blood This can be but one thing Therefore Christ deliuering that whereof he sayd This and this deliuered at eche tyme but one thing in all but two things He deliuered his body blood as him self sayd and you coÌ„fesâ—…e he truly deliuered them wherevpon I conclude that he deliuered neither bread nor wine and consequently that the bread taken was changed in to the body of Christ and the wine was changed into his blood For seing Christ toke both bread and wine and deliuered truly his body and blood yet deliuered but one thing at eche tyme and that also keping the forme of bread and wine it must nedes be graunted that the substance of bread and wine which was truly taken and not truly deliuered because an other thing was truly deliuered was in the meane tyme truly changed into that body and blood which was truly deliuered O masters truth is strong and by the aduersaries own weapon getteth the victorie Again remember that the name of body and the name of blood are names belonging to the manhod of Christ to which manhod when you adioyne any act or work which may truly be verisied thereof it must be meant according to that truth which properly belongeth to the nature of the manhod When we say Christ was truly scurged nailed to the Crosse bound and buried it is not here to be vnderstanded that these things were don in figure in spirit in faith But that his body suffered according to the fâ—…esh all these things And he that saith the contrarie is an 〈◊〉 which heresie wold the manhod of Christ to be changed into his diuine nature If then the body and blood of Christ be truly dâ—…red you must not vuderstand a figure only to be dâ—…red neither a spiritual dâ—… only For if the body of Christ be deliuered truly and yet by spirit only then the truth of his body is by these men brought vnto the truth of a spirit and the flesh of Christ hath losi his true nature and propâ—… Mark wel the reason when the body of Christ is truly deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his own nature The nature of a body is to be dâ—…d after some bodily maner verily by hands or by some other corporail action And they to whom it is delâ—…red likewise receaue it by some part or sense of their body For so requireth the true nature of flesh and blood not immediatly to be geuen to the spirit and soule but to come to it by meane of the body Whereof it is inferred that the body and blood of Christ which are truly deliuered in the supper are bodily deliuered and bodily receaued But from the body of Christ who made the dâ—…ance vnto the bodies of the Apoâ—…es who receaued the things deliuered none other thing can â—…syde that which semed bread and wine therefore vnder that foormes the body and blood of Christ were truly contâ—…ined and by yâ— meanes truly deliuered and truly receaued Thirdly when you say the â—…sh of God quickeneth our soules you should haue sayd also that it quickeneth our bodies as in other places I haue proued out of the sixth of S. 〈◊〉 anâ—… out of S. Jreneus â—…tullian Cyrillus and other auncient Fathers ¶ what it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ â–ª ANd that the same supper is the coâ—…ion of the body and blood of Christ by the partaking whereof we are qâ—…ned we are 〈◊〉 and sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which 〈◊〉 and â—…th can not be 〈◊〉 from them whom it nourisheth and when it is cut of their reache they can not haue it before it be geuen If then we haue in 〈◊〉 yâ— body and blood of Christ we receaued it by his gift at his supper And surely it was the thing whereof he sayd Eate and whereof he sayd Drinke Other food was not deliuered in Christes supper beâ—… his body and blood Nor possiblie can we haue the food of his supper at any other mans table then at his Wel. If we be nourished by the meate which Christ gaue vs when he sayd Eate and yet we be nourished by his body and blood vndoubtedly he sayd Eate of that which he gaue with his hands and which the Apostles toke into their mouthes and that was bread to see vnto therefore vnder that â—…orme of bread we take the nourishment whereby we are sed to immortalitie Otherwise what warrant haue we to come by this food which is cleane out of our reache vntil God geue it saying Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood By those words oâ—…â—…ate one liquour only is geuen which also â—…deth vs to immortalitie as yâ— Apologie coâ—…h But none other food that man may receaue bodily can feed vs to immortalitie besyde the reall substance of Christ. therefore that substance is receaued nourisheth vs when Christ sayd Eate this is my body Drinke this is my blood ¶ The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must nâ—…s be a naturall vnion â—…ore it be a mysticall ANd by the which we are coupled we are vnited and grafted into the body of Christ that we might â—…well in hinâ—… and he in vs. Christes â—…sh is deliuered to the end we should be nourished therewith And the end of nourishing is to make one thing of yâ— which is eaten and of him that eateth it The flesh deliuered to nourishe vs is not any mysticall flesh but only the natural flesh of Christ neither can it be any other food For none other thing that coâ—…th in at the mouth of man is able to seed him to immortalitie besyde the substance of Christes flesh and blood If then it be the naturall flesh which feedeth and the vnion doe come by seeding the vnion must of necesâ—…ty be made with the naturall flesh of Christ. And because that is such a flesh as being vnited to God hath power to geue life and â—…mortality out of the naturall vnion which is made with it by eating an other spiritual and mystical vnion floweth which maketh all the members of Christ to be one mysticall body So that we haue now fiâ—…e degrees First the slesh of Christ is deliuered to vs in his supper Next we eate the same flesh Thirdly we are fed by it if we eate it worthely Fourthly of yâ— feeding conuneth a reall and naturall vnion and ioyning with Christes flesh as S. Hilarie teacheth and other auncient Fathers Of that naturall vnion procedeth a spirituall vnion with the whole body of the Church Because being made one with Christes flesh we are vnited thereby to his spirit and Godhead liuing for him as he â—…th for his Father whereof I will speake more hereafter The Apologie acknowledgeth a ioyning with Christ by eating But it surely meaneth the last spirituall ioyning which ariseth of the other naturall vnion Whereas that spiritual ioyning doth â—…ude the other natural as euery effect presupposeth the necessarie
touch it vnder the foorm of bread not hindering our touching by our belefe but rather furthering our belefe by our touching for so much as we touche that visibly wherein we beleue the flesh of Christ to be inuisibly The Apologie supposeth holding by faith to be contrarie to touching with teeth But we think them bothe to agree right well and both to be true in their proper kind S. Ireneus writing against those heretiks who denied the resurrection of our flesh sayeth that S. Paule naming spirituall men doth call them so because they partake of the spirit Sed non secundum defraudationem interceptionem carnis but not as defrauding them or as taking their flesh from them Euen so it is true that we hold Christ by faith spirit and vnderstanding in the holy mysteries but we thereby ought not to take away the truthe of his flesh which is in the same mysteries It is an old custome of heretiks by the assertioÌ„ of one truth to imbarr stop an other truth whereas yâ— Catholiks beleue as wel yâ— one as yâ— other ¶ The â—…acramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Chriâ—…t withall ANd this is no vaine faith which doth comprehend Christ and that is not receaued with cold deuotion which is receaued with vnderstanding with faith and with spirit The faiâ—…h of receauing Christ in spirit which you speake of is not vaine when it denieth not some veritie of the Gospell But seing you denie this to be the body of Christ which Christ visibly deliuered now it is a vaine faith to beleue that who so denieth parcell of his faith doth notwithstanding comprehend and receaue Christ by faith or spirit What vnderstanding haue you that say This is my body doth not meane This is my body What faith haue you that beleue not the working and effectual words of Christ which were spoken with blessing What spirit haue you when you know not yâ— words of Christ to be spirit life as yâ— which make all that which they sound in that consecration of his holy mysteries It is a warme deuotion that hearing the body of Christ by him self affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye Godly honour to it God kepe me and all others from such faith such vnderstanding such spirit and such deâ—…otion ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie FOr Christ him self altogether is so offered and geuen vs in these mysteries that we may certeinly know we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be geuen vs in these mysteries he is present in thâ—…m For a gift is not made of a thing absent But he is not any where to be shewed present but only vnder the forms of bread and wine yet Christ shewed his body blood saying This is my body this is my blood This and this be words that shew things which are spoken of therefore the presence of Christ which you confesse and which him self sheweth must nedes be meant of his presence vnder the formes of bread and wine Again if we may certainly know we are flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones if we may know it as your words import by his presence in these mysteries Seing our knowlege must nedes rise of a certaine truth otherwise it were an errour and not a knowlege it is certainly true that in theis mysterics we are by the presence of Christ in them flesh of his flesh bone of his bones But yâ— can not be except yâ— flesh bones of Christ be really present yea so really present as Christes mother was really present to hym he to her when he toke flesh of her flesh For a coniunctioÌ„ betwixt yâ— flesh of Christ yâ— flesh of men caÌ„ not de made by faith spirit vnderstanding For yâ— is a coniunctioÌ„ oâ—… mind but not of flesh bones Flesh and bones haue no faith or spirit whereby the coÌ„iunction betwene them and Christ may be receaued they haue a natural substance as wel in Christ as in vs. And as the man and wife can not be one flesh by the consent of mariage except in dede they come bodily together Euen so caÌ„ not the flesh of Christ be made one with our flesh except both his flesh he present in the Sacrament for vs and we come to the selfe Sacrament to be ioyned to it And this example of mariage is so good and true that S. Paul him self vseth it in talking of this verie coniunction of flesh and bones betwixt vs and Christ. which now the Apologie semeth to allude vnto But the flesh of Christ cometh not from his Fathers right hand corporally to be ioyned with our flesh Therefore it remaineth that the bread is by consecration turned into Christes 〈◊〉 to thintent it may â—…e receaued and made one with our flesh Other meanes how either Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh the Gospel neuer taught the Fathers neuer lerned yâ— Catholike Church neuer knew But by this meanes S. Irenens S. Hilarie S. Cyril S. Chrysostome and other Fathers coÌ„sesse our natural ioyning with Christes flesh as it shall appere in diuerse places of this booke ¶ The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harrs to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar ANd therefore in celebrating these mysteries the people are to good purpose exhorted before they come to receaue the holy communâ—…on to lift vp their harts and to direct their minds to heauenward because he is there by whom we must be full fed and liue Who euer had to doe with so forgetfull men A eâ—…ueller name I wil not vse For Gods sake good reader suffer not thy self to be lead of them as if thou haddest nor wit nor sense Be a child in anoiding malice but in vnderstanding shew thy self a man I assure thee he is not worthy to be called a man who perceauing their extreme foly as now he may yet wil addict him self to folow their doctrine See I besech you how this geare hangeth together Christ said the Apologie in the last sentence geueth him self present in these mysteries we know we are flesh of his flesh bone of his bones and therfore we are byd lift vp our harts to heauen becauâ—…e he is there by whom we must be ful fed and liue Mark how this therefore cometh in it agreeth together as if it were sayd in shorter words Christ geueth him self present in these mysteries and therefore he is not here but in heaueÌ„ seeding vs from thence You deceaued deceauers how feare you not to dally thus with the dreadfull mysteries of God Doth Christ offer
cibum ferret God the Father hath signed that is to say hath sent the Sonne of man to bring you this meate And Eâ—…thymius agreeth with S. Chrysostome therein Christ therefore being sent of his Father to geue vs the euerlasting meate of life first fayeth I am the bread of life And then sheweth how he will geue the same bread saying And the bread which I will geue is my flesh S. Cyrillus vppon those words I am the bread of life writeth thus His verbis subostendit sanctissimi sui corporis vitam gratiam qua in nobis vnigeniti proprietas id est vita ingreditur permanet In these words he sheweth priuily the life and grace of his most holy body whereby the proprietie that is to say the life of the only begotten both entreth into vs and tarieth Likewise S. Hilarie hath these words Si verè verbuÌ„ caro factum est nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est If the word be truly made flesh and in our Lords meate we truly re ceaue the word made flesh how can it be but he must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Christ being for euer God in the fulnesse of tyme toke flesh and when the hower of death was at haÌ„d he gaue vs that flesh to be eaten by the which eating we reâ—…eaue the word it self that is to say the naturall Sonne of God into our bodies and so Christ dwelleth in vs not only by faith spirit or vnderstanding but naturally Wherefore S. Hilarie sayth we take and receaue the word truly Verè verbuÌ„ sumimus We receaue truly and in dede the word which was with God in the beginning and which was God But how can we receaue God truly or naturally God is a spirit and our nature consisting of a body can not fede truly and naturally vpon a spirit but only by faith and charitie How â—…hen receaue we God truly For south because 〈◊〉 toke flesh truly and we receaue truly the word made flesh Noman doubted but we can truly receaue flesh seing then the word is made flesh we thereby can receaue the word it self not only by vnderstanding but also whiles his own proprietie that is to say whiles the life Godhead which corporally dwelleth in Christes flesh entreth into vs with his flesh tariâ—…th in vs if we receaue worthely his most holy body Thus it appeareth that Christ in his flesh geueth vs the bread of life which he was sent to geue and he geueth it because that flesh is vnited to the word of God which is life by his own nature But if this flesh of his be geuen to vs by faith alone and vnderstanding or spirit alone and not in very dede We haue not yâ— bread of life in dede geuen to vs but only geuen to vs by faith spirite or vnderstanding And so it was geuen to vs before yâ— incarnatioÌ„ of Christ. For God was euer beleued on of the iust men â—…oth to be and to be the rewarder of them who seeke him as S. Paule sayth And faith by nature is due to God as Christ sayth 〈◊〉 beleue in God beleue also in me Therefore although Christ hath taken flesh yet if his flesh he geuen to vs only by â—…aith and spirit the bread of life and nature of God which dwelleth corporally in that flesh is not geuen vs after the coming of Christ by any other meanes then by faith And so by the incarnation of Christ we haue not the bread of life geueÌ„ to vs by any other way then we had it before Which is expresly against the word of God where