doe you 〈◊〉 his wordes Iuel So this article is concluded with an Ignoramus San. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christes presence but of his real presence though the maner be vnknoweÌ„ But did you call that an â—…gnoramus if we know not how Christ is vnder the foorm of bread I am sure you know not howe the vnion was made in the virgins womb are you therefore reproued as ignorante In dede if ye belâ—…ue not Christes presence ye haue concluded this article with a Non credimus whiche is a worse fault then Ignoramus For he that beleueth not shal be con demmed Iuel The old lerned Fathers neuer left vs in suche doutes San. S. Cyrillus in this very matter willeth vs to geue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way and knowlege of his worke vnto god the first part you haue broken The first and last D. Harding hath obserued and you shal be concluded with a dam naberis if ye repent not S. Chrisostom saith it is the part of a scholar not to serch out curioufly the things which the master affirmeth but to here and to beleue and to looke for a conuenient time of soyling the question Iuel Emissenus saith Christ is present by his grace San. You haue put a false nominatiue case 〈◊〉 doth say that Christ consecrated the Sacrament of his bodie and blâ—…od to thend Perennis illa victima viueret in memoria et semper praesens esset in gratia that euerlastig sacrifice should liue in remembraÌ„ce and be alwaies present in his grace It is victima the oblatioâ—… or sacrificed hoste which is present in grace for in dede the act of crucifying is vtterlie past but the sacrifice is present in his grace for so muche as it is present in that flesh whiche suffered death Againe he saith not yâ— it is present bi his grace as you haue turned it but in his grace You wold haue grace to be the meane of presence but it is not so Grace is the effect of presence But the meane of the grace in this Sacrament is the presence of Christes own body Iuel S. Augustine saith Christ in vs by his spirit San. That is true also when he is in vs by his flesh for in that flesh his spirit dwelleth And he that denieth Christ to be in vs by his owne flesh taketh away the chefe way by whiche the spirit of God may be in vs. Iuel Ye shall not eate this body that ye see it is a certain Sacrament that I deliuer you San. The words of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set foorth a certain Sacrament to you and not I deliuer you a câ—…rtain Sacrament For this was spoken of S. Augustine in Christes person in respect of the talke had aâ—… CapharnauÌ„ Where the Sacrament was commended before it was deliuered But that which was commended at Capâ—…naum was only the same flesh which 〈◊〉 for vs Therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible and sensible maner but yet in truth of geuing by body and of taking by body For of such geuing and taking Christ spake as by the last supper it may appere where he perâ—…oormed his promise But M. Iuel was lothe that relation should be made to the talke had at Capharnanm For then he saw that the very reall flesh must be the thing which should be deliuered again he wold not haue either the commendatioÌ„ past or the gift to come and thereforâ—… he turned commendaui into trado I haue coÌ„mended into I deliuer Indede M. Iueâ—… Christ deliuered his flesh as well at Capharnaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Ghospell Where the promise is shewed to be made at Capharnaum and the perfoormance at the last â—…upper In which supper neither the body which the Iew s saw was deliuered and much lesse bread or wine which was not promised but vnder the forme of bread wine that flesh and blood was deliuered which at 〈◊〉 was promised Iuel Thus the holy Fathers say Christ is present not corporally San. Both S. â—…yril and S. Hilarie haue the word corporally as I haue shewed concerning the Sacrament Iuel Not carnally San. S. Hilarie hath the word carnally in the 23. chapit the number 37. of this booke Iuel Not naturally San. S. Hilarie hath the term naturally diuerse times S. Lyrill calleth it naturall partaking and naturall vnion Iuel But as in a Sacrament by his spirite and by his grace Saâ—… Here appereth what stuff you haue fed the reader with all in your whole booke For partly you deny a truthe which is that Christ is not corporally present and that you doe against the expresse word of God and the Fathers as I haue shewed partly you proue that your heresy by an other truthe which rather stablisheth then hindereth the real presence For Christ can not be better present in spirit and grace theÌ„ if he be present in his flesh therein to conuerte to vs his spirit and grace for the cause of his taking flesh was to make his flesh an instrument to deliuer his spirit and grace to our flesh to thend no meane of prouiding for our saluation might be omitted by so louing a Father In consideration whereof S. Ambrose saith Thou that takest his flesh art made partaker of his diuine substance in that food Note that the spirit substance of God cometh to vs by taking Christes flesh ¶ The Conclusion COnsider first good Reader that of moe then twenty articles there is but one answered yâ— not the longest wherein if aboue two 〈◊〉 faultes and vntrutâ—…es without curiouse searching be 〈◊〉 what may a man thinke of the wholâ—… booke of M. Iuell how many hundred yea 〈◊〉 thousand vntruthes may you think to be conteined therein who when he proueth his matter bâ—…t and least of all abuseth himselfe his proufe is none other then to say one thing is not true because another is true Thus he teacâ—…th Christ to be eaten by faith and spirite and thinketh that thereof he may conclude Christ is not eaten in the sacrament by moâ—…th Christ is corporally in heauen therefore his bodie is not vnder the forme of bread The Sacrament is a figure therefore by his iudgemeÌ„t it is not the truth As well he might say a man hath a soule and therefore no bodie or Christ is man and therefore not God In Disputinge of the holie scriptures he neuer answereth to these words which is geuen for you beyng the most principall poynt of D. Hardings answere he neuer considereth the promise made by Christ in yâ— tyme to come Dabo I wil geue but talketh of it as if it were past and present He hath Englished non habebitis vitam Ye shall haue no life He expoundeth that we are
a stroÌ„g stout effectual figure ioyned with words of promise stirring vp the hart of him that heareth the promise and worthely râ—…aueth the pledge therof to mounte into heauen and there by faith to fede in spirite vpon Christes owne body and blood as he in earth corporally feedeth vpon bread and wine For Caluin teacheth bread and wine to be the figures and signes of Christes body and those wordes This is my body to be wordes of preaching or of promising Christes body to them that doe beleue O pitifull tossing and tearing of Gods holy mysteries Are those words which make and shew the body of Christ present words of promise But hereof I will speak more hereafter Now concerning that he willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith know ye not that because our nature was not able to 〈◊〉 â—…y to the seat of God in heauen therefore y◠〈◊〉 oâ—… God came 〈◊〉 from heauen to earth to leade and list vs vp to the â—…ition oâ—… his Father Know ye not that because our body more quickly â—…weth our soule dounward then our spirit is able to draw our body vpward therefore Christ 〈◊〉 not only yâ— soule but also the body of man geuing vs in his last supper that body of his to th'inthent our bodies taking hold in the Sacrament of the altar of his body might be caried into heauen to haue the sight of God And because faith without th'incarnation of Christ cannot lift vp our bodies therefore Christ fulfilled â—…aith with truth and hauing taken of the virgin oure nature gaue his body in dede to our bodies and soules yâ— we again might in body soule be lifted vp with it As a man that is cast into a depe pit calleth by the meane of his tonge for help but when a cord is let doune to him for the aide and 〈◊〉 of him it is not then sufficient to vse his tong still and to let his handes alone euen so our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to help vs to let doune the corde of his humanitie of his flesh and blood And shall we now when it is let doune to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottom of our hartes by eating it really shall wee now refuse it and saie wee will goe into heauen by faith ourselues and there take holde of Christ whereby wee maie be saued and deliuered out of the depe vale of misery As though the corde should haue neded to haue ben let doune if wee could haue fastened our bodies to any thing in heauen and yet our bodyes are they which weigh doune our soules châ—…ely But what meane I to reason in this place of that point whereof in all the booke folowing by Gods grace I will fully intreat For as it happeneth they are the scholars of Calnin with whom specially wee must haue to do at this time Of whose lerning and prâ—…ncie â–ª I most crueâ—…y craue this fauour that none of them all thinâ—… me to speak against their persons but only against their opinions and so to speak against them as I am instructed by the holy Scriptures not graunting that either they loue more intierly or study more carefully or reuerence more hartily the word of God then my Fathers brethren and I my selfe doe in the Catholike Church of Jesus Christ. Only about the meaning of it I rather would trust the common iudgeâ—…ent of auncient Doctours and practise of the whole Church theu mine owne priuate election and phantasie or the deuise of a newly planted congregation A Catholike man must kepe the most auncient path and most commonly troden high waie Priuie bypathes carie mâ—…n a side to the 〈◊〉 dennes of 〈◊〉 My purpose is to proue out of the word of God specially against zuinglius and Caluin that Christ geueth in his last supper the true substance of his flesh and blood not only to our soules by words of promise but also to our bodies vnder the formes of bread and wine And for as much as the present Church of England in the Apologie thereof hath set forth to the world an other doctrine contrarie to that wce reâ—…ued of our fore Fathers I will first disproue and confute the wordes and reasons oâ—… the Apologie and afterward will by the grace of God proue the Catholike faith out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers But first of all I must declare what we Catholiks and what the Protestants and Sacramentaries beleue the supper of Christ to be That seing I make the Title of my booke Of the supper of our Lord it maie straight appere whose 〈◊〉 is more worthy to be instituted of Christ that which we through his word beleue or that which they assigne him against y◠〈◊〉 truthe of his own words ¶ what the supper of Christ is according to the belâ—…e of the Catholikes BEcause my purpose is to intreat of the blessed supper of our Lord I thought it best to declare before hand what we take that supper to be shewing withal how the Sacramentaries vnder the pretense of refoorming the abuses thereof haue taken away the whole supper of Christ and geuen vs a bare drinking of their own 〈◊〉 And whence maie that be more truly and soundly proued then chiâ—…fly out of the word of God next out of the monuments of the a aâ—…cient Fathers The word of God is a most faithfull witnesse oâ—… the institution of Christ the monuments and writings of auncient Fathers doe shew the right vnderstanding of the word of God which thing I speake not as though the Catholike Doctours of this later tyire had not the self same holy Ghost which the first had but seing our aduersaries refuse Albereus magnus Thomas of Aquine Bonauenture Alexander of â—…ales Dionyâ—…ns the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra Gabriel Biel and such other men of excelleÌ„t vertue wit and lerning who not withstanding by a rule that S. Auguâ—…stine geueth ought to be of credit in so much as all they liued before this question rose beâ—…wene the Sacramentaries and vs and therfore can not beare nor shew more affection to the one syde then to the other but seing our aduersaries refuse them for 〈◊〉 and yet follow men of later 〈◊〉 as Luther zuinglius 〈◊〉 we are content to put all the matter into the hands of the old Doctours And to beginne as we promised with the word of God thus writeth S. Paul in his first 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians Conuenientibus vobis in vnum iam non est dominicam coenam manducare vnusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit ad manducanduÌ„ when yow come together now there is no eating of our Lords supper For euery man taketh 〈◊〉 his owne supper to eate By the name of supper in the old tyme that one meale was meant wich ordinarily was made after noon and it serued for diner and supper The Corinthians coming together to yâ— holy communion taried not one for the other but
that none other thing can 〈◊〉 inferred vpon those words then what thing this is as we saie or what thing this bread doth signifie as the Sacramentaries teache Admit now it were expresly said this bread is the signe of Christes body which sense is salsely ascribed to those words by the Zuinglians yet it wold not follow therevpon that the body of Christ is promised to our soules but only that by this bread we are brought to remember Christ. Now as for eating it is commanded and not promised Caluin had the cheif property of an heretike which was to be singular And therein he delighted so much that albeit he was determined not to tarie in the faith wherein he was Christened yet he wold neither goe to Luther who first withdrew himself from vs nor to Zuinglius whose sect he fauored rather but he wold make a religion of his own And therfore he deuised a new sense of Christes words Affirming This is my body not to be spoken to the bread as both Catholiks Lutherans and Zuinglians after diuers meanings doe confesse but to be words of preaching made vnto the people that stand about the Priest and that these words promise the body of Christ to al that beleue his death and resurrection as verily as that bread is really eaten into their bodies and yet neither be the words conceiâ—…ed in the manner of promising neither do they speake of faith or death or of the resurrection of Christ or of eating bread Is not this a strang sense to pick out of these words This is my body as if it were said Masters beleue that Christ is dead and risen again and then as this bread is eaten of your bodies so certainly shal you fede of his body in faith spirit Did â—…uer any man heare of such a 〈◊〉 Hoc This doth signifie and shew to Caluin the bread which must be eaten at the supper of Christ and pointeth also to a spirituall food which is promised Est Is doth stand both properly for the present time in yâ— it is a signe of Christes body at the tyme of speaking and also vnproperly for the tyme to come in that it is a promise of his body to be eaten spiritually Corpus meum My body doth signifie to him the signe of my body taken by mouth and the streÌ„gth or vertue therâ—…of that shal be taken by faith and spirit Put together This bread which you bodily eate is the signe this thing which I promise that your soules shall eate shall be the streÌ„gth or efficacie of my body and yet he addeth farther of his owne to them that beleue Christes death and resurrection This is the sermon which Caluin saith was made at Christes supper Wherein euery word must signifie at once two or three things and one verb in one tense must signifie two tymes and the same word body must signifie two proprieties and yet neither of them both properly For whether body stand for signe of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of bread it standeth vnproperly or whether iâ—… stand for efficacie of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of the communicants it standeth vnproperly whereas the proper signification thereof is to signifie the substance of Christes body If we presse him out of S. Paul and out of the Fathers that euil men eate the body of Christ then he will answere they eate the signe of his body without promise or efficacie If we saie that good men eate the body of Christ he expoundeth it in such sense that they first haue it promised them â—…ate both a certain pledge bodily and in their soules a spirituall efficacie thereof O crafty deuiser If thou canst thus deceaue a sort of miserable and either vnlerned or vngraciouse men thinkest thou to deceaue God or to escape his terrible iudgement Agree at the last how euery word shal be so taken that thy interpretation maie be like it self Let not the same word be now a signe now a pledge now a promise now an efficacie now again no efficacie no promise no pledge but only a signe We beleue that euery word standeth properly And that both euill and good receaue one and the same substance of Christes body But as one medicine receaued of two diuerse complexions worketh not one effect so the good men haue a good effect by eating worthely the body of Christ the euill haue condemnation by eating it vnworthely Thus we take the word body for the reall substance of the body the verb est is we take properly because it is in dede Christes body when the words are spoken This we saie doth finally point to the substance of Christes body as then prâ—…ently made vnder the foorm of bread In our interpretation there is no inconstancy no impropriety no changing of significations in the same words no bare promising of a thing to come bâ—…t a present perfoormance If any man aske by what scriptures I conuince Caluin I wold first â—…now by what scriptures he proueth his lewed interpretation Shall he speake a thing without scripture beside all truthe and reason and shall not we be credited vnlesse we conuince him by scripture Howbeit let vs forgeue that iniurie and confute his fond â—…pinioÌ„ by the word of God Caluin saith This ys my body be words of promise against which saing thus I reason S. Paule intending to shew that God was not bound to the carnall Iewes because they were the childern of Abraham by flesh but that rather he wold reward them who were the children of Abraham by faith and spirit declareth Isaac to haue ben the child of promise because the Angell said to Abraham Secundum hoc tempus veniam erit Sarae filius I will come according to this tyme and a sonne shal be vnto Sara out of which words S. Paule proueth a promise How so Promissionis enim hoc verbum est For this word or saing is a word of promise which word is that Veniam I will com filius â—…rit a sonne shal be as if S. Paule said wil shall be words of promise For when a speache is conceiued for the tyme to come with 〈◊〉 circumstance that it maie appere the speaker meant to warrant the thing spoken it maketh a promise If I will come and 〈◊〉 sonne shal be are words of promise I am come and a sonne is be words of perfoormance and that is also conâ—…irmed out os the word of God Where it is writâ—…n the Lord visited Sara as he had promised and fulfilled the things which he spake and she conceiued and brought foorth a sonne at yâ— tyme wherein god had foreâ—…old 〈◊〉 that which was before in S. Paul named a promise is â—…ow called also a foretelling or prediction For albeit euery prediction be not a promise yet euery promise is a prediction and a telling before hand so that we haue in the word of God that a promise telleth a
