not how the nominatiue case agreeth with his verb but in expounding Hic est sanguis meus for hic significat sanguinem meum you leaue the verb without a noune substantiue to goe before him which is not so when we say Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood taking the verb substantiue est is properly For sâ—…ing here is in all but one substance named the pronoun hic this is so referred finally to the blood alone that yet we do not construe the words saying this blood is my blood but we make the last determination of the pronoune this to rest only in the substance folowing And so as long as the substance is vnnamed the noune substaÌ„tine to the pronoune is vnknoweÌ„ as in Hic est filius meus haec vidua erat hoc est verbum fidei but strayght vpon the naming thereof the proâ—…oune is ruled in case gender and number of his noune substantiue which coâ—…eth after the verb. But when you haue expounded the words of Christ by hic sinificat sanguinem meum when al the speache is fully ended your pronoune of the masculine gender of the nominatiue case findeth no noune substantine at all with whom he may rest but styl is without his due construction You turne the nounes corpus and sanguis from the nominatiue case into the accusatiue You diuide the relatiue quod which from his antecedent corpus body in that you make him repete but halfe the signification of his antecedent You diuide the
then the image and figure of it When we will shew how far a thing is from that which it is called doe we not say Hoc nomine tenus tale est noÌ„ re ipsa This is such a thing in name and not in dede So that the naming of a thing without being the true thing it self is the nakedest and barest thing that can be â–ª Our aduersaries wold the bread after consecration to be the body and blood of Christ in name only not in truthe which being so the chalice of blessing bread which is broken should rather be called partaking because a sinal part of yâ— truth is taken then communicating where all is made common But S. Paule sayd it is a communicating and S. Chrysostom sayeth he did it to shew that it was more than partaking therefore it is a false doctrine to say that yâ— true body and blood of Christ is not really vnder the forme of bread which is broken and within the chalice which we blesse Let vs conferre the scriptures and seke the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicare in other places of the new Testament we shall find that it standeth to geue and make common the thing it self rather then the shadow or name thereof S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles sayeth Multitudinis cre dentium erat corvnum animavna nec quisquà m eorum quae possidebat aliquid suum esse dicebat sed erant illis omnia communia Of the multitude of beleuers there was one hart and one soule neither any man sayd any thing of that he possessed to be his own but all things were common to them In which place we haue it defined what communicating is truly it is such a geuing that all is made common and nothing chalenged as his own If then the chalice of blessing which we blesse be the communicating of Christes blood and the bread which we breake the communicating of his body all the blood and all the body is made common to them that receaâ—…e that chalice and that bread If all be common then we doe not receaue only a spirituall remembrance of Christes body or a figure and signe of his blood For in so doing we had not all but rather the smallest part In so doing Christ kept the best back and chalenged somewhat yea far the best part to his owne self and we should not haue it Likewise when S. Paul sayeth that the Gentils did communicate with the spirituall goods of the Iewes for his word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth not a ioyning in name in shewe in figure in signes but in the truth of faith and in the grace of God and in the redemption of Iesus Christ Last of al S. Paul shewing Christ to call the faithfull people of God his brethren and children reasoneth thus Quia ergo pueri communicaueruÌ„t earni sanguini ipse similiter participauit ijsdem Because therefore the children did communicate â—…lesh and blood him self likewise tooke parte with them In which place communicating is the naturall knitting and vniting which men haue to flesh and blood so that whether communicating be spoken by flesh and blood or by the goods of the world the communicating of them is the hauing of them common or making them common Euery where communicating importeth a great and liberall geuing or taking which can not be fulfilled with the only figure and bare name of body and blood but requireth the things them selues in truth of nature as holy Ireneus a disciple of the Apostles scholers writeth against those that taught that our flesh could not aryse againe to glory Vani sunt omnes c. They are all vayne that denyd the saluation of the flesh and despyse the regeneration of it saying that it is not able to receaue the state of incorruptibilitie So in dede to wyt according to those sayinges neither our Lorde hath redemed vs with his blood neither the chalice of thankes geuing is the coÌ„municating of his blood neither the bread which we breake is the communicating of his body For blood is not but from the vaynes and flesh and from the other substaÌ„ce which is belonging to man in the which substance yâ— worde of God truly made redemed vs with his blood S. Ireneus accomptâ—…th it a great absurditie that the bread which we breake should not be the communicating of Christ his true body the chalice of the Encharist the communicating of his blood Of what blood of the same which 〈◊〉 from vaynes from flesh and from the rest of our substance And S â–ª Ireneus bringeth this interpretation to proue that we that receyue the sayd body and blood receyue therein a gyft sufficient to raise our flesh at the later daye But surely fignes and figures of Christ wil not raise our flesh for so much as they are perceaued only by vnderstanding and be not of the same nature and kinde whereof our flesh is And S. Ireneus neuer dreamed of blood that should be receaued from heauen but only of that blood which is in the chalice and cup of Christes supper ¶ The presence of Christ in his supper is proued by the one bread which being receaued of vs maketh all vs one body VNuspanis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes qui de vno pane participamus we being many are one bread and one body all we that partake of the one bread He that listeth only to mark the order of S. Paules words may quickly perceaue what his meaning is concerning the true doctrine of the Sacrament of the altar First he described our Lordes supper by the name of the chalice of blessing which we blesse and of the bread which we breake Secondly he saith that eche of them is the communicating the one of Christ his body the other of his blood Last of all he feareth not to say that the partakers of that bread all are one bread and one body Who seeth not that he is come from blessing and breaking to communicating and from communicating to vniting making one so that vse we what wordes we please in vttering the matter call we it partaking eating drinking or communicating certainly it is so nigh a ioyning that a very vnion which is to say one thing is made of that which is receaued in this blessed Sacrament and of those that receaue the same one thing I say is made of both yea one of al not only he that receaueth this one bread is made one with the bread but he is one also with al them that any where within the Churche worthely receaue of the same bread for when two things meâ—…e in a thirde they mete also betwene them selues The reason of this great ioyning is the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament for seing the bread receaued is Christ he is so strong a bread and foode that he can be ouercomed of
Sacramentaric doctrine whereof I haue the gladlier writen to thintent S. Augustines doctrine might be opened who alwaies noteth this Sacrament to be the signe of the vnitie which is made by Christ in baptism among the faithfull but he meaneth such a signe as Christ him â—…elf maketh vnder the forme of bread when he affirmeth him to consecrate herein yâ— mystery of vnitie Is it not an extreme madnes to affirme that wheaten bread keping his own earthly nature should be the mystery of vnitie Christ is that mystery first because he is both God who alone made all things to serue him and man in whom all things are a new collected which where before made Secondly because Christ maketh vs one with God reconciling vs to him by the blood of his crosse Thirdly because he maketh vs one among our selues by his one spirit and Baptism Last of all because he sheweth and geueth him self really present vnder the forme of bread wherein he would vs to vnderstand the vnitie which is really made betwene vs and him and God Of this vnitie S. Hilarie writeth If Christ assumpted truly the flesh of our body and we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body and by this thing we shal be one because the Father is in him and he in vs quomodo voluntatisvnitas asseritur cùm naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacracramentum sit vnitatis How is yâ— vnitie of wil affirmed whereas the naturall proprietie through the Sacrament is the holy signe of a perfite vnitie This place good Reader openeth al the hard points of the mystery of vnitie First Christ toke truly flesh Next we take truly the same flesh vnder a mystery By his taking God and man were made one concerning the whole nature of man By our taking we and Christ are made one concerning euery particular man who receaueth worthely his body And that is not only done so but withall it is shewed so for the thing which we receaue is the flesh of Christ vnder the forme of bread The flesh yâ— is there being receaued maketh vs in dede to be one with Christ. The form of bread sheweth not only them to be one that receaue this food but those also who now doe not receaue it if yet they be or shal be baptized to be one in Christ. And sayeth S. Hilarie so much Ye doubtlesse and that he twise repeteth For when he sayth Verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body then he meaneth that vnder the forme of bread we take Christes flesh Under what other mysterie can it be sayd we take it Or seing he speaketh of the last supper doth he not meane the signe of the same supper which was bread But yet let vs heare more plaine words Naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The natural proprietie through the SacrameÌ„t is the SacrameÌ„t of a perfite vnitie The word proprietas meaneth one particular substance proper to one thing which in men is commonly called a person S. Augustine witnesseth that Christ is called the true vine Per similitudinem non per proprietatem by likenes not by proprietie that is to say Christ is yâ— true vine by like condition and not by the self substance of a true vine S. Hilarie then sayeth The naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a Sacrament of perfite vnitie Here is the word Sacrament twise iterated the proprietie of Christ is a Sacrament and it is a Sacrament by a Sacrament A Sacrament is a holy signe Therefore the proprietie or substance of Christ is a holy signe But how Euery substance is the truth How is it then a sigue It is not barely and absolutely called a signe but a signe by a signe that is to say the true substaÌ„ce of Christ put vnder the form of bread by that signe of bread is seâ—… to signifie a most perfite vnitie made betwene God and vs. The natural proprietie of Christ by the signe of bread maketh and signifieth a perfite vnitie It maketh it whiles we receaue Christ into vs who is one with his Father in nature as we naturally haue him in our bodies and soules It signifieth the same vnitie because the substance of Christ who is one nature with his Father in Godhead one with vs in manhod being now vnder the signe of bread sheweth him self as it were with al his faithfull members about him offering them all to God as if he sayd Ecce ego pueri mei mecum Behold Father I am here and my seruants or children with me This sayeth S. Augustine is the sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ Quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quâ—…od in ea oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur The which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of the altar knowen to the faithful Where it is shewed to the Church that in that sacrifice which she offereth her self is offered It is well knowen that the Priests of yâ— Church taking bread and wine according to the institution of Christ consecrate them saying in Christes name This is my body and this is my blood If by those words the body and blood of Christ be not made pre sent vnder the forme of bread and wine how is the Church offered in the offering which she maketh Who doth make an oblation of her to God Wil ye say that Christ sitting in heauen presenteth to his Father the bread wine which is in earth saying Father looke vppon my faithfull members See what a mysticall body I haue gotten to me in the earth Might not God answer Why sonne is the substance of your mysticall body bread and wine Haue you coupled my seruants your brethren whome I created reasonable to those vnseâ—…sible creatures Or is the handy work of the baker your oblation or the oblation of your mysticall body But if Christ be vnder the forme of bread and thence make an oblation to his Father of all his obedient members which are there signified by the forme of bread then is none other substance of those mysticall members presented besyde the true substance and head of the mysticall body to wit the flesh of Christ which worketh gathereth a body to it self through out the whole world TheÌ„ the Church offereth none other substance besyde the one oblation which dyed for vs. The same reall coniunction of the faithfull to Christes flesh may be declared also by the example of building a howse For as euery howse is in the fundation moste large and afterward it is drawen alwaies so muche the nigher together by how much it approcheth to the top or end thereof euen so the Church being the howse of God must be one so that it may in some partes thereof be