the euerlasting meat and the bread of life is now first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the world to bring vs this euerlasting meate And the bread which he will geue is his flesh Therefore to saue the truth of yâ— Gospell which neuer caÌ„ faile we must beleue that by the incarnation of Christ and by his gifâ—… at the last supper we haue his reall flesh and in it the bread of life geuen to vs more then by faith or vnderstanding or spirit that more is the gift of the true substance of flesh and of blood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth And by it the Godhead is receaued of vs not only by an effecte of grace by a certain verâ—…ue but in such truth of nature as it is corporally dwelling in the person of Christ who is one in substance with his Father For although God be euery where by nature and fill both heauen and earth yet as Iustinus Martyr witnesseth he is in the Sonne of man by so excellent a meane of vâ—…g man to God that he is no where els after that sort And by that singular meane he was promised vnto vs as who is only the euerlasting meate which alone satisfieth the hunger of man whose harte as S. Augustine confesseth is without rest vntil it rest in God because it was made to come to God And nothing is at quiet vntill it hâ—…ue obteyned the end wherevnto it was first made Seing then God is by nature yâ— only euerlasting meate which perisheth not and seing he must be geuen to vs in his own nature and we are not able to receaue him as he is a spirit he hath done for vs as good mothers and Nourses doe for their babes The mother eateth bread by her eating turneth it into milk and that milk she geueth to the infante and by that meanes the infante eateth bread made milk This similitude S. Augustine bringeth for the same purpose whereof I now speake In the beginning was the worde and the worde was with God and the word was God Ecce cibus sempiternus Behold sayeth S. Augustine the euerlasting meate Sed manducant Angeli But the Angels eate it Quis homo posset ad illum cibum What man were able to attayne to that meate Oportebat ergo vt illa mensa lactesceret ad paruulos perueniret It behoued therefore that foode should be turned into milk and so come to litle ones Vnde cibus in lac conuertitur nisi per carnem traijciatur By what meanes is meate turned into milk except it be conueyed through flesh Quomodo ergo de ipso pane pauit nos sapientia Dei How then hath the wisedome of God fed vs with yâ— bread it selfe Quia verbum caro factum est habitauit in nobis Because the worde is made flesh and hath dwelte in vs. And so S. Augustine coÌ„cludeth yâ— man hath eateÌ„ Angels food and that as he sheweth there in the new sacrifice of Christes supper For of that sacrifice Sacrament he intreateth Thus we see that God him self must be eaten of vs not only by faith for then he neded not to haue bene made man but he must be eaten also as infants eate milk by mouth
be words of him that is by nature euerlasting life who meaneth to geue his flesh aliue and that not only so aliue as our flesh liueth whiles the soule is in it but so liuing as that flesh liueth which is 〈◊〉 and ioyned in one person to the Godheâ—…d Think no more you grosse Capharnaits of dead flesh geueÌ„ by peece meale which is not auayable to brâ—…g you to heaueÌ„ but think of such a flesh as God hath assuÌ„pted to geue life by it to the world of such a flesh as will ascend by his own vertue into heauen of such a flesh as being conceaued not by the sede of man but by the holy ghost hath power to become spirituall without losse of his true nature and substance My words be spirit and life Spiritus est Deus God is a spirit In ipso vita erat life was in the word verbum caro factum est and yâ— word was made flesh Of that flesh Christ words must be vnderstanded That is the flesh which he will geue which we must eate that flesh liueth with God and in God and geueth them life who receaue it worthely This doutlesse is the literall meaning of Christes words and therefore S. Cyrillus douted not to write Spiritum hic c. Christ hath called here the very flesh â—…pirit not because it hath lost the nature of flesh and is changed into the spirit but because the flesh being very nigh ioyned with the spirit or Godhead hath receaued the whole power of quikning or of making thiÌ„gs to liue The words then which I haue spoken to you are spirit that is to say spirituall Et de spiritu vita id est de viuisica naturali vita sunt And they are of the spirit and life That is to say of the naturall life and of that which maketh other things to liue This phrase Verba mea de spiritu sunt my words are of the spirit doth meane that the words of Christ haue in them some of his spirit and of his diuine power Which meaning sith it is most true these words of Christ doe not shew that the naming of flesh and blood which went before was figuratiue and that now Christ declareth only a spirituall vnderstanding of them as the Sacramentaries teach but all is cleane coÌ„trary For Christ now geueth a reason why his former words be possible easy true and proper The reason is for that he is God that spake them and he spake them of that flesh which is vnited to the sonne of God Spiritus viuificans est caro Domini c. The flesh of our Lord sayth Damascen is a spirit which quickeneth because it was coÌ„ceiued of a quickenâ—…g spirit sor that which is borne of the spirit is spirit Which thing I say not taking away the nature of the body but intending to shew the Godhead thereof and the power which it hath to make things liue As therefore the flesh of Christ was not thereby no flesh because it was ioyned to his diuine substance but rather had by that vnion the power to make vs liue for euer euen so yâ— words which before did shew the flesh of Christ to be meate in dede and his blood to be drink in dede are not now declared to be figuratiue or vnproper words but rather they are declared to be most proper and true because they are witnessed to be spirit and life For as the Godhead is in his own nature most infinite almighty simple and vncompounded and the truth it self So those words which partake of the Godhead are declared to be of most strength to work that they sound to be most simple and to haue least figures parables in them as the which conteine the vertue to make that truth which they signifiâ—… So that the name of spirit doth not stand to depriâ—…e vs of Christes reall flesh but only to make it profitable to vs and to shew that Christ by his word is able to geue vs his flesh wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth Corpus Dei sayeth S. Ambrose Corpus est spiritale corpus Christi corpus est diuini spiritus quia Spiritus est Christus The body of God is a spirituall body the body of Christ is the body of the diuine spirit because Christ is the spirit that is to say God Non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritalis est It is therefore no bodily but a spirituall food The food is spirituall as the body of Christ which he toke of the virgin is spiritual But the body is not spiritual as though it lacked the substance of true flesh but because it was wrought and made by the holy Ghost in the virgens womb Therefore the heauenly bread which we receaue from the altar is a spirituall food noâ—… that it lacketh the true substance of Christes flesh but because it is wrought and made present vnder the foorm of bread by the spirit of God and by the holy Ghost aboue all course of nature It is clere saith S. Ambrose that the virgen did beare Christ otherwise then the course of nature was and this body which we make is of the virgen What sekest thou here the course of nature in the body of Christ seing our Lord Iesus him self is brought foorth of the virgen besyde the course of nature As who should say the reall flesh of Christ is made present vnder the foorm of bread by the holy Ghost euen as Christ was incarnate in the virgens womb by the holy Ghost It is the Godhead the spirit the life that worketh all things in yâ— holy mysteries The flesh without yâ— Godhead profiteth nothing From yâ— Godhead the words came which Christ spake That Godhead is it which maketh Christes flesh profitable Per carnem spiritus sayth S. Augustine aliquid prosalute nostra egit caro vas fuit quod habebat attende non quod erat By the flesh the spirit or Godhead did somewhat for our saluation The flesh was the vessel or instrument mark what the flesh had or held and not what it was by his own nature And again The charitie of God is spread in our harts by the holy Ghost which is geuen to vs. Ergo it is the holy Ghost which quickeneth The words which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life What is it to say they are spirit and life They are to be vnderstanded spiritually If thou hast vnderstanded them spiritually they are spirit and life if thou hast vnderstanded them carnally they are spirit and life but not to thee Thus farre S. Augustine The word spirit may stand to signifie God Angels the soule of man the life the gift of God made to any reasonable creature the wind or breath or ayer or briefly any thing that moueth But among all significations the chief is to signifie God who is by nature the only spirit which quickeneth and moueth all other spirits
the death of Christ the true passouer and the true Lamb of God Straight way he began to make this new Sacrament in stede of the old Paschall Lamb that the Churche of Christ might haue a new oblation which should conteine really the true Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world For as Leo the great sayeth Vetus Testamentum consummabat nouum Pascha condebat he ended the old Testament and made a new passouer As therefore the old Paschall Lamb was really present and really eaten so much more the true passouer Iesus Christ in yâ— banket which him self instituted is really present to be really eateÌ„ except we shal say yâ— his â—…ew banket is lesse true and really then the old was or that the old being an vndoubted figure of the new did not by the eating thereof declare that the new Paschall Lamb Iesus Christ should be also eaten not only by saith which kind of eating Christ both Moyses and Phinees had but euen externally vnder the forme of bread the which kind of eating Christes flesh the old Fathers had not because the law brought nothing to perfection but we haue it because the truth is made by Iesus Christ who deliuered vs his own flesh to be eaten really and in dede ¶ The fyfth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper AS the ending of the old ceremonie moued Christ to institute a new so the ioye which he tooke of that change was so great yâ— he could not forbeare but sayd to his Apostles Desy derio desyderaui hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum antéquaÌ„ patiar I haue desired with desire to eate this passouer with you before I suffer And as S. Chrysostom witnesseth he did really receaue the mysteries at his supper to incourage his Disciples to receaue them without all scruple or feare Neither doth it skill to my purpose whether the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb or to the nâ—…w If they be referred to the new alone Christ desireth only to eate his own body with his Apostles But Christ could not eate it by faith deuotion sith he had it present in a better maner then so therefore by shewing him self desirouse of eating it and by his owne eating it we learn that it is his own reall substance not only an effectuall sigâ—…e thereof And it is not to be wondered that he will gladly eate his own flesh namely in such an vnspeakable mysterie as him self hath prepared because thereby as S. Chry sostom writeth he encouraged his Apostles not to be afeard therâ—…of And why should not Christ doe that thing for our great profite seing that other men haue often tymes eaten their own flesh euen in a grosse manâ—…r either for hunger or for anger or phansie without doing so great good to them selues or to any other as Christ in this fact hath done to all his Churche Or is it more straunge to eate his own flesh in so miraculouse a maner as it is present in then voluntarily to geue the same flesh to shamful death for our sakes Marke that I say Christ did eate his own flesh not as butchers and cookes dresse it but in so pure a sort as Angels feede on it by hauing it really present with them and yet in so true a sort as men receaue meat into their bodies For herein man eateth Angels foode in that he eateth the same spirit of God in Christes flesh the which feedeth the Angels really in heauen Now for Christ to eate his own body in truth of substance after that Angelicall maner it is no absurditie at all But for him to eate it by faith it were a thing cleane impossible And to eate it in abare figure without saith it were to lack the chief point that is requisite to the worthy receauing of the Sacrament If the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb the 〈◊〉 yet is all one because it is certein he desired not to eate the old Lamb for the Lambs sake but only for that it was the last eating of the Lamb as the which was out of hand to be taken away and to haue the flesh of the true Lamb of God geuen to the faithfull in stede thereof In either of â—…oth ways the desire and ioye of Christ was not finally for eating the Paschall Lamb wherein according to the Prophets words he had no delight but for the eating of his own passouer which can be none other thing besyde his own flesh Therefore Tertullian expounding this matter noteth well Indignum esse vt quid alienum concupisceret Deus How it were vnsemely that God should desier any thing which were other then his own With whom S. Chrysostom agreing writeth Non solummodo Pascha sed hoe in quo cum praeterijsset figura peracta erat veritas Christ desired not simply a passouer but this passoner wherein the figure being passed ouer the truth was celebrated And as he sayeth in an other place Wherein he wold deliuâ—…r the mysteries and new things vnto vs. Lo that which Christ desired was the truth it self to wit his own substance because it being vnited to yâ— Godhead was the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure and that substance is the meate of Christes supper and not only the eating thereof by faith ¶ The sixth circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament WHereas Christ through all his life had loued his Church he both continued that his loue euen to the last end of his life and spent his own life for the same loue and most euidently shewed that his loue the night before his passion first by wasshing most humbly his Apostles seete and then by geuing his own body and blood vnto them in so much that the said Sacrament is thereof called Signum vnitatis vinculum charitatis The signe of vnitie and the bond of charitie Whereof S. Chrystom writeth thus Christ hath mingled him self together with vs hath tempered his body into vs to th end we may be made one â—…rtein thing as it were a body ioyned to the head ArdeÌ„ter enim amantium hoc est For that is a point of them who loue feruently the like he saith also vpon S. Paul Seing now loue was one of the causes which moued Christ to institute this holie Sacrament let vs coniecture by that circumstance whether it be more like yâ— he leaft a peece of wheaten bread for a signe of his loue or els left the best greatest iewel he had to wit his own substance vnder the form of bread to witnesse yâ— same excessiue loue towards vs. I thinke it more then probable that sithens he was able to geue the substaÌ„ce of his own body to vs by turning bread into it and hauing taking bread said after thanks geueÌ„ this is my body I think it more then probable that his great loue