cause we doubt not to commit it to Gods word And that no man maie suspect we take the words of the Apologie to short that we expound them to hardly that we seeke aduantage vpon small occasion I will bring foorth their owne words which they haue more fully writen in an other place of the same Apologie concerning this matter We do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of godly and of faithfull men and such as are endued with the spirite of Christ. These felowes do teach that the very body of Christ maie in very dede and as they terme it really and substantially be eaten not only of wicked and vnfaithfull men but also it is horrible to speake it of mise and dogges Whether mise and dogges maie in some sense eate the body of Christ or no it is not worth while to discusse for so much as the Catholikes kepe the body of Christ so warely that neither mouse nor dogge maie come nigh to it But as yâ— Arrians threw downe the body and blood of Christ and trod thereon with their filthie feete and as the Donatists brake the chalices which as Optatus saith caried the blood of Christ so the Sacramentaries of England haue taken out of the holy pixes and troden vnder their prophane fecte the blessed body of Christ they haue sold broken and abused to filthy ministeries the chalices which haue holden Christes blood If the wicked men be able to pollute to tread on and to defile as much as lieth in them the body of Christ A thinke that to be worse then if mise and dogges did eate it Not that the immortall body of Christ can take any harme at all But yet a terrible damnation is reserued to them who being able to do it no hurte shewe not withstanding their vnsatiable malice against the highest mysterie of our redemption tredding vnder foote the sonne of God counting the blood of the new testament prophane and vnholy Leauing therefore this question we returne to the principall matter coÌ„fessing our selues to teache that the wâ—…ked men â—…ate in dede really the body of Christ in our Lords supper Thus we teach not only because the greater part of the Fathers haue deliuered so vnto vs but also because thus we learned of Christ. Who after bread taken hauing blessed gaue to Iudas one of the twelue bidding him take eate saying This is my body A worse man then Iudas I think is not lightly heard of Which amoÌ„g other things causeth vs to beleue that be the man neuer so euill yet if he take and eate after consecration and benediction he taketh and eateth really and in dede the body of Christ. Which vnworthy receauing of so precious a thing although it mislike Christ as all synne doth yet as he permitteth synne for the goodnes which he worketh by the occasion thereof so he thought it lesse euill that euil men should eate his body then that his Sacraments by any our infidelity should be made void or that the gift of his grace should be vncertaine For Christ in the institution of his SacrameÌ„ts dependeth not vpon our faith or vertue but vpon his owne mercy and truth Wherefore when so euer by a lawfull Priest intending to execute the ministerie commaunded by Christ it is dâ—…ely sayd ouer bread and wine This is my body and This is my blood Christ would it so to be as the wordes declare and who so euer receaueth that kind of food receaueth the body of Christ. whether well or â—…uill that dependeth vpon his worthy or vnworthy eating If any man eate vnworthely then will Christ complaine of him as he coÌ„plained of Iudas For straight after the deliuery of the blood he sayd as S. Luke doth witnesse and S. Augustine hath noted the same to pertaine to the Sacrament Veruntamen ecce manus tradentis me mecum est in mensa But yet see yâ— hand of him yâ— betrayeth me is with me on the table As if he had sayd You see what loue I shewe to you by geuing mine owne body to be eaten mine owne blood to be drunken in this my last supper this only greueth me that a very deuill doth eate drinke these preciouse giftes together with me and you Except our new brethren will say Iudas to haue bene a good faithfull man I see not but they must coÌ„fesse that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ deliuered to them Which thing S. Paul most euidently confirmeth of all euill Christians saying Therefore who so euer shall eate this bread or drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shall be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Doth not he that speaketh of vn worthy eating coÌ„fesse a true eating True I say in nature of the thing eaten but vnworthy coÌ„cerning the effect of grace ensewing And yet doe not euill men who receaue the body of Christ vnworthely eate really the same body It is written in the booke of the Machabees that King Antiochus hauing slaine foure score thousand within three dayes entred also into the holy Temple Et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa contrectabat indigne contaminabat And taking in his wicked hands the holy vessels he handled or touched them vnworthely and defiled them I aske whether it doth not folow Antiochus touched vnworthely the holy vessels therefore he tou ched the holy vessels If that argument be good it is like to say an euil man doth eate the body of Christ vnworthely therefore he doth eate yâ— body of Christ. Or did not Adam and 〈◊〉 eate of the â—…uit of the tree because they did eate the same against the commaundement of God For these defenders seme to make an vnworthy eating no eating Whereas if it were no eating it were not an vnworthy eating Perhaps they wil say S. Paul writeth not that synners wicked men eate the body of Christ vnworthely but that they eate this bread vnworthely Uerily S. Paul speaketh not of bakers bread in yâ— place But hauing shewed that Christ taking bread after thanks geuen sayd This is my body straight he inferreth that as often as this bread is eaten the death of Christ is shewed therefore who so eateth this bread vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body of our Lord. This bread is one certayn kinde of meate or foode for so bread in the holy scripture doth signifie which food before was declared to be the body of Christ. And S. Paul doth so warely describe this kind of bread that he putteth both an article and a pronoune to it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if it were said in English who so eateth vnworthely this certayn kinde of bread For so the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth â—… certayn bread spoken of before But then foloweth besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most vehemently restraineth that certayn bread
Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
by man Truly in Baptim there is forgeuenesse of all synnes What skilleth it whether Priests challenge this right of forgeuing synnes to be geuen them by penance or by baptim The mysterie or Sacrament is one in both But thou wilt say that in Baptim the grace oâ—… yâ— mysteries worketh What in Penance doth not the name of God work Here is the same vertue and name of a mysterie or Sacra ment geuen to Penance which is geueÌ„ to Baptim Whereby S. Ambrose taught as wel that there was a SacrameÌ„t of Penance as the Apologie graunteth one of Baptim But to stand about the proof of all the seuen Sacraments it nedeth not sith in that most notable generall Councell gathered both of Grekes and Latines at Florence all the seuen Sacramentes were according to the word of God confessed proued declared and expounded as in the ende thereof it may appere But neither S. Ambrose nor S. Augustine had the charge committed to them to rekon vp how many Sacraments there are I brought these few places out of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose to shewe as it were to the eyes of all them that will not wilfully blind them selues how these defenders crie out vpon the word of God vntill they haue with swete words wonne â—…anour amoÌ„g the miserable nomber â—…f those vnstable meâ—… that allwayes harken for newes But when they haue them fast then is the word of God cleane forgotten and in siede of it Ambrose and Augustiâ—…e are captiously and falsely alleged For the truth is they that set nought by the word of God can not long esâ—…me Ambrose and Augustine who with all their hartes embraced the word of God and expounded the same according to the auncient tradition of holy Church To what end then doth this Apologie runne Truly to sette vp an Idoll of their owne making in place of the word of God To set vp I say a fantasticall religion of their owne deuising But if they should crie to the people Come come bowe down to the Idoll that we haue deuised for you the people would not come as being feared with yâ— infamouse name of an Idoll Therefore they say come to the word of God come to the holy Scriptures come to the true gospell of Iesus Christ. well Syr you say herein exceding well we are come Teach vs the word of God the Scriptures the gospell Say on a Gods name ¶ That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God WE saye that Eucharistia the supper of the Lord is a Sacrament that is to wit an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is most true that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament yea it is the chief Sacrament of all Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Est enim secunduÌ„ clarissimi praeceptoris nostri sententiam SacramentoruÌ„ Sacramentum The most holy Eucharist which Dyonisius named so a litle before according to the mind of our renowmed maister is the Sacrament of Sacramentes Although Dionysius had S. Paul to his master yet he meaneth at this tyme as vpon him Maximus hath noted by other places of his worke it may well appere to be true Hierotheus an holy Father and Disciple of Christ who in his talke whiche he was wonte to haue with Dyonisius did vse to call the holy Eâ—…charist of all the Sacramentes the chief Sacrament Surely iâ—… there had bene but two Sacramentes both Hierotheus Dyonisius had abused their words For where two things only are of one degree there one may be worthier then the other but neither of the twaiue may iustly be called the chief of the others If in all there be only two Sacramentes baptisme the Eucharist how is the Eucharist the Sacrament of Sacramentes sith when one is taken away there doth remaine but one moe to which relation may be made The opinion therefore of this Apologie standing the Eucharist may be yâ— more chief Sacrament of tâ—…e twaine but not the Sacrament of moe Sacramentes But what nede we stand herevpon seing Dionysius hath at large prosecuted moe Sacramentes then baptisme and the Eucharist as it is easye to see in his workes Seing then the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament and yet not found so to be named in holy Scripture the Apologie is constrained to beleue it selfe and to teach others somewhat which is not readen in holy Scripture Againe that euery Sacrament is a signe and token it is also true but not readen in holy Scripture Thirdly the Sacrament of the altar is an euident token of yâ— body and blood of Christ. But so much is not expressed in holy Scripture Last of all the supper of our Lord is the reall body blood of Christ him selfe And that truth is very plainly very ofte very earnestly sayd taught repeted in holy Scripture Foure thinges are now verified of the supper of our Lord. It is a Sacrament it is consequently a holy signe It is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is the truth and substance of the body and blood of Christ. Of the foure truthes the last only is expressed in holy scriptures because it is the ground of all the other The three first are taught by the Church not coÌ„trary to the scripture but ouer and besides it Now mark well whether these defenders lead vs to the word of God or no. In describing the supper of our Lord they put the three first verities of which neuer a one is named in the scripture And the last veritie which is expresly named in all the foure Euangelistes and in S. Paul as before I haue declared that they vtterly 〈◊〉 aâ—…d leaue out As if they shuld saie we make much aâ—… to pretend yâ— holy scriptures but we will be sure to bring any thiâ—…g soner then the holy scriptures Marke this Apologie who shal he neuer lightly saw any book writen in so many matters of diuinitie wherein so litle scripture hath bene alleged It is full of gloses but the texte it hath very seldome And why They loue not in dede the scriptures they know not the scriptures according to the mind of the holy Ghost but only make a shew of them to entangle the sunple in their snares The supper of our Lord is a sacrament a holy signe an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. hitherto they teache without scriptures It is the body and blood it selfe of Iesus Christ. Hereof speake they at this time neuer a word because it is in the Gospell which they loue not If this last truth can not stand with the first what doubt is there but the worde of God must ouercome and the doctrine of men gâ—…ue place If therefore the supper of our Lord maâ—…e both be the signe of the body and the body it selfe it is well we are throughly
