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
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
of God to make you beleue neither doe they differ onely because in the supper a bodily signe of that thing is eaten where vpon we feed by faith but because that thing is receaued into our bodies where vppon we feed by faith In so much that of purpose Christ impugneth destroyeth the SacrameÌ„tary doctrine by these his wordes in this Chapiter wherein as I haue heretofore noâ—…ed diuerse kindes and tymes of geâ—…ng because God by Moyses gaue naked figures in the tyme past the father him self geueth presently the true naturall flesh of his naturall sonne to our eyes and hartes and Christ will geue hereafter the same true fleshe vnder the forme of breade to our mouthes and mindes so now must I note diuerse workings of the sayd gifts One worke aunswered to Gods gift by Moyses another to the fathers gist and the third to Christes gift By Moyses his minister God gaue Manna This bread was only corporall and the people wrought the substaÌ„ce thereof only with their teeth bellies other thing was there not in it whiche myght be wrought for although it were ordeined to be a figure oâ—… a greater thing to come in Christ yet that was no parte of the Manna it self but consisted and had his whole ground in the appointemeÌ„t of God and in the vnderstanding of yâ— people of God to whom if they were well instructed and so toke it MaÌ„na was a figure and whether they toke it so or no it was ordeined to be a figure but not to them profitable who toke it onely for bodily food Again those which vnderstode wel what Manna signified had not any good by the meat it self but looked for it of the truth which Manna shadowed for whiche cause Christ saith your fathers haue eaten Manna in the desert and are dead as who should say Manna by his owne vertue could saue none of them all but that true breade Iesus Christ only saueth whiche Manna dyd signifie The second gift is the present gift of the Father whereof Christ sayeth My 〈◊〉 doth geue you the true bread froÌ„ heauen This gift of the father muste be wrought not by teeth and bellies as Manna was but by fayth and spirite And therefore S. Augusâ—…ine saith vpon this place Vt quid paras dentem ventrem Cre de máducasti What doest thou prouide tooth and belly beleue and thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third gift is that where Christ promiseth to geue his flesh and the working of it is to eate worthely the same fleshe vnder the forme of bread God the father is sayd to gene the true bread whiche is Christ him selfe in such sorte as he is God and man in one person and the same one God doth worke faith in all that heare his voyce by the which faith they may worke vpon Christ and eate of him by spirit Of this worke it is sayde This is the worke of God that ye beleue vpon him whom he hath sent of this kind of working it is sayd He that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer To be short of this worke doth Christ speake specially and in maner wholy from that place where he sayd that the Father geueth the true bread for twenty sentences together vntyll he conclude that kind of working by these words If any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer â–ª Take the payne to reade ouer once or twise the Chapitre of S. Jhon from that place where it is sayd operamini worke not that meat which perisheth and so forth to the end and conferte therewith that which I now write and you shal see as clevely as can be that Christ distincteth as thre giftes so thre workings of theÌ„ As God by Moyses gaue the delicate bread called Manna so they wrought vppon it by eating the same bread with their teth As God the father geueth yâ— true bread Iesus Christ so the faithfull must worke it by beleuing and their reward shal be life euerlasting But as thou doest tender thy soule health so goe forward with me to the third giâ—…t and the third working or eating which in dede yf it be done profitably conteineth both a bodily and a spi rituall working a bodily with manna a spirituall with the gifte of God the father a bodily to 〈◊〉 the manhod of Christ a spirituall to eate it fruitfully the eating is spirituall because it requireth faith in Christ and loue towards God and our neighbours the same eating is bodily becauâ—…e it in dede eateth vnder that forms of bread and wine that fleshe of Christ whiche it beleueth in saith and harte First Christ sheweth his gift saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world That this gifte doth differ from the gifte of Moyses who gaue bare breade it is easily sene For the sonnes gift tarieth for euer but MaÌ„na perished and they that dyd eate it concerning any vertue that Manna had in his own substaÌ„ce to saue them from death The working of this gift is also named eating and drinking but yet after another sort then the eating of Manna was vnder Moyses for here the truth is eaten that was figured in Manna But how it differeth from the fathers gifte and the worke whiche belongeth to the fathers gifte there standeth a great part of this question Here I must warne the Reader that he coÌ„found not him self for in ofte repeating what the Father and what the sonne why the Father and why the sonne geueth this or that it is to be seared least the mynd gorâ—…et the chief distinction and so take one part in stead of the other The Father and the sonne yea the holy ghost also be all one God and giue al one thing But the holy scripture for the instruction of vs and by reason of Christes flesh assumpted doth attribute sometyme one thing to the Father an other to yâ— sonne an other to the holy ghoste meaninge most commonly by the name of the Father God and the whole Trinitie according to the whiche appropriation of workes and giftes we now intend to speake The Father is sayd to geue many waies in this chapiter he geueth faith into our hartes he geueth Christ to the world in flesh he geueth Christ to vs and geueth vs to Christ. Therefore the gift of the Father may be respected speciallie two wayes either in Christ him self or in vs toward Christ. The Fathers gift in Christ him â—…elf is reall and externall because he sendeth and geueth his only begotten Sonne in the true flesh of man to be seen heard and felt The Fathers gift in respect of yâ— we receaue of him is reall but internal spiritual and without working outwardly that same sensible gift which is wrought inwardly For after the Father had once geuen flesh to his Sonne all sensible and externall working was worthely committed