second Councell of Nice doubted not to say Nemo sanctorum Apostolorum qui tuba sunt Spiritus sancti aut gloriosorum Patrum nostrorum incruentum nostrum sacrificium in memoriam passionis Christi Domini Dei nostri totius suae dispensationis factum imaginem corporis illius dixerit None of the holy Apostles who are the trumpet of the holy Ghost either of our glorious Fathers hath sayd our vnbloody sacrifice which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion and of his whole conuersation to be aâ—… ymage of that body No Apostle no Father hath called this remembrance an image of the body so as it should be denied to be yâ— body it self An unage of the death it might haue bene called but an image of Christes body no Doctor euer called it because it is yâ— truth it self It is the body of Christ made for the remembrance of his death accordingly as Christ said This is my body which is geuen for you make this for the remeÌ„brance of me Shewing my death vntyll I come ¶ Answere is made to the chalenge of M. Nowell concerâ—…ng the difference betwene I am the true vine and This is my body MAster Nowell iu his reproufe of M. 〈◊〉 proufe hauing occasion ministred to speake of these words This is my body about the whiche M. Dorman had sayd that Luther and Caluin did not agree he answereth first they agree both in this that the Papists exâ—…ound them â—…alsely Next he affirmeth that M. Dorman nor all Papists with him shall neuer be able to shew cause why these words Ego sum vitis vera I am the true vine doe not proue as wel a transubstantiaton as hoc est corpus meum this is my body I am M. Nowell one of those Catholiks whom you cal Papists who by Gods grace will shewe sufficient cause why these words I am the true vine doe not proue as well a transubstatiation as This is my body In these words I am the true vine I say not only that there is no transubstantiation but I affirine also that in them there can be no transubstantion at all Whereas in the words This is my body a transubstantiation both may be and is To make the proufe where of plaine it is to be knowen that by the word transubstantiatioÌ„ the change or passing of one substance into an other is meant To haue one substance goe and passe into an other it requireth that two seuâ—…rall substances be first or last really found of which two yâ— one must be extant before it be changed the other must at the least be extant when the change is made though it were not extant before As for example The bread which at his supper Christ toke into his hands was one certaine substance the other was his owne body which he had taken of the virgin Mary Now when Christ sayd ouer the bread which he had taken This is my body we beleue that he changed the bread into his body and we call the passing of the substance of bread into yâ— substance of Christes body transubstantiation This 〈◊〉 we build vppon the deedes and words of Christ. Uppon his dedes that he toke bread and blessed or gaue thanks Uppon his words in that he sayd This is my body we beleue his words to be proper because beside that he spake them in the way of blessing of 〈◊〉 a Sacrament and of commanding his Apostles to make this thâ—…g he also expoâ—…ded them him self as not being only contented to say This is my body but adding thereunto which is geuen for you Uppon these vnfallible grounds we say that the thing pointed vnto is Christes owne substance really present at yâ— speaking of the wordes And seing we know the same to haue bene bread before and that it can not be at once both materiall bread and withal Christes body for that the substance of bread is not vnited to the person of Christ we are constrained to beleue that the bread was changed or 〈◊〉 into Christes body Such a change is not only possible became bread is a creatâ—… able to be changed into Christes owne body but it is also most conuenieâ—…t as well to make the external sacrifice of the new testament for no externall sacrifice is made without a change as 〈◊〉 to make it according to the order of Melchisedch whose oblation began in bread and wine but was ended in blessing Abraham and in pronouncing him blessed to the high Godâ—… the which propheticall figure the true Melchisedech Iesus Christ fulfilling toke bread and wine to begiune his new sacrifice withall but by blessing pronouÌ„cing this is my body he 〈◊〉 his â—…nblody sacrifice in that blessed sede of Abrahams owu body and blood Thus we 〈◊〉 touching these words this is my body both a sufficient cause why transubstantiation may be in them beleued and an vndoubted possibility of the same But concerning the other words I am the true wine alleged by M. Nowel the very first ground of al transubstantiation lacketh in them For whereas in euery transubstantiation two particular and seueral substances are to be graunted one which may be chaÌ„ged an other into which the change may be made in these wordes I am the true vine here is but one particular substance which is Christ him selfe As for the true vine â—…ither it is Christ him selfe and so it is no seueral substance from him whereunto he may be changed or els it is no particular substance at all but only a general â—…ame of a kind of substance which hath in it self no dotermined and proper being For as before Christ spake there was no such vine extant which might be pointed vnto so 〈◊〉 speaking he made no such true vine any where he brought foorth no such materiall thing nay he ment not of any vine or of any other creature vnder the sonne but only ment him self to be that in his own person towards vs his members which the natural vine is towards his branches And therein him selfe to be so much the â—…uer kind of vine theÌ„ yâ— natural vine is because the iuyce which vniteth his members to him the head of his mysticall body is more true and more nigh to the spirit of God which is the truth â—…t self then any material vine can be nigh to his own braunches Seing then transubstantiation can not be made otherwise then by turning oâ—…e materiall substance into an other where one material substance only was found there possibly could no transubstantiation be made Christ in dede is one substance but the vine he spake of was no one particular substance at all It was therefore a great ouersyght to compare these wordes I am the true vine to these This is my body which words were so spoken that by the circumstance of the supper they are vnderstanded to pertein after a sort to two substances to the one
and had made petition for his resurrection and saith he wil now performe the vowes which he made for the obteining of his resurrection Those vowes were to haue Gods name tolde and his 〈◊〉 published To that ende serueth the mystery and sacrifice of his body blood for God is thanked in the Eucharist and praised in the cup of blessing as in yâ— publike sacrifice instituted by Christ to remaine in his Church vntill his second comming Therefore when he saith I will performe my vowes he meaneth I wil offer the sacrifice of my body and blood as S. Hierome expoundeth it And therein S. Augustine fully agreeth with him saying Quae sunt vota sua Sacrificium quod obtulit deo Nostis quale sacrificium Norunt fideles vota quae reddit coram timentibus eum And afore Sacramenta corporis sanguinis mei reddam coram timentibus eum What are his vowes The sacrifice which he hath offered to God Knowe ye what maner of sacrifice The faithfull knowe the vowes which he rendereth before them that feare him I will render the Sacramentes of my body blood before them that feare him Cassiodorus consentâ—…th saying Vota mauult intelligi SacrameÌ„ta corporis sanguinis sui caet He rather would the voweâ—… be vnderstanded the Sacramentes of his body and blood the which are rendred those being present which are subiecte to him in holy feare To be shorte see what foloweth the poore shal eate and be filled These are the vowes whereof he spake before S. Bede also writeth Vota quae feci cum meipsum in ara crucis obtuli illa reddam in Ecclesia magna id est iterum per quotidiana sacrificia meorum in sacramentis offeram vota dico eadem verè in coÌ„spectu timentium eum id ist quantuÌ„ ad intellectum bonorum etsi non sint eadem in conspectu malorum qui nihil in Sacramentis nisi quod exterius apparet intelligunt The vowes which I made when I offered my selfe on the altar of the crosse those I will render in the greate Church That is to say I will offer them againe in the Sacramentes by the daily sacrifices of my ministres I meane the same vowes in dede in the sight of them that feare him to witte concerning the vnderstanding of the good men albeit they be not the same in yâ— sight of euil men who vnderstand nothing in the Sacramentes but that which appereth outwardly Here S. Bede expoundeth the rendering of the vowes of Christe to be the offering of the very same body blood which was offered vpon the crosse And that the good see by faith and vnderstand by beleuing more then the eye seeth But the euil men will vnderstand no more then they see iudging that which semeth bread and wine to be still in dede bread and wine But the truth is the same substance of Christes flesh and blood is offered in the Sacramentes which was offered on the crosse Concerning my purpose S. Hierome S. Augustine Cassiodorus Bedafull well agree this place to apperteine literally to the Sacrament of the altar Yea Arnobius who was elder then all they saith that Christ being vpon the Crosse praieth for them that crucifie him that his praise may bee in the greate Church and that he may render his vowes before them which feare him Dum edunt corpus eius pauperes Spiritu whiles the poore in spirit shal eate his body Neither doe the Latines only expound this place aâ—…ter that sorte but also the Grecians Euthymâ—…s hauing expounded the vowes to be the promises of praising Gods name and the eating of the poore men to be their feeding vppon the doctrine of the Apostles addeth also the other interpretation saying Vel aliter comedent fideles Saluatoris corpus cum quo sanguinem eius bibent c. Or els according to an other meauing the faithfull shall eate the body of our Sauiour wherewith they shall drink also his blood And shall be silled verily filled with the holy Ghost and shall extoll God with hymnes and praises in that table So that the former versicle may conteyne not only a prophecie of the Gospell but also the mysticall Sacrament of that table In which interpretation the Fathers agree so throughly that they conferre those words of the pâ—…alme their hartes shall liue for euer with those of Christ I am the bread of life and if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Now if this psalme do literally speake of the offering and eating of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of his supper as ye see plainly it doth it can not be auoided but the same place shal proue that the body blood of Christ must be adored in the Sacrament For yâ— same that is eaten is here prophecied also as a thing to be adored It is sayd manducauerunt adorauerunt they haue eaten haue adored Both be referred to one thing But they haue eaten is referred to the Sacrament of the altar therefore they haue adored is referred to the same Sacrament Apostoli vel caeteri sancti sayeth S. Hiâ—…rome manducauerunt corpus Christi The Apostles and other saiutes haue eaten the body of Christ wherevppon it foloweth that they haue adored it also S. Augustine expresseth it more plainly Manducauerunt corpus caet Euen the riche of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord. They are not filled so that they wil folow as the poore men were but yet they haue adored Behold three verbs which all belong to the very body of Christ eating adoring filling The poore in spirite haue eaten and adored because al nations haue adored before him and they are filled The riche haue eaten and are not â—…illed but yet they haue adored What haue they both eaten The body of Christ Wherewith are the poore filled With the body of Christ. What haue that riche adored The body of Christ but yet they are not filled therewith because they will not folow the humilitie of Christ. And seing this eating pâ—…rteyneth to the Sacrament of Christes supper as it was before prourd the adoring also apperteyneth to the same Sacrament That is eaten which appeareth to be bread therefore that self substaÌ„ce is adored which appearing bread is in dede the truth of Christes own body S. Bede expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shal adore because they shall come with a certeyne outward worshipping Behold the worshipping of the riche is outward and not from the hart whereas it ought to haue beue both outward and inward both in spirit and in truth But through their hypocrisie it consisteth only in bowing their bodies because other men do so and not in true and perfite charitie of God Moreouer S. Augustin
wherein the honour may rest for the honour that wee geue to the body and blood of Christ which was taken of the virgine is according to the doctrine of S. Augustine geuen to his holy person who is the naturall Sonne of God and one substance with his Father true God and true man Thus wee saue the truth of the olde Propheâ—…ies the faith of our forefathers the proprietie of Christes wordes in his supper the honour of his Church the glory of his name who gaue no occasion of idolatry neither in worde nor in dede ¶ The adoration of Christes body in the Sacrament is proued out of the new Testament S. Paule speaking of Sacramtal eating saith he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self not discerning our Lords body that is to say not putting a difference betwene it and other meates For S. Hierome S. Augustiue Sedulius and Primasius expound those words in that meaning The difference which is to be made betwene the meate of Christes supper and other meates consisteth in two points in one that the receauer of Christes Sacrament must prepare him self before hand to be apt to receaue the grace of God in which point Baptisme penance holy orders and other Sacraments agree with the supper of Christe For we may not come being of lawfull age to any of those or such like holy mysteries without due disposing our selues to repentance for our synnes and to amendment of our life The second point of the difference betwene Christes supper other things is that in the Sacrament of his supper we must examine our selues euen for the respect of the substance of that meate which we receaue In baptisme we try our selues not for any honour which is due to the water but for the obteyning of the grace which is geuen in that Sacrament But in the supper a farther difference is to be made What is that The very substance which is taken is to be honoured and adored That is it which S. Chrysoâ—…ome sayth Non considerans vt oportet magnitudinem propositorum non reputans muneris magnitudinem He eateth vnworthely sayeth S. Chrysostome Who considereth not as it behoueth the greatnes of the things set foorth not weighing diligeÌ„tly the greatnes of the gift He speaketh not of the effect which cometh by the Sacrament but of the substance of the things set foorth What are they but such as appeare Bread and wine and yet in dede be Christ him self There fore it foloweth in S. Chrysostome If thou doest lern diligently qui sit propositus who is set before thee thou nedest to accompt nothing els Behold the person and substance set foorth is to be considered only Nullius alterius indigebis ratione Thou shalt nede make no accompt of any thing els For out of that substaÌ„ce which standeth before thee cometh the grace and all other effects of worthy eating as if he sayd prouyde to receaue worthely the person set foorth to thee vnder the formes of bread and thou mayest be secure So that the differeÌ„ce properly belonging to Christes supper is to make a difference of this substance from al other substances That is the difference whereof S. Ambrose saith He that will receaue worthely this meate must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood he drinketh in a mystery What other meaning can these wordes haue but that he must iudge him selfe to drinke not wine but blood not the blood of an earthly man but his blood who is God also and that he drinketh his blood in a mysterie to wit not in his owne forme but vnder the forme of wine for he speaketh of Sacramentall drinking of that which is taken by mouth Therefore the very substance which he drinketh must be disseuered from all