consecrantur The words are pronounced by the Priests mouth And the things set foorth are consecrated by the vertue and grace of God This sayeth he is my body With this word the things which are set foorth are consecrated Who seeth not here the visible Sacrament and the thing or inâ—…isible grace of the Sacrament The Sacrament is the due pronouncing of the words ouer bread oâ—… wine As for example taking bread I say in Christes person This is my body The words naturally haue their knowen signification as other wordes of other things haue Which who so heaâ—…eth spoken or perceaueth to be spoken can tell what they meane and signifie Neither can it be denied but they betoken the being or substance of Christes body That natural betokening of theirs alone without the matter of bread and wine present should not be a Sacrament that is to say an euident signe and token of a holy thing But when those words are spoken ouer bread by a Priest as Christ appointed them to be spoken then by his institution they are a Sacrament to wit an euident token of a holy thing Now as God and Christ can not lye so they do not institute a false signe and token If the token be true and it be the token of Christes body present that thing which it betokeneth by the institution of Christ must nedes be not only true but also present if it be so betokened ¶ What signe must chiefly be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper And what a Sacrament is IAm not ignorant that in the Sacrament of the altar diuerse kindes of signes tokens are founde some be tokens of the making and consecrating the Eucharist others of it being now consecrated and made vntill the outward signes be consumed a signification also of the Church of Christ is gathered out 〈◊〉 it now made and consecrated Yea the very eating is again a signe of a maruelous banket in the life to come The first signe of all is the signe of consecrating our Lords sup per and it is the words duely spoken by a Priest ouer bread and 〈◊〉 which both betoken the making of Christes body blood and make it in dede The signe of the Eucharist now made is the forme of bread and wine But this later signe presupposeth the first signe and token For except it had bene sayd ouer the bread and wine This is my body and this is my blood the formes of bread and wine could not betoken the reall body and blood of Christ vnder them For not wheresoeuer we see such formes we doe there beleue the body and blood to be except we thinke the words of consecration to haue bene spoken ouer them We now speake of that first signe and token which both signifieth and maketh the Sacrament Wherein Christ would that to be wrought inuisibly whiche the words do signifie to our cares and whicâ—… the doing sheweth to our eyes A man is able to institute a token of the truth but not always able to make present the truth of the token As when he leaueth a ring in token of him himselâ—…e not being able to leaue his owne substance in the same ring or vnder the forme of it But Christ as he is both God and man so he leaneth both an outward token according to his huâ—…ane nature and worketh an inward truth of the same token according to his diuine allnughtynes The outward token is called the Sacrament the truth thereof is called the thing of the Sacrament Christ intending to shewe to the people that his Father allways heareth him sayeth Father I thanke the because thou hast heard me These words betoken a thanksull hart Wheresore if in â—…ede the hart be thankfull they are a Sacrament or holy signe because they betoken a most holy sacrifice of thankigeuing But if in dede the hart geue no thanks they are a false token therefore please not God who is truth and loueth nothing but truth Upon this ground of holy scriptures and of lerned Fathers the definition of a Sacrament is agreâ—…d â—…pon by all diuinâ—…s taken specially on t of S. Augustine as 〈◊〉 doth 〈◊〉 in these words Sacramentum est 〈◊〉 gratiae visiâ—…ilis forma A Sacrament is the visible forme of 〈◊〉 grace whereby 〈◊〉 may perceaue a Sacrament to 〈◊〉 oâ—… two parts the one is ap prehended by faith whiles the other is outwardly shewed to the senses If we see one baptized in the name of the Trinitie we say a Christen man was made to day How proue we that because yâ— Sacrament which we saw telleth vs what was wrought inwardly Therefore seing Christ hath willâ—…d vs to say at his holy table ouer bread and 〈◊〉 This is my body and this is my blood there is no doubt but the very naming of body and blood soleÌ„nly commaunded is the commaâ—…udement to make a holy signe which is asmuch to say as to make a Sacrament Whereof it foloweth that the same thing is inuisibly wrought which is outwardly signified Otherwise a Sacrament may be false it may be of one part alone it may lacke the operation of the holy Ghost And to be short it may be made voide and of none 〈◊〉 The token and signe sayeth when bread is present Hoc est corpus meum This is my body The proâ—…ne Hoc This and the verb est is betoken a thing present The thing spoken of is the body of Christ. If this whereof I speake it be not made my body here presently I signifie and betoken a false thing No false signification can be a Sacrament because rather it is an execration or cursing wherein au vntruth is betokened from which God abhorreth The Apologie confeâ—…eth the supper of our Lord to be a Sacrament and whereas euery SacrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 of words and things of which twaine the words are the more plaine token of the holy thing which is made seing the words of Christes supper are This is my body This is my blood of necessitie there must be a truth of that thing which these words doe signifie And for asmuche as they signifie the presence of Christes body his body must nedes be present where they doe signifie it to be present I will exemplifie it in an other Sacrament also Christ at his last supper hauing sayd This is my body which is geuen for you sayd to his Apostles Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me In these words Christ betokened somewhat surely that they shoâ—…ld make and doe the thing he spake of I aske now whether he gaue in deed power to the Apostles to make and doe that thing for the remembrance of him or no If in deed he gaue them no power the signification of his words was false and the tokeÌ„ which they make to our eares vntrue On th' otherside if in deed by that precept Priests
and teacheth to be a grosse imagination O grosse imagination of these pitifull preachers May there be a more grosse imagination then to imagine that Christ lyed Cyrillus biddeth vs put away grosse imaginations and Cyrillus saith of yâ— reall presence Ne dubites an hoc verum sit eo manifestè dicente hoc est corpus meum Sed potius suscipe verba Saluatoris in fide Cum enim sit veritas non mentitur Doubt thou not whether this be true sith him self plainly saith This is my body But rather imbrace the words of our Sauiour in faith For seing he is the truth he lieth not Who so consydereth well these words may vnderstand that Cyrillus thought nothing more grosse then to doubt whether that body of Christ be present or no. What grosse imaginations then did Cyrillus bid vs put away For sooth aboue all that we should not imagin Christ to lye Secondly that we should not imagin his words concerning this Sacrament to be dark or obscure seing Christ as he sayth spake manifestly Again that no man should thinke any other body to be geuen besydes the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man In the tyme of Cyrillus a great heretike named Nestorius scholar to one Diodorus falsely taught that Christ had two persons one of God an other of man Therefore they imagined the the body of Christ which all the world euen the heretikes them selues beleued to be present vpon the altar after consecration to be the body of man but not the proper body of God the word This was a very grosse imagination and therefore ought to be put away from the mind of faithfull men in receauing the mysteries Hereof Cyrillus literally said Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sucramentum pronuncias irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum mentem qui crediderunt Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou irreuerently inforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Behold the grosse cogitation was to thinke that we doe eate that body of a maÌ„ whereas in dede through the vnitie of person it is yâ—â—…ody of God him self And therefore Cyrillus sayth afterwarâ—… Proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia viuificat It is the body proper to that word which quickeneth all thinges Of this â—…oule and grosse eâ—…oure two epistles are extant of Cyrillus as also in all his workes he full oft confuteth it One thing I wil further note this fine penner of the Apologie citeth not where Cyrillus speaketh of these grosse imaginations because the place is maruelous euident against him And what foul play is this to belie Cyrillus as though he had spoken of that imagination wherein we beleue that reall presence of Christes body vnder the form of bread whereas he spake of that wherein Nestorius vnderstanded that we did eate the flesh of Christ with out the diuine nature vnited vnto it in one person Cyrillus sayth because the word which is of God the Father is life by nature it hath declared his flesh to be the geuer of life hac ratione facta est nobis benedictio viuificatrix and by this meanes the blessing is made to vs geuer of life Cyrillus calleth yâ— Sacrement of the altar benedictio blessing because it is made by blessing Now in naming blessing he must nedes meane that which is blessed which is on the altar before vs and not any thing coâ—…ceaued in faith or spirit Therefore Cyrillus meaneth out of all coÌ„trouersie that thing which is made by blessing which we take in our hands which we put in our mouths to be able to geue life euerlasting which none other eatable thing can doe besydes the reall flesh of Christ. For the nature of Godhead as Cyrillus there confesseth is not eaten by itself or a part from the flesh If we put this together I require no more but that he be an honest man who shall construe the place of Cyrillus He shal be forced to confesse such an eating in the Sacrament of the altar as is not proper to the Godhead And yet eating by faith is proper to vs in respect of the Godhead therefore Cyrillus speaketh of eating that which quickeneth vs to life euerlasting with our body also and not with faith alone An other grosse imagination was to thinke that we eating the body of Christ should eat it dead or mortall and passible as we vse to eate other meates Whereas it is quicke yea of power to quicken vs as Cyrillus teacheth Quoniam Saluatoris caro verbo Dei quod naturaliter vita estconiuncta viuifica effecta est quando eam comedimus tunâ—… vitam habemus in nobis illi coniuncti quae vita effecta est Because the flesh of our Sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life na turally is made able to geue life When we eate it then we haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life The fifth grosse imagination is to thinke that we should so eate Christes flesh as if it were rawe and not by any meanes made meate for mannes cating Of this grosse imagination the Capharnaits were Ad immanes ferarum mores vocari se a Chri sto arbitrabantur incitarique vt vellent crudas hominis carnes manducare sanguinem bibere quae vel auditu horribilia sunt They thought them selues to be inuited of Christ to the cruel custom of wild beastes and to be prouoked to eate the raw flesh drinke the blood of man which thinges are horrible to heare It was yet no lesse a grosse imaginatioÌ„ to suppose they should cate the body of Christ peece meale one taking the shoulder an other the legg the third the brest and so foorth Against which imagination S. Augustine hath writen Their imagination also is very grosse who think that substance of bread to remaine after consecration as though they wold eate that immortall and gloriouse flesh of Christ with bakers bread Which is the cursed banket of the LutheraÌ„s whereas Christ said The bread which I will geue is my flesh geuing vs to vnderstand yâ— he wold not haue in his heauenly supper an earthly substance of materiall bread And yet it is a more grosse imagination to confesse that reallpresence of Christes body and to denye adoration to it sithens it is the body of God But how grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice sith it is his body who is the propitiation for the whole world I omit at this tyme his grosse imagination who teacheth the words which are spoken of a gift presently made and deliuered to be words of promise and of preaching * But the grossest imagination that euer was heard of is of them who affirm no body of Christ at all to be made really present vnder the form of bread
we are saued by the washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the holy ghoste Likewyse that which Manna dyd then shadow hauing the swetenesse of all deyntie and pleasant tastes as now really geuen because yâ— flesh of Christ is meate in dede We differ not in substance of our manna from the Angels of heauen but only they are out of all feare we lyuc in good hope they see and eate we eate see not but beâ—…ue They are in theyr and oure countrey we are in the way to them Whyles we are goyng the truth of heauen is couered to vs but sith Christ came downe to be our guyde he hath left the kingdome of heauen in the blood of the newe testament among vs as really as him self â—… really for that purpose tooke fleshe and dyed in the same flesh to thintent he being exalted vpon the crosse should draw al things vnto him selfe ¶ The bread that Christ promiseth to geue which is his flesh must nedes be meant of the substance of his flesh HAuing already touched the three seuerall tymes of geuing â–ª which are spoken of in S. Ihon order wold yâ— I should shew the three seuerall kinds of working those three gifts But for as much as the last gift of the three is the gift of Christ whereof we doe principally intreat I thought good to say somewhat of it alone Christ hauing sayd before work the euerlasting meat which the Sonne of man will geue you cometh now to namè what kind of meat it is and the bread sayth he which I will geue is my flesh I haue proued already that these two sentences belong to one maner of gift which also is promised to be geuen to vs and not only to be geuen for vs as some doe aâ—… To be geuen to vs I say in the Sacrament of Christes supper and not only for vs vpon yâ— Crosse the which thing because I haue by diuerse reasoÌ„s proued in two places of this present booke it shal be now suâ—… to warn the reader that S. Cyprâ—… writing vpoÌ„ our Lords prayier hath alleged these words The bread which I will geue is my â—…esh as spoken of the Eucharist The like hath S. Chrysostom done in his comments vpon the same place affirming that Christ spake of the mysteries beside that which he speaketh hereof vpon the sixt of S. Ihon doth also allege it again for the Sacrament of Christes supper naming benedictionem mysticaâ—… the mysticall blessing S. Augustine often tymes allegeth this text for the gift made in Christes supper as I haue declared before also Theodoritus was of the same mind and as for Theophilact and Euthymius be so clere in this matter that they neuer doubted thereof Which sith it is so let it staÌ„d for a truth most vniuersally receaued yâ— Christ saying The bread which I wil geue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil geue you at my last supper is my flesh Moreouer the word bread must be noted which standeth not presently for wheaten breade but only for food and meat For as Christ sayd before work the meat which the sonne of man wil geue you so now he sayth and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh declaring yâ— bread in this place is all one with meat The which truthe is also expressed of S. Cyrillus where he sayth Saluator cuÌ„ ad Iudaeos multa de carne sua dissereret ac viuisicum verè panem â—…am appellaret panis enim inquit quem ego dabo caro mea est When our Sauiour disputed manie things among the Iewes of his flesh and caâ—…ed it the bread truly geuing life he sayd for the bread which I will geue is my flesh Thus it is clere that Christ in effect sayth I will geue you a kind of meat or food in my last supper yâ— which is my flesh euen the same flesh which I wil geue for the life of the world This promise Christ made at Caphâ—… to al the â—…tude but 〈◊〉 submitted theÌ„ selues to receaue that doctrine beside the twelue Apostles among whom Iudas being one had this promise made to him also For although Christ knew him to be a deuil and traitour as him self sayd euen at Caphâ—…um yet seing he taried with the twelue euen at the last supper and other men knewe not so muche of his maliciouse intent Christ dissembled it and as he promysed his fleshe to all so he gaue it to the twelue in the night wherein he was betrayd The whiche thing I speake to thend the reader might perceane what Christ promised presently Suche a gift it was the whiche was performed â—…o lesse to Iudas then to the other Apostles It was not therefore a spiritual gift only which was promised for such a one Iudas neither did nor could take but it was a reall â–ª and externall gift which was deliuered with the hands of Christ and receaued into the mouthes of the Apostles After which sort Iudas tooke it Which could not be so except the fleshe of Christ were vnder the forme of bread which Christ gaue Again Christ spake not now of geuing his flesh by faith only for that gift his Father presently gaue as he sayd Pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum my Father doth geue you the true bread from heauen That gift Christ him self was being geuen in flesh to th end we should beleue in him and 〈◊〉 vpon him by spirituall deuotion But Christes gift both hath an other person an other tyme. The person is Christ the tyme is to come Wherevpon S. Chrysostom here noteth Se non patrem dare dicit He saith him self to geue and not his Father It is therefore a reall gift to be made externally whereof Christ speaketh WherupoÌ„ it foloweth that Christes flesh was promised vnder the form of bread which suin his â—…pper was taken blessed and deliuered Under that form Christes flesh is promised not in faith only but in truth of nature and in the same substance which was geuen 〈◊〉 the life of the world The Sacramentaries must nowe say that flesh here standeth for the signe and figure of Christes flesh and so by that meanes they will say both Iudas had the figure of Christes flesh geuen â–ª and the other Apostles had the flesh it self by faith and spirit It hath bâ—…e â—…wed before that the bread whereof Christ now speaketh and which he affirmeth to be his flesh is Christ him self as he is true God and man Therefore to say the bread which Christ will geue is the signe of his flesh is to say that Christ him self through his own gift is the signe of his own flesh for of any other bread Christ spake not in this place then of such bread as him self is And of that he spake not in that only respecte as he is God but as he is man And so either the manâ—…hood of Christ is yâ— signe of his flesh
