â–ª because so much is signified to be geuen And seing the gift of God which might haue bene secret is now so made that the signe and token of it goeth together with the truth thereof it could geue from it selfe no other token then it hath nature of his owne The token of Christ sheweth power of forgeuing and reteyning synnes to be geuen to the Apostles Therefore that power is in deed geuen I am not ignorant that the Apologie as it denieth this Sacrament of Penance so it falsefieth the words of Christ saying that the words whose synnes ye forgeue they are forgeuen are meant whose synnes ye declare to be forgeuen but thereof we may by Gods grace dispute an other tyme. Now it is enough to shew that the word forgeuing doth not importe euidently and at the first sight a declaration of forgeuenesse but an actual forgeuenesse in deed and a signe thereof Euen as these words This is my body doe importe both a signe and work a true being of the body and not a signe without a truth Briefly it is one thing to consyder what words any other where may signifie and an other thing to consyder what they may signifie in a Sacrament For many words may signifie vnproperly in other places but the principall words of a SacrameÌ„t can not be vnproper For the nature of yâ— thing doth lyâ—…itte the interpretation of the words When Christ maketh a Sacrament he maketh a thing of a dubble nature to wit a holy thing and the signe of a holy thing But the whole is to vs knowen by the signe For the thing we see not neither in Baptisine nor in confirmation nor in the Eucharist nor in Penaunce nor in extreme vnction nor in Priesthod nor in Matrimonie The thing the truth the grace the inward operation is hid from our eyes from our eares feeling The signe thereof is sensible and apperteineth to the eyes and eares Now to say that a plaine signe is not made outwardly it is as much to say as a plaine grace or truth is not made inwardly Againe if it be not a plaine signe it is dark and obscure it is doubtfull and in controuersie Wherefore it will be inferred that it rather confoundeth our vnderstanding then teacheth it Which being so it is no visible signe of inuisible grace For surely be the inward grace what so euer it pleaseth God it shal be yet one certayn being nature substance condition and state it hath whereof no man is certainly warned if yâ— words yâ— warne vs of it be not plaine And therefore we haue found a Sacrament according to yâ— Sacramentaries opinioÌ„ without a holy signe a truth without a figure a certayn grace without a certayn foorme a great mysterie without belefe or knowlege thereof A notable institutioÌ„ of a supper iâ—… meÌ„ knew or might know what it were a thing to be made daily to be frequented oft to be eaten and dronken but what it is no man is able to proue it plainely To this point our new â—…es would bring vs. That they couet to bring you into this blindnes cleane coÌ„trary to the word of God I wonder not they do their ministerie they worke their masters inspiration they practise the deâ—…ils deuises Antichrist must denie all the mysteries veryties of Christ how could that come to passe if no maÌ„ went before to bring them in doubt Sodenly to preuaâ—…le that belongeth only to God by peece meale and by litle and litle to creepe in that is the worke of Satan They are faithfull seruantes to their Lord. And as loÌ„g as they serue him I blame them not but I exhort them to leaue his seruice for he is but an euill paimaster in th â–ª end Mary that other so diligently follow them that they so carefully striue to maintaine the same doctrine that they by so long experience do not vnderstand whence it commeth and whereto it hasteneth that is the greater grief ¶ which argument is more agreable to the word of God it is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore it is the true body of Christ. THe common argument of all the Sacramentaries against the blessed Sacrament of the altar is thus formed The supper of our Lord is the Sacrament the signe the figure the pledge the token the remembrance of Christes body therefore it is not his body in dede This argument is so good or rather so bad that if I should dispute for my life on the contrary side I would bring the same to proue the contrary truth I wold say the supper of our Lord is the Sacrament of Christes body the signe the figure yâ— pledge the token the remembrance thereof instituted by Christ therefore it is in dede the body of Christ. Now let vs goe to the word of God to trie whiche argument is better First it is to be noted that although before the incarnation of Christ signes were in part emptie and voide of the truth which they siâ—…nified yet now the signes of the new Testament which Christ himself hath instituted conteyn the truth which they signi fie because truthe is made by Jesus Christ. And S. Augustiue sayth the Sacraments of the new Testament gene saluation Again not with standing yâ— Christ left to his Church only seuen Sacramentes which it should vse according as the nature of eueryone or the profite of men doth require yet Christ him selfe made a greate number moe not leauing ordinarie aâ—…toritie to vs to do the same but those which him self made in his own dispensa tioÌ„ of â—…esh which he left to his Church to be made be all of one nature His incarnation fasting baptisâ—… miracles transfiguration passion resurrection ascension were marue louse greate Sacraments For besides the truth which was wrought in them they also be tokened an other thing either fulfilled in the olde â—…igures and Prophecies or to be followed of his members which should conform them selues to the dedes of Christ their heade But because we now speake of such Sacraments as are made chieâ—…ly by words of which kind those are which yâ— Church practiseth I will shew only a fewe such places which doe witnes a â—…hing to haue bene done whiles a word signifying so much was spoken And all my examples shall proue that looke what is out wardly sayd the same is inuisibly wrought at the same 〈◊〉 So that the word is an vndoubted token of the thing don and made thereby For my part I say the Angell Gabriel made the sigâ—…e token that Christ should be conceaued of the virgin Marye Saying Concipies in vtero Thou shalt conceaue in thy wombe And the holy virgin signified her consent therevnto saying Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum Be it done to me according to thy word Therefore Christ in deed was conceaued and tooke flesh of the virgin Marie at the very same tyme.
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
his word 〈◊〉 this whereunto he pointeth to be in substance his oâ—…n body but his dedes perform only a signe of his own body as the Sacramentaries teach May I not now say to the Sacramentaries the like to that which Malachie the Prophet sayd to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Iewes who offered in the temple of God â—…ind lame and feint or sicke oxen and shepe Offer illud 〈◊〉 si placueret ei aut si susceperit faciem tuam Offer such halting presents to thy Lord or capitain tel me whether it wil please him or whether thou shalt be welcome to him or no. If one should come to a greate personage and with solemne thaÌ„ks make him a preseÌ„t in words of a fat oxe or of a couragiouse horse and when the noble man were come forth to accept the present he should geue him a peâ—…ce of paper wherein it were writen this is a fat oxe or a couragiouse horse wold the noble man take it well Now come these new preachers and whereas they confesse yâ— Christ gaue thanks to his Father and sayd in words This is my body yet they feare not to teache that he offered more to him in words then he performed in dedes Yea they doubt not to teache that the words wherewith he maketh his present are vtterly vnproper and figuratiue not withstanding that S. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 supper sayth In coÌ„secratione diuina verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur In the diuine consecration the selfe words of our Lord and 〈◊〉 doe worke â–ª The words doe worke how theÌ„ are thei 〈◊〉 A figuratiue word is like a paited image which may be somewhat if the thing meant thereby be real and true but otherwise it is an idole and nothing at all But as an image of neuer so liuely a truth absent in substance froÌ„ it can not it selfe worke or doe any thing because it is dead no more can words grammatically figuratiue worke of them selues for that they are dead as not hauing theyr meaning which is theyr life present with them S. Chrysostom likewise writeth hoc est ait corpus meuÌ„ hoc verbo proposita consecrantur This saith he is my body with this word the things set foorth are consecrated And yet can this word whiche doth so wonderfull an act can it be in the meane tâ—…me so weake so feble so dead that it hath not in it self so much as the naturall proprietie of common wordes Commonly wordes do meane as they sound and those whiche do not so be concerning the vse and seruice of words which is to vtter a maÌ„s minde of baser condition then other wordes are But Christes words be so liuely that they haue power to work and make that which they sound in so much that he called them in S. Iohn life and spirit therefore it is vnreasonably said that they are figuratiue Hoc est corpus meum are but foure words of which foure they leaue neuer a one in his own significatioÌ„ and some of them they pluck from his gender other they pluck from their case which they were put in hoc this is the neuter gender with his noune substantiue corpus body they draw it to the masculine gender that it may agree with panis bread Est is a verbe substantiue signifiyng the substance of that noune substantiue with whom it is ioyned They draw it from that signification to signifie an accident in bread which in these words is not named They put corpus meum which is by Christes setting the nominatiue case into somtime the accusatiue somtime the genitiue case for they â—…ay this doth signifie my body then is it in yâ— accusatiue case or this is the figure of my body and then it is the genitiue case what miserable taking is this of so heaueÌ„ly words but hereof I think to say more vpon those words this is my blood least I now excede the measure of a circumstance Yet this one thing I can not but warn yâ—â—…eader of although it may seme to some man of no great weight But I thinke with S. Chrysostom no syllable or prick in the word of God to be superfluously placed S. Paule reciting the words of Christes supper placeth them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body For where as the other Euangelist had writen the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last place as we likewise in latin put meuÌ„ last the holy Ghost foreseing the heresy yâ— now should rise caused S. Paul to ioyne that proâ—…oun belonging to Christes person vnto yâ— other pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc this For although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ruled of the noun body and in sense must nedes follow after it yet it pleased God to place the same pronoun with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this shewing thereby that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must finally be referred vnto the noun corpus body as wel as the other pronoun meum mine as if it were in latin hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body That ioyning I say of this and of me together doth geue such coniecture as in the order of words may be had that as of me is the genitiue case coming after yâ— noun body so this likewise apperteyneth to the noun substantiue body and only resteth and endeth his signification in that word Whereas on the other syde if this were only referred vnto bread no reason could be brought why S. Paule should ioyne the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of me vnto it This bread of me is the signe of body iudge what a hard speache it were Let noman wonder if I so narrowly scan euery syllable For you shall see before all is done that God hath caused the wordâ—… of his last supper by so many circumstances of writing and speaking to be opened vnto vs that when the rest is all heard it wil seme probable enough not so much as the setting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue bene superfluouse ¶ The. 〈◊〉 circumstance of these words Which is geuen for you ALthough S. Mathew and S. Mark thought it sufficient to report that Christ sayd This is my body as the which words both were plaine enough able to make the mysterie of Christes supper yet the holy Ghost stirred vp S. Luke to adde the other words which Christ had also vsed to thâ—…ntene the literall meaning of Christes words might be most câ—…tainly confirmed and therefore he writeth that Christ sayd This is my body which is geuen for you In all the which words there is none other noune substantiue named besides the only substance of Christes body With it agreeth Hoc This with it quod the which It cometh after the verb est is and goeth before the verb datur is geuen If now we interpret the noun corpus body by figura corporis the â—…igure of
c. What shall I speake of the administration of the word sith their whole indeuour is not to conuert Ethniks bâ—…t to peruert our men thei rather couet after this glorie to ouerthrow those that stand then to raise vp those that are fallen because yâ— verie worke of theirs coÌ„meth not of their building but of the destruction of the truth They vndermine our works that they may build vp their owne Thus Tertullian said of you before you were borne It is theÌ„ small issue that you haue hitherto obteined by ouerthrowing as outwardy monasteries Churches altars scholes hospitals so inwardly faith humâ—…tie chaâ—…tie obedience all 〈◊〉 loue of God or of our neighbours Iuel These Cardinals espied suche faults as euery childe might haue found San. Neuer a Priestes childe in England is able to vnderstand them now that they are found much lesse euery child would find them if they were to be sought out Iu. They neuer redressed any of the same San. You say not truly which thing as it might be declared in manie other points as wel of making Priests of geuing beuefices as also in other faults there named so is it most euident to yâ— eye coÌ„cerning yâ— harlats which neither ridde in coche nor dwelt in any palace since that tyme nor went in the tyre of any honest matrone Iuel If M. Harding had bene in the Apostles tymes he would hâ—…ue made some sporte at theyr Councâ—… 〈◊〉 where or in what house assembled they together San. They assembled in the house of S. Iohn as Nicephorus thinketh when they chose Mathias into yâ— nuÌ„ber of the Apostles Againe they assembled to decide the coÌ„trouersie risen coucerning the obseruances of the law of Moyses in diuerse other places Whereat D. Harding will make no sporte because wheresoeuer they assembled they were laufully asseÌ„bled being sent to yâ— who le worlde by Iesus Christe But anie such couâ—…sion Luther and Bucer can not shew Iu. What Bisshop or Pharisee was among thâ—…m San. They had one Bisshop 〈◊〉 the lest among 〈◊〉 and him appointed by Christe to whome he committed both his shepe and lambes But in dede all the Apostles were also Bishopes as it maie apere in that S. Mathias toke the Bishoprike of Iudas â—…ccording to the Prophecie of Dauid Were Luther Bucer and Melancthon so made Bishopes Or will you haue the Churche beginne again in our tyme as it began or rather toke his perfection in Christ Shall Luther be Christ will you be new Apostles to vs Heare what Tertulâ—…an saith hereof also ProbeÌ„t se nouos Apostolos c. Let theÌ„ proue them selues to be new Apostles Let theÌ„ say that Christ hath descended againe yâ— he hath taught againe bene crucified againe dird againe risen againe for so he was woâ—…t to make Apostles more ouer to geue theÌ„ power to do those things which he him self did I would therefore declare their power vertues but yâ— I know theyr chefe power to be in yâ— they do follow the Apostles peruersly For they did make those yâ— were dead to liue but these doe make those that liue to die Hitherto Tertullian Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lacked Bishops in theyr assembles as being all sent with full authority into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…or your assemble had 〈◊〉 Bishop at al Because since Christes assension 〈◊〉 had authoritie to preach or to cal assâ—…bles muste nedes 〈◊〉 of them or of theyr successours to whome Christ gaue suche authoritie But Luther being sent of no man who 〈◊〉 ordinarily to the Apostles must nedes be a false Prâ—… as who ranne before he was sent And truly sith Christe 〈◊〉 noâ—… him selfe to the authoritie of Apostleship but was called of God thereunto and proued his commission by his manifold worâ—…es and miracles it is an intolerable pride for Martin Luther at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worde without anie other miracle 〈◊〉 yâ— he was the most fyithiest maÌ„ both of mouth and life ther lightly was in â—…he earth to require all the world to to beleue his new 〈◊〉 Iu. S. Augustine 〈◊〉 conference and disputation with â—…tius the Arrian at Hippo in a priuate house of one Anitius San. But I 〈◊〉 you it was kepte of S. Augustines part to maintein the knowen 〈◊〉 faith and not to ouerthrow if Yea it was kept to maintein yâ— word homusion which yâ— heretike Pascentius alleged not to be in the holy scripture and therefore that it ought not to be admitted Iu. There be euer some that laugh at the repairing of Hierusalem as Origen saith San. You are of that summe for you laugh at S. Augustine who brought the faith into England and at the eight Cardinals who went about to repaire the wals of the Church But Origenes speaketh of idolatours and Gentils who euuied at yâ— rising and not at the repairing of the wals of the Gospel because it greued them to see moe new Christians daily made of iufidels ¶ Whether Christes body dwel really in our bodies by his natiuity Iuel The old Fathers speak not any one word that serueth to M Hardings purpose San. This lying brag can not face the matter as it shal appere hereafter Iu. M Harding proueth Christes body to be really in vs and not in the Sacrament thereby altering the question Harding Christ dvvelleth in vs truly because of our receauing his body in this Sacrament San. Ergo M. Iuel said not truly that D. Harding hath altered the question For that which he now saith he also proueth Iu. Four special meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination buâ—…â—…ally substancially naturally fleshly and in dede San. You had ben better to haue subscribed sour 〈◊〉 M. Iuel than for gredines of denying the real presence of Christes body in the Sacrament to haue made an assertion so vain as this is Iu. Christes body by his natiuitie whereby he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwelleth in our bodies really substancially caet San. If you had only said that Christ by his incarnatioÌ„ dwelleth naturally in vs or we naturally in him that sayinge might haue had a true sense for that Christ by taking yâ— nature whiche we are might haue bene said to dwell among vs and to be 〈◊〉 of vs. But to say not only that Christ but that his body not only dwelleth in vs but in our bodies and that not only naturally but also really substancially in dede to affirm coÌ„stantly so much it semeth to me very hard First Christes natiuitie no more caused his body to dwel really in our bodies then his incarnation For when the word was made flesh euen then it dwelt in vs. Secondly his incarnation may be considered three waâ—…es one way as if he had taken 〈◊〉 by thought or imagination only and not in verie dede of which opinion you are not as it may appere
not so much with their faultes as with the office it selfe imputing the vices of euill men to a most holy vocation and ministerie against the commaundement of Christ. They withdrew vniustly their tithes and oblations they enuied the riches of the clergy and in euery alehouse dâ—…couered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their spirituall fathers When these great enormities were comme to the highest so that the cockle began to ouergrow and hide the good corne and now tyme required that iudgement should beginne at the house of God and those that in dede were good and faithfull should be disseuered from the euill Martin Luther a Frier of S. Augustines order in Saxonic was permitted like a proud â—…ing of Babylon to comme out of the north and to make spirituall bataile to the holy Citie of Hierusalem because her Citezens did not worship Christ in such puritie of good life as they ought to haue done Whereby it came to light who were the chaâ—…e which is with euery 〈◊〉 of windecaried vp and doune who were the true wheat which lieth 〈◊〉 against all tentations and perseuereth in the Church of God For those that were light and euill disposed when they vnderstode they might kepe their liuinges though they did not dischardge the office belonging therevnto seing they came to the office only to haue the liuing those I say embraced with all their endeuour the new religion of Martin Luther And that whether they were Monkes and religious men or secular Priestes only Make them sure of good 〈◊〉 they will assure the Prince to geue vp their Abbeys and monasteries And good reason why For they neuer loued neither the cote nor the vow but only the â—…ase and filling of their bellies Then God made it euident vnto the world which were those who had standered in dede the holy order of Priesthod Who they were that hauing 〈◊〉 kept wemen sayd afterward they were their wiues and who they were that 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 more them their vowes made to God I shall nede name no man But I thinke there are few men aboue forty yeres old in all England but they can of their owne knowledge reckon vp diuers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 who before the preaching of Luther shamed with their vnhouest behauiour the clergy of the realme And the same men shewed themselues when broching tyme came not to haue ben of the Church but of that religion whatsoeuer should be set foorâ—… most carual This good then Luther hath doâ—…e that whereas the euill were in profession mingled among the good now it should be no more so For two bodies are made ouâ—… of Catholikes an other of the Protestantes And the Churche of God remaineth 〈◊〉 purged from that wicked generation of men Not that Cathoâ—…kes lack their great 〈◊〉 or can be iustified in the sighe of God as no synners But it skilleth much whether a man doe syn with fear of 〈◊〉 and with desyre of repentance or els whether he desend his syn make a doctrine of his euildoing The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priest sayeth he doth not synne in marying though he 〈◊〉 not to marie Yea to amend the matter he sayeth no man ought to vowe chastitie condemning in that doctrine besyde an infinite number of holy professed virgins the blessed mother of God who woÌ„dered how she might haue a childe 〈◊〉 she knew not any man Whereunto her own reason migâ—…t 〈◊〉 haue replied that hereafter she might know a man except she had vowed her selfe not to know at all any man Now Luther was permitted to discouer such synners as were most desperate and of least purpose to repent This Luther hath shaken the walles of moe Chapels Churches Monasteries then euer any king of Syria did shake 〈◊〉 Castels or houses in the land of the twelue tribes of Israel and â—…uda He began with lesse matters but as the Prince of the 〈◊〉 throwing 〈◊〉 and conquering such small fortes as lay in his way alwayes made hast to besiege Hierusalem itselse the chiefe Citie of the land of Iury so Luther hauing his eye vpon the highest mysterie of all our faith as him selse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ouerthrow the great reuerence which all good men gaue to the blessed Sacrament of the altar He went about to be persuaded In Sacramento praeter panem vinum esse nihil that nothing was in the Sacrament besides bread and wine For these are his owne wordes But sinding the scriptures to plaine as himself also 〈◊〉 and the saith and consent of 〈◊〉 doctours and people to strong he 〈◊〉 gaue ouer thaâ—… 〈◊〉 and contented himselfe with 〈◊〉 the sacred â—…ower of 〈◊〉 He taught that bread and wine were not in their substance changed into the body of Christ 〈◊〉 withall the 〈◊〉 presence of our Sauiours flesh and blood Whose 〈◊〉 oâ—…ce being spred in Germanie a great multitude of 〈◊〉 Rutters voluntarily folowed his 〈◊〉 But when the Catholikes had euidently shewed that two diuers natures alâ—…ready extaâ—…t in the world as Christ and 〈◊〉 bread or wine could neuer without a maruelouse vnion be made one and be incorporated together the which vnion betwen Christ and materiall bread and wine neither is expreâ—…y acknowledged by the holy Gospell neither gathered thence by generall Councels or lerned Fathers â—…or who euer heard De Christo impanato of Christ imbreaded moreouer when the Catholikes declared their belefe of 〈◊〉 to be conformable to the Scriptures and expresly alowed by the holy spirit of God in generall Councels and in the bookes of auncient Doctours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Capitain Luther neither to be able to withstand the reasons brought against him neither yet willing to geue ouer the opinion which him selfe had chosen he much misliked with Luther and within foure yeres after began to publish at zurich in zâ—…cherland that the reall substance of Christes flesh and blood was not in the Sacrament of the altar as Luther had said but only was named and signified to be there To whom Decolamâ—…s a renegate out of S. Brigittes Cloister ioyned him selfe stoutly defending that figuratine doctrine both against the Catholikes and against Martin Luther The Catholikes out of hand shewed how much against the wordes and workes of Christ that opinion is how absurd vnsemely and vncredible it were that Christ who is the truth it selfe and by whom truth is made and who came to fulfill all figures should leaue in his owne supper contrary to the meaning of his owne sayinges nothing but figures and shadowes Satan therefore vnderstanding this doctrine of zuinglius to be much better impugned by the Catholikes then by Decolamâ—…dins defended fearing yâ— onerthrow of the whole armie spedily sent in a fresh band vnder yâ— conduct and gouernance of John Caluin who restoring yâ— fight protested yâ— he neither thought nor taught a bare figure to be geueÌ„ at yâ— supper of Christ as zuinglius did seme to teach In dede quod he a figure it is but
a stroÌ„g stout effectual figure ioyned with words of promise stirring vp the hart of him that heareth the promise and worthely râ—…aueth the pledge therof to mounte into heauen and there by faith to fede in spirite vpon Christes owne body and blood as he in earth corporally feedeth vpon bread and wine For Caluin teacheth bread and wine to be the figures and signes of Christes body and those wordes This is my body to be wordes of preaching or of promising Christes body to them that doe beleue O pitifull tossing and tearing of Gods holy mysteries Are those words which make and shew the body of Christ present words of promise But hereof I will speak more hereafter Now concerning that he willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith know ye not that because our nature was not able to 〈◊〉 â—…y to the seat of God in heauen therefore y◠〈◊〉 oâ—… God came 〈◊〉 from heauen to earth to leade and list vs vp to the â—…ition oâ—… his Father Know ye not that because our body more quickly â—…weth our soule dounward then our spirit is able to draw our body vpward therefore Christ 〈◊〉 not only yâ— soule but also the body of man geuing vs in his last supper that body of his to th'inthent our bodies taking hold in the Sacrament of the altar of his body might be caried into heauen to haue the sight of God And because faith without th'incarnation of Christ cannot lift vp our bodies therefore Christ fulfilled â—…aith with truth and hauing taken of the virgin oure nature gaue his body in dede to our bodies and soules yâ— we again might in body soule be lifted vp with it As a man that is cast into a depe pit calleth by the meane of his tonge for help but when a cord is let doune to him for the aide and 〈◊〉 of him it is not then sufficient to vse his tong still and to let his handes alone euen so our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to help vs to let doune the corde of his humanitie of his flesh and blood And shall we now when it is let doune to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottom of our hartes by eating it really shall wee now refuse it and saie wee will goe into heauen by faith ourselues and there take holde of Christ whereby wee maie be saued and deliuered out of the depe vale of misery As though the corde should haue neded to haue ben let doune if wee could haue fastened our bodies to any thing in heauen and yet our bodyes are they which weigh doune our soules châ—…ely But what meane I to reason in this place of that point whereof in all the booke folowing by Gods grace I will fully intreat For as it happeneth they are the scholars of Calnin with whom specially wee must haue to do at this time Of whose lerning and prâ—…ncie â–ª I most crueâ—…y craue this fauour that none of them all thinâ—… me to speak against their persons but only against their opinions and so to speak against them as I am instructed by the holy Scriptures not graunting that either they loue more intierly or study more carefully or reuerence more hartily the word of God then my Fathers brethren and I my selfe doe in the Catholike Church of Jesus Christ. Only about the meaning of it I rather would trust the common iudgeâ—…ent of auncient Doctours and practise of the whole Church theu mine owne priuate election and phantasie or the deuise of a newly planted congregation A Catholike man must kepe the most auncient path and most commonly troden high waie Priuie bypathes carie mâ—…n a side to the 〈◊〉 dennes of 〈◊〉 My purpose is to proue out of the word of God specially against zuinglius and Caluin that Christ geueth in his last supper the true substance of his flesh and blood not only to our soules by words of promise but also to our bodies vnder the formes of bread and wine And for as much as the present Church of England in the Apologie thereof hath set forth to the world an other doctrine contrarie to that wce reâ—…ued of our fore Fathers I will first disproue and confute the wordes and reasons oâ—… the Apologie and afterward will by the grace of God proue the Catholike faith out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers But first of all I must declare what we Catholiks and what the Protestants and Sacramentaries beleue the supper of Christ to be That seing I make the Title of my booke Of the supper of our Lord it maie straight appere whose 〈◊〉 is more worthy to be instituted of Christ that which we through his word beleue or that which they assigne him against y◠〈◊〉 truthe of his own words ¶ what the supper of Christ is according to the belâ—…e of the Catholikes BEcause my purpose is to intreat of the blessed supper of our Lord I thought it best to declare before hand what we take that supper to be shewing withal how the Sacramentaries vnder the pretense of refoorming the abuses thereof haue taken away the whole supper of Christ and geuen vs a bare drinking of their own 〈◊〉 And whence maie that be more truly and soundly proued then chiâ—…fly out of the word of God next out of the monuments of the a aâ—…cient Fathers The word of God is a most faithfull witnesse oâ—… the institution of Christ the monuments and writings of auncient Fathers doe shew the right vnderstanding of the word of God which thing I speake not as though the Catholike Doctours of this later tyire had not the self same holy Ghost which the first had but seing our aduersaries refuse Albereus magnus Thomas of Aquine Bonauenture Alexander of â—…ales Dionyâ—…ns the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra Gabriel Biel and such other men of excelleÌ„t vertue wit and lerning who not withstanding by a rule that S. Auguâ—…stine geueth ought to be of credit in so much as all they liued before this question rose beâ—…wene the Sacramentaries and vs and therfore can not beare nor shew more affection to the one syde then to the other but seing our aduersaries refuse them for 〈◊〉 and yet follow men of later 〈◊〉 as Luther zuinglius 〈◊〉 we are content to put all the matter into the hands of the old Doctours And to beginne as we promised with the word of God thus writeth S. Paul in his first 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians Conuenientibus vobis in vnum iam non est dominicam coenam manducare vnusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit ad manducanduÌ„ when yow come together now there is no eating of our Lords supper For euery man taketh 〈◊〉 his owne supper to eate By the name of supper in the old tyme that one meale was meant wich ordinarily was made after noon and it serued for diner and supper The Corinthians coming together to yâ— holy communion taried not one for the other but
that none other thing can 〈◊〉 inferred vpon those words then what thing this is as we saie or what thing this bread doth signifie as the Sacramentaries teache Admit now it were expresly said this bread is the signe of Christes body which sense is salsely ascribed to those words by the Zuinglians yet it wold not follow therevpon that the body of Christ is promised to our soules but only that by this bread we are brought to remember Christ. Now as for eating it is commanded and not promised Caluin had the cheif property of an heretike which was to be singular And therein he delighted so much that albeit he was determined not to tarie in the faith wherein he was Christened yet he wold neither goe to Luther who first withdrew himself from vs nor to Zuinglius whose sect he fauored rather but he wold make a religion of his own And therfore he deuised a new sense of Christes words Affirming This is my body not to be spoken to the bread as both Catholiks Lutherans and Zuinglians after diuers meanings doe confesse but to be words of preaching made vnto the people that stand about the Priest and that these words promise the body of Christ to al that beleue his death and resurrection as verily as that bread is really eaten into their bodies and yet neither be the words conceiâ—…ed in the manner of promising neither do they speake of faith or death or of the resurrection of Christ or of eating bread Is not this a strang sense to pick out of these words This is my body as if it were said Masters beleue that Christ is dead and risen again and then as this bread is eaten of your bodies so certainly shal you fede of his body in faith spirit Did â—…uer any man heare of such a 〈◊〉 Hoc This doth signifie and shew to Caluin the bread which must be eaten at the supper of Christ and pointeth also to a spirituall food which is promised Est Is doth stand both properly for the present time in yâ— it is a signe of Christes body at the tyme of speaking and also vnproperly for the tyme to come in that it is a promise of his body to be eaten spiritually Corpus meum My body doth signifie to him the signe of my body taken by mouth and the streÌ„gth or vertue therâ—…of that shal be taken by faith and spirit Put together This bread which you bodily eate is the signe this thing which I promise that your soules shall eate shall be the streÌ„gth or efficacie of my body and yet he addeth farther of his owne to them that beleue Christes death and resurrection This is the sermon which Caluin saith was made at Christes supper Wherein euery word must signifie at once two or three things and one verb in one tense must signifie two tymes and the same word body must signifie two proprieties and yet neither of them both properly For whether body stand for signe of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of bread it standeth vnproperly or whether iâ—… stand for efficacie of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of the communicants it standeth vnproperly whereas the proper signification thereof is to signifie the substance of Christes body If we presse him out of S. Paul and out of the Fathers that euil men eate the body of Christ then he will answere they eate the signe of his body without promise or efficacie If we saie that good men eate the body of Christ he expoundeth it in such sense that they first haue it promised them â—…ate both a certain pledge bodily and in their soules a spirituall efficacie thereof O crafty deuiser If thou canst thus deceaue a sort of miserable and either vnlerned or vngraciouse men thinkest thou to deceaue God or to escape his terrible iudgement Agree at the last how euery word shal be so taken that thy interpretation maie be like it self Let not the same word be now a signe now a pledge now a promise now an efficacie now again no efficacie no promise no pledge but only a signe We beleue that euery word standeth properly And that both euill and good receaue one and the same substance of Christes body But as one medicine receaued of two diuerse complexions worketh not one effect so the good men haue a good effect by eating worthely the body of Christ the euill haue condemnation by eating it vnworthely Thus we take the word body for the reall substance of the body the verb est is we take properly because it is in dede Christes body when the words are spoken This we saie doth finally point to the substance of Christes body as then prâ—…ently made vnder the foorm of bread In our interpretation there is no inconstancy no impropriety no changing of significations in the same words no bare promising of a thing to come bâ—…t a present perfoormance If any man aske by what scriptures I conuince Caluin I wold first â—…now by what scriptures he proueth his lewed interpretation Shall he speake a thing without scripture beside all truthe and reason and shall not we be credited vnlesse we conuince him by scripture Howbeit let vs forgeue that iniurie and confute his fond â—…pinioÌ„ by the word of God Caluin saith This ys my body be words of promise against which saing thus I reason S. Paule intending to shew that God was not bound to the carnall Iewes because they were the childern of Abraham by flesh but that rather he wold reward them who were the children of Abraham by faith and spirit declareth Isaac to haue ben the child of promise because the Angell said to Abraham Secundum hoc tempus veniam erit Sarae filius I will come according to this tyme and a sonne shal be vnto Sara out of which words S. Paule proueth a promise How so Promissionis enim hoc verbum est For this word or saing is a word of promise which word is that Veniam I will com filius â—…rit a sonne shal be as if S. Paule said wil shall be words of promise For when a speache is conceiued for the tyme to come with 〈◊〉 circumstance that it maie appere the speaker meant to warrant the thing spoken it maketh a promise If I will come and 〈◊〉 sonne shal be are words of promise I am come and a sonne is be words of perfoormance and that is also conâ—…irmed out os the word of God Where it is writâ—…n the Lord visited Sara as he had promised and fulfilled the things which he spake and she conceiued and brought foorth a sonne at yâ— tyme wherein god had foreâ—…old 〈◊〉 that which was before in S. Paul named a promise is â—…ow called also a foretelling or prediction For albeit euery prediction be not a promise yet euery promise is a prediction and a telling before hand so that we haue in the word of God that a promise telleth a
seruice and orders of the Apostles them selues If Caluin had that spirit he were farr from hearesy But now see what spirit Caluin hath Thus he writeth in this matter Immediatly after the words which I rehersed in the 〈◊〉 of this chapiter thus he writeth His rationibus constat repositionem Sacramenti c. It is euident saith Caluin by those reasons the reseruation of the Sacrament which some men presse to th end it maie be distributed extraordinarily to the sick to be vnprofitable For either the sick shall receaue it without rehersall of the institution of Christ or the minister together with the signe will ioyne the true explication of the mysterie If the institution of Christ be not spoken of it is an abuse and a fault If the promises be rehersed and the mysterie be declared so that they who shall receaue maie receaue with fruit we nâ—…de not dowt this to be the true consecration To what purpose then is the other whose strength reacheth not so farr as to come to the sick But you will saye they that doe so to wit that reserue the Sacrament haue the example of the old Churche Fateor I graunt but in so weighty a matter wherein errour is not committed without great danger nothing is more safe then to follow the truthe it self Hytherto Caluin hath reasoned who putteth the whole streÌ„gth of the Sacrament of Christes supper in promising and preaching therefore if any where preaching and promising be not vsed in the geuing of the Sacrament he calleth it an abuse and fault And seing the primatiue Church euen whiles the Apostles were â—…liue did by the witnesse of 〈◊〉 reserue the SacrameÌ„t so long after consecration as to send it to such Bishops which might come to strange dioceses out of an other prouince and seing the deacous vsed to carie it in the tyme of Iustinus Martyr who liued within a hundred yeres of Christes death to those which were absent Caluin I saie perceauing the vse of all Apostolicall Churchs to stand against him will seme to conâ—…ute them all with this fond reason Either the sick and absent persons for all is one concerning this matter shall receaue that which was consecrated in the Church without a new rehersall of these words This is my body And then it is an abuse saith Caluin a fault he calleth it an abuse which the scholars of the Apostles vsed or â—…ls saith he the words shal be ioyned with the signe and it is a true consecration And then saith he the first consecration made at the Church was in vain concerning the sick and absent men But the second is good which is made by preaching and rehearsing the words of promise to the sick persons I haue most faithfully behersed the opinion of Caluin But let vs now examine why it is an abuse and fault to deliuer to the sick or to the absent persons the holy hoste which was consecrated in the Churches without a new rehersall of Christes words why is that an abuse who told Caluin it was an abuse or a fault For south his own mind gaue him so his wisedom thought so his grauitie said so his blasphemonse penue wrote so But other cause reason or scripture he bringeth none for it â—…e first 〈◊〉 that the consecration of Christes supper consisteth in saying to the people This is my body which is geuen for you And proneth it not at all but graunt him once his dream consequently he inferreth that if such an hoste whereupon the words of consecration were once dewly pronouÌ„ced be afterward geueÌ„ to him that heaâ—…d not those words of promise because he was sick or absent if the â—…ost I say he geuen without a new rehersall of the words it foloweth that it is an abuse Yea but some Papist will saye the old Churche did so For now he calleth the primatiâ—…e Churche the old Churche I graunt saith Caluin But it is better yet to follow the truthe it self Why 〈◊〉 doest thow only know what the truth it self is we allege the old Church to proâ—…e that the truthe 〈◊〉 Christes gospell doth stand for vs and to proue that consecration is not made by preaching and by the hearing of the people but by the vertue of Gods word which spoken ouer the elements of bread and wine saith by the one This is my body making it so And by the other This is my blood making it so We saye these words make the body of Christ vnder the form of bread and his blood vnder the form of wine For our saying we bring the gospell where â—…t is writen this is and this is When other 〈◊〉 the gospell we shew that the Apostles and their successours practised this which we beleue For they all vnderstode by these words directed to brcad and wine that the body and blood of Christ was really made vnder the formes of them How proue we that Because if once the words had ben spoken by a Priest vpon those elements the things consecrated were afterward kept and caried as a most holy sacrifice to men abâ—…ent as the which things coÌ„teined really within them the body blood of Christ. Why els should they be caried to others that were absent A 〈◊〉 maye say that when they came to the absent persons the words were again rehersed First that appereth not in Iustinus or in Ireneus of whom the one sayth the 〈◊〉 was sent to straâ—…gers the other saith that the things consecrated which were receaued of the present Christians the same were caried to the absent How is the Eucharist sent if it be no Eucharist vntill it come to the stranger and then be made a new Or is it 〈◊〉 to iterate the consecration of any Sacrament Hath Caluin lerned so farr Did the first consecration lack â—…ertue so that an other must be made or the first be repeted Last of al the Deacons caried the Eucharist who possibly could not reherse the words of consecration This is my body and this is my blood And yet if they were words of promise preaching the Deacon who may 〈◊〉 and in preaching may 〈◊〉 yâ— spiritual seeding of our soules might also reherse those words But from the Apostles tyme to this day it was neuer heard that â—… Deacon might consecrate the body and blood of Christ. For noman is able to doe any more then wherevnto he is lawfully called But no Deacon hath the power to coÌ„secrate geuen him And that his name sheweth which is to say a 〈◊〉 or a waiter on For he waiteth vpon the Priest at Masse and is not as yet promoted to the office of 〈◊〉 Seing then the Deacons caried the Eucharist and they could not say the words of consecration doubâ—…lesse they that receaued it of their hands receaued neither words of promise nor of preaching but they receaued that blessed body and blood of Christ which was coÌ„secrated before vnder the foormes of bread wine This faith