and had made petition for his resurrection and saith he wil now performe the vowes which he made for the obteining of his resurrection Those vowes were to haue Gods name tolde and his 〈◊〉 published To that ende serueth the mystery and sacrifice of his body blood for God is thanked in the Eucharist and praised in the cup of blessing as in yâ— publike sacrifice instituted by Christ to remaine in his Church vntill his second comming Therefore when he saith I will performe my vowes he meaneth I wil offer the sacrifice of my body and blood as S. Hierome expoundeth it And therein S. Augustine fully agreeth with him saying Quae sunt vota sua Sacrificium quod obtulit deo Nostis quale sacrificium Norunt fideles vota quae reddit coram timentibus eum And afore Sacramenta corporis sanguinis mei reddam coram timentibus eum What are his vowes The sacrifice which he hath offered to God Knowe ye what maner of sacrifice The faithfull knowe the vowes which he rendereth before them that feare him I will render the Sacramentes of my body blood before them that feare him Cassiodorus consentâ—…th saying Vota mauult intelligi SacrameÌ„ta corporis sanguinis sui caet He rather would the voweâ—… be vnderstanded the Sacramentes of his body and blood the which are rendred those being present which are subiecte to him in holy feare To be shorte see what foloweth the poore shal eate and be filled These are the vowes whereof he spake before S. Bede also writeth Vota quae feci cum meipsum in ara crucis obtuli illa reddam in Ecclesia magna id est iterum per quotidiana sacrificia meorum in sacramentis offeram vota dico eadem verè in coÌ„spectu timentium eum id ist quantuÌ„ ad intellectum bonorum etsi non sint eadem in conspectu malorum qui nihil in Sacramentis nisi quod exterius apparet intelligunt The vowes which I made when I offered my selfe on the altar of the crosse those I will render in the greate Church That is to say I will offer them againe in the Sacramentes by the daily sacrifices of my ministres I meane the same vowes in dede in the sight of them that feare him to witte concerning the vnderstanding of the good men albeit they be not the same in yâ— sight of euil men who vnderstand nothing in the Sacramentes but that which appereth outwardly Here S. Bede expoundeth the rendering of the vowes of Christe to be the offering of the very same body blood which was offered vpon the crosse And that the good see by faith and vnderstand by beleuing more then the eye seeth But the euil men will vnderstand no more then they see iudging that which semeth bread and wine to be still in dede bread and wine But the truth is the same substance of Christes flesh and blood is offered in the Sacramentes which was offered on the crosse Concerning my purpose S. Hierome S. Augustine Cassiodorus Bedafull well agree this place to apperteine literally to the Sacrament of the altar Yea Arnobius who was elder then all they saith that Christ being vpon the Crosse praieth for them that crucifie him that his praise may bee in the greate Church and that he may render his vowes before them which feare him Dum edunt corpus eius pauperes Spiritu whiles the poore in spirit shal eate his body Neither doe the Latines only expound this place aâ—…ter that sorte but also the Grecians Euthymâ—…s hauing expounded the vowes to be the promises of praising Gods name and the eating of the poore men to be their feeding vppon the doctrine of the Apostles addeth also the other interpretation saying Vel aliter comedent fideles Saluatoris corpus cum quo sanguinem eius bibent c. Or els according to an other meauing the faithfull shall eate the body of our Sauiour wherewith they shall drink also his blood And shall be silled verily filled with the holy Ghost and shall extoll God with hymnes and praises in that table So that the former versicle may conteyne not only a prophecie of the Gospell but also the mysticall Sacrament of that table In which interpretation the Fathers agree so throughly that they conferre those words of the pâ—…alme their hartes shall liue for euer with those of Christ I am the bread of life and if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Now if this psalme do literally speake of the offering and eating of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of his supper as ye see plainly it doth it can not be auoided but the same place shal proue that the body blood of Christ must be adored in the Sacrament For yâ— same that is eaten is here prophecied also as a thing to be adored It is sayd manducauerunt adorauerunt they haue eaten haue adored Both be referred to one thing But they haue eaten is referred to the Sacrament of the altar therefore they haue adored is referred to the same Sacrament Apostoli vel caeteri sancti sayeth S. Hiâ—…rome manducauerunt corpus Christi The Apostles and other saiutes haue eaten the body of Christ wherevppon it foloweth that they haue adored it also S. Augustine expresseth it more plainly Manducauerunt corpus caet Euen the riche of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord. They are not filled so that they wil folow as the poore men were but yet they haue adored Behold three verbs which all belong to the very body of Christ eating adoring filling The poore in spirite haue eaten and adored because al nations haue adored before him and they are filled The riche haue eaten and are not â—…illed but yet they haue adored What haue they both eaten The body of Christ Wherewith are the poore filled With the body of Christ. What haue that riche adored The body of Christ but yet they are not filled therewith because they will not folow the humilitie of Christ. And seing this eating pâ—…rteyneth to the Sacrament of Christes supper as it was before prourd the adoring also apperteyneth to the same Sacrament That is eaten which appeareth to be bread therefore that self substaÌ„ce is adored which appearing bread is in dede the truth of Christes own body S. Bede expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shal adore because they shall come with a certeyne outward worshipping Behold the worshipping of the riche is outward and not from the hart whereas it ought to haue beue both outward and inward both in spirit and in truth But through their hypocrisie it consisteth only in bowing their bodies because other men do so and not in true and perfite charitie of God Moreouer S. Augustin
that he had not one chappell reserued to him in all the world where idolatry was not outwardly committed And how committed by pretence of his owne Gospell of his owne word of his own dede It was Christ that sayd This is my body It was he that sayd Ye beleue in God beleue also in me I and my Father are one thing or substance If it be so wee must worship him as wee adore his Father And his body is vnited to his diuine persone Yea say you but it is not his body but bread still appointed to figure his body Well Syr he sayd it is his body and all the Church hath so far beleued him that all Christians haue worshipped it for euer as being his true body That faith of theirs ioyned with those words of Christ proue to me that it is his body and therefore no idol Moreouer I thinke my self bound to beleue the Prophetes who sayd Christ should destroy y◠idols of the earth which literally is by S. Athanasius S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine and by many others expounded of externall idolatry whereby men fell doune geuing Godly honour to creatures Such a worshipping after the iucarnation of Christ is decayed in the whole world euen among infidels much more it ought to be decayed among the faithfull And yet if our idolatrie be any it is externall What say wee then Is there now a days no idolatry in Christendome Are there no false Gods worshipped yes doubtlesse to many But idolatry partly is outward partly is inward The outward idolatry is decayed by the outward and visible coming of Christ into the world The inward is decayed by the faith and charitie of good people But because not al that be outward Christians be the true seruantes of God therefore they still worship idols in their hartes They adore mony for the desier where of they sel benifices and cure of soules without feare and are content to robbe euen Churches and monasteries although they thinke wel inough both of Priests and Monkes as they vse to say These inward idols bee not taken away but where Christ is inwardly professed And for asmuch as likewise y◠outward idols be taken away where Christ is outwardly professed it can not be that those who beare the name of Catholikes and Christiās should adore by common consent any outward idoll Is there then no outward idol at all Noue surely made with the hands of men among Christians But yet there lack not inuisible idols made by the wit of men whereof S. Cyprian speaketh in this wise Christi aduentu detectus ac prostratus inimicus videns idola derelicta caet The enemy detected and throwen doune by the coming of Christ seing the idols forsaken and his seates and Temples left voide through the great multitude of beleuers deuised a new guile that vnder the very title of Christes name he may deceaue the vnwary He hath found heresies and schismes whereby he might ouerthrow faith corrupt truth and cutte of vnitie Lo the heresies and the schismes are the idols that be inuented since y◠coming of Christ. If you wil knowe a true marke of an idolatour note him y◠diuideth vnitie that maketh parts that goeth from agreement Fifty yeres past there was but one body of the whole West Church All worshipped one God one Christ one body and one blood of his Al were vnder one shepherd the Bishop of Rome Al spake one tong in publike seruice of the West Church all kept one faith acknowledged one truth Luther arose and sayd The Pope was not our head Straight vnitie was diuided For one withdrew him self from the rest Ergo Luther was the first idolatour Anon after he had fellows a pretie flock of idolatours very visibly seen and knowen to dwel at Wittenberge Within fower yeres zuinglius diuided him self not now from y◠Pope but euen from Luther and made two idols of one After which tyme y◠idols haue bene multiplied to the number of aboue three score that canbe named in Germany as it may appeare in Fridericus Staphylus And as for the Sacramentaries in England although they haue receaued into the number of their Gods y◠chief idols both Auther and zuingli◅s yet they worship the idoll of Taluine aboue them both For as S. Hierome saith Sicut idola fiunt manu artificis ita Haereticorum peruersa doctrina quodcunque simulauerit vertit in idolum facit pro Christo adorari Antichristum As idols be made with y◠hand of the craftsmā so what so euer the ouerthwart doctrine of Heretikes cloketh it turneth it into an idol and causeth Antichriste to be adored in stede of Christe As for example Martin Luther or Iohn Caluine being fully determined to breake of from the reste of the Church syt a deuising sith they are at a point not to teache the olde doctrine what new doctrine they may teache Then hath the Deuill power vpon them for so much as they are finaly agr◅ed not to be subiect to any master or preacher in the whole Church of God no though it were a whole generall Councell gathered out of all the men in y◠earth For that intolerable arrogancy the Deuill may rule them as he list therefore sendeth some wicked opinion into theire mindes such as he hath plenty of They a litle while pondering it perhappes i◅dge it impossible to be admitted of men as Luther iudged of the deniall of the reall presence wherein he laboured a certaine time and in that case the Deuill inspireth a newe deuise But when they are once agreed vpon that they will goe foreward withall they haue a strong imaginacion how certeine that opinion is and with an excessiue pride acknowlege them selues the Prophetes of God and imagine what glory they shall come vnto among fooles and mad men Albeit they must take them for no fooles who soeuer wil forsake the faith approued fiftene hundred yeres together and folow the new blast of theire trompet But are they trow ye no fooles because they think them selues none Thus when they haue gotten a sufficient schole and audiēce they publish their doctrine vnder y◠name of Gods worde and so er◅ct a phantasticall idoll But to say that the blessed Sacrament of Christe is an idoll semeth necessarily to imploy that Christe iustituted an idoll which to thinke it were no small idolatry For he and noman els made or published this Sacrament to thend idolatry should cease whiles wee did only adore that body and blood which is vnited to the Godhead in one person But yet if our Fathers did and wee do worshippe wheaten bread and wine our idolatry were more grosse not only then that of the heretikes but also then y◠of the Gentils But that is vtterly against the worde of God therefore wee do not worship any creature at all as
which was receaued at the holy coÌ„munion which dwelleth bodily in vs to be not only yâ— flesh and blood of Christ for those words should be eluded with figures and signes but to be the substance and nature of God which nature is not possible to be eaten of vs corporally otherwise then as it dwelleth 〈◊〉 in the flesh of Christ which we eate corporally in the Sacramenâ—… seing the nature and substance of God must be adored it is not possible to imagine but all yâ— Fathers gaue Godly honour to the mysteries of Christes holy table But yet let vs heare a more full witnesse S. Chrysostome exhorting his people to come to this Sacrament with zeale and most vehement loue writeth thus Hoc corpus in praesepe reueriti sunt Magi c. The wise men commonly called the three kings reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion barbarouse they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iorney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at the least wise follow those barbarous men For when they saw yâ— manger and cottage only and not any of those things which thou now seest they came with most great reuerence quaking But thou seest that thing not in the manger but in the altar not a womaÌ„ which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy Ghost copiously spred vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither thou lookest barely vpoÌ„ the body as they did but thou knowest the power of it and all the order of dispensing things And thou art ignorant of none of those things which were done by him and thou hast bene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs proseâ—…e openly a greater denotion then those barbarous 〈◊〉 if we come barely and coldly we ieopard our head into a more â—…ehement fyre Hitherto S. Chrysostome If there were any other refuge left for our aduersaries they wold neuer admit this place they would say in words yâ— which the masters of them must nedes sometyme think in hart They would say what care we for Chrysostome He was a man he might erre he did erre in this matter But now they may not flee to this miserable refuge for seing they lacke the Gospel and the faith of Christian people for nine hundred yeres together as them selues confesse there is no place for them to hyde their head in