geuen before vnder Moyses For who can doubt but manna dyd in his owne substaÌ„ce farre passe bakers bread and wine of the grape Is this the end of this long disputation of so many differences put betwene Moyses God the Father and Christ betwene manna Christes incarnatioÌ„ his supper betwene eating by body alone by faith alone by bodie faith together Is this al to haue by yâ— gift of Christ only a token of him selfe in bread and wine how is then the bread which is eaten able to make vs liue for euer if the eating it by faith only at Christes supper make vs lyue for euer and yet we had it by faith before of the fathers geuing then Christe geneth him selfe by none other meane sauing bread and wine then his father had done and doth he in vain trow ye distinct his own gift from his fathers so many waies is it then all one to eate of Christ alone and to eate Christ and of Christ Uerily if concerning our taking of it the thing were throughly one sauing bread and wine he wold not make so many differences But if Christes gift concerning our partaking differ front his fathers gift in tyme in maner in degree why should it be so but that Christ geueth for a greater ioyning of vs to him â–ª yâ— same in truth of nature whiche his father in faith and spirite gaue before as the necessarie preparation to the sonnes gifte His father is only spirite and truth and therefore geueth Christe really to the worlde to be fed of spiritually by vs. But the sonne is fleshe for the worde is made flesh and so geueth really to vs the gifte of that flesh whiche he toke not for his own sake but for ours to th ende we might really eate the spirite of God which is in it Neither let it be strange to you yâ— Christ semeth to geue more to vs then his father for he geueth more both for vs vppon the Crosâ—… and to vs in his supper then his father doth outwardly geâ—… but yet all his gifts come srom his father because his father gaue his only begotten sonne to vs in the truth of our fleshe to th end he should geue the same flâ—…she in his owne person both for vs to vs that by such an excellenâ—… meane we might 〈◊〉 the nerer ioyned to God him self Although the conference of the words of the Ghospel do proue sufficiently that which I haue sayd yet I wil shew also that S. Chrisostom toke this chapiter in the same sense that I haue done First he noteth the diuersitie of persons in that Christ sayd se non patâ—…em dare him selfe to geue and not his Father Secondly the distinct places of the chapiter where Christ speaketh in the one of eating his Godhead by faith in the other of eating his body Primum de diuinitate c. de corpore circa fineÌ„ inquit Panis quem ego dabo c. Christ speaketh firâ—…t oâ—… his Godhead of his body he sayth toward the end the bread which I will geue is my flesh Thirdly S. Chrysostom noteth that the word panis bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluatioÌ„ and faith in him or els his body By which words who seeth not yâ— he distincteth eating by faith alone from eating yâ— body it self The body therefore is it self eaten otherwyse then by fa th Fourthly he sayth vpon these words my flesh is verily meat that Christ sayd so to th end they should not thinke him to speake in parables And yet by flesh to meaue the signe of his flesh or by eating to meane beâ—…uing is to speake in parables Last of all he sayth it is brought to passe by the meat which he hath geuen vs that we should not only by loue but also in dede it selfe be turned into yâ— flesh of his And again Christ mingleth him selâ—…e with vs not by faith only but he maketh vs his booy in it self But if we 〈◊〉 Christ by faith only loue surely we should be reformed to him by none other meane theÌ„ by faith loue But now we are turned from our corruptible nature and are made able to liue for euer not only by the gift of faith and charitie but euen by that we receaue Christes flesh in dede it selâ—…e in his owne substance truthe and nature All these things did S. Chrysostom gather out of Christes words I nede not to shew in many lines that Theophilact and Euthymius folow that same order in expounding S. Ihon which S. Chrysostom before had vsed For I think no man who knoweth their trade of wryting doubteth of it The former saith vpoÌ„ these words The bread whiche I wil geue is my flesh that Christ manifestly in that place speaketh of the Sacramentall communion of his body and that yâ— bread which is eaten of vs in yâ— mysteries is not only a certein resembling of our Lords flesh sed ipsa caro Domini but the flesh of our Lod it selfe Euthymius likewyse agreeth that Christ is bread two ways according to his diuine and humane nature Non autem dixit quem do sed quem dabo He sayd not which I doe geue but which I will geue For he minded to geue it in his last supper Now as Christ is bread two ways so is he eaten two ways As God he is eaten by faith alone as man geuing his flesh to vs at hiâ—… last supper he is eaten not only by faith but in very dede The later way of eating the Sacramentaries take away ¶ The like precept made to men oâ—…lawful age for caring Chrisâ—…es flesh as was made generally for 〈◊〉 sheweth his 〈◊〉 to be as really present iâ—… his 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 is in 〈◊〉 WHen Christ had promised to geue his flesh to be eaten and the Iewes had asked how he was able to doe it Christ answered Except yâ—… eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting and I will reise him in the last day These words first were spoken to men of lawfull age as it appereth by the circumstance who are bound to receaue the blessed Sacrament of Christes supper if no lawfull impediment stop them to th end they may nourish and maitein the life which they toke in baptism and increase it to a higher degree of vnitie with Christ him selfe But baptism by our aduersaries confession may and ought to be geuen to infants and yet it could not doe them any good if it conteined not in it self the strength to regenerate them in Christ seing they are not able for their parts to beleue actually Mary if baptism really make them a new creature saue them as S. Paule speaketh the nourishment which we receaue in yâ— SacrameÌ„t of â—… altar being now of perfect vnderstaÌ„ding must nedes be also reall For as â—…regorius of
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
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
was healed Her body also touched his manhod and her body was likewise cured Seing then it is writen This is my body and all men beleued it once as well as the other articles of our faith Seing that beâ—…eif is so honorable vnto God so mete for Christes coming and loue toward vs and so profitable vnto vs that the contrarie assertion shall lack the like holy Scriptures and the like belefe of the Church the like honour of God the like loue of Christ and the like profite of our soules There can be no reason alleged hereafter why we should oâ—…ce geue audieÌ„ce to him that pretendeth to proue the body of Christ not to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine For what thing possibly can excede these causes before alleged Moreouer all â—…igures were inuented partly for lack of proper words partly for the pleasantnes of speaking Christ surely lacked not words to shew that he gaue bread for a signe of his body if in dede he had done so For sith Zuinglius and Caluin had words to signifie their opinion in this matter it could not be but that Christ was able to haue spoken that which they speake If then he spake not figuratiuely for necessity our new brethern must proue that he spake figuratiuely for his only pleasure but how can they know that S. Augustine biddeth vs nolesse beware that we take not a propre speache for a figuratiue then that we take not a figuratiue speache for a proper The rule to know the one from the other is this Vt quicquid in sermone diuino c. that what soeuer in the woord of God can be properly referred neither to the honestie of manners nor to yâ— truthe of faith thou maist know to be figuratiue Yf nowe these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood may be referred to the truthe of faith in so muche as all men haue beleued the body of Christ to be geuen in the Sacrament of the altar not diminishing thereby their faith in any other article by S. Augustins iugdement these wordes be not siguratiue For certeinlie they be not only nothing against the honestie of maners as good men vnderstand Christes presence vnder the form of bread but rather the strong belefe of them maketh al men more honest in life whiles they come with great feare to so dreadfull mysteries therefore it followeth yâ— they be not of necessitie figuratiue of necessitie I say because there is no repugnance in saith or good maners why they may not be proper whiche notwithstanding a man for his pleasure might vse his wordes in a figuratiue sorte when he neded not â–ª but who so affirmeth so muche beside that he breaketh S. Augustins rule he casteth himselfe in greate daunger of prouing yâ— whiche hangeth of an other mans pleasure What argument haue our new brethern to proue that it pleased Christ at this tyme to speake vnproperlie what ground in the word of God can their opinion haue how can they be sure that they erre not in their indgement when we reade that God is angry or sory or that Iohn Baptist is Elias or that the rocke is Christ we say they are siguratiue speaches because they can not be proper Anger falleth not in God nor sorrow the rocke for that reason is not Christ in person and nature because it is a rocke for by nature they are seueral thinges and suche as do not stand together the like might haue bene thought in this Sacrament if Christ had sayd this bread is my body and this wine is my blood but he foresaw greate cause why he wold not say so For he wold by his worde so make his body and blood of bread and wine that when the substance of his body and blood should be present the substances of bread and wine should not remain of this we are sure because besyde the faith of the whole Churche the proper signification of the words inforceth so much as now it shal be declared ¶ That as all other so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly vutill the contrarie doth euidently appeare WHat meaning words ought to haue we iudge most directly by the proper signification and common vse of them For if the contrary do not appeare al words must be taken in that meaning aâ—…d sense which the vsual custom of speaking and writing hath geuen them Otherwise all things are confounded and the profite which cometh of words is lost Neither any man shall know what an other meaneth neither how to make his own bargaine or last will and Testament Certè peruersissimum est sayth Tertullian vt carnem nominantes animam intelligamus animam significantes carnem interpretemur Omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quà msunt amittere quod sunt dum aliter accipiuntur si aliter quà m sunt cognoninantur Fides nominum salus est proprietatum Truly it is a most ouerthwart thing that naming the â—…esh we should vnderstand the soule and signifying the soule we should expound it the flesh all things shall be in danger to be otherwise taken then they are and whiles they are otherwise takeÌ„ to loose that they are if they be named otherwise then they are The faithfull naming of things preserueth their proprieties By these words of this auncient Doctour we may iudge how foule a thing it is that hearing the body of Christ named we should without any reasonable cause expound it the figure of his body And hearing the blood of Christ named we should expound it the signe of his blood As well when he is named the Sonne of God we may expound it the image of the Sonne of God And so we open a gate to all heresie we take away all certeintie of speache and make the holy Scriptures subiect to euery mans filthy lust pleasure We must therefore kepe euery word in his own nature and in his knowen signification except it be manifest vnto vs that the speaker meante otherwise Doth not naturall reason teach vs so much Sayth not Marcellus the same being taught only by coÌ„mon wisedom and iudgement Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet quà m cum manifestuÌ„ est aliud sensisse testatorem We must not otherwise depart from the significatioÌ„ of the words but when it is manifest yâ— the testatour thought an other thing In which rule if we rest all the world well knoweth that when Christ said This is my body and This is my blood the words both by theire propre signisication and by the present vse of all speakers and writers do importe the reall presence of Christes true body and blood For neither the pronoun This pointeth to a thing absent neither the verb is can be said of that which presently hath no true being neither the noun body vseth to be verisied of a shadow figure or token of a body neither when Christ sayeth
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
ioyned together in the top it self which is the flesh of Christ. For they that are one mysticall howse by faith and charitie alone they are one in the fundation through the spirit of God but not yet one in the top And the vnitie of that fundation wold not cause them to be a perfite howse if some stones being reised thereon did not at the length mete really together in the top of the building which is the flesh of Christ through the connexion of which stones those also which laie in the lowest place may be sayd to mete in the top for that they are necessary and substancial parts of that howse which is builded from the lowest parte of the ground vp to the very highest top Faith is the fundation and ground of the things which are hoped for Baptisme goeth nerer the top because beside the grace of faith it partaketh some other grace proceding not only from the spirit of Christe but also from his flesh in that the water according to the minde of S. Chrysostom of Leo is as it were the wombe wherein and the worde is the sede wherewith man is regenerated as wel in body as in soule Confirmation geueth strength to the new building wherein the stones are as it were with strong barres of iron holden together But when Christe geueth him selfe to vs vnder the forme of bread then are we come to the top of the building and are ioyned really to him that is yâ— end of the law For which cause this Sacrament of Christes body blood is called of the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectio the end or perfitenes of our heauenly building This flesh is also in the fundation but by spiritual efficacie not by reall vnion It is in Baptisme by the vse of corporall instruments of water and the word and so by spirituall efficacie and also by meane of bodily instruments proceding from the flesh by that Sacrament of Baptisme which he constituted in his body and sanctified the element thereof with his body In the Sacrament of perfection this flesh it self is present to make a moste perfite end of the whole spirituall building Thus are the baptized Christians built vpon yâ— faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets and the faithfull who receaue Christes body in his last supper are built in a higher degree aboue the faith of the Fathers and aboue the Baptisme of those who died before they partaked Sacramentally Christes flesh And seing all these concurre to make vp one howse the top whereof may touche Christes naturall body which he toke to make the reall coniâ—…nction with vs who consist of bodies all the mysticall body of Christ is perfitly one through them who being one with the rest in faith spirit and baptisme be also one with Christes flesh in truth of naturall and corporall vnion to Christes flesh really partaken at his holy table Let vs once deny the flesh of Christ to be really in the blessed Sacrament of the altar and here is no perfite building toward the flesh of Christ and consequently no reason why we should be called his mysticall body or flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones For as if Eue had not bene taken really out of the naturall body of Adam she should not haue bene in truth bone of his bones so we are not flesh of Christes flesh in truth it self except the flesh of Christ in the naturall substance thereof be the meane by our natural coâ—…ction to it that we are framed wrought into a spirituall man These last wordes of S. Paule where he toucheth how we are â—…esh of Christes flesh doe also leade vs to an other notable example of our natural vnion which is to be made to that flesh of Christ. For when S Paule had said that the husband is head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church he prouoketh the husbands to loue their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche Who haue loued it so intierly that he hath cleansed it in the washing of water and the word to th end he might make him self a gloriouse Church without spot or wrinkle Behold baptisme is a token of Christes loue but to what end That he might haue a cleane spouse To what purpose Will he then come nere to his wife and as it were be cloupled with her Yea verily not for any fleshly pleasure but to nourish her by his reall flesh And therefore S. Paul goeth forward saying Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their own bodies He that loueth his wife loueth him self And surely noman euer hated his own flesh but he nourisheth and cherisheth it as Christ doth his Church What meane you S. Paule Is then the Church the flesh of Christ For your words import so much He answereth it is so For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones For this cause the man shall forsake Father and mother and shal be ioyned to his own wife and they shal be two in one flesh This is a great Sacrament or mysterie but I meane in Christ and the Church Hitherto S. Paul hath prouoked the husbands to loue and to cherish their wiues as Christ hath loued his Churche in cleansing it through baptisme and as he cherisheth it as being members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Note that as the loue of husbands toward their wiues is coÌ„pared to baptisâ—… so the cherishing of them is compared to the cherishing nourishing which Christ vseth toward his Churâ—… â–ª whiche is knowe to be done after baptisme for no man cherisheth that which is not yet borne When we are borne again in Christ we are made members of Christes body and therefore those words Membra sumus corporis eius we are members of his body may be ment of baptisme â–ª where we are made members of his my stical body according as S. Paule had said before Sumus inu icem membra we are members one of an other But when he addeth de carne eius de ossibus eius of his flesh and of his bones he then speaketh not of any mysticall flesh and blood but euen of the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereof we are made members not by faith and mystery alone as in baptisme but by naturall participation of them in the last supper So doth S. Ireneus take these words For S. Paule spake not saith he of any spirituall or inuisible man sith a spirit hath neither bones nor flesh but of that disposition which is agreable to man the which consisteth of flesh of sinewes of bones the which disposition is nourished of the chalice which is his blood and is increased of the bread which is his body So doth S. Chrysostome also take these words saying we are members of his flesh and bones And again he hath mingled him selfe with vs and brought him selfe into