by man Truly in Baptim there is forgeuenesse of all synnes What skilleth it whether Priests challenge this right of forgeuing synnes to be geuen them by penance or by baptim The mysterie or Sacrament is one in both But thou wilt say that in Baptim the grace oâ—… yâ— mysteries worketh What in Penance doth not the name of God work Here is the same vertue and name of a mysterie or Sacra ment geuen to Penance which is geueÌ„ to Baptim Whereby S. Ambrose taught as wel that there was a SacrameÌ„t of Penance as the Apologie graunteth one of Baptim But to stand about the proof of all the seuen Sacraments it nedeth not sith in that most notable generall Councell gathered both of Grekes and Latines at Florence all the seuen Sacramentes were according to the word of God confessed proued declared and expounded as in the ende thereof it may appere But neither S. Ambrose nor S. Augustine had the charge committed to them to rekon vp how many Sacraments there are I brought these few places out of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose to shewe as it were to the eyes of all them that will not wilfully blind them selues how these defenders crie out vpon the word of God vntill they haue with swete words wonne â—…anour amoÌ„g the miserable nomber â—…f those vnstable meâ—… that allwayes harken for newes But when they haue them fast then is the word of God cleane forgotten and in siede of it Ambrose and Augustiâ—…e are captiously and falsely alleged For the truth is they that set nought by the word of God can not long esâ—…me Ambrose and Augustine who with all their hartes embraced the word of God and expounded the same according to the auncient tradition of holy Church To what end then doth this Apologie runne Truly to sette vp an Idoll of their owne making in place of the word of God To set vp I say a fantasticall religion of their owne deuising But if they should crie to the people Come come bowe down to the Idoll that we haue deuised for you the people would not come as being feared with yâ— infamouse name of an Idoll Therefore they say come to the word of God come to the holy Scriptures come to the true gospell of Iesus Christ. well Syr you say herein exceding well we are come Teach vs the word of God the Scriptures the gospell Say on a Gods name ¶ That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God WE saye that Eucharistia the supper of the Lord is a Sacrament that is to wit an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is most true that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament yea it is the chief Sacrament of all Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Est enim secunduÌ„ clarissimi praeceptoris nostri sententiam SacramentoruÌ„ Sacramentum The most holy Eucharist which Dyonisius named so a litle before according to the mind of our renowmed maister is the Sacrament of Sacramentes Although Dionysius had S. Paul to his master yet he meaneth at this tyme as vpon him Maximus hath noted by other places of his worke it may well appere to be true Hierotheus an holy Father and Disciple of Christ who in his talke whiche he was wonte to haue with Dyonisius did vse to call the holy Eâ—…charist of all the Sacramentes the chief Sacrament Surely iâ—… there had bene but two Sacramentes both Hierotheus Dyonisius had abused their words For where two things only are of one degree there one may be worthier then the other but neither of the twaiue may iustly be called the chief of the others If in all there be only two Sacramentes baptisme the Eucharist how is the Eucharist the Sacrament of Sacramentes sith when one is taken away there doth remaine but one moe to which relation may be made The opinion therefore of this Apologie standing the Eucharist may be yâ— more chief Sacrament of tâ—…e twaine but not the Sacrament of moe Sacramentes But what nede we stand herevpon seing Dionysius hath at large prosecuted moe Sacramentes then baptisme and the Eucharist as it is easye to see in his workes Seing then the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament and yet not found so to be named in holy Scripture the Apologie is constrained to beleue it selfe and to teach others somewhat which is not readen in holy Scripture Againe that euery Sacrament is a signe and token it is also true but not readen in holy Scripture Thirdly the Sacrament of the altar is an euident token of yâ— body and blood of Christ. But so much is not expressed in holy Scripture Last of all the supper of our Lord is the reall body blood of Christ him selfe And that truth is very plainly very ofte very earnestly sayd taught repeted in holy Scripture Foure thinges are now verified of the supper of our Lord. It is a Sacrament it is consequently a holy signe It is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is the truth and substance of the body and blood of Christ. Of the foure truthes the last only is expressed in holy scriptures because it is the ground of all the other The three first are taught by the Church not coÌ„trary to the scripture but ouer and besides it Now mark well whether these defenders lead vs to the word of God or no. In describing the supper of our Lord they put the three first verities of which neuer a one is named in the scripture And the last veritie which is expresly named in all the foure Euangelistes and in S. Paul as before I haue declared that they vtterly 〈◊〉 aâ—…d leaue out As if they shuld saie we make much aâ—… to pretend yâ— holy scriptures but we will be sure to bring any thiâ—…g soner then the holy scriptures Marke this Apologie who shal he neuer lightly saw any book writen in so many matters of diuinitie wherein so litle scripture hath bene alleged It is full of gloses but the texte it hath very seldome And why They loue not in dede the scriptures they know not the scriptures according to the mind of the holy Ghost but only make a shew of them to entangle the sunple in their snares The supper of our Lord is a sacrament a holy signe an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. hitherto they teache without scriptures It is the body and blood it selfe of Iesus Christ. Hereof speake they at this time neuer a word because it is in the Gospell which they loue not If this last truth can not stand with the first what doubt is there but the worde of God must ouercome and the doctrine of men gâ—…ue place If therefore the supper of our Lord maâ—…e both be the signe of the body and the body it selfe it is well we are throughly
agreed for all scâ—…iptures call it the body and some doctours call it a signe But if these thinges can not both be true together awase with signes awaie with tokens let the worde of God be heard which saieth This is mâ—… body This is my blood Is it reason we obeie men or God If both stand in one degree men keping them selues vnder God let both be obeyed But if men draw from God he is more worth alone then all the men of the world What 〈◊〉 we now Will the sigâ—…e of the body and the body it selâ—…e stand together or no If not let the signe of the body which is not in scripture geue place let the body it selfe which is often times found there tarie still If the signe and the truth can not stand together the Sacramentaries must nedes be condemned who denie the truth which is in the scripture and preferre the signe before it which is not in the scripture If the signe truth doe both stand together yâ— Sacramentaries onlesse they repent be condemned because they denie the one part of yâ— twaine For they denie the true presence of Christs body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine In what case stand these defenders which still be in state of damnation whatsoeuer be concluded true We verely teach and beleue the figure and the truth to stand together the supper of our Lord to be the signe of Christes body and to be his owne body The weaker part is the signe the greater is the truth But both doe not only stand together in one Sacrament but farther more the true nature of euerie Sacrament of Christ is to haue both that is â—…aie to haue oue certaine truth one certaine signe of the same truth The truth is hidden vnder the signe the signe is witnes of the truth Which thing once being declared you shall see the vaine doctrine of this Apologie with what kind of worthy Schoolâ—… the English Church is nowe gouerned to the greate 〈◊〉 and destruction of Christian soules Pardon me good reader if I stand somewhat long vpon the name of a Sacrament for in that word lieth hidden all the poyson of the Sacramentarie doctrine ¶ That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament GEue diligent care good Reader to the doctrine folowing Because as it is most true and profitable so is it somewhat hard I will shew that suche a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must nedes haue the same truth present whereof it is the Sacrament or holy signe The naturall sonne of God tooke naturall flesh of the virgin Marie to th' intent he being oâ—…e persone and there in hauing his humane nature common with men and his diuine common with God might by that meanes reconcile man to God againe His diuine personne staied in it the nature of man his manhod partly couered the diuine nature from the eyes of mortall men partly by maruelous signes and workes shewed the same to the faith of 〈◊〉 men Liâ—…ewise man consisteth of two parts of a soule inuisible and of a visible body The soule ruleth and gouerneth the body And the body sheweth to others by outward tokens what the soule thinketh and inwardly worketh Christ therefore intending to leaue certayn holy mysteries vnto his Church thereby to 〈◊〉 to her the fruite of his passion and death as well for regard of his owne selfe in whose personne two natures were vnited as for regard of vs who coÌ„siste of body and soule made the sayd holy Sacramentes to be of a dubble sort and nature so that the one part thereof might appere to the senses the other should lye priuie and only be seene by faith But as the outward workes and doctrine of Christ were vndoubted testimonies of the inward Godhed really present so the outward signe which is in the Sacraments is a most euident witnesse of the inward grace which they worke really present in them Aâ—…ter this sort Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme that we might be newly borne and regenerated of water and of the holy Ghost as him selfe sayd to 〈◊〉 For the outward wasshing of the body in the naâ—…e of the Trinitie is an euident signe that the holy Ghost at the same instant by the meane of the word and water inwardly wassheth yâ— soule from synne Therefore S. Paul sayeth God hath saued vs by the wasshing of water and of the renewing of the holy Ghost The which holy scriptures S. Augustine embracing sayeth Aqua exhibens forinsecus Sacramentum gratiae spiritus operans intrinsecus beneficium gratiae regenerat hominem in vno Christo ex vno Adam generatum Water geuing outwardly the Sacrament or holy signe of grace and the holy Ghost working inwardly the benefite of grace begetteth man againe in one Christ which was begotten of one Adam Water is the outward signe Grace is yâ— inward benefite The outward water which wassheth the body is the signe of the inward grace which is wrought vpon the souâ—…e Here thou seest good Reader the signe of a thing and the thing it selfe to agree so well that the one is alwayes depending of the other Much lesse doth one of them hinder the other Except any man will say that Christ was not God in dede because his works were tokens signes of his Godhead which were a detestable saying Likewise the supper of Christ is both a signe of his body also his true body A signe outwardly the true body inwardly A signe by yâ— sound of words when it is first made a truth by the inward working of the holy Ghost by the meanes of the words of the censecration For as when the Priest spâ—…inkleth or dippeth the child in water saying 〈◊〉 wass he the in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost At the same moment the holy Ghost wassheth the soule of the person baptized Right so when Christ or any lawfull Priest in his name taking bread blesâ—…ing duely sayeth This is my body making in those words an euident token of his body â—…eally present at the same instant the holy Ghost worketh inwardly the true substance of Jesus Christ really present vnder the forme of bread The outward pronouncing of the words ouer bread and wine is the Sacrament or holy signe that maketh and sheweth Christes body and the inward 〈◊〉 ning of the substance of bread into Christes reall body is the grace which is at the same tyme inuisâ—…bly wrought Thus in holy Scripture the signe of body and the true body stand so welâ—… together that both are true because one is true The which doctrine S. Chrisostom confessing writeth Sacerdotis oreverba proferuntur Et Dei virtute proposita consecrantur gratia Hoc est ait corpus meum hoc verbo proposita
consecrantur The words are pronounced by the Priests mouth And the things set foorth are consecrated by the vertue and grace of God This sayeth he is my body With this word the things which are set foorth are consecrated Who seeth not here the visible Sacrament and the thing or inâ—…isible grace of the Sacrament The Sacrament is the due pronouncing of the words ouer bread oâ—… wine As for example taking bread I say in Christes person This is my body The words naturally haue their knowen signification as other wordes of other things haue Which who so heaâ—…eth spoken or perceaueth to be spoken can tell what they meane and signifie Neither can it be denied but they betoken the being or substance of Christes body That natural betokening of theirs alone without the matter of bread and wine present should not be a Sacrament that is to say an euident signe and token of a holy thing But when those words are spoken ouer bread by a Priest as Christ appointed them to be spoken then by his institution they are a Sacrament to wit an euident token of a holy thing Now as God and Christ can not lye so they do not institute a false signe and token If the token be true and it be the token of Christes body present that thing which it betokeneth by the institution of Christ must nedes be not only true but also present if it be so betokened ¶ What signe must chiefly be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper And what a Sacrament is IAm not ignorant that in the Sacrament of the altar diuerse kindes of signes tokens are founde some be tokens of the making and consecrating the Eucharist others of it being now consecrated and made vntill the outward signes be consumed a signification also of the Church of Christ is gathered out 〈◊〉 it now made and consecrated Yea the very eating is again a signe of a maruelous banket in the life to come The first signe of all is the signe of consecrating our Lords sup per and it is the words duely spoken by a Priest ouer bread and 〈◊〉 which both betoken the making of Christes body blood and make it in dede The signe of the Eucharist now made is the forme of bread and wine But this later signe presupposeth the first signe and token For except it had bene sayd ouer the bread and wine This is my body and this is my blood the formes of bread and wine could not betoken the reall body and blood of Christ vnder them For not wheresoeuer we see such formes we doe there beleue the body and blood to be except we thinke the words of consecration to haue bene spoken ouer them We now speake of that first signe and token which both signifieth and maketh the Sacrament Wherein Christ would that to be wrought inuisibly whiche the words do signifie to our cares and whicâ—… the doing sheweth to our eyes A man is able to institute a token of the truth but not always able to make present the truth of the token As when he leaueth a ring in token of him himselâ—…e not being able to leaue his owne substance in the same ring or vnder the forme of it But Christ as he is both God and man so he leaneth both an outward token according to his huâ—…ane nature and worketh an inward truth of the same token according to his diuine allnughtynes The outward token is called the Sacrament the truth thereof is called the thing of the Sacrament Christ intending to shewe to the people that his Father allways heareth him sayeth Father I thanke the because thou hast heard me These words betoken a thanksull hart Wheresore if in â—…ede the hart be thankfull they are a Sacrament or holy signe because they betoken a most holy sacrifice of thankigeuing But if in dede the hart geue no thanks they are a false token therefore please not God who is truth and loueth nothing but truth Upon this ground of holy scriptures and of lerned Fathers the definition of a Sacrament is agreâ—…d â—…pon by all diuinâ—…s taken specially on t of S. Augustine as 〈◊〉 doth 〈◊〉 in these words Sacramentum est 〈◊〉 gratiae visiâ—…ilis forma A Sacrament is the visible forme of 〈◊〉 grace whereby 〈◊〉 may perceaue a Sacrament to 〈◊〉 oâ—… two parts the one is ap prehended by faith whiles the other is outwardly shewed to the senses If we see one baptized in the name of the Trinitie we say a Christen man was made to day How proue we that because yâ— Sacrament which we saw telleth vs what was wrought inwardly Therefore seing Christ hath willâ—…d vs to say at his holy table ouer bread and 〈◊〉 This is my body and this is my blood there is no doubt but the very naming of body and blood soleÌ„nly commaunded is the commaâ—…udement to make a holy signe which is asmuch to say as to make a Sacrament Whereof it foloweth that the same thing is inuisibly wrought which is outwardly signified Otherwise a Sacrament may be false it may be of one part alone it may lacke the operation of the holy Ghost And to be short it may be made voide and of none 〈◊〉 The token and signe sayeth when bread is present Hoc est corpus meum This is my body The proâ—…ne Hoc This and the verb est is betoken a thing present The thing spoken of is the body of Christ. If this whereof I speake it be not made my body here presently I signifie and betoken a false thing No false signification can be a Sacrament because rather it is an execration or cursing wherein au vntruth is betokened from which God abhorreth The Apologie confeâ—…eth the supper of our Lord to be a Sacrament and whereas euery SacrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 of words and things of which twaine the words are the more plaine token of the holy thing which is made seing the words of Christes supper are This is my body This is my blood of necessitie there must be a truth of that thing which these words doe signifie And for asmuche as they signifie the presence of Christes body his body must nedes be present where they doe signifie it to be present I will exemplifie it in an other Sacrament also Christ at his last supper hauing sayd This is my body which is geuen for you sayd to his Apostles Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me In these words Christ betokened somewhat surely that they shoâ—…ld make and doe the thing he spake of I aske now whether he gaue in deed power to the Apostles to make and doe that thing for the remembrance of him or no If in deed he gaue them no power the signification of his words was false and the tokeÌ„ which they make to our eares vntrue On th' otherside if in deed by that precept Priests
haue power to make that thing whereof Christ spake then the token was true and the outward signification of the words agreeth with the inward effect and working of them For which cause we say that Christ in those words instituted a Sacrament of holy orders For he gaue vnto his Apostles at that tyme by those words the order of Priesthod The holy signe of this Sacrament is the pronouncing of these words Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me The inuisible grace wrought therein is the power which the Apostles toke to make the body of Christ. Euen so As sone as these words This is my body and this is my blood are duely spoken straight the body and blood is made present If indeed it be not present here is no Sacrament at all Note well what I say here is no true signe at all but an hipocriticall and fonde Imagination of a thing the truth whereof is not so as the word soundeth and therefore the sigâ—…e is false Neither will it helpe any thing at all if one say that Christ spake figuratiuely For a figuratiue speache can not be an euideÌ„t token of any thing except it be such a figure as through the custome of speache hath now obteined some easy and knowen 〈◊〉 among all men that vse the same language as when by the name of a cuppe we meane the drinke in it or by the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen we meane authoritie to bring men to Christ and God or by opening the mouth we meane speaking which kind of speache though it be called figuratiue for some respect yet in dede it is all one with proper speach because vse and custome maketh euery speach propre Otherwise a very figuratiue speach signifieth no certain thing vntill it be plainly vnderstanded And consequently no figuratiue speach can be a Sacrament or a holy signe of an other thing For a signe is euer plaine euident and able to instruct as being according to the iudgemeÌ„t of S. Augustine the thing which besides the shew it maketh to our senses causeth an other thing to come to our knowledge But a figure not made common by vse is obscure darke vncertaine as all ridles be vntill they are opened So that if Christ saying This is my body had meant this doth signifie my body and in dede is not so truly no Sacrament had bene made as I will shew hereafter because no euident token had bene geuen of any thing It can not be called an euident token when I may more truly veryfie the contradictorie then that which is spoken For if the Sacramentaries teach wel it is a truer token to say This is not my body then to say This is my body But this is my body caÌ„ neuer signifie to me by any figure of â—…hetorike this is not my body For doubtlesse as long as I am not driuen to thinke this is not my body or to thinke of an other thing as of trees stones water bread wine or any like thing which is cleane diuerse in nature from Christes body which to do after the name of body once heard out of Christes mouth is allmost impossible so long it may still be a signe to me that it is Christes body And seing it can neuer come to passe that I hearing Christ say This is my body can exclude the thought of his body from my vnderstanding will I or nill I This will be to me either a falshod or it will be the Sacrament or signe of his body If it be so then seing the Sacrament and holy signe must nedes be true the body must likewise be truly present for so the token doth report If when I heare Christ say This is my body I must stand musing and diuising how is may be taken vnproperly and signifie a certayn betokening without a true being surely because all ignorant men studie they neuer so long are able to conclude no such thing for that no such example cometh to their minde and they are not exercised in scriptures as diuines be thereby it will folow that Christes words shall signifie one thing to one man and an other to an other To some learned men after some conference they may signifie by the waye of coniecture the betokening of his body To others who coniecture that Christ pointed to his own person when he sayd so they will sound otherwise But to the simple and ignorant who can not so put matters together they will signifie allways the reall presence of his body Uerily the twelue Apâ—…tles were very simple ignorant and as the scriptures call them 〈◊〉 without lerning neither was their mind opened to vnderstand the scriptures at yâ— tyme. And yet I dare say they knew what they did receaue wherefore they toke the words of Christ literally as they sounded to them Now seing these words This is my body signified the body of Christ it will insewe that seing Christ maketh allways a true signe to them it was the truth of Christes body Marye to Ihon Caluine who is more deeply lerned and who studieth ful sore to make and proue Christ a lyer it may well be they will sounde otherwise O Lord to what case are these signes and Sacramentes brought if according to some menne they shall sound one way and to others an other way And yet the truth of them standeth chiefly wholy dependeth vpon the signe which they make As though all other men being able to make their last willes with wordes plaine enough thou Lord alone haddest neither vtterance nor witte nor mind nor remembrance to make a token of thy inuisible work And yet the Apologie sayth that the Eucharist is an euideÌ„t token of the body and blood If the token be euident all men do quicklie vnderstand it why then striue we vpon an euident matter Call wemen children to ask of them what token yâ— words of Christ make I warrant you they will not say that is doth stand to betoken nor body for figure of body That kind of tokens is not very euident to them But in deed the token of Christes body is euident by his own words and therefore the truth which he doth betoken to be present is really present for as his token is most euident so is it most true Christ after his resurrection gaue power to his Apostles to forgeue and retaine synnes This thing was the institution of the Sacrament of Peuance Let vs there see the Sacrament or holy signe of this giâ—…t whose synnes ye forgeue sayeth he they are foregeuen them And whose ye retaine they are reteyned 〈◊〉 in those words a signe of remission of synnes be instituted suâ—…ely when that signe is made by a Priest duâ—…ly absoluing the peniteÌ„t his synnes are in deed remitted For loke how much the words doe signifie to men of common vnderstanding so much is geuen by them How proue I that
Christ â—…ayd to the Leprouse man Be thou made cleane which words gaue a signe and token of cleansing therefore in deed he was made cleane Christ gaue a signe and token that synnes were forgeuen to him that had the palsey by these words Remittuntur tibi peccata tua Thie synnes are forgeuen the therefore in deed they were forgeuen Likewise Christ bad him take vp his bed goe home for a token that the sonne of man had power in earth to forgeue synnes therefore Christ in deed had power in earth to forgeue synnes Because his token and signe is neuer false When Iohn Baptiste had sent two of his disciples to know whether he were the man that shuld come or an other were to be looked for Christ gaue a token to the eyes and eares of the messengers that the blind sawe yâ— lame walked yâ— leepers were cleansed Therefore in deed it was so And he bad them tell S. Ihon what they had heard and seen Christ sayd to the deafe and domme man Adaperire Be thou opened and as it foloweth in the Gospell straight ways his eares were opened and the bond of his tonge loosed Thus might I goe through euery example of the whole Gospell and allways when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inward grace is rehersed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh Marke well good Reader that this rule be not wreasted to that mere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing For then I confesse many parables many obscure sayings were vttered to prouoke his audience to be humble to think of their owne ignorance to depend wholy of Christ to aske him the vnderstanding of the darke sayings But now I speake not of sole doctrine I speake of a worke that Christ maketh and of words ioyâ—…d with his worke In this case I say what so euer signe is outwardly made the same is inwardly wrought Christ sayeth to his Disciples Take ye the holy Ghost and withal he 〈◊〉 vpon them Beholde the word and the doing The outward word is a holy signe or Sacrament so is the outward doing which is breathing The inward worke is the perfoorming of thâ—… 〈◊〉 signe which the worde and breath did betoken Seing then Christ at his last supper did somewhat seing he tooke bread seing he blessed seing he brake seing he gaue seing at the tyâ—… of this outward doing and working he sayd somewhat which saying was a signe a Sacrament a figure a token a pledge a 〈◊〉 of his body we are assured by the word of God which neuer shall perish that Christ gaue at the same tyme his true body vnder the forme of that bread which he tooke and which by blessing he turned into his body Hath not now the Apologie depely reasoned Hath it not put a goodly foundation of the Sacramentarie doctrine to saye the supper of our Lord is the euident token of the body and blood of Christ thereby meaning thâ—… his body is not in dede really present wherein although it speake otherwise then the holy scripture â—…oth in the same case â—…et mangre the will of the makers thereof it proueth the Catholike faith because the signe that euery Sa crament of Christ maketh euidently to our senses is inwardly wrought in that creature whereof the signifying words are spoken By this true declaration of the nature of a Sacrament it is proued that so many Fathers as call the supper of Christ a signe or figure geue witnesse that it is also the truth it self And if the Apologie will disproue the reall presence of Christ vnder yâ— foorm of bread it must shew that his supper is not so much as a signe of his body and blood But as long as they graunt vs the sigâ—…e the word of God will conuince the truthe to be present which is signified ¶ The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of tokens WHen I graunt the supper of Christ to be a signe a token a figure yet I do not graunt the words wherewith it is made to be figuratiue If I geue you a ring and say were this token for the remembrance of me I both geue a token of me and name a signe or token and yet my words are not figuratiue It is therefore to be noted that how many Fathers so euer call the Sacrament a figure yet none of them all teacheth these words This is my body and this is my blood to be words figuratiue For when they call it a figure they meane not a figure of Rhetorike but a mysticall figure and calling it a signe they meane not a naturall signe or token but a mysticall signe that is to say a secret and miraculous kind of token such as the state of the new Testament requireth the nature whereof is to doe that which it sayeth â–ª because Christ the speaker 〈◊〉 all that by his diuine power and substance which his word spoken by the mouth of his manhod in holy Sacraments doth vtter and signifie Now he that wold the Sacrament of Christ so to be a signe that he should not make that thing to be his body in deed whereof in word he sayeth This is my body he most wickedly denieth the Godhead of Christ. Ebion was an heretike who denying the diuine nature of Christ sayd him to be NuduÌ„ hominem a bare man Epiphanius will proue against Ebion that he is God How so Because he was geuen to the world for a signe As the holy Ghost had prophecied before of him when he sayd to Achaz Pete tibi signum ask to the a signe And for as much as he wold not ask then sayd the Prophete Ipse Dominus dabit vobis signum our Lord him self will geue you a signe Behold a virgin shall conceaue Now sayth Epiphanius Non potest is qui per omnia homo genitus est signi gratia mundo dari He yâ— is alltogether begotten as a man can not be geuen to the world for a signe For that which is customably don what signe of the Godhead could be therein Epiphanius therefore doth signifie that sith Christes birth was geuen to the world for a signe it could not be such a byrth as other men haue but it must be miraculous and the miracle stode in this point because he was truly born of a true virgin Muche more we may say sith the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath bene left vnto vs as a signe of the body and blood of Christ It could not be so if it were bare bread and wine and not in deed his body and blood what signe what secret token what miracle were in the eating and drinking of bare bread and wine if none other thing were made thereof As the ordinarie birth of man is no mere signe for Christ who is true God so the ordinarie eating of bread drinking of wine is no mete signe for
the remembrance of Christes death As the birth of Christ was a true birth but most miraculous withall so is the Sacrament of the altar a true signe and therefore his true body and blood by the great miracle of turning the substance of bread wine in to them This is yâ— signe that Christ made in his last supper This is such a signe as is withall a secret miracle For it is a miracle not shewed to 〈◊〉 but only to the faithfull For as the birth of Christ is a 〈◊〉 to the faithfull only who beleue Christ being God and man truly to haue bene borne of a virgin withouâ—… sede of man by the almighty power of the holy â—…host Right so the suppâ—… of Christ is a sigâ—…e of his body 〈◊〉 blood to the faithfull only who beleue the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine to be â—…urned into his body and blood without 〈◊〉 or corruption by yâ— only 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 oâ—… Chrisâ—… Who sayd after bread taken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my body and this is my blood Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Behold the making of Christes body â—…nd blood â—…or yâ— remembrance of his death that is the signe we speake of This was the memorie or the remembrance whereof Dauid sayd Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors miserator Dominus eseanâ—… dedit timentibus se. Our mercifull graciouse Lord hath made a remembrance of his maruelous works he hath geuen meate to them that feare him And think we that a remembrance of maruelous things is made of God without a miracle S. Cyprian saith the bread to be made slesh Omnipotentia verbi By the allmighty power of the word S. Augustine calleth it Mirabile sacrificium A maruelous sacrifice S. Chrysostom crieth out o miracle o the goodnesse of God he that sitteth aboue with the Father in the self same moment of tyme is touched with the hands of all men If thou ask how it is made saith Damascene it is enough for the to heare that it is made by the holy Ghost euen as our Lord made for him self and in him self a body out of the virgin Mother of God And we know no more but that the word of God is true strenghtfull allmighty Eusebius calleth it Admirabilem exitum oraculi a maruelous euent of the oracle S. Bede nameth it a sanctification of the holy Ghost that can not be vttered by speache The like words haue S. Baâ—…ile S. Gregorins Nyssenus S. â—…ieront Nicephorus This much I thought good briefly to say concerning yâ— manner how the blessed Sacrament of the altar is a signe token figure mysterie remembrance Euery word whereof expounded according to the Gospell and to the state of the new Testament doth proue the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder yâ— foormes of bread and wine It is a Sacrament which outwardly signiâ—… that which is inwardly wrought It is a figure coÌ„teyning the truth figured It is a signe mete for the institution of Christ whose signes are miraculous it is a secret token knowen only to them that beleue It is a remembrance of Christes death by the presence of the body which died What shall I say more It is the body and blood of Christ couered from our eyes reueled to our faith feeding presently our bodies and soules to life euerlasting ¶ That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and This is my blood be figuratiue THere is a great difference betwen a figure of Rhetorike and a Sacramentall figure made by Christ. The Rhetoricall figures consist in words or sentences the mysticall figures of Christ consist in deeds secret workings Those sometymes sound one way and meane an other way These meane and sound always one thing but they shew it one way and doe it an other way Those chiefly serue the eares of mortall men These chiefly serue the harts of faithfull men Those were found by men these were instituted of God Christ sometime vsed figures of Rhetorike because in taking the nature of man he addicted him selfe to vse the kind of speakiÌ„g which men obserued But now Christians vse yâ— mystical signâ—…es of Christ because he that toke their nature left vnto them the vertue of his almightie Godhead Let noman therâ—…ore think when yâ— supper of our Lorde is called sometime a figure that a Rhetori cal figure is meant it is not so A mystical figure a secrete knowlege a priâ—…ie watch word is vnderstanded by the name of a figure as if Christ should say to his Apostles folowers Let this be a token betwen you and me betwene one of you toward yâ— other that when a faithfull man is washed with water and in the meane tyme it is said ouer him I Baptize the in the name of the Father and of the sonne and of the holy gost straight all synnes are forgeuen him And he is of my flock and receaued into my fold Lett it be again an other couenant or signe betwene vs. When my Apostles or those which are made Priests by them say ouer bread this is my body and ouer wine this is my blood hauing the intent to blesse and geue thanks and to make a remembrance of my death that my body and blood are really present vnder the formes of bread and wine accordingly as my words doe sound These are mystical signes priuie tokens and secret figures to be kept only among the faithfull and not to be published to infidels For as men by vse of speaking haue agreed to transferr certain words from their most proper signification to an other figuratiue custom euen so Christ hath transferred certain natural things to an other mystical vse which is now called in some Fathers by that name of holy signes or figures or tokens or which is most common of all by the name of sacraments or mysteries See good reader to what myserie we are growen He that commeth late from his grammar where he lerned certain figures of construction or he yâ— beginneth his Rhetorik where he more depely entreth into the treatise of tropes and shemes when he readeth in a two peÌ„ny booke the place alleged where it is said in Tertullian this is my body that is to saie the figure of my body he iudgeth owt of hand that Tertullian meaneth a figure of Rhetorik and Decolampadius Caluin or Peter Martir is a mete Scholemaster for him to expound what kind of Rhetorical figure it is verely saithei metonymia or synecdoche Again wheâ—… thei heare S. Augustine affirm that Christ gaue a'signe of his body thei think he meaneth such a signe as is set vp at an ale howse or wine tauern that Doctors meane a peculiar signe and token miraculously instituted by Christ which conteyneth geueth to the faithfull the truthe which it betokeneth This kind of signes and figures concerning the substance of
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
and teacheth to be a grosse imagination O grosse imagination of these pitifull preachers May there be a more grosse imagination then to imagine that Christ lyed Cyrillus biddeth vs put away grosse imaginations and Cyrillus saith of yâ— reall presence Ne dubites an hoc verum sit eo manifestè dicente hoc est corpus meum Sed potius suscipe verba Saluatoris in fide Cum enim sit veritas non mentitur Doubt thou not whether this be true sith him self plainly saith This is my body But rather imbrace the words of our Sauiour in faith For seing he is the truth he lieth not Who so consydereth well these words may vnderstand that Cyrillus thought nothing more grosse then to doubt whether that body of Christ be present or no. What grosse imaginations then did Cyrillus bid vs put away For sooth aboue all that we should not imagin Christ to lye Secondly that we should not imagin his words concerning this Sacrament to be dark or obscure seing Christ as he sayth spake manifestly Again that no man should thinke any other body to be geuen besydes the true body of Christ who in one person is God and man In the tyme of Cyrillus a great heretike named Nestorius scholar to one Diodorus falsely taught that Christ had two persons one of God an other of man Therefore they imagined the the body of Christ which all the world euen the heretikes them selues beleued to be present vpon the altar after consecration to be the body of man but not the proper body of God the word This was a very grosse imagination and therefore ought to be put away from the mind of faithfull men in receauing the mysteries Hereof Cyrillus literally said Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sucramentum pronuncias irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum mentem qui crediderunt Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man And doest thou irreuerently inforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations Behold the grosse cogitation was to thinke that we doe eate that body of a maÌ„ whereas in dede through the vnitie of person it is yâ—â—…ody of God him self And therefore Cyrillus sayth afterwarâ—… Proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia viuificat It is the body proper to that word which quickeneth all thinges Of this â—…oule and grosse eâ—…oure two epistles are extant of Cyrillus as also in all his workes he full oft confuteth it One thing I wil further note this fine penner of the Apologie citeth not where Cyrillus speaketh of these grosse imaginations because the place is maruelous euident against him And what foul play is this to belie Cyrillus as though he had spoken of that imagination wherein we beleue that reall presence of Christes body vnder the form of bread whereas he spake of that wherein Nestorius vnderstanded that we did eate the flesh of Christ with out the diuine nature vnited vnto it in one person Cyrillus sayth because the word which is of God the Father is life by nature it hath declared his flesh to be the geuer of life hac ratione facta est nobis benedictio viuificatrix and by this meanes the blessing is made to vs geuer of life Cyrillus calleth yâ— Sacrement of the altar benedictio blessing because it is made by blessing Now in naming blessing he must nedes meane that which is blessed which is on the altar before vs and not any thing coâ—…ceaued in faith or spirit Therefore Cyrillus meaneth out of all coÌ„trouersie that thing which is made by blessing which we take in our hands which we put in our mouths to be able to geue life euerlasting which none other eatable thing can doe besydes the reall flesh of Christ. For the nature of Godhead as Cyrillus there confesseth is not eaten by itself or a part from the flesh If we put this together I require no more but that he be an honest man who shall construe the place of Cyrillus He shal be forced to confesse such an eating in the Sacrament of the altar as is not proper to the Godhead And yet eating by faith is proper to vs in respect of the Godhead therefore Cyrillus speaketh of eating that which quickeneth vs to life euerlasting with our body also and not with faith alone An other grosse imagination was to thinke that we eating the body of Christ should eat it dead or mortall and passible as we vse to eate other meates Whereas it is quicke yea of power to quicken vs as Cyrillus teacheth Quoniam Saluatoris caro verbo Dei quod naturaliter vita estconiuncta viuifica effecta est quando eam comedimus tunâ—… vitam habemus in nobis illi coniuncti quae vita effecta est Because the flesh of our Sauiour ioyned to the word of God which is life na turally is made able to geue life When we eate it then we haue life in vs being ioyned to that flesh which is made life The fifth grosse imagination is to thinke that we should so eate Christes flesh as if it were rawe and not by any meanes made meate for mannes cating Of this grosse imagination the Capharnaits were Ad immanes ferarum mores vocari se a Chri sto arbitrabantur incitarique vt vellent crudas hominis carnes manducare sanguinem bibere quae vel auditu horribilia sunt They thought them selues to be inuited of Christ to the cruel custom of wild beastes and to be prouoked to eate the raw flesh drinke the blood of man which thinges are horrible to heare It was yet no lesse a grosse imaginatioÌ„ to suppose they should cate the body of Christ peece meale one taking the shoulder an other the legg the third the brest and so foorth Against which imagination S. Augustine hath writen Their imagination also is very grosse who think that substance of bread to remaine after consecration as though they wold eate that immortall and gloriouse flesh of Christ with bakers bread Which is the cursed banket of the LutheraÌ„s whereas Christ said The bread which I will geue is my flesh geuing vs to vnderstand yâ— he wold not haue in his heauenly supper an earthly substance of materiall bread And yet it is a more grosse imagination to confesse that reallpresence of Christes body and to denye adoration to it sithens it is the body of God But how grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice sith it is his body who is the propitiation for the whole world I omit at this tyme his grosse imagination who teacheth the words which are spoken of a gift presently made and deliuered to be words of promise and of preaching * But the grossest imagination that euer was heard of is of them who affirm no body of Christ at all to be made really present vnder the form of bread