but only among the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres For this cause they caÌ„ not reiect S. Chrysostome who is one of the chief lights of the East Church His bookes also they can not deny and least of all his commentaries vppon the blessed Apostle What shift then find they to avoide this place In truth they can finde none but they must nedes preteÌ„d to say somewhat out of their common places of Khetoricall figures yâ— vse whereof they can father vpon whome they list S. Chrysostome in these words expressy teacheth as well the reall presence as the adoration of Christ vpon the altar He compareth the holy mysteries with Christ in the forme and truth of a childe He compareth the altar where vpon the mysteries staÌ„d with the manger wherein Christ lay He compareth our blessed Lady which sometyme held Christ in her armes with the Priest present at the altar who sometyme handleth the holy mysteries He compareth the three wise men who came out of yâ— East with the Christian people who come to heare Masse He compareth the adoratioÌ„ and worshipping which those three wise men vsed with the adoration and worshipping which faithful men ought to vse at the tyme of oâ—…r Lords supper He sayeth the body of Christ to be the same in both places but yâ— cause of worshipping to be greater in them who come to the holy mysteries He sayth by the body Hoc corpus in 〈◊〉 sunt Magi This body the wise men worshipped in the manger which this body surely whereof he sayd before Quando id propositum videris dic tecum propter hoc corpus non amplius terra cinis ego sum When thou seest it set before thee say with thy self for this bodies sake I am no longer earth and ashes Behold he speaketh of the body which is set before vs. Uerily of that which at Masse tyme all men see vpon the altar And againe he sayd of the same Quod etiam nobis exhibuit vt teneremus manducaremus The which also he hath geuen to vs that we should hold it and eate it This body then which is put before vs in yâ— Church which is holden and eaten This body the wise men worshipped in the manger If our figuratiue diuines expound this body for the signe or the representing of this body as they are wont to doe then the wise men adored in the manger the signe of Christes body But if they adored not the signe but the truth then this body is meaÌ„t this true body of Christ. And seing S. Chrysostome sayeth that the wise men adored this body meaning by the pronoun this that which we haue in the holy mysteries it is clere that he putteth it for a most knowen and certeyne veritie that we haue present before the tyme of receauing the reall body of Christ vpâ—… the altar And so haue it present that we are bound to adore it being vpon the altar Tu verò non in praesepe sed in altari vides Thou seest this body not in the manger but on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not only comprehended by faith but by the meane of yâ— forme òf bread it is seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome bringeth fower reasons why Chrystian people should rather worship the body of Christ at Masse then those wise men did worship it in that homely cottage First because they were not Godly men for so S. Chrysostom doth call them because they had not the knowlege of al true deuotion and Godlinesse although in that acte they shewed them selues Godly But we are instructed in all true religion therefore should souer worship this body of Christ then they did Secondly they were Barbarous men but S. Chrysostome spake to 〈◊〉 who were most ciuill leste Barbarous of all people in the world So much the rather they ought to know it to be their duety to worship the body of their maker Thirdly the wise men saw Christe in a manger where such things are not wont to lye as must be reuereÌ„ced worshipped but thou seest this body vpon the altar which is a place made for holy things to stand on And so much the more ought we Christians to adore the body of Christ being set before vs vpon the altar then those wise men did adore it in a manger They saw it also in the mothers armes which was a woman neither is any thing which a woman holdeth bringeth foorth wont
of Christ who was coming to his house Lorde I am not worthy that thou should est enter vnder my roof we thereby know that he spake to Christ and called Christ his Lord and not only God in heauen so when we reade that the receauers of the holy communion did say at the tyme of receauing the Sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou should est enter vnder my roof and that they did bow downe adore worship at the same tyme we must vndoubtedly conclude that both the Sacrament was spoken vnto and called Lord and also bowed to and adored Thus I haue proued the adoration of Christes body blood euen as it is a Sacrament out of the Prophetes out of S. Paul out of the anncient Fathers out of the publike seruire of the primitine Church and out of the custome of the faithfull people Al which proufes I haue applied to this end that the body blood of Christ should be knowen thereby to be really present in that self Sacrament which we take into our mouthes And for so much as that is so euery faithful man ought to beleue most constantly the sayd reall presence and to detest the contrary doctrine as a most perniciouse heresy ¶ The reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers IF euery man is to be credited and ought to haue authoritie in his owne arte facultie if when we build we call a Carpenter to counsell and when we make gardens a gardener how much more must we esteme the holy Doctors of the Churche who are not only cunning by long labour bestowed â—…pon the science of diuinitie but also haue so vertuously vsed them selues that they haue bene abundantly instructed in all knowlege by marnailons inspirations of the holy Ghoste whose names are so greate that the very Heretiks can not deny them to be holy Sainctes in heauen and therefore they pretend to haue the first syx hundred yeres on their side It is then a good sure way to worke with the aduise of those auncient Fathers whose sayings because I haue particularly alleged and examined in euery article and chapiter of my former bookes as occasion suffered I thought good not to prosecâ—… them now again at large but rather to shew briefly by what generall chapiters a man may be vndoutedly assured of their belefe and doctrine First very many Fathers speaking of Christes words or dedes when aâ—…ter bread taken and thankes geuen he sayd this is my body allege the almighty power of God to defend the veritie of those dedes and wordes Therefore the same Fathers beleued those words this is my body to be true in so wonderfull a maner as they sound at the first sight And seing they meane according to their moste vsuall sound that this which is pointed vnto though it seme still bread is notwithstanding yâ— substance of Christes body we ought to think that those Fathers beleued the reall presence of Christes body Otherwise they wold neuer haue alleged his Godhead or almightie power and omnipotencie for the instituting of a figure and signe of his owne body sith for the institution of signes and figures such an authoritie might haue serued as God gaue to Moyses who yet was but the feruant of Iesus Christe and not almighty God S. Ireneus How can they be sure the bread whereon thankes are geuen to be the body of their Lord the chalice of his blood if they say not him to be the Sonne of the maker of the world S. Ireneus was so sure that Christ through his diuine power made the bread wherein thankes were geuen his owne body that if the Godhead were denied which should work that presence no man could be sure of the presence of Christes body and yet he might haue bene sure of a figuratiue presence though Moyses had bene the minister of the SacrameÌ„t and not Christe S. Cyprian That bread which our Lorde gaue to the Disciples by the omnipotencie of the word was made flesh What neded omnipotencie be alleged for a fact that were not supernaturall S. Hilary speaking of the Sacrament saith By the profession of our Lorde it is truely flesh and truely blood Is not this thinge the truth â–ª It may in dede chance not to be true to them who deny Icsus Christe to be true God As who should say if his Godhead may stand his flesh must nedes be truly present S. Basilius to shew yâ— these wordes This is my body make full persuation allegeth out of S. Iohn the glory or Godhead and also the incarnation of Christe because except he were both true God and true man this is my body should not make full persuasion sith if he were not man he should not haue a body whereof those words might be verified If he were not God we might dout how he were able to make his word true but seing he is God and man and sayd this is my body there is no dout of the presence of his body S. Ambrosius Our Lorde Iesus him self crieth This is my body he hath sayd and it is made S. Chrysostome O miracle He hath sitteth aboue caet And againe Let vs euery where geue credit vnto his wordes specially in the mysteries Eusebius Emissenus Let the very power of him that consecrateth strengthen thee S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Seing God worketh let vs not aske how Damascene We know no more but that the word of God is true strengthfull almighty but the maner is inscrutable No wise man requireth vs earnestly to beleue the words which himself doth think to be figuratiue and parabolicall but he rather should bid vs beware that we mistake them not as S. Chrysostome vpon those words God repented crieth out See a grosse word not that God repented God forbid but God speaketh to vs according to the custome of man Likewise S. Augustine saith in respect of those words Iohn Baptist is Elias Our Lord spake figuratiuely but S. Ihon saying I am not Elias answered properly If now these words This is my body were figuratiue we should haue ben'e warned by the watchmen of God to beware of them and not require d to beleue them as now we are required yea we are so required to beleue them that it is wonderfull to see and to consyd er how earnestly the Doctours speake in that behalf S Basilius The certeintie of our Lords words who sayd This is my body which is geu en for yow make this thing for the remembrance of me ingender full persuasion Surely figuratiue words can not make ful persuasion because theÌ„ selues are imperfite as lackin g their proper signification which is the chiefe vertue of words whereby they should fully informe vs. for no figuratiue speache is so plaine as a proper speache is
Epiphanius Who so beleueth not the saying to be true as him self spake it is fallen from grace and saluation Cyrillus Hierosolymitatus Seing Christ him self affirmeth so and sayth of the bread This is my body Who hereafter may be so bolde as to doubte S. Ambrosius Our Lord Iesus him self geueth witnes vnto vs that we take his body and blood Ought we any thing to doubte of his fidelitie and witnesbearing S. Chrysostome Because our Lord sayd This is my body let vs be intangled with no doubtfulnes but let vs beleue and see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Eusebins Emissenns Let all doubtfulnes of infidelitie depart for so much as the author of the gift him self also is witnes of the truth S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Doubt not whether it be true sith Christ sayth manifestly This is my body But rather take y◠word of our Sauiour in faith for seing he is y◠truth he lieth not And againe Let vs take great aduantage by the synnes of other men Geuing stedfast faith vnto the mysteries Let vs neuer in so high matters either thinke or speake that word Quomodo How S. Gregorius Nazianzenus Eate the body and drink the blood without confusion or doubte if at the least thou arte desirouse of life Neither do thou withdraw faith from the sayings which concerne the flesh The same thing S. Hilary Leo Isychius Theophylact Paschasius and diuerse others haue spoken requiring vs not to doubte of the truth of this mysterie and that specially because Christes words make full persuasion and take away al occasion of doubting But if they be figuratiue it is not so for then one may vnderstand this kinde of figure an other that kinde One may thinke it to be a Metaphore An other that it is Synechdoche The third that it is Metonymia The fourth that it is altogether an Allegorie or parable and without all ground of Historie Others doubt not to expound This is my body as if it were sayd in this with this or vnder this or about this my body is Yea from that day wherein the proper and natural sense of those words was denied I thinke neuer any words haue bene more vncertayne and more doubted of then This is my body Yet the Fathers were so farre from this vncertaintie that they counted him an infidell and ◅allen from grace and saluation who so did not beleue them euen as Christ spake them To wit euen so as they sound at the first sight If the truth of Christes body be the reall substance thereof they that intreating of the Eucharist affirme y◠truth of his flesh must nedes meane that his substance is really present in that Sacrament whereof they speake S. Hilarius speaking of the holy mysteries sayth There is left no place of doubting of the truth of flesh and blood Yet surely if the substance of flesh and blood were not present not only some place but the chief place of doubting were left S. Ambrosius It is the true flesh of Christ which we take Doubt ye nothing at all sayeth Leo concerning the truth of Christes body By like he spake to Catholikes for doubtlesse the Sacramentaries doubt so vehemently thereof that they beleue the truth of Christes body to be only at the right hand of his Father Isychius He receaueth by ignorance who knoweth not this to be the body and blood according to the truth Damascenus The bread and wine is not the figure of Christes body and blood God forbid But it is the self deified body of our Lorde The like assertion Theophylact Euthymius and diuerse other Fathers haue They that name the supper of Christ a figure a Sacrament or a remembrance do not therby exclude the true substāce of Christes flesh but they meane to shew that it is present vnder the signe of an other thing after a mysticall and secret maner S. Cyprian The diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it self in the visible Sacrament S. Hilarius We take in dede the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie Lo the flesh the substance of God is present in truth but vnder a signe Ty◅illus Hierosolymitanus Vnder the figure of bread the body is geuen to thee Who now knowing the Sacrament to consist of two parts wil wonder that sometyme it is named of the one and sometyme of the other