other creatures Nowe I say he that is willed so to iudge of the substance of this Sacrament as the substance of him who is God ought to be iudged of he is willed to adore the substance of this Sacrament sith his substance ought to be adored who is God For as S. Chrysostom saith the very table to wit the very meate staÌ„ding vpoÌ„ the table is the strength oâ—… our soulâ—… the synewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light lyfe Thus to iudge oâ—… this SacrameÌ„t by adoring it with true â—…oue in it to adore God that is to adore not only in spirite figures as yâ— Iewes dyd adore but also to 〈◊〉 in spirite and truth as Christ said we should do because our SacrameÌ„ts coÌ„teme yâ— truth which they signiâ—…ied â—…ot only signifying our Sauiour as yâ— old SacrameÌ„ts did but also geuing saluatioÌ„ as S. Augusti doth witnesse And for as muche as the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is the Sacrifice of the new â—…aw willed by him to be made for the remâ—…brance of his death we must both in our spirite and in the truth of naturall coniunction be vâ—…ted and made one with the substance thereof and also in the truth of Christes flesh externally consâ—…crated adore God offering him that reasonable and diuine sacrifice to the end we may render and paie the worship of thanksgeuing due for our redemption in none other substaÌ„ce then in the same which redemed vs. For as it is nostrum holocaustum our sacrifice wholy burnt by death of the Crosse so is it nostra hostia pacifica our sacrifice wherewith we both geue thanks for peace made betwene God and vs and also applie to our selues the fruites of that one burnt offerinâ—… truse made vpon the Crosse which was is the propitiation for our synnes and for the synnes of the whole world This kind of adoration proper to the new testament is due to God of our behalf by the Sacrament and sacrifice of Christes body and blood And herein stanâ—…eth all that which the Apostle speaketh of worthy or vnworthy receauing if the true substance of this SacrameÌ„t be vprightly estemed and both outwardly and inwardly honoured And so doth S. Augustine expound yâ— Apostles minde as now it shal appere Ianuarius had asked what S. Augustine thought concerning holy dayes fasting dayes or such like customes of the Church which are diuersly kept in diuerse countries Among other questions it was also moued what were to be more approued whethere to receaue daily the SacrameÌ„t of the altar or els to abstein sometymes To this question S. Augustine maketh answer that neither of them both depriueth the body and blood of our Lorde of honour if eche of them striue who may honour best the moste healthfull Sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honour our Sauiour in maner by contrary meanes the one by receauing him with ioy into his house the other by saying â–ª Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes
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
affirmed him to rule Angels and al that euer was made by God and his scholars called him a Prophet and the sonne of God whiche notwithstanding for so much as they beleued 〈◊〉 not to be God by nature the Catholiks neuer douted to say that they taught him to be nudum hominem a naked and bare man Right so whatsoeuer holynesse be annexed to bread and wine be it the signe of neuer so great a vertue and efficacie be it called neuer so much the body and blood of Christ yet if it remain stil in the former substance if the truth whiche it is appointed to signify be absent it is bare bread and bare wine a bare token of Christes body and blood Amend your belefe M. Iuell if you will haue vs to amend our termes Iuel We fede not the people with bare figures San. The question is not how ye fede the people by your doctrine but what signe you teache the Sacrament it self 〈◊〉 be whether it be suche a signe as hath present in a secrete manner the truth signified thereby or els whether it be the signe of a truth absent in substance For two kind of signes there are one which by the truth of his own substance considered and well vnderstaÌ„ded doth signifie an other manner of truth belonging to it selfe as when a loaf of bread beinge true bread in substance is set to signifie true bread also but yet in that respect as bread is there to be bought sold An other signe there is where the truthe signified is absent in substance As when an iuy bush doth signifie wine to be sold. This later kind of signes or figures is vtterly naked bare and without the truth which is signified The question is whether of these two kinds of signes is in the Sacrament of Christes supper The Catholikes say the best and richest kind of signes is there because there is Christes body realy present to signifie and as it were by seale to witnesse his owne death and passion You teache the substance of the Sacrament to be still bread and wine but our signe is more worthy of Christes Godhead and more properly a signe or a seale in truth of nature then yours For as S. Hilary and S. Cyrill teache Signaculorum ea natura est caet Such is the nature of signes or of seales that they set foorth the whole forme of the kind of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them selues then those things haue whence they are sealed After this sorte God the Father signed Christ and Christe thereby was the forme the print the signe the figure the image of his Father But as S. Hilarie sheweth Imago authoris veritas He was the image of him whom he represented also the truthe I warrant you M. Iuel you fede the people with no doctrine of any such signe or seale present in Christes supper For you say afterward that the bread is an erathly thing therefore a figure I pray you can bread be other then a bare figure if it â—…il remain earthly and corruptible I say further to you M. Juel and yeâ—… beare no false witnesse at all that your 〈◊〉 be more bare then euerwere any euen in the old testameÌ„t For they at the least wise did in apparence of true fleshe and in true blood shedding foreshewe the fleshe and blood of Christ which should die for vs. Melchisedech likewise had beside his bread and wine the reall body of Abraham present whome he offered to God and in him Jesus Christ his sede But you hauing bare bread and bare wine without any reall flesh at all either present or offered must nedes haue a naked signe and a bare figure such as only Cain had and his brood Iu. We teache that in the ministration of the Sacraments Christ is set before vs euen as he was crucified vpon the crosse and that therein we may behold remission of synnes San. Admit ye â—…ache so then is your sermon better then your Sacrament For a man may looke long inowgh vppon the substaÌ„ce of bread wine before he can picke out of their earthly nature Christ crucified But if that blessed belefe were mainteined according to the truthe of the Gospell which after consecracion worshipped the reall body of Christ vnder the forme of bread theÌ„ the token which conteineth the true body that diâ—…d for vs in it is no bare token but the truth it selfe in substance and a token of the visible manner thereof Iu. We teache that Christes body is verily geuen to vs and that we verily eate it and liue by it and are flesh of his flesh San. How wel you teache it the thing it selfe will trie â–ª but all this proueth not that your Sacrament hath euer the more in it vnlesse you say that you receaue all this vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine A goodly matter your wordes in preaching to heare the which infidels may be admitted shal be better then the Sacraments instituted by Christ. How we are flesh of Christes flesh I haue shewed in the fifth booke the fifth chapiter Iu. Yet we â—…av not the substance of bread and wine is done â—…way or that Christes body is let downe from hâ—…uen or made really present San. That is the cause why your Sacraments are still bare naked For all the rest which you talke oâ—… is told to mens eares but nothing is wrought in the Sâ—…ents As for your nicke naming of things as of doing away bread in steede of changing of letting doune Christes body from heaâ—…en we must pardon you therein It is your grace to raile or rather the lacke of grace in you We teach bread to be changed into Christes body through his power Iu. He must mount on highe saith Chrysostome who so wil reache to that body San. You ouerreached your selfe when you turned accedere to reache â–ª it is to come vnto not to reache For S. Chrysostom spake of coÌ„ming to the holy visible table whiche stoode in the visible Church and meant that who so commeth to receaue thenâ—… the holy meate he must in good faith life climme vp to heauen and not that he should goe thither to receaue the mysteries Ipsa namque mensa For the very table that is to say the meate vpon the table is our saluation and life And againe This 〈◊〉 maketh that whiles we be in this life earth may vs heaueÌ„ to vs. Iu. Send vp thy faith saith Augustine and thou hast taken him San. The place is by you abused and drawen from a misbeleuing Iew to whome it was spoken to the Christian 〈◊〉 See good Reader my second booke xxix chapiter Iu. In deede the bread thaâ—… we receaue with our bodily mouthes is an earthly thing therefore a figure as the water in 〈◊〉 San. The water in baptisme is no figure
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
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
for his gift proueth the reall presence of his body and blood in the SacrameÌ„t of the altar euen as God the Father gaue hun reall fleshe and blood at his incarnation CHrist for the meate whiche he promysed to gene in his last supper alleaged his diuinity as who shoulde plainly say wonder not that I promise you suche a thing of so greate difficulty and miracle for I am God His wordes are these worke saith he to the multitude of the Iewes not the meate which doth perish but that which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you for him God hath signed that is God the father hath printed his diuine substance vppon him by eternal generation or hath oynted him with the oile of gladnes aboue al others because his humane nature is vnited to the godhed whereby he is able to do as much as his father It is not to be thought that Christ would haue alleged his equall auctoritie with his Father for a gift which were not of equall truth and of equall power with that which his Father is sayd to gene But his Father gaue him not only the vertue and 〈◊〉 of flesh but reall and natural flesh and blood at his incarnation thereâ—…ore God the Sâ—…nn 〈◊〉 to geue vs the same 〈◊〉 â—…ral fâ—…sh in his last supper For which cause he doth immediatly declare both God his Fathers gift and his own 〈◊〉 his Fathers gift he say 〈◊〉 My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen for it is the bread of God whiche cometh downe from heauen and geueth life to the worlde But what breade is this I saith Christ am the bread of life I am the liuely bread which came downe from heauen â—…ow we haue lerned that God the Father gaue Christ his Sonne from heauen when he sent him to take the flesh of man which flesh assumpted oâ—… the word is also by vnion to the word made the bread of life Christ therefore hauing shewed his Fathers gift and that him self is the bread of liâ—…e cometh to shew his own bread which he wil geue saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The brief discourse of yâ— who le doctrine is this work the meate which tarieth for euer which the Sonne of man wil geue you for this Soâ—…ne of man is equall with God his Father whose naturall image he hath printed in him God the Father hath geuen his Sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life Therefore God yâ— Sonne being equall with his Father wil geue vs the same true flesh of the Sonne of man as meate yâ— shall tarie with vs to life euerlasting But his Father gaue him â—…o the world not only in faith spirite but in real and substancial flesh Therefore God the Sonne by the drift of all his talk doth signifie that he wil geue in his supper whereof he speaketh not in spi rite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the 〈◊〉 same real and substanciall flesh First he sayth he wil geue that meate which shal tarye to life euerlasting Secondly that he is able to doe so as one signed of God his Father Thirdly he sheweth what bread and meate his Father hath geuen him that is to say the true flesh wherein â—…e spake to that preseÌ„t multitude of men Fourthly he sayth yâ— breade that he wil geue is his fleshe Last of all who so cateth it hath life euerlasting Doth not all this goe to proue that as he bad them work the meate which tarieth for euer and shewed him sefe concerning his 〈◊〉 to be made that meate sent from God his Father so he is able to geue them that meate which his Father gaue him and sayth he wil geue it them to the end they eating it may liue for euer he tarying in them and they in him And yet is not that his reall and substanciall flesh which he promiseth Or did he not perform in his supper that which he pro mised If he can not be false of his word we haue in our Lords supper where he perfomed this promise the reall and substancial body of Iesus Christ as truly as euer his Father gaue him reall and substancial flesh in this world And consequently we haue it not only by faith and spirite but in truth and substance This plainly is the discoâ—…rse of Christ him selfe who by his Godhead assureth vs of the gift of that incorruptible meat which is his flesh Whereupon S. Hilarie sayth that no man douteth of yâ— veritie of Christes flesh in vs except he deny Christ to be true God ¶ Seing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith spirit only suffiseth not but it self also must be really eaten GOd sent his Sonne who is by nature the bread of life as hym self hath witnessed to take flesh for vs that in his flesh he might geue vs the same diâ—…ine nature which is the 〈◊〉 bread of life Therefore when Christ had sayd The Sonne of man will geue you the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting straightways he sheweth in one word three causes of yâ— his promise For God the Father sayeth he hath signed this SoÌ„ne of maÌ„ that is to say he hath geuen him hys owne substance concerning the diuine nature of Christ and concerning his humane nature he hath shewed his will by hym as by a seale of his owne hand Farthermore he hath assigned hym to bring vs this meate which tarieth to life euerlasting The verb Signauit he hath signed may signifye the printing of the same forme and ymage which the originall seale hath as S. Cyrillus hath noted in this place also it may stand to shew or confirme a thing by witnes of seale as Theophilact expoundeth it Orels to assigne or appoint a thing to some certain effect and purpose as S. Chrysostome and Eâ—…thymius take it God the Father signed Christ after the first sort by geuing him his own nature And after yâ— secoÌ„d sort by shewing him through miracles wrought in his flesh to be his own Sonne And last of all in appointing to haue his will done most perfitly and executed by him as Christ him self said It is my meate to doe the wil of him that sent me According to this last sense it was the wil of God that Christ should geue vs the euerlasting â—…eate which naturally is his Godhead and by the mysterie of the incarnation it is his flesh And to signifie so much Christ sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate because my Father hath signed me to this purpose The whiche sense S. Chrysostome followeth in the first place of his interpretation writing thus Signauit hoc est misit qui hunc vobis