outwardly celebrated thereof and not only diuerse predictioÌ„s were made by the Prophetes concerning the same but also when Christ him selfe was come into the world he did both make an introduction to the promise of his supper by a miraculouse blessing and breaking of fiue and seueÌ„ loaues to the Iewes and more ouer in expresse words foretold that he wold geue his flesh to be eaten euen the same flesh which he wold geue for the life of the world But for so muche as some men thinke that Christ in the sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon speaketh not properly at all no not so muche as by the way of promise of his last supper I must as well proue against them who thinke so that Christ spake in that place of the gift which he afterward made in his parting banket As also that the reall presence of his flesh and blood is euidently proued by such words of promise as he there vttered For it can not be doubted but the truthe it self performed all that in deed it self whiche his words had before promised for the tyme to come Neither ought it to be a grief to any man if in handling these matters I seeme to intreat of hard questions which are aboue the capacitie of the vulgar people For the nature of all holy mysteries is such that as S. Augustine sayeth it may soner be impugned popularly and plausibly then be so defended Which notwithstanding I haue done what I can to vtter all things plainly And yet who is there that now can iustly find fault with me for handling deepe and obscure matters Is not euery man sufficiently instructed by this tyme to iudge of all points in diuinitie Is not that man who in parlement scared not to sit iudge of this high mysterie and without the consent of any one Prelate in that howse to condemne the vnbloody sacrifice of the blessed Masse is not that man able to vnderstand suche writings as are set foorth in that behalf He that must if a parlement be called prescribe a faith vnto me what say I vnto me he that will take vpon him to prescribe it to all the realme to generall Councels yea to the whole Churche he that will accuse his Fathers and graundfathers euen to the tenth generation of ignorance of superstition and of idolatry he that accompteth him self spirituall and therefore sufficient to discerne doctrines spirits will he say that a poore scholar of Oxforde doth write to high for his vnderstanding If it be so let him vnderstand that the sayd scholar is a very base member in Christes Church and a very ignorant man in re pect of those notable Bisshops other diuines whom he heard and sawe at the Councell of Trent with suche admiration that 〈◊〉 deed he was neither able nor worthy to speake among them Let him vnderstand that those Fathers did so exactly serche out the truth of the present controuersies as well by conferring together the holy Scriptures as by vewing the bookes of the aun cient Doctors ánd Councels that they spent in some one matter fower moneths coÌ„tinual To be short let him vnderstand yâ— seing the tenth part of the learned men 〈◊〉 Christendome came not to yâ— Councell and yet there were in it aboue two hundred persons of suche excellencie for wit learning vertue that it passed much more the wisedom of any one realme then the graue Senate of a whole realm doth excede that particular Councell of neuer so meane a Litie Let him I say vnderstand what wisedom what knowlege what iudgement is and hath bene in the whole Church of God by the space of fiftene hundred yeres together The preaching practise and gouernement of which long tyme a few such feared not of late by their open voices to coÌ„demne as to whom if a maÌ„ should at their own howse propose a very meane probleme or doubt in diuinitie they wold not only refuse to answer therevnto but they wold also confesse plainly that they neuer studied the science of Diuinitie They wold swere if nede were that they neuer attended principally to any other thing then to serue God and their Prince and to hauke or hunt Whereof I put them in mind to the end they should depely coÌ„syder with what temeritie they attempted to determine the high and secret points of Christian faith and that knowing their fault they should bewaile amend the same I beseche God to geue vs al grace to know our selues and tâ—… beware that whiles we couet to be as Gods in vnderstanding the Scriptures we tast not of the tree which is named the knowlege of good and euill and afterward be cast out of Paradise because we contented not our selues with the order and condition which our Lord had appointed for vs. I trust although the matters which I intreat of be very hard to make them yet plain by such help as the auncieÌ„t Fathers haue left vnto vs in their most learned works and commentaries According to whose wisedome I wil expound those places of S. Ihon which specially appertein to my purpose The Chapiters of the third booke 1. The Argument of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn is declared 2. It is proued by circumstances and by the confereÌ„ce of holy Scriptures that Christ speaketh in S. Iohn of his last supper 3. The same is proued out of the Fathers and Councels 4. Answer is made to them that teache the coÌ„trary out of the Fathers 5. Item to them that teache the contrary out of the Scriptuâ—…es 6. The gift of the euerlasting meate is shewed to be the gift of Christes flesh at his supper 7. The equalitie of substance alleged betwene Christ and his Father proueth one substance to be geueÌ„ both of God the Father to Christ and of Christ to vs. 8. Christ is not the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh except we eate really his own flesh 9. Whereas three giftes are named in S. Iohn Christes gift partaketh of both the other therefore conteineth his reall flesh vnder a figure 10. The midle state of the new Testament betwene the law and glory requireth the same truth which is in heauen to be geueÌ„ vnder a figure 11. The bread that Christ will geue which is his flesh must nedes be meant of the substance of his flesh 12. Christ himself sheweth that the eating of him by faith or in a figure only differeth far from the real eating of his flesh in his last supper 13. Christes flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is at baptism In so much that childern were somtyme communicated 14. That S. Augustin did not teache these wordes except ye eate the flesh caet to betoken only eating by faith and spirit or by figure alone 15. Christes flesh being meate in dede must needes be really present to be eaten 16. By the maner of Christes tarying in vs it is ê“ued that we eate his
Christes Church sheweth that after our second birth nourishment is necessarie to vs straight way bringeth foorth Christes words in S. Ihon ioyning them with the words of his last supper which S. Basile sayeth to be writen in the end of the Gospels thereby geuing vs to vnderstand that as the performance was made in the end so the promise went before Is it not maruaile now that any thing should be pretended out of this blessed man for the contrarie opinion But how iustly it is pretended wee shall see afterward Gregorius of Nyssa brother to S. Basile teacheth the flesh of Christ to be a bodily thing because it is made meate for mans body That it is meate he proueth out of S. Ihon. For there only are found the chief words by him alleged which are Panis enim qui de coelo descendit qui verus cibus est non incorporea quaedam res est For the bread which came down from heauen which is the true meate is not a thing without a body Quo enim pacto sayth he res incorporea corpori cibus fiet For by what meanes will a thing which lacketh a body be made meate vnto the body Doubtlesse Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where els but only in the SacrameÌ„t of his supper And therefore this great clerck thought him self to reason wel in bringing such words as are in S. Ihon for that effect which belongeth to the holy coÌ„munion Because he iudged both places of holy Scripture to be of one argument Cyrillus of Hierusalem intreating of the Sacrament of the altar so euidently citeth these words of S. Ihon Excepte ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man caet that noman may doubt of his meaning And because this part of my work wold be ouer long if I should staye so long vpon euery of the auncieÌ„t Fathers I besech the studiouse Reader to be content that hereafter I may in fewer words declare euery mans iudgemeÌ„t shewing him the place of the author where if it please him he may at more leisure examine all the circumstances S. Ambrose disputing of the truth of Christes flesh in the Eucharist although it selfe be not sene bringeth out of S. Ihon My flesh is meate in dede and except ye eate the flesh c. Eusebius Emissenus hauing spoken of the bread and wine of Melchisedech sheweth Christ to haue spoken of eating his own â—…esh of drinking his own blood in S. Ihon as of two kindes whereby he is receaued which is done no where but in Christes supper S. Chrysostom is so plaine herein that of those wordes the bread which I will geue is my flesh he maketh none other literal meaning but such as apperteineth to the Sacrament of Christes body And yet he expoundeth the former partes of the Chapiter indifferently of spirituall eating and drinking S. Augustine albeit he may seme vpon S. Ihon to presse most earnestly vpon the wâ—…itie which we haue with Christ by eating his â—…esh and drinking his blood and by tarying in him hauing him tarying in vs yet he meaneth not to exclude out of those wordes al Sacramentall receauing but only the vnworthy Sacramentall receauing For he sayth expresly he that tarieth not in Christ eaâ—…eth not spiritually his flesh â–ª albeiâ—… carnally and visibly he presse with his teath the SacrameÌ„t of 〈◊〉 body and blood of Christ. So that by S. Augustine there is a dubble spirituall eating of Christes flesh one without the Sacrament and an other with the Sacrament Christ so spake of both that he spake specially of the most perâ—…it which is obteined by worthy receauing of the Sacrament Out of this worthy receauing riseth that greate societie vnitie with Christ his mysticall body whereof S. Augustine so much speaketh This is the SacrameÌ„t of Godlines the signe of vnitie the bonde of chaâ—…itie Without eating of this one way or other no life euerlastiÌ„g is to be loked for by eating yâ— same wor thely in yâ— best kinde of way which is in the Sacrament of the altar the highest degree of vnitie with Christ our head is obâ—…eined As the best signe of vnitie is in the forin of this Sacrament so the best effect springeth oâ—…t of the worthy receauing of the substaÌ„ce which is vnder that form Therefore in other places S. AugustiÌ„e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words out oâ—… S. Ihon This bread wâ—…cih I wâ—…ll geue is my flesh for the life of the world to shew the Priesthod of Melchisedech which Priesthod him selfe declareth to be in the Sacrament of the altar saying Melchicedech prolato Sacramento mensae dominicae nouit aeternum eius Sacerdotium figurare Melchisedech by bringing forth the Sacrament of our Lords table did know to shew the â—…igure of his euerlasting Priesthod Furthermore S. Augustine expounding these words of S. Ihon of the last supper in very many places of his works most expresly sayth that S. Ihon spake nothing of the body and blood of our Lord in the thirtenth Chapiter where he mentioned the last supper sed plane alibi multo vberius hinc Dominum locutuÌ„ esse testatur But verily in an other place S. Ihon witnesseth our Lord to haue spoken much more copiously thereof Except S. Augustine thought yâ— sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon to appertein literally to the Sacrament of the altar he wold neuer haue sayd that S. Ihon spake not of the supper in the due place because he spake of it in an other place more copiously But of S. Augustie I will speake again hereafter S. Hierome sayth the flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstanded two ways or in two maners Either that spirituall and diuine whereof he sayd My flesh is meate in dede and my blood is drinke in dede c â–ª or els yâ— flesh which was crucified for vs and yâ— blood which was shed with the speare of the Souldiour And that one substance is in eche maner of flesh and blood only the maner of geuing it being diuerse it appereth also by the senteÌ„ce folowing where he sayeth one flesh of the Saiâ—…res may see the saluatioÌ„ of God an other flesh can not possesse heauen Not that the substaÌ„ce of natural flesh but the worthines of the men is diuerse S. Cyrillus of Alexandria writing vpon S. Ihon of purpose and shewing the most literall sense thereof that he could deuise or learn interpreateth the whole sixth chapiter of S. Ihon of the SacrameÌ„t of the altar naming very many tymes the partaking of the holy mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holy chalice Also vpon those words I will reyse him vp again he maketh this exposition Ego id est corpus meuÌ„ quod comedetur resuscitabo eum I will reise him that is to say my body that shal be eaten shall reise him As if he sayd I will reise him because my body which shal be eaten of him shall reise him Sedulius proueth the
argument as doe conformably expound it of the supper of our lord And when we speake of the authoritie of the fathers their consent and agreement in one point is the chiefe waie to know according to the promise of Christ in what case they are specially to be followed Secondly those fathers which are named some where to haue expounded these wordes otherwise then of the supper of Christ haue them selues in other places expounded the same wordes of the verie supper As we maie perceaue by the places of S. Cyprian of S. Hierome of S. Augustine and of S. Bernard before alleged Whereby their authoritie is as great for that which I say as it is against it Thirdly no one of the auncient writers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to appertaine to the supper And what skilleth it if many senses of one place be found out so long as they all stand together Is it not S. Augustines rule that all such senses may be well kept and all admitted Fourthly many of those places which are brought for the con trary opinion do manifestly and as it semeth to me inuincibly proue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally meant of the supper of Christ. S. Cyprian who is first alleged for the other side putteth forth this truth that a man without baptisme can not come tâ—… the kingdome of heauen because except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kingdome of God Likewise except ye eate the flessh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you Now they suppose that S. Ciprian bringeth these two sayinges for baptisme alone Wherefore say they it was not sayd of the supper except ye eate the flesh c. But herein they seme to be deceaued because the custome of the primitiue church i many places was to geue the sacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar together with the sacrament of baptisme not so much for necessitie as for sureties sake Hereof we haue mention i Dionysius Areopagita and in S. Am brose In so much that the very infantes were in the primitiue church in some countries made partakers of the sacrament of the altar Seing then the sacament of the altar was vsed to be geuen straight after yâ— sacrament of baptism therefore S. Cyprian ioyned together those two witnesses whiche did belong to those two Sacramentes that is vndoubtedly proued by his owne wordes for after he had cited those wordes in S. Iohn it followeth â—…mediatly Parum esse baptizari et eucharistiam accipere nisi quis factis et opere perficiat It is litle worth to be baptized and to receaue the eucharist except a man by deedes and workes make all perfit Behold as he alleged two sayings of Christ so he nameth the two sacrameÌ„ts whereof they were spoken Thus I think it most clere that S. Ciprian did not expound the eating of the flessh of Christ as spoken by baptism only And the lyke may be said of Innocentius Augustinus Eusebius Emissenus and of suche others whiche bring these woords of Christ except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. against the Pelagians to proue that infantes cannot haue lyfe in them selues vnles they be first baptized For seing they knew that no man could come to the eucharist except he were first baptized as also Iustinus Martyr hath witnessed seing yâ— Eucharist was namely called the bread of life whiche who so did eate he should liue for euer and who by any fault of his own did not eate it he should not haue life in himself moreouer seing the person baptized had not only Christ in him spiritually through baptism but had right vnto the very Sacrament of Christes supper and also being of lawfull discretion customably receaued it straight after baptism these things being so it is most true that who so is not at all baptized he is not only excluded from yâ— kingdom of heaueÌ„ as yâ— Pelagians graunted but likewise whiche thing they denyed from euerlasting life because he is by all meanes excluded from the food of life whiche except we eate by some meanes or other we cannot haue life in vs. we cannot eate it by any meanes at all that is to say not so muche as spiritually except we be first baptized either in deed or in perfit desire And being once baptized we doo eate it in some effect at the very font and really may and commonly must eate it afterward in the Sacrament to a farther effect So that the reasons of those Fathers do not import as though Christ meant in S. Ihon of spirituall eating only but that he meant of that kind of eating at the least and meant a farther kind of eating also in that case when farther occasion should be ministred For as when Christ saide except a man be born againe of water and of the holye Ghost he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen he so meant in those wordes to include his saluation that would be born vowed him self to be born again although by preuention of death he were not really so borne that yet not withstanding he meant muche more to haue most men really so born of water and of the holy ghost Right so when Christ sayd except ye eate the â—…lesh of the sonne af man drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you he so meant to binde vs to eate his fleash that he should haue life which was at the least spiritually fead there with in baptisme and yet also that most men should be bound to feed really thereon and that he should haue most perfit life who was â—…d sacramentally with his fleshe and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar As therefore not withstandinge that the will of being baptised â—…seth to some others must be sacramentally baptised by that very precept of Christ in S. Ihon euen so though it be sufficient for â—…tes to eate Christ in baptisme spiritually yet other are bouÌ„d by yâ— same very precept to eate his flesh SacrameÌ„tally Now to aâ—…irme the one sense whiche was lesse meant denying therewithall the chief sense which was principally meant it is no smal iuiurie to Gods worde Certeinly S. Innocentins Gusebius S. Auguâ—… in saying that infants can not haue life except they â—…t the least wise eate Christ in baptisme did not meane to say that these wordes except ye eate the flesh cae were only spoken of baptisme or els more principally of baptisme then of Christes supper but rather they meant cleane contrarie as it may appere by S. Augustines owne wordes who disputing against the PelagiaÌ„s in this very question which we now speak of saith expresly Dominum audiamus non quidem hoode Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de sacramento sanctae mensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit nisi manducaueritis carnem meam
last supper he sayd This is my body which is or shal be geuen for you thereby geuing vs in his supper a far better meale then he gaue to Moyses or Elias euen so in this place when he promiseth to geue vs the bread which is his flesh for y◠world he meaneth not that we shall haue no more then Iacob had but that our meate is such as also is the propitiation for the synnes of the whole world By which words it is shewed y◠our meat is also an externall sacrifice and not that it is only a spirituall food receaued by faith and charitie Concerning that daily we may eate y◠bread which Christ promiseth it is not against the Sacrament of his supper which is left to be our daily and supersubstantial bread Either because we may come daily to it or els because being receaued at certaine tymes it always tarieth with vs by some spirituall effect which the Sacramentall receauing worketh in vs. And as the absolutiō which we receaue of the Priest at certain tymes causeth a continual Penance in vs through all our life so a Sacramental receauing of Christes body causeth a cōtinuall eating of him by spirit Now Christ so meant to haue his flesh eaten spiritually that the ordinarie cause of that feeding should consist in the Sacrament of his last supper for that Sacrament mainteineth our spiritual life as S. Paule teacheth The last reason of the contrarie part is thus foormed Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tary in him and him to tary in vs. But that is not alwayes the effecte of the Sacramentall eating for as S. Paul sayeth a man maye eate Christes body in the Sacrament of the altar vnworthely and to his damnation Therefore say they Christ speaketh not in S. Ihon of sacramentall eating but only of that eating by faith and charitie whereby we maye liue for euer For answere to this argument thus I saye Sacramentall eating must be considered two waies as all the other workes of God towardes men maye be considered one waye is to consider it in that nature vertue and effect which God for his part putteth in the Sacrament An other is in that abuse and imperfection which man wickedly committeth about the holy workes of God Who can doubt but that Christ came into the world to saue men vt saluetur mundus per ipsum that the world maye be sayd by him as for condemnation it was not brought in by Christ but by Adam and Eue our first parents and by our owne wilful synnes ad misdoinges And yet the holy scriptures witnes that Christ is the sauour of death to many and the stone whereat they stomble not through any fault of his but because they vse their freewil to the worse part with whom he hath to do Euen so cometh it to passe in the blessed Sacrament of the altar Christ geueth it only to this end that we by eating thereof maye tarie in him and he in vs. For as Isychius hath well noted Sanctificationis causa non autem contaminationis proposuit suum mysterium Christ hath set foorth his mysterie to sanctifie and not to spott vs. As he geueth faith to th' end it should worke by charitie and not to th' end it should lye dead and vnfruitfull And in dede so should all men tary for euer in Christ if they did eate this Sacrament as they ought to do If nowe they will profanely come vnto it without contrition and confession of their synnes and absolution of the priest that is not the sault of the Sacrament which is geuen to make vs dwel for euer in Christ but it is their fault who abuse the gift of God to their owne hurte and losse This thing wel weighed I answere that alwaies the effect of Sacramentall eating on Christes behalfe is the tarying of vs in Christ and of Christ in vs. And S. Paul saying that some receyue it vnworthely and to their damnation speaketh not of any effect rising of the Sacrament it self but only of a negligence and impietie which standeth on their part who come to the rea◅ flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament as if it were common bread and wine only halowed by the deuout praiers of man whereas in dede it is changed in substance by the mightie power of the word of God Let it therefore stand for a truth as it is a most vndoubted truth that Christ in the sixth chapiter of S. Ihon doth prophecie of his last supper promising to geue in it his own flesh to be eaten as the which is meate in dede and for his part he promiseth that it shall haue a perfit effect albeit we sometymes through ma lice withstand his goodnes This meaning is not only true in it self but it is confirmed also by S. Augustine who declaring that a thing good in it self may be vnpro◅itable to him y◠vseth it euill after he had shewed that to be so in light which hurteth sick eyes and delighteth the whole eyes and in the law in which although the Iewes were yet they abused the same at the length he cometh to our very purpose saying Quid de ipso corpore sanguine Domini vnico sacrificio pro salute nostra quamuis ipse Dominus dicat nisi manducaueritis caet What say we concerning the very body and blood of our Lord the only sacrifice for our saluation Not withstanding that our Lord him self sayth Except a man eate my flesh and drink my blood he shall not haue life in him self doth not yet the same Apostle teache euen this thing to be made hurtfull to them y◠vse it euill For he sayth Whosoeuer eat eth the bread and drinketh the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. What cā be plainer then these words of S. Augustine Who thought that argument which I haue answered to be nothing worth at all affirming the Apostle S. Paule and Christ in S. Ihon to speake of one and the same body or flesh of Christ as it is geuen in the Sacrament of his last supper And truly they doe no small iniury to S. Augustine who by any meanes wold father vpon him this opinion as though he taught Christ in S. Ihon to speake only of a spirituall eating by faith and charitie whereas he neuer gaue any sufficient token of that meaning but expresly teacheth the contrarie as all the other Fathers doe The reason which moued some men to think that S. Augustine meant so was for that he speaketh much of spiritual eating and of the vnitie of Christes Church But that eating is also made and best of all made in the mysteries of Christes supper when they are worthely receaued as Christ wold allways haue them to be receaued If any other argument remain by this which is already said it may be easily sene
for his gift proueth the reall presence of his body and blood in the SacrameÌ„t of the altar euen as God the Father gaue hun reall fleshe and blood at his incarnation CHrist for the meate whiche he promysed to gene in his last supper alleaged his diuinity as who shoulde plainly say wonder not that I promise you suche a thing of so greate difficulty and miracle for I am God His wordes are these worke saith he to the multitude of the Iewes not the meate which doth perish but that which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you for him God hath signed that is God the father hath printed his diuine substance vppon him by eternal generation or hath oynted him with the oile of gladnes aboue al others because his humane nature is vnited to the godhed whereby he is able to do as much as his father It is not to be thought that Christ would haue alleged his equall auctoritie with his Father for a gift which were not of equall truth and of equall power with that which his Father is sayd to gene But his Father gaue him not only the vertue and 〈◊〉 of flesh but reall and natural flesh and blood at his incarnation thereâ—…ore God the Sâ—…nn 〈◊〉 to geue vs the same 〈◊〉 â—…ral fâ—…sh in his last supper For which cause he doth immediatly declare both God his Fathers gift and his own 〈◊〉 his Fathers gift he say 〈◊〉 My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen for it is the bread of God whiche cometh downe from heauen and geueth life to the worlde But what breade is this I saith Christ am the bread of life I am the liuely bread which came downe from heauen â—…ow we haue lerned that God the Father gaue Christ his Sonne from heauen when he sent him to take the flesh of man which flesh assumpted oâ—… the word is also by vnion to the word made the bread of life Christ therefore hauing shewed his Fathers gift and that him self is the bread of liâ—…e cometh to shew his own bread which he wil geue saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The brief discourse of yâ— who le doctrine is this work the meate which tarieth for euer which the Sonne of man wil geue you for this Soâ—…ne of man is equall with God his Father whose naturall image he hath printed in him God the Father hath geuen his Sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life Therefore God yâ— Sonne being equall with his Father wil geue vs the same true flesh of the Sonne of man as meate yâ— shall tarie with vs to life euerlasting But his Father gaue him â—…o the world not only in faith spirite but in real and substancial flesh Therefore God the Sonne by the drift of all his talk doth signifie that he wil geue in his supper whereof he speaketh not in spi rite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the 〈◊〉 same real and substanciall flesh First he sayth he wil geue that meate which shal tarye to life euerlasting Secondly that he is able to doe so as one signed of God his Father Thirdly he sheweth what bread and meate his Father hath geuen him that is to say the true flesh wherein â—…e spake to that preseÌ„t multitude of men Fourthly he sayth yâ— breade that he wil geue is his fleshe Last of all who so cateth it hath life euerlasting Doth not all this goe to proue that as he bad them work the meate which tarieth for euer and shewed him sefe concerning his 〈◊〉 to be made that meate sent from God his Father so he is able to geue them that meate which his Father gaue him and sayth he wil geue it them to the end they eating it may liue for euer he tarying in them and they in him And yet is not that his reall and substanciall flesh which he promiseth Or did he not perform in his supper that which he pro mised If he can not be false of his word we haue in our Lords supper where he perfomed this promise the reall and substancial body of Iesus Christ as truly as euer his Father gaue him reall and substancial flesh in this world And consequently we haue it not only by faith and spirite but in truth and substance This plainly is the discoâ—…rse of Christ him selfe who by his Godhead assureth vs of the gift of that incorruptible meat which is his flesh Whereupon S. Hilarie sayth that no man douteth of yâ— veritie of Christes flesh in vs except he deny Christ to be true God ¶ Seing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith spirit only suffiseth not but it self also must be really eaten GOd sent his Sonne who is by nature the bread of life as hym self hath witnessed to take flesh for vs that in his flesh he might geue vs the same diâ—…ine nature which is the 〈◊〉 bread of life Therefore when Christ had sayd The Sonne of man will geue you the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting straightways he sheweth in one word three causes of yâ— his promise For God the Father sayeth he hath signed this SoÌ„ne of maÌ„ that is to say he hath geuen him hys owne substance concerning the diuine nature of Christ and concerning his humane nature he hath shewed his will by hym as by a seale of his owne hand Farthermore he hath assigned hym to bring vs this meate which tarieth to life euerlasting The verb Signauit he hath signed may signifye the printing of the same forme and ymage which the originall seale hath as S. Cyrillus hath noted in this place also it may stand to shew or confirme a thing by witnes of seale as Theophilact expoundeth it Orels to assigne or appoint a thing to some certain effect and purpose as S. Chrysostome and Eâ—…thymius take it God the Father signed Christ after the first sort by geuing him his own nature And after yâ— secoÌ„d sort by shewing him through miracles wrought in his flesh to be his own Sonne And last of all in appointing to haue his will done most perfitly and executed by him as Christ him self said It is my meate to doe the wil of him that sent me According to this last sense it was the wil of God that Christ should geue vs the euerlasting â—…eate which naturally is his Godhead and by the mysterie of the incarnation it is his flesh And to signifie so much Christ sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate because my Father hath signed me to this purpose The whiche sense S. Chrysostome followeth in the first place of his interpretation writing thus Signauit hoc est misit qui hunc vobis
cibum ferret God the Father hath signed that is to say hath sent the Sonne of man to bring you this meate And Eâ—…thymius agreeth with S. Chrysostome therein Christ therefore being sent of his Father to geue vs the euerlasting meate of life first fayeth I am the bread of life And then sheweth how he will geue the same bread saying And the bread which I will geue is my flesh S. Cyrillus vppon those words I am the bread of life writeth thus His verbis subostendit sanctissimi sui corporis vitam gratiam qua in nobis vnigeniti proprietas id est vita ingreditur permanet In these words he sheweth priuily the life and grace of his most holy body whereby the proprietie that is to say the life of the only begotten both entreth into vs and tarieth Likewise S. Hilarie hath these words Si verè verbuÌ„ caro factum est nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est If the word be truly made flesh and in our Lords meate we truly re ceaue the word made flesh how can it be but he must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Christ being for euer God in the fulnesse of tyme toke flesh and when the hower of death was at haÌ„d he gaue vs that flesh to be eaten by the which eating we reâ—…eaue the word it self that is to say the naturall Sonne of God into our bodies and so Christ dwelleth in vs not only by faith spirit or vnderstanding but naturally Wherefore S. Hilarie sayth we take and receaue the word truly Verè verbuÌ„ sumimus We receaue truly and in dede the word which was with God in the beginning and which was God But how can we receaue God truly or naturally God is a spirit and our nature consisting of a body can not fede truly and naturally vpon a spirit but only by faith and charitie How â—…hen receaue we God truly For south because 〈◊〉 toke flesh truly and we receaue truly the word made flesh Noman doubted but we can truly receaue flesh seing then the word is made flesh we thereby can receaue the word it self not only by vnderstanding but also whiles his own proprietie that is to say whiles the life Godhead which corporally dwelleth in Christes flesh entreth into vs with his flesh tariâ—…th in vs if we receaue worthely his most holy body Thus it appeareth that Christ in his flesh geueth vs the bread of life which he was sent to geue and he geueth it because that flesh is vnited to the word of God which is life by his own nature But if this flesh of his be geuen to vs by faith alone and vnderstanding or spirit alone and not in very dede We haue not yâ— bread of life in dede geuen to vs but only geuen to vs by faith spirite or vnderstanding And so it was geuen to vs before yâ— incarnatioÌ„ of Christ. For God was euer beleued on of the iust men â—…oth to be and to be the rewarder of them who seeke him as S. Paule sayth And faith by nature is due to God as Christ sayth 〈◊〉 beleue in God beleue also in me Therefore although Christ hath taken flesh yet if his flesh he geuen to vs only by â—…aith and spirit the bread of life and nature of God which dwelleth corporally in that flesh is not geuen vs after the coming of Christ by any other meanes then by faith And so by the incarnation of Christ we haue not the bread of life geueÌ„ to vs by any other way then we had it before Which is expresly against the word of God where the euerlasting meat and the bread of life is now first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the world to bring vs this euerlasting meate And the bread which he will geue is his flesh Therefore to saue the truth of yâ— Gospell which neuer caÌ„ faile we must beleue that by the incarnation of Christ and by his gifâ—… at the last supper we haue his reall flesh and in it the bread of life geuen to vs more then by faith or vnderstanding or spirit that more is the gift of the true substance of flesh and of blood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth And by it the Godhead is receaued of vs not only by an effecte of grace by a certain verâ—…ue but in such truth of nature as it is corporally dwelling in the person of Christ who is one in substance with his Father For although God be euery where by nature and fill both heauen and earth yet as Iustinus Martyr witnesseth he is in the Sonne of man by so excellent a meane of vâ—…g man to God that he is no where els after that sort And by that singular meane he was promised vnto vs as who is only the euerlasting meate which alone satisfieth the hunger of man whose harte as S. Augustine confesseth is without rest vntil it rest in God because it was made to come to God And nothing is at quiet vntill it hâ—…ue obteyned the end wherevnto it was first made Seing then God is by nature yâ— only euerlasting meate which perisheth not and seing he must be geuen to vs in his own nature and we are not able to receaue him as he is a spirit he hath done for vs as good mothers and Nourses doe for their babes The mother eateth bread by her eating turneth it into milk and that milk she geueth to the infante and by that meanes the infante eateth bread made milk This similitude S. Augustine bringeth for the same purpose whereof I now speake In the beginning was the worde and the worde was with God and the word was God Ecce cibus sempiternus Behold sayeth S. Augustine the euerlasting meate Sed manducant Angeli But the Angels eate it Quis homo posset ad illum cibum What man were able to attayne to that meate Oportebat ergo vt illa mensa lactesceret ad paruulos perueniret It behoued therefore that foode should be turned into milk and so come to litle ones Vnde cibus in lac conuertitur nisi per carnem traijciatur By what meanes is meate turned into milk except it be conueyed through flesh Quomodo ergo de ipso pane pauit nos sapientia Dei How then hath the wisedome of God fed vs with yâ— bread it selfe Quia verbum caro factum est habitauit in nobis Because the worde is made flesh and hath dwelte in vs. And so S. Augustine coÌ„cludeth yâ— man hath eateÌ„ Angels food and that as he sheweth there in the new sacrifice of Christes supper For of that sacrifice Sacrament he intreateth Thus we see that God him self must be eaten of vs not only by faith for then he neded not to haue bene made man but he must be eaten also as infants eate milk by mouth
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
fulfill it â–ª for the fulfilling of the law without the putting away thereof is no lesse to say then to putt the fulnesse of new grace vnder a shadow which shadow may seme to kepe a resemblance with the old law so that of two distincte states there must now be made one new middle state of the which the outward parte resembleth the law and the inward is one with the state of grace Let vs put an example in the precepts of nature to make this thing more plaine The law saith Non occides Thou shalt not kyl This precept was not put away by Christe but the true ground of it which is not to be angry was ioyned therevnto as it appeareth by yâ— sermâ—…n of Christe in S. Mathew It was said to them of the oldelaw Thou shalt not kyl but I say vnto yow that euery one that is angry with his brother shal be gylty in iudgement Here we see two things the one of kylliug the other of being angrie That of kylling is outward That of angre is inwarde they both make but one precept of the new Testament the not kylling dependeth vppon the not being angrie and then is kylling throughly taken away when anger is throughly cured and as it fareth with this precept so staudeth it with the the blessed Sacrament whereof we reason For it keepeth yâ— forme of bread and wyne which vnder yâ— law was emptie and the truth which was be tokened by the olde manna is put by the almyghtic power of God vnder the formes of bread and wyne and so remayneth the law not altogether put away for a kynd of figure taryeth stil and it was euer a siguratiue law but fulfilled because the body of Christ which is the fulfilling of the law is made present vnder a figure The signe of circuncision saith S. Leo the sanctification of gifts the consecracion of priests the purity of sacrisice the veritie of washing the honour of the teÌ„ple is with vs. there is no legal instruction no prophetical figure quod non totum in Christi sacrameÌ„ta transierit which is not wholy transferred into the Sacraments of Christ and again one oblation of thy body and blood fulfilleth the diuersity of the old sacrifices Hitherto S. Leo the great To yâ— same effect serue yâ— words of blessed Dionysius a Counseller of the Senate of Athens scholar to S. Paule who hauing declared the holy kinde of gouernaÌ„ce which is in heauen among the ordres of Angelles and hauing shewed that by them the inferiour degrees of men are brought vnto God according to their capacitie he first sheweth that God gaue vnto the world the goueruement of the law which he gaue as to children in signes and tokens and as to weak eyes in figures clowdes or shadowes But afterward came our holy gouernaunce which is the end and fulfilling of the former law Now saith this holy writer Nostra hierarchia coelestis est legalis quae communiter medietate extremorum comprehenditur cum illa communes habens spiritales contemplationes cum hac autem signa quo sensum mouent quorum varietate distinguitur per ea piè ad deum adducitur Our holy gouernance saieth Dionysius is both heauenly and legal that is to say hauing somewhat like to the law conteyned in coÌ„mon betwene those two extremyties partaking with that of heauen spirituall contemplations and with this of the law sensible signes whereby it is diuersly distincted and by them it is brought after an holy mauer vnto God We haue heard how the scholar of S. Paule ioyneth in our state the heauenly contemplacioÌ„s of Angelles who looke vpon God him selfe with the outward signes of the law For by heauenly contemplacions S. Dionysius meaneth that truth which face to face is sene in heauen But let vs returne again to the words of S. Paule who did yet expresse this matter more plainly keping the same diuision but geuing euery thing his playne name The law had the bare shadow of things to come The truth is the body of Christ it self which he calleth also Rem ipsam the thing it self wherein also dwelleth the nature of God Now the ioyning of a figure with the truthe is called Ipsa imago reruÌ„ the very shape or image of the things Vmbram enim habens lex futurorum bonorum non ipsam imaginem rerum For yâ— law sayth S. Paule hath the shadow of good things to come not the very image of the things The good things to come are the vision of Christ in glory and yâ— clere sight of God who corporally dwelleth in the body of Christ. The shadow hereof was yâ— law whereof Moyses being steward obtayned bread from the ayer for the children of Israel But the image it self of the things that is to say wherein the body of Christ is conteyned and in that body God dwelleth yâ— image is the substance of God man couered vnder the formes of our blessed Sacrament of the altar And therefore that Sacrament is properly the gift of Christ coÌ„ teyning both it whiche we shall see in heauen and suche a figure as we haue sene vnder the lawe couering presently the truth to come with the shadow past to come I say without a shadowe past I say without yâ— real truthe but now hauing the truthe vnder a shadow Maximus and Pachimera do vpon S. Dionysius allege S. Paule for the profe of that which Dionysius said Oecu menius likewise expoundeth the things them selues to be the life to come the shadow to be the old testameÌ„t the image of things to be the state of the Gospel This I take to be the true meaning of the holy Ghost who doth not in vaine cause the gifte of God by Moyses to be named diuersly from the gift of God the father and the gift of Christ to differ from them both Moyses is sayd to haue geuen God the fa ther presently to geue Christ promiseth that he will geue God by Moyses hath geuen bread God the father at the tyme of speaking gaue his sonne in visible fleshe Christ promyseth to geue yâ— bread which is the flesh of the sonne of man which flesh vnder the forme of bread bringeth together in the Sacrament of the altar the good things of heauen such figures as were in the law All which distinctions of geuing and truth of gifts the Sacra mentaries by their figuratiue doctrine make voyd as they doe the reste of the holy Scriptures For they will that Christes outwarde gift should in it conteyne no inuisible truth of fleshe and blood but euen the bare substance of common bread and wyne feeding vs with needy and impotent creatures as though we remayned yet babes as though Christ in fulfylling all figures had destroyed them and not left them full and perfect That which the water and the cloude did signifie is now really performed in baptisme where