S. Augustine The body and blood of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which is visibly receaued in the Sacrament be in the truth it self eaten spiritually B◅holde there is a thing in the Sacrament and so really it is there that it is visibly receaued Therefore it is not a spirituall thing only for no such matter is visibly receaued but it is there and thence it must be eaten spiritually and in y◠truth it self That is to say it must not only be taken into the mouth but into the hart also then it shal be life vnto the receauer This thing so receaued in the Sa cramēt must nedes be the body of Christ vnder y◠forme of bread for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually It were to rediouse to allege all that S. Augustine hath writen in this behalf but his other words being conferred with these wil make it plaine that whensoeuer he nameth it a figure he meaneth the truth hidden vnder a figure which is more shortly named a mysticall figure He that allegeth cause why the flesh and blood of Christ is not seen in the mysteries presupposeth albeit an vnuisible yet a most reall presence thereof S. Ambrose sayth it is not seen in his owne forme Vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis To th' end there may be no lothsome abhorring of raw blood and yet that the price of our redemption may work So that by his iudgement the truth of blood is present to worke in vs the effect of Christes death and yet the foorm of blood is not seen because we should not abhorre to drink it Theophylact Although it seme bread to vs it is chaunged by vnspeakable operation Because we are weake and abhorre to eat rawe flesh specially the flesh of a man and therefore it semeth bread but in dede it is flesh If these words can be glosed with a figure then I know not what shall escape the hands of these figure makers They that acknowledge a change of the substāce of bread into Christes body must nedes meane a real presence of that body whereinto the change is made When Iustinus Martyr denyeth vs to take the things consecrated as common bread and drinke shewing also that we haue learned them to be not only sanctified in qualitie but to be the flesh and blood of Christ which is an other substance he doth vs to vnderstand that he meaneth them not to be after consecration the substance of common
bread and wine but to be that substaÌ„ce which Christe toke of his mother when the worde was made flesh S. Cyprian sheweth the bread which our Lord gaue to the Disciples to be changed not in shape but in nature Therefore as the forme remayneth so the substance is changed S. Ambrose It is not that which nature formed but that which the blessing hath consecrated If nature formed the substance of common bread and the words of blessing pronounced This is my body It is not afterward any more the substance of bread but of Christes body Grace is affirmed with the deniall of nature This argument is in maner as large as that of the reall presence but who so listeth to see more therein let him reade Gregorius Nyssenus in Oratione Catechetica Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus in Catechesi mystagogica 4. Eusebius Emissenus in Oratione 5. in Pascha Isychius in ca. 6. Leuitici Theophylact Euthymius in Euangelia Damascene li. 4. cap. 14. All that affirme the external sacrifice of Christes body blood must nedes teache the real presence thereof sith that thing which is absent can not be externally sacrificed S. Dionysius Areopagita sayth The Bishop excuseth him self for that he offereth a sacrifice aboue his worthynesse or power crying out decently Thou o Lord sayedst Make this thing for the remembrance of me Heretikes admit no Eucharists or offerings saith S. Ignatius in Theodorete because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Sauiour A man would haue thought this had bene made in our tyme against the Sacramentaries It agreeth to them so well or rather they agree with the old Heretikes so much Eusebius Pamphili We offer a sacrifice full of God and dreadsull and most holy We sacrifice after a new maner according to the new Testament a cleane sacrifice or hoste Concilium Nicaenum Let vs vnderstand by faith that Lamb of God who taketh away the synnes of the world being situated in that holy table to be offered vnbloodely of the Priests and that we take in dede his preciouse body and blood And againe Neither rule nor custome hath deliuered that they who haue no power to offer sacrifice should deliuer the body of Christ to them who offer Hereof S. Ireneus S. Cyprian S. Augustine and al the reste may be readen for it is a knowen matter handled of the Fathers moste frequently What shall I say that the Fathers teache that the Sacrament ought to be adored with Godly honour as I shewed before That they teache euill men to receaue and to touche the body blood of Christe thereby to be gylty of theÌ„ as Iudas was That they teache our bodies to be nourished with Christes flesh and blood which can not be nourished with a thing absent That they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christe whiles he dwelleth corporally in vs That they affirme Christes body to be vpoÌ„ the altar vpon the holy table in the hands in the mouthes and the bloode to be in the Cup That they geue it such names as only may agree o the substance of Christe calling it saluation light life Lorde Christe an offering wholy burnt a Sacrament which quiâ—…keneth and maketh vs liue for euer That they teache euery man to receaue the same substance one measure equall portion which is true neither of spirituall nor of corporall gifts but only of yâ— flesh of Christe really present vnder the forme of bread That they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs creating making working consecrating representing or making present and such like which are not verified of a matter onlie spiritual or absent in substance That they speake of it couertly saying Norunt fideles the saithfull know because if they should plainely declare the truth thereof the infidels wold mocke at it as now the heretikes doc For it is a mystery aboue all reason of man which scoffing were not to be feared if it were a mere figure for all kindes of religioÌ„ haue ceremonies and figures That they haue applied it to the helping of sowles departed as being the very self substance which ransacked hell That they haue taught it to be the truth which hath succeded in place of the old figures That they haue vsed by the knowen truth thereof to proue that Christe had true flesh and true blood in a visible manner two natures in one person against all the olde Heretiks That they haue so far preferred it before Baptisme and the other Socraments that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe or to be lost which was not so in the water of Baptisme for men were baptized in the running water of the flood That the Catechumeni who were admitted to the preaching of the Ghospel which is an excellent signe of Christes flesh and blood yet might not see the Eucharist because it was also the truth it sel. vnder a signe that no man might eate it except he were first baptized and kept the commandements and yet the Cathechumeni had a sanctified bread also geuen to them which was a signe of Christ as S. Augustine doth witnesse Let now the discrete Reader weigh vprightly this doctrine so grounded in holy scriptures and auncient Fathers and he shal perceaue that what soeuer our aduersaries bring for the other syde it may proue the Sacrament to be a figure which we denye not but it can not disproue the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder that figure which is the thing that we stand in against them ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all tymes and ages S. Paule disputing against them who saied that our bodies should not arise againe hath these wordes Si Christus non resurrexit inanis est praedicatio nostra inanis est fides vestra If Christ be not risen our preaching is voyd and your faith is in vaine The like may be saied concerning the Sacrament of the altar in whiche if the true substance of Christes body be not conteined the Apostles preaching is in vaine and our faith is nothing worth But S. Paule acccompteth it a great absurditie that either of them both should be voyd or in vaine and yet prosecuting farther that argument he addeth that if Christ be not risen Qui domierunt in Christo perierunt those that haue slepte in Christ are perished Those I say that haue slept in Christ that haue beleued in him loued him suffred martyrdom for him those are perished Right so it is if Christes body be not vnder the form of bread all our forefathers that haue slept in Christ are perished All theyr faith watching praier almose dedes all
them Therefore in this behalfe we are clere as who neuer departed from the Apostles nor froÌ„ their 〈◊〉 â–ª But your departing is knowen I 〈◊〉 that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berengarius about the yere of our Lord. 1000. I can tell when 〈◊〉 renewed the same heresy when Luther when Zwinglius began Who knoweth not where the Churches are whence they depâ—…rted To wit in Italy in France in Spaine in Germany so forth I can tell the CouÌ„cels wherin it hath bene condemned At 〈◊〉 at Uercels at Tours in the great Councel of Lateran at â—…iemia in Feance at Basill at Constance at Florence at Trent All things are knowen so manifestly concerning the begiuning and proceding of the Sacramentaries that they can not be denied To couclude our faith is 〈◊〉 by the testimonie of yâ— Church which in al ages hath beleued yâ— real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in so much that S. Hilary saith there is no place left of douting of the veritie of Christes fleshe blood why so nunâ—… enim ipsius Domini professione fide nostra verè 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 verè sanguis est â–ª for now both by the profession of our Lord him self by our faith it is fleshe in dede and blood in dede Lo By our Lordes profession and by our faith S. Hilary confesseth that all Christians beleued that the SacrameÌ„t of Cjroâ—…tes body and blood whereof he there spake was his fleshe in dede and his blood in dede for he had spoken before of the Sacrament which be called also a mystcrie and our Lords meate and the Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to vs which Sacrament is Christes fleshe in dede and being receaued maketh the same fleshe naturally and corporally to dwell in vs. This was not only the minde of S. Hilary but he saith it was the profession of our Lord and the faith of the Churche whiche two groâ—…ids are so sure that no place of douting is left For the faith of the â—…hurch doth expound declare witnesse how Christ our Lord ment when he said my flesh is meate in dede This faith can not be vayne or voide for by it we ouercomme the world the deuyl and hel gates By it we know the difference betwene these words This is my body and these I am the dore the vine the way the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias and such like For no man taught in any age neither ChristiaÌ„ people did at tyme beleue that Christ was a material dore vine or way neither that any rock was turned into Christ neither that Ihon Baptist was Elias in person Faith always did vnderstand these propositioÌ„s and such like to be a phrase of speaking without any effect of working any farther thing But when a lawfull Priest saith vppon bread at the altar This is my body then no faithâ—…ul man euer douted but there was wrought the body and blood of Christ. and so our fathers and great grandfathers deliuered to vs that belefe Certainly a surer rule to vnderstand the word of God then faith is neuer was heard of for it is the life and graâ—… of the new testament which the holy Ghost hath geuen into the whole Church of God It is the gift of knowlege to euery good beleuer which directeth him to al truth S. Augustine shewing that the Manichees thought the visible sonne to be Christ although he might by many meanes haue impugned that errour yet he specially chose to say Catholicae Ecclesiae recta fides improbat tale commentum diabolicam doctrinam esse cognoscit credendo The right faith of the Catholike Church disproued that fable and knoweth it by beleuing to be a deâ—…ylish doctrine Euen so by beleuing the Sacrament of the altar to be Christes true flesh we know the doctrine of the Sacramentaries to be a fable aud an heresy Epiphanius writing of purpose against figuratiue and allegoricall interpretatious geueth likewise a most clere witnesse of the belefe of all the Church in his tyme and before him For disputing what it is for man to be made according to the image of God He shewith at the last whatsoeuer it be once it is true because God through grace hath geuen man that image Though we can not tell wherein it standeth And for example he bringeth how Christe tooke at his last supper bread and wine and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body and this is my blood 〈◊〉 Epiphanius nameth not these things because the 〈◊〉 should not by his bookes vnderstaÌ„d our mysteries coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he sheweth that the thing coÌ„secrated is not like neither to the manhod of Christ nor to his Godhead For it is of a shape and to looke vnto a dead or vnsensible thing yet Christ by grace hath said This is my body and This is my blood Et nemo non fidem habet sermoni Qui â—…nim non credit esse ipsum verum sicut ipse dixit is excidit à gratia salute and euery man beleueth the saying For who so doth not beleue the saying as him selfe said it he is fallen from grace and saluation If the word saying be this is my body this is my blood If euery man beleue the saying if he that beleueth not the saying to be true and so to be true euen as Christ spake it as he sounded it as he vttered it if he that beleueth not these things be fallen from grace and saluation who wil now beleue that this is the signe of my body and not the truth thereof and then he must say likewise that in dede we are not made according to the image of God Euery man in the tyme of Epiphanius did beleue not only yâ— truth of Christes body blood in heauen nor only the dwelling thereof in vs by faith but euery man did beleâ—…e this selfe saying this speache and this proposition This is my body If this saying must be beleued it must be true if the speache it selfe be true the thing thereby signified is true But the wordes doe signifie the substance of Christes body for his body is a substance therefore it is true yâ— this is the substaÌ„ce of Christes body But if it be still bread it is not so for material bread is not the body of Christ therefore it is so the substance of his body that it is not bread or wine which is the signe of his body as the Sacramentaries teach In this saying This is my body no bread is named no signe no figure â—…ut only the selfe body of Christe which is one certaine substance Therefore all the Church in the tyme of Epiphanius and alwaies before did beleue the thing pointed vnto in those words to be the substaÌ„ce of Christes body For how so euer it semed vnsensible as also it is not sene how we are made according to yâ— image of God yet yâ— saying was beleued euen