to be worshipped with Godly honour Seing therefore thou seest yâ— priest present who is wont to handle Godly things it were a farre more impiety for thee not to adore Christes body at the time of masse when thou art assured by the worde of God who sayd to his Apostles in them to al priests doe and make this thing that the holy Ghoost faileth not at the consecration to work the body of Christe really present All this consydered it is not possible for any man that lyeth not wittingly and willingly to say but that S. Chrysostome â—…aught and beleued the body of Christe to be really present and that it ought to be really adored vpon the altar it self or in the priests hands And therefore he saith afterward Quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendam I wil shew thee that in the earth which is worthy of the highest honour How can S. Chrysostome shew any thing in earth worthy of the highest honour besyde the body and blood of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine For by that which is worthy of highest honour he meaâ—…eth expresly Christes body because it is the body of the SoÌ„ne of God And in saying he will shew it thee he can possibly meane none other thing but that shewing which is by the formes of bread and wine For if any man should require him to shew that most high thing which he promised to shew questionlesse he would lead him to yâ— altar there would shew him that which had bene consecrated by the Priest and he would say vnto him pointing to the mysteries this is the body of Christe and this is his blood For by that meanes only were he able to performe his promise of shewing that thing which is worthy of the highest honour It followeth yet more plainly in S. Chrysostome by an other similitude As in the palacies of kings saith he not the walles not the golden roof but the kings body sitting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christe the worthiest thing in heauen quod nunc in terra videÌ„dum tibi proponitur the which body of Christe is now set foorth to thee in earth to be seen Good Lord what can be required more of the greatest papist in Europe then S. Chrysostome saith Againe yet it followeth I shew thee not Angels not Archangels not the heauens not the heauens of the heauens but I shew thee the Lord of all these things S. Chrysostom saith he sheweth yâ— Lord that in earth vpoÌ„ yâ— altar yet is there a figure to escape his most euident words In faith truth by such figures they may defende yâ— I also am of their opinioÌ„ but 〈◊〉 wise men such wily shifts wil not preuaile There is noman aliue but 〈◊〉 he wil coÌ„â—…ue yâ— words of S. Chrysostome as they stand in order he must coâ—…se yâ— both he speaketh of yâ— body of Christ really present in the Sacrament of the altar and also teacheth yâ— vpon yâ— very alâ—…ar it ought to be adored much more iustly of vs Christians then it was once adored in the manger or stable of the three kings Here wil I detect an other shift of our Aduersaries who perceauing S. Dionysius S. Ambrose S. Augustme and S. Chrysostome with diuerse other auncient Fathers to be so plaine in the matter of adoration haue deuised to say that those Fathers attribute that vnto the signes of Christes body which is proper to the body it self and therefore when they speake of adoring that vpon the altar they meane that we should adore yâ— truth of that thing the signe whereof standeth vpon the altar This interpretation is in dede necessarily to be made of them who haue determined not to beleue the word of God where in it is sayd â—…his is my body But I say that interpretation is foolish and should make all the Fathers gilty of idolatry for they preaching to the common peple teache them expresly that which standeth after consecration vpon the altar to be the true body blood of Christ and therefore that it must be adored much more of vs then the visible body was adored of the wise men If the interpretation of the Heretikes should be admitted they might say the very same of Christes incarnation and so expound what so euer is sayd in yâ— Bible or in yâ— Fathers touching his flesh to be meant of a phantasticall appering of flesh but not of true flesh But now let vs bring against these Signifiers an other plaine authoritie which was by the prouidence of God written as it were of purpose to destroy this imagined and figuratiue adoration of the Sacrament whereof they speake Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christe now to consist of the only nature of his deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he toke of the virgin doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes supper in the which Sacrament two things are found one which is seen and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seen but vnderstanded and beleued and that is the true body and blood of Christe That which is seen is sayd to remaine in his former substance nature and figure and kind In his substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being nowe by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine in their former nature because they norish no lesse then the substance of the bread it self would haue done if it had remained They remaine in their former shape and kind as being thinges that may be seen and touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing sayd thus much for the one parte of the Sacrament cometh also to shew the other parte thereof For his minde is to declare yâ— as there be two kindes of things in one Encharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christe Therefore the other nature besyde the formes of bread wine is the reall substance of Christes body blood of which parte thus he speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelliguntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur The mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleued and they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be Note good Reader that the mystical signes which Theodoretus calleth mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be 〈◊〉 that they were made But what are they 〈◊〉 â—…o be that which they are not Nay Syâ—… yâ— were false vnderstanding which falshod caÌ„ not be in the mysteries of Christ. they are then in dede that which they are vnderstanded to be What is that Theodoreâ—…us
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
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
geue Whereas the Sacrament was not yet deliuered but was only commended and set foorth in words vnto the Iewes when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh 2. Iâ—… commendare were Latine to geue yet it should haue bene translated I haue geuen 3. For viuificabit M. Iuel readeth viuificat it doth geue life for it shall geue life He was â—…oth to haue any commendation past or any geuing of life to come For he wold so vnderstand Christes words that the gift the quickening might be present lest it should apperteyn to the supper Whereas the commendation of the gift was past in those words I wil geue and the geuing of life to come verily because the Sacrament should then geue life when it should be receaued These are miserable shifts to saue your selfe from subscribing Iu. We haue a spirituall mouth a spirituall tast eyes eares as Basill Leo Origen Tertulliá say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the mind not of the belli to beleue in him that is to eate the liuing bread therefore Christes meaning is spirituall and not reall San. What grosse ignorance is this to thincke that the reall preseÌ„ce of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t hindereth my spiritual mouth tast eares eyes faith or minde All these muste goe together Christ tooke his body to bring to our bodies the meate whereof our soule might spiritually eate It is the fondest kind of reasoning in the world by one truth to denie an other seing both staÌ„d together Is my faith the lesse because Christ was bodily seen in earth How is then my spiritual feeding the worse because the foode of life is in my mouth Doth not Tertullian say the flesh is fed with the body blood of Christ to thend the soule may be made fat of God Iu. M. Harding wil say eating with mouth and grinding with teeth is a worke spiritual And so he is a good proctour for the Ca pharnaites San No that hâ—… will not say except the meate be so eaten that the manner of eating it be so cleane and spirituall that although it enter into the mouth yet the â—…aith both may and doe worke vpon it by adoration and participation as it chanceth in Christes supper And therefore Christ said work the meat which perisheth not which the sonne of man wil geue you And he meaneth work it by soule by beleuing and in body by eating And the Prophet Dauid saieth They haue eaten and worshiped This vnderstanding neither yâ— Capharnaites had nor the Sacrmentaries haue therefore they grind now common bread with their teeth whereâ—… they shal bitterly gnash if they repeÌ„t not yâ— soner Iuel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who sayth to vnderstand carnallie is to vnderstand plainly as the things be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing els San. We vnderstand not so For we seing the forme of bread thinke vppon the body of Christ which is vnder it Therefore S. Chrysostom is not against our euasion Iuel S. Augustine sayeth the saying of Christ is a figure or maner of speache San. What you meane by your maner of speache I can not tell S. Augustine vseth not those words But except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man is in dede a figure and the speaking thereof is figuratiue because it was not meant that a maÌ„ should be visiblie eaten as flesh is eaten at common tables But yet that he should be really eaten Albeit the maner of eating be figu ratiue as we know And therefore when Christ had consecrated the bread into his body and sayd this is my body that speache was not figuratiue because as the truth of the body was to be eaten so the maner of the eating it was determined And theâ—… all was plain to good beleuers but not to Iudas and his companions who beleue no more then they see bodily S. Augustine then calling those words except ye eat my flesh figuratiue referreth the figure to the maner of eating But not to the substance which is to be eaten For els if by no meane the flesh of Christ might be eaten it should not be eateÌ„ by faith But if it may be so eaten it may be eaten by mouth also in that pure maner as it is geuen vs. Iuel The figure commaundeth vs to be partakers of Christes passion San. It had bene more truly translated that we ought to communicate with Christes passion Communicare is to partake in the fullest maner that may be And how can you possiblie communicate better or more fully with Christes passion then to eate worthely the self body that suffered Whereof S. Paule sayeth How oft so euer ye eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he come That is the communicating whereof S. Augustine speaketh Iuel And with comfort and profit lay vp in our memorie that Christ hath suffred death for vs. San. The perfit laying of this matter in our memorie is with Penance loue to eate the thing which is made for the remembrance of Christ. Thence cometh power to liue through or for Christ so really as he liueth through or for his Father with whome he is one thing and nature Of this whole saying of S. Augustine I haue intreated more fully in my 3. b. the. xiiij Chapiter Iuel This therefore is Christes meaning and the very eating of his flesh San. Not this which you meane But this it is M. Iuel as I haue told you The whole man must eate as well in body as in soule because the whole is taken and assumpted of Christ the whole is incorporated by Baptism the whole redemed by death and the whole shal be crowned with glorie therefore the true eating is to eate that meate which of it selfe coÌ„sisteth of body soule and Godhead to eate it I say in body soule and spirite and not by faith only Iuel The Capharnaites vnderstoode Christe grossely of éating with teeth that whiche Christe spake spiritually and so would M. Harding teache the people San. D. Harding 〈◊〉 no more then he toke of Christ and of the Euangelists It is no grosie thing vnder the form of bread to eate the bread of life The Capharnaites went no farther then to theyr teeth and belly But we make the teeth to serue the mind also That of Origenes S. Dierom S. Augustine maketh not againste vs. Iu. Tertullian saith the Capharnaites thought his speachâ—… was hard and intolerable as though he had determined to geue them his flesh verily and in dede to be eaten with theyr mouthes therin saith Tertullian stode theyr erroure San. You know they thought not of eating it vnder the forme of bread For S. Augustine saith in Christes person Quis modus sit manducandi istum panem ignoratis Ye know not what waie there is of eating this bread Therefore the