the sigure of his flesh That is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speach which they find â—…n the text and yet that might be wel born withal if thei rested there For in dede it is meant in some sense of Christ except ye eate the figure of my flâ—…sh to wit except ye eate that inuisible sâ—…stance of my fleshe which is a figure of my visible passible 〈◊〉 ye shall not haue life in you But now they can not so â—…ke it For they will not graunt that Christ meaâ—…t of his owne substance to be really eaten For which cause they must goe forward and expoâ—…d again the figure of Christes flesh saying â—…xcept ye eate the â—…gure of my flâ—…sh the which â—…igure bread wine shall make ye shall not haue life in you Did S. Augustin referre the â—…gure he 〈◊〉 of to bread and wine Did he once touche or mention those materiall elements in declaring the figuratiue speach thâ—…t Chrâ—…st by his iudgement vsed where named S. 〈◊〉 bread and wine He sayth our Lord commanded vs to communicat with his passioÌ„ to remember swetely the flesh which was crucified for vs. In that communicating and remembrance he putteth the figuratiue speache So that if we marke wel the reall eating of Christes flâ—…sh is not 〈◊〉 but left stil as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the â—…gure must be built The figure must be in the end of the worke and not in the beginning therâ—…of 〈◊〉 â—…gure looketh higher to a truth aboue it and not lower to 〈◊〉 elements which â—…re 〈◊〉 it â—…rily neither Christ nor S. Augustine did speake or meane of bread and 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ sayth except ye eate my 〈◊〉 â—…hey sâ—…y 〈◊〉 ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shall 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…s this to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood to 〈◊〉 bread and wine and there 〈◊〉 to make 〈◊〉 wine to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood What ignorance what abusing of Gods word what a blasphemy is this to make yâ— higher 〈◊〉 first to siâ—…nifie the lower that the lower may afterward 〈◊〉 yâ— higher It is as muâ—…h to say as Chrâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a doore then a doore is sâ—…oÌ„darily the token of Christ. Where is honesty where is shameâ—…nes where is coÌ„mon 〈◊〉 I aske of them whether these words except ye eate belong to yâ— supper They say they doe belong to the supper so truly that they build vppon them falsely the 〈◊〉 of both 〈◊〉 Then say I â—…ating is meant not only of eating by hart and faith but also by mouth as S. Basil S. Chrysoâ—…ome S. Cyrillus S. Augustine with all the rest of the fathers besore alleged doe coâ—…fesse and the Sacramentaries graunt the same most willingly Then we are agreed that eating standeth in some part properly concerning that some one thing eaten shall enter into our mouth I aske theÌ„ wherein the figure cheefely standeth They say in yâ— word flesh principally secondarily in eating yâ— is in remeÌ„bring by that thing which is eaten an other thing and I conâ—…e it also What is now meant by that word flesh They say the figure of flesh and that doe I graunt although it were more properly sayd that flesh meaneth and is the figure of the passion But let flesh stand for the figure of flesh Here beginneth the issue What meane you by the figure of flesh Bread say they That say I is starke false and vnpossible For how commeth flesh to be latine for breade By what grammaticall by what Rhethoricall by what Mosaical or mysticall figure is that interpretation brought about All the world seeth that in proper speach he that wil haue bread vseth not to cal for flesh Or if he doe so I think the butcher wil soner serue him then the baker Moreouer no figure wil serue to make one thing meane another except there be some affinitie or dependance betwene them but fleshe and bread are cleane seuerall kindes of natures Thirdly Christ neuer in any couenant or truse instituted flesh to signifie material bread we haue no such SacrameÌ„t neither in the old nor in the new Testament and surely sith flesh is neither a naturall nor a diuine token of breade nor so vsed in common speache it can not by any ordinarie meane betoken bread In so muche that the lawiers who of all men best know the proprietie of wordes and are most prone to expound them fauorably in the testamentes of men departed yet haue coÌ„cluded that if any man erre in naming the kinde of thing as if intending to bequeath his garmentes doe say I bequeath my siluer or contrarie wise the legacie can not hold For saith Ulpian Rerum vocabula immu tabilia sunt hominum mutabilia Proper names geuen by men may be changed and therefore an errour in them is tolerable but the appellatiue names of things can not be changed and yet our new brethern can fynd the meanes how fleshe may stand for bakers bread blood for wine of the grape The coÌ„trarie might stand right wel because bread and wine were instituded by God in the law of nature and of Moyses as the fact of Melchisedech the figures of the lawe do shewe to figure shadow Christes flesh blood So was the rock