may be alleged against me first by the Lutherans who wold proue thereby that Christ in S. Thou spake figuratiuely wheâ—… he named the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood For there wil they say he toke eating and drinking for perfect beleuing and remembring Christes death which is no sacramentall eating To whom I answere that S. Augustin by calling this speach a figure meaneth not to deny that it apperteineth to the last supper but only that it is a figure of speache in respect of the maner of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood because it semeth to commaund the visible and external eating of a mans flesh which is a heynouse thing but in dede Christ meant that they should caâ—…e his fleshe and drinke his blood swetely and profitably in a Sacrament in a mysterie in a remembraunce of his death who purchased our life which was done at Christes last supper when taking bread he said after blessing this is my body which is geueÌ„ for you take eate which body who so eateth worthely he must nedes communicate with the passion of Christ in so much as he eateth that body which suffered so bitter a passion for him Now by the fact of eating to communicate also with the spirite godhead of Christ that is the figure whereof S. Augustin speaketh but otherwise it is out all question that S. Augustine meant not by the swete remembraunce of Christes death to exclude the necessitie of receauing that Sacrament the which if we caâ—…e not when we shold cate it we shal not haue life and the whiche is commanded to be made for Christes remembrance Or is any man able to make a more swete remembrance of his own deuotion then Christ hath iustituted for vs at his last supper therefore S. Augustin â—…oth meane that whiles we eate the SacrameÌ„t we should communicate with Christes passion by doing yâ— in soule which our body doth Farthermore S. Augustin expoundeth these present wordes of Christes last supper in diuers other places of his workes in so much that he disputing against the Pelagians expresly affirmeth them to be sayd De sanctae mensae Sacramento of the Sacrament of the holy table and vppon the booke of Leuiticus he asketh why the Iewes were forbidden to drink blood sith Christ exhorteth all men that wil haue life to receaue the blood of his sacrifice in alimentum to nourish them which thing is knoweÌ„ to be done in the Sacrament of the altar and the exhortation therevnto is made in S. Iohn This much is sufficieÌ„t to answer the Lutherans concerning that they leane to S. Augustins authoritie in whom he that listeth to see more may reade the places noted in the margeâ—…t Secondarilie the Zwinglians graunting this place to be vnderstanded of Christes last supper and building vntruly therevppon the necessitie of both kindes make an argument that in his last supper we haue not the body of Christ present vnder the forme of bread after consecration but only that by eating materiall bread the figure thereof we must remember it absent and swetely repete in our minde what paines Christ suffered â—…or vs and with how great loue he redemed vs. and this their saying they wold father vppon this present place of S. Augustine because he calleth Christes speache figuratiue For the better vnderstanding of this present controuersie it is to be noted that S. Augustine writing rules or precepts of christian doctrine taketh and defineth a figuratiue speache after a certain peculiar maner which he him self describeth in this sort Quicquid in sermone diuino nequè ad morum honestatem neque ad fidei veritatom propriè referri potest figuratum esse cognoscas Whatsoeuer in the word of God can not be properly referred neither to the honestie of maners nor to the truthe of faith be thou sure it is figuratiue Whereby we may perceaue that he measureth a figuratiue speache by true faith and good maners to either of which all that cannot be properly attributed he doubteth not to call figura tiue in such sort as he now vseth that word for a thing that meaneth a farther truthe then the word naturally soundeth The figure that S. Augustine findeth in Christes words is because if we rest in their natural sense they can not be referred to the honesty of maners for it semeth a dishonorable dede and against charitie to eate a mans flesh for it is both against that charitie which a man oweth to him self and therefore is called flagitium dishonour and also against yâ— which we owe to our neighbour and therefore is named facinus an vncharitable or hurtsull act For as S. Augustine him self sheweth how he taketh a figuratiue speathe so doth he tell how he taketh flagitium and facinus It is surely a wilfull abusing of good lerning if a man knowing how a master and teacher taketh his termes will notwithstanding dispute with him vsing them in other seuse which thing sith it is not landable we knowing what S. Augustine calleth figuratiue and what he calleth dishonour and vncharitable must so talk of those things as he hath done Why then is it a figuratiue speache when Christ â—…ad the Iewes â—…ate his flesh S. Augustine him self geueth the cause saying Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere he semeth to command a thing dis honorable and hurtfull dishonorable to yâ— cater hurtfull to him whose flesh is eaten for it is a thing muche against the honestie of nature to fede vpon our brothers flesh and it can not be naturally and properly done without the losse of his life whose flesh we eate for these two causes or els for any one of them we ought to think this precept to be a figure that is to say that it must be more profitablie vnderstanded then yâ— words doe properly sound what sound they properly See good reader whether I deale syncerely with thee or no. It is a weighty matter to haÌ„dle diuine mysteries and therefore I endeuour to vse therin such warinesse as becometh me I will bring none other mans words but S. Augustines own to shew what the precept of eating Christes flesh at Capharnaum did seme to sound properly S. Augustine speaketh in this wise of the Iewes CarneÌ„ sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur caet The Iewes vnderstode flesh after such sort as it is torne in peeces in a carcase or as it is sold in the shambles and not as it is quickened with the spirit And in an other place S. Augustine writeth also of the very same matter Durum illis visum est quod ait nisi quis manducauerit c. it semed a hard saying to the Iewes except a man eate my flesh he shal not haue life euerlasting They toke it foolishly thei thought of it carnally and supposed that our lord minded to cut of certain smal peeces of his body and to
the elements of bread and wine the SacrameÌ„t is made what is that Sacramente we say it is the making present in a miraculouse sorte the true body and blood of Christ. Our aduersaries say it is the appointing of bread and wine to be a figure of Christes body and blood through the remembrance of his death For our belefe I bring S. Augustines authoritie who saith except ye eate my flesh are words figuratiue and out of it thus I reason The â—…ating of Christes fleshe and the 〈◊〉 of his blood being reall 〈◊〉 which must be performed in Christes supper yet being called 〈◊〉 good 〈◊〉 siguratiue 〈◊〉 must nedes 〈◊〉 the sigures of somwhat the 〈◊〉 dedes words being referred to the supper os Christ 〈◊〉 nedes betoken somewhat as they are there 〈◊〉 But the eating of flesh in Christes supper can betoken nothing at all 〈◊〉 his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof may be the 〈◊〉 of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of 〈◊〉 that in Christes supper the 〈◊〉 of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drunken It is not sayd of Christ except ye eate bread drinke wine Of those elemeÌ„ts he in the promyse of his supper made at Capharâ—… speakethnot one syllable for which cause we must not aske at this time what they figure signisy in Christes supper because nowe there is no mentioÌ„ of theÌ„ except any man be so frontike as to say that yâ— flesh of Christ is here made yâ— figure of bakers bread his blood yâ— figure of wine whereupon it would folow that y◠〈◊〉 blood as being 〈◊〉 of these dead 〈◊〉 were worse and baser then the elements theÌ„ selues for euery figure is some way or other behind the truth which it figureth If then we must leaue of the consyderation of bread and wine if likewise no respect must now be had of the words of consecration which are not yet spoken os what other thing can these 〈◊〉 ratiue words except ye eate my flesh signifie in Christes supper but this except ye eate my flesh in that mysticall and wonderfull maner which I will geue it in and to that 〈◊〉 end for the which I being true God wil geue it you that is to say except ye do both take it in the Sacrament and spiritually remember my death 〈◊〉 me thanks for it and conforming your selues to it ye shall not haue 〈◊〉 in you By whiche interpretation Christes 〈◊〉 are figuratiue in so much as they meane neither that maner of â—…ating pâ—…ces of fleshe whiche the Iewes vnderstode noâ—… that end of eating it which they thought vpon mynding altoge ther as S. Cyrillus and S. Chrysostom note the feding of their bellies But if Christes flesh be not present at all whereof is it a figure when it is eaten can that which is not signifie or figure anie thing caÌ„ the flesh which is only figured at the tyme of our eating bread as the Sacramentaries teache be made a signe and figure by eating it if the eating of Christes fleshe be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue For if eating â—…e throughly taken for beleuing and for no eating at all theÌ„ these wordes do not apperteine to the SacrameÌ„tall eating of Christes supper But seing the Sacramentaries teache them to speake of the supper as in truth they doe the eating must so be figuratiue one way that yet it be true another way For if there be no true eating there lacketh a grouÌ„d which may be the figure of another eating that is to say of spirituall communicating with Christes passion If some reall eating must be had to warn vs of that spirituall eating surely that real eating can not in S. Iohn be meante of bread and wine sith Christ neuer named them therefore it is imployed that Christ meaneth except ye eate my flesh so as it is a figure both of my death and may be a cause of your spiritual life ye shal not liue euerlastiÌ„gly Thus doubtelesse did Christ meane thus dyd S. Augustine expound his wordes The Sacramentaries doc erre in making Christes words to be figuratiâ—… only passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely That is to say the Sacramentaries so take this matter as if it were only said the fleshe and blood of Christ be figured signiâ—…ed in his supper as to be spiriâ—…ually fed on But it is not so said only but also the actuall eating of Christes flesh is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating Therefore we eate really flesh one way to signifie another way the â—…ating and beleuing in flesh spiritually And that is proued out S. Ambrose most maniâ—…estly where he saith In edendo potando 〈◊〉 sanguinem for there is the point albeit the Sacramentaries go about to corrupt his wordes by euil distincting of them quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus In eating and drinking the 〈◊〉 and blood we signifie those things whiche were offered â—…or vs. Behold the â—…ating 〈◊〉 doth signiâ—…ie and make a figure of the self same flesh as it was offered for vs. And so doth both Christ S. Augustine â—…ane at this tyme. our Lord coÌ„maunding vs to eatâ—… his flesh doth command vs to coÌ„municate with his passion saith S. Augustine and profitably to remember his death that is to wit he commaâ—…deth both to eate the body which died to eate it worthely to eate it in hart as wel as in mouth to eate it in remembraunce of his loue toward vs as wel as in the SacrameÌ„t to eate it as the Godhead doth quicken it and as it figureth the entring and tarying in his mysticall body the Church This eating of Christes â—…eshe is swete is profitable is not hard not carnall not without a figure or mysterie For to eate without any mystical meaning is only to fill the belly whereof Christ spake not he commanded a figuratiue eating of his fleshe the which figuratiue â—…ating should not take away the real eating of his flesh for that eating whiche is not reall can not be actiuely figuratiue sith euerie figure is made vpon a true ground of one thing done really of another thing meant mystically But the figuratiâ—…e eating importeth a farther thing then to rest in the eating it selfe It is therefore insensibly said of the SacrameÌ„taries that those wordes which naming a certain actuall and real dede as the eating of mans flesh is be â—…iguratiue because the flesh is not really â—…ten But they be in dede figuratiue because the fleshe of that 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 also and vnderstanded to be more then â—…ally eaten for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritâ—…lly eaten also The Sacrameâ—…taries comâ—…ted an otâ—…er foule error in these wordes 〈◊〉 whiles they wil draw this place of S. Iohn to their purpose they are constrained to expound the wordes of Christ iâ—… this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye eate tâ—…e 〈◊〉 of the sonne of man that is to say
washing hath a farther and higher end then only to cleanse the body That speache therefore wherein Christ commaÌ„deth his flesh to be eateÌ„ is figuratiue not that we should denye the true eating of his flesh but because that eating is referred to a greater purpose then to the feeding of the body for Christes flesh is meate in dede that is to say is eaten in dede as I shal proue vpon that place but it is not eaten only that it should be corporalâ—…y receaued but to th end we should partake of the spirit and godhead which is in it and so by the merit of that flesh really present in vs obteyn life euerlasting with it now from what a worthy meaning wold these figuratiue Gospellers bring the words of our sauiour whose hard harts I beseche God to mollify that when they heare the truthe their stomake do not kendle to maynteine their old fashon beâ—…ore they haue well loked about them rather choosing to confesse a fault and to amend it then to make a new synne by myssexcusing the former fault ¶ Christes slesh being meate in dede must nedes be really receaued into our bodyes HE that wil know exactly why the flesh of Christ is called meate in dede must put before his eies three thinges The first is that the Iewes hearing Christ say he wold geue them his flesh asked how he could geue it to be eaten The second is that although Christ answered not directly to their captious how and vnsaythful question yet he sayd the eating of his flesh to be necessary for them as without the whiche they could not haue life and profitable as whereby they shold haue euerlasting life that not in their soules only but also in their bodies for so much as he wold reise them vp in the last day after whiche two things well pondered the third is to marke that Christ confirmeth all these former sayings of his by suche wordes as geue a reason of them for my flesh saith he is meate in dede and my blood is drinke in dede as if he had sayd wonder not yâ— my flesh geueth you life euerlasting reiseth vp your bodies for it is meate in dede that is to say it hath truly in dede those proprieties which any man wold wish for in true meate Two thinges may be considered in meate the one that it is trulie receaued into the body of that liuing creature for whose vse it is appointed the other that it is receaued as a medicine whiche may preserue vs against death for meate is neither properly attributed vnto the feeding of the sowle but only by a metaphor and an vnproper speache neither is it worthy to be called true meat if it gene not a true remedie against death there fore when Christ saith My flesh is meate in dede he meaneth thus my flesh bothe shal be receaued into the verie bodies of my people and shall geue life euerlasting as well to their bodiâ—…s as to their soules â–ª the whiche interpretation S. Chrysostom maketh writing thus Quid significat c. what meane these words my flesh is meate in deede and my blood is truly drinke either it meaneth that flesh to be the true meate whiche saueth the soule or els he speaketh it to confirm them in the former wordes Nâ—… obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scirent omnino necessariuÌ„ esse vt corpus comederent that they should not thinke him to haue spokeÌ„ in parables darkely but that they should know it to be by all meanes necessary to eate his body thus far S. Chrysostom By whiche interpretation Christ geueth a reason both of his first wordes wherein he sayd the bread which I wil geue is my flesh and of the second when he sayd he that eateth my flesh hath life euerlasting for my flesh is meate in deede both in that respect that it shal be geuen to you as true meate is wont to be deliuered to them who truly take and truly eate it and also in that respect that it nourisheth truly as true and eâ—…erlasting meate ought to nourishe he that denieth any one sense of the twaine deuieth one veritie of the ghospell he that graunteth both senses must needes graunt that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truly the signe of flesh because he spake not obscurely nor in parables as S. Chrysostom affirmeth and yet it is an obsâ—…nre saying to put flesh for materiall bread or eating for beleuing it is a parabolicall speache if when flesh blood eating and drinking is named yet we shal â—…derstand that bakers bread must be eaten and wyne drunken and Christ must be loued beleued vppon these parables neither Christ thought of nor the Fathers knew If Adam had not synned the opinion of ancient doctors is that notwithstanding his body consisted of contrarie elements by whose continual fight and battail it should naturally haue drawen to corruption and dissolution yet through the maruelouse grace of God saith S. Augustine his body shoâ—…lo haue bene far from disseases from old age from death from all corruption by tasting of the wood of life whiche was in yâ— middest of paradise Tanquam caetera essent alimento illud Sacramento vt sic fuisse accipiatur lignum vitae in paradyso corporali sicut in spiritali hoc est intelligibili paradyso sapientia Dei de qua scriptum est Lignum vitae est omnibus amplectentibus eam So that other meates in paradise were to nourish Adam corporally the word of life was also in stede of a mysterie or Sacrament to th' end the word of life should be vnderstanded to be after such sort in the corporal paradise as the wisedom of God is in the spiritual paradise which is atteined to by only vnderstanding the which wisedom of God as it is writen thereof is the wood of life to all that embrace it As now the wood of life which should haue preserued man froÌ„ incorruption was to be bodily tasted of and yet to worâ—…e a Sacramentall and spirituall effect in preseruing mans body aboue al course of a corrutible nature so is it meant that Christes flesh which is in dede the wood of life should be a SacrameÌ„t vnto vs by the corporall eating and spiritual working thereof for bothe these canses together it is called meate in dede Take a way yâ— corporall tasting of Christes body and charitie â—…aith hope or any like vertue is proportionably in his degree meat in dede or drinke in dede as the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is For all those vertues coming from God feed vs in dede to life euerlasting therefore haue that second proprietie of trut meat which is to nourish for euer But they haue not yâ— first proprietie which is to be receaued after an external maner into our bodies To this externall maner Christ had also respect when he â—…ayd My flesh is meat in dede or
in him self according to the spirit or Godhead sith he liueth through the Father S. Hilarie sheweth first in these words y◠there is a similitude of liuing betwene vs and Christ and betwene God the Father and Christ. we liue for Christ by eating his flesh as he liueth for his Father who sent him but we saith S. Hilarie liue for Christ by eating his flesh in such sort that we haue the nature of his flesh in vs. Therefore Christ liuing for his Father hath his Fathers nature in him self Thus haue the Arrians gained nothing by saying that the Father was one with Christ as Christ is one with vs. For Christ is found to be one with vs naturally and thereunto it suffiseth not that Christ toke our naturall flesh in his mothers womb for Christ spake not of that vnitie otherwise the gentils Iewes heretiks and heinouse synners should be naturally one with Christ which thing is not so for to be one with Christ it behoueth that as he toke our nature into his own person we take his nature into our bodies soules Two reasonable parties which haue both free will consist of bodies be not properly made one in nature if they bothe do not as well consent thereunto in mind as also approche in bodies Lett vs put an example betwene Dina and Sichem for although Sichem had by force oppressed Dina corporally yet she not consenting in hart thereunto was not throughly and in her whole nature made one with him for that the cheif part of her dissented Again lett vs put the ca◅e that two other persons be together in hart wisshing to be man and wise but yet that they can not come together because bothe or one of them is inclosed in prison these also are not one naturally as long as their bodies be asonder euen so albeit Christ haue the same nature which all men haue excepting synne yet he is not naturallie that is to say in the whole truth of nature one with vs thereby except we both in hart and body approche vnto him If we come to him in body alone we come vnworthely if in hart alone it is a spiritual coniunction which will serue if either necessitie or infamie kepe vs from natural coniunction but if we come to lawful age haue opportunitie we must approche both in body and soule to the Sacrament of Christes supper to be made one with him naturally that is to say to take his body really into ours to th' end the spirit and Godhead which dwelleth corporally in that body of his may fede our spirit and soule which beleueth in him to life euerlasting Of this kind of liuing Christ spake when he sayd he that eateth me lineth for me as I liue for my Father And it is to be consydered that Christe brought the similitude of his own liuing for his father to shew thereby how we doe line for him when we eate him But S. Hilarie was so sure of this later part of the similitude to wit that we liue for Christ by naturall coniunction of his body and spirite to our bodies and soules when we eate him that thereby he proued Christ to be one with his father in nature and substance And now come our new Sacramentaries teaching the argument of S. Hilarie to be nothing worth because they presuppose Christes fleshe not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his own nature and substance whereby they also affirm that the father is not proued to be in Christe naturally by these wordes of our sauiour as the liuing father sent me and I liue for the father also he that eateth me shall liue him selfe for me For if here the comparison be only in this point that as Christ referreth his life to another beginning which is his father so we liue by Christ who is the cause of all the grace we haue if I say nothing els be respected in both partes but that a thing whiche is lesse receaueth a benefite by the greater these words rather seme to proue against the Godhead of Christ then for it Yea the māhood is not by thē shewed to be really vnited to the worde And so that which the Catholike fathers bring for the truth which is beleued in Christ the Sacramentaries make altogether voyd Let vs adde to the former consyderations that we eating Christ liue for Christ. we then so liue for him as we eate him For seing the eating is the cause of the life such is the life as the eating is But the Sacramentaries auouche that we eate bodily nothing els at Christes supper beside bread and wine therefore by theyr iudgement we shall liue bodily none other way then to that end whereunto bread wine cā fede vs. They can not feed vs to life euerlasting therefore it foloweth of the Sacramentarie docrine that our bodies haue no meate whereby they may liue for euer What say ye masters Haue we not bodies as wel as soules ▪ Doe not our bodies eate in theyr kind as wel as our soules Do not our bodies line by theyr proper meat as our soules doe liue by the meat which is conuenient for them If Christ be meat vnto vs is he not meat to vs as well in respect of our bodies as of our soules Doth he not heale the whole man regenerate the whole feed the whole and saue the whole ▪ Then by like he feedeth our bodies to life euerlasting What food it that Where is it geuen how cometh it vnto vs The Catholiks answere It is the flesh of Christ which is geuen to vs vnder the form of bread But ye Zuinglians who deny that real presence of Christ shew what meat our bodies receaue which is able to make them liue for euer Either say they shal not liue or shew the meane of life You say our bodies eate sanctified bread at Christes supper Be it so But is that sanctified bread stil bread or is it made the flesh of Christ which is the bread of life If it be made Christes fleshe ye agree with me our bodies haue the true food of life But if it tarie bread stil it can not geue our flesh life euerlasting Ye will say Christ is able to vse wheaten bread tarying bread for his instrument or tokē to geue vs by that maane euerlastiug life As common water tarying water is in baptism y◠instrumēt meane as wel to our bodies as to our soules of life euerlastig In which reason ye vaunt your selues ouer much and think ye haue found a goodly defence But beware least ye triūph before the victorie As hitherto I haue resorted to the word of God to confute your vain doctrine so now I wil repair to the same vndouted fountain of true wisdome It is most certain that God were able to saue vs by what mea nes he would But his will is now committed to writing that heretiks might
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
was healed Her body also touched his manhod and her body was likewise cured Seing then it is writen This is my body and all men beleued it once as well as the other articles of our faith Seing that beâ—…eif is so honorable vnto God so mete for Christes coming and loue toward vs and so profitable vnto vs that the contrarie assertion shall lack the like holy Scriptures and the like belefe of the Church the like honour of God the like loue of Christ and the like profite of our soules There can be no reason alleged hereafter why we should oâ—…ce geue audieÌ„ce to him that pretendeth to proue the body of Christ not to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine For what thing possibly can excede these causes before alleged Moreouer all â—…igures were inuented partly for lack of proper words partly for the pleasantnes of speaking Christ surely lacked not words to shew that he gaue bread for a signe of his body if in dede he had done so For sith Zuinglius and Caluin had words to signifie their opinion in this matter it could not be but that Christ was able to haue spoken that which they speake If then he spake not figuratiuely for necessity our new brethern must proue that he spake figuratiuely for his only pleasure but how can they know that S. Augustine biddeth vs nolesse beware that we take not a propre speache for a figuratiue then that we take not a figuratiue speache for a proper The rule to know the one from the other is this Vt quicquid in sermone diuino c. that what soeuer in the woord of God can be properly referred neither to the honestie of manners nor to yâ— truthe of faith thou maist know to be figuratiue Yf nowe these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood may be referred to the truthe of faith in so muche as all men haue beleued the body of Christ to be geuen in the Sacrament of the altar not diminishing thereby their faith in any other article by S. Augustins iugdement these wordes be not siguratiue For certeinlie they be not only nothing against the honestie of maners as good men vnderstand Christes presence vnder the form of bread but rather the strong belefe of them maketh al men more honest in life whiles they come with great feare to so dreadfull mysteries therefore it followeth yâ— they be not of necessitie figuratiue of necessitie I say because there is no repugnance in saith or good maners why they may not be proper whiche notwithstanding a man for his pleasure might vse his wordes in a figuratiue sorte when he neded not â–ª but who so affirmeth so muche beside that he breaketh S. Augustins rule he casteth himselfe in greate daunger of prouing yâ— whiche hangeth of an other mans pleasure What argument haue our new brethern to proue that it pleased Christ at this tyme to speake vnproperlie what ground in the word of God can their opinion haue how can they be sure that they erre not in their indgement when we reade that God is angry or sory or that Iohn Baptist is Elias or that the rocke is Christ we say they are siguratiue speaches because they can not be proper Anger falleth not in God nor sorrow the rocke for that reason is not Christ in person and nature because it is a rocke for by nature they are seueral thinges and suche as do not stand together the like might haue bene thought in this Sacrament if Christ had sayd this bread is my body and this wine is my blood but he foresaw greate cause why he wold not say so For he wold by his worde so make his body and blood of bread and wine that when the substance of his body and blood should be present the substances of bread and wine should not remain of this we are sure because besyde the faith of the whole Churche the proper signification of the words inforceth so much as now it shal be declared ¶ That as all other so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly vutill the contrarie doth euidently appeare WHat meaning words ought to haue we iudge most directly by the proper signification and common vse of them For if the contrary do not appeare al words must be taken in that meaning aâ—…d sense which the vsual custom of speaking and writing hath geuen them Otherwise all things are confounded and the profite which cometh of words is lost Neither any man shall know what an other meaneth neither how to make his own bargaine or last will and Testament Certè peruersissimum est sayth Tertullian vt carnem nominantes animam intelligamus animam significantes carnem interpretemur Omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quà msunt amittere quod sunt dum aliter accipiuntur si aliter quà m sunt cognoninantur Fides nominum salus est proprietatum Truly it is a most ouerthwart thing that naming the â—…esh we should vnderstand the soule and signifying the soule we should expound it the flesh all things shall be in danger to be otherwise taken then they are and whiles they are otherwise takeÌ„ to loose that they are if they be named otherwise then they are The faithfull naming of things preserueth their proprieties By these words of this auncient Doctour we may iudge how foule a thing it is that hearing the body of Christ named we should without any reasonable cause expound it the figure of his body And hearing the blood of Christ named we should expound it the signe of his blood As well when he is named the Sonne of God we may expound it the image of the Sonne of God And so we open a gate to all heresie we take away all certeintie of speache and make the holy Scriptures subiect to euery mans filthy lust pleasure We must therefore kepe euery word in his own nature and in his knowen signification except it be manifest vnto vs that the speaker meante otherwise Doth not naturall reason teach vs so much Sayth not Marcellus the same being taught only by coÌ„mon wisedom and iudgement Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet quà m cum manifestuÌ„ est aliud sensisse testatorem We must not otherwise depart from the significatioÌ„ of the words but when it is manifest yâ— the testatour thought an other thing In which rule if we rest all the world well knoweth that when Christ said This is my body and This is my blood the words both by theire propre signisication and by the present vse of all speakers and writers do importe the reall presence of Christes true body and blood For neither the pronoun This pointeth to a thing absent neither the verb is can be said of that which presently hath no true being neither the noun body vseth to be verisied of a shadow figure or token of a body neither when Christ sayeth
bread but the Eucharist or sacrifice of thanksgeuing The Sacramentaries on yâ— other syde make thanks to be geueÌ„ of Christ in bare wheaten bread and wine They make also the words of thanksgeuing figuratiue and thereby untrue in theyr proper sense The liâ—…e was done by theyr auncestours before as S. Ignatius doth witnesse whose words Theodorus allegeth thus Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem saluatoris nostri They admit no sacrifices of thanksgeuing nor oblations because they coÌ„fesse not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour But hereof I shall speake again hereafter ¶ The xii Circumstance of breaking BY the fact of breaking the Protestants thinke them selues to haue one circumstance making for their opinion for what can be broken say they at Christes supper beside common bread But if we take the bread to haue bene brokeÌ„ before the coÌ„secration thereof they haue no more aduaÌ„tage by the fact of breaking common bread then they had by the fact of taking common bread For we confesse it to be still common bread vntill Christ hath said of it this is my body After whiche words if we thinke the breaking to haue bene vsed which is farre the more probable opinion we must nedes confesse the Euangelists not to haue rehearsed all things in such order as they were done in we must construe the wordes in this wise Christ tooke bread blessed or gaue thanks and sayd this is my body and then brake and gaue to his disciples the whiche interpretation is confirmed both by S. Paule as I haue shewed in an other place by the dayly practise of the vniuersall churche neither haue the Sacramentaries any iust occasion to triumphe hereof that we graunt a figure in changing the order of the words for the figure is not in Christes words of which only we contend but in the words of the Euangelistes who knowing that before the tyme of their writing the order of Christes supper was taught practised in a great number of Christian churches dyd rather attend to write the 〈◊〉 of the matter as in most other things they haue done then curiously to note the cerimonie and order of the doing speaking And therefore he that will may obserue that they â—…oyne together all the dedes of Christes supper belonging to eche kind and afterward place the words apperteyning to the same not because none of the wordes came not betwene some of the dedes but to make short and by diuision made into dedes words to set like to his like That is to wit to ioyne only dedes with dedes and only words with words the dedes were taking bread blessing thanksgening breaking deliuering which stand together the words are take eate this is my body doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me and those be placed altogether Let it then goe for a truthe howsoeuer our aduersaries are now pleased withall that Christ did breake and gene after the words of consecration yet shal it euen so make more for the reall presence of his body vnder the form of bread theÌ„ against it because that very breaking doth shew the substance of flesh whereof Christ sayd this is my body to be so really and miraculoush present that it was conteined whole vnder euery peece and fragment of that which stil appered bread otherwise euery Apostle could not haue â—…aued one and the same whole substance without more and lesse which an other did â—…aue but the contrarie was figured in manna of the which some gathered more and some lesse but neither he that gathered more had more nor he that gathered lesse found lesse when it came to the trial of measure the which thing S. 〈◊〉 sheweth to be verified of that SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper and yet it were not so neither externallie nor spiritually if it were the substance of wheaten bread which the Apostles 〈◊〉 after yâ— breaking for then one should haue the greater peece of bread an other the lesse neither could any balance or measure daâ—…y make them througly equal Again if it being bread which was broken and taken Christ be only eaten by faith and spirit surely seing the faith and deuotion which euery man hath is in a 〈◊〉 measure from that which an other hath according as Christ or the holy Ghost diuideth his 〈◊〉 to one after one sort to an other otherwise as he listeth to euery man neither by that meaues one should haue as much as the other And that especially because some receaue life euerlasting by eating that which was broken to them and other eate their own damnation And how is it I pray you all one measure to them Or is it one to be saued to be damned S. 〈◊〉 hauing spoken of the equall measure of Manna sayeth Et nos Christi corpus â—…qualiter accipimus vna est in mysterijs sanctificatio Domini serui 〈◊〉 Quanquà m pro accipientium meritis diuersum fiat quod vnum est And we also take the body of Christ equally there is one sanctification in the mysteries as well of the seruant as of the master Albeit according to that merits of the 〈◊〉 that is made diuerse which is one The meaning of which words must of necessitie be that one substance of Christes body is receaued in the mysteries to wit vnder the foorm of bread as well by the poore as by the riche although the deuotion be diuerse wherewith it is receaued To one it is more meritoriouse in effect and to an other lesse meritoriouse but in substance it is one sanctification to all men So that the breaking and the peeces which are made certifie vs of suche a mysticall presence that as Eusebius 〈◊〉 witnesseth Corpus hoc sacerdote dispensante tantum est in exiguo quantum esse constat in toto And again De hoc verò pane cum assumitur nihilo minus habent singuli quam vniuersi totum vnus totum duo totum plures sine diminutione percipiunt This body when the Priest 〈◊〉 is as great in the small peece as it is great in the whole loaf of this bread when it is taken euery man hath no lesse then alltogether haue 〈◊〉 hath all twaine all 〈◊〉 haue all without diminishing These words I say can be 〈◊〉 neither of materiall bread outwardly broken and deliuered the peeces whereof are vnequall nor of inward grace and faith the measure whereof is diuerse â–ª but only of the substance of Christes body which is conâ—… wholy vnder euery fragment of that which is broken hauing with it none other substance which may cause any man to haue more or lesse then his fellow Of this kind of breaking S. Ignatius sayeth Vnus panis omnibus confractus est One bread is broken to all one bread of life he meaneth As for materiall loanes they werâ—… diuerse euen in the same Church and not always one But
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