it was expedient for vs the flesh assumpted of Christe to tary flesh still in dede seing God is by all meanes immutable neither could the word be changed into flesh neither flesh into the word but sith the substance of common bread doth not helpe vs to life enerlasting and may be chaunged into the flesh of Christ it is by the power of Christ chaunged into his flesh when he taking bread and blessing saith this is my body Hereby we may see how the name of brâ—…ad and the figure of Manna is ioyned with the flesh of Christ as the processe of this chapiter teacheth Hereby we may vnderstand how the blessed seed of Abraham which is the body of Christ is ioyned with the apparent shewe that Melchisedech made of bread and wine how the vnleauened bread eaten with the old lambe is the couer of the trew paschall lambe Iesus Christ and to be short how the substance of the old figure is gone into the substance of Christes flesh and how the outwarde forme of the figure remayneth vntill we come to heauen where we shall see face to face without any vayle or shadow put betwene vs and the gloriouse flesh of Christ. Hence it cometh that as S. Ireneus doth witnes the Eucharist consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and of wine of the other heauenly which is the substance of Christes body and blood But if Christes gift consisted of the substance of bread being only sanctified in quality and made a signe of Christes body as yâ— Sacramentaries teache it should neither be that true bread which his Father gaue him nor be in substance better then manna but rather worse for that Manna was miraculously wrought by angels whereas at Christes supper common bread is taken nor it should not be disâ—…ncted from the gift made in the law for as much as there also while Manna was eaten the iust men had grace frome God geuen them because it was a Sacrament of the law It is not therefore grace and commoÌ„ bread which Christ geueth but the substance of his flesh made vnder the forme of common bread by his almighty word ¶ By the shadow of the law past and by the 〈◊〉 truthe to come in heaueÌ„ it is perceaued that yâ— midle state of the new Testament requireth the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of breaâ—… THe occasion of the thre tymes the past the present and the future and of the gifts made in them which are named in S. Iohn doth prouoke me to eÌ„tre into a farther discourse whereby it may appeare to those that delight in conferring the holy scriptures what wonderfull witnesse euery part of them doth beare to that truthe which our forefathers beleued and we that are not bastarde children doe kepe and mayntaine The law saieth S. Paule hath the shadow of good things to come not the very image of things whereby he meaneth that as the lawe had but a shadow so the ghospell hath the thing it self but yet not clere and playne for as the same Apostle sayeth we in this world walke by fayth and not by vision and clere sight If Christ gaue not vnto vs his reall and substanciall flesh vnder the forme of bread how gaue he vs the thing it self How were he by that gyfte proued greater then Moyses and equall with his Father If on the other side he gaue vs his flesh naked how were our state an image of the things them selues Christ is our mediatoure A mediatour is in the myddle to ioyne two partes that otherwise do not agree then if he will make man agree with God he must haue â—…oth the nature of God and of man ioyned in one person likewise if he wil make the state of the ghospell present agree with the law past and with the state of glorye to come he must take the similitude of the law and the nature of the glorye of heauen and ioyne these two into one mystery and so he hath done For as he is in one person very God and very man so he hath perfectly expressed the old state of the lawe and the state of heauen in oâ—… Sacrament The nature of the law of Moyses was to shew Christ and to be a guyde vnto the schole of Christ which thing it did by diuerse figures The nature of glory is to see face to face to haue all truth with 〈◊〉 any figure Now the state of the new Testament being the middle state betwixt the law and the glory of heaueÌ„ must haue the very truth that is in heauen which is the true flesh of Christ whereon Angelles desyer to looke and the true Godhead which is the full blessednes of all sainctes and this thing it must haue vnder a figure Therefore the theâ—…e Sacrament thát Christ left vnto his Church which also he called the new Testament in his blood must by the same reason haue yâ— true flesh of Christ wherein the Godhead dwelleth corporally and yâ— vnder a very figure which is the forme of bread Aâ—…d truly this forme of bread and of wyne is only a true figure because there is in it none other substance but the bare figure Other figures of the olde lawe were set to signify being them selues 〈◊〉 other substance in nature as the arke the tabernacle the vayle the â—…hewebread and all the sacrifices but the bare figure of bread without the substance of bread set to signifie the bread of life really present vnder it that is the only true figure as the whiche hathe none other truthe in his own substance but only the truth of a figure because the substance thereof is turned into that flesh of Christ who vnder the figure of yâ— ordre of Melchisedech whereof he is priest fullfilleth all figures that euer haue bene of him in his real and substanciall flesh which real flesh yf we had not in our SacrameÌ„t of the altar Christ gaue no more in his outward mysteries then was geuen by Moyses he were not equal with his Father by his gyfte he were not yâ— corner stone ioyning the state of Moyses law which was only 〈◊〉 aâ—…d the veritie of glory together But if these are great â—…rrours let vs stedfastly beleue that Christ left vs his very crue rcall flesh in the blessed Sactament of the altar vnder the forme of bread and wyne For as in other precepts we may vnderstand the old law not to be taken away concerâ—…ing the spirit which laie hid in it but only to be fulfilled and made more perfect so notwithstanding the old figures be dead and changed yet the state of fulfilling them is suche that the new Testament is not it self without all figures but rather conteineth the truth couered with a conuenient figure Uerily Christ sayd so much in effect when he taught that he came not to putt away the law but to
to that heauenly instrument of Christes flesh So that sometyme we say the Fathers gift is reall and externall but then we meane the visible flesh of Christ in his owne person Somtyme we say the Fathers gift is only spiritual and then we vnderstand the faith charitie and grace which the Father worketh in vs whom he bringeth to Christ by faith and spirit This distinction well remembred I trust to make the matter playne enough The state of our nature is suche that sith we consist of body and soule our soule being the chief part of vs and our body the inseriour parte God the Father in his gift intendeth to feed our soules which being fed our body shal be fed by reason it dependeth vppon the soule But Christ considering that our heauy bodies most commonly weigh down our soules to the pit of hell wold also inuent a way that our very bodies might not only not hindre but rather helpe our soules and not only through our soules but also through a meate that them selues should receaue be made lyght and meet to rise vpward and to obey the spirit gladly So that the meate which God the Father geueth to the soule Christ bringeth to the body And because the body hath no faith to apprehend the flesh of Christ withall neither vnderstanding nor spirite whereby to folowe the flesh of Christ into heauen it hath pleased his infinite mercy to leaue his flesh in so maruelouse a manner vnder the forme of bread that it might be geuen into our handes mouthes and breastes by which meanes we are able to receaue it corporally and naturally The Sonne therefore and the Father geue one thing on Christes behalfe but not one way on our behalfe For the Father geueth Christ vnto the world in dede but to vs in faith and spirit The sonne geueth him self to vs in faith and spirit with the Father and moreouer he is here sayd to geue him self in truth of body and blood to oursoules and bodies Because therefore the thing it self is one which the Father and the Soune geue one effect doth folowe in vs of both gifts For as it is sayd of the Fathers gifte He that beleueth in me hath euerlasting life So it is sayd of the Sounes gifte He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life But for so much as the Father and the Sonne geue not theire gifts after one sorte Therefore their two giftes are in this chapiter of S Ihon diuersly described First as I sayd before of the Fathers gift it is sayd He doth geue the true bread in the present tense Of that Sonne I wil geue in the future tense The Father geueth Christ in the forme of man and therefore it is sayd This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleueth on him may haue euerlasting life and again ye haue sene me and haue not beleued Behold by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithful may see that Sonne of man vppon whom they beleue But of the Sonnes gifte it is only sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh where it is not sayd that his flesh shal be seen but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder a couering of an other kinde of food which the naming of bread signifieth And in the supper where this prophecie was fulfilled it is most clere The Fathers gift is called Verus panis de coelo the true bread or meate from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not only true bread but also truly bread and meate in dede Caro mea verè est cibus my flesh is truly meate some true meate may chaunce not to be truly meate because it is not eaten but nothing is meat in dede and truly meate except it be in dede eaten There is difference betwene being the true vyne and a vyne truly Christ sayd him self was the true vyne but he sayd not that he was truly any certeyn vyne The Iewes and Disciples went not away from Christ for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gyfte For albeit they beleued not Christ to be yâ— sonne of God yet they well perceaued that suche a gifte of eating by faith myght stand with the custome of Gods people but when the sonnes gifte came to be declared they could abyde no longer Seing then it is playne that they lacked faith but yet lacked not vnderstanding we may be sure they sawe more apparaÌ„t absurditie in the sonnes gifte as they toke it then in the Fathers because it semeth straunger for mans flesh to be eaten as the sonne semed to saye then God to be made man which is the Fathers gift who sent his sonne to take our flesh The gifte of the Father is called by suche names only as belong to the persone of Christ or to his dyuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God only is absolutely the true bread of life or by the pronownâ—… ego which is to say I. but yâ— gifte of Christ is called also by yâ— names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and blood oâ—… the sonne of man An other difference may be to coÌ„sider that Christ endeth his talke of eche gifte with repeating the old figure Manna betokening yâ— as wel by the giste of the Father as of the sonne the shadow of manna was fulfilled But as it shall hereafter appeare Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doynges by the sonnes gift As therefore when he had longe reasoned of the belefe which they ought to haue in him whom God the Father had sent he last of al concludeth I am the bread of lyfe Your Fathers did eate manna in the desert and be dead yf any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer ryght so hauing at large reasoned of eating his owne flesh and of yâ— effect which ryseth thereof he at the last endeth This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your Fathers haue eaten manna and be dead he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer The like peroration vsed in both places with wordes somwhat vnlike doth declare that one substance is gyuen of the Father to be eateÌ„ of vs by faith and of the sonne to be really eaten so that the maner differeth because we eate only ex Christo that is to say of Christ by faith but we eate and receaue Christum Christ him self in the Sacrament of the altar For it pleased the whole Trinitie yâ— the fulnesse of our saluation should be in the manhood of Christ whose food it is to end his Fathers worke The Fathers gift is to beleue in Christ the soÌ„nes gifte is to eate and drink in very dede his flesh and blood In working the Fathers gifte a working faith is sufficient in working the sonnes gifte â—…aith is required with taking and eating that wherein we
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
him self to be almyghty God He said also that it was profytable because he that dyd eate his flesh and drinke his blood should be raised againe to life euerlasting If they had beleued him in these pointes they might haue asked yea without asking they had knowen at or not long after his last supper the maner how it should haue bene coÌ„ueniently done as those Apostles did know who continued in their belefe And the way of knowledge was at his last supper where taking breade with speaking of these wordes this is my body he changed the substance of the breade into his body and wylled his disciples to take and eate his body This much those could not fre because thei would not beleue but to say that Christ hyndred their belefe by words more hard then neded that is more cruelly sayd thê it neded Oportebat c. they ought saith S. Cyril first of al to cast the rootes of faith in their mind and then to aske the thinges that were to be asked but the Iewes asked importunely before they beleued for this cause our Lord shewed them not how it might be brought to passe aâ—…terward S. Cyrill declareth how Christ in his last supper shewed yâ— maner also to theÌ„ who dyd beleue although they asked not for it ¶ The right vnderstanding of those words It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing I May be the shorter in this point because none of those who are meanely conuersant in the bookes of auncient writers though otherwyse they beleue not well haue applied these words against the reall presence of Christes body in his last supper for how can it be that Christes fleshe which is geuen for the life of the world should profite nothing Therefore S. Basil S. Chrysostom and S. Augustin do expound the name of flesh after one sort for the fleshly and carnall vnderstanding of the Iewes who thought they should haue eaten Christ as men eat mutton and beefe whereas Christ meant to geue his flesh in a secret maner as the faithful know which notwithstaÌ„ding the Luciferian spirit of Caluin reproueth this first vnderstanding in his comments vppon this place But it is sufficient to say that he difsented from those three notable pillers of Gods Church before named The second vnderstanding is on Christes behalf whose flesh should not profit any thing if the spirit that is to say the Godhead did not make it able to geue vs euerlasting life The which sense is chiefly followed by S. Augustin also and by S. Cyrillus Now seing the flesh of Christ is geuen so to vs vnder the foorm of bread that the Godhead is present with it we are sure to haue much profit by it What nede moe words If this saying appertem not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our belefe If it doe appertein to it the words are Propheticall because they speake before hand of a thing which most certeinly shall come to passe in the last supper and then the fulfilling of them will make them plaine For as Procopius saith A prophecie at the first sight is not clere but when it is come to the euent which was forespoken and is coÌ„ferred with the thing it self then draweth it to a perfit clerenes If now the sayd words were fulsilled at the supper and take a clere vnderstaÌ„ding thereof what meaning can they haue but that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spiritual sort not after a fleshely maner He gaue not a shoulder to one Apostle and a legg to an other a brest to the third and a ribbe to the fourth but the whole body to euery 〈◊〉 not visible in the forme of flesh but inuisible in the forme of bread so making plaine why he had so often called him selfe bread and said that the bread which he would geue is his