instituted to signifie Christ manna to be a signe of his last supper But that flesh yea the flesh of Christ who is the end of the law that it should serue to signifie wheaten bread that diuinitie was born and sprang first in our dayes being vnknowen to S. Augustine and to all other Fathers and Councels yet it is so good diuinitie iu England that a maÌ„ may soner haue a bishopprick for it then for saying God is one in thre persons I haue stode sumwhat long vpon this place because it is one of them where vpon the Sacramentaries vse fondly to boast bragg as thowgh they had gained sumwhat by the name of a figuratiue speache which S. Augustine saith is in Christes words but yâ— figure serueth to shew a higher a more profitable mysterie theÌ„ the word nameth but not as they vulearnedly wold haue it to shew the base creature of wheaten bread wyne It is the passion of Christ the spirituall maner of eating in respect where of Christes speache is called of S. Augustine figuratiue for if Christes flesh were eateÌ„ only to fill the bellie without farther accompt of spiritual grace and life then were the eating of that flesh natural sensible accustomable and without all figure and should be eaten by cutting tearing and wasting it but in that case flesh profiteth nothing the flesh we speake of must be be eaten as a figure as a mysterie as a Sacrameut as a holy signe of a higher truthe wrought in the soule then that bodilie eating doth work So likewise in baptism we are washed in a fi gure because the
of S. Paule but as S. Paule and S. Luke take the noun blood it can not possibly be taken figuratiuely â–ª except any man wil be so desperate as to say that the â—…w promise and Law of Christ is established in a figure of blood or in the substance of common wine Which if it were so we are in worse case then the Patriarâ—…hes and Iewes who at the least had true blood to coÌ„firm their temporall truses Testaments and promises as it may be seâ—…e both in Genesis Exodus although it were the blood of beastes it must nedes be that the heaueuly things them selues be cleansed with better sacrifices saith S. Paule If then the name of blood being put in these words this cup is the new testament in my blood be taken for the substance of Christes blood which is that better sacrifice whereof S. Paule speaketh without al question in these wordes this is my blood of the new testament it stondeth likewise for the substance of Christes blood It is one supper one Sacrament one parte of the supper and one part of the Sacrament yea one self same thing whereof all foure do speake If new do answere to new testament to testament this to this is to is how can it be that blood should not answer to blood But this cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood can not be meant in yâ— figure of my blood least yâ— signe of blood and not the truthe thereof be that which establisheth the new truse therefore in these words this is the blood of the new testament the noune blood standeth not for a figure and signe of blood but for the real substance thereof ¶ The xxv Circumstance of these words this cup or chalice AS euery Apostle or Euangelist wrote later then other so he made the supper of Christ more plain geuing vs euidently to vnderstand that the words of Christes supper are so far of from figuratiue speaches that rather the propriety of them is by all meanes fortified I haue shewed before how the name of cup or chalice doth not hinder any whyt why all yâ— rest of Christes words may not be proper and literally true but now I affirm also that it increaseth much the reason of their pro prietie Why so Because the cup is named to shew the maner of fulfilling of the old figures In the old Testament the blood of the oxen was put in crateras into great cups or basins and so the people were sprinkled therewithall Now to bring the Apostles and all vs in mind thereof Christ nameth the cup or chalice Declaring thereby that his own blood is now to vs as the blood of oxen was to the people of Israel His in the chalice as the blood of oxen was in the basiâ—…s His presently drunk as that other was presently sprinkled Erat autem veteris Testamenti calix caet There was a cup or chalice sayth S. Chrysostom of the old Testament and sacrifices and the blood of brute beasts For after sacrifice the blood being taken in a chalice and cup they made after that sort libations or offerings of that which was liquide and renning CuÌ„ igitur pro sanguine brutorum sanguinem suum induxisset ne quis his auditis perturbaretur illius veteris sacrificij meminit Seing therefore he had brought in his own blood in stede of the blood of brute beasts least any man hearing of these things should be troubled he maketh mentioÌ„ of the old sacrifice Decumenius also writeth thus concerning the naming of the chalice or cup Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem Et bene in poculo vt ostendat vetus Testamentum anteà hoc delineasse Our Lord geueth his own blood in stede of the blood of vnreasonable creatures And he doth well to geue it in a cup to shew that the old Testament did shadow this thing before Behold why the cup is mentioned Uerily to shew Christes blood to be as really in the cup of his own supper as euer the bruâ—…e beastes blood was in the cup of the old testament yea much more also For the blood of the oxen was really put into that old cup to shew that Christes blood should be really present in the cup of his supper the old blood did not shew that wine should be in Christes cup for that had bene lesse then the old testameÌ„t it self because the blood of oxen is better then wine of the grape but that blood in the basin did signifie that Christes blood should be in our chalice not only as in a figure for so it was in the basin also of the old testament but euen in very dede vnder the forme of wine