miraculouse 26. Ye expound to be gilty of Christes body and blood for eating that is to say for not eating or resusing to eate For you teache euill men not to eate the body of Christ which is against S. Paule 27. Ye will not haue Christes supper to be an externall sacrifice but to be worse in that point then the Iewish or idolatours altars and tables who both did sacrifice and also S. Paule compareth Christes table with theirs 28. Ye so expound the shewing of Christes death by eating bread a figure of him that you rather shewe him not to be truely dead because your figure is yet emptie voide which can neuer proue Christes death truely past 29. Ye expound the not making a difference betwene Christes body eaten and other meates in suche sort that ye wil not haue the body present wherein the difference is to be made 30. Ye deny our vnion with Christes flesh by corporall participation which S. Paule teacheth by the example of Adam Eue being two in one flesh 31. Whereas S. Pauie saieth Christe to be so muche better then Angels by how much he had a more excelleÌ„t name theÌ„ they you regard not yâ— name body blood geuen to yâ— mysteries of Christ but affirme them to be still that they were before and therefore not to be that excellent substance which they are named to be 32. In all the scriptures so great and oft mention being made of Christes supper as there is yet no promise can be found made to him who eateth materiall bread and drinketh wine But all the promise is made for eatinge Christes fleshe and drinkinge worthely his blood Therefore you affirm bread to be eateÌ„ and wine to be drunken in Christes supper beside the word of God 33. Although Dauid prophecied of cating and adoring yet you wil graunt no such meat to be geueÌ„ to vs which may be external ly adored 34. Notwithstanding that the prophets teache that by Christes comming al externall idolatrie shal be taken away yet you feare not to say that Christes owne Sacrament bearing the name of his owne body and blood is it selfe an idol which was left with vs to kepe vs from all idolatrie 35. The sonne of man came as to saue so to fede the whole man why then denie you the food of life to our bodies affirming them to eat common bread and to drinke common wine whiles the soule is fed by faith with the body and bloode of Christ 36. If in the Sacrament of the altar we fede vpon Christ by faith alone why is that Sacrament called a supper more theÌ„ baptism where also we must fede on Christ by faith 37. Seing a figure may also be the truth it selfe whereof it is the figure as Christ is the figure of his Father and yet the same substance what reason haue you why you would rather detract this hoâ—…our from Christes Sacrament then geue the same vnto it 38. Christ being equal with his Father made promise to vs of his â—…ne fleshe whiche his Father had geâ—…en Why then denie you the gift of Christ to be as real to vs as his Father gaue him real fleshe 39. How teache you the words of Christ which are spirit life to be notwithstanding figuratiue and consequently deade and voide of al life or strength 40. Because yâ— word of God who was only able to be fed vpon by faith and so was the food of Angels or soules woulde be also the meate of man in respect of the body it toke flesh aâ—…d at his supper sayd to vs take eate this is my body And yet you make him still to be only the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded frome hauing God corporally in vs through the fleshe of Christe 41. To coÌ„clude whereas ye find flesh bodie blood ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking geuing breaking distributing coÌ„municating dâ—…udicating ye expound all those words figuratiuelie as though God by so manie waies repeating those words had not strengthned the coÌ„mon and proper significatioÌ„s of them Let this suffise for this time to shew that you obserue nor gender nor number nor nominatiue case nor verb nor antecedent nor relatiue nor the condition of the maker of the supper nor the nature of the sacrament nor the state and perfection of the Gospel nor the sayings of the prophetes nor the â—…ulfilling of the old law nor the oft repeting of the matters belonging to Christs supper but onlie to serue the eye and the senses deny al the marueilous workes of the new testament yâ— remeÌ„brance of al which this one mysterie is affirmed to be â—…rag no more M. Iuel of our figuratiue expositions sith you haue thus erred in graÌ„mar in Logick in Diuinitie in truth in faith in coÌ„mon sense Iu. If in these words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ ye follow the letter it killeth San. To follow yâ— letter is to take words as thei sound to an inâ—…del as to haue flesh torn in to peeces and so eaten but he that taketh them as Christ in his supper by his fact did expound them doth folow yâ— spirit and not the letter ¶ A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel IVel. S. Augustine sayth The Sacrament of Christes body after a certain phrase or manner or trope or â—…igure of speache is the body of Christ. Sander This place is wickedly abused because it is nakedly alleged and falsely englished whereas it dependeth wholy vpon the words going before which are these Nónne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in Sacramento caet Was not Christ once offered vp in him selfe and yet in the Sacrament he is offered vp for the people not only at euerie feaste of Easter but euerie day Neither surely doth he lye who being demanded Eum responderit immolari Doth answere that he is offered vp For if the SacrameÌ„ts had not a certain likenes of those thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes they were not at all Sacramentes Out of this likenes they take also for the most parte the names of the things theÌ„ selues As therefore according to a certaine â—…anner the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christe the Sacrament of the blood of Christe is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith In these words of S. Augustine it is to be seen euidently that he putteth a difference betwene the thing and the Sacrament of that thing The thing therefore it selfe must be first knoweâ—… and then we shal see how the Sacrament thereof is both like vnâ—… it and taketh the name thereof The thing it selfe in ouâ—… question is Iesus Christ not only so but the true body of Iesus Christe neither only true in substance but euen
really substanciallie For as the word is made fleshâ—… really so we take really the word being flesh in our Lords meat The worde was not made fleshe onlie by our faith but in truthe of his substance therefore we take the worde being fleshe not by our faith onlie but in truthe of his substance If M. Iuell will haue vs receaue Christes bodie verily and yet by faith only it must be made flesh verily and yet by faith onlie Ivel It is the bread of the hart â–ª hunger thou within thirst thou within San. If Christ being in his diuine nature toke real flesh and yet maie be hungred within is much yâ— better to vs bread of yâ— hart by natural slesh right so it is extreme madnes to make vs beleue that Christes bodie geneÌ„ vnder the form of bread is therefore the lesse hungred within or the lesse the bread and foode of the hart Iuel The thing that is receaued in spirit is receaued in dede San. If it be to be receaued corporally as well as in spirit as Baptisme and the Eucharist then it is false and foolish to say that it is receaued in dede when the outward dede lacketh This man wil cloth the naked and fede the pore in spirit and yet he saith it is done in dede albeit thei die for cold Spiritual receauing is true and good when it shuldreth not out reall receauing as spiritual resurrectioÌ„ is good true but yet it is not al yâ— truth of resurrection S. Bernard is alredie answered and S. Cyril Iuel It is a holy mystery and a heauenly action forcing our mindes vp into heauen and there teaching vs to eate the body of Christ not outwardly by the seruice of our bodies San. Is not verè sumimus we verily take spoken of taking by the seruice of our bodies can it be otherwise meant Again it foloweth in the same sentence that Christ hath mingled the nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder a Sacrament of his flesh to be coÌ„municated vnto vs. Mark these words M. Iuel which you passed ouer as if you had ben vtterly blind The nature of Christes flesh is I trow real it is communicated to vs vnder a Sacrament know you not that sub is vnder is not the Sacrament receaued by the seruice of our bodies did not your self graâ—…nt the Sacrament to be taken by mouth If then the nature of Christes flesh be vnder a Sacrament when the SacrameÌ„t is receaued by the seruice of our bodies the nature of Christes flesh is receaued by our bodies not by faith alone Iu. The truth hereof standeth not in anie reall presence but as Hilarius saith in a mysterie which is in a Sacrament San Whereas S. Hilarius saied We receaue verily the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie you report him to saie in a mysterie Is that no false dealing Well he saith we receaue Christes flesh vnder a mysterie and by your owne confession a mysterie is a Sacrament therefore we receaue the flesh of Christes body vnder the Sacrament And the Sacrament deliuered in the laste supper is by your confession also outward and commonly called a figure therefore we verilie receaue the flesh of Christes bodie vnder an outward figure and the outward figure is knowen by our eye to be the figure of bread therefore vnder the figure of bread we receaue the flesh of Christes bodie albeit by the figure you meane the substance of bread Iuel Our regeneration in Baptisme in a certaine bodily sorte teacheth vs the purgatioÌ„ of the mind as Dionysius saith so it is in the Sacrament of Christes body San. Can you haue the mind better tanght by an outward action then if you eate the same flesh in body which we doe eate in faith Is it possible to haue a greater coÌ„formitie a more vehemeÌ„t figuring and liuely expressing of al truth And albeit I haue shewed differences before betwen Baptisme and the Eucharist yet omitting yâ— I wil now say 〈◊〉 S. Augustin then yâ— bodie blood of Christ shal be lise to euerie man if yâ— thing which is visiblie taken in the Sacrament be eaten in the truthe spirituallie and be drunken spiritually M. Iuel would haue one thing ouâ—…wardly taken and an other thing eaten inwardly But S. Augustine saith that must be eaten in the truthe it selfe spiritually which is visibly taken in the Sacrament Iuel Although Christ be not bodily â—…resent yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mysterie San. The substance of the mysterie muste nedes be hindered when it is absent For it can be no mysterie without the substance thereof The substance of the mysterie is the naturall substance of Christ vnder the Sacrament therefore S. â—…ilarie saith The naturall propriety by the Sacrament is the Sacrament of the perfite vnitie Of this place I haue often times spoken and I would gladly heare M. Iuels minde in it For then should I be sure to know how I might dispute against him I can not coÌ„strue it otherwise then thus Naturalis proprietas the natural propriety which is to saie the natural substance he meaneth the substance of Christe For S. Hilarie vseth the ward proprietas verie muche and ost for the substance or personall being of God or of Christ. Wel then Christes naturall substance Per Sacramentum by or through the SacrameÌ„t est is Sacramentum the SacrameÌ„t perfectae vnitatis of perfite vnitie The substance of Christe is a Sacrament by or through the Sacrament these words can haue none other literall meaning but this the substance of Christe through the form of bread wherein vnitie is figured and vnder which it is by that meane I saie it is the Sacrament of perfite vnitie how can els the natural substance of Christe be a Sacrament Of it self alone it can be no holy signe but by the forme of bread it may be a Sacrament and yet M. Iuell can not find the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in al S. Hilarie Moreouer S. Hilarie making a preface that we muste not speake otherwise in Gods matters then we haue lerned of him who said my flesh is verily meate yâ— there is no place of douting of yâ— truth of flesh blood concludeth thus For now both by the profession of our Lord him selfe and by our faith it is flesh in deede and blood in deede Answer I pray you M. Iuel What is fleshe in deede what is the nominatine case to est is I knowe none other besyde the worde Sacramentum the Sacrament or some like word which doth import the SacrameÌ„t as to saie that which the faithfull receaue at Christes supper For of that thinge S. Hilarie now speakethe That then is verily flesh and that is meant by S. Hilarie of an outward thig for he saith immediatly Haec accepta these things taken and drunke do bring
naturally doth signifie nothing els but not fainedly How say ye then when we are knit to God by right faith and syncere charitie is it a fained coninnction or no If it be a true not a fantasticall coniunction then the words whiche affirme Christe to be ioyned also vnto vs corporally and naturally being added ouer and aboue the ioyuing by right faith and syncere loue must not only â—…ane a true ioyning whiche was already made but also an other manner of ioynig which is both true in effect as yâ— ioyning by faith was also true in the corporall mingling of Christes flesh to our fleshe Otherwise what meant the aduerbe quoque also We be ioyned by faith and also corporally Is that also nothing Furthermore if corporally be nothing els to say but truly and without imagination how coÌ„strue you these words of S. Paul All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ is it only to say it dwelleth truly in Christ well but it may dwell truly in Christ though Christ be not man therefore by your exposition a phrase is found whereby yâ— truth of Christes body may be wiped away whensoeuer it pleaseth the Protestants Consyder M. Iuell that you are not Capitaine generall of the whole army Satan him selfe had taken that cure vpon him before you were borne It is he that directeth all yâ— soldiours of his campe What place in his army doe you occupie I doe not know This I am sure of your Capitaine intendeth fully to displace Christe as much as lieth in him not only froÌ„ dwelling corporally in our bodies by the blessed communion but also from taking real flesh of the blessed virgin Satan him selfe would haue an other Messias to be prepared for Iudge you whether you helpe towards his comming or â—…o He coueteth to persuade that corporally doth meane truly and nothiâ—…g els wherâ—…ore it foloweth that corpus is latin for the truth and for nothing els and seing Christ toke of our lady corpus a bodie by you it is meant he toke tâ—… truthe of our lady nothing els Or can you avoid the yoke the â—…dance the mutuall respecte that is betwene bodie bodily corpus and corporally Whatsoeuer one of those names whiche are in one yoke doth signifie the other doth signifie after the same rate If bonitas be goodnes bonus is good bene is well â–ª corporally is of the same yoke with corpus body If bodily doth meane truly corpus doth meane truth so Christ toke truth of our Ladie and what is that forsouth it is whatsoeuer it pleaseth M. Iuel So that it be no phantasie it maie be then faith or charitie or els bones without flesh or skinne without flesh and bone To this point M. Iuels diuinity leadethvs O miserable time O cor rupted maners The noun corpus bodie and the aduerb corporaliter corporallie do not onlie signifie a truthe but a truthe of bodie and in Christ it signifieth a truthe of flesh and of blood Iuel Otherwise there must nedes follow this great inconuenience that our bodies must be in like maner corporally naturally and sâ—…eshly in Christes body For Hilarius saith we also are naturally in him and Cyrillus we are corporally in Christ. San. It is most true that both we are in Christ corporally and he in vs during the time of the coniunction For when a ioyning of twain is made it must nedes be that yâ— one is ioyned to yâ— other whiche is no absurditie at al because that twaine to wit Christ and his Church should be in one flesh it is the doctrine of S. Paule And as flesh is made one with him who really eateth and digesteth it so is Christ ioyned most really to him that worthely receaueth his body Iuel That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporall being San. That were a fine kind of being M. 〈◊〉 that Christes body should be in vs corporally and yet the being should not be corporal In dede the maner is not corporall But if you exclude the truth also of corporall being you speake coÌ„trarie to the word it self For the word corporally can signifie no lesse then a corporall truth Iuel It requireth not any locall being San. It is a local being in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place vnder the form of bread which the substance of bread did occupie before And when we haue that kind of bread in vs euen so Christes being is locall in vs. Iuel Christ sitting in heauen is here in vs not by a natural but by a spirituall meane of being San. The being of Christ in vs by spirit is also naturall concerning the nature of his Godhead which is euery where But coÌ„câ—…rning the grace which is created in vs it is a spiritual being after the rate as euery cause is in his effect Iuel S. Augustine saith After that Christ is ascended he is in vs by his spirit And S. Basil and again S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places And Christ spake in S. Paule caet San. You are now in a common place M. Iuel Who denieth but Christ being in heauen is here in spirit Wil that take away his being here in body when bread is turned into his body Shall one truth always displace an other with you These be sowters arguments to say Christ is God therefore he is not man He is in heauen ergo he is not in earth c. Iuel This coniunction is spirituall and therefore nedeth not neither the circumstance of place nor corporall presence San. The coniunction is spirituall but the 〈◊〉 of working it is brought to passe by the corporall substance of Christ. M. Iuel hath forgotten that we now 〈◊〉 whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally for thâ—…nd to make a spirituall coniâ—…ction by this meane of his own flesh or no as if a man to coÌ„â—…t an heretike do not only write vnto him but also doe come him self and by disputation of mouth do persuade him the conuersion is spirituall but the meane of working it is by corporall prâ—…sence Iuel The coniunction that is betwene Christ and vs neither doâ—…h mingle persons nor vnite substances But it doth knit our affects together and ioyne our willes saith S. Cyprian San. S. Cyprian in the same place expoundeth himselfe to meanâ—…e that we are not made by this vnion the second person in 〈◊〉 for saith he the only Sâ—…e is consubstanciall or of the same substance with hiâ—… Father But we by eating his reall flesh in this Sacrament are made 〈◊〉 vnto the Sonne of God Atteyning throâ—… the flâ—…sh vsque ad participationem spiritus euen to the 〈◊〉 of the â—…pirit of Christ. Again whereas our vnion with Christ is 〈◊〉 in the holy Scriptures to yâ— vnion wâ—…ich is in 〈◊〉 as in matrimonie the wife husband tarie â—…oth 〈◊〉 persons and eche of them kepe their seuerall substances notwithstanding