flesh He gaue not his body without his soule and Godhead neither his blood without his bones and flesh but the spirite quickened al things eche kinde had whole Christ. He lost not his visible body by geuing of it but by his words which are spirit and life turned bread and wine into his body and blood shewing yâ— as he was at the table in his whole body notwithstanding they did eate the same body so he might be in heauen although the sub stance of his true body and blood were geuen in his Sacrament in earth What shall I say more If the vnderstanding of these words depend vpon the last supper they must not geue vs a rule how to vnderstand the last supper but they must take their vnderstanding of it Who dare say that bread was crucified for vs because Ieremie sayd Mittamus lignum in panem eius let vs put wood into his bread Do we not rather say that because we are sure that the true flesh of Christ was crucified therefore in Ieremie bread is taken for flesh Who dare say that Christ had hornes in his hands because Habacuk said Cornua in manibus eius Do we not rather say that by hornes he meante the corners of the crosse because we are sure that Christ had vpon the crosse no materiall hornes in his hands If then these words the spirit quickeneth be referred to the supper and there we finde bread wine taken and after blessing body and blood geuen we may be well assured that one truth doth not take away the other Spirit doth not take away flesh but spirit must be taken for the Godhead which maketh the flesh both to be present and profitable to all such as receaue it worthely ¶ The words of Christ being spirit and life shew that his reall flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of nature and reason VErba quae ego locutus sum vobis spiritus vita sunt The words which I haue spoken or as the greke text readeth which I doe speake to you are spirit and life The Capharnaits hearing Christ say he wold geue his flesh to be eaten partly thought it not possible for him to geue partly not semely for them selues to take They imagined a diuisioÌ„ of yâ— flesh which should be deliuered and consequently the person whose flesh were cut in such peeces must die but how could a dead man geue his own flesh to be eaten Again though he could doe it what a cruel thing were it for them to eate mans flesh Christ knowing this theyr grosse concept sayth that the sonne of man wil ascend into heauen where he was before Thereby declaring first his almighty power and Godhead Next that the gift of his flesh doth not import the lacke of life either in yâ— geuer or in the thing geueÌ„ For theÌ„ in dede the gift should be litle worth because it is the spirit life which quickeneth dead flesh profiteth nothing to euerlasting life My words sayth Christ be spirit and life that is to say they
In whom we liue are moued and haue our being Therefore the words which are called spirit and life are called in effect diuine and almighty Spirit sometyme standeth to signific the words of God as when S. Paule sayth the letter killeth the spirit quickeneth the letter in that place doth signiâ—…ie the law and the spirit doth signifie the words of our Lord as S. Basile doth expound it For Christ our Lord geueth grace to his words that they should not only signifie things as the words of the law did but also make and work the things which they signified The words that be spirit must be vnderstanded spiritually that is to say diuinely and as it becometh the words of him who is God him self whose words haue power in them selues to worke that which they betoken To vnderstand the words of Christ spiritually it behoueth we beleue them first as they sound to humble reasonable men for if we beleue not we shal not vnderstand but if we do beleue then we may be assured as S. Chrysoâ—…tom vppon this place hath writen that they conteine no naturall course but are free from al earthly necessity and from the lawes of this life Which being so when Christ taking bread and blessing saith this is my body we may not say with our selues how can this be so what other body can here be then a peece of bread which mine eye seeth and my tong tasteth If we speake after this sort we call the words of Christ from the spirit of God to the course of nature and of reason and we do not beleue them to be spirituall that is to say diuine and aboue the course of nature but we vnderstaÌ„d theÌ„ carnally loking for no miracle to be wrought by them and yet they are spirit and life able to quicken what soeuer they list they can make bread to be Christes body wine to be his blood they haue power to change natures and to worke inuisibly In a parable it is not nedefull that all things be in dede as the words doe sound but when Christes words are sayd to be spirit and life then it is declared to vs that they partake the nature of his Godhead that they worke a thing aboue our capacitie and make all that which they say Yea but say you shew me the body which they haue wrought I answer they are spirit and haue wrought a spiritual body not such as lacketh the truthe of flesh but such as through the vnion which it hath with the Godhead hath disposed the substance of flesh vnder the form of bread in such sorte as our soules are disposed within our bodies which are vndoubtedlie there but they can not be touched or felt by any sense euen so we beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread and wine because the words of Christ are spirit life albeit no scuse or reason can attein to that highe mysterie Seing then these words of promise the bread which I wil geue is my flesh be spirit and life these words of performance which after bread taken say presently this is my body must nedes be much more spirit and life yâ— is to say of diuine power to worke that which they sound Let now al heretikes ceasse to mock vs of so many miracles as we teache to be in the sacrameÌ„t of the altar for so much as Christ hath witnessed it should be a miraculouse sacrameÌ„t and aboue al course of nature as being made by words which are spirit and life Let them likewise no more abuse the name of spirit to make men beleue that Christ spake not properly sith Christ calleth his words spirit because they be so proper that they come nere to yâ— nature of the Godhead as being his words who is naturally God then the words of men are able to doe and as the Godhead is most immurable and not at al subiect to any change euen so those words which partake most of the Godhead are most vnchangeable and least figuratiue for al figuratiue speaches are changed and abused hauing the name of tropes among the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab eo quod vocabula mutantur a propria significatione in alienam figuratiue speaches are called in greake tropes that is to say chaÌ„ges because yâ— words are changed from their proper significatioÌ„ to an vnproper meaning but God is not changed nor those words be not changed froÌ„ their proper signification which God hath called spirit life but as they partake yâ— Godhead so doc they partake the proprietie of not being changed from their most accustomed meaning proper nature It is a world to see what difference there is betwene yâ— words of Christes Ghospell the interpretation of the false Ghospellers betwene the old Fathers and the new brethern betwene Catholikes Protestants Mark I pray thee good Reader the differences diligently Christ by his incarnation was made to vs the bread of life to the end we might eate his Godhead otherwise then the Fathers had done before the new brethern after the incarnation and supper of Christ wherein we should haue the Godhead geuen vs bid vs beleue vpon Christ in heauen and so to fede vpon him by faith alone as Noâ—… Abraham did Their councâ—…l is not 〈◊〉 in bidding vs sede by saith but where is yâ— Godhead 〈◊〉 by this meanes is that also receaued by faith why so it might haue bene receaued and so it was receaued before Christ was man Where is the food of Angels made the food of man where is the word of God so geuen to me after his incarnation as it could not be geuen before Where is any euerlasting meate for my body Where is the supper which may fede the whole man faith fedeth my vnderstaÌ„ding but my wil affectioÌ„ hath as much nede to be fed my flesh is rebelliouse to my spirit it hath nede to be fed my body was the meane to poyson my soule therefore my soule must haue a medicine which shal be receaued into my body and so be communicated vnto my soule S. Ireneus reproued those heretiks who because men were called in scripture spirituall denied the true resurrection of their flesh as though their spirit only should tary for euer and yet our new brethern where so euer mention is made of spirit or of a spirituall body and flesh so wrast it as though the reall substance of flesh in the Sacrament were by that word denied or diminisshed whereas it is rather increased for so much as that flesh which is spirituall is not thereby the lesse true flesh but it partaketh the more of the spirit And because a spirit once created is by the natural gift of God immortal a spiritual flesh is likewise like to the spirit in that case S. Augustine writeth that after resurrection the body shall no more haue nede of corporal
nourishments because the only spirit shall suffise to nourish it qua causa etiam spiritale erit for which cause also the body shal be spiritual now as after resurrection the spiritual being which our bodies shal haue doth not diminish the truthe of their nature but declareth a wonderful abettering of them in that they be made in maner equal to spiritual substances euen so the body of Christ in his supper is spiritual not for any lack of his true substance vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine but because it is wholy possessed and replenished with the Godhead and is present after the maner of a spirit as being neither sene nor felt nor tasted but only beleued And therefore this blessed Sacrament is worthely called of the Churche at the consecration of the blood yea as I think it is called of S. Paule also mysterium fidei the mysâ—…erie of faith because it secretly coÌ„teineth vnder the formes of bread ond wine the flesh the blood the soule and the spirit or Godhead of Iesus Christ. The which mysterie of faith the Deacons vsed to deliuer to the faithful after consecration as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse and therefore S. Paule willed the Deacons to vse that mysterie of faith with a pure and cleane conscience To be short The Sacramentaries abuse yâ— word of God miserablie when they talk of the spirit and of the flesh of Christ in such sort as they do For Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing meaning only the corruptible flesh of a bare man who is no God The Sacramentaries expound it as if it were sayd it is nothing worth to eate Christes own flesh really but only it is profitable to fede on it by faith Christ sayd it is the spirit that quickeneth meaning the Godhead to make his flesh profitable vnto vs. They take it so as though the spirit alone did qâ—…icken vs at his last supper without eating his fleshe really Christ by naming the spirit reuoketh â—…ot the real gift of his flesh the eating whereof he auouched to be necessarie for vs. They vse it contrarily to proue his flesh to be geuen vs really in his last supper as though he had corrected his former words Christ meant to adde more dignitie and worthinesse to the eating of his flesh then is in other mens flesh because the spirit made it alone quick aliue and profitable They endeuour by the precense of the word spirit to say he wold not geue his flesh to be eaten in dede and so abuse that name to the diminishing of his inestimable gift Christ sayd my words are spirit that is to say of diuine power proceding from God They imagin he sayd my words be vnproper and cropicall or parabolicall as being only true by an allegory Christ meant his words to procede from his own spirit and maiesty and thereâ—…ore to be true aboue the course of nature They expoâ—…nd theÌ„ as if he had sayd you must care my flesh in your spirit only not in very dede Thus they wreast that to the spirit of maÌ„ which Christ said of the spirit of God and vnder this ambiguitie of words they couer theyr poisoued doctrine Christ would vs to vnderstand spiritually the reall â—…ating of his reall flesh because he would geue it vs without losse of his own body without lothsomnes of our stomacks and without remouing from his own place in heauen They apply the spirituall vnderstanding of eating his flesh to take away the real â—…ating of it as though he that vnderstandeth a thing spiritually should not therefore eate that really which he vnderstandeth to be mysticall The substance of Christes flesh eaten is the ground of that mystery figure Sacrament or spiritual vnderstanding which Christ spake of Because he would them to eate his flesh not to fil theyr bellies but to signifie and partake yâ— merits otherwise done in that flesh They taking away the ground of the figure which is Christes fleshe adde of theyr own iâ—…ention bread wine to be the grouÌ„d of this figure and of the spirituall vnderstanding They making Christes spiritual words tropicall and gramatically â—…iguratiue abase theÌ„ beneth yâ— condition of coÌ„mon words For a proper word iâ—… of more dignitie then an improper and meÌ„ for the most part speake properly Christ sayd my words are life meaning theÌ„ to be so proper that they performe whatsoeuer they promise or speake as hauing the propriety of the Godhead which is most far from all figures shadowes and changes They make them dead words For seing the mind of the speaker vttered in plain words is yâ— life of the words the same words vttering the speakers mind obscurely are as dead and without life vntil they be expouÌ„ded What shal I say more they take these words to be figuratiue in such sort that they make theÌ„ inferiour to the common words of mortall men who neuer ligthtly vse yâ— words flesh and blood for the signes of flesh and blood but for the substances of them and muche lesse doe they vse flesh and blood so to signifie bread and wine that the same bread and wine must again signifie Christes fleshe and blood as I haue noted before that the Sacramentaries are constrained to say if they will defend theyr false and 〈◊〉 doctrine the which I praie God they may haue grace to see and to amend The preface of the fourth booke VUe haue shewed what proufes may be brought out of Christes promise at Capharnaum for his reall and corporal presence in the Eucharist it remaineth we nowe declare the same truth by that whiche he performed in his last supper And because the chefe controuersie is whether the words of Christ do meane as they sound or els must be taken otherwise I wil first make it plaine that they ought to be taken properly as they sound to men of common vnderstanding vntill an euident reason be brought why they must be meant vnproperly therewithal I shew that no reason is now to be heard for the vnproper interpretation of them because the tyme of all such allegatioÌ„s is expired more then fiften hundred yeres past for so much as the whole Church is in possession of the proper meaning Afterward I wil proue the proper literall meaning of those words by the circumstances of the supper by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old and newe testament and last of all by the commandement whiche was geuen the Apostles to continue the Sacrament of Christes supper vntill he come to iudge the worlde If in conferring the promise with the performance or by any other occasion I chance to say somwhat whiche was before touched I must aske pardon thereof as who endeuore partly to make al things playne partly to confirme the present matter whereof I speake by such conuenient allegations as for the tyme come to my remembrance Once I am sure it is not a thing affected of me to say the same thing oft albeit either the affinitie