It is not now sufficient to say we drink Christes blood in hart or by faith it must be drunken really out of the chalice and cup of Christes supper thence the hart must take it at Christes supper thence it must be receaued both in faith and truthe ¶ The xxvi Circumstance of the verb est left out in S. Lukes words IT is the custome of writers in the Hebrew tonge to leaue out many tymes the verb sum es fui which is latin to be and that because common sense and vse doth easily teache vs to supply that verb as being both most necessarie of al other and most frequent in common speache S. Luke writeth thus This cuâ—… is the new testament in my blood shed for you this sentence is imperfit for lack of a verb which may knit the parts thereof together I ask what verb we shal vnderstand to make it perfit The Sacramontaries say that Christ meaneth this cup doth signifie the new testament in my blood will ye then vnderstand the verb significat doth signifie if ye do so I wil shew that as well the noun cup as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testamentum are both put in the nominatiue case but if S. Luke had meant to vnderstand the verb significat he wold haue put one of them in the accusatiue case If ye supply the verb est is to make the sentence perfit that verb must nedes be takeÌ„ in the same sense wherein it is wont to be supplied but it is coÌ„monly supplied as a coÌ„mon verb whose nature is to declare the substance and not the figure of the thing which is spoken of therefore so it must be taken at this tyme. Otherwise what a folly were it wheÌ„ a verb is at the first left out to call it of purpose into the speache and as sone as it is placed there to say it staÌ„deth not properly but to remoue it again put an other verb for it What was the verb est being once left out brought in for this intent only yâ— as sone as it was in his place it should be immediatly cast out chaÌ„ged into the verb significat If ye say ye were compelled to cal it in I agree with you and say further ye are
the faith of that eater neuer so great did not shew Christes death past but only to come so this eating of common bread in our Lords supper doth not by the eating inferre the death of Christe to be past but rather as being to come For euery shadow belongeth to a truth whereof it is the shadow and is 〈◊〉 vntil the truth it self come but when the truth is ones present the shadow is no more a bare shadow but a shadow fylled with the truth But by the Zwiâ—…glians opinion the Sacrament of Christes supper is common bread without any reall truth made or wrought abowt it therefore it is a figure a shadow and an imperfyt worke whereas if yâ— truth of it were come it should not be only a shadow but should haue a truth vnder the shadow Thus we may perceyue that the eating of common bread for a figure of Christes death with neuer so greate a faith doth not so much by the eating shew his death past as to come hereaâ—…ter Agayne were it graunted that by reason of the faith of the eater it shewed the death past yet because it sheweth it in a simple figure it may seme that it is past in a simple figure whereby this Sacrament aâ—…ter the interpretation of our new preachers is no sufficieÌ„t meane by the dede it selfe to shew that true death which Christe suffred for vs vppon the crosse and yet S. Paule saith that by eating this bread we shew the death of Christe that is to say we shew him to haue died by eating it I say For now we speake not of preaching the Ghospell not of remembring the articles of our crede nor of other vndoubted wytnesses whereby it is proued that Christe hath died for vs. We speake of S Paules argument who â—…aith by eating this bread we shew Christe to haue dyed for vs. which argument is none is vayne is rather agaynst the faith then with it if the bread that we eate be not the reall flesh of Christe But if we once confesse that we eate the subsâ—…aÌ„ce of Christes natural body drinke the substance of his naturall blood then doth it follow inuincibly that Christe is dead for vs. It followeth I say by the order of Gods words for no flesh is eaten whiles the beast liueth whose â—…lesh it is as it is written Carnem cum sanguine non comedetis ye shal not eate the flesh with the blood in it or any member cut from the liue beast whiles the blood yet remayueth in it Agayne the order of religion as wel vnder the Patriarkes as vnder the law of Moyses sheweth that no beast was eaten Sacramentally before it was kylled and offred From the sacrifice of Abâ—…lto to the comming of Christ certeinly Christ is really dead for vs and being his true fleshe that we eate we shew his true death â–ª and we shew it past and not to come Neither let any man say that Christ in his last supper gaue his fleshe before he died for he dyd not that before his death was at the very point to be fulfilled The Iewes began their feastes on the euening tyde couÌ„ting the day from Son set to the next Son set according as it is writen A vespera in vesperam celebrabitis Sabbata vestra from euening to euening ye shall kepe your holy days Christe therefore kept his supper the mauÌ„dy thursday at night after Son set when yâ— goodfryday whereon he dyed was now begon when he was already solde vnto the Iewes and all things prepared for his death so that he came to the geuing of his flesh as men do come in their death bed to dispose what shal be done after their death willing this mystery to be made for the remembrance of him And as it may appere in the actes of the Apostles after the 〈◊〉 of Christ and comming down of the holy Ghost the ChristeÌ„ mâ—…n begaÌ„first to kepe coÌ„tinue this at which time they shâ—…wed him both dead rysen sitting at his Fathers right haÌ„d in heauen And surely as well S. Iames in his liturgie as Damascen expounding these wordes of S. Paule whereof we speke â—…aieth