is made S. Mathew then proueth it not neither S. Marke And whereas S. Luke and S. Paule witnesse that Christ said make this thing for the remembrance of me albeit that was spoken to the Apostles yet it is not thereby proued that the successors of the Apostles maie doe it Then cometh he to the later words which M. Iuel citeth Non potest igitur per vllam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cum nec istud in scripturis contineatur It can not therefore be proued by any scripture what can not be proued M. Iuel gâ—…ue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it can not What can not Iuel D. Fisher saieth the carnall presence can not be proued neither by these wordes this is my body nor by any other San. Then you make carnal presence the nomninatiue case to the verbe Potest but D. Fysher spake not thereof The whole speache which foloweth is that whereof he speaketh to wit that either a lay man or a priest shall when he attempteth it make the body and blood of Christ of bread and wine as well as Christ did that thing can not be proued for asmuch as it is not conteined in the scriptures But it followeth after that by yâ— interpretation and practise of so long time the holy gost hath expounded to vs these words Hoc facite make this thing in such wise that the successours of the Apostles may consecrate Christes body and blood How manie enormouse faultes haue you committed here in M. Iuel first D. Harding affirmed these words This is my bodie to teache a reall presence But B. Fisher spake of these wordes Make this thing and not of the words This is my bodie 2. D. Harding spake of the real presence whiche wyll manifestlie be proued if any sacrament at all be commaunded to be made by Christ. D. Fisher spake of this point whether any man had authoritie by the scripture to make any sacrament at al or no. 3. D. Harding spake of Christes wordes B. Fisher of our doinges 4. B. Fisher neuer doubted but that these wordes This is my body when thei were spoken by christ or his Apostles made and proued the re al presence of his bodie and blood But he asketh of heretiks how thei can proue by only scriptures that any man after the Apostles is able to make the supper of Christ not that he douted of the thing it selfe but he asketh for the prouf thereof out of the new testament Now for M. Iuel to cite B. Fishers words leauing out the nominatiue case which immediatly folowed and to supply a false nominatiue case neuer thought of by B. Fysher it is a figure of a man that hath repelled al good coÌ„science and therefore it is no woÌ„der if he haue erred in faith not caring what he writeth so he maie be counted lerned in their eies that know neither greeke nor latin neither verb nor nominatiue case Iuel M. Hardings frendes D. Smith D. Stephen Gardener c. can not agree vppon the termes naturally or sensually c. San. Where is the word of god M. Iuel whereof you boast so much are B. Fysher and D. Smith and D. Gardener your Euangelistes to them now you flie to answere S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule you haue forbidden vs all the fathers of these nine hundred yeres and shall it be lawfull for you to answere the words of the blessed Euangelists by a cauil moued vppon men of our age al who are wel knowen to haue condemned your opinon for heresie and al thes beleue that naturall presence which you impugne And that which you bring concerning the sense of the termes naturallie sensually or so foorth is 〈◊〉 ke moued only concerning the maner of signifying Christes reall presence which is no weighty mater when the real presence it selfe is once agreed vppon Iuel This article cannot be proued by the old doctours as M. Harding graunteth by his silence Sander If it be proued by Christ whome D. Hardinge citeth what nede a better doctour and yet he briugeth also moe doctours then you haue answered to as it shal appere afterward Iuel The question is not of Christes words but of his meaning which must be coÌ„sidered chefely as the Lawiers and S. Augustine saie Christ meant not this to be his bodie reallie Sander S. Hilarie disputing against the Arrians whome he intended to confute by the natural presence of Christes bodie taken by vs really in the sacrament made this preface to his talke coÌ„cerning yâ— words wherein Christ praied that the faithful might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christe in hym Aut fortè qui verbuÌ„ est significationeÌ„ verbi ignorauit et qui veritas est loqui vera nesciuit et qui sapientia est in stultiloquio errauit et qui virtus est in ea fuit infirmitate ne posset eloqui quae vellet intelligi loquutus planè ille est vera syncera fidei Euangelicae Sacramenta neque soluÌ„ loquutus est ad significationem sed etiaÌ„ ad fidem docuit ita dlcens vt omnes vnum sint sicut tu pater in me et ego in te vt et ipsi vnum sint in nobis Either perhaps doth he which is the word not know the signification of the word and doth not he which is the truthe know to speake true things hath he which is the wisdom erred in folish speaking and is he which is the power of such 〈◊〉 that he can not vtter those things which he wold haue vnderstanded he hath spokeu plainlie the true and syncere mysâ—…eries of the faith of the gospel Nâ—…ither hath he spoken only for significations sake but also he hath taught for faiths sake saying thus that all may be one as thou O Father art in me and I in thee they also may be one in vs. If then Christ much more in his last supper spake in such sort that he did not only signifie his minde but also taught vs the faith of the Sacrament what a folly is it to pretend that he spak otherwise then he meant Specially sith in this place we are so farre from any circumstance which may hinder the proper meaning of Christs speach yâ— these words which is geuen for you doe put yâ— matter out of al dout as D. Harding hath told you before and that is further proued inuincibly after this sorte This is my bodie which is geuen for you but my body geuen for you is real substantiall natural therefore this is so This argument can not be answered except ye say the signe of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. For yâ— participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in english geue
the relatiue quod in latine in english whiche doth so restraine the noune corpus body vnto that only meaning wherein it is said the true body is geuen for vs that no scape may be had beside infidelitie and heresy whereof I haue spoken at large in my fourth booke the 6. chapiter the 18. circumstance If now this which is pointed vnto be the reall natural and s◅bstantial body of Christ which died for vs seing this that he pointeth vnto is meant of the Sacrament Christ meant that in this Sacramēt his body is really naturally substantially present And therefore M. Iuel must subscribe Iuel Christ was the rocke but yet not reallie Sander First these wordes were not spoken of S. Paule with the intent to make any Sacrament or anie other thing 2. Two diuerse natures are named in them which can neuer be one i◅ substāce but only in qualitie or in similitude but this is my body nameth one substance only and signifieth it alone really present 3. It was not anie one certeine rocke in number whereof S. Paule spake for the water flowed out of two rocks in two diuerse partes of the wildernes Either of which did signifie Christ and they bothe are only one rock in meaning and in the substāce figured 4. Therefore S. Pa◅le meant only by the name of the rock the spiritual rock which in substance was Christ him selfe They dranke saith he of the spirituall rock But this is my body is spoken of a real truth made present at Christes supper and shewed outwardly aparte from Christes own visible body 5. He saied not this rocke pointing to it but the rocke 6. Not is Christ but was Christ. 7. Such effectua words folowed not to shew that any real rocke was meant as these words are which is geuen for you whiche folow and expound the other wordes This is my body Iuel D. Harding must seek helpe of 16 or moe sundrie figures not knowen to the old Fathers Sander 1. You seeke one figure for all which taketh away the substance of Christes supper frome his externall table frome his hand from his word and from the Apostles bodies 2. D. Hardings figures be to defend Christes words yours to destroy thē 3. It is not true that he is constreined to seeke either sixten or sixe figures as it shal appere in due place Iuel the old Fathers thought it no heresie to expound Christes words by a figure Sander They thought it here◅ie to expound these words This is my body by a rhetorical or grāmatical figure as by Synecdoche or Metonymia or anie other which may exclude the substanciall presence of the thing figured Iuel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his body and blood Sander He did so 1. but he gaue such a figure of his own body which is also the substance of his body as him selfe being a figure of his Fathers substance is also the selfe same substance with his Father 2. He gaue a true and not a false signe And yet it were false if this which he pointeth to and affirmeth to be his body were not in dede his body seing the words signifie so much as I haue declared in my second booke xij chapter 3. He gaue a miraculouse not a common figure in the secōd booke xiij chapter 4. A diuine not a rethorical figure in the secōd booke xiiij chapter 5. A mystical not an artificial or natural figure in y◠fifth booke sixtenth chapter 6. He gaue at his supper a figure of the new and not of y◠old testament that is to yas a figure which hath the truth in it and not of that kind whiche only both betoken the truth absent from it which thing S. Augustine declareth most euidētly saying The old Fathers did celebrate the figure of the thing to come when as yet the true sacrifice which the faithfull know was foretolde in figures these sacrifices being as wordes that promise a thing are taken away Quid est quod datum est completiuum What is it which is geuen as accomplishing or performing the old figuratiue sacrifices which promised a true sacrifice S. Augustine answereth Corpus quod nostis quod vtinam non ad iuditium noueritis The body which ye know is the accomplishmēt of the old figures the which body I would ye might not know to your damnation And again exhibita est veritas promissa the promised truth is presently brought foorth In this body we are of this body we are partakers we know what we receaue Here S. Augustine manifestly calleth the body whiche we receaue in the Sacrament the very truth promised which accomplished the the old figures 7. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure You bring this autoritie to proue that Christes words be expounded by a figure as though S. Augustine thought the speach to be figuratiue For so your word expounded by a sigure must import but this authoritie proueth not your intent For S. Augustine speaketh of Christes deede and not of his words 8. The names of body and blood as they are vsually taken of men doe signifie such a visible a corruptible and mortall nature as al we haue which thing S. Augustine wel knowing and of all men most depely po◅dering the same in so much that he was afeard least childern wold thinke that Christ had walked none otherwise vpon the earth then in the shape of bread for that respect he always teacheth that the body of Christ in the Sacramēt is the signe and figure of Christes visible body After suche sorte S. Paule speaketh of Christes fleshe saying Although we haue knowen Christ according to the flesh yet we know him not In which words he meaneth not that Christ now lacketh his flesh but that he now is no more visibly seen in his former mortall shape 9. Your abusing of S. Augustine in this behalfe if it come of ignorāce ye are not worthy to be a preacher as who vnderstand not your booke if it come of malice you are not worthy to be a man as who delighteth in leading soules to damnation Iuel Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of mie bodie Sander He meaneth so as I sayd before S. Augustine did meane which solution might serue all this whole article of the real presence but the truth is so wel armed that euery word you bring may be turned vppon your owne head Tertullian doth witnesse that the Marcionites brought forth a place of S. Paule where it was writen of Christes manhood accepta effigie serui non veritate the shape of a seruant being taken not the truth said the Marcionite in similitudine hominis non in homine and in the likenes of a man not a man figura inuentus homo non substantia id est non carne