no reason brought sor proufe that thâ—…y are really ment to be that which they are called wheÌ„ they are named together with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if there be not euident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 theâ—… proper meaâ—…ing naturally they are included Thus when it is said The word was Gâ—…d the word was made flesh there was much grasse in that place the â—…onne of man shal be three days in the haâ—…t of the earth John was in 〈◊〉 those particular substances really to be that which they are named but if it chaunce otherwise we aske why it doth not signifie â–ª as it should chiefly doe Which being so we must seeke the reason why these words I am the true vine doe not signifie Christ 〈◊〉 self to be yâ— substance of the true vine whiche thinge the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 someth to import But as the truthe is when Christ sayth I am the true vine he can not meane I am the substance of a vine for if he were so he were not Christ. Because the substance of Christ who is God and man differeth wholy 〈◊〉 the substance of a vine But Christ prâ—…eth of him self I am this or that â—…fore we are compelled so to expound his words that his 〈◊〉 may stil be saued He sayth not I am changed into a vine or I am made a vine the which words 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â–ª of being with the losse of the former Being but 〈◊〉 sayth I am the true 〈◊〉 wherein somwhat is rather attributed or geuen to his former substance â–ª then any thing taken from it and much lesse the former substance it self is wholy taken away If then it repugne to the nature of Christâ—… wordes that he should in theÌ„â—…e thought to 〈◊〉 spoiled of his 〈◊〉 by which words his substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 nedes find oâ—…t some other way of expounding those words then â—…o aâ—…e that â–ª Christ is the substance of any materiall vine Seig then these two substâ—…es for so in word they seme to 〈◊〉 although in deâ—… they can not so be ment seing I say these two 〈◊〉 substances â–ª Christ a vine can not either be wholy one whiles they be diuerâ—… or be wholâ—… 〈◊〉 whilâ—… 〈◊〉 be said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise man auoiding as nigh as may be all absurdity seeketh out such a meaning that both natures may remayne still 〈◊〉 concerning their differeÌ„t substances and that they may coâ—…municat and agree in some â–ª â—…uality which is common to â—…th The which consyderation made al the lerned Fathers in these phrases of speache I am the dore I am the way I am the true vine the rock is Christ â—…on Baptist is Elias and in such like to shew what coÌ„dition qualitie or propertie was common betwene these natures without any surmise at all that any transubstantiation could be meant in those words in all which propositions the verb sum es fui doth stand to signifie an accidental and not a substantiall agreement betwene diuerse natures substances But it is far otherwise when Christ hauing taken bread saith after blessing This is my body for in those words two seuerall natures are not ioyned together and thereby affâ—…ed still to be the substances they were before It is not sayd This bread is my body No Enangelist no Apostle no Disciple reporteth Christes words in that sorte such additions comme from Luther from zwinglius from Decolampadius from Caluin but not from S. Matthew S. Mark S. Luke or S. Paule The true Apostles of God by the inâ—…inct of the holy Ghoost were so far from the minde of saying this bread or this wine that they did put the pronoune this in such a gender as neither could agree to bread nor to wine whereof I haue spoken sufficiently before The proposition then being such as nameth one substance only and that moste particular there is no cause why the verb est is ought not to stand in his moste proper and vsuall signification verily to signifie this one thing which was knowen to haue bene bread by Christes word to be the substance of Christes owne body which if it be once graunted it will necessarily folow that this which is the substance of Christes body is not also common bread because those natures were not at any time appointed to be together in any one proprietie of person If it be not common bread and yet it doth seme so it will insew that the substance of yâ— bread is changed into Christes owne substance which is really present vnder the forme of common bread Thus I haue shewed cause why the verb est is doth signifie otherwise in this is my body then in these words I am the true vine by reason of which proper vnderstanding of the verb substantiue transubstantiation is of necessitie inferred For as when I heare it reported for certeine that Peter who was in the morning at Douer was seene the same night at Calis I doe thereby vnderstand that Peter passed ouer the sea not because so much was spoken but because it foloweth vpon that which was done Euen so when I reade that Christ in his supper toke bread and sayd after blessing Take eate this is my body I vnderstand the bread which by nature is not Christes body by blessing and speaking to be made his body and consequently to be changed from his own substance into the substance of Christes body None of all which things can be reasonably applied to the other words I am the true vine For which reason I conclude that whereas in euery proposition three parts are either expressed or imployed the one which goeth before the verb the other which foloweth after and yâ— verb it self euery one helpeth to proue transubstantiation in these words This is my body and euery one hindereth the proufe of the same transubstantiation in the other words I am the true vine So discrete a chalenge M. Nowel made in comparing these two sayings together But who can looke for better stuffe at his hands sith he hath forsaken the notable wisedom of the Church of God and taketh Caluins dreame to be Gods word Hitherto M. Nowell I haue shewed the true meaning of euery word of the two propositions by you alleged But now I haue such confidence in the cause of those Catholikes whom you 〈◊〉 Papists that I will graunt you for farther disputations â—…ake euery thing to be otherwise then it is in dede Let vs imagine that Christ were not God and therefore might be changed in substance that the true vine were a certeyne particular vine â—…eueral from Christ into the which a real change might be made that the verb sum I am did stand to signifie a being in substaÌ„ce and not in qualitie alone yet these words I am the true vine wold not proue as well a transubstantiation as This is my body for that transubstantiation wold be better proued in all doutes moued therevppon which were the more semely
similitude which fully doth open his minde S. Cyrillus expresly affirmeth Christ to be in vs and vs to be in him by the communicating of his body and blood euen after that sort as if a man taking wax which is melted by the fier do so mingle it with other melted wax that one maner of thing semeth to be made of both How think you M. Nowell Is one wax mingled with an other by faith and spirit alone or is it mingled by signes and tokens 〈◊〉 the one part without the reall presence of both waxes What wicked men are ye who will make vs beleue yâ— S. Cyrill did not meane the reall substance of Christes fleshe to be reallie and corporallie in vs by communicating his bodie blood If you beleue him not why do ye not deny his aucthoritie If ye beleue his doctrine why teache you not the same These be the points M. Nowell which you must aâ—…swer vnto For euery word that foloweth is in S. Cyrill euen in that place where he disputeth of the true vine though not in such order as I now put them Which thing I doe to make his whole mind appeare at once Thus he sayth * 1. The mysticall blessing or the communicating of Christes body and blood â–ª * 2. maketh * 3. Christ or the life or the flesh of life * 4. to be or to be made or to be ioyned or to dwell * 5. in vs or with vs and vs to haue it in our selues or in our bodies * 6. according to the flesh or corporally * 7. and not only by habit or power or by â—…aith or charitie or spiritually * 8. but also by naturall partaking * 9. euen so as one melted wax is mingled to an other melted wax and in maner made one therewith * 10. By this meanes we are both corporally and spiritually braunches of Christes flesh which is also the true vine See now M. Nowell how yâ— parable of the true vine rightly expounded maketh altogether for our purpose As Christ is the true vine according to his flesh so are we the braunches according to his flesh He is the vine by hauing his flesh really present and vnited to himself therefore we be the braunches by hauing the same flesh really present in vs and by being really vnited vnto it as the braunche is vnited to his roote As Christ is the true vine two ways by his Godhead and by his manhod so a maÌ„ may two ways liue by Christ by partaking of his Godhead and manhod by habit only if he haue a good faith and by partaking his manhod corporally also if he receaue worthily the Sacrament of the altar But that Sacrament could no more make vs be braunches according to the flesh of Christ then our faith and charitie doth make vs to be braunches thereof except it had his flesh really present For otherwise our faith it self is a better meane to graâ—… vs into Christ then bread and wine is because it is a ioyning of vs to God in a higher degree But the mystical blessing in S. Cyril is made the meane to ioyne vs to God in a higher degree then faith or charitie Therefore S. Cyrill and all the Fathers before him whose minde he professeth himself to folow beleued the reall presence of Christes flesh in the Sacrament of the altar And that by the way of turning the bread into his flesh For the flesh of Christ could not be really present to dwell corporally with vs and in our bodies except it were corporally receaued of vs. And other way how to receaue it corporally I see not except the bread be changed into it Thus you see what aduantage I am the true vine doth bring to the Catholike faith but no hinderance in the world can be thence deduced against the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar M. Nowell ¶ Nay if Christ had sayd likewise this is my true very body as he sayd I am a true or very vine what a rule had we then had I Marueile if M. Nowell think more strength to be in these words my true or very body theÌ„ in these My body which is geuen for you as though yâ— true very body were not geuen for vs. But if the true body were geuen for vs Christ saying This is my body which is geuen for you sayd also This is my true and very body And therein M. Nowell shal haue a rule to know that Christ spake not metaphorically for the relatiue quod which can not agree with any other word then with the noune substantiue corpus body which noune corpus body if it stand vnproperlie the relatiue must nedes repete it so as it standeth and then if this be the sigure of Christes body which is geuen at his supper the figure of his body is geuen for vs vpon the crosse I confesse M. Nowell I could be content to goe to schole to â—…rne of so auncieÌ„t a scholemaster as you are how a word which is but once named as yâ— noune corpus body in Christes supper may be antecedent to the relatiue quod which as the Latins reade or noune substantiue to the participle datum geuen as the Greeks reade and yet be otherwise ment in his relatiue and participle then it was being the antecedent or the noune substantiue Christ sayd This is my body geuen for you wil you diuide the participle geuen from his noune substantiue body If you will not as the body geuen for vs was the substance of Christes body so this is the self same substaÌ„ce of Christes body which the Apostles are commanded to take to eate and to make In that you turne the words vitis vera not only a true but also a verie vine you are much deceaued The word vera is not now to be pressed as if it were set to signifie a naturall vine where vnto your words run but to signifie a perfect vine in respect of an imperfit for so we say he is a true man meaning a truth in his words and dedes but not in nature for a lier and falsifier is also a true man in nature Euen so Christ meaneth himself to be a moste true and perfect vine concerning the swete frute which a vine ought to bring foorth and to communicate vnto his branches For the Iewes being a vine well planted by God became through synne a â—…oure vine and brought foorth none other but wilde grapes but Christ is a true a perfit a moste excellent vine which bringeth foorth swete grapes in his faithfull members of yâ— Church Thus doth S. Augustine expound yâ— word vera true saying that when Christ calleth him self a true vine he maketh a difference betwene him self and that vine to which it is sayd How art thou turned into the bitternes of a strange vine Euthymius declareth the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie either an excellent an incorruptible a spirituall
then the image and figure of it When we will shew how far a thing is from that which it is called doe we not say Hoc nomine tenus tale est noÌ„ re ipsa This is such a thing in name and not in dede So that the naming of a thing without being the true thing it self is the nakedest and barest thing that can be â–ª Our aduersaries wold the bread after consecration to be the body and blood of Christ in name only not in truthe which being so the chalice of blessing bread which is broken should rather be called partaking because a sinal part of yâ— truth is taken then communicating where all is made common But S. Paule sayd it is a communicating and S. Chrysostom sayeth he did it to shew that it was more than partaking therefore it is a false doctrine to say that yâ— true body and blood of Christ is not really vnder the forme of bread which is broken and within the chalice which we blesse Let vs conferre the scriptures and seke the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicare in other places of the new Testament we shall find that it standeth to geue and make common the thing it self rather then the shadow or name thereof S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles sayeth Multitudinis cre dentium erat corvnum animavna nec quisquà m eorum quae possidebat aliquid suum esse dicebat sed erant illis omnia communia Of the multitude of beleuers there was one hart and one soule neither any man sayd any thing of that he possessed to be his own but all things were common to them In which place we haue it defined what communicating is truly it is such a geuing that all is made common and nothing chalenged as his own If then the chalice of blessing which we blesse be the communicating of Christes blood and the bread which we breake the communicating of his body all the blood and all the body is made common to them that receaâ—…e that chalice and that bread If all be common then we doe not receaue only a spirituall remembrance of Christes body or a figure and signe of his blood For in so doing we had not all but rather the smallest part In so doing Christ kept the best back and chalenged somewhat yea far the best part to his owne self and we should not haue it Likewise when S. Paul sayeth that the Gentils did communicate with the spirituall goods of the Iewes for his word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he meaneth not a ioyning in name in shewe in figure in signes but in the truth of faith and in the grace of God and in the redemption of Iesus Christ Last of al S. Paul shewing Christ to call the faithfull people of God his brethren and children reasoneth thus Quia ergo pueri communicaueruÌ„t earni sanguini ipse similiter participauit ijsdem Because therefore the children did communicate â—…lesh and blood him self likewise tooke parte with them In which place communicating is the naturall knitting and vniting which men haue to flesh and blood so that whether communicating be spoken by flesh and blood or by the goods of the world the communicating of them is the hauing of them common or making them common Euery where communicating importeth a great and liberall geuing or taking which can not be fulfilled with the only figure and bare name of body and blood but requireth the things them selues in truth of nature as holy Ireneus a disciple of the Apostles scholers writeth against those that taught that our flesh could not aryse againe to glory Vani sunt omnes c. They are all vayne that denyd the saluation of the flesh and despyse the regeneration of it saying that it is not able to receaue the state of incorruptibilitie So in dede to wyt according to those sayinges neither our Lorde hath redemed vs with his blood neither the chalice of thankes geuing is the coÌ„municating of his blood neither the bread which we breake is the communicating of his body For blood is not but from the vaynes and flesh and from the other substaÌ„ce which is belonging to man in the which substance yâ— worde of God truly made redemed vs with his blood S. Ireneus accomptâ—…th it a great absurditie that the bread which we breake should not be the communicating of Christ his true body the chalice of the Encharist the communicating of his blood Of what blood of the same which 〈◊〉 from vaynes from flesh and from the rest of our substance And S â–ª Ireneus bringeth this interpretation to proue that we that receyue the sayd body and blood receyue therein a gyft sufficient to raise our flesh at the later daye But surely fignes and figures of Christ wil not raise our flesh for so much as they are perceaued only by vnderstanding and be not of the same nature and kinde whereof our flesh is And S. Ireneus neuer dreamed of blood that should be receaued from heauen but only of that blood which is in the chalice and cup of Christes supper ¶ The presence of Christ in his supper is proued by the one bread which being receaued of vs maketh all vs one body VNuspanis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes qui de vno pane participamus we being many are one bread and one body all we that partake of the one bread He that listeth only to mark the order of S. Paules words may quickly perceaue what his meaning is concerning the true doctrine of the Sacrament of the altar First he described our Lordes supper by the name of the chalice of blessing which we blesse and of the bread which we breake Secondly he saith that eche of them is the communicating the one of Christ his body the other of his blood Last of all he feareth not to say that the partakers of that bread all are one bread and one body Who seeth not that he is come from blessing and breaking to communicating and from communicating to vniting making one so that vse we what wordes we please in vttering the matter call we it partaking eating drinking or communicating certainly it is so nigh a ioyning that a very vnion which is to say one thing is made of that which is receaued in this blessed Sacrament and of those that receaue the same one thing I say is made of both yea one of al not only he that receaueth this one bread is made one with the bread but he is one also with al them that any where within the Churche worthely receaue of the same bread for when two things meâ—…e in a thirde they mete also betwene them selues The reason of this great ioyning is the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament for seing the bread receaued is Christ he is so strong a bread and foode that he can be ouercomed of
Sacramentaric doctrine whereof I haue the gladlier writen to thintent S. Augustines doctrine might be opened who alwaies noteth this Sacrament to be the signe of the vnitie which is made by Christ in baptism among the faithfull but he meaneth such a signe as Christ him â—…elf maketh vnder the forme of bread when he affirmeth him to consecrate herein yâ— mystery of vnitie Is it not an extreme madnes to affirme that wheaten bread keping his own earthly nature should be the mystery of vnitie Christ is that mystery first because he is both God who alone made all things to serue him and man in whom all things are a new collected which where before made Secondly because Christ maketh vs one with God reconciling vs to him by the blood of his crosse Thirdly because he maketh vs one among our selues by his one spirit and Baptism Last of all because he sheweth and geueth him self really present vnder the forme of bread wherein he would vs to vnderstand the vnitie which is really made betwene vs and him and God Of this vnitie S. Hilarie writeth If Christ assumpted truly the flesh of our body and we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body and by this thing we shal be one because the Father is in him and he in vs quomodo voluntatisvnitas asseritur cùm naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacracramentum sit vnitatis How is yâ— vnitie of wil affirmed whereas the naturall proprietie through the Sacrament is the holy signe of a perfite vnitie This place good Reader openeth al the hard points of the mystery of vnitie First Christ toke truly flesh Next we take truly the same flesh vnder a mystery By his taking God and man were made one concerning the whole nature of man By our taking we and Christ are made one concerning euery particular man who receaueth worthely his body And that is not only done so but withall it is shewed so for the thing which we receaue is the flesh of Christ vnder the forme of bread The flesh yâ— is there being receaued maketh vs in dede to be one with Christ. The form of bread sheweth not only them to be one that receaue this food but those also who now doe not receaue it if yet they be or shal be baptized to be one in Christ. And sayeth S. Hilarie so much Ye doubtlesse and that he twise repeteth For when he sayth Verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body then he meaneth that vnder the forme of bread we take Christes flesh Under what other mysterie can it be sayd we take it Or seing he speaketh of the last supper doth he not meane the signe of the same supper which was bread But yet let vs heare more plaine words Naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The natural proprietie through the SacrameÌ„t is the SacrameÌ„t of a perfite vnitie The word proprietas meaneth one particular substance proper to one thing which in men is commonly called a person S. Augustine witnesseth that Christ is called the true vine Per similitudinem non per proprietatem by likenes not by proprietie that is to say Christ is yâ— true vine by like condition and not by the self substance of a true vine S. Hilarie then sayeth The naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a Sacrament of perfite vnitie Here is the word Sacrament twise iterated the proprietie of Christ is a Sacrament and it is a Sacrament by a Sacrament A Sacrament is a holy signe Therefore the proprietie or substance of Christ is a holy signe But how Euery substance is the truth How is it then a sigue It is not barely and absolutely called a signe but a signe by a signe that is to say the true substaÌ„ce of Christ put vnder the form of bread by that signe of bread is seâ—… to signifie a most perfite vnitie made betwene God and vs. The natural proprietie of Christ by the signe of bread maketh and signifieth a perfite vnitie It maketh it whiles we receaue Christ into vs who is one with his Father in nature as we naturally haue him in our bodies and soules It signifieth the same vnitie because the substance of Christ who is one nature with his Father in Godhead one with vs in manhod being now vnder the signe of bread sheweth him self as it were with al his faithfull members about him offering them all to God as if he sayd Ecce ego pueri mei mecum Behold Father I am here and my seruants or children with me This sayeth S. Augustine is the sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ Quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quâ—…od in ea oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur The which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of the altar knowen to the faithful Where it is shewed to the Church that in that sacrifice which she offereth her self is offered It is well knowen that the Priests of yâ— Church taking bread and wine according to the institution of Christ consecrate them saying in Christes name This is my body and this is my blood If by those words the body and blood of Christ be not made pre sent vnder the forme of bread and wine how is the Church offered in the offering which she maketh Who doth make an oblation of her to God Wil ye say that Christ sitting in heauen presenteth to his Father the bread wine which is in earth saying Father looke vppon my faithfull members See what a mysticall body I haue gotten to me in the earth Might not God answer Why sonne is the substance of your mysticall body bread and wine Haue you coupled my seruants your brethren whome I created reasonable to those vnseâ—…sible creatures Or is the handy work of the baker your oblation or the oblation of your mysticall body But if Christ be vnder the forme of bread and thence make an oblation to his Father of all his obedient members which are there signified by the forme of bread then is none other substance of those mysticall members presented besyde the true substance and head of the mysticall body to wit the flesh of Christ which worketh gathereth a body to it self through out the whole world TheÌ„ the Church offereth none other substance besyde the one oblation which dyed for vs. The same reall coniunction of the faithfull to Christes flesh may be declared also by the example of building a howse For as euery howse is in the fundation moste large and afterward it is drawen alwaies so muche the nigher together by how much it approcheth to the top or end thereof euen so the Church being the howse of God must be one so that it may in some partes thereof be
and had made petition for his resurrection and saith he wil now performe the vowes which he made for the obteining of his resurrection Those vowes were to haue Gods name tolde and his 〈◊〉 published To that ende serueth the mystery and sacrifice of his body blood for God is thanked in the Eucharist and praised in the cup of blessing as in yâ— publike sacrifice instituted by Christ to remaine in his Church vntill his second comming Therefore when he saith I will performe my vowes he meaneth I wil offer the sacrifice of my body and blood as S. Hierome expoundeth it And therein S. Augustine fully agreeth with him saying Quae sunt vota sua Sacrificium quod obtulit deo Nostis quale sacrificium Norunt fideles vota quae reddit coram timentibus eum And afore Sacramenta corporis sanguinis mei reddam coram timentibus eum What are his vowes The sacrifice which he hath offered to God Knowe ye what maner of sacrifice The faithfull knowe the vowes which he rendereth before them that feare him I will render the Sacramentes of my body blood before them that feare him Cassiodorus consentâ—…th saying Vota mauult intelligi SacrameÌ„ta corporis sanguinis sui caet He rather would the voweâ—… be vnderstanded the Sacramentes of his body and blood the which are rendred those being present which are subiecte to him in holy feare To be shorte see what foloweth the poore shal eate and be filled These are the vowes whereof he spake before S. Bede also writeth Vota quae feci cum meipsum in ara crucis obtuli illa reddam in Ecclesia magna id est iterum per quotidiana sacrificia meorum in sacramentis offeram vota dico eadem verè in coÌ„spectu timentium eum id ist quantuÌ„ ad intellectum bonorum etsi non sint eadem in conspectu malorum qui nihil in Sacramentis nisi quod exterius apparet intelligunt The vowes which I made when I offered my selfe on the altar of the crosse those I will render in the greate Church That is to say I will offer them againe in the Sacramentes by the daily sacrifices of my ministres I meane the same vowes in dede in the sight of them that feare him to witte concerning the vnderstanding of the good men albeit they be not the same in yâ— sight of euil men who vnderstand nothing in the Sacramentes but that which appereth outwardly Here S. Bede expoundeth the rendering of the vowes of Christe to be the offering of the very same body blood which was offered vpon the crosse And that the good see by faith and vnderstand by beleuing more then the eye seeth But the euil men will vnderstand no more then they see iudging that which semeth bread and wine to be still in dede bread and wine But the truth is the same substance of Christes flesh and blood is offered in the Sacramentes which was offered on the crosse Concerning my purpose S. Hierome S. Augustine Cassiodorus Bedafull well agree this place to apperteine literally to the Sacrament of the altar Yea Arnobius who was elder then all they saith that Christ being vpon the Crosse praieth for them that crucifie him that his praise may bee in the greate Church and that he may render his vowes before them which feare him Dum edunt corpus eius pauperes Spiritu whiles the poore in spirit shal eate his body Neither doe the Latines only expound this place aâ—…ter that sorte but also the Grecians Euthymâ—…s hauing expounded the vowes to be the promises of praising Gods name and the eating of the poore men to be their feeding vppon the doctrine of the Apostles addeth also the other interpretation saying Vel aliter comedent fideles Saluatoris corpus cum quo sanguinem eius bibent c. Or els according to an other meauing the faithfull shall eate the body of our Sauiour wherewith they shall drink also his blood And shall be silled verily filled with the holy Ghost and shall extoll God with hymnes and praises in that table So that the former versicle may conteyne not only a prophecie of the Gospell but also the mysticall Sacrament of that table In which interpretation the Fathers agree so throughly that they conferre those words of the pâ—…alme their hartes shall liue for euer with those of Christ I am the bread of life and if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Now if this psalme do literally speake of the offering and eating of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of his supper as ye see plainly it doth it can not be auoided but the same place shal proue that the body blood of Christ must be adored in the Sacrament For yâ— same that is eaten is here prophecied also as a thing to be adored It is sayd manducauerunt adorauerunt they haue eaten haue adored Both be referred to one thing But they haue eaten is referred to the Sacrament of the altar therefore they haue adored is referred to the same Sacrament Apostoli vel caeteri sancti sayeth S. Hiâ—…rome manducauerunt corpus Christi The Apostles and other saiutes haue eaten the body of Christ wherevppon it foloweth that they haue adored it also S. Augustine expresseth it more plainly Manducauerunt corpus caet Euen the riche of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord. They are not filled so that they wil folow as the poore men were but yet they haue adored Behold three verbs which all belong to the very body of Christ eating adoring filling The poore in spirite haue eaten and adored because al nations haue adored before him and they are filled The riche haue eaten and are not â—…illed but yet they haue adored What haue they both eaten The body of Christ Wherewith are the poore filled With the body of Christ. What haue that riche adored The body of Christ but yet they are not filled therewith because they will not folow the humilitie of Christ. And seing this eating pâ—…rteyneth to the Sacrament of Christes supper as it was before prourd the adoring also apperteyneth to the same Sacrament That is eaten which appeareth to be bread therefore that self substaÌ„ce is adored which appearing bread is in dede the truth of Christes own body S. Bede expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shal adore because they shall come with a certeyne outward worshipping Behold the worshipping of the riche is outward and not from the hart whereas it ought to haue beue both outward and inward both in spirit and in truth But through their hypocrisie it consisteth only in bowing their bodies because other men do so and not in true and perfite charitie of God Moreouer S. Augustin
which was receaued at the holy coÌ„munion which dwelleth bodily in vs to be not only yâ— flesh and blood of Christ for those words should be eluded with figures and signes but to be the substance and nature of God which nature is not possible to be eaten of vs corporally otherwise then as it dwelleth 〈◊〉 in the flesh of Christ which we eate corporally in the Sacramenâ—… seing the nature and substance of God must be adored it is not possible to imagine but all yâ— Fathers gaue Godly honour to the mysteries of Christes holy table But yet let vs heare a more full witnesse S. Chrysostome exhorting his people to come to this Sacrament with zeale and most vehement loue writeth thus Hoc corpus in praesepe reueriti sunt Magi c. The wise men commonly called the three kings reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion barbarouse they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iorney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at the least wise follow those barbarous men For when they saw yâ— manger and cottage only and not any of those things which thou now seest they came with most great reuerence quaking But thou seest that thing not in the manger but in the altar not a womaÌ„ which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy Ghost copiously spred vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither thou lookest barely vpoÌ„ the body as they did but thou knowest the power of it and all the order of dispensing things And thou art ignorant of none of those things which were done by him and thou hast bene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs proseâ—…e openly a greater denotion then those barbarous 〈◊〉 if we come barely and coldly we ieopard our head into a more â—…ehement fyre Hitherto S. Chrysostome If there were any other refuge left for our aduersaries they wold neuer admit this place they would say in words yâ— which the masters of them must nedes sometyme think in hart They would say what care we for Chrysostome He was a man he might erre he did erre in this matter But now they may not flee to this miserable refuge for seing they lacke the Gospel and the faith of Christian people for nine hundred yeres together as them selues confesse there is no place for them to hyde their head in but only among the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres For this cause they caÌ„ not reiect S. Chrysostome who is one of the chief lights of the East Church His bookes also they can not deny and least of all his commentaries vppon the blessed Apostle What shift then find they to avoide this place In truth they can finde none but they must nedes preteÌ„d to say somewhat out of their common places of Khetoricall figures yâ— vse whereof they can father vpon whome they list S. Chrysostome in these words expressy teacheth as well the reall presence as the adoration of Christ vpon the altar He compareth the holy mysteries with Christ in the forme and truth of a childe He compareth the altar where vpon the mysteries staÌ„d with the manger wherein Christ lay He compareth our blessed Lady which sometyme held Christ in her armes with the Priest present at the altar who sometyme handleth the holy mysteries He compareth the three wise men who came out of yâ— East with the Christian people who come to heare Masse He compareth the adoratioÌ„ and worshipping which those three wise men vsed with the adoration and worshipping which faithful men ought to vse at the tyme of oâ—…r Lords supper He sayeth the body of Christ to be the same in both places but yâ— cause of worshipping to be greater in them who come to the holy mysteries He sayth by the body Hoc corpus in 〈◊〉 sunt Magi This body the wise men worshipped in the manger which this body surely whereof he sayd before Quando id propositum videris dic tecum propter hoc corpus non amplius terra cinis ego sum When thou seest it set before thee say with thy self for this bodies sake I am no longer earth and ashes Behold he speaketh of the body which is set before vs. Uerily of that which at Masse tyme all men see vpon the altar And againe he sayd of the same Quod etiam nobis exhibuit vt teneremus manducaremus The which also he hath geuen to vs that we should hold it and eate it This body then which is put before vs in yâ— Church which is holden and eaten This body the wise men worshipped in the manger If our figuratiue diuines expound this body for the signe or the representing of this body as they are wont to doe then the wise men adored in the manger the signe of Christes body But if they adored not the signe but the truth then this body is meaÌ„t this true body of Christ. And seing S. Chrysostome sayeth that the wise men adored this body meaning by the pronoun this that which we haue in the holy mysteries it is clere that he putteth it for a most knowen and certeyne veritie that we haue present before the tyme of receauing the reall body of Christ vpâ—… the altar And so haue it present that we are bound to adore it being vpon the altar Tu verò non in praesepe sed in altari vides Thou seest this body not in the manger but on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not only comprehended by faith but by the meane of yâ— forme òf bread it is seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome bringeth fower reasons why Chrystian people should rather worship the body of Christ at Masse then those wise men did worship it in that homely cottage First because they were not Godly men for so S. Chrysostom doth call them because they had not the knowlege of al true deuotion and Godlinesse although in that acte they shewed them selues Godly But we are instructed in all true religion therefore should souer worship this body of Christ then they did Secondly they were Barbarous men but S. Chrysostome spake to 〈◊〉 who were most ciuill leste Barbarous of all people in the world So much the rather they ought to know it to be their duety to worship the body of their maker Thirdly the wise men saw Christe in a manger where such things are not wont to lye as must be reuereÌ„ced worshipped but thou seest this body vpon the altar which is a place made for holy things to stand on And so much the more ought we Christians to adore the body of Christ being set before vs vpon the altar then those wise men did adore it in a manger They saw it also in the mothers armes which was a woman neither is any thing which a woman holdeth bringeth foorth wont
to be worshipped with Godly honour Seing therefore thou seest yâ— priest present who is wont to handle Godly things it were a farre more impiety for thee not to adore Christes body at the time of masse when thou art assured by the worde of God who sayd to his Apostles in them to al priests doe and make this thing that the holy Ghoost faileth not at the consecration to work the body of Christe really present All this consydered it is not possible for any man that lyeth not wittingly and willingly to say but that S. Chrysostome â—…aught and beleued the body of Christe to be really present and that it ought to be really adored vpon the altar it self or in the priests hands And therefore he saith afterward Quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendam I wil shew thee that in the earth which is worthy of the highest honour How can S. Chrysostome shew any thing in earth worthy of the highest honour besyde the body and blood of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine For by that which is worthy of highest honour he meaâ—…eth expresly Christes body because it is the body of the SoÌ„ne of God And in saying he will shew it thee he can possibly meane none other thing but that shewing which is by the formes of bread and wine For if any man should require him to shew that most high thing which he promised to shew questionlesse he would lead him to yâ— altar there would shew him that which had bene consecrated by the Priest and he would say vnto him pointing to the mysteries this is the body of Christe and this is his blood For by that meanes only were he able to performe his promise of shewing that thing which is worthy of the highest honour It followeth yet more plainly in S. Chrysostome by an other similitude As in the palacies of kings saith he not the walles not the golden roof but the kings body sitting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christe the worthiest thing in heauen quod nunc in terra videÌ„dum tibi proponitur the which body of Christe is now set foorth to thee in earth to be seen Good Lord what can be required more of the greatest papist in Europe then S. Chrysostome saith Againe yet it followeth I shew thee not Angels not Archangels not the heauens not the heauens of the heauens but I shew thee the Lord of all these things S. Chrysostom saith he sheweth yâ— Lord that in earth vpoÌ„ yâ— altar yet is there a figure to escape his most euident words In faith truth by such figures they may defende yâ— I also am of their opinioÌ„ but 〈◊〉 wise men such wily shifts wil not preuaile There is noman aliue but 〈◊〉 he wil coÌ„â—…ue yâ— words of S. Chrysostome as they stand in order he must coâ—…se yâ— both he speaketh of yâ— body of Christ really present in the Sacrament of the altar and also teacheth yâ— vpon yâ— very alâ—…ar it ought to be adored much more iustly of vs Christians then it was once adored in the manger or stable of the three kings Here wil I detect an other shift of our Aduersaries who perceauing S. Dionysius S. Ambrose S. Augustme and S. Chrysostome with diuerse other auncient Fathers to be so plaine in the matter of adoration haue deuised to say that those Fathers attribute that vnto the signes of Christes body which is proper to the body it self and therefore when they speake of adoring that vpon the altar they meane that we should adore yâ— truth of that thing the signe whereof standeth vpon the altar This interpretation is in dede necessarily to be made of them who haue determined not to beleue the word of God where in it is sayd â—…his is my body But I say that interpretation is foolish and should make all the Fathers gilty of idolatry for they preaching to the common peple teache them expresly that which standeth after consecration vpon the altar to be the true body blood of Christ and therefore that it must be adored much more of vs then the visible body was adored of the wise men If the interpretation of the Heretikes should be admitted they might say the very same of Christes incarnation and so expound what so euer is sayd in yâ— Bible or in yâ— Fathers touching his flesh to be meant of a phantasticall appering of flesh but not of true flesh But now let vs bring against these Signifiers an other plaine authoritie which was by the prouidence of God written as it were of purpose to destroy this imagined and figuratiue adoration of the Sacrament whereof they speake Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christe now to consist of the only nature of his deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he toke of the virgin doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes supper in the which Sacrament two things are found one which is seen and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seen but vnderstanded and beleued and that is the true body and blood of Christe That which is seen is sayd to remaine in his former substance nature and figure and kind In his substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being nowe by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine in their former nature because they norish no lesse then the substance of the bread it self would haue done if it had remained They remaine in their former shape and kind as being thinges that may be seen and touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing sayd thus much for the one parte of the Sacrament cometh also to shew the other parte thereof For his minde is to declare yâ— as there be two kindes of things in one Encharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christe Therefore the other nature besyde the formes of bread wine is the reall substance of Christes body blood of which parte thus he speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelliguntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur The mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleued and they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be Note good Reader that the mystical signes which Theodoretus calleth mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be 〈◊〉 that they were made But what are they 〈◊〉 â—…o be that which they are not Nay Syâ—… yâ— were false vnderstanding which falshod caÌ„ not be in the mysteries of Christ. they are then in dede that which they are vnderstanded to be What is that Theodoreâ—…us