Mortem filii hominis annunciatis resurrectionem eius conâ—…itemini â—…onec veniat ye shew the death of the son of man and coÌ„fâ—…sse his resurrection vntil he come Thus by eating this body we shew Christes true death by eating it being in it self aliue we shew also yâ— which folowed his death which was his resurrection and ascension Bâ—…t by a figuratiue eating we should not shew his true death and much lesse his true resurrectioÌ„ for as the death is shewed by eating the body which died so the resurrection of the said body is shewed by eating the body which died now is a liue the death is shewed whiles the body is vnder the forme of bread and the blood a part vnder the forme of wyne as though they were styll a sunder The resurrection is shewed whiles vnder eche forme whole Christ is conteyned Therefore we eate Christ more then in a figure and more then by faith and spirit we eate him in dede whereby it followeth that he is dead for vs in dede we eate him aliue without impairing or diminishing any part of him whereby it foloweth he is rysen from death and remaineth immortall Now let vs heare how S. Chrisostom alludeth to the same reason who speaking os Christes last supper writeth in this maner Quando id proposituÌ„ videris dic tecum Hoc corpus cae When thow seest that body set before thee say with thy self This body nailed and beaten was not ouercommed with death This body the â—…onne seing crucified turned away his beames Through it also the vele of the temple was torne and the rocks and the whole earth shaken The self same body made bloody wouÌ„ded with a speare gusshed out in founteines of blood water healthsome to the whole world Seest thou after what sorte Chrysostom talketh of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar â–ª Seest thou by what means he there sheweth the death of Christ This body saith he was nailed wounded perced with a spere It is then the reall body that sheweth the reall death of Christe and that sheweth it not only when we remember that Christ dyed when we thinke of his resâ—…rrection and ascension but though no man think of his death yet the very eating of this very reall body sheweth his death to men to Aungels to God The dede I say and fact of eating sheweth him to be dead whose fleshe is eaten euen as the blood of Abel cried to God from the earth where it lay and as the body of Christ in heauen by his only presence maketh continual intercession to God the Father for vs alwaies putting God in minde of his death and of our saluation ¶ The real presence is proued by the illation which S. Paule maketh concerning the
as Christ said it sicut ipse dixit as him selfe said it without glosing without additioÌ„s without figures orparables euen as Christ spake it so it was beleued and beleued of euery man And who so did not beleue it was rekoned a damned person without grace without saluation without life euerlasting Thus haue we heard two notable witnesses of the faith of the whole Churche the one a Latine S. Hilarius the other a grecian Epiphanius But now I will bring foorth not as before the old Fathers bearing witnesse of the belefe of the people but I will bring foorth the whole people it selfe yea the people of the primatine Church You shall heare al the citizens of the house of God through out the world witnessing with one voice in one word their most constaÌ„t faith touching the Sacrament of the altar Amen is an hebrew word which partly wisheth and partly affirmeth signifying as it were at once be it so and it is so It signifieth be it so when it is ioyned with praiers and petitions It signifieth it is so when it foloweth any parte of Christes doctrine which is alredy pronounced or affirmed Thence we reade so oft in holy scripture Amen amen I say vnto you which is to say verely verely S. James the Apostle S. Iustin the martyr S. Clement S. Cyrill of Hicrusalem S. Basil S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostom doe witnesse that the people vsed at Masse tyme to answer Amen Which thing they did specially twise once at the consecration as well of the body as of the blood and againe at the tyme of communion At the consecration the Priest in the person of Christ pronounceth most determinatly ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my bloood Therefore when the people answer to those blessed sayings Amen they affirme the same that is affirmed as though they said with one voice It is verely the body of Christ and it is verely the blood of Christ whereof you speak And least you should thinke this coÌ„ment to be of myne making S. Ambrose expounded yâ— same word before me saying Ipse clamat dominus Iesus hoc est corpus meuÌ„ our Lord Iesus him selfe crieth this is my body He calleeh the crying of our Lord when his minister crieth so in his name For of that crying he speaketh as it may appere by the word folowing Wel Our Lord Iesus him self crieth out this is my body before the blessing of yâ— heauenly words it is named another kind after consecration that body is signified him self calleth it his own blood before consecration it is called an other thing after consecration it is called blood and thou sayest Amen that is to say as S. Ambrose him selfe expoundeth it verum est it is true That the mouth speaketh let the inward mind confelse that the speache soundeth let the hart think Hitherto S. Ambrose who would not bid the people thinke that whiche the speache soundeth if the speache were figuratiue for a figuratiue speache soundeth otherwise then we ought to thinke thereof as when we say God is sory Christ is made synne the rok is Christ. As it was the custome of the primatiue Church for the people to say Amen straight vppon the consecration of the body and blood whereby they shewed them selues to beleue the wordes of Christ and the work of the Priest euen so was it also the custome