Whiche thing he muste doe not only by preferring the holie scriptures before the wrytinges of whatsoeuer men but also by expoâ—…ding the same according to the greatest authoritie that may be founde in that kinde The greatest authoritie among meÌ„ must nedes be in the whole Catholike Churche of Christe the piller and establishment of truthe whose consent in the interpretation of Gods worde because wee can not knowe by the handwryting of euerie particular member for knowledge is not in all persons we therefore muste not so muche seke after the bookes as after the workes and practise of all faythfull nations to knowe by what meanes they expounded Christes Gospell For as the holie Ghoste instructed alwayes theyr hartes wryting his lawes in them so by theyr conformable deedes we lerne what he inspired to theyr hartes As therefore it is most necessarie to conferre one part of holy scripture with an other for the right vnderstanding of both places euen so it behoueth to ioyne with that conference the vse and custome of the people of God To make this matter the playner by an example the Apostles are willeâ—… to teache all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Now shall this precept be vnderstanded For some thinke that teaching before baptisme is so necessarie that no creature ought to be baptised whiche is not first taught Others thinke both necessarie but yet teaching to belong firste to suche as are able to be taught and baptizing firste to suche as are able to be baptized and not yet readie to be taught And because infautes may be baptized before they can be taught they thynke that Christe meant to haue teaching goe before baptisme in men of discretion and baptisme before teaching in children whose parents aske baptisme for them Whiche later vnderstanding is proued to be more agreable to the meaning of Christe not by the order of his wordes but by the vse and consent of all nations whiche are the spouse of Christe For in euerie age and countrie of Christendome children are brought to be baptized by theyr frindes and the Bishops or Priestes of those countries haue alwayes baptized them So that we haue two great and necessarie poyntes expounded in the precept of baptisme by the custome of the Churche The one is that children maie be christened before they are taught theyr beleefe the other that suche children oulie maie be Christened whose parents or frindes aske baptisme for them But if any Iew or Gentil doe liue among vs who wil not haue his child Christened the Apostles by that fame 〈◊〉 of Christ haue no authoritie to baptize suche a childe Whiche thinge is proued because the Church of God hath no suche custome The same strength whiche the practise of Christian men is nowe sene to haue in baptisme is also founde to be no lesse in other Sacraments For likewise al faithful countries haue asked the Sacrament of consirmation for their baptized children and all Bishops haue geuen it oynting and confirming them in the name of the 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby declaring how the holy Ghoste is geuen to the late baptized by the imposition of handes of the Apostles 〈◊〉 all faithfull 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adored the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration They haue desyred that holy sacrifice to be made and offered for them all Priestes Bishops and Primates haue said masse and allowed that deuotion of the layemen Wherby it is proued that those wordes of Christ This ys mie bodye and This ys my bloode are to be taken properly and not figuratiuely in so muche as the holy Ghost by the vse of all the people of God hath expounded the whole meanyâ—…ge of Christe Therfore whosoeuer teacheth a figuratiue vnderstanding of those words he goethe syrst from the autoritie of the gospell where yt ys 〈◊〉 sayed This is my body Next he 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of the whole Churche whiche so earnestly beleued these wordes and thâ—…effecte of them that she adored the body of Christe present vnder the forme of breade and acknowledged yt to be offered to God vnbloodely for the obteyuinge of the sruites of Christes death Thirdlie he must nedes 〈◊〉 concluded singular and prowd who had rather leane to his owne iudgement or to the iudgement of a fewe lyke him self then to trust either God or his whole Churche And wheras certayne men are wont to saye that the holy Fathers and faythfull people of the first six hundred yeres after Christ did vnderstande the wordes of his supper otherwise It is Good Reader to to palpable and to muche assected a blindnesse not to ponder and wâ—…igh howe vnsensibly that is spoken All men of neuer so meane witte iudge thinges vncertayne by those that are most certayne not contrariwise leauinge that whiche they euidently knowe and measuringe yt by a rule cleane obscure or throwghly withowt the coÌ„passe of their reache Christ in that dreadfull night wherin he was betrayed 〈◊〉 nowe 〈◊〉 the mysterie of owr redemption after breade taken and blessing 〈◊〉 and gaue and sayd This ys my body Hereof S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. 〈◊〉 beare wytnesse Neither may auie man dowt therof who loketh for saluation by 〈◊〉 Agayne whosoeuer is of lawfull age and hath but the vse oâ—… his eyes and eares can tell that in the Catholike Churche all men 〈◊〉 the real body of Christ vnder the 〈◊〉 of that bread which was blessed by the Prieste These two principals no man aliue may deny 〈◊〉 no man is able to deny that 〈◊〉 three hundred and fiftie 〈◊〉 paste it was decreed by 4. 70. Bishops in the great Councell of 〈◊〉 kept at 〈◊〉 that the body and blood of Christ are trulie contayned vnder the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine the substance of bread and wine being changed into the body and blood of Christ by the power of God The same thing is in effect tawght in the Councells kept afterward at 〈◊〉 at Constance at 〈◊〉 at Trent Fowrthly before those Councells 〈◊〉 was condemned by three other Councells and by the preachers and lerned men of that age wherein he 〈◊〉 and therfore he 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 which now 〈◊〉 mayntayned in England No poynte of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor may be 〈◊〉 denied Wee haue then the wordes of the gospell plaine the worshipping and adoration of the Christians plaine the authoritie of diuers generall Councells exceding plaine These all be thinges so knowen and certayne that our aduersaries cannot say they are not so Albeyt they say they should not be so Well they yet graunt we haue the wordes of the gospell the vse of the Church these nyne hundred yeares and the authoritie of generall Councels of whom I 〈◊〉 on the other side what gospell what Church what Councels they haue First they can bring no gospell where yt is
small confidence in the first six hundred yeres and therfore findeth fault with M. Iuell because he gaue vs that most large scope of all Doctors of the Church who haue wryten for the space of six hundred yeres after our Sauior Christes being here in earth and of aâ—…l Councells kept in the said continuance of tyme Whereas M. Nowel wolde haue had him tye vs streightly to the triall of the scriptures the certaine and only iudges sayeth M. Nowell in controuersies of religion Wherin he affirmeth we can saye nothing at all The holy scriptures M. Nowell are so certayne and vpryght â—…udges that if they cowld speake thei wold remoue out of their coâ—…rtes all suche 〈◊〉 tonges as saie This ys not Christes bodie This I say whiche is made at yâ— holy table of Christes supper This â–ª which after blessing and the wordes of consecration spoken is broken and deliuered This which at the handes of the Priest is taken and eaten If scriptures might be heard should he leue one hower that seing a thing so exaâ—…ly taken and pointed vnto and hearing the same with so manie circumstances all tendinge to the makinge a new mysterie of the new testament affirmed to be the body of Christ whiche is geuen for vs yet wold neither care sor the word nor the dede but stowtly 〈◊〉 that this whiche is sene and taken is not by the wordes of Christe made his owne reall bodye And yet haue we nothing at all to say in the holie scriptures Some others graunt we haue somwhat to say in this question of the reall presence but not in any other Whome I beseche to suspend their iudgement vntill they know what they saie For not if they vnderstand not how scriptures belong to vs in other questioÌ„s we doe therfore lack scriptures From the highest question of the sacrifice of the masse to the most abiect in our aduersaries reputation of indulgences and pardons the Catholike Churche neuer lacked nor shall at any tyme lack plentie of holy scriptures as yt shall appere when particular occasion serueth In the meane tyme because I am not able to bring foorth at once what may be sayed owt of holy scriptures for all the conâ—… of our age I haue begâ—…ne first with the cheif of all which is concerning the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine Beseching God I may haue grace and tyme to bring in other questions other like scriptures I haue examined yâ— wordes of Christes supper I haue noted the ciâ—…cumstances of thinges done and sayd there I haâ—… conferred the holy scriptures of one place with them that in the same matter are written in other places as well of the old as of the new testament I haue ioyned the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres to shewe they thought as the Catholikes nowe doe whom they call Papistes But what circumstaÌ„ce what confereâ—…ce of holie scripture can helpe owre aduersaries Before they can ioyne one place of scripture with an other they must haue some one clere and playne by whiche the other that is more darke and obsâ—…re maye be interpreted and expounded But what playne place can that be in the supper of Christe For if the wordes and dedes that make the supper be obscure if thâ—…y that sulfill the prophecies and promyses goinge before be darke and figuratiue where ys it possible to finde a prophecie a figure a psalme a promesse more eâ—…ident then the perfoâ—…mance therof was Doth not the death of Christ as fulfill so make playne and open all the lawe and prophetes Euen so whatsoeuer is browght apperteininge to the purpose of Christes supper muste nedes be more vncertayne and lesse euident then the supper it self which is the end and perfourmance and therfore the openinge and interpretation of all the rest Who so therfore maketh the wordes of Christes supper figuratiue or vncertaine muche more he maketh al other places that belonge to that argumeÌ„t obscure and harde to be vnderstanded What certentie then can theire belefe haue who neither haue an euident faithe comminge from theire ancestoures to them nor any manifest place of scripture by which they maye iudge and trie other suche scriptures as they bringe for theire figuratiue doctrine As they imagine withowt any prouf at all that they haue the faith of the first six hundred yeres so I thynke they imagine a gospell where it is wâ—…tten This is not my body or This is the figure of my bodie But as with thine eyes thow maiest reade it distinctly wrytten in fower places of the thâ—… 〈◊〉 This ys my body so if thow be of any good yeres thow 〈◊〉 â—…ember the tyme when noman professed the belese that they now doe prosesse And farther if god graunt the to leue but twentie yeres moe thow shalt see manie a thowsand of their owne felowshippe beleue the coâ—…trarie of that whiche in many articles is now professed by the 〈◊〉 them selues For heresie can not staye vntill yt come at the length to infidelitie But as I sayed thow art sure of the gospell where it is sayed This ys my body and sure of the Churche where â—…t both was and is beleued to be Christes body after coÌ„secration so can they neuer be sure where yt is wrytten this is the figure of my body nor yet can they be sure that euer yt was beleued in the first six hundred yerâ—…s to haue â—…ene a figure without the reall truth of Christes sâ—…bstance vnder the forme of bread Tell me masters I beseche yow sith before youre â—…ies the wordes of Christe lie sownding against your opinion and in your knowledge and experieÌ„ce yow haue sene al Christian people profâ—…sse a 〈◊〉 faith vnto yours by what euidence by what inuincible authoritie can yow proue that the first six hundred yeres agreed with yow Is yt wrytten in the gospell It sayâ—…th the contrarie in these wordes This ys my body Is it come to your hands by tradition All tradition maketh agaynst you whereby we are tawght the body of Christ to be made by Christes wordes vnder the forme of bread Did all nations and faithsull pâ—…ople beare wytnes to your opinion It is cleane contrarie For yow can name no people where your opinion was professed before these fiftie yeres albeit a fewe haue in corners now and then 〈◊〉 yt as now some or other alwayes 〈◊〉 the blessed Trinitie Did generall Couâ—…cels teache yow to thynke as yoâ—… dor They are cleane on the other 〈◊〉 as which professe an vnbloody sacrisice and a 〈◊〉 of Christ vpon the altar and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the auucieut Fathers tell you that them 〈◊〉 beleued so They tell you cleane contrary as who forbyd you to 〈◊〉 of Christes wordes and bid vs adore his flesh in the mysteries Where is then this faith of six hundred yeres proued Admit you had a worde or two that semed to fauoure your
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
seruice and orders of the Apostles them selues If Caluin had that spirit he were farr from hearesy But now see what spirit Caluin hath Thus he writeth in this matter Immediatly after the words which I rehersed in the 〈◊〉 of this chapiter thus he writeth His rationibus constat repositionem Sacramenti c. It is euident saith Caluin by those reasons the reseruation of the Sacrament which some men presse to th end it maie be distributed extraordinarily to the sick to be vnprofitable For either the sick shall receaue it without rehersall of the institution of Christ or the minister together with the signe will ioyne the true explication of the mysterie If the institution of Christ be not spoken of it is an abuse and a fault If the promises be rehersed and the mysterie be declared so that they who shall receaue maie receaue with fruit we nâ—…de not dowt this to be the true consecration To what purpose then is the other whose strength reacheth not so farr as to come to the sick But you will saye they that doe so to wit that reserue the Sacrament haue the example of the old Churche Fateor I graunt but in so weighty a matter wherein errour is not committed without great danger nothing is more safe then to follow the truthe it self Hytherto Caluin hath reasoned who putteth the whole streÌ„gth of the Sacrament of Christes supper in promising and preaching therefore if any where preaching and promising be not vsed in the geuing of the Sacrament he calleth it an abuse and fault And seing the primatiue Church euen whiles the Apostles were â—…liue did by the witnesse of 〈◊〉 reserue the SacrameÌ„t so long after consecration as to send it to such Bishops which might come to strange dioceses out of an other prouince and seing the deacous vsed to carie it in the tyme of Iustinus Martyr who liued within a hundred yeres of Christes death to those which were absent Caluin I saie perceauing the vse of all Apostolicall Churchs to stand against him will seme to conâ—…ute them all with this fond reason Either the sick and absent persons for all is one concerning this matter shall receaue that which was consecrated in the Church without a new rehersall of these words This is my body And then it is an abuse saith Caluin a fault he calleth it an abuse which the scholars of the Apostles vsed or â—…ls saith he the words shal be ioyned with the signe and it is a true consecration And then saith he the first consecration made at the Church was in vain concerning the sick and absent men But the second is good which is made by preaching and rehearsing the words of promise to the sick persons I haue most faithfully behersed the opinion of Caluin But let vs now examine why it is an abuse and fault to deliuer to the sick or to the absent persons the holy hoste which was consecrated in the Churches without a new rehersall of Christes words why is that an abuse who told Caluin it was an abuse or a fault For south his own mind gaue him so his wisedom thought so his grauitie said so his blasphemonse penue wrote so But other cause reason or scripture he bringeth none for it â—…e first 〈◊〉 that the consecration of Christes supper consisteth in saying to the people This is my body which is geuen for you And proneth it not at all but graunt him once his dream consequently he inferreth that if such an hoste whereupon the words of consecration were once dewly pronouÌ„ced be afterward geueÌ„ to him that heaâ—…d not those words of promise because he was sick or absent if the â—…ost I say he geuen without a new rehersall of the words it foloweth that it is an abuse Yea but some Papist will saye the old Churche did so For now he calleth the primatiâ—…e Churche the old Churche I graunt saith Caluin But it is better yet to follow the truthe it self Why 〈◊〉 doest thow only know what the truth it self is we allege the old Church to