shewed a litle before that they were after consecration the body and blood of Christ. Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the body and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his body blood and so they are beleued to be and are adored or â—…neled bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the body and blood of Christ No Syr. but as being in dede the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstaÌ„ded and beleued to be They are adored because they are the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were verè existeÌ„tia quae creduntur being in dede things whiche they are beleued to be So speaketh S. Ihon saying of Christ vidimus gloriam eius gloriaÌ„ quasi vnigeniti à patre we saw his glory a glory as of the only begotten of the Father to wit we saw the glory of him being in dede the only begotten of his Father Uppon which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that coÌ„firmeth and betokeneth an vndouted determination as when we see a king comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a king that is to say he came forth as being in dede a king So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Thedorite vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speak The holy mysteries are adored as being those things in dede which they are beleued to be This place is such as can not be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or geuing godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is in dede the body of Christ as it is beleued to be But it is beleued to be the body of Christe after consecration therefore it is adored as being yâ— true body of Christ. For Theodorete before hauing confessed the mysteries to be called after consecration the body and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther doest thou beleue that thou receauest the body and blood of Christ he answered to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I doe beleue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mystical signes to be in deede after consecration the body and bâ—…ood of Christ which they are beleued to be and so beleued that they are receaued of vs. Euery word must be weighed because we haue to do with Heretikes who must find shifts or els theyr deceite will appere to al the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the body and blood Secondly that the mysteries are vnderstanded to be the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleued to be so Fiâ—…tly they are adored for that they are in dede those things which they are beleued to be And last of all they are receaued The first saying the second and the last the Sacramentaries can beare â—…ithall to wit that they are called the body and blood and are vnderstanded to be the body and blood and that the body and blood are receaned For they would haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a myssecaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name SecoÌ„dly they would haue them vnderstanded to be the body and blood and yet not to be so thereby shewing that they delight in false vnderstandings for no good men would haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which in deede it is not Againe they would the body blood to be receaued How trow you In the faith of the man but not in the truth of the body thereby declaring that they diuide faith from truth as men that haue a presuasion of things that in dede be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receauing Theodoret ioyneth also beleuing adoring and being And the beleâ—…e which he speaketh of is not referred to heaueÌ„ but vnto the holy mysteries They are beleued they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be The thing that is called or named Christes body blood is in dede that thing whiche it is called Christ can missename nothing at al. For if he should call that which were before aier water or earth by the names of fier stones or bread aier earth and water would soner cease to be fyre bread stones would come in theyr place theÌ„ God should cal any creature by a wroÌ„g name He called bread his body therefore bread is vnderstaÌ„ded to be made the body of Christ. You say the vnderstaÌ„ding of man taketh his beginning of senses which tel me it is bread I say in matters belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth me it is the body of Christ and Theodorete saith it is beleued so to be and it is worshipped for that it is so And he geueth the same very word of worshipping to the holy mysteries the which in the same sentence he geueth to the immortall body of Christ sitting at the right hande of his Father And no wonder For seing it is one body whether it be worshipped in heauen or vpon the altar one worship is always due to it Thus we haue witnessed by Theodoretus that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his body aad blood but as being in dede his body and blood Therefore worship is not geuen to them as to images whiche represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really conteine the truth represented by them ¶ The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is proued by the custom of the Priests and people of the first six hundred yeres FRom the Apostles tyme to this day the very same holy mysteries which were consecrated by the Priest vppon the altar were adored of the saithful people which thing is euidently proued out of the Massebooke of the primitiue Church For the Liturgies or Massesbookes of S. Iames the Apostle of S Clement Bishop of Rome of S. Basill Bishop of Cesarea of S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and the exposition which both S. Dionysius Bishop of Athens of Paris Cyrillus Bishop of Hierusalem Germanus Bishop of Constantinoplâ—… Maximus the munk and diuers others haue made vpon the holy mysteries do al with one accord teache and confirme that first the Deacon said Let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence And straight therevppon euen before the tyme of receauing the body and blood of Christ the Bishop or Priest who said Masse
of Christ who was coming to his house Lorde I am not worthy that thou should est enter vnder my roof we thereby know that he spake to Christ and called Christ his Lord and not only God in heauen so when we reade that the receauers of the holy communion did say at the tyme of receauing the Sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou should est enter vnder my roof and that they did bow downe adore worship at the same tyme we must vndoubtedly conclude that both the Sacrament was spoken vnto and called Lord and also bowed to and adored Thus I haue proued the adoration of Christes body blood euen as it is a Sacrament out of the Prophetes out of S. Paul out of the anncient Fathers out of the publike seruire of the primitine Church and out of the custome of the faithfull people Al which proufes I haue applied to this end that the body blood of Christ should be knowen thereby to be really present in that self Sacrament which we take into our mouthes And for so much as that is so euery faithful man ought to beleue most constantly the sayd reall presence and to detest the contrary doctrine as a most perniciouse heresy ¶ The reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers IF euery man is to be credited and ought to haue authoritie in his owne arte facultie if when we build we call a Carpenter to counsell and when we make gardens a gardener how much more must we esteme the holy Doctors of the Churche who are not only cunning by long labour bestowed â—…pon the science of diuinitie but also haue so vertuously vsed them selues that they haue bene abundantly instructed in all knowlege by marnailons inspirations of the holy Ghoste whose names are so greate that the very Heretiks can not deny them to be holy Sainctes in heauen and therefore they pretend to haue the first syx hundred yeres on their side It is then a good sure way to worke with the aduise of those auncient Fathers whose sayings because I haue particularly alleged and examined in euery article and chapiter of my former bookes as occasion suffered I thought good not to prosecâ—… them now again at large but rather to shew briefly by what generall chapiters a man may be vndoutedly assured of their belefe and doctrine First very many Fathers speaking of Christes words or dedes when aâ—…ter bread taken and thankes geuen he sayd this is my body allege the almighty power of God to defend the veritie of those dedes and wordes Therefore the same Fathers beleued those words this is my body to be true in so wonderfull a maner as they sound at the first sight And seing they meane according to their moste vsuall sound that this which is pointed vnto though it seme still bread is notwithstanding yâ— substance of Christes body we ought to think that those Fathers beleued the reall presence of Christes body Otherwise they wold neuer haue alleged his Godhead or almightie power and omnipotencie for the instituting of a figure and signe of his owne body sith for the institution of signes and figures such an authoritie might haue serued as God gaue to Moyses who yet was but the feruant of Iesus Christe and not almighty God S. Ireneus How can they be sure the bread whereon thankes are geuen to be the body of their Lord the chalice of his blood if they say not him to be the Sonne of the maker of the world S. Ireneus was so sure that Christ through his diuine power made the bread wherein thankes were geuen his owne body that if the Godhead were denied which should work that presence no man could be sure of the presence of Christes body and yet he might haue bene sure of a figuratiue presence though Moyses had bene the minister of the SacrameÌ„t and not Christe S. Cyprian That bread which our Lorde gaue to the Disciples by the omnipotencie of the word was made flesh What neded omnipotencie be alleged for a fact that were not supernaturall S. Hilary speaking of the Sacrament saith By the profession of our Lorde it is truely flesh and truely blood Is not this thinge the truth â–ª It may in dede chance not to be true to them who deny Icsus Christe to be true God As who should say if his Godhead may stand his flesh must nedes be truly present S. Basilius to shew yâ— these wordes This is my body make full persuation allegeth out of S. Iohn the glory or Godhead and also the incarnation of Christe because except he were both true God and true man this is my body should not make full persuasion sith if he were not man he should not haue a body whereof those words might be verified If he were not God we might dout how he were able to make his word true but seing he is God and man and sayd this is my body there is no dout of the presence of his body S. Ambrosius Our Lorde Iesus him self crieth This is my body he hath sayd and it is made S. Chrysostome O miracle He hath sitteth aboue caet And againe Let vs euery where geue credit vnto his wordes specially in the mysteries Eusebius Emissenus Let the very power of him that consecrateth strengthen thee S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Seing God worketh let vs not aske how Damascene We know no more but that the word of God is true strengthfull almighty but the maner is inscrutable No wise man requireth vs earnestly to beleue the words which himself doth think to be figuratiue and parabolicall but he rather should bid vs beware that we mistake them not as S. Chrysostome vpon those words God repented crieth out See a grosse word not that God repented God forbid but God speaketh to vs according to the custome of man Likewise S. Augustine saith in respect of those words Iohn Baptist is Elias Our Lord spake figuratiuely but S. Ihon saying I am not Elias answered properly If now these words This is my body were figuratiue we should haue ben'e warned by the watchmen of God to beware of them and not require d to beleue them as now we are required yea we are so required to beleue them that it is wonderfull to see and to consyd er how earnestly the Doctours speake in that behalf S Basilius The certeintie of our Lords words who sayd This is my body which is geu en for yow make this thing for the remembrance of me ingender full persuasion Surely figuratiue words can not make ful persuasion because theÌ„ selues are imperfite as lackin g their proper signification which is the chiefe vertue of words whereby they should fully informe vs. for no figuratiue speache is so plaine as a proper speache is
Epiphanius Who so beleueth not the saying to be true as him self spake it is fallen from grace and saluation Cyrillus Hierosolymitatus Seing Christ him self affirmeth so and sayth of the bread This is my body Who hereafter may be so bolde as to doubte S. Ambrosius Our Lord Iesus him self geueth witnes vnto vs that we take his body and blood Ought we any thing to doubte of his fidelitie and witnesbearing S. Chrysostome Because our Lord sayd This is my body let vs be intangled with no doubtfulnes but let vs beleue and see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Eusebins Emissenns Let all doubtfulnes of infidelitie depart for so much as the author of the gift him self also is witnes of the truth S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Doubt not whether it be true sith Christ sayth manifestly This is my body But rather take y◠word of our Sauiour in faith for seing he is y◠truth he lieth not And againe Let vs take great aduantage by the synnes of other men Geuing stedfast faith vnto the mysteries Let vs neuer in so high matters either thinke or speake that word Quomodo How S. Gregorius Nazianzenus Eate the body and drink the blood without confusion or doubte if at the least thou arte desirouse of life Neither do thou withdraw faith from the sayings which concerne the flesh The same thing S. Hilary Leo Isychius Theophylact Paschasius and diuerse others haue spoken requiring vs not to doubte of the truth of this mysterie and that specially because Christes words make full persuasion and take away al occasion of doubting But if they be figuratiue it is not so for then one may vnderstand this kinde of figure an other that kinde One may thinke it to be a Metaphore An other that it is Synechdoche The third that it is Metonymia The fourth that it is altogether an Allegorie or parable and without all ground of Historie Others doubt not to expound This is my body as if it were sayd in this with this or vnder this or about this my body is Yea from that day wherein the proper and natural sense of those words was denied I thinke neuer any words haue bene more vncertayne and more doubted of then This is my body Yet the Fathers were so farre from this vncertaintie that they counted him an infidell and ◅allen from grace and saluation who so did not beleue them euen as Christ spake them To wit euen so as they sound at the first sight If the truth of Christes body be the reall substance thereof they that intreating of the Eucharist affirme y◠truth of his flesh must nedes meane that his substance is really present in that Sacrament whereof they speake S. Hilarius speaking of the holy mysteries sayth There is left no place of doubting of the truth of flesh and blood Yet surely if the substance of flesh and blood were not present not only some place but the chief place of doubting were left S. Ambrosius It is the true flesh of Christ which we take Doubt ye nothing at all sayeth Leo concerning the truth of Christes body By like he spake to Catholikes for doubtlesse the Sacramentaries doubt so vehemently thereof that they beleue the truth of Christes body to be only at the right hand of his Father Isychius He receaueth by ignorance who knoweth not this to be the body and blood according to the truth Damascenus The bread and wine is not the figure of Christes body and blood God forbid But it is the self deified body of our Lorde The like assertion Theophylact Euthymius and diuerse other Fathers haue They that name the supper of Christ a figure a Sacrament or a remembrance do not therby exclude the true substāce of Christes flesh but they meane to shew that it is present vnder the signe of an other thing after a mysticall and secret maner S. Cyprian The diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it self in the visible Sacrament S. Hilarius We take in dede the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie Lo the flesh the substance of God is present in truth but vnder a signe Ty◅illus Hierosolymitanus Vnder the figure of bread the body is geuen to thee Who now knowing the Sacrament to consist of two parts wil wonder that sometyme it is named of the one and sometyme of the other S. Augustine The body and blood of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which is visibly receaued in the Sacrament be in the truth it self eaten spiritually B◅holde there is a thing in the Sacrament and so really it is there that it is visibly receaued Therefore it is not a spirituall thing only for no such matter is visibly receaued but it is there and thence it must be eaten spiritually and in y◠truth it self That is to say it must not only be taken into the mouth but into the hart also then it shal be life vnto the receauer This thing so receaued in the Sa cramēt must nedes be the body of Christ vnder y◠forme of bread for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually It were to rediouse to allege all that S. Augustine hath writen in this behalf but his other words being conferred with these wil make it plaine that whensoeuer he nameth it a figure he meaneth the truth hidden vnder a figure which is more shortly named a mysticall figure He that allegeth cause why the flesh and blood of Christ is not seen in the mysteries presupposeth albeit an vnuisible yet a most reall presence thereof S. Ambrose sayth it is not seen in his owne forme Vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis To th' end there may be no lothsome abhorring of raw blood and yet that the price of our redemption may work So that by his iudgement the truth of blood is present to worke in vs the effect of Christes death and yet the foorm of blood is not seen because we should not abhorre to drink it Theophylact Although it seme bread to vs it is chaunged by vnspeakable operation Because we are weake and abhorre to eat rawe flesh specially the flesh of a man and therefore it semeth bread but in dede it is flesh If these words can be glosed with a figure then I know not what shall escape the hands of these figure makers They that acknowledge a change of the substāce of bread into Christes body must nedes meane a real presence of that body whereinto the change is made When Iustinus Martyr denyeth vs to take the things consecrated as common bread and drinke shewing also that we haue learned them to be not only sanctified in qualitie but to be the flesh and blood of Christ which is an other substance he doth vs to vnderstand that he meaneth them not to be after consecration the substance of common
them Therefore in this behalfe we are clere as who neuer departed from the Apostles nor froÌ„ their 〈◊〉 â–ª But your departing is knowen I 〈◊〉 that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berengarius about the yere of our Lord. 1000. I can tell when 〈◊〉 renewed the same heresy when Luther when Zwinglius began Who knoweth not where the Churches are whence they depâ—…rted To wit in Italy in France in Spaine in Germany so forth I can tell the CouÌ„cels wherin it hath bene condemned At 〈◊〉 at Uercels at Tours in the great Councel of Lateran at â—…iemia in Feance at Basill at Constance at Florence at Trent All things are knowen so manifestly concerning the begiuning and proceding of the Sacramentaries that they can not be denied To couclude our faith is 〈◊〉 by the testimonie of yâ— Church which in al ages hath beleued yâ— real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in so much that S. Hilary saith there is no place left of douting of the veritie of Christes fleshe blood why so nunâ—… enim ipsius Domini professione fide nostra verè 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 verè sanguis est â–ª for now both by the profession of our Lord him self by our faith it is fleshe in dede and blood in dede Lo By our Lordes profession and by our faith S. Hilary confesseth that all Christians beleued that the SacrameÌ„t of Cjroâ—…tes body and blood whereof he there spake was his fleshe in dede and his blood in dede for he had spoken before of the Sacrament which be called also a mystcrie and our Lords meate and the Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to vs which Sacrament is Christes fleshe in dede and being receaued maketh the same fleshe naturally and corporally to dwell in vs. This was not only the minde of S. Hilary but he saith it was the profession of our Lord and the faith of the Churche whiche two groâ—…ids are so sure that no place of douting is left For the faith of the â—…hurch doth expound declare witnesse how Christ our Lord ment when he said my flesh is meate in dede This faith can not be vayne or voide for by it we ouercomme the world the deuyl and hel gates By it we know the difference betwene these words This is my body and these I am the dore the vine the way the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias and such like For no man taught in any age neither ChristiaÌ„ people did at tyme beleue that Christ was a material dore vine or way neither that any rock was turned into Christ neither that Ihon Baptist was Elias in person Faith always did vnderstand these propositioÌ„s and such like to be a phrase of speaking without any effect of working any farther thing But when a lawfull Priest saith vppon bread at the altar This is my body then no faithâ—…ul man euer douted but there was wrought the body and blood of Christ. and so our fathers and great grandfathers deliuered to vs that belefe Certainly a surer rule to vnderstand the word of God then faith is neuer was heard of for it is the life and graâ—… of the new testament which the holy Ghost hath geuen into the whole Church of God It is the gift of knowlege to euery good beleuer which directeth him to al truth S. Augustine shewing that the Manichees thought the visible sonne to be Christ although he might by many meanes haue impugned that errour yet he specially chose to say Catholicae Ecclesiae recta fides improbat tale commentum diabolicam doctrinam esse cognoscit credendo The right faith of the Catholike Church disproued that fable and knoweth it by beleuing to be a deâ—…ylish doctrine Euen so by beleuing the Sacrament of the altar to be Christes true flesh we know the doctrine of the Sacramentaries to be a fable aud an heresy Epiphanius writing of purpose against figuratiue and allegoricall interpretatious geueth likewise a most clere witnesse of the belefe of all the Church in his tyme and before him For disputing what it is for man to be made according to the image of God He shewith at the last whatsoeuer it be once it is true because God through grace hath geuen man that image Though we can not tell wherein it standeth And for example he bringeth how Christe tooke at his last supper bread and wine and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body and this is my blood 〈◊〉 Epiphanius nameth not these things because the 〈◊〉 should not by his bookes vnderstaÌ„d our mysteries coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he sheweth that the thing coÌ„secrated is not like neither to the manhod of Christ nor to his Godhead For it is of a shape and to looke vnto a dead or vnsensible thing yet Christ by grace hath said This is my body and This is my blood Et nemo non fidem habet sermoni Qui â—…nim non credit esse ipsum verum sicut ipse dixit is excidit à gratia salute and euery man beleueth the saying For who so doth not beleue the saying as him selfe said it he is fallen from grace and saluation If the word saying be this is my body this is my blood If euery man beleue the saying if he that beleueth not the saying to be true and so to be true euen as Christ spake it as he sounded it as he vttered it if he that beleueth not these things be fallen from grace and saluation who wil now beleue that this is the signe of my body and not the truth thereof and then he must say likewise that in dede we are not made according to the image of God Euery man in the tyme of Epiphanius did beleue not only yâ— truth of Christes body blood in heauen nor only the dwelling thereof in vs by faith but euery man did beleâ—…e this selfe saying this speache and this proposition This is my body If this saying must be beleued it must be true if the speache it selfe be true the thing thereby signified is true But the wordes doe signifie the substance of Christes body for his body is a substance therefore it is true yâ— this is the substaÌ„ce of Christes body But if it be still bread it is not so for material bread is not the body of Christ therefore it is so the substance of his body that it is not bread or wine which is the signe of his body as the Sacramentaries teach In this saying This is my body no bread is named no signe no figure â—…ut only the selfe body of Christe which is one certaine substance Therefore all the Church in the tyme of Epiphanius and alwaies before did beleue the thing pointed vnto in those words to be the substaÌ„ce of Christes body For how so euer it semed vnsensible as also it is not sene how we are made according to yâ— image of God yet yâ— saying was beleued euen
as Christ said it sicut ipse dixit as him selfe said it without glosing without additioÌ„s without figures orparables euen as Christ spake it so it was beleued and beleued of euery man And who so did not beleue it was rekoned a damned person without grace without saluation without life euerlasting Thus haue we heard two notable witnesses of the faith of the whole Churche the one a Latine S. Hilarius the other a grecian Epiphanius But now I will bring foorth not as before the old Fathers bearing witnesse of the belefe of the people but I will bring foorth the whole people it selfe yea the people of the primatine Church You shall heare al the citizens of the house of God through out the world witnessing with one voice in one word their most constaÌ„t faith touching the Sacrament of the altar Amen is an hebrew word which partly wisheth and partly affirmeth signifying as it were at once be it so and it is so It signifieth be it so when it is ioyned with praiers and petitions It signifieth it is so when it foloweth any parte of Christes doctrine which is alredy pronounced or affirmed Thence we reade so oft in holy scripture Amen amen I say vnto you which is to say verely verely S. James the Apostle S. Iustin the martyr S. Clement S. Cyrill of Hicrusalem S. Basil S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostom doe witnesse that the people vsed at Masse tyme to answer Amen Which thing they did specially twise once at the consecration as well of the body as of the blood and againe at the tyme of communion At the consecration the Priest in the person of Christ pronounceth most determinatly ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my bloood Therefore when the people answer to those blessed sayings Amen they affirme the same that is affirmed as though they said with one voice It is verely the body of Christ and it is verely the blood of Christ whereof you speak And least you should thinke this coÌ„ment to be of myne making S. Ambrose expounded yâ— same word before me saying Ipse clamat dominus Iesus hoc est corpus meuÌ„ our Lord Iesus him selfe crieth this is my body He calleeh the crying of our Lord when his minister crieth so in his name For of that crying he speaketh as it may appere by the word folowing Wel Our Lord Iesus him self crieth out this is my body before the blessing of yâ— heauenly words it is named another kind after consecration that body is signified him self calleth it his own blood before consecration it is called an other thing after consecration it is called blood and thou sayest Amen that is to say as S. Ambrose him selfe expoundeth it verum est it is true That the mouth speaketh let the inward mind confelse that the speache soundeth let the hart think Hitherto S. Ambrose who would not bid the people thinke that whiche the speache soundeth if the speache were figuratiue for a figuratiue speache soundeth otherwise then we ought to thinke thereof as when we say God is sory Christ is made synne the rok is Christ. As it was the custome of the primatiue Church for the people to say Amen straight vppon the consecration of the body and blood whereby they shewed them selues to beleue the wordes of Christ and the work of the Priest euen so was it also the custome that when the tyme of communion came as S. Clement and diâ—…erse others doe witnesse the Bishop should geue the oblation to the people saying â–ª Corpus Christi the body of Christ and he yâ— toke it should say Amen it is true And yâ— Deacon wheÌ„ he deliuered yâ— chalice did say sanguis Christi calix vitae â–ª yâ— blood of Christ yâ— chalice of life he that drank said Amen so it is or that is true To which custome being in vse at his tyme S. Ambrose alluding writeth thus Dicit tibi Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis amen hoc est verum quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The Priest saith to thee the body of Christ and thou saiest Amen that is true that which thy tonge confesseth let thy hart kepe But what speake I of S. Ambrose Would the Apostles haue made all the people to cry amen to that which had not bene so as the word did sound Would they haue made the simple men to witâ—…esse their belefe to such words as neded a farther commeÌ„t or interpretation It is rather to be thought yea to be most assuredly beleued that they ordeined that custome to thend all men might know that the thing consecrated vppon the altar was in dede the body of Christ S. Augustine beareth witnesse to the same custome saying Habet magnam vocem Christi sanguis in terra cùm eo accepto ab omnibus gentibus respondetur Amen the blood of Christ hath a greate voice in earth when after it is taken all nations aunswere amen Haec est clara vox sanguinis quam sauguis ipse exprimit ex ore fidelium eodem sanguine redemptorum This is the cleere voice of the blood the which voice the blood it selfe forceth out of the mouth of the faithfull being redemed with the same blood Pope Leo the greate agreeth with S. Clement S. Ambrose and S. Augustine Sic sacrae mensae communicare debetis caeâ—… Ye ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and blood of Christe for yâ— thing is taken in the mouth which is beleued in faith And Amen is in vayne answered of them who dispute against that which is receaued This place declareth that some disputation was moued by some of the heresy of Manicheus who liued in Rome vnder Leo against the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the forme of bread For seing the Maniches beleued not Christ to haue a true body at all they might well doubt of the truth of his body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar But that holy Bishop biddeth the people not doubt thereof shewing that we do not eate the body of Christ only by faith but also by mouth Now because Leo setteth the receauing of the truth of Christes body by mouth against the receauing thereof by faith only we may coniecture that heretikes euen in those days were of the mind that their ofspring is now of verily to draw as much truth from Christes works as may be and to set all things vpon faith spirit and vnderstanding But Leo proueth his doctrine by the generall custome of the whole Church â–ª wherein the people answering Amen did in open words witnesse them selues to beleue that it was true which the Priest sayd concerning the body of Christ. Now because some of them who vsed to say Amen disputed whether the substance and truth of Christes body were present in the mouthes of
the receauers or no that Shepherd of Christes flok sayth that if it were not his true body and receaued in the mouth it were in vaine to say Amen It is true For seing the Priest bringing meate vnto their mouthes did say The body of Christ if notwithstanding it were only to be receaued in hart not in mouth also it were in vaine to say Amen or to answere it is so it is true and yet to think in hart otherwise To end this matter at the length The whole Church before Berengarius beleued the reall presence and they toke that their belefe of their auncestours from hand to hand euen vntill we come to the Apostles and by them to Christ. In the primatiue Church the Priest cried out at the altar This is my body and this is my blood All the people answered it is so It is true S. Ambrose biddeth them think as they speake yea euen as the word soundeth S. Leo sayth they say in vaine it is true if they dispute against the truth thereof And he teacheth the truth to be that the same thing is receaued in the mouth which is beleued in faith S. Hilary sayeth No place of doubting is left sith both by our Lords profession and by our faith it is verily flesh and verily blood Epiphanius witnesseth that euery man beleueth our Lords saying wherein he sayd This is my body And who so doth not beleue it eueÌ„ as him self spake it he is fallen from gracâ—… and saluation Seing all these things doe euidently proue the faith of the whole Church to haue bene that Christes body and blood was really present in the Sacrament of the altar and really receaued into the mouthes of the faithfull people it remaineth that thosâ—… who haue bene deceaued in this behalf do returne agaiâ—…e to their former belefe and that as wel in al other points as iâ—… this they do for euer beleue the Catholike Church the piller of truth Knowing for surety that it can not be a Catholiâ—…e doctrine which is begun in our age or any tyme after thâ—… preaching of the Apostles and that specially when it is conâ—…rary to the faith always preached and beleued ¶ That no man possibly can be condemned for beleuing the body of Christ to be really present in the Sacrament of the altar WHen Christe had almost ended his talke at Capharnaum and shewed his wordes to be spirit and life perceauing all the fault why the Iewes thought his sayinges so absurde to be for so much as they estemed him no more then a naturall man weighing his doctrine by theyr senses earthely reason he for declaration of theyr incurable dyssease for the detection of the cause thereof sayd Sed sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt But there are some of you who beleue not For Iesus knewe from the beginning who they where which beleued not Here we may see the chefe fault in all matter and question of the supper of Christ to consist in not beleuing He that beleueth is safe but wo to him that beleueth not S. Peter beleueth and confesseth Christ to haue the wordes of euerlasting life Iudas beleueth not and therefore he is called a deuil The chefe point of ChristiaÌ„ belefe is to acknowlege Christ to be God to be almighty to be able to make and to doe what soeuer pleaseth him This point he lacketh who so denieth Christ to be able to make the substance of his owne body present in diuerse places at once vnder diuerse formes of bread and wine If â—…herefore any man wil not beleue this he may be assured his portioâ—… is rekned with Iudas who as Leo hath witnessed beleued not thâ—… almighty power and Godhead of Christ. But if all men agree 〈◊〉 this point it is very well then let vs passe to the nexte Christ said â–ª The bread which I will geue is my flesh the which I will geue for tâ—…e life of the world Now are we come from the power of Chist to the will of Christ. We all were agreed that he was able to make the substance of his body present vnder diuerse formes of bread and wine Nowe these wordes affirme that he will geue a kind of bread the substance whereoâ—… is his own flesh euen that flesh the which he will geue for the life of the world And if we goe to his last supper we see bread taken and after blessing and thankes geuen he said This is my body which is geuen for you And he gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragmeÌ„tes or peeces bidding euery one of them take and eate in which deede he sheweth him self to make the substance of his body present vnder the formes of bread in diuerse places at one tyme allthough not after the manner of locall situation because his body hath not in the Sacrament actually that naturall dimention and occupying of place which it hath otherwise But as he hath ordeined it to be so is it vnder twelue diuerse formes of bread Here I am sure many will stand with me and say they beleue not so to whom I answere yâ— by so saying they haue condemned them selues to be of those of whom Christ said there are some of yow who beleue not For yf Christ said by yâ— which was bread before his blessing which still seemed bread yf Christ said thereof this is my bodie gaue it vnder twelue peeces or formes seing they confesse him to be able to make his body present vnder diuerse formes and to haue promised to geue his flesh and to haue said this is my body and to haue geuen it to twelue how can they deny that his body was present at that supper vnder twelue diuerse formes of bread being whole and all vnder eche forme The confessing of that which Christ said is a thing that apperteineth vnto faith because the speaker is God to whom all faith beloÌ„geth To beleue this that God saith must nedes be a vertue and to discredite it is a great vice You will perhap allege that fleshe profiteth nothing the wordes of Christ are spirit and life â–ª that is true therefore I beleue that when he said take eate this is my body he gaue his body not without life spirit but yet as really as euer by saying Let the light be made he made yâ— light for his wordes be not dead flesh which profiteth nothing but quicken and geue lyfe how and when so euer it pleaseth hym muche better then the spirit and soule of man is able to quicken make liuely the body wherein it is These two sayinges this is my body and my wordes are spirit and life stande so well together that I beleue the one for the others sake Christes words neuer lacke spirit and life and power to quicken other thinges euen as his flesh neuer lacked al kynd of spirit in it selfe for when the soule was out of
is made S. Mathew then proueth it not neither S. Marke And whereas S. Luke and S. Paule witnesse that Christ said make this thing for the remembrance of me albeit that was spoken to the Apostles yet it is not thereby proued that the successors of the Apostles maie doe it Then cometh he to the later words which M. Iuel citeth Non potest igitur per vllam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cum nec istud in scripturis contineatur It can not therefore be proued by any scripture what can not be proued M. Iuel gâ—…ue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it can not What can not Iuel D. Fisher saieth the carnall presence can not be proued neither by these wordes this is my body nor by any other San. Then you make carnal presence the nomninatiue case to the verbe Potest but D. Fysher spake not thereof The whole speache which foloweth is that whereof he speaketh to wit that either a lay man or a priest shall when he attempteth it make the body and blood of Christ of bread and wine as well as Christ did that thing can not be proued for asmuch as it is not conteined in the scriptures But it followeth after that by yâ— interpretation and practise of so long time the holy gost hath expounded to vs these words Hoc facite make this thing in such wise that the successours of the Apostles may consecrate Christes body and blood How manie enormouse faultes haue you committed here in M. Iuel first D. Harding affirmed these words This is my bodie to teache a reall presence But B. Fisher spake of these wordes Make this thing and not of the words This is my bodie 2. D. Harding spake of the real presence whiche wyll manifestlie be proued if any sacrament at all be commaunded to be made by Christ. D. Fisher spake of this point whether any man had authoritie by the scripture to make any sacrament at al or no. 3. D. Harding spake of Christes wordes B. Fisher of our doinges 4. B. Fisher neuer doubted but that these wordes This is my body when thei were spoken by christ or his Apostles made and proued the re al presence of his bodie and blood But he asketh of heretiks how thei can proue by only scriptures that any man after the Apostles is able to make the supper of Christ not that he douted of the thing it selfe but he asketh for the prouf thereof out of the new testament Now for M. Iuel to cite B. Fishers words leauing out the nominatiue case which immediatly folowed and to supply a false nominatiue case neuer thought of by B. Fysher it is a figure of a man that hath repelled al good coÌ„science and therefore it is no woÌ„der if he haue erred in faith not caring what he writeth so he maie be counted lerned in their eies that know neither greeke nor latin neither verb nor nominatiue case Iuel M. Hardings frendes D. Smith D. Stephen Gardener c. can not agree vppon the termes naturally or sensually c. San. Where is the word of god M. Iuel whereof you boast so much are B. Fysher and D. Smith and D. Gardener your Euangelistes to them now you flie to answere S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule you haue forbidden vs all the fathers of these nine hundred yeres and shall it be lawfull for you to answere the words of the blessed Euangelists by a cauil moued vppon men of our age al who are wel knowen to haue condemned your opinon for heresie and al thes beleue that naturall presence which you impugne And that which you bring concerning the sense of the termes naturallie sensually or so foorth is 〈◊〉 ke moued only concerning the maner of signifying Christes reall presence which is no weighty mater when the real presence it selfe is once agreed vppon Iuel This article cannot be proued by the old doctours as M. Harding graunteth by his silence Sander If it be proued by Christ whome D. Hardinge citeth what nede a better doctour and yet he briugeth also moe doctours then you haue answered to as it shal appere afterward Iuel The question is not of Christes words but of his meaning which must be coÌ„sidered chefely as the Lawiers and S. Augustine saie Christ meant not this to be his bodie reallie Sander S. Hilarie disputing against the Arrians whome he intended to confute by the natural presence of Christes bodie taken by vs really in the sacrament made this preface to his talke coÌ„cerning yâ— words wherein Christ praied that the faithful might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christe in hym Aut fortè qui verbuÌ„ est significationeÌ„ verbi ignorauit et qui veritas est loqui vera nesciuit et qui sapientia est in stultiloquio errauit et qui virtus est in ea fuit infirmitate ne posset eloqui quae vellet intelligi loquutus planè ille est vera syncera fidei Euangelicae Sacramenta neque soluÌ„ loquutus est ad significationem sed etiaÌ„ ad fidem docuit ita dlcens vt omnes vnum sint sicut tu pater in me et ego in te vt et ipsi vnum sint in nobis Either perhaps doth he which is the word not know the signification of the word and doth not he which is the truthe know to speake true things hath he which is the wisdom erred in folish speaking and is he which is the power of such 〈◊〉 that he can not vtter those things which he wold haue vnderstanded he hath spokeu plainlie the true and syncere mysâ—…eries of the faith of the gospel Nâ—…ither hath he spoken only for significations sake but also he hath taught for faiths sake saying thus that all may be one as thou O Father art in me and I in thee they also may be one in vs. If then Christ much more in his last supper spake in such sort that he did not only signifie his minde but also taught vs the faith of the Sacrament what a folly is it to pretend that he spak otherwise then he meant Specially sith in this place we are so farre from any circumstance which may hinder the proper meaning of Christs speach yâ— these words which is geuen for you doe put yâ— matter out of al dout as D. Harding hath told you before and that is further proued inuincibly after this sorte This is my bodie which is geuen for you but my body geuen for you is real substantiall natural therefore this is so This argument can not be answered except ye say the signe of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. For yâ— participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in english geue