that when the tyme of communion came as S. Clement and diâ—…erse others doe witnesse the Bishop should geue the oblation to the people saying â–ª Corpus Christi the body of Christ and he yâ— toke it should say Amen it is true And yâ— Deacon wheÌ„ he deliuered yâ— chalice did say sanguis Christi calix vitae â–ª yâ— blood of Christ yâ— chalice of life he that drank said Amen so it is or that is true To which custome being in vse at his tyme S. Ambrose alluding writeth thus Dicit tibi Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis amen hoc est verum quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The Priest saith to thee the body of Christ and thou saiest Amen that is true that which thy tonge confesseth let thy hart kepe But what speake I of S. Ambrose Would the Apostles haue made all the people to cry amen to that which had not bene so as the word did sound Would they haue made the simple men to witâ—…esse their belefe to such words as neded a farther commeÌ„t or interpretation It is rather to be thought yea to be most assuredly beleued that they ordeined that custome to thend all men might know that the thing consecrated vppon the altar was in dede the body of Christ S. Augustine beareth witnesse to the same custome saying Habet magnam vocem Christi sanguis in terra cùm eo accepto ab omnibus gentibus respondetur Amen the blood of Christ hath a greate voice in earth when after it is taken all nations aunswere amen Haec est clara vox sanguinis quam sauguis ipse exprimit ex ore fidelium eodem sanguine redemptorum This is the cleere voice of the blood the which voice the blood it selfe forceth out of the mouth of the faithfull being redemed with the same blood Pope Leo the greate agreeth with S. Clement S. Ambrose and S. Augustine Sic sacrae mensae communicare debetis caeâ—… Ye ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and blood of Christe for yâ— thing is taken in the mouth which is beleued in faith And Amen is in vayne answered of them who dispute against that which is receaued This place declareth that some disputation was moued by some of the heresy of Manicheus who liued in Rome vnder Leo against the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the forme of bread For seing the Maniches beleued not Christ to haue a true body at all they might well doubt of the truth of his body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar But that holy Bishop biddeth the people not doubt thereof shewing that we do not eate the body of Christ only by faith but also by mouth Now because Leo setteth the receauing of the truth of Christes body by mouth against the receauing thereof by faith only we may coniecture that heretikes euen in those days were of the mind that their ofspring is now of verily to draw as much truth from Christes works as may be and to set all things vpon faith spirit and vnderstanding But Leo proueth his doctrine by the generall custome of the whole Church â–ª wherein the people answering Amen did in open words witnesse them selues to beleue that it was true which the Priest sayd concerning the body of Christ. Now because some of them who vsed to say Amen disputed whether the substance and truth of Christes body were present in the mouthes of
it yet the godhed remayned corporally dwelt in it and the soule returned to it agayne the third day Therefore when Christ saith This is my body which is geuen for you I am bound to beleue that his body is neither without soule nor godhead for ells it were not truly said it is geuen for vs yf it were not profitable to vs. Thus you se that I beleue al that words of Christ together and that you not doing so are without ye do repeut certeine to be condemned for not beleuing these words take eate This is my body You wyll say ye beleue these words yet not carnally but spiritually as it is mete for Christes wordes to be beleued O syr he that assigneth a meane howe he will beleue Christes wordes in that very faut sheweth hym selfe not to beleue them for belefe inuenteth nothing of his owne but followeth the autoritie of God that speaketh I beleue in deed that Christes words can not be carnal as you take carnal words for foule and grosse meaninges But I see it to be a very cleane and pure meaning that the moste pure substance of the flesh of Christ should he geuen vnder the form of bread to thend it may be eaten of vs and the chiefe and cleanest thing that we vse to eate is bread To geue therefore the chiefe and most healthfull flesh in the world to be eaten vnder the form of the purest eatable thing is a very pure and cleane work far from all carnality You will say it is more pure if it be rather beleued to be eaten only of yâ— harte of man by faith spirit then by mouth and body I answere that is no pure eating of a corporall thing which taketh away the truth of corporall eating Againe both ways of eating are better then one of them alone I beleue his real flesh to be eaten with hart and mouth to be eaten with body minde to be eaten in deede and in faith Here faileth your belefe because of two true thinges you beleue but one the other you discredit To be short let vs imagine him that beleueth the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to stand before the seate of Christes iudgement and that Christe asketh him why he did beleue and worship his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine May he not wel answere in this wise I beleued so and did so because your maiestie taking bread and hauing blessed douted not so say This is my body which words al my forefathers vnderstode to be spoken properly and to be true as they sounded therefore at the commandement of my prelats I adored your body vnder the form of bread If Christ reply that he had preachers who tought him otherwise and cryed to him to beware least he committed idolatrie first that