affirmed him to rule Angels and al that euer was made by God and his scholars called him a Prophet and the sonne of God whiche notwithstanding for so much as they beleued 〈◊〉 not to be God by nature the Catholiks neuer douted to say that they taught him to be nudum hominem a naked and bare man Right so whatsoeuer holynesse be annexed to bread and wine be it the signe of neuer so great a vertue and efficacie be it called neuer so much the body and blood of Christ yet if it remain stil in the former substance if the truth whiche it is appointed to signify be absent it is bare bread and bare wine a bare token of Christes body and blood Amend your belefe M. Iuell if you will haue vs to amend our termes Iuel We fede not the people with bare figures San. The question is not how ye fede the people by your doctrine but what signe you teache the Sacrament it self 〈◊〉 be whether it be suche a signe as hath present in a secrete manner the truth signified thereby or els whether it be the signe of a truth absent in substance For two kind of signes there are one which by the truth of his own substance considered and well vnderstaÌ„ded doth signifie an other manner of truth belonging to it selfe as when a loaf of bread beinge true bread in substance is set to signifie true bread also but yet in that respect as bread is there to be bought sold An other signe there is where the truthe signified is absent in substance As when an iuy bush doth signifie wine to be sold. This later kind of signes or figures is vtterly naked bare and without the truth which is signified The question is whether of these two kinds of signes is in the Sacrament of Christes supper The Catholikes say the best and richest kind of signes is there because there is Christes body realy present to signifie and as it were by seale to witnesse his owne death and passion You teache the substance of the Sacrament to be still bread and wine but our signe is more worthy of Christes Godhead and more properly a signe or a seale in truth of nature then yours For as S. Hilary and S. Cyrill teache Signaculorum ea natura est caet Such is the nature of signes or of seales that they set foorth the whole forme of the kind of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them selues then those things haue whence they are sealed After this sorte God the Father signed Christ and Christe thereby was the forme the print the signe the figure the image of his Father But as S. Hilarie sheweth Imago authoris veritas He was the image of him whom he represented also the truthe I warrant you M. Iuel you fede the people with no doctrine of any such signe or seale present in Christes supper For you say afterward that the bread is an erathly thing therefore a figure I pray you can bread be other then a bare figure if it â—…il remain earthly and corruptible I say further to you M. Juel and yeâ—… beare no false witnesse at all that your 〈◊〉 be more bare then euerwere any euen in the old testameÌ„t For they at the least wise did in apparence of true fleshe and in true blood shedding foreshewe the fleshe and blood of Christ which should die for vs. Melchisedech likewise had beside his bread and wine the reall body of Abraham present whome he offered to God and in him Jesus Christ his sede But you hauing bare bread and bare wine without any reall flesh at all either present or offered must nedes haue a naked signe and a bare figure such as only Cain had and his brood Iu. We teache that in the ministration of the Sacraments Christ is set before vs euen as he was crucified vpon the crosse and that therein we may behold remission of synnes San. Admit ye â—…ache so then is your sermon better then your Sacrament For a man may looke long inowgh vppon the substaÌ„ce of bread wine before he can picke out of their earthly nature Christ crucified But if that blessed belefe were mainteined according to the truthe of the Gospell which after consecracion worshipped the reall body of Christ vnder the forme of bread theÌ„ the token which conteineth the true body that diâ—…d for vs in it is no bare token but the truth it selfe in substance and a token of the visible manner thereof Iu. We teache that Christes body is verily geuen to vs and that we verily eate it and liue by it and are flesh of his flesh San. How wel you teache it the thing it selfe will trie â–ª but all this proueth not that your Sacrament hath euer the more in it vnlesse you say that you receaue all this vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine A goodly matter your wordes in preaching to heare the which infidels may be admitted shal be better then the Sacraments instituted by Christ. How we are flesh of Christes flesh I haue shewed in the fifth booke the fifth chapiter Iu. Yet we â—…av not the substance of bread and wine is done â—…way or that Christes body is let downe from hâ—…uen or made really present San. That is the cause why your Sacraments are still bare naked For all the rest which you talke oâ—… is told to mens eares but nothing is wrought in the Sâ—…ents As for your nicke naming of things as of doing away bread in steede of changing of letting doune Christes body from heaâ—…en we must pardon you therein It is your grace to raile or rather the lacke of grace in you We teach bread to be changed into Christes body through his power Iu. He must mount on highe saith Chrysostome who so wil reache to that body San. You ouerreached your selfe when you turned accedere to reache â–ª it is to come vnto not to reache For S. Chrysostom spake of coÌ„ming to the holy visible table whiche stoode in the visible Church and meant that who so commeth to receaue thenâ—… the holy meate he must in good faith life climme vp to heauen and not that he should goe thither to receaue the mysteries Ipsa namque mensa For the very table that is to say the meate vpon the table is our saluation and life And againe This 〈◊〉 maketh that whiles we be in this life earth may vs heaueÌ„ to vs. Iu. Send vp thy faith saith Augustine and thou hast taken him San. The place is by you abused and drawen from a misbeleuing Iew to whome it was spoken to the Christian 〈◊〉 See good Reader my second booke xxix chapiter Iu. In deede the bread thaâ—… we receaue with our bodily mouthes is an earthly thing therefore a figure as the water in 〈◊〉 San. The water in baptisme is no figure
faith at Christes supper came from Christe howe could els any man haue it and it is described in the Gospel how could we els know it But all that he is writen to haue geuen came from his haÌ„ds when he saied take eate therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all as by his gift there made and by the Euangelistes rehersed or his body came then from his owne hands Can you proue that he gaue his body at his supper otherwise then by his own hands where is that writen For though he â—…wel in vs by faith yet no such thing was spoken of at his last supper Answere the Gospel M. Iuel or els blaspheine no more What soeuer was geuen at Christes supper came from the handes of Christ. shew me els an other gift and shew me where it is witnessed He gaue saith the 〈◊〉 said take eate nothing was eaten at his table but that whiche was there taken Nothing was there taken but that which was there geuen nothiâ—… was there geuen but that which Christ prepared and gaue Christ can be knowen to haue geuen nothing but that which the Euangelistes tel haue wâ—…ten They witnesse that he gaue such a tâ—…ing which at the least he called his bodie Now if in that external foode he gaue not his own reall body as you say his body was not eaten at all by the gift of his last supper not so much as by faith If it be so where or when shall his body be eaten by faith but if it was eateÌ„ by faith as vndoutedly it was by the eleuen Apostles who were al cleane as Christ said if that eating of theirs can be proued by the gospell it must be proued by these words take eate but these words were spoken of that visible thing whiche Christ gaue to their mouthes therefore all the eating by faith that can be shewed to haâ—…e bene made at Christes supper depended at that tyme vpon the eating by mouth Therefore the body of Christ which at Christs supper must nedes be eateÌ„ by faith if it shal be eateÌ„ worthelie as it ought to be was in the handes of Christe and thence came to the mouthes of the Apostles and so M. Iuel hath affirmed a proposition directly 〈◊〉 the veritie of the gospel Secâ—…dly the 〈◊〉 teach yâ— we eate Christes body by our â—…thes noâ—… by 〈◊〉 only â—… 〈◊〉 speaking of euil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uing denied Christ yet came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meates 〈◊〉 vp to 〈◊〉 vnto oâ—…r Lords table faith 〈◊〉 modâ—… in dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt quà m cum dominum negauerunt they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more againâ—… our lord with their handes and mouth 〈◊〉 when thei denied our Lord. Consider wel this saying An 〈◊〉 man 〈◊〉 Christ with his tonge before the tyran for feare of death eateth of things offered to idols The same man without 〈◊〉 cometh to Christes â—…able he synneth in both places and that with his mouth 〈◊〉 by denying Christ and by 〈◊〉 polluted meates here by touching and eating â—…ur lordes bâ—…die S. 〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 committed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the more 〈◊〉 â–ª Why so Is there aâ—…ie 〈◊〉 more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deny Christ to communicate with idols How is it then a more grâ—…uouse fault to come without repentance to Christes supper then to deny him both in worde dede Studie M. Iuel as long as you will you shall neuer find any solution wherein you maie 〈◊〉 but only this because he that commeth vnworthely to Christes table toucheth the reall and substantial body of Christ inuading and doing violence as S. Cyprian there saith to our Lords body blood So that the only cause why it is more heinouse to communicate vnworthely then to committe idolatrie or to deny Christ is the substance of Christ which is vnworthely touched Take away the reall substance from the handes or mouth of the receauer and it is not possible that it should be a greater synne to receaue vnworthely a peece of bread theÌ„ to denie Christ in word and to committe idolatrie in dede But as the treason that is committed against the kings owne person is the greatest of all so the greatest synne that can be bodily committed against Christ is the touching of his own substance with a polluted mouâ—…h therefore S. Cyprian beleued our Lord him selfe and the substance of his body to be receaued into the mouth of the communicant S. Chrysostome likewise witnesseth vs to take in our hands in our mouthes to touche to eate to receaue into vs Christes sleshe Is all this done by faith only Pope Leo writeth thus of this matter Ye ought so to coÌ„municate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at al of the truth of Christes body and blood Hoâ—… enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur For that thing is receaued in mouth which is beleued in faith but yâ— true substance of Christ is beleued in faith therefore the true substance of Christ is receaued in mouth Whereupon it foloweth that M. Iuel falsely affirmeth Christ to be eaten by faith only none otherwise Diuerse other testimonies I will bring hereafter as occasion shall serue Last of all S. Cyrill reporteth that a certaine Arrian saied Patet quia corpora nostra non dependent â—… carne Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is euident that our bodies hang not of the flesh of Christ as braunches of the vine Neither is the fruit of yâ— Sainctes bodily â–ª but rather spiritâ—…all therefore the Godhead of the sonne is the vine whereon we depend by faith Thus saied the heretike To whome S. Cyrillus making answere saith because he thinketh vs to be ioyned with Christe by faith and loue and not in fleshe let vs say somwhat herein Doth he thinke vs not to knowe the vertue of the mysticall blessing The which when it is in vs doth it not make Christe to dwell corporally also in vs by communicating of his flesh Here S. Cyrill placeth corporall being against being by faith and loue Christ by communicating of his flesh dwelleth corporally in vs and not by faith and charitie alone and yet our communicating is made by mouth Therefore M. Iuel doth communicate with the Arrian in saying that we eate Christes body by â—…aith only and none otherwise For S. Cyrill of purpose to destroie that heresiâ—… sheweth vs to 〈◊〉 Christ corporally also Iu. We place Christ in the hart M. Harding placeth him in the mouthe San. D. Harding placeth him in the hâ—…rt and mouth you place him touchiÌ„g his corporal presence neither in hart nor in mouth And touching faith in hart only and not in mouth D Harding teacheth the flesh of Christ to be ioyned to our flesh for the increasing of spiritual grace You teach bread to be vnited to our flesh affirming beside the word of God that our bodies eate bread as our soules are fed with Christe D. Harding teacheth the meate of Angels which
the qualitie alone may be like As when Christ is called the vine the doore the way But to coÌ„clude with this place of S. Augustine he saith the holy signes whiche are like vnto the truth take also the name of the truth he bringeth that rule to shew that a child baptized maie well be called â—…aithfull because although he beleue not actually yet he hath faith in yâ— he hath baptisme which iâ—… the Sacrament of faith For saith S. Augustine Sacramentum fidei quodammodo fides est The Sacrament of faith after a certaine manner is faith He saith not only it is called faith after a certain phrase of speache as M. Iuell would haue it but it is faith after a certaine manner of being and not only of speaking and that being or truth whiche yâ— infant hath â—…eceaued is so great that as it foloweth in S. Augustine the Sacrament shal be of strength to defende him froÌ„ the power of the deuill and from euerlasting damnation And iudge you M. Iuel that to be only a name not a truth which is able to bring the child to saluation It is faith and it is not faith as the Sacrament of the altar is Christes body and not Christes â—…ody It is not faith in actuall consent of the will It is faith in the vertue of that power which the Sacrament printeth in the soule of the iufant it is the habit of faith and not the act euen so the Sacrament of yâ— altar is the substance of Christes body not the outward forme thereof the thing it selfe and not the shape thereof The name therefore of faith is geuen to yâ— child in respect of a truth which by baptism is wrought in the child although it be not all the truth which is requisite to actuall beleuing And the Sacrament of Christes supper is called the body of Christe for the substance of the body which is present although it be not visibly present according to al the maÌ„ner of a true naturall mans bodie ¶ Of the signification of aduerbes HArding By these vvordes really substantially cae The Fathers ment only a truth of being not a meane of being after carnal or natural vvise Iuel Al aduerbes taken of nounes signifie euer more a quality and neuer the substance Sander An aduerbe hath his name because it is ioyned to the verb and it doth make plaine and fill vp the signification therof so that if the verb whereunto it is ioyned do signifie the substaÌ„ce of a thing the aduerbe maketh it to signify the same substance more perfectly as when the king Nabuchodonosor said to Daniel Verè deus vester deus deorum est Your God is verily the God of Gods The aduerb verily doth not signifie a qualitie as M. Iuel reporteth but it doth affirme most vehemently the substance of one God aboue all other Gods or iudges rulers And when the Centurion said this man was verily the sonne of God it is not to be meant that Christ was the sonne of God in â—…alitie at all but only in substance Now concerning that some aduerbes be taken of nounes it is to be knowen yâ— if they be taken of suche nounes as import rather a similitude of a substance then a real truth thereof in that case M. Iuels resolution will serue that they shall signifie the manner and qualitie of the thing as virilter doth signifie manly because it commeth of virilis whiche