and found a man in figure not in substance that is to say not in flesh Thus did the Marcionite reason out of the word of God it selfe to proue that Christ was not true man as M. Iuel now because the Fathers name the figure of the body would disproue the true body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t But what answereth â—…rtullian Quasi non figura caet as though the figure and likenes and shape be not also ioyned to the substance So say we the figure whereof we dispute is ioyned to the substance of Christes body so that yâ— body signe of the breade make both but one perfite Sacrament or mysticall figure And that I will proue yet more plainly out of this very place of Tertullian who speaketh moste literally of bread as it was an old figure of Christes body whereof in Hieremie it was said let vs put the word of the â—…rosse into his bread to wit vpoÌ„ his body Christ theÌ„ fulfilling the old figures fecit panem corpus suum made the bread his body as Tertullian saith If he did so it could not tary bread any longer For as ayer being once made fier tarieth no more ayer so can not the bread whiche is made Christes body be any longer the substance of bread This grouÌ„d being put whiche is most true and it is expressed in Tertullian himselfe goe you forward and say this is the figure of my body as long as you wil yet the ground of that figure can not be the substance of bread sith it is made alredie the body of Christ and consequently the substance of Christe it selfe being made of the substance of bread and mystically conteined vnder the forme of bread is that figure of Christe him selfe walking visibly and suffering death where of Tertullian speaketh By this meane the worde is fastened into his bread as Hieremie said because his bread and his body is all one Iuel After consecration saith S. Ambrose the hody of Christ is signified San. S. Ambrose doth speake of that signification whiche is made whiles the Priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum this is my body Our Lord Iesus him selfe saith S. Ambrose crieth out this is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named an other kind after coÌ„secration the body is signified The which place wel vnderstaÌ„ded doth vtterly ouerthrow your figuratine opimon For S. Ambrose presseth vpon the signification óf these words this is my body and this is my blood The body saith he is signified the blood is named by mouth and this signification is made when Christ or his minister doth consecrate by these heauenly words Now immediatly before he said Quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur What say we of the selfe consecration of God where the self words of yâ— Lord our Sauiour do work Now put together M. Iuel The words of our Sauiour do signify his body blood and yâ— selfe words doe worke verily them selues caÌ„ worke none other thing then they signifie therefore the wordes of our Sauiour which doe signifie Christes body and blood doe worke and make the same body and blood That is the signification whereof S. Ambrose speaketh The which his meaning when you dissemble you shew your selfe to be an enemie of the truthe Iu. I am oppressed with the multitude of witnesses San. As for these witnesses that say the Sacrament is a figure be no witnesses to your belefe because they proue your intent as well as if a man would proue by solenâ—…e witnesses that I had no soule because I hauc a body For whereas a Sacrament consisteth of two parts of an â—…uisible grace and of a visible signe whereas the inuisible grace of the Sacrament of Christes supper is the substance of his body made present to vnite vs to him and the visible signe thereof is the form of bread whosoeuer nameth that Sacrament a signe or a figure whether he meane both the grace and the signe or the signe alone certeinly he nâ—…er meaneth to deny the substaâ—…ciall presence of Christes body which is the chefe part of the same Sacrament Iu. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steede of the things signified San. It is more a miserable bondage and death to exponud the things them selues for the signes as you doe S. Augustine meaneth of such a kind of signes when â—…ither the thing that appeareth to be signified is not at all true according to the letter as when God is said to be angrie or to repent or els wheÌ„ the thing signified is absent in substance as it was in the old sacrifices which yet the Iewes estemed as if they had bene the truth As therefore he that being athirst if he come to the yuie bush it selfe goe no further he should thereby neuer the more be filled with drincke so if a man come to an vnproper or to a bare signe he is miserably deceaued as those are who come to you for holy orders who were not your selues laufully ordeined Bishopes But as if a glasse of wine staÌ„d in the window to signifie what kind of wine is to be sold he that cometh to that signe may quenche his thirst because the substance whiche is signified to be sold is also there conteined so he that cometh to yâ— holy signes instituted by Christ he shal haue the truth of the signe really present and really geuen to him He that commeth to baptime is in dede borne by the vertue of that Sacrament and â—…e that commeth to our Lordes table shall â—…ate by his mouth therein the bread of life really present ¶ That the supper of Christe is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries HArding The Sacramentaries hold opinion that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament but in a figure signe or token only Iuel M. Harding vniustly reporteth of vs. San. I must say to you in this case M. Iuel as S. 〈◊〉 said to the Arrians who called Christ Dominum the Lord but yet denied him to be God Dominum licet nuncupes dominum tamen esse non dicis quia tibi ex communi genere potius familiari nomine quâm ex natura sit Dominus Albeit you name him Lorde yet you meane him not to be the Lorde Because he is a Lord to you rather by a commoÌ„ kind and a familiar name then by nature Euen so pretend what honorable opinion or doctrine you list of Christes supper as long as by nature and substance you thinke not that externall gift to be his body which him selfe called so you rather 〈◊〉 it by a better name then meane it to be any better thing then a bare signe and figure Ebion although he denied Christes Godhead yet as Epiphanius telleth he
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
omnipotencie alone as you caâ—…ill ¶ Whether the Catholiks or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the words belonging to Christes supper HArding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his very body the Fathers say it is really in the Sacrament Iuel A thing is taken to make prouf which is doubtfull and the antecedent is vnproued Sand. Sayd not Christ take eate this is my body Say not the Euangelists that he gaue vnto his Apostles How then is the antecedent vnproued Iuel The Fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image caet Therefore Christes words may be taken with a Metaphore trope or figure San. It standeth well together to be a signe and the truthe As Christ is the image of God and yet also God The higher euery signe or image is the lesse it differeth from the truth and therefore the figure of Christes body and blood differeth in form but not in substance from Christ him self and so albeit the Sacra ment be a figure yet the words this is my body be not tropâ—…call or vnproper Iuel Euen Duns saw that folowing the bare letter we must nedes say that the bread itself is Christes body San. Thinke you any man doth beleue you without allegiâ—…g the place who haue abused so many Fathers already Or â—…row you we speÌ„d so much time in reading Duns that we know all that is in him Iuel So the words stand This bread is my body San. Where stand they so Is it writen in any place of the Ghospell this bread is my body And yet you say the words stand so I think it be so in your Ghospell but surely it is not so in ours Iuel They saâ—… this meant not this bread but one certein thing in generall San. I haue shewed how it is taken in my 4. booke in the 4. 5. and. 6. Chapiter it can not signifie bread by any meanes Neither doth it only signifie in generall as you say but it signifieth that which is conteined vnder the forme of bread Iuel Est they expound erit it shal be San. It is a shameful pleasure that this man hath in falshod For we beleue that Christ toke this word est is to consecrate his body withall because of all words it signifieth a most present being of a thing And for asmuch â—…s God worketh in a moment or at the instant of his word he chose to say this is my body foorth with making it so as S. Chrysostom Gregorie Nyssen affirme But he wold not say this shal be my body which had bene a promise only and not the working or making of the mysterie Iuel Erit they expound the substance of this vncertaine generall one thing shal be changed San. These interpretations be false neither is the substance vncertein which is chaunged For the substance of the bread is changed and that because Christ affirmeth that which was bread before he spake at the end of his speache to be his body to whose voice the substance of bread geueth place to what him list Iuel Is geuen they expound shal be geuen San. What a vaine tale is this seing we vppon the present gist shâ—…w an vnbloody sacrifice euen preâ—…ently made and therefore we vrge always this is my body which is geuen for you Although it be also true that it shal be geuen and both are true together the one in the supper concerning the vnbloody sacrifice the other on the crosse concerning the bloody sacrifice but yet against heretikes we vrge most the present gift This man by mocking vs semeth to say that Christes body was not geuen at all For at the supper he will not graunt a sacrifice And he mocketh at datur for dabitur Yet if it be meant of the crosse it must be so expounded of him self it is geuen that is to say it shal be geuen it is broken is in the same condition with is geuen Iuel Doe ye this they expound sacrifice ye this San. Nay Sir They hauing first controuled your English as imperfit though not false afterward will haue hoc facite also to signifie make this thing to wit make my body The making of which sacrificed substance must nedes be always a sacrifice I haue spoken hereof in my iiij booke the. xiij Chapiter Iuel This bread they expound this that was bread San. You should name the place where we so expound it For according to the circumstance it may be so taken But much rather we take it for this food which is the body of Christ after consecration Iuel These verbs he tooke he blessed he brake he gaue stand together and rule one case San. They stand together in order of writing but not in order of doing For if Christ had not sayd this is my body before he had broken S. Paule wold not haue sayed the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body For it commeth of the word of God this is my body that it is the communicating of Christes body If then the words of 〈◊〉 were spoken before the breaking what wonder you 〈◊〉 the thing that was taken being changed we change the construction of those verbs which folow the change Iuel He toke bread he blessed it away San. You iest But in dede we teache not the bread to be annihilated or done away but to be changed into a better substance For blessing bestowed vppon a creature is the abettering of it Which is not done without some change Now if the thing pronounced at the tyme of blessing by God be an other substance the former nature by blessing is then changed in substance God blesse me from such a man who scoâ—…th at the holy mysteries Iuel He brake the accidents San. That is true because there was none other thing left after consecration to be broken And that you wold confesse if you thought Christ to haue vsed a proper kind of speache which allways you ought to think if it may possibly be defended as it may and must in the words of the supper So that the chief question is of those words this is my body The rest must be ruled by them Iuel He gaue his body San. We beleue it a meter gift for Christ then to geue common bread Iuel Vppon these few words of Christ thus many figures and moe they haue imagined Sand. Is it not 〈◊〉 sayd of you vppon these few words of Christ as though all these were Christes own words whereas the foure verbs be all writen of the Euangelists but neuer a one of them spoken by Christ. which thing S. Ambrose also hath noted but D. Harding spake only of Christes words wherein he 〈◊〉 his body in al which you haue yet found neuer a figure for this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing are all proper words and
true in shape in form in quantitie and qualitie Christ was made man in dede borne in dede he grew and walked vpon the earth in dede according to the true and visible nature and forme of man He suffered death in the same forme and did shed his blood apart from his fleshe Now marke when it pleased him to depart out of this world he woulde haue all these thinges beleued of vs remembred of vs and folowed as our weakenes through his grace might suffer In cōsideration whereof he iustituted a Sacramēt of his own body and blood Of which body Of that which he had taken which was but one The first point of this Sacrament must be saith S. Augustine that it haue a certaine likenes or similitude with Christes own body and blood and consequently that likenes shall make it to haue the name it selfe What is the likenes in the sacrament of Christes supper betwene it and the naturall body of Christ Seeke as long as you are able M. Iuel prie and serche neuer so intierly you shall find the likenes to be in this point specially that the substance of Christes body blood not hauīg any outward image made of them are made presēt vnder the forme of an other thing are so made present that thereby all the highe mysteries of Christes visible body are mystically set before the faith of the true beleuer Christ being the sonne of God was made man by turninge some of the purest blood of the virgin Marie into his own flesh and blood and that was done without the sede of man by the vertue of the worde and power of the whole Trinitie through the ministery of the Archangel Gabriell euen so the purest creatures of bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ and turned into the substance of them not by generation corruption but by the vertue of these wordes This is my body Which thing y◠who le Trinitie worketh by the ministerie of the Priest who is the Angel of Christ. Christ thus borne and hauing walked in his flesh came to die vpon the crosse where his blood was diuided from his flesh the soule from the body but the Godhead taried stil with both right so this sacrament hath the body consecrated vnder one kind the blood vnder an other kind and they are adored of the saithfull a part yet the person which is one whereunto they are vnited and the Godhead in that person causeth the two partes to make but one Sacrament and the whole to be vnder eche kind Thus the likenes whiche is not in form but in substance and in the consecration of true faith betwene Christ him self and this sacrament maketh this sacrament to be called his body blood although in al respectes it be not so Upon whiche ground S. Hierom saith Dupliciter sanguis Christi caro intelligitur c. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstanded two waies either that spiritual and diuine whereof him self said my flesh is truly meate and my blood is truly drinke and except ye eate my fleshe and drinke my blood ye shall not haue euerlasting life or els the fleshe which was cru cified and the blood which was shed with the speare of the soldiour Thus haue we one fleshe and blood in substance consydered vnderstanded two waies and that not falsely vnderstanded as the Sacramentaries imagine but truely and in dede For a false vnderstanding is hated of God This difference and this likenes is also noted in the present words of S. Augustin when he saith Christ was once offered in him self Note the worde in him selfe to wit in his visible shape form and truth as wel of substance as of quātity the same Christ is dayly offered in a sacramēt Are not these S. Augustines words ▪ Christ is offered in him self Christ is offered in a Sacrament is it not all one Christ or is Christe diuided No no al is one substāce but the m◅ner is not al one And farther note very dyligently good Reader that of the two immolations or offeringes the one is referred to the other The one is the signe token figure Sacrament of the other And therfore the one is but once done because it was y◠great immolation which absolutely fulfilled al the law prophets and it was made vppon the Crosse. The other being made in the Sacramēt sheweth kepeth preserueth and applieth daily the fruits of that one oblation but Christ is alwaies one in bothe Now this likenes of the Incarnation and passion of Christ made and represented to the faithfull by the Sacrament of the altar causeth it to be called the body blood of Christ. And therefore S. Augustine concludeth The Sacrament of Christes body according to a certain maner is the body of Christ. M. Iuel englisheth these wordes according to his maner falsely corruptly and ignorantly he turneth Secundum quendam modum after a certaine Phrase or maner or trope or figure of speache True it is that modus doth signifie a maner or meane Again it may be sometime y◠the maner is tropicall or figuratiue but now it is not so meant And that is proued two waies First because S. Augustine saith the Sacrament of the body of Christ according to a certein manner est is the body of Christ. he saith not only it is called the body after a certain manner but it is the body Therefore the manner that that he speaketh of is in the Sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof and not only in the phrase or trope or figure of speache as M. Iuel would haue it Againe the name whiche the Sacrament taketh is geuen as S. Augustine saith according to a likenes which is betwene the Sacrament and the thing it selfe That likenes then must be first in the Sacrament really and afterward in respect of priority of nature though not in respect of tyme the name is geuen Seing then the likenes of things goeth before the likenes of names When S. Augustine saith the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christ according to a certain manner that manner must respect the likenes of the thinges before it respecte the likenes of names Therefore M. Iuel hath erred altogether in translating modum a phrase or manner of speache But first he should haue sought wherein the things were like for in dede the likenes in dinerse things is diuerse In one thing it is in substance as God the Father and his sonne are like equall and one in substance Yet because there is some difference in that they are diuerse persons the sonne is the figure of his Fathers substance according to a certaine manner to wit as he is a diuerse person but not as a diuerse substance In other things the substāce may differ also as the rock and Christe and
the qualitie alone may be like As when Christ is called the vine the doore the way But to coÌ„clude with this place of S. Augustine he saith the holy signes whiche are like vnto the truth take also the name of the truth he bringeth that rule to shew that a child baptized maie well be called â—…aithfull because although he beleue not actually yet he hath faith in yâ— he hath baptisme which iâ—… the Sacrament of faith For saith S. Augustine Sacramentum fidei quodammodo fides est The Sacrament of faith after a certaine manner is faith He saith not only it is called faith after a certain phrase of speache as M. Iuell would haue it but it is faith after a certaine manner of being and not only of speaking and that being or truth whiche yâ— infant hath â—…eceaued is so great that as it foloweth in S. Augustine the Sacrament shal be of strength to defende him froÌ„ the power of the deuill and from euerlasting damnation And iudge you M. Iuel that to be only a name not a truth which is able to bring the child to saluation It is faith and it is not faith as the Sacrament of the altar is Christes body and not Christes â—…ody It is not faith in actuall consent of the will It is faith in the vertue of that power which the Sacrament printeth in the soule of the iufant it is the habit of faith and not the act euen so the Sacrament of yâ— altar is the substance of Christes body not the outward forme thereof the thing it selfe and not the shape thereof The name therefore of faith is geuen to yâ— child in respect of a truth which by baptism is wrought in the child although it be not all the truth which is requisite to actuall beleuing And the Sacrament of Christes supper is called the body of Christe for the substance of the body which is present although it be not visibly present according to al the maÌ„ner of a true naturall mans bodie ¶ Of the signification of aduerbes HArding By these vvordes really substantially cae The Fathers ment only a truth of being not a meane of being after carnal or natural vvise Iuel Al aduerbes taken of nounes signifie euer more a quality and neuer the substance Sander An aduerbe hath his name because it is ioyned to the verb and it doth make plaine and fill vp the signification therof so that if the verb whereunto it is ioyned do signifie the substaÌ„ce of a thing the aduerbe maketh it to signify the same substance more perfectly as when the king Nabuchodonosor said to Daniel Verè deus vester deus deorum est Your God is verily the God of Gods The aduerb verily doth not signifie a qualitie as M. Iuel reporteth but it doth affirme most vehemently the substance of one God aboue all other Gods or iudges rulers And when the Centurion said this man was verily the sonne of God it is not to be meant that Christ was the sonne of God in â—…alitie at all but only in substance Now concerning that some aduerbes be taken of nounes it is to be knowen yâ— if they be taken of suche nounes as import rather a similitude of a substance then a real truth thereof in that case M. Iuels resolution will serue that they shall signifie the manner and qualitie of the thing as virilter doth signifie manly because it commeth of virilis whiche signifieth manlike and it commeth of vir which doth signifie rather the sexe then the substance of a man But when the nounes doe signifie the substance it selfe the aduerbes deriued of them must nedes draw with thâ—… the signification of the same substance as corporalis carnalis substantialis and naturalis be nounes which signifie a thing that belongeth to the body the flesh the substance the nature of yâ— wherof we speake and the aduerbes comming of them of necessitiâ—… must signifie the truth of that nature whereof we intreate But whether it shall signifie the qualitie also with the truthe that dependeth of the circumstance of the thing which is in hand For example Christe walked corporally vppon the water that saying must be vnderstaÌ„ded in the truth of a mans body but not in any such accustomed manner as other mens bodies are wont to walke vpon the water For there is no such manner of walking at all And whereas the aduerbe must be referred wholy to the verbe whose signification it maketh perfite that saying must be this resolued Christes bodily walking vpoÌ„ the water was a true walking concerning the truth of the flesh which did walke notwithstanding the manner of the walking did excede the qualitie of a mere â—…atural body Thus the aduerbes shall signifie the truth of the substance of a body walking and yet not the manner of walking belonging to a natural and true body Euen so when Syrill writeth that Christ dwelleth corporally also in vs and not only by right faith and charitie the meaning of him shal be that Christ in the true substance of his body dwelleth in vs although he dwell not in vs after suche manner as other naturall bodies of men dwel in the places where they are Thus M. Iuel is cast in his grammar also whereof he iâ—…iteth D. Harding But to thend his ignorance or malice may appere yâ— better I beseche the discrete Reader to consider the ods betwene D. Harding and M. Iuel D. Harding saieth when the Fathers teache Christ to be in vs carnally corporally or naturally for al these termes S. Hilary S. Cyrill haue then they meane that Christe is in vs by the true substance of his fleshe and not in suche manner as common flesh is wont to be any where This saying of D. Harding is so true yâ— he neuer thought it nedeful to proâ—…e it yet M. Iuell saith yâ— the Fathers must meane that Christ is in vs after a corporall carnall natural maÌ„ner not in substaÌ„ce For he saith aduerbs taken of nounes signifie euermore yâ— qualitie neuer yâ— substaÌ„ce Wel how think you then M. Iuel is Christ after a carnal sort in vs or no It is wel seen by your work yâ— you think nothing lesse For he yâ— graâ—…teth the manner of body or flesh much more should graunt if he were wise the nature substance thereof because it is not possible that the qualitie or manner of fleshe should be without the truth of flesh Sith no qualitie ordinarily consisteth of it selfe but only resteth in the substance of that thing whose qualitie it is But a substance may be without qualities as the substance of God is without all manner of accidents Now D. Harding affirmeth at the lest wise the truth of body and of fleshe to be meant by the Fathers without the common qualitie thereof Which thing may right well be so M. Iuel wil haue their sayings meant
Albeit he be spirituallie the true vine and the true Manna For seing he was not these things really thei can not be said of him really But he is man in dede and therefore offered in dede killed in dede buried in dede and eateÌ„ in dede For now as we beleue the real death of him so must we beleue the real â—…ting of him because the truth belonging to eche of them is to be taken according to the true nature of man whiche he toke And as it was mete for him to be killed in the shape of man so he would be eaten in the shape of bread Iu. S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the natural office of the body What preparest thou thy teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten Beleuing in him is the eating of the bread of life San. You are one of yâ— most impudent men that euer any creature had to doe withall S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes with whome Christe talked at Capharnaum who gaped for bodily meate and belly chere Now when Christ had said worke the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting S. Augustine saieth to the Iew who soughte to haue his bellie filled what preparest thou thy teeth M. Iuel knoweth that when Catholikes come to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar they whet not theyr teeth as if they came to a carnall banket but they beleue eate first by beleuing to th end they maie afterward eate by mouthe worthely And therefore S. Augustine confesseth vs to receaue Christ by mouth also but by a faithfull mouth not by a glotoâ—…ouse mouth His words are Hominem Christum Iesum caet fideli corde atque ore suscipimus We doe receaue with a faithful hart and mouth the man Iesus Christ geuing his fleshe vnto vs to be eaten and his blood to be drunk although it may seme more horriâ—…le to eate maÌ„s flesh theÌ„ to kil it drink mans blood then to shed it When S. Augustine saith we receaue Christ with a faithfull mouth he sheweth that â—…his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as M. Iuell most impudently saith but he meaneth we should not come to the Sacrament for to satisfie our bodily hunger but with a faithfull harte and mouth Where if he spake not of reall drinking by mouth he would neuer haue said it is more horrible to drink mans blood then to shed it but now although it be so horrible to drink mans blood in that corruptible sort which mortal blood hath yet Christes blood is geuen to vs in a miraculonse manner without corruption or lothsomnes and is receaued euen in the mouthes of the faithful But I can not so leaue you M. Iuel Did S. Augustine vtterly remoue the office of the mouth Said he not that for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy Ghoste Vt prius in os christiani corpus dominicum intraret quà m caeteri cibi that our Lords body should enter into the mouth of a christian man before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vttterly remoued Where is M. Iuell your mind your wit your sense Where is your care of God regarde to your good name or the feare to abuse the holy mysteries Harding Buceâ—… taught the body of Christe to be truly and substantially present exhibited and taken Iu. Hitherto M. Harding hath alleged nor auncient doctour nor old CouÌ„cel San. As though we had not disputed this long time of yâ— Nicene Councâ—…l where 318. auncient Fathers were gathered together Iu. What reasons lead him to yeld to the other side for quietnessake I remit vnto God San. In a matter of suche weight he ought not to haue yelded for quictnes sake sith S. Paule resisted S. Peter for a matter of much lesse importance as wherein they rather disagreed in facte then in doctrine as Tertullian witnesseth Iu. If M. Harding had found any other doctor he would not haue made his entry with Bucer San. Beside the Nicene councel which you haue heard already ye shal heare other doctours anon Iu. The councel of the eight Cardinals at Rome might rather haue bene scoft at then this brotherly conference San. The Cardinals sought not a new faith as Bucer and Luther did but the purging of old faultes they came not together to set forth a new doctrine but to amend the life of euil men Tertullian saieth well hllic scripturaruÌ„ expositionuÌ„ adulteratio deputanda est vbi diuersitas inuenitur doctrinae There the couÌ„terfeting both of the scriptures of yâ— expositioÌ„s is to be assigned where yâ— diuersity of doctrine is fouÌ„d such diuersity is betwen the Lutherans and Zuinglians but not betwen the Catholiks Iuel If we compare voices thei of wittemberge were moe in number Sander Nay sir all the Catholike nations of Christendome communicated with the Cardinals but your doctrine was then scant sixtene yeres old and had neuer a citie town or village in the world that wholy communicated with it at that daye The number must not be tried by the men gathered in a house together but by the men agreing in the church together For yâ— who le Church is one house oâ—… god Iuel If we compare knowledge thei were better lerned San. Of new sprong teachers 〈◊〉 said Omnes tument â—…mnes scientiam pollicentur Al of them do swel with pride and euerie one doth promise knowledge But on the other side Nemo sapiens nisi fidelis No man is wise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithfull The Cardinals therefore being faithfull were also â—…etter lerned then your men of witteÌ„berge Again Tertullian sheweth that certein men are wont to saie whie did this woman or that man being moste faithfull most wise most practised in the Church goe into thaâ—… side that is to saie hold this or that new opinion But he answereth they are neither to be counted wise nor faithfull nor men of practise whom heresies can change Therefore those that camâ—… together at witteÌ„berge seing thei chaÌ„ged their old faith soughâ—… out a new thei could not be lerned as thei ought to haue bene But otherwise also thinck you M. Iuel that ani wise man wil grant you that Luther and Bucer with their companions were better lerned them Contarenus Sadoletus Polus and Theatinus with their fellowes Is it enough for you to haue said it in bare words without any proufe at all Iuel If we compare purposes thei sought peace in truth and the glorie of god Sander Cal you that peace when thei diuided Germanie from the rest of ChristendoÌ„ You are of those who wold cure the sores of the people by vâ—…ine words saying to them peace peace when as in dede there was no peace Iuel If we compare issue god hath blessed their doings and geuen force vnto his word Sander Touching your case Tertullian saith Deverbi administratione
by diuerse places of your booke Another way the incarnation may be considered according to that nature which is generally common to all men As that thei consist of bodies of soules of reason and of certain accidents The question is whether Christ at his incarnation toke al man kind after such sorte that he is now the coÌ„mon substance of vs all or no. Here I know not what M. Iuel would answer if he were namely put in mind thereof But his wordes draw to the affirmatine sense altogether For he saith Christs body dwelleth in our bodies by his natiuitie whiche saying semeth to haue no real truthe in it except Christ be common man kind whiche is in 〈◊〉 man If he be that vniuersall substance then I see that as reason as life as sense as fleshe and blood are no lesse in one man then in an other so Christe who is supposed to be that generall reason life sense fleshe and blood is supposed likewise to be really in euery mans owne body But this kind of opinion is foolish and vain as it shall appere anon The third way of considering the incarnation is to say that Christ toke not yâ— common substance of al mankind but only the whole particular nature of man so that the 〈◊〉 of God hath assumpted so much into his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as any other 〈◊〉 euer had in his 〈◊〉 and corruptible 〈◊〉 to wit he hath assumpted the mind the 〈◊〉 the body and the 〈◊〉 shape of a true man According to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only is true S. Paul saith that he is not 〈◊〉 to call vs his brethern and that because the children whome God 〈◊〉 to him had 〈◊〉 and blood common among them ipse similiter participauit eisdem and he also likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he toke parte that is to say he toke to himselfe fleshe and blood for his own part as they had the same for their parts And therefore as they had a particular 〈◊〉 and generation so Christ was not gathered or taken generally out of the bodies soules of al men 〈◊〉 he was born of the virgin Marie alone the sonne of Dauid and of Abraham according to the fleshe whiche being so his body was no more really in our bodies by his natiuitie then one of our bodies is in the body of an other man For wheÌ„ we speake of our bodies we speake of that which is particularly proper to euery man in his own persoâ—… and not of that which is common to all mankind But yet certeyn general benefites are deriâ—…ed out of Christes 〈◊〉 euen to euery man Due is that our nature is in him marucilously honoured and auanced in so much that it is truly said man is God and God is man Moreouer S. Cyrillus affirmeth that euery particular man shal rise in his owne body at the later day because of the mysterie of Christes resurrectâ—…on who as man conteined all men in him self But seing they that haue done euill shall rise to be punisheâ—… and that more greuously then death it self is as there S. â—…llus witnesseth and yet sith no damnatioÌ„ is vnto them who are in Christ Iesus we may well say that Christ doth not only not dwell in euery mans body by his natiuitie but also that he dwelleth not in their bodies or soules who either did not partake of his flesh at al by faith or els did vnworthely partake thereof either by Baptism or by the Eucharist or any other way All this notwithstanding M. Iuel will proue that Christes body dwelleth euen really in our bodies by his natiuitie And when all is done it will proue either an heresie or noâ—…ing or a dwelling rather in the whole truth of mans nature assumpted then in any mans body after that sort of dwelling which is properly called reall or substanciall But let vs heare his proof Iuel S. Bernard sayth the body of Christ is of my body and is now become mine San. S. Bernard sayth Corpus Christi de meo est the body of Christ is of mine He saith not of my body as you traÌ„â—…ate it But of mine yâ— is to say of the same kind of stuffe whereof I am Of the same stock and 〈◊〉 of like flesh blood but not of my proper flesh of my proper blood not really dwelling in my bowels or in the partes of â—…y body Again when he sayth 〈◊〉 est and the body of Christ is mine he meaneth it is mino to take commoditie thereof mine to vse mine to 〈◊〉 mine to offer to enioy but not mine through this only condition because it is born but because I am ioyned to it by faith by Baptism by Penaunce and by râ—…auing it into my body at Christes holy table and by such like meanes Iuel A babe is born to vs. San. That is to say to th' end we should take 〈◊〉 by the birth of it But by the only birth it is not really in our bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not only to vs or for vs. Iuel A Sonne is geuen vnto vs. 〈◊〉 Unto 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 in him but not to them who receaued him not For he came into his own and his own receaued him not Iuel S. Basill We are partakers of the word by his incarnanation and 〈◊〉 called all his mysticall conuersation flesh and blood San. We partake him in his nature comming to ours and in ours communicated to him but not yet in our bodies coâ—…ing to his bodie except we also be ioyned to him by som other mean beside his natiuitie Iuel Nyssenus sayth His body is all mankind wherevnto he is mingled San. You haue abused this testimonie turning the due construction of the words â–ª and haue put that before the verb which should haue come after the verb. The true construction is The whole nature of man wherevnto he is mingled is the body of Christ. And he meaneth not the natural body of Christ which he toke of the virgen by his natiuitie whereof you intreate but he meaneth the mysticall body of Christ whereof he said before The subiection of the body of the Church is referred to him which doth inhabitie the body And immediatly before yâ— words 〈◊〉 out by you Our Lord is the life by whome it doth happen to all his body that it is brought to the Father Againe Si Pater diligit â—…lium caet If the Father do loue the Sonne and we all that through faith whereby we beleue in him are made his body be in the Sonne consequenâ—…e he that loueth his owne Sonne loueth also the bodie of his soâ—…e euen as he loueth his Sonne himselfe And we are that bodie Lo we are that bodie He spake not therefore of Christes naturall body Iuel Christ being in the womb of the blessed virgin beâ—… â—…esh of our slesh and bone of our bones San. Of the same kind of â—…sh and
really substanciallie For as the word is made fleshâ—… really so we take really the word being flesh in our Lords meat The worde was not made fleshe onlie by our faith but in truthe of his substance therefore we take the worde being fleshe not by our faith onlie but in truthe of his substance If M. Iuell will haue vs receaue Christes bodie verily and yet by faith only it must be made flesh verily and yet by faith onlie Ivel It is the bread of the hart â–ª hunger thou within thirst thou within San. If Christ being in his diuine nature toke real flesh and yet maie be hungred within is much yâ— better to vs bread of yâ— hart by natural slesh right so it is extreme madnes to make vs beleue that Christes bodie geneÌ„ vnder the form of bread is therefore the lesse hungred within or the lesse the bread and foode of the hart Iuel The thing that is receaued in spirit is receaued in dede San. If it be to be receaued corporally as well as in spirit as Baptisme and the Eucharist then it is false and foolish to say that it is receaued in dede when the outward dede lacketh This man wil cloth the naked and fede the pore in spirit and yet he saith it is done in dede albeit thei die for cold Spiritual receauing is true and good when it shuldreth not out reall receauing as spiritual resurrectioÌ„ is good true but yet it is not al yâ— truth of resurrection S. Bernard is alredie answered and S. Cyril Iuel It is a holy mystery and a heauenly action forcing our mindes vp into heauen and there teaching vs to eate the body of Christ not outwardly by the seruice of our bodies San. Is not verè sumimus we verily take spoken of taking by the seruice of our bodies can it be otherwise meant Again it foloweth in the same sentence that Christ hath mingled the nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder a Sacrament of his flesh to be coÌ„municated vnto vs. Mark these words M. Iuel which you passed ouer as if you had ben vtterly blind The nature of Christes flesh is I trow real it is communicated to vs vnder a Sacrament know you not that sub is vnder is not the Sacrament receaued by the seruice of our bodies did not your self graâ—…nt the Sacrament to be taken by mouth If then the nature of Christes flesh be vnder a Sacrament when the SacrameÌ„t is receaued by the seruice of our bodies the nature of Christes flesh is receaued by our bodies not by faith alone Iu. The truth hereof standeth not in anie reall presence but as Hilarius saith in a mysterie which is in a Sacrament San Whereas S. Hilarius saied We receaue verily the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie you report him to saie in a mysterie Is that no false dealing Well he saith we receaue Christes flesh vnder a mysterie and by your owne confession a mysterie is a Sacrament therefore we receaue the flesh of Christes body vnder the Sacrament And the Sacrament deliuered in the laste supper is by your confession also outward and commonly called a figure therefore we verilie receaue the flesh of Christes bodie vnder an outward figure and the outward figure is knowen by our eye to be the figure of bread therefore vnder the figure of bread we receaue the flesh of Christes bodie albeit by the figure you meane the substance of bread Iuel Our regeneration in Baptisme in a certaine bodily sorte teacheth vs the purgatioÌ„ of the mind as Dionysius saith so it is in the Sacrament of Christes body San. Can you haue the mind better tanght by an outward action then if you eate the same flesh in body which we doe eate in faith Is it possible to haue a greater coÌ„formitie a more vehemeÌ„t figuring and liuely expressing of al truth And albeit I haue shewed differences before betwen Baptisme and the Eucharist yet omitting yâ— I wil now say 〈◊〉 S. Augustin then yâ— bodie blood of Christ shal be lise to euerie man if yâ— thing which is visiblie taken in the Sacrament be eaten in the truthe spirituallie and be drunken spiritually M. Iuel would haue one thing ouâ—…wardly taken and an other thing eaten inwardly But S. Augustine saith that must be eaten in the truthe it selfe spiritually which is visibly taken in the Sacrament Iuel Although Christ be not bodily â—…resent yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mysterie San. The substance of the mysterie muste nedes be hindered when it is absent For it can be no mysterie without the substance thereof The substance of the mysterie is the naturall substance of Christ vnder the Sacrament therefore S. â—…ilarie saith The naturall propriety by the Sacrament is the Sacrament of the perfite vnitie Of this place I haue often times spoken and I would gladly heare M. Iuels minde in it For then should I be sure to know how I might dispute against him I can not coÌ„strue it otherwise then thus Naturalis proprietas the natural propriety which is to saie the natural substance he meaneth the substance of Christe For S. Hilarie vseth the ward proprietas verie muche and ost for the substance or personall being of God or of Christ. Wel then Christes naturall substance Per Sacramentum by or through the SacrameÌ„t est is Sacramentum the SacrameÌ„t perfectae vnitatis of perfite vnitie The substance of Christe is a Sacrament by or through the Sacrament these words can haue none other literall meaning but this the substance of Christe through the form of bread wherein vnitie is figured and vnder which it is by that meane I saie it is the Sacrament of perfite vnitie how can els the natural substance of Christe be a Sacrament Of it self alone it can be no holy signe but by the forme of bread it may be a Sacrament and yet M. Iuell can not find the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in al S. Hilarie Moreouer S. Hilarie making a preface that we muste not speake otherwise in Gods matters then we haue lerned of him who said my flesh is verily meate yâ— there is no place of douting of yâ— truth of flesh blood concludeth thus For now both by the profession of our Lord him selfe and by our faith it is flesh in deede and blood in deede Answer I pray you M. Iuel What is fleshe in deede what is the nominatine case to est is I knowe none other besyde the worde Sacramentum the Sacrament or some like word which doth import the SacrameÌ„t as to saie that which the faithfull receaue at Christes supper For of that thinge S. Hilarie now speakethe That then is verily flesh and that is meant by S. Hilarie of an outward thig for he saith immediatly Haec accepta these things taken and drunke do bring