obiectiâ—… might not be made to any man that died aboue fiftie yeres past because no preacher taught publikely any such doctrine Secondly if so much were said to one of our time he might answere that he had 〈◊〉 forefathers and moe preachers and those much more anncient and more honest men who required him to beleue Christes wordes and to worship the body of his maker Well now we are come to the point all the Catholikes haue preaâ—…hed with one accorde that it is the true body of Christ and the Gospell witnesseth that Christ 〈◊〉 This is my body Here is the word of God and the tradition and preaching of man ioyned together I aske whether it be possible for Christ who requireth nothing so earnestly of vs as briefâ—… to 〈◊〉 that simple man who being otherwise of good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his word and his forefaâ—… and the preachers agreable with both or not Answere me for what fault shall this poore man be condemned First to beleue Christ it is no fault Secondly Christ faid this is my body Thirdly he being yet an infant was of his parentes taught that to be the body of Christ which was holden ouer the Priests head Fourthly as many and moe preache vnto him when he cometh to laufull age and say this is the body of Christ as there are that aâ—…terward preache the contrary Tell me then what was his fault for which he may be coÌ„demned If you say his eyes told him it was not yâ— body of Christ he will answere that for the reuerence he bare to the word of God he denied the fensible instruction of his eyes as geuing more credit to Christ then to him selfe Is that a fault If you reply that by that meaâ—…es he might haue worshipped the roâ—… in steâ—…de of Christ he wil answere he knoweth not what you meane he neuer had any rok shewed him by most graue authority which was said to be Christ. If any suche thing had bene taught him he for his parte was so obedient to beleue so willing to adore Christ that he would haue done any thing which had bene commanded to him vnder the name of Christ or of his religion Is this a fault why the poore man should be condemned No surely seing the Prophet Dauid saieth Vt iumentum factus sum apud te I am become as it were a beast before thee It is â—…andable saith Euthymius that in the sight of God we take our selues as beastes which being so I can deuise no fault in this poore and simple man who if he be deceaued he is deceaued by Christ by his forefathers by diuerse Catholike and vertuous Preachers by yâ— vertue of humility of obedience of pure loue towards God But on the other side if Christ call one of them before him who denieth his reall presence aske him why he did not beleue the Sacrament of the altar to be the body of Christe what will he answer for himselfe â–ª Will he say Syr I beleâ—…ed your body to sit at the right hand of God the Father and therefore that your body was not in the Priestes hand Why then thinkest thou that I am not able to make the same which is at the right hand of my father to be alsâ—… present vnder the form of bread Sir whether you be able or no I can not say but I haue hard many preachers tel that one body caÌ„ not be at one time in diuerse places O howe dreadfully would Christ answere in this case Did not those preachers whom thou preteÌ„dest to folow say alwaies they preached to thee the sincere word of God Did they not by that colour ouerthrow monasteries Churches altars images of Saintes and mine owne image and crosâ—…e Did they not denie the sacrifice of the Masse praing for the dead and such like auncient vsages only for pretence of the word of God And now see how inexcusable they thou art I said Take eate this is my body I said this to twelue men I gaue eche of them my body â—…ad
them make that thing as it is written in the Gospel I shewed at 〈◊〉 that I was signed of my Father and equall with him in power they them selues beleue that I made al creatures places times of nothing and now is it doubted how I am able to make my body present vnder the â—…orm of bread in diuerse places Yea to maintaine the better that argument against my allmighty power they say I entred not into my disciples the dores being shut But eyther preuented the shutting of them contrary to the wordes of my Gospell or came in by the window as theues do or by some hole as crepers doe yea any thing is soner beleued then my diuine strength and working Thou hypocrite seing the word of God hath it written foure tymes in the new testament This is my body how comest thou to talke with me of my 〈◊〉 in heauen as though one of my workes were contrary to the other If in dede thou haddest bene humbly perswaded that I were God thou wouldest not measure my allmightie power by thy simple wit Thou art twise condemned first for deniall of a truth and againe for denying it against my expresse word which thou pretendest to esâ—…e and yet pronouÌ„cest it false If the pore mâ—…n say he knew not so much nor saw not the falsehod of that argumeÌ„t and beginne to accuse the salse preachers who deceiuâ—…d him Christ maie well say that he was not deceaued for before those false preachers began their false doctrine he had said This is my body and this is my blood and all the world beleued and taught the râ—…all presence of Christes body blood fiften hundred yeres together What cause nowe haddest thou to beleue a new Gospell and new preachers thereof Forsoth Sir they said the Bishop of Rome had deceaued vs and we heare say he is a very euil maÌ„ therefore we thought he had deceaued vs. If in this case Christ tell him that the Bishop of Rome were yâ— successour of S. Peter and so his vicar hauing promise by him not to erre in faith and yet that he alone taught not that doctrine but that all the Bishops doctors pâ—…ers of the whole Church taught the same from the beginning and that Christ him selfe had sayâ—… the