signifieth manlike and it commeth of vir which doth signifie rather the sexe then the substance of a man But when the nounes doe signifie the substance it selfe the aduerbes deriued of them must nedes draw with thâ—… the signification of the same substance as corporalis carnalis substantialis and naturalis be nounes which signifie a thing that belongeth to the body the flesh the substance the nature of yâ— wherof we speake and the aduerbes comming of them of necessitiâ—… must signifie the truth of that nature whereof we intreate But whether it shall signifie the qualitie also with the truthe that dependeth of the circumstance of the thing which is in hand For example Christe walked corporally vppon the water that saying must be vnderstaÌ„ded in the truth of a mans body but not in any such accustomed manner as other mens bodies are wont to walke vpon the water For there is no such manner of walking at all And whereas the aduerbe must be referred wholy to the verbe whose signification it maketh perfite that saying must be this resolued Christes bodily walking vpoÌ„ the water was a true walking concerning the truth of the flesh which did walke notwithstanding the manner of the walking did excede the qualitie of a mere â—…atural body Thus the aduerbes shall signifie the truth of the substance of a body walking and yet not the manner of walking belonging to a natural and true body Euen so when Syrill writeth that Christ dwelleth corporally also in vs and not only by right faith and charitie the meaning of him shal be that Christ in the true substance of his body dwelleth in vs although he dwell not in vs after suche manner as other naturall bodies of men dwel in the places where they are Thus M. Iuel is cast in his grammar also whereof he iâ—…iteth D. Harding But to thend his ignorance or malice may appere yâ— better I beseche the discrete Reader to consider the ods betwene D. Harding and M. Iuel D. Harding saieth when the Fathers teache Christ to be in vs carnally corporally or naturally for al these termes S. Hilary S. Cyrill haue then they meane that Christe is in vs by the true substance of his fleshe and not in suche manner as common flesh is wont to be any where This saying of D. Harding is so true yâ— he neuer thought it nedeful to proâ—…e it yet M. Iuell saith yâ— the Fathers must meane that Christ is in vs after a corporall carnall natural maÌ„ner not in substaÌ„ce For he saith aduerbs taken of nounes signifie euermore yâ— qualitie neuer yâ— substaÌ„ce Wel how think you then M. Iuel is Christ after a carnal sort in vs or no It is wel seen by your work yâ— you think nothing lesse For he yâ— graâ—…teth the manner of body or flesh much more should graunt if he were wise the nature substance thereof because it is not possible that the qualitie or manner of fleshe should be without the truth of flesh Sith no qualitie ordinarily consisteth of it selfe but only resteth in the substance of that thing whose qualitie it is But a substance may be without qualities as the substance of God is without all manner of accidents Now D. Harding affirmeth at the lest wise the truth of body and of fleshe to be meant by the Fathers without the common qualitie thereof Which thing may right well be so M. Iuel wil haue their sayings meant
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
ergo we can not really eatâ—… Christes flesh ergo Christes body is not really in the Sacrament San. Your argument is like to that sophisâ—… You eate not raw â—…sh but you bought raw flew ergo you doe not eate that which you bought S. 〈◊〉 saieth we do not â—…ate the flesh crucified â—…o wit as it was crucified â—…en as he that eateth fleshe doth not 〈◊〉 it as it was raw but as he doth â—…ate that in substance which was in qualitie raw so we eate really yâ— same substance that was crucifiâ—…d but not in the sam sort but in a spiritual and in a diuine mauner not by faith only but also by mouth Harding The Fathers vsed the vvordes really substantially caet to put avvay all dout of the being of Christes verie body in the holy mysteries Iu. He diuineth what they meane before they speake San. Nay because he is sure of theyr wordes he 〈◊〉 theyr minde ¶ A place of S. Chrysoâ—…ome expoâ—…nded HArding The Sacramentaries teache our Lordes body to be represented only in figure signe and token being absent in dede Iu. All the holy Fathers haue vsed those termes San. It is a vaine â—…ster of names without truth They neâ—…er vâ—…ed the termâ—… of only figure nor said not that the truthe was absent Harding Vnder visible signes inuisible thinges be deliuered Iu. Ergo Christes body is really in the Sacrament Sander You leaâ—…e out one peâ—…ce For in dede so it must nedes be in that Sacrament where it is signified really present otherwise the signe should be false For after it is once said ouer bread â–ª this is my body that signe of bread during the body therein 〈◊〉 present doth dure Iuel Chrysostom saith in the same homily if Christ died not whose signe and token is this sacrifice therefore he may be also charged with the Sacramentary quarell San. You proue it a signe hereby but not that the truth is abseâ—…t from the signe which thing you should haue proued But I will proue hereby that the thing or truth signiâ—…d is really present otherwise this signe could not be a sacrifice â—…rsed might â—…e be that defendeth bread and wine to be the final sacrificed sâ—…bstance of the new Testament But this that S. Chrysostome demandeth of is a sacrifice â–ª and that of the new Testament vsed in Christes Church therefore it is the reall body of Christ yet withall a signe because it is geuen inuisibly present to make vs 〈◊〉 the visible sacrificing thereof vpon the Crosse â–ª 2. It is said there 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostom â—…at MarcioÌ„ ValeÌ„tinâ—…s Maâ—…ichens wâ—… deâ—…ied Christes real flesh anâ—… 〈◊〉 are coÌ„founded by these mysteries How can that be if the true flesh of Christ be not really conteined in them For a figure of flesh without the truth doth rather helpe those hâ—…iks then confound them 3. S. Chrysostome sâ—…ith eâ—…en there that it is euident by these mysteries that Christ hath bene already sacrificed whiche saying can not be true if his reall flesh be not prâ—…sent For as a figure of Christes fleshe offered vp in all the sacrifices of the olde law did not proue that Christ was already offâ—…red but that aâ—…terwarde he should be offered so a figure of Chrisâ—…es slâ—…sh now ofâ—…red can not proue that Châ—…ist hath bene offered but only that he shal be offered hereafter But his real flesh being eaten vnder the forme of breade proueth iâ—…incibly that he hath bene already oâ—…ered because no flesh is eaten in any holy sacrifice before it hath bene offered to God of which point I haue spoken in my fifth booke the first Chapiter Iu. How light occasions these men take to deceaue the simple San. What a light occasion toke you euen presently to deceaue the simple by the name of tokeÌ„ which yet so proueth against you in that place that it is not possible for you to auoide it Iu. M. Harding knoweth that Chrysostom speaketh generally of al other mysteries for it followeth euen so â—…n baptisme the water is a thing sensible the regeneratioÌ„ is a thing spiritual Wherefore if M. Harding vpon the occasion of these woâ—…ds wil force his real presence in the one Sacrament he must likewise force thâ—… same in the other San. D. Harding brought that place only to shew that the body of Christ is not visiblie present But othâ—…rwise baptisâ—…e and the Eucharist agree herein that in sensible things other things inuisible and spirituall are geuen And the things geuen are geuen in both but they are in them selues diuerse In baptisme the grace of regeneration whiche is geuen is conteyned and geuen when the word cometh to the water For the water the worde hath the grace of Christ working by it but in the Sacrament of the altar the grace coÌ„teined is the naturall body of Christ which lyâ—…th hidden vnder the forme of bread Thus eche Sacrament hath the gift preâ—…nt but not eche râ—…all presence of fleshe for as flesh belongeth only to the supper of Christe so regeneration beloÌ„geth only to baptism eche grace is present in the visible signe but afâ—…er a diuerse manner because those Sacramentes are of a 〈◊〉 nature as now I will declare ¶ The difference betwene Baptism and our Lords supper Iuel For as much as these two Sacraments be both of force like I wil touch what the fathers think of gods working in baptism The fathers in the CouÌ„cel of Nice bid vs think that the water is ful of heaueÌ„ly fier cae Basil the kingdom of heauen is set open Chrysostom God himself in baptism by his inuisible power holdeth thy head Ambrose in the water is the grace of Christ and the presence of the Trinitie Bernard let vs be washed in his bloode caet â–ª By force of which wordes M. Harding may proue that the power of God the heauenly fâ—…er the grace and the blood of Christ is really present in baptism Sander Manie of these things and other â—…oe are in deed saied of baptism but yet the reall presence of them all is not proued thereby And note good reader yâ— cause thereof which is verie 〈◊〉 table anâ—… shall bring great shame of ignorance to M. Iuel When a thing is affirâ—…ed of a Sacrament it is not by and by present really therein except it be signified present in the wordes â—…ituted by Christ which â—…ake the Sacrament or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferred vppon them as when it is saied I baptise and 〈◊〉 thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghoste none other thing is signified reallie present besides thâ—… effâ—…ctuall wasshing For thereof it is saiâ—…d in the present tense I baptise thee that is to saye I washe thee Therefore reall baptising or washing as well of the soule as of the body is made in those wordes The Trinitie is named but not signified as really present in
Albeit he be spirituallie the true vine and the true Manna For seing he was not these things really thei can not be said of him really But he is man in dede and therefore offered in dede killed in dede buried in dede and eateÌ„ in dede For now as we beleue the real death of him so must we beleue the real â—…ting of him because the truth belonging to eche of them is to be taken according to the true nature of man whiche he toke And as it was mete for him to be killed in the shape of man so he would be eaten in the shape of bread Iu. S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the natural office of the body What preparest thou thy teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten Beleuing in him is the eating of the bread of life San. You are one of yâ— most impudent men that euer any creature had to doe withall S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes with whome Christe talked at Capharnaum who gaped for bodily meate and belly chere Now when Christ had said worke the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting S. Augustine saieth to the Iew who soughte to haue his bellie filled what preparest thou thy teeth M. Iuel knoweth that when Catholikes come to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar they whet not theyr teeth as if they came to a carnall banket but they beleue eate first by beleuing to th end they maie afterward eate by mouthe worthely And therefore S. Augustine confesseth vs to receaue Christ by mouth also but by a faithfull mouth not by a glotoâ—…ouse mouth His words are Hominem Christum Iesum caet fideli corde atque ore suscipimus We doe receaue with a faithful hart and mouth the man Iesus Christ geuing his fleshe vnto vs to be eaten and his blood to be drunk although it may seme more horriâ—…le to eate maÌ„s flesh theÌ„ to kil it drink mans blood then to shed it When S. Augustine saith we receaue Christ with a faithfull mouth he sheweth that â—…his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as M. Iuell most impudently saith but he meaneth we should not come to the Sacrament for to satisfie our bodily hunger but with a faithfull harte and mouth Where if he spake not of reall drinking by mouth he would neuer haue said it is more horrible to drink mans blood then to shed it but now although it be so horrible to drink mans blood in that corruptible sort which mortal blood hath yet Christes blood is geuen to vs in a miraculonse manner without corruption or lothsomnes and is receaued euen in the mouthes of the faithful But I can not so leaue you M. Iuel Did S. Augustine vtterly remoue the office of the mouth Said he not that for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy Ghoste Vt prius in os christiani corpus dominicum intraret quà m caeteri cibi that our Lords body should enter into the mouth of a christian man before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vttterly remoued Where is M. Iuell your mind your wit your sense Where is your care of God regarde to your good name or the feare to abuse the holy mysteries Harding Buceâ—… taught the body of Christe to be truly and substantially present exhibited and taken Iu. Hitherto M. Harding hath alleged nor auncient doctour nor old CouÌ„cel San. As though we had not disputed this long time of yâ— Nicene Councâ—…l where 318. auncient Fathers were gathered together Iu. What reasons lead him to yeld to the other side for quietnessake I remit vnto God San. In a matter of suche weight he ought not to haue yelded for quictnes sake sith S. Paule resisted S. Peter for a matter of much lesse importance as wherein they rather disagreed in facte then in doctrine as Tertullian witnesseth Iu. If M. Harding had found any other doctor he would not haue made his entry with Bucer San. Beside the Nicene councel which you haue heard already ye shal heare other doctours anon Iu. The councel of the eight Cardinals at Rome might rather haue bene scoft at then this brotherly conference San. The Cardinals sought not a new faith as Bucer and Luther did but the purging of old faultes they came not together to set forth a new doctrine but to amend the life of euil men Tertullian saieth well hllic scripturaruÌ„ expositionuÌ„ adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas inuenitur doctrinae There the couÌ„terfeting both of the scriptures of yâ— expositioÌ„s is to be assigned where yâ— diuersity of doctrine is fouÌ„d such diuersity is betwen the Lutherans and Zuinglians but not betwen the Catholiks Iuel If we compare voices thei of wittemberge were moe in number Sander Nay sir all the Catholike nations of Christendome communicated with the Cardinals but your doctrine was then scant sixtene yeres old and had neuer a citie town or village in the world that wholy communicated with it at that daye The number must not be tried by the men gathered in a house together but by the men agreing in the church together For yâ— who le Church is one house oâ—… god Iuel If we compare knowledge thei were better lerned San. Of new sprong teachers 〈◊〉 said Omnes tument â—…mnes scientiam pollicentur Al of them do swel with pride and euerie one doth promise knowledge But on the other side Nemo sapiens nisi fidelis No man is wise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithfull The Cardinals therefore being faithfull were also â—…etter lerned then your men of witteÌ„berge Again Tertullian sheweth that certein men are wont to saie whie did this woman or that man being moste faithfull most wise most practised in the Church goe into thaâ—… side that is to saie hold this or that new opinion But he answereth they are neither to be counted wise nor faithfull nor men of practise whom heresies can change Therefore those that camâ—… together at witteÌ„berge seing thei chaÌ„ged their old faith soughâ—… out a new thei could not be lerned as thei ought to haue bene But otherwise also thinck you M. Iuel that ani wise man wil grant you that Luther and Bucer with their companions were better lerned them Contarenus Sadoletus Polus and Theatinus with their fellowes Is it enough for you to haue said it in bare words without any proufe at all Iuel If we compare purposes thei sought peace in truth and the glorie of god Sander Cal you that peace when thei diuided Germanie from the rest of ChristendoÌ„ You are of those who wold cure the sores of the people by vâ—…ine words saying to them peace peace when as in dede there was no peace Iuel If we compare issue god hath blessed their doings and geuen force vnto his word Sander Touching your case Tertullian saith Deverbi administratione