proâ—…e that the truthe 〈◊〉 Christes gospell doth stand for vs and to proue that consecration is not made by preaching and by the hearing of the people but by the vertue of Gods word which spoken ouer the elements of bread and wine saith by the one This is my body making it so And by the other This is my blood making it so We saye these words make the body of Christ vnder the form of bread and his blood vnder the form of wine For our saying we bring the gospell where â—…t is writen this is and this is When other 〈◊〉 the gospell we shew that the Apostles and their successours practised this which we beleue For they all vnderstode by these words directed to brcad and wine that the body and blood of Christ was really made vnder the formes of them How proue we that Because if once the words had ben spoken by a Priest vpon those elements the things consecrated were afterward kept and caried as a most holy sacrifice to men abâ—…ent as the which things coÌ„teined really within them the body blood of Christ. Why els should they be caried to others that were absent A 〈◊〉 maye say that when they came to the absent persons the words were again rehersed First that appereth not in Iustinus or in Ireneus of whom the one sayth the 〈◊〉 was sent to straâ—…gers the other saith that the things consecrated which were receaued of the present Christians the same were caried to the absent How is the Eucharist sent if it be no Eucharist vntill it come to the stranger and then be made a new Or is it 〈◊〉 to iterate the consecration of any Sacrament Hath Caluin lerned so farr Did the first consecration lack â—…ertue so that an other must be made or the first be repeted Last of al the Deacons caried the Eucharist who possibly could not reherse the words of consecration This is my body and this is my blood And yet if they were words of promise preaching the Deacon who may 〈◊〉 and in preaching may 〈◊〉 yâ— spiritual seeding of our soules might also reherse those words But from the Apostles tyme to this day it was neuer heard that â—… Deacon might consecrate the body and blood of Christ. For noman is able to doe any more then wherevnto he is lawfully called But no Deacon hath the power to coÌ„secrate geuen him And that his name sheweth which is to say a 〈◊〉 or a waiter on For he waiteth vpon the Priest at Masse and is not as yet promoted to the office of 〈◊〉 Seing then the Deacons caried the Eucharist and they could not say the words of consecration doubâ—…lesse they that receaued it of their hands receaued neither words of promise nor of preaching but they receaued that blessed body and blood of Christ which was coÌ„secrated before vnder the foormes of bread wine This faith
wil stand sound when Caluin and all his scholars be out of memorie This practise did the Apostles leaue to their successours and scholars as Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus and Eusebiâ—…s witnesse Now consyder what an intolerable spirit of arrogancy was in Caluin who dareth oppose him self against the first hundred yeres after Christ. He dareth affirm that all the Priests and Bisshops of Rome before 〈◊〉 committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist to strangers That all Asia and Brece committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist by Deacons to men that were absent who heard not the words of promise If thou looke to be saued good Reader beware of that arrogant spirit Learning thou shalt not find in Caluin and much lesse honesty Only he hath a sort of smothe words which are poy soned with pride and ignorance If any of his scholars wil take vpon him to defend his errour I wil by Gods grace discouer more ignorance of that arrogant Master of theirs In the meane tyme I wil content my self with these reasons which I haue presently brought against him out of the word of God and out of the sayings and doings of the whole primatiue Churche ¶ The preface of the second Booke FOr so muche as contraric things one being set against the other are both made the more clere and plaine it semed best I should not only confirme the Catholike faith but also con fute the contrarie doctrine which is allowed for good and laudable in the Apologie of the Church of England to thâ—… intent the Reader might iudge whether the Catholikes or Protestauts doe more oftallege more syncerely interprete and more throughly beleue the word of God I feare me he shal find nothing beside the name of the gospell to be among the ProtestaÌ„ts But the true meaning and vse thereof only to remain in that Catholike Church of Christ. Let the thing it self speake I aske but an vpright and indifferent iudge Neither let any man be now shamed to heare that his new chosen opinion is a great deale worse then his old faith was For if he blushed not to forsake the faith of the Catholike Church vowed at the fonte of Baptism and to embrace a truthe lately espied as he thought in the gospell Muche lesse ought he to accompt it any reproche to reade further in the same gospell and there to lern his old profession made at the tyme of his Christendom to haue bene not only the receaued belefe of all Christians but also to haue bene grounded in the true word of God and practised of the Apostles and their Successours from the beginning The Chapiters of the second Booke 1. The Catholiks require their cause to be vprightly tried by the holy scriptures which they haue alwayes studied aud reuerenced 2. It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper 3. The auncient Fathers teache that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. 4. What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood 5. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supp of Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the vnion which is consessed to be made in the supper of Christ. 7. That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God 8. That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more then two Sacraments 9. That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknouledged of the Apologie according to the word of God 10. That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament 11. What signe must cheifly be respected in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper what a Sacrament is 12. Which argument is more agreable to the word of God It is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore the true body of Christ. 13. The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of token 14. That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and this is my blood be figuratiue 15. There all presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. 16. Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body 17. The true resurrection of our bodyes cometh by eating that body of Christ which is bothe true and truly in vs. 18. Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries 19. The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature 20. It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper 21. By eating we touche the body of Christ as it maye be touched vnder the form of bread 22. The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Christ withall 23. The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie 24. The contrariety of the apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harts to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar 25. What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 26. What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper 27. That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries the table of Iayes 28. The bread which is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ. 29. Sacramentall eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apologie ¶ The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightlye tried by the holy Scriptures which they haue alwayes studied and reuerenced THe Apologie of the Church of England boasting it self partly of the word of God partly of the primatiue Church requireth that we call the new gospellers no more by the name of heretykes neither accompt our selues hereafter Catholikes except we coâ—…ince them out of the holy Scriptures as the old Catholike Fathers did vse to conuince the old stubburne heretikes If we be heretikes saith the Apologie they as they would gladly be called be Catholikes why do they not as they see the Fathers which were Catholike men haue done alwayes Why do they not conuince and maister vs by the diâ—…e Scriptures Why do they not call vs againe to be tried by them Why do they not lay before vs how we haue gone away from Christ From the Prophets From the Apostles and from the holy Fathers Why sticke they to do it Why are they afrayed of it It is Gods cause why doubt they to commit it to the triall of Gods word To this proude bragge of the Apologie thus I answere To
the holy scriptures and to the holy Fathers ye haue appealed By the holy Scriptures and Fathers your doctrine shal be tried â–ª The Catholikes neuer feared to be tried by the holy Scriptures but they alwayes feared to abuse them For we yâ— know in dede what holy Scripture is are so carefull how to behaue ourselues reuerently and semely about the same that we lightly vse not to allege any part thereof to proue any rare and harde matter vnlesse we shew some auncient Fathers or Councell to haue expounded that peece of Scripture before vs in suche sorte sense as we by the witnes thereof desyre to persuade and confirme But otherwise the Catholikes neuer refused the triall of the â—…oly Scriptures as yâ— which they alwayes both studied loued Do not the writings of S. Beruard in manner wholy consist of continuall testimonies taken out of holy Scripture Did not Petâ—…â—…ombardus lernedly comment the Psalmes the Episâ—…s of S. Paule and other parcels of Gods word â–ª Did not S. Thomas of Aquin write so vpoÌ„ Iob Esaias Ieremias S. Mathew S. Iohn S. Paule the Canonicall epistles and the Apocalips that he vseth to expound one hard place by an other as nighe as thâ—… thing will suffer Did not Nicolaus de Lyra Dionysius the Carthusian Paulus Burgensis Caietanus the Cardinall with diuerse other expound the whole Bible or make notes vpon it wold they haue don so except they had ben specially delighted with the word of God More ouer when heresies arose in our dayes Did not Contarenus Sadoletus Polus â—…osius 〈◊〉 Gropper Tapper Eckius Pighius Petrus and Dominicus of Soto Miranda Uillegagnon Ioannes a Louanio with diuerse other coâ—…ince those heresies by the holy Scriptures and Fathers And yet as though we brought nothing at all for defence of the Catholike faith out of the word of God or primitiue Churche so dothe the penner of this Apologie more to his discredite then to ours falsely and vnhonestly reporte But now to shew the better his falsehood and dishonestie I thought good for my part to set soorth such holy Scriptures and suche witnesses of the primitiue Churche as plainly confirme the Catholike belefe concerning the chefe matter which at this day is in controuerâ—…e betwixt vs and them The chefe question is about the blessed Sacrament of the altar Our belefe is that after consecration duely made the body blood of Christ is really present vnder the formes of bread and wine The Apologie teacheth other wise as now it shall appeare But whereas there are many questions in this behalfe as of the reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of the masse of communion vnder one kind of receauing alone of râ—…tion of the Sacrament and of suche other I will beginne 〈◊〉 with the matter of reall presence which iâ—… the grounde of all the rest not despayring to haue at other tymes more leasure to handle also the other questions So much therefore as in the Apologie belongeth to the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar I will faithfully set foorth and trie the truth of that doctrine by Gods word and by the holy Fathers Neither let any man be offended yf I seme to kepe no good order in so much as I make no new methode of myne owne but follow the order of the Apologie which sodenly and abruptly thus intreth in to yâ— question ¶ It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper WE do expresly pronounce that in the supper vnto suche as beleue there is truly geuen the body and blood of the Lord. This doctrine being called to yâ— word of God to yâ— iudgement of holy Fathers for his triall will appere false forged Because the holy scripture teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be truly delyuered not only to such as do beleue but euen to wicked men who in their workes haue deuied their faith howsoeuer they kepe it or geue it ouer in hart Iudas one whole yere before the last supper was called a deâ—…ll for so much as Christ knew that he wold betray and sell him vnto yâ— Iewes Which it is not to be thought that Iudas wold haue don if he had bene of the true belefe that Christ was the Sonne of God God him self And yet the body and blood of Christ was truly deliuered vnto him Who although he had beleued the diuine power of Christ yet he had not beleued as we now take beleuing for the fulfilling and perfoorming of all that which belongeth to the state and lawe of the new Testament According as it is written Vt omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam That euery man which beleueth in him may not perish but haue euerlasting life Such a belefe workiâ—…g by charitie Iudas had not And yet he receaued the body and blood of Christ. For albeit some auncient Fathers thought that Iudas went out before the supper of Christ yet farre the greater part teache otherwise And it is much more agreable to the word of God How proue I that S. Mark writeth that Christ came with the twelue S. Mathew sayeth Christ sate down with the twelue and whiles they were eating he gaue his body and blood S. Luke agreeth vpon the very same number and vpon the same gift Among the twelue Iudas is rekoned in S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Iohn And whiles they were at supper which they besyde the twelue Iesus tooke bread and blessed and gaue thanks and brake and gaue to them To which them I pray you but vnto the twelue that came with him and sate with him to yâ— twelue therefore he gaue and said Take eate this is my body And taking the chalice he gaue thanks and gaue them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament Which is or shal be shed â—…or the remission of synnes Et biberunt ex illo omnes And all drank of it Which all if not the twelue Iudas therefore being one of the twelue had the body blood of Christ deliuered to him For Christ said Take eate and drinke ye all of this And as they dranke all so is there no doubt but they all did take and eate therefore Iudas tooke that which Christ deliuered But Christ witnessed himselfe to deliuer his owne body saying Take and eate this is my body And drink ye all of this for this is my blood Therefore the body and blood of Christ was deliuered vnto Iudas And sith Iudas did not beleue the body and blood of Christ was truely delyuered to some such as did not beleue We nowe call these defenders to be tried by the holy Scriptures We make it appere yâ— they haue seuered them selues from Christ from the Prophetes from the Apostles we stagger not we flee not it is Gods
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
▪ because so much is signified to be geuen And seing the gift of God which might haue bene secret is now so made that the signe and token of it goeth together with the truth thereof it could geue from it selfe no other token then it hath nature of his owne The token of Christ sheweth power of forgeuing and reteyning synnes to be geuen to the Apostles Therefore that power is in deed geuen I am not ignorant that the Apologie as it denieth this Sacrament of Penance so it falsefieth the words of Christ saying that the words whose synnes ye forgeue they are forgeuen are meant whose synnes ye declare to be forgeuen but thereof we may by Gods grace dispute an other tyme. Now it is enough to shew that the word forgeuing doth not importe euidently and at the first sight a declaration of forgeuenesse but an actual forgeuenesse in deed and a signe thereof Euen as these words This is my body doe importe both a signe and work a true being of the body and not a signe without a truth Briefly it is one thing to consyder what words any other where may signifie and an other thing to consyder what they may signifie in a Sacrament For many words may signifie vnproperly in other places but the principall words of a Sacramēt can not be vnproper For the nature of y◠thing doth ly◅itte the interpretation of the words When Christ maketh a Sacrament he maketh a thing of a dubble nature to wit a holy thing and the signe of a holy thing But the whole is to vs knowen by the signe For the thing we see not neither in Baptisine nor in confirmation nor in the Eucharist nor in Penaunce nor in extreme vnction nor in Priesthod nor in Matrimonie The thing the truth the grace the inward operation is hid from our eyes from our eares feeling The signe thereof is sensible and apperteineth to the eyes and eares Now to say that a plaine signe is not made outwardly it is as much to say as a plaine grace or truth is not made inwardly Againe if it be not a plaine signe