naturally doth signifie nothing els but not fainedly How say ye then when we are knit to God by right faith and syncere charitie is it a fained coninnction or no If it be a true not a fantasticall coniunction then the words whiche affirme Christe to be ioyned also vnto vs corporally and naturally being added ouer and aboue the ioyuing by right faith and syncere loue must not only â—…ane a true ioyning whiche was already made but also an other manner of ioynig which is both true in effect as yâ— ioyning by faith was also true in the corporall mingling of Christes flesh to our fleshe Otherwise what meant the aduerbe quoque also We be ioyned by faith and also corporally Is that also nothing Furthermore if corporally be nothing els to say but truly and without imagination how coÌ„strue you these words of S. Paul All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ is it only to say it dwelleth truly in Christ well but it may dwell truly in Christ though Christ be not man therefore by your exposition a phrase is found whereby yâ— truth of Christes body may be wiped away whensoeuer it pleaseth the Protestants Consyder M. Iuell that you are not Capitaine generall of the whole army Satan him selfe had taken that cure vpon him before you were borne It is he that directeth all yâ— soldiours of his campe What place in his army doe you occupie I doe not know This I am sure of your Capitaine intendeth fully to displace Christe as much as lieth in him not only froÌ„ dwelling corporally in our bodies by the blessed communion but also from taking real flesh of the blessed virgin Satan him selfe would haue an other Messias to be prepared for Iudge you whether you helpe towards his comming or â—…o He coueteth to persuade that corporally doth meane truly and nothiâ—…g els wherâ—…ore it foloweth that corpus is latin for the truth and for nothing els and seing Christ toke of our lady corpus a bodie by you it is meant he toke tâ—… truthe of our lady nothing els Or can you avoid the yoke the â—…dance the mutuall respecte that is betwene bodie bodily corpus and corporally Whatsoeuer one of those names whiche are in one yoke doth signifie the other doth signifie after the same rate If bonitas be goodnes bonus is good bene is well â–ª corporally is of the same yoke with corpus body If bodily doth meane truly corpus doth meane truth so Christ toke truth of our Ladie and what is that forsouth it is whatsoeuer it pleaseth M. Iuel So that it be no phantasie it maie be then faith or charitie or els bones without flesh or skinne without flesh and bone To this point M. Iuels diuinity leadethvs O miserable time O cor rupted maners The noun corpus bodie and the aduerb corporaliter corporallie do not onlie signifie a truthe but a truthe of bodie and in Christ it signifieth a truthe of flesh and of blood Iuel Otherwise there must nedes follow this great inconuenience that our bodies must be in like maner corporally naturally and sâ—…eshly in Christes body For Hilarius saith we also are naturally in him and Cyrillus we are corporally in Christ. San. It is most true that both we are in Christ corporally and he in vs during the time of the coniunction For when a ioyning of twain is made it must nedes be that yâ— one is ioyned to yâ— other whiche is no absurditie at al because that twaine to wit Christ and his Church should be in one flesh it is the doctrine of S. Paule And as flesh is made one with him who really eateth and digesteth it so is Christ ioyned most really to him that worthely receaueth his body Iuel That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporall being San. That were a fine kind of being M. 〈◊〉 that Christes body should be in vs corporally and yet the being should not be corporal In dede the maner is not corporall But if you exclude the truth also of corporall being you speake coÌ„trarie to the word it self For the word corporally can signifie no lesse then a corporall truth Iuel It requireth not any locall being San. It is a local being in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place vnder the form of bread which the substance of bread did occupie before And when we haue that kind of bread in vs euen so Christes being is locall in vs. Iuel Christ sitting in heauen is here in vs not by a natural but by a spirituall meane of being San. The being of Christ in vs by spirit is also naturall concerning the nature of his Godhead which is euery where But coÌ„câ—…rning the grace which is created in vs it is a spiritual being after the rate as euery cause is in his effect Iuel S. Augustine saith After that Christ is ascended he is in vs by his spirit And S. Basil and again S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places And Christ spake in S. Paule caet San. You are now in a common place M. Iuel Who denieth but Christ being in heauen is here in spirit Wil that take away his being here in body when bread is turned into his body Shall one truth always displace an other with you These be sowters arguments to say Christ is God therefore he is not man He is in heauen ergo he is not in earth c. Iuel This coniunction is spirituall and therefore nedeth not neither the circumstance of place nor corporall presence San. The coniunction is spirituall but the 〈◊〉 of working it is brought to passe by the corporall substance of Christ. M. Iuel hath forgotten that we now 〈◊〉 whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally for thâ—…nd to make a spirituall coniâ—…ction by this meane of his own flesh or no as if a man to coÌ„â—…t an heretike do not only write vnto him but also doe come him self and by disputation of mouth do persuade him the conuersion is spirituall but the meane of working it is by corporall prâ—…sence Iuel The coniunction that is betwene Christ and vs neither doâ—…h mingle persons nor vnite substances But it doth knit our affects together and ioyne our willes saith S. Cyprian San. S. Cyprian in the same place expoundeth himselfe to meanâ—…e that we are not made by this vnion the second person in 〈◊〉 for saith he the only Sâ—…e is consubstanciall or of the same substance with hiâ—… Father But we by eating his reall flesh in this Sacrament are made 〈◊〉 vnto the Sonne of God Atteyning throâ—… the flâ—…sh vsque ad participationem spiritus euen to the 〈◊〉 of the â—…pirit of Christ. Again whereas our vnion with Christ is 〈◊〉 in the holy Scriptures to yâ— vnion wâ—…ich is in 〈◊〉 as in matrimonie the wife husband tarie â—…oth 〈◊〉 persons and eche of them kepe their seuerall substances notwithstanding
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
Gal. 5. Ephe 5. The Apo logiâ—… brin gâ—…th vâ—… from yâ— holy Scripture to the Fathers The eigth chapiter Aug. dâ—… bono coÌ„ iugal ca. 24. Mariage among ChristiaÌ„s is a Sacrament Priesthâ—… is a Sacrament The substance of yâ— Sacrament tarieth in an eâ—…ill priest remoued from his office Augu. eoÌ„ tra Don. li. 5. c. 20 Ambros. lib. 1. de Paenit cap. 7. SeueÌ„ Sa cramâ—…ts were proâ—… 〈◊〉 yâ— Greeks Latins in yâ— CouÌ„cell of Fâ—…oreÌ„ce Heretikes eâ—…eme nei ther scriptures nor Fatheâ—…s The Apo logie pretendeth scriptures til it may set vp an idol of his own The nynthe chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere The supper of our Lord is a sacrament Dion de Ec. Hier. cap. 3. Maxim in schol Graecis â—…sius acknowledgeth moe SacrameÌ„ts then twaine Ca. 4. 5. 6. de Ecclesiast Hierarâ—…hia The Apo logie is coÌ„ strained to beleue many veri ties vnwriten Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Mark 14 Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 10. 11. The apologie skippeth the writen veâ—… The Apo logie is full oâ—… gloses but not of scriptures Math. 26 Heretikes loue not the gospel Matt. 26. Actor 5. Euery way the SacrameÌ„ 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 The figâ—…re and yâ— truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The. x. Chapiter Ioan. 1. Christ hath two natures in one persoÌ„ Galat. 3. 1. Tim. 2. 1. IoaÌ„ 5. 10. Man consisteth of two parts The Sacraments consist of 〈◊〉 parts Ioan. 3. Mat. 28. Tit. 3. In ep 23. ad Bonifacium The signe and thing signified stand toge ther. Mat. 28. Mat. 26 â–ª Marc 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Homil. de Iudae proditio ne Christ câ—… not instiâ—… a false signe The. xi chapiter Diuerse signâ—…s are in yâ— Euâ—… †1. †2. †3. †4. †1. The Words of â—…tion arâ—… yâ— first signe †2. Christes toke hath in it the truth 〈◊〉 Ioan. 11. 1. IoaÌ„ 5. What a Saâ—…rament is De coÌ„secratione 〈◊〉 2. cap â–ª Saâ—… Luc. 22. If the bo dy be not made the wordes make a fal se token Psal. 58. Facere is to doe and make When the order of Priesthoâ—… was geuè to the Apostles Lucae 22. Matt. 16. A figuratiue speach doth not signifie till it be vnderstaÌ„ded August de doctr Christ. li. 2. ca. 1. This is my body either doth signi fie nothing or it signifieth the body of Christ. Simple men can not vnder stand how the sigâ—…e may â—…e called â—…y yâ— name oâ—… the thinâ—… The Apo stles were simple men Actor 4. If Christes words haue not their first meaning they must sound to diuerâ—…e meÌ„ diuersly The Apo logie is coÌ„ futed by his own sayingâ—… Ioan. 20. words must be taken as they commonly sound The Apo logie falsifieth the words of Christ. The chief words of a SacrameÌ„t must not be vnproper An obscure saying is no sensible signe It is against the nature of an holy signe or sacrament not to signific plain â—…y Antichrist could not take away the whole faith if some part 〈◊〉 not called in â—…oubt beâ—…ore The. xij Chapiter The â—…rgu ment of he â—…es The supper of our Lord is his body â–ª because it is a signe thereof instituted by him self Ioan. 1. August Psal. 73. 1. Tim. 3. 1. Pet. 2. The true conception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 with the signe thereof Lucae 1. Matth. 8. Cleansing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in deed 〈◊〉 the word is 〈◊〉 Matth. 9. 〈◊〉 be forgeueÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sâ—…d 〈◊〉 Christ. Math. 11. Those mi racies were don in deed which were beâ—… Marci 7. The eares were opened 〈◊〉 deed when it was sayd be yâ— opened Math. 13. Parables wâ—… vsed in teachig but not in doing Ioan. 20. Christ rather did theÌ„ taught in his supper 1. Pet. 1. The. xiii Chapiter The wordes of the Sacrament be not figuratiue The Fathers calling yâ— supper of Christ a figure meane not a figure of Rhetoâ—… Epiphanius li. 1. To. 2. Her 30. Esaiae 7. The signes of Christ are miraculouse The Sacraments of Christ are secret tokens The 〈◊〉 of Christes Chur che be geâ—… to the 〈◊〉 therâ—…ore are â—…ble Luc. 22. Psal. 110. Ciprian de coena Domini August in manuali cap. 11. Chrysos de sacerdot lib. 3. Damasc. de orthod fid li. 4. c. 14. Euseb. li. 5. demoÌ„ cap. 3. Beda in hom vidit Iesus c. Basilius in Litur Gregor Nyssen in orat de paschate Hieron in Leui. Nicepho rus lib. 1. cap. 28. The. xiiij Chapiter The â—…rence betwen â—…res of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The figures of Christ are mysticall Matt. 28. Matt. 26. â—…oyes iudge the figures of God to be figures of grammer Heretikes name what figure of grammer it is 〈◊〉 things Mysticall words Ephes. 5. Math. 28. Ioan. 15. In Ioan. tract 80. Elementum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August in â—…oan tract 80. â—…n things in a Sacrament August coÌ„t Donat li. 5. cap. 19. 20. August coÌ„t Ep. Parmen li. 2. c. 12. Chrysost in Epist. ad Roma Hom. 16 August in Ioan. tracta 5. Ambros. de Sacra li. 4. c. 4. 5. Chryso hom de prodiâ—…i Iudae August de dâ—…ct Christi li. 2 ca. 3. August de Magistro The wordes of Christes supper doe not sig nifie a figure of his body If Christes wordes be siguratiue they make nothing at all Words doe all 〈◊〉 they doe by signifying Lucae 22. Math. 28 The word of God hath geuen hoâ—…ur to words Body doth sigâ—…i sie yâ— substance but not the sigure of a body How Christes body is a figure The. xv Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere It is the body of Christ which setteth his death before vs not bread and wine Lucae 22. 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 11 Hom. 83. in Maâ—…h Damascenus de orthod side li. 4. cap. 14. Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 28. Ioan. 20. 1. Cor. 11 The. xvi Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere Lucae 22. Chrysost in Hom. 26 in Math. Chrysostom Hom. 51. in Math. Lucae 22. The. xvii Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 Bread wine was not yâ— table that Christ pre pared Lucae 22. Hom. 82 in Math. The hand toÌ„ ge receaue â—…he same body yâ— the hart doth Why the supper of Christ is called the SacrameÌ„t of the altar Malach. 1 De ciuit Dei li. 10 cap. 6. Lucae 22. Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 August li. 9. confes ca. 13. Math. 26 Ioan. 6. Cyrillus li. 10. c. 13 in Ioan. Tertul. in lib. de resurrec carnis Ireneus aduersus haereses li. 4. c. 34. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apo logie The aunswere By what meanes yâ— Lords sup per is aba sed now in EnglaÌ„â—… The Apo logie nameth yâ— ho nouring of Christes body the worshipping of bread No substanciall thing is wrought in Christes supper by the Sacramentaries doctrine What the Catholikes beleue to be wrought The. xix Chapiter The Apo logie The 〈◊〉 The Apo logie â—…peaketh 〈◊〉 meanerâ—… euill
Custom The vse of Gods church The adoration of Christes body A new heresie in PoolelaÌ„d Circumâ—… of them selâ—…s Tertull. de prae scriptioÌ„ aduersus haeretic One chaÌ„ge only could be in religioÌ„ Iacob 1. Heb. 11. A teacher of new doctrine is not to be heard Berenga rius preached a new doctrine The Sacramentaries can haue no ground of their doctrine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The honour of God The profite of the faithfull Lucae 6. Lucae 8. Two cau ses of spea king figuratiâ—…ly Aug. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. cap 10. The proper sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nother agaâ—… the 〈◊〉 nor good maners We can neuer be sure that Christ spake figu ratiuely The ii Chapiter Wordes are to be taken as they do properly signifie Tertull. de carne Christi Things must be beleued aâ—… they are named Li. 67. de leg 3. The names vsed at Christes supper are to be kept This is body my EpiphaÌ„ lib. 2. to 1. haer 61. TraditioÌ„ is to be re spected in exposiding holy scriptures The iiâ—… Chapiter Ioan. 13. This can be said but of one substance Christes words directed to the bread The streÌ„gth of the pronoun this The prâ—…per sense of Christes wordes TransubstantiatioÌ„ 1. Co. 11. Luc. 22. hoc this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the noune body Christes naming to making Rom. 4. The 〈◊〉 Chapiter The optmoÌ„ of the protestants The substance of bread is not pomted vnto 1. Co. 11. Mat. 21. Luc. 22. Ioan. 6. This and bread be not of one gender CypriaÌ„ de coena Domini not farre from the beginning This in English is of all genders The v. Chapiter This doth not stand to signifie many things All the doings be not pointed vnto 1. Co. 10. 1. in Apo. 2. 2. in Or. cathech 3. li. 4. de Sacram. 4. depro dit lud 5. contr Faust. li. 20. ca. 13. epi. 59. Breaking is not poin ted vnto Of S. Iames. Of S. 〈◊〉 Of S. Chrysost. Of S. Chrysost. Eating or drinkig is not alone pointed vnto 1. Cor. 10 The body or blood is only pointed vnto The brea king The taking The eating Luc. 22. The geuing The vi Chapiter Theop. â—… Math. 26 In Marc. 14. This doth mean particular ly this eatable thiâ—… The vii Chapiter 1. Cor. 11 The obiecion The aunswere 1. The Cha lice 2. The chalice expouÌ„ ded in holy scripture 3. The chalice by vse of speakig signifieth the drinke in it 4. This cha lice where in liquor is knoweÌ„ to be can not make the speach obscure 5. Matt. 16. The word ioâ—…ned with the name of 〈◊〉 maketh aâ—… plaâ—… 6. Luc. 22. 7. 26. 14. 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 is â—…amed The 〈◊〉 Chapiter Ioan. 15. 1. Cor. 10 Uniuersal consent is a way to knowe figuratiue speaches 〈◊〉 dore The dore Chiâ—…ore Ezec. c. 5 The circuÌ„ stance of yâ— speache is to be considered Aug. lib. quaest 83 q. 69. The intâ—…t of the author in this chapi ter Ioan. 1. 14. God Ioan. 6. Sent 〈◊〉 flesh To men that were flesh Rom. 12. Col. 2. Promiseth flesh Geueth flesh He is to be beleued Euseb. homil 5. in pasch Men speake most ware ly toward their death 1. Co. 11. Aug. ep 118. ad Ia nuar. Christ 〈◊〉 not bethought lesse discrete in his words then other men wold 〈◊〉 The Apostles haue 〈◊〉 Christes words to vs without any mentioÌ„ of a figure Math. 13. Parableâ—… hide the truth in part Math. 13. Ioan. 6. Leo in serm de pass do Exo. 12. 1. Cor. 5. Ioan. 1. Ireneus lib. 4. ca. 32. Leo de pass do serm 7. Heb. 7. Ioan. 1. Lucae 22. Chryso in Math. ho. 83. Christ did not eaâ—… his own flesh by faith but in dede Hom. 83. Psal. 77. The old Lamb was not desired for his own sake Psal. 49. Malac. 1. Tertul. l. 4. aduer Marcio Chryso in Ps. 37. Chryso in Math. hom 82. 83. Ioan. 13. In fine di lexit eos Chrys. hom 61. ad Anti. Chrys. 1. Cor. homi 24. great loue cauleth yâ— greatest gifâ—…s Ioan. 13. Dionys. de Eccl. Hierar cap. 3. Hieron in Math. 26. Luc. 22. Why the bread of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yâ— of 〈◊〉 Luc 22. Niceph. li. 1. 〈◊〉 Eccles. cap 28. Damasc. de orth fi lib. 4. cap 14. Gal. 4. Hebr. 11. Psal. 22. Prou. 9. Leuit. 24 Christos supper is vpon the table it self If yâ— table be râ—…ll muche more the meate Luc. 6. The bread â—… Christ toke was already ha lowed The 〈◊〉 of Christes supper is made in bread and wine Gen. 14. Leuit. 1. 2. c. Al things that be sacrificed be changed Matth. 5. Cypr. ad Caecil li. 2. epi. 3. Blessing Psal. 148 Ioan. 6. Marc. 6. Luc. 24. The blessing of god is a doing The word blessing sheweth yâ— intent of Christ. Amb. de ijs qui init mys cap. 9. Cyril li. 4. in IoaÌ„ c. 16. 17. 19. lib. 11. ca. 22. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. Nysse in orat cathechet Amb. de ijs qui init ca. 9. Blessing Thanks 〈◊〉 Iustin. in Apol. 2. Euchar. The best kind of thanks True words be most thaÌ„k full â—…ren lib. 4. ca. 34 Theod. Dial. 3. The order of doing and speaking 1. Cor. 10 Christes supper diuided into 〈◊〉 and wordâ—… Manna Exod. 16 Hieron aduersus Iouinia lib. 2. Ephes. 4. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12 1. Cor. 11 Hieron aduersus Iouinia lib. 2. Homil. 〈◊〉 in Pasch. Ignatius ad Phila delphien 〈◊〉 In Theo 〈◊〉 Eccles. 1. Cor 10 The one bread to Christ who 〈◊〉 breaking 〈◊〉 whole 1. Cor. 10 Christ gaue with his hands Ioan. 6. The meat of Christes supper came from his hands 26. 14. 22 1. Cor. 11 Christes gift in S. 〈◊〉 is meant of an externall gift The Sacramentaries can not 〈◊〉 when Christ ful filled his promise 1. The profite of words 2. The necessitie of words 3. The wordes of God 4. Mysteries 5. The mysterie of Christes supper 6. The Sacramentaries trust not Christes words 26. 14. 1. Co. 11. 22. 7. Dedes be doubtfull Chryso in Math. Hom. 83. 8. The 〈◊〉 of the supper were para bles 9. The words of the supper expound yâ— parable of the dedes 10 Mere 〈◊〉 words ex pound nothing 11. The words of yâ— supper geue 〈◊〉 to y◠〈◊〉 Ioan 3. Matt. 28. In yâ— secoÌ„d booke ca. 〈◊〉 12. It is no singâ—… 〈◊〉 che is not knowen The 〈◊〉 The aunswerâ—… Ioan. 6. In Epi. 162. 〈◊〉 belongeth to the body â—… soule Tertul. de resur carnis â—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epipha haer 30. Hebr. 10 Christ pre sented no external sacrifice besyde his own flesh Gen. 14. Exod. 16 Malac. 1. Working words caÌ„ not be figuratiue Chrys. homi de prodit Iudae Ioan. 6. Howe the SacrameÌ„ taries 〈◊〉 Chri stes wordes Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 35. How S. 〈◊〉 placed 〈◊〉 â–ª words There is but one noun substantiâ—… in Christes 〈◊〉 By the Sacraâ—… doctrâ—…e a â—…gure was cruâ—… for vs. The obâ—…ction The aunswer One word can not haue at once a pro
per vnproper meaning The rela tiue must repete hiâ—… whole 〈◊〉 By the Sacramentarie doctrine bread is sacrificed for vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is but one verb in the Greek text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 The aunswer To signifie and to be a signe â—…o all one Significat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Reg. 18 Leuit. 15 Exod. 12 Gen. 14. Cypria lib 2. Epist. 3. The 〈◊〉 were com 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 sacrifice Psal. 39. Heb. 10. The body oâ—…red was at Christes â—…ble ThisthiÌ„g is more then such an other thing Haimo in 1 Cor. 11. Iustin. iâ—… Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. 27. Hoc est 1. Cor. 11 A thing is the remeÌ„braunce of it self Exo. 16. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. Marc. 14 De eccl Hierar cap. 3. In Ioan. li. 4. c. 14 why althe Apostles dranke of one cup. Theaâ—…use 〈◊〉 the English ministers Ignat. in epist. ad Phi. Matt. 10. Iudas drank The graÌ„maticall sense of Christes words Est 〈◊〉 not stand for significat Heretiks build with out a foun dation Hieron in Amos proh c. 4 Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of hoâ—… scriptuâ—…e The literall sense â—…s the fon dâ—…tion Cypr. de coena do haec est caro mea A testament Hebr. 9. Gene. 31 Galat. 4. Ierem. 31 Hebr. 9. Exo. 24. Three things in a solemne TestameÌ„t Ierem. 31 Hebr. 8. Math. 26 Ierem. 31 Chryso in Math. Hom. 83. Li. 4. coÌ„t Marci Sedulius in 1. Co. 11. The chalice beareth witnesse 1. 〈◊〉 Math. Hom. 83. 2. l. 4. coÌ„ Marci 3. in Lucae 22. The same blood which con firmeth doth also witnesse y◠〈◊〉 Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 13. The blood is not meant the figure of blood Gene. 31. Exod. 24 Hebr. 9. Lucae 22. 1. Cor. 11 Why the cup is named Exod. 24 Chryso Hom. 27 in 1. Co. Oecum in 1. Co. cap. 11. Christes blood real ly in the chalice The verb substaÌ„tiue left out The verb significat can not be vnderstan ded The verb est must nedes be supplied The necessitie of the verb est in Christes words Math. 5. Qui calix The which cup In Amos cap. 4. A demonstratioÌ„ out of Gods worde Hebr. 9. Euthy in c. Luc. 22. Matt. 26. An hymne said only at Christes supper Ioan. 12. The x. Chapiter Ioan. 6. Math. 26 1. Cor. 10 The places which are to be conferâ—…ed Ioan. 6. Math. 26 1. Cor. 10 This. Thebreâ—…d promised is not mâ—… teriall bread This is 〈◊〉 by yâ— other places The verb 〈◊〉 What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean by 〈◊〉 The communicatig Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. Body Matt. 6. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Matt. 26 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 1 Cor. 11 Matt. 26. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Lucae 1. Ioan. 1. Exod. 17 Num. 20 Acto 17. Collos. 1. Marc. 14 16. Lucae 24. Rom. 8. Actor 1. 2. Lâ—… 22. The presence of Christes bâ—…dy is not impossible The sitting of 〈◊〉 in heauen 〈◊〉 a hâ—…p to his 〈◊〉 presence in the Sacra 〈◊〉 Chryso de sacer lib. 3. Christes supper pas seth all woÌ„dering The places belonging to Christes supper The 〈◊〉 Chapiter All foode 〈◊〉 in Hebrew called bread Vide Pagninum in verbo Laham Deut. 8. Cath. 4. Math. 6. Luc. 11. Exod. 7. Gen. 1. 3. Marc. 16. That 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 bâ—…ad wâ—…ch 〈◊〉 bread 〈◊〉 â—…et semâ—…th brâ—…ad Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 10 Ignatius in 2. epi. ad Rom. Iustinus in Apol. 2. First Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water 2. Consecration 3. Food 4. Flesh and blood Libro 2. Epist. 3. â—…d Cecil 2. Ireneus â—… 4. ca. 34 Ambrosius de Sacram. li. 5. ca. 4. Hieron in Math. cap. 6. Nyssen in vita Moysis Tract 26 in Ioan. In Leuit. c. 22. l. 6. In operâ—… Paschal Thebrâ—… geuen to Iudas was betrâ—…â—…ed for vs. Math. 6. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 The xii Chapiter Euseb. Emissen Hom. 2. de Pasch. Num. 21. Ioan. 3. Ionae 2. Math. 12. 1. Co. 10. Luc. 24. Gen. 4. De mira bil sacrae scriptur cap. 3. Hier. in quaest He br in ge Didym in epist. Ioan. 1. Ezech. cap. 24. Math. 26 Ioan. 18. Aug. ad quaest Orosij 4. 9 Prosper de promissis prae dict Deâ—… He. 11. 12 If any good man were able to offer 〈◊〉 to God his owne body in his owne haÌ„ds he wold do Abel by sleying his Lâ—…bs shewed himself to haue desired an other sacrifice Marc. 14 Gen. 4. Aug de Trm. l. 3. Aug. in Psal. 39. The Sacramenta ries make the supper of Christ like to the doings of â—…ain Cain did beare a sigure of yâ— English coÌ„munion Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Maro 14 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Galat. 3. Gen. 14. Luc. 22. Gen. 14. Clemens AlexaÌ„d StroÌ„ l. 4. Christ â—…as seth Melchisedech by turning the bread which he brought forth into his owne body Cypria ad Caecil li. 2. ep 3. Euthy in panoplia Christ hath set his owne true substence vnder those formes of brend and wine which Melchise dech vsed Exod. 12 Gregor Nazian in Pasch. orat 4. Leo de pass domin se. 7 Theod. in 1. Co. 11. Ioan. 1. Ioan. 12. Luc. 22. Gregor Paschal Hom. 22 â—… mysterie conteineth the truth but it conteineth it after a secret manner Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. See how yâ— words of Moses and of Christ agree Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Psal. 77 Mala. 2. Luc. 22. Exo. 16. Matt. 26. The bread whiche Christ ge ueth is both a signe and a truth Exo. 16. Luc. 22 Exo. 16. Hieron aduersus Iouin l. 2 The whole sub stance of Christ is vnder 〈◊〉 ry peece of the forme of bread The figure of MaÌ„na is not fulfilled except the reall fleshe of Christ be geuen vnder yâ— form of bread 1. Cor. 12 Ephe. 4. All that come to yâ— sacrament 〈◊〉 yâ— body of Christ equally Sap. 16. The figure of 〈◊〉 old Testa ment Exo. 24. The 〈◊〉 of couenaÌ„t Heb. 9. Matt 26. The blood of the new testament 〈◊〉 geueÌ„ in the chalice as the 〈◊〉 was geueÌ„ in 〈◊〉 Gen. 49. Philip. 2. The prophecie of Iob applied to Christ. Iob 31. Hieron in hunc locum Greg. in Iob li. 22 cap. 11. Matt. 26. Chrys. hom 45. in Ioan. Luc. 22. Matt. 26. Loue desyreth as great a ioyning vnion as may be had Ioan. 6. Chrys. hom 83. in Matth. 45. in IoaÌ„nem Psal. 22. Prophecies takeÌ„ out of the Psalmes and prouerbs of SalomoÌ„ Prou. 9. What supper wisedoÌ„ prepared Cyp. lib. 2. epist. 3. The supper of Christ is set vpon the table Christ hath but one table Aug. in IoaÌ„ tractatu 50. The Sacramentaries assigne two tables to Christ. 1. Cor. 10 Psal. 21. An other prophecie taken 〈◊〉 Dauid Only Christiâ—… adore that they eate because they only eate the flesh of God Bread not 〈◊〉 our Lords table Augu. in
Christes supper hoc facite do not only signifie doe this but much rather make this thing whereof it foloweth that yâ— body of Christ is commaunded to be made FAcere doth more properly stand to make then to doe specially when it hath an accusatiue case ioyned with it wherevppon somewhat is to be wrought as facere librum nauem domum is to make a booke a ship a howse But when it hath a generall word ioyned with it as hoc this thing is then it may stand either to make or to doe according as the matter spoken of doth require For if I doe a thing first and afterward say to an other hoc fac doe this thing if my dede were also the making of a thing as the making of a chayer or of a sword then my word importeth that he must by doing make this thing But if my dede were only doing not making as if I did only play vppon a harp in that case hoc fac doth not import make this but only doe as I haue done Christ in his supper both did and made His doing was to take bread to breake to geue His making was to say with the intent of blessing and of thanksgeuing This is my body For yâ— word so spoken made his body Therefore when he sayeth afterward to his Apostles hoc facite he meaneth doe and make this thing Or by doing the like to that which I haue done make this thing which I haue made That is to say by taking bread and by blessing and saying This is my body make my body Thus doth facere stand most properly and truly For making doth first signifie such a work as presupposeth a matter to worke vppon Which is the difference betwene creare and facere in that creare is to make a thing of nothing Facere is to make one thing of an other according to which sense Christ made bread his body as Tertullian sayth And when one thing is made of an other that whereof it was made may either kepe his old substance as it chaunceth in artificiall things which are made and it is called facere quippiam ex aliquo to make one thing of an other as a chayer is made of wood or els the substance may be changed and it is more properly called facere aliquid de aliquo to make one thing from an other thing that is to wit so to make it that the thing whence it was made remaineth not in his former nature And so S. Ambrose sayth De pane fit caro Christi from of bread the flesh of Christ is made Moreouer facere which is in Greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ as S. Basile noteth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speculari and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agere Speculari is an action of the mind exercised by thinking or studying without any outward working at all Agere is to worke with the body not leauing any work behind as he that daunceth can not shew what part of his dauncing remayneth after that it is past But facere doth signifie the doing of a work which remayneth to be seen or vnderstanded after the working of it As God made heauen and earth not only to tariâ—… for the tyme of working them but also to remaine still as a witnesse of his handy work The Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof S. Basile writeth is the same which S. Luke and S. Paule haue vsed to expresse the commaundement geuen in Christes supper by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite If the body of Christ were not meant to be made by this commaundement what thing is it that Christ will haue made Wil he haue bread and wine to be taken eaten and drunken for his remembrance No surely For he had sayd before Take and eate and drink ye all of this which notwithstanding he sayd hoc facite clerely certifying vs that he now coÌ„maundeth an other thing besyde eating and drinking And that is verily the making of his own body and blood from of bread and wine by blessing speaking the words of consecration Let vs now consider also the persons to whome this commaundement was geuen They were those twelue Apostles whome Christ at his last supper taught the new oblation of the new Testament as S. Ireneus writeth geuing them authoritie by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and blood As for bringing of bread and wine to the table it is a kind of doing which may be performed by other as well as by the Apostles eating and drinking belongeth not necessarily to them alone but to all that coÌ„municate with them But when it is sayd namely to them Make this thing such a thig is commaunded which none other man may doe besyde them and their successors And that is not only to eate and to drink but to make the body of Christ. That body is the only thing which is so precisely appointed vnto in Christes supper For whatsoeuer els is done at the supper which may consist in any action whether it be taking blessing breaking eating or drinking it is rather the doing of a like thing to that which Christ did then the making of this thing When Christ had washed his Apostles feete he sayd not hoe facite make this thing But I haue geuen you an example that as I haue done Ita vos faciatis euen so you also may doe In which place the word facere doth signifie to doe not to make And therefore Christ doth not say doe you that thing which I haue done but ita faciatis doe ye so as I haue done But straight after that he had sayd This is my body he then sayd not ita facite doe so as I haue done But hoc facite make this thing to wit my body Moreouer as it is here sayd Hoc facite in meam commerationem so in an other place Dauid in the spirit of prophecie did say concerning this very facte of Christ Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors miserator dominns escam dedit timentibus se. Our mercifull Lord and taker of pity hath made a memory of his marueilouse workes he hath geuen meate to them that feare him Behold as it is sayd in the Gospell Make this thing for the remembrance of me so it is said in yâ— Psalme He hath made a memory of his miracles And euen as he hath made a memory so hath he willed this thing to be made for his memory Making then can not 〈◊〉 excluded from these words hoc facite which hitherto being proued by the proper nature of the word facere by yâ— circumstance of the words this is my body make this thing ioyned together by the word hoc this thing which is ioyned with facere by the conference of a like place in holy scripture and by the condition of the persons
to whom it was spoken I will now proue the same truth more plainly out of yâ— old Fathers S. â—…ames of whose Masse mention is made in yâ— sixth Generall councell when he was effectually working and fulfilling the commandement of Christ when he was doinâ—… yea rather making that which Christ bad him make thus he praieth vnto God Spiritum tuum caet Send doune o Lord thy most holy spirit now also vppon vs and vppon these holy giftes put before vs that he comming thereuppon with his holy and good and gloriouse presence sanctificet efficiat may sanctfie and make this bread yâ— holy body of thy 〈◊〉 Behold what is to be made The bread is made the body of Christ. Can you say that the holy Ghost doth this bread the body of Christ No verily that were no English The trewe English is that the holy Ghost doth make this bread the body of Christ. Therefore facere in this place is not taken for to doe but for to make The like may be noted in S. â—…lemeÌ„t S. Basile S. Thrysostom who all haue writen Masses and liturgies wherein the like praier is vsed Which thing is coâ—…firmed yet more strongly by the auctority of S. Cyrillus Archebisshop of Jerusalem who expounding the order and mysterios of the Breeke Masse hath these wordes Deum benignissimum oramus vt S. Spiritum super proposita emittat we beseche God to send his holy Ghost vppon the thinges which are set before vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vt panem quidem saciat corpus Chri sti vinum verò sanguinem Christi that he may make the bread to be the body of Christ the wine to be the blood of Christ. Lo the holy Ghost is desired of the priest to make bread Christes body he is desired so to doe of the priest who were not otherwise able to make so high a mysterie if Christ had not commanded him to make this thing S. Dionysius â—…reopagita sheweth that the Priest purgeth and excuseth him self of this great office saying Tu dixisti hoc facite in meam commemorationem Thou hast sayd make this thing for the remembraunce of me after which excuse made thâ—… Priest sayeth Dionysius desireth that he may be made worthy of this holy sacrificing or of making these holy things For so much the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie It is worth the labor to marke how S. Dionysius hauing declared that the Priest maketh his excuse coÌ„cerning the making of that thing which Christ bad him make consequeÌ„tly sheweth what the Priest doth make saying The Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diuina perficit diuinissima consecrat seu sacra operatur He maketh the diuine things and worketh holy or coÌ„secrateth the most diuine things He saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est agit sed perficit opera tur consecrat He saith not that the Priest doth holy things he saith he maketh them he worketh them he consecrateth them Manifestly witnessing that facere in these words hoc facite is to make to worke to consecrate and not only to doe 〈◊〉 Martyr is of the same mind who rehersing Christes words make this thing consequently addeth that is to say my body As if he sayd make my body 〈◊〉 I spake before S. Ireneus hath these words Quando mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia corporis sangui nis Christi 〈◊〉 the chalice mixed with water and the bread being broken taketh the word of God then the Eucharist of theÌ„ body blood of Christ is made TheÌ„ it is made saith 〈◊〉 it caÌ„ not there be Englished yâ— Eucharist is done but only is made Likewise 〈◊〉 saith Acceptum panem distributuÌ„ discipulis corpus suum illum fecit the bread taken and distributed to his disciples he made it his own body fecit paneÌ„ corpus suuÌ„ he made the breade his body It were 〈◊〉 English to say he dyd bread his body S. Ambrose hath these words Sacramentum istud quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur And again Hoc quod 〈◊〉 corpus ex virgine est This Sacrament whiche thou receauest is made by the worde of Christ and this body which we make is of the virgin The Sacrament 〈◊〉 is made and we make the body of Christ. By what other 〈◊〉 then by the worde of Christ who sayd make this thing â–ª For if these words hoc facite do not conteine facite corpus meum make my body S. Ambrose in 〈◊〉 saith conficimus corpus Christi we make the body of Christ. But so wise a man saith not so 〈◊〉 vaine because he well knoweth that hoc facite doth signifie thus 〈◊〉 make this thing to wit make the body of Christ. See now what is facere and see whatis hoc Facere is to make hoc is this thing whiche is the body of Christ. According to the whiche meaning S. Hierom said Absit vt de ijs quicquà m sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore consiciunt God forbid yâ— I should speake any thing amisse of them who comming in place of the Apostles degree make the body of Christ with their holy mouth If they make it with their mouthes surely it is because Christ after yâ— he had made it with his owne mouth said vnto them hoc facite make this thing S Chrysostom writeth thus Sacra ipsa oblatio siue illaÌ„ Petrus sine illam Paulus siue cuiusuis mâ—…riti Sacerdos offerat 〈◊〉 est quá deâ—…it Christus ipse discipulis quamque Sacerdotes modo quoque conficiunt That self holy oblation it is the same which Christ him self gaue to his Disciples and which the Priests now also doe make Again in an ocher place Operantibus Sacerdotibus Sacramenta haec quae dico initiantur perficiuÌ„turque â–ª when the Priests work the holy things which I speake of are begun ended or made persit And shewing that 〈◊〉 Priest doth not this in his owne but in Christes person he saith Non homo est qui corpus Christi facit sanguinem sed ille qui crucifixus est pro nobis Christus Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur Dei virtute proposita consecrantur gratia Hoc est enim ait corpus meuÌ„ 〈◊〉 verbo proposita consecrantur it is not a man which maketh the body and blood of Christ but Christ who hath bene crucified for vs. the words are spokeÌ„ by the Priests mouth the things which are set before vs are coÌ„secarted by the power grace of God for this sayth he is my body with this saying the thiÌ„gs put before vs are consecrated Thus much Chrysostom S. Angustin affyrmith that our bread and chalice certa cosecratione mysticus fit nobis non nascitur is made mysticall vnto vs by a certein coÌ„secration
vine or els a vine which for his fruit bringeth foorth veritie and truth Now such an addition doth rather detract sum what from the naturall and very vine whereof M. Nowell speaketh then help it any thing For which cause he should not haue had such a rule with vs as he thinketh if it were sayd This is my true body sith the word true might haue ben taken for the effect or frute proceding from his body which wold not haue bene so much for our purpose as when it is sayd This is my body which is geuen for you Thus euery way M. Nowell is deceaued in his construction And no wonder sith he buildeth not vpon the rock planted by Christ in the Catholike Church but vpon Caluins new inuentions which are more feble then the sands them selues M. Nowell ¶ Christ saith Ego sum panis I am bread and yet no transubstantiation of his body into bread Why should these words Hoc est corpus meum this is my body more transubstantiate bread into his body HOw long will you continew in falsifying the holy Scriptures M. Nowell When shall a man find you to deale vprightly Where is it writen I am bread Where sayeth Christ those words Uerily if he had sayd them yet you may know he meant him self to be bread only by a similitude or Metaphore as it was expounded before in the words I am the true vine And therefore I am bread could import no transubstantiation for seuen causes * 1. The bread he speaketh of is no certayne or limited substance * 2. Christ can not be personally changed for that he is God * 3. The verb sum I am being ioyned with two natures cleane distant doth always signifie a like condition or propertie and no identitie of substance * 4. It were a change made for yâ— worse such as Christ vseth not to make * 5. It wold be yâ— harder to be proued because the thing whereinto the change should be made is not pointed vnto as present * 6. It had bene a change the like whereof had not bene vsed before * 7. It was neâ—…r taâ—…ght nor beleued in the Church But in these words This is my body * 1. The body is certayne * 2. The bread taken is a creature made to be changed * 3. The verb est is doth not stand betwene two diuerse substances but betwene the pronoune and his only noune substantiue * 4. The change is for the better * 5. It is better to be proâ—…ed because it poynteth presently to the thing made * 6. Bread was before changed into Christes flesh whiles he eating bread liued thereby * 7. The Church beleued the Fathers taught and the Generall Councels decreed the change of the bread into Christes body It had not bene haâ—…d to haue answered thus if Christ had sayd I am bread But phy vppon that impietie of yours M. Nowell who in so few words commit so many faults You reporte that Christ sayd I am bread and therein you falsify the word of God It is not sayd any where I am bread For what call you the saying of Christ It is writen Odiui omnem viam iniquitatis And again Omnem viam iniquaÌ„ odio habui I haue hated euery way of iniquitie I haue hated euery vniust way Were it now truly reported that God had sayd I haue hated euery way And thereof to conclude that noman may either walk by the high way or walk in the path of God because God hath hated euery way After the like maner doth M. Nowell reporte the words of Christ who sayd twise I am the bread of life And once he sayd I am the liuing bread Now cometh M. Nowell and leaueth out the genitiue case in the two first sayings and the participle in the last and the article in both and affirmeth that Christ sayd I am bread In dede M. Nowell these words be found as likewise we find I haue hated euery way but it is no small sacrilege to allege Gods word leauing out any essentiall part thereof And specially when the word left out is so ioyned with the rest as yâ— genitiue case is ioyned to the noune which it foloweth or as the participle is ioyned to his noune substantiue It had bene bad enough to haue sayd in our tong which hath articles I am bread of life for euen so the article â—… the had bene left out because it is writen I am the bread of life or I am the liuing bread And not I am bread But to leaue out both the article the and the genitiue case of life or the participle liuing and to argue vppon that false ground that Christ is not transubstantiated into bread it is so dissolutely done that it may warne you M. Nowell of your owâ—… blindnesse of hart and of yâ— blindnes of all such other falâ—…e preachers as you are Who through what other great synnes I can not tel but certeinly through schisme are so wonderfully forsaken of God that you see not now not only what his true meaning what his worde and Ghospell â–ª what the moste syâ—…cere faith of his Church is but you see not that which naturall Philosophers which men of common reason which children in yâ— Catholike Church see You see not the dependence betwene the pronoune adiectiue and his noune substantiue but referre hoc to panis and hic to vinum you see not how the nominatiue case agreeth with his verb but in expounding Hic est sanguis meus for hic significat sanguinem meum you leaue the verb without a noune substantiue to goe before him which is not so when we say Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood taking the verb substantiue est is properly For sâ—…ing here is in all but one substance named the pronoun hic this is so referred finally to the blood alone that yet we do not construe the words saying this blood is my blood but we make the last determination of the pronoune this to rest only in the substance folowing And so as long as the substance is vnnamed the noune substaÌ„tine to the pronoune is vnknoweÌ„ as in Hic est filius meus haec vidua erat hoc est verbum fidei but strayght vpon the naming thereof the proâ—…oune is ruled in case gender and number of his noune substantiue which coâ—…eth after the verb. But when you haue expounded the words of Christ by hic sinificat sanguinem meum when al the speache is fully ended your pronoune of the masculine gender of the nominatiue case findeth no noune substantine at all with whom he may rest but styl is without his due construction You turne the nounes corpus and sanguis from the nominatiue case into the accusatiue You diuide the relatiue quod which from his antecedent corpus body in that you make him repete but halfe the signification of his antecedent You diuide the