which I wil geue is my flesh WheÌ„ Christ made that promise there was nothing in yâ— who le world whereof the verbe is might be verified in the present tense but only that substance of Christes flesh which he had in his natural body The outward gift of the supper was then to come yet Christ sayd of the substance of his gift The bread which I will geue is my flesh I say not only that it shal be my flesh but I say it is my flesh at this tyme because the substance that I will geue is now present with you although the manner of deliuerance be to come Let vs therefore so expound the verbè is in the supper that it may agree with the verbe is in S. Ihon where it cannot be taken for a bare significatiue being because then there was no signe of his body made Moreouer S. Paule writing after the supper was past doth interprete the verbe is as plainly as can be deuised to signifie a substancial and not an accidentall being for he sayth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes flesh it is yâ— communicating as though he sayd it is so truely Christes flesh that no differeÌ„ce is betwene it and the being or substance of Christes flesh All thing is common betwene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction coÌ„meth betwene these two All this the word communicating doth signifie and more to For the bread which we breake is so farre Christes body that it maketh vs also the body of Christ. The bread which 〈◊〉 breake is so 〈◊〉 distant from being a bare signe that it hath Christes body made common to it by consecration and it maketh Christes body common to vs by communion so that for est is S. Paule putteth communicatio est it is the communicating or the hauing or making common Christes body and blood S. Chrysostom so vehemently presseth the word coÌ„municating vnion whereof the Apostle speaketh yâ— he sayth S. Paule would not leaue so muche as a little difference betwene the men which doe communicate and that which is communicated and yet if that which is communicated were materiall bread it would so much differ from Christ our head and the mysticall body which we are in Christ that it should be an other nature and substance cleane diuerse from it not only not communicating in one and the same meÌ„ber of a mystical body but neither in the whole kind of things which the Logicians call speciem or genus proximum Let vs adde hereunto that if we take est for significat in these words hic significat sanguinem meum the verb shal lacâ—… a noune substantiue to be his nominatiue case And that S. Luke by leauing est to be vnderstanded by common reason doth shew it signifieth properly as men commonly are wonte to vse that verbe Thus much being said for this and is the worde body remayneth to be declared by the conference of holy scripture In S. Matthew it is called supersubstantiall breade In S. Iohn it is called my flesh whiche I will geue for the lite of the world In S. Matthew and Marke my body in S. Luke my body whiche is geuen for you in S. Paule my body which is broken for you or shal be betraied for you the body of our Lord this bread the one bread Likewise concerning the blood it is called the blood of the sonne of man my blood the blood of the new Testament the new testament in my blood The chalice of blessing whiche we â–ª blesse the blood of Christ the blood of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord. Of the body it is said take eate of the blood take diuide among you and drinke ye all of this Of both together it is said to the Apostles make and do ye this thing Of euill men it is said that they eate this breade and drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely not iudging rightly our Lordes body And last of all he that eateth me shall liue for me If now we will expouÌ„d body for the signe of body it will folow that the signe of Christes body was gâ—…n for vs. And when it is sayd He that eateth me shall liue for me it must be expounded He that eateth the signe of me shal liue for the signe of me To conclude as this belongeth not to the substance either of bread or of wine wherewith it can not agree in 〈◊〉 as the verb est is can not stand for significat to signifie least it lack his nominatiue case as the cup shed for vs can not stande for wine shed in sacrifice or els for the signe of blood shed but only for the substance of blood shed on the crosse so corpus body can not stand for a figure or a signe of the body because hoc est corpuâ—… meum datum pro vobis accordingly as the Greeke hath can not be interpreted this is yâ— figure of my body which is geueÌ„ for you â–ª except with Ualentinus Marcion Manicheus it shal be sayd yâ— figure of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. Wherefore I may boldly coÌ„clude that stubburnly to defend that the words of Christes supper are Grammatically or Rhetorically figuratiue coÌ„cerning the substantial parts of the chefe propositions is extreme ignorance in the rules of Grammar and of Logicke palpable blindnes in the studie of diuinitie and a malice inexcusable at the day of iudgement if the party repent not Now on the other syde conferre Scriptures whether Ihon Baptist be Elias it is euident that it is not so There was betwene them in tyme aboue fiue hundred yeres Ihon Baptist was killed Elias liueth yet The Angel sayd by Ihon Baptist He shall goe before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Elias He sayd not in truth and person And Ihon Baptist being asked whether he were Elias or no answered plainly Non sum I am not It is plaine enough that Ihon Baptist is not Elias in person but only in like office and function Thus you may see good Reader what oddes is betwene those places which our aduersaâ—…s wold haue like and wold make you beleue that these words This is my body be no more properly spoken then these He is Elias The like may be sayd of the rock which meaneth two diuerse natures â—…se geuing water as it is described in the bookes of Moyses and well knowen to be neither Christ by nature neither by coÌ„neâ—…on of any rok into Christ. For neither Christ euer sayd of the rock This is my body neither did he commaund vs to say so What shall I say of that vnsensible obiection that God dwelleth not in Temples made with mans hand For we now speaking of the body of Christ speake not of the dwelling which belongeth to God but of that which belongeth to his humane nature which it self also is not a Temple made with the hand of man or begotten by the
Iudas saith Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat to whom Christe himselfe gaue bread the whiche bread was to be betraied See the bread that Christ gaue it was not euery bread not the substance of coÌ„mon bread but euen that bread in substance which was betraied for vs to death For Christ is bread geuing himself to Iudas he gaue the same bread that was betraied except any other thing was betraied for vs beside Christ. I might surely bring a maruelouse number of suche testimonies all which declare the name of bread whiche is attributed to the body of Christ after consecration not to signifie materiall or wheaten bread as it was before the blessing and pronouncing of the words but to describe that meat that food that true Manna which is only the flesh of Iesus Christ eaten vnder the forme oâ—… common bread And that kinde of bread is neuer named without an article or pronoune ioyned with it Whereby the excellency of the bread is witnessed the difference of it from common bread It is called in S. Mathew supersubstantiall bread in S. Iohn the bread which is flesh and in S. Paul the bread which who so eateth vnworthely he is gilty of the body of Christ which is as much to say as that kind of bread is the body of Christ. ¶ The presence of the body and blood of Christ in his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old Testament FRom Adam to S. Iohn Baptist all the faithfull people of God was both in continuall expectation of the coming of Iesus Christ partly foreshewed in dedes by holy figures and pagents partly foretolde in words by the spirite of prophecie what should afterward be done by Christ him self and be obserued in his kingdom the church After which sort the brasen serâ—…ent betokened the death of Christ and Ionas his resurrection The figures by the way of doing commended the same truth to the eyes which the prophecies by the way of speaking dyd set forth to the eares Which two senses are the chief meanes whereby we atteine to knowledge in this life And because both figures and prophecies are obscure darke and vnpleasant vntill they be fulfilled I thought best not tâ—… speake of them before I had declared the true meaning of that gift whiche Christ made at his last supper Now it remaineth yâ— we briefly conferre the one with the other shewing that sense of Christes wordes which the Catholiks defend to be agreable to suche old shadowes figures prophecies as apperteined to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar For to the Iewes as S. Paul affirmeth all things chanced in figures And Christ saith all things must nedes be fulfilled which are spoken of him in the law Psalmes and Prophetes ¶ The figure of Abel ABell the first shepherd Priest Martyr and perpetuall virgin made a sacrifice of the first begotten of his flocke and of the fat of them which God shewed him self to accept by sending down fier from heauen Abel then hauing first offered him self vnto God vnder the shape of other thinges afterward went forth to be offered in his owne person and shape being â—…aiterously put to death by his brother Cain with a deadly â—…ripe of a wodden club or stake whose blood the earth opening her mouth receaued into her bowels and from thence it cryed to God The prince of shepherdes the chief Priest greate martyr and witensbeaâ—… to al truth the flower and garland of all virginitie is Iesus Christ God and man whose flocke the faithful men are The first begoâ—…eÌ„ and fatte of them is the flesh and blood which Iesus â—…oke of the virgin Marie which flesh and blood he first offered to God by wil and affection when he toke into his hands bread and wiâ—…e within a certaine parler vpon mounte Sioâ—… where he did eate the Paschal lambe with his Apostles And God shewed him selâ—…o to accept that intent of the sonne of man by working with the consuming fiex of his Diuinity that marucilouse grace which turned the substance of bread and wine into yâ— substance of Christes own flesh and blood And from that place Christ went forth ouer the brook of Cedron to be offered in his owne person and shape betraied by Iudas and put to death vpon the wood of the crosse by his own brethren the Iewes whose blood the Church called forth from among both Iewes and gentils with al due honour receaueth into her mouth bowels whence it geueth a better crie then the blood of Abell did from the earth where it lay Abel vnder the sigâ—…e of his Lambes did by will and affection consecrate the same truth of his body and soule to God which at yâ— tyme of his death he actually rendred and gaue vp into the handes of his maker And surely if he had bene able to haue made the substance of his owne body anâ—… soule present in his owne handes when he offered he would much more 〈◊〉 haue offered it then yâ— dâ—…ad flesh of lambes which he vsed for a signe of 〈◊〉 For who would content him selfe with a barâ—… signe if he weâ—…e able to offer the truth it selfe He was not of such power as to change the lambes into him selfe thereby working that in his haudes outwardly which his hart inwardly offered But yet he shewed his desier to haue a change made in that he slew yâ— laÌ„bes taking from them theyr former substance to thinâ—…t by consecration they might obteiâ—…e a more holy and sacâ—…ed being God also looked vpon his gifts as wel accepting the mind of his Priest as the maner of his doing But that which lacked in Abel who was faine to shew outwardly the consecration of his owne hart by a thing of an othere substance that thing Christ fulfilled making the same substance of his owne flesh present in his hands which he dedicated to God in his hart For taking bread and blessing he sayd This is my body Abel offered his gift before he went forth into the field where he was â—…aine The Sacramentaries deâ—…e Christ to haue offered his giftes in his last supper before hâ—… went forth to his passion Abel contented not him self with the former substance which his lambes naturally had They teach that Christ contented him self with the former substance of bread wine Fier â—…rom heauen inâ—…amed the external giftes of Abel They deny yâ— fier of the word of God to swallow vp the substance of bread and wine which Christ toke Abel consecrated his own body and blood as farre as he was able vnder the outward signe of his lambes They deny Christ to haue consecrated his owne body and blood vnder the formes of the bread and wine which he toke although they must nedes confesse that both Christ was able really to do it and by yâ— way of blessing to haue sayd this is my body
partake of the bread which is broken if the bread broken â—…e materiall we partake of the material bread and yet the bread whereof we partake is by S. Paule named one bread Therefore we partake of one materiall bread which can not be so For seing the bread is broken it is not still one These and many like absurdities can neuer be escaped except we say as the truth is that the bread broken is the flesh of Christ vnder the form of bread for our partaking is named of taking part of that which is brokeÌ„ but we al that are one patake only of Christ him selfe and be one in him alone and be not one in any materiall bread Therefore Christ is the bread broken by the reason of the form of bread vnder the which he is and the bread coÌ„municated and the bread which we are for that he is the cause of our mysticall coniunction For albeit the mysticall bread and body which we are be in seuerall persons and diâ—…tinct proprieties of men yet the substancial cause of that bread which we are is only found in the person and substaÌ„ce of Christ who is the beginner mainteyner and the end of that our mysticall body from Christ as from the cause of our vâ—…itie the same vnity procedeth to vs in an effect wrought by him But either to make vs one materiall bread or to make it being stil bread in substance to be notwithstanding the communicating of Christes body to vs or to be the bond which holdeth vs together by partaking thereof it is a doctrine which can not hang together And because the matter is of great importauce I will yet intreat farther of this our vnion ¶ Now we are one mysticall body in Christ. THe Church is one body more then one wâ—… First because it is called and holden together with one sâ—…ite of God Next because it is grounded in one faith 〈◊〉 â—…reaching of one true Gospel maiÌ„teined with one hope perfited â—…th one charitic watered with one baptisme of spiritual regeneâ—…ation redemed by one Mediatour ruled by one head 〈◊〉 to one husband ioyned in mariage to one fâ—…esh of Christ rewarded with one essentiall fruition of one euerlasting God The first foundation of this one cumpany which is the house the tabernacle yâ— teÌ„ple of God is the blessed Trinitie of whome by whome and in whome all things are In his diuine spirite we mete and be one not only with the Patriarches Prophets but also we therein be one with the Aungels Thrones and Seraphins in so muche that he vseth them for our ministery who neuer synned or swarued from the way of truth righteousnes Next after God all mankinde putteth his euerlasting confidence in the flesh of Iesus Christ who is the only Mediatour of all men that fell by synne either actuall or els originall there is no saluation in any other man Christ toke really our flesh to make it an iustrument whereby we might be brought again to God Therefore he both offered the same flesh vnto God euen to death and gaue the same flesh to be partaken of vs for the obteining of euerlasting life The partaking whereof is called in holy scripture by the name of eating drinking because although it be graunted to vs by diuers meanes yet the chiefe meane of all is when we eate his flesh and drinke his blood The first and most necessary meane