by diuerse places of your booke Another way the incarnation may be considered according to that nature which is generally common to all men As that thei consist of bodies of soules of reason and of certain accidents The question is whether Christ at his incarnation toke al man kind after such sorte that he is now the coÌ„mon substance of vs all or no. Here I know not what M. Iuel would answer if he were namely put in mind thereof But his wordes draw to the affirmatine sense altogether For he saith Christs body dwelleth in our bodies by his natiuitie whiche saying semeth to haue no real truthe in it except Christ be common man kind whiche is in 〈◊〉 man If he be that vniuersall substance then I see that as reason as life as sense as fleshe and blood are no lesse in one man then in an other so Christe who is supposed to be that generall reason life sense fleshe and blood is supposed likewise to be really in euery mans owne body But this kind of opinion is foolish and vain as it shall appere anon The third way of considering the incarnation is to say that Christ toke not yâ— common substance of al mankind but only the whole particular nature of man so that the 〈◊〉 of God hath assumpted so much into his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as any other 〈◊〉 euer had in his 〈◊〉 and corruptible 〈◊〉 to wit he hath assumpted the mind the 〈◊〉 the body and the 〈◊〉 shape of a true man According to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only is true S. Paul saith that he is not 〈◊〉 to call vs his brethern and that because the children whome God 〈◊〉 to him had 〈◊〉 and blood common among them ipse similiter participauit eisdem and he also likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he toke parte that is to say he toke to himselfe fleshe and blood for his own part as they had the same for their parts And therefore as they had a particular 〈◊〉 and generation so Christ was not gathered or taken generally out of the bodies soules of al men 〈◊〉 he was born of the virgin Marie alone the sonne of Dauid and of Abraham according to the fleshe whiche being so his body was no more really in our bodies by his natiuitie then one of our bodies is in the body of an other man For wheÌ„ we speake of our bodies we speake of that which is particularly proper to euery man in his own persoâ—… and not of that which is common to all mankind But yet certeyn general benefites are deriâ—…ed out of Christes 〈◊〉 euen to euery man Due is that our nature is in him marucilously honoured and auanced in so much that it is truly said man is God and God is man Moreouer S. Cyrillus affirmeth that euery particular man shal rise in his owne body at the later day because of the mysterie of Christes resurrectâ—…on who as man conteined all men in him self But seing they that haue done euill shall rise to be punisheâ—… and that more greuously then death it self is as there S. â—…llus witnesseth and yet sith no damnatioÌ„ is vnto them who are in Christ Iesus we may well say that Christ doth not only not dwell in euery mans body by his natiuitie but also that he dwelleth not in their bodies or soules who either did not partake of his flesh at al by faith or els did vnworthely partake thereof either by Baptism or by the Eucharist or any other way All this notwithstanding M. Iuel will proue that Christes body dwelleth euen really in our bodies by his natiuitie And when all is done it will proue either an heresie or noâ—…ing or a dwelling rather in the whole truth of mans nature assumpted then in any mans body after that sort of dwelling which is properly called reall or substanciall But let vs heare his proof Iuel S. Bernard sayth the body of Christ is of my body and is now become mine San. S. Bernard sayth Corpus Christi de meo est the body of Christ is of mine He saith not of my body as you traÌ„â—…ate it But of mine yâ— is to say of the same kind of stuffe whereof I am Of the same stock and 〈◊〉 of like flesh blood but not of my proper flesh of my proper blood not really dwelling in my bowels or in the partes of â—…y body Again when he sayth 〈◊〉 est and the body of Christ is mine he meaneth it is mino to take commoditie thereof mine to vse mine to 〈◊〉 mine to offer to enioy but not mine through this only condition because it is born but because I am ioyned to it by faith by Baptism by Penaunce and by râ—…auing it into my body at Christes holy table and by such like meanes Iuel A babe is born to vs. San. That is to say to th' end we should take 〈◊〉 by the birth of it But by the only birth it is not really in our bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not only to vs or for vs. Iuel A Sonne is geuen vnto vs. 〈◊〉 Unto 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 in him but not to them who receaued him not For he came into his own and his own receaued him not Iuel S. Basill We are partakers of the word by his incarnanation and 〈◊〉 called all his mysticall conuersation flesh and blood San. We partake him in his nature comming to ours and in ours communicated to him but not yet in our bodies coâ—…ing to his bodie except we also be ioyned to him by som other mean beside his natiuitie Iuel Nyssenus sayth His body is all mankind wherevnto he is mingled San. You haue abused this testimonie turning the due construction of the words â–ª and haue put that before the verb which should haue come after the verb. The true construction is The whole nature of man wherevnto he is mingled is the body of Christ. And he meaneth not the natural body of Christ which he toke of the virgen by his natiuitie whereof you intreate but he meaneth the mysticall body of Christ whereof he said before The subiection of the body of the Church is referred to him which doth inhabitie the body And immediatly before yâ— words 〈◊〉 out by you Our Lord is the life by whome it doth happen to all his body that it is brought to the Father Againe Si Pater diligit â—…lium caet If the Father do loue the Sonne and we all that through faith whereby we beleue in him are made his body be in the Sonne consequenâ—…e he that loueth his owne Sonne loueth also the bodie of his soâ—…e euen as he loueth his Sonne himselfe And we are that bodie Lo we are that bodie He spake not therefore of Christes naturall body Iuel Christ being in the womb of the blessed virgin beâ—… â—…esh of our slesh and bone of our bones San. Of the same kind of â—…sh and
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—
Patrone of his own sonne Shal not M. Iuel be swetely rewarded for this geare if he die in this excessiue opinioÌ„ Heare I pray you what S. Hilary saith of his own doctrine in this very booke Cura est nobis vt primum It is our care first to teache those things which are holy and perfite and sound and that our talke not wandering by certain by turnings windings and sodenly appering out of not haunted and creping holes shuld rather shew then seeke the truth Thus did he professe to teache perfite and sound things and vndouted truthes which M. Iuell calleth excessiue beause they excede the cumpasse of his heresy contein yâ— Catholike truth And wheÌ„ S. Hilarie cometh to yâ— very matter whereof we speake at this tyme he doth not only say it is sound perfice holy and true doctrine but he saith he lerned it of Christ him self Euen concerning this very point that the naturall verity of Christe is in vs for that he sayd My fleshe is verily meate But all the Fathers all the scriptures which resist M. Iuels phansie are hot violent excesâ—…iue as S. Augustine moste truly faith If the opinion of any errour hath first possessed the minde whatsoeuer the scripture affirmeth otherwise figuratum homines arbitrantur men thinke it figuratiue ¶ That the place of 〈◊〉 â—…erteineth to the Sacrament of Christes supper HArding Gregorie Nyssene speaking of the bread vvhich came dovvne from heauen saith by vvhat meane shall a bodiles thing be made meate to a body Iuel Gregorie Nyssene is newly set abroade with sundry corruptions San. If this vaine fable may be admitted euery man shal be corrupted when it pleaseth you If he be corrupted he is corrupted by your faction for his works haue ben no where so fully printed as at Bale called in Latine Basilea which is a citie of your profession 3. Moreouer you very oft bring his authority and how are you sure that he was not corrupted at all in those places which you allege 4. Yea farther you allege for your purpose this very treatise and this very side of the leaf whence D. Harding toke this authority and that as well before the words brought by D. Harding as after Iuel He speaketh not one word neither of Christes naturall dwelling in vs. 2. Nor of the Sacrament San. Out vppon this impudency M. Iuel you haue taken vpon you the forhead of a harlot are without all feare shame or hoâ—…estie Doth not Gregorie Nyssene speake in that place one word of the Sacrament he speaking of Moyses life by occasion thereof cometh to shew the wandering of the children of Israel in the desert where he saith â—…fter that thei had drunck of yâ— stone all nourishment which thei had brought out of Aegipt failed theÌ„ and a simple meate to looke vnto but diâ—…erse iâ—… tast was rained down to them which thing did signifie saith he that we must cleanse our minds by saith by Baptism by traâ—…aile by all vertue by doctrine of the Ghospell so that al Aegiptiaâ—…al kind of liâ—…ing to wit all the multitude of sinnes failing vs we must receaue â—…oelestem cibum quem nulla nobis satio agriculturae artibus produxit the heauenly meate which no sowing hath by the art of plowing brought foorth vnto vs. but it is bread prepared for vs without sede without plowing without any other work of man that bread flowing from aboue is found in the earth Hitherto he hath said that we haue a true manna which we must receaue and how I praie you but as the children of Israel did receaue their manna and then we must receaue it by mouth as thei did receaue their maÌ„na by mouth But what is our manna Forsoth a meate which came down from heauen as the old manna did a meate not gotten out of the ground but rainig froÌ„ heaueÌ„ What raining is that The Incarnation of Iesus Christ who taking flesh of the virgin without the meane of the sede of man came down from heauen and was in the earth man amoÌ„g men No saith the heritike UaleÌ„tinus for exaÌ„ple or Manicheus Christ toke no true flesh of yâ— virgin Yes saith Gregorius NisseÌ„ Panis enim et caet for the bread which came down from heauen which is the true meate which is obscurely signified by this historie of Manna is not a thing bodilesse Thus much he said against the heretikes who denied the truth of Christes body well goe foorth syr I praie you For the heretikes will not admit your bare word proue that which you say Quo enim pacto res incorporea corpori cibus fiet For by what meane shal a thing which lacketh a body be made meate vnto the body Here Gregorie Nyssen presuppoâ—…eth that Christ incarnated is made meate vnto our bodies because he is our true Manna But saith he yâ— could not be so if Christ had no true flesh for a thing without a body can not be made meate vnto the bodie but Christ is so reallie made meate vnto oâ—…r bodies that thereby Nyssâ—…s proueth he had a true and reall body so that al the principal mater in that place is of this Sacrament and of Christes naturall dwelling in our bodies Therein Manna is fulfilled Which Manna rained from heauen into the earth as Christ came from his Fathers bosome into the Uirgins womb The same Manna was afterward eaten by the Iewes corporally as Christ after his incarnation was corporally eaten at his supper of the Apostles Before yâ— Iewes did eate Manna they were prepared with passing ouer the red sea with labour and with water of the rocke And before we come to Christes supper we are prepared by Baptism and good life and preaching S. Gregorie Nyssene doth make eating by faith a preparatioÌ„ to eate the last supper worthely Oportet fide Baptismate caet We must cleanse our soules by faith and Baptism demum and so at the length with a purified mind receaue the heaueÌ„ly meate It is not eating by faith M. Iuel that he speaketh of Faith goeth before it and the receauing of this heauenly meate is a farther kind of eating This meat being yâ— bread brought foorth of the virgin without tylling is made meat vnto the body Doe you heare M. Iuel It is made meate vnto the body Not only to the vnderstanding but to the body It is so really made meat vnto the body that of necessitie thence it is deduced that it self is a bodily and corporal thing Which argument were none if it were not corporally receaued into our bodies For by faith God the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost dwell in vs and make their mansion in our harts as it were in houses and our bodies are the temple of the holy Ghost But such dwelling as it proueth not God the Father or the holy Ghost to haue bodies so doth it