of all is faith without which it selfe in men of lawfull age or without the Sacrament thereof in children none other 〈◊〉 can serue But faith alone though it worke by charitie doth not always â—…uffise because it is conueaient for a corporall substance such as the flesh of Christ is to be partaken by corporall meanes also For seing the corruption of our fleshe was the thing whiche did most incline vs to synne as the sonne of God toke our true flesh without synne to th end by it he might purge our synnes so he instituted diuerse Sacraments in certeine corporal things and in mystical words whereby the grace of his flesh might â—…e applied to our flesh and by that meane also to come to our soâ—…es Against the corrupâ—…ion of our birth he would vs to be washed in water which element his own fleshe had sanctified in the flud Iordan against the tentation of the deuill he coÌ„firmeth vs with the holy Ghost In stede of the custome of synning he geueth vs heauenly nourishement as well in body as in soule By these meanes I say we are one body in Christ of the which faith and charitic are meanes only spirituall the Sacraments are both spirituall meanes through the inward grace corporal through the visible formes of them The meanes only spirituall be neuer changed sith our faith is all one with that of the Patriarches but our Sacraments differ from theirs as whiche conteine the truth whereof the old Sacraments were only the shadow Hitherto it hath bene said that we can not be of the mysticall body of Christ vnlesse we partake his flesh either by faith or by the Sacraments For as S. Augustine writeth Albeit in some the grace of faith be so great that they are now assigned to the body of Christ and to the holy temple of God yet in some it is such as doth not suffise to obteine the kingdom of heauen as in the Cathecumenis as in Cornelius antequà m SacramentoruÌ„ participatione incorporaretur Ecclesiae before that he was incorporated to the Church â—…y paraking of the Sacraments The SacrameÌ„t wherein we are first incorporated to Christ is wel knowen to be Baptim which seing it consisteth of speaking holy words and of washing with the elemeÌ„t of water it is not to be denied but that God worketh our incorporation by corporall meanes also and not by faith a lone And as it is not enough for hauing the nature of a man to be conceaued only except he be also borne so if when he is borne he be not fed he can not long coÌ„tinew a man Therefore as the Sacrament of baptim beginneth the incorporation specially nowe when we al are baptized in our infancy euen so after the we are come to the yeres of discretion an other SacrameÌ„t is requisite to mainteyne vs in the body of Christ which is called the SacrameÌ„t of his body and blood whereof Christ said he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him Now sâ—…ing the sacrament which maketh vs tary in the body of Christ must â—…edes be a corporal thing as baptism was and yet it hath none other nature then that which Christ geueth it he nameth it his own body and blood we ought to confesse that the Sacrament which nourisheth the state of life euerlasting in vs is the body and blood of Christ corporally present that is to say
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
it yet the godhed remayned corporally dwelt in it and the soule returned to it agayne the third day Therefore when Christ saith This is my body which is geuen for you I am bound to beleue that his body is neither without soule nor godhead for ells it were not truly said it is geuen for vs yf it were not profitable to vs. Thus you se that I beleue al that words of Christ together and that you not doing so are without ye do repeut certeine to be condemned for not beleuing these words take eate This is my body You wyll say ye beleue these words yet not carnally but spiritually as it is mete for Christes wordes to be beleued O syr he that assigneth a meane howe he will beleue Christes wordes in that very faut sheweth hym selfe not to beleue them for belefe inuenteth nothing of his owne but followeth the autoritie of God that speaketh I beleue in deed that Christes words can not be carnal as you take carnal words for foule and grosse meaninges But I see it to be a very cleane and pure meaning that the moste pure substance of the flesh of Christ should he geuen vnder the form of bread to thend it may be eaten of vs and the chiefe and cleanest thing that we vse to eate is bread To geue therefore the chiefe and most healthfull flesh in the world to be eaten vnder the form of the purest eatable thing is a very pure and cleane work far from all carnality You will say it is more pure if it be rather beleued to be eaten only of yâ— harte of man by faith spirit then by mouth and body I answere that is no pure eating of a corporall thing which taketh away the truth of corporall eating Againe both ways of eating are better then one of them alone I beleue his real flesh to be eaten with hart and mouth to be eaten with body minde to be eaten in deede and in faith Here faileth your belefe because of two true thinges you beleue but one the other you discredit To be short let vs imagine him that beleueth the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to stand before the seate of Christes iudgement and that Christe asketh him why he did beleue and worship his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine May he not wel answere in this wise I beleued so and did so because your maiestie taking bread and hauing blessed douted not so say This is my body which words al my forefathers vnderstode to be spoken properly and to be true as they sounded therefore at the commandement of my prelats I adored your body vnder the form of bread If Christ reply that he had preachers who tought him otherwise and cryed to him to beware least he committed idolatrie first that obiectiâ—… might not be made to any man that died aboue fiftie yeres past because no preacher taught publikely any such doctrine Secondly if so much were said to one of our time he might answere that he had 〈◊〉 forefathers and moe preachers and those much more anncient and more honest men who required him to beleue Christes wordes and to worship the body of his maker Well now we are come to the point all the Catholikes haue preaâ—…hed with one accorde that it is the true body of Christ and the Gospell witnesseth that Christ 〈◊〉 This is my body Here is the word of God and the tradition and preaching of man ioyned together I aske whether it be possible for Christ who requireth nothing so earnestly of vs as briefâ—… to 〈◊〉 that simple man who being otherwise of good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his word and his forefaâ—… and the preachers agreable with both or not Answere me for what fault shall this poore man be condemned First to beleue Christ it is no fault Secondly Christ faid this is my body Thirdly he being yet an infant was of his parentes taught that to be the body of Christ which was holden ouer the Priests head Fourthly as many and moe preache vnto him when he cometh to laufull age and say this is the body of Christ as there are that aâ—…terward preache the contrary Tell me then what was his fault for which he may be coÌ„demned If you say his eyes told him it was not yâ— body of Christ he will answere that for the reuerence he bare to the word of God he denied the fensible instruction of his eyes as geuing more credit to Christ then to him selfe Is that a fault If you reply that by that meaâ—…es he might haue worshipped the roâ—… in steâ—…de of Christ he wil answere he knoweth not what you meane he neuer had any rok shewed him by most graue authority which was said to be Christ. If any suche thing had bene taught him he for his parte was so obedient to beleue so willing to adore Christ that he would haue done any thing which had bene commanded to him vnder the name of Christ or of his religion Is this a fault why the poore man should be condemned No surely seing the Prophet Dauid saieth Vt iumentum factus sum apud te I am become as it were a beast before thee It is â—…andable saith Euthymius that in the sight of God we take our selues as beastes which being so I can deuise no fault in this poore and simple man who if he be deceaued he is deceaued by Christ by his forefathers by diuerse Catholike and vertuous Preachers by yâ— vertue of humility of obedience of pure loue towards God But on the other side if Christ call one of them before him who denieth his reall presence aske him why he did not beleue the Sacrament of the altar to be the body of Christe what will he answer for himselfe â–ª Will he say Syr I beleâ—…ed your body to sit at the right hand of God the Father and therefore that your body was not in the Priestes hand Why then thinkest thou that I am not able to make the same which is at the right hand of my father to be alsâ—… present vnder the form of bread Sir whether you be able or no I can not say but I haue hard many preachers tel that one body caÌ„ not be at one time in diuerse places O howe dreadfully would Christ answere in this case Did not those preachers whom thou preteÌ„dest to folow say alwaies they preached to thee the sincere word of God Did they not by that colour ouerthrow monasteries Churches altars images of Saintes and mine owne image and crosâ—…e Did they not denie the sacrifice of the Masse praing for the dead and such like auncient vsages only for pretence of the word of God And now see how inexcusable they thou art I said Take eate this is my body I said this to twelue men I gaue eche of them my body â—…ad
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
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
the receauers or no that Shepherd of Christes flok sayth that if it were not his true body and receaued in the mouth it were in vaine to say Amen It is true For seing the Priest bringing meate vnto their mouthes did say The body of Christ if notwithstanding it were only to be receaued in hart not in mouth also it were in vaine to say Amen or to answere it is so it is true and yet to think in hart otherwise To end this matter at the length The whole Church before Berengarius beleued the reall presence and they toke that their belefe of their auncestours from hand to hand euen vntill we come to the Apostles and by them to Christ. In the primatiue Church the Priest cried out at the altar This is my body and this is my blood All the people answered it is so It is true S. Ambrose biddeth them think as they speake yea euen as the word soundeth S. Leo sayth they say in vaine it is true if they dispute against the truth thereof And he teacheth the truth to be that the same thing is receaued in the mouth which is beleued in faith S. Hilary sayeth No place of doubting is left sith both by our Lords profession and by our faith it is verily flesh and verily blood Epiphanius witnesseth that euery man beleueth our Lords saying wherein he sayd This is my body And who so doth not beleue it eueÌ„ as him self spake it he is fallen from gracâ—… and saluation Seing all these things doe euidently proue the faith of the whole Church to haue bene that Christes body and blood was really present in the Sacrament of the altar and really receaued into the mouthes of the faithfull people it remaineth that thosâ—… who haue bene deceaued in this behalf do returne agaiâ—…e to their former belefe and that as wel in al other points as iâ—… this they do for euer beleue the Catholike Church the piller of truth Knowing for surety that it can not be a Catholiâ—…e doctrine which is begun in our age or any tyme after thâ—… preaching of the Apostles and that specially when it is conâ—…rary to the faith always preached and beleued ¶ That no man possibly can be condemned for beleuing the body of Christ to be really present in the Sacrament of the altar WHen Christe had almost ended his talke at Capharnaum and shewed his wordes to be spirit and life perceauing all the fault why the Iewes thought his sayinges so absurde to be for so much as they estemed him no more then a naturall man weighing his doctrine by theyr senses earthely reason he for declaration of theyr incurable dyssease for the detection of the cause thereof sayd Sed sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt But there are some of you who beleue not For Iesus knewe from the beginning who they where which beleued not Here we may see the chefe fault in all matter and question of the supper of Christ to consist in not beleuing He that beleueth is safe but wo to him that beleueth not S. Peter beleueth and confesseth Christ to haue the wordes of euerlasting life Iudas beleueth not and therefore he is called a deuil The chefe point of ChristiaÌ„ belefe is to acknowlege Christ to be God to be almighty to be able to make and to doe what soeuer pleaseth him This point he lacketh who so denieth Christ to be able to make the substance of his owne body present in diuerse places at once vnder diuerse formes of bread and wine If â—…herefore any man wil not beleue this he may be assured his portioâ—… is rekned with Iudas who as Leo hath witnessed beleued not thâ—… almighty power and Godhead of Christ. But if all men agree 〈◊〉 this point it is very well then let vs passe to the nexte Christ said â–ª The bread which I will geue is my flesh the which I will geue for tâ—…e life of the world Now are we come from the power of Chist to the will of Christ. We all were agreed that he was able to make the substance of his body present vnder diuerse formes of bread and wine Nowe these wordes affirme that he will geue a kind of bread the substance whereoâ—… is his own flesh euen that flesh the which he will geue for the life of the world And if we goe to his last supper we see bread taken and after blessing and thankes geuen he said This is my body which is geuen for you And he gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragmeÌ„tes or peeces bidding euery one of them take and eate in which deede he sheweth him self to make the substance of his body present vnder the formes of bread in diuerse places at one tyme allthough not after the manner of locall situation because his body hath not in the Sacrament actually that naturall dimention and occupying of place which it hath otherwise But as he hath ordeined it to be so is it vnder twelue diuerse formes of bread Here I am sure many will stand with me and say they beleue not so to whom I answere yâ— by so saying they haue condemned them selues to be of those of whom Christ said there are some of yow who beleue not For yf Christ said by yâ— which was bread before his blessing which still seemed bread yf Christ said thereof this is my bodie gaue it vnder twelue peeces or formes seing they confesse him to be able to make his body present vnder diuerse formes and to haue promised to geue his flesh and to haue said this is my body and to haue geuen it to twelue how can they deny that his body was present at that supper vnder twelue diuerse formes of bread being whole and all vnder eche forme The confessing of that which Christ said is a thing that apperteineth vnto faith because the speaker is God to whom all faith beloÌ„geth To beleue this that God saith must nedes be a vertue and to discredite it is a great vice You will perhap allege that fleshe profiteth nothing the wordes of Christ are spirit and life â–ª that is true therefore I beleue that when he said take eate this is my body he gaue his body not without life spirit but yet as really as euer by saying Let the light be made he made yâ— light for his wordes be not dead flesh which profiteth nothing but quicken and geue lyfe how and when so euer it pleaseth hym muche better then the spirit and soule of man is able to quicken make liuely the body wherein it is These two sayinges this is my body and my wordes are spirit and life stande so well together that I beleue the one for the others sake Christes words neuer lacke spirit and life and power to quicken other thinges euen as his flesh neuer lacked al kynd of spirit in it selfe for when the soule was out of