same that all the 〈◊〉 and the Apostle S. Paule had written the same that al faithful 〈◊〉 beleued the same what excuse can he haue who 〈◊〉 Christ the Apostles the Bisshops the Fathers the preachers and the whole Church to followe an vpâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who began his doctriue so amhitiously and proudly who â—…ed so euil died so terribly that his very â—…ominable dealing with great Princes his shamfull 〈◊〉 and horrible death might make any good man wearie to think vpon him much lesse should so many haue folowed him To 〈◊〉 shor â—…wer the pore maÌ„ for him selfe â–ª what he may yet he can not denie but that both Christ said this is my body the Church taught the same and yet he beleued not this to be the body of Christe and therefore is one of them who beleue not without faith which is but one there is no saluatioÌ„ no pleasing of God no part in the kingdoÌ„ of heauen Which thing if they that be aliue will consider they maie returne againe to the Catholike Churche and so be made liuely members of that body whereof Christe is the Sauiour Herevnto is added the seuenth booke conteining a con â–ª â—…utation of the fifth article of M. Iuels Reply against D. Harding concerning the reall presence of Christes body in the supper of our Lorde The preface of the seuenth booke Iâ—…d thought to haue ended my treatise of our Lords supper with such matter as had bâ—…ne set foorth in my former six boks But when I had seen M. Iuels â—…eply against D. Harding and had 〈◊〉 not only contrarie doctrine to that which the Catholike Chruch beleueth vttered therin but also the same vttered with such enormouse misconstruing of the worde of God and with suche abusing of auncieÌ„t writers that it semed expedient to detect the falshod thereof I toke vpoÌ„ me to answere specially to that article whiche did unpugne the reall presence of Christes body â–ª whereof I had intreated And because I could neither well confute M. Iuels â—…ply without some respect had to D. Hardings answere nor conueniently put both D. Hardings and M. Iuels whole wordes in â—…ny booke which alredie was greate enough I was constrained to take such order that neither al their wordes might be at large laied foorth nor the pith of them in any part dissembled Wherein I haue so behaued my selfe that M. Iuel shall haue no 〈◊〉 cause to coÌ„plaine of me For I haue to my knowledge omitted no scripture no authoritie no argument of any force whereunto I haue not aunswered As for yâ— bookes of D. Harding of M. Iuel they being extaÌ„t in most mens handes nede not to be printed again by me How fully M. Iuel is answered the discrete Reader shall iudge when he commeth to the matter This much I will say it was more pain to staie my penne in suche abundance of stuffe as the goodâ—…es of the cause and euill dealing of M. Iuel gaue me then to 〈◊〉 at any tyme what might be 〈◊〉 answered One thing I beâ—…che the Reader to note most diligeÌ„tly that in all this treatise M. Iuel vseth none other meane so coâ—…on to proue his intent as to set one truth against an other As though Christes body could not both be in heauen visibly and in the Sacrament miraculously or as though because the Saâ—…rament is a figure it could not also contein the truth which it sigureth Or because Christ is eaten by faith his body might not be eaten also realy in the Sacrament But this thing is common to M. Iuel with other of his faction Marie to leaue on t the true nominatiue caâ—…e and to put in a false to leaue out the 〈◊〉 word which is the keie of all disputation to conueye wordes of his own which the authour neuer thought of to mispoint mis-english the testimonies of the fathers to 〈◊〉 their meaning that I can not tel whether any man hath vsed so much in so litle a treatise as in this one article of the reall â—…sence â—…e is â—…ound to haue done Neither is it vnknoweÌ„ to yâ— lerned who hath seen his booke yâ— hâ—… hath vsed the like falshod in yâ— other articles also 〈◊〉 by Gods grace the world shal see or it be long In the meane tyme iudg the rest by this which I shall set before thiâ—…e eyes And praie vn â–ª to God yâ— either M. Iuel may see his vnhonest dealing 〈◊〉 him selfe or els that his folly maie be 〈◊〉 to al men to thintent none may perish beside those who will not â—…denour by all meanes to lerne 〈◊〉 folow and to embrace the true doctrine of Christes Gospel and of the 〈◊〉 â–ª tholike Church The
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
word vere verilie â–ª doth not shew that they toke it to be eaten in substance without al grosse humours or carnal diuision of his members but yâ— they thought they should eate it carnally as the flesh of oxen is eaten with the destructioÌ„ of Christes flesh TertulliaÌ„ did not referre the errour to the mouth as you say but vnto yâ— maner of taking into the mouthe For him selfe teacheth in the same booke that our flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ. Iu. Nicolas de Lyra saith these wordes of Christ in the sixth of S. Ihon pertein not vnto the Sacrament SaÌ„ Ye shal neuer haue honestie by allegâ—…g yâ— gloses which your self haue condemned But I know your disease saine you would haue a witnesse that the 6. of S. Iohn perteineth not to the supper I will geue you in yâ— third chapiter of my third booke aboue twentie honest witnesses to proue that Christ in S. Iohn spake of his last supper and all they shal be elder then Nicolas of Lyra. But what saieth he as you report He neuer in his life thought vppon that whiche you attribute vnto him What seeke you to know his mind vppon the 110. psalme sith he hath writen vppon the whole sixth chapiter of S. Iohn Perhaps he speaketh not of the matter vppon the psalmes or if he doe it is but by the way and not of purpose Wel it wil serue you whatsoeuer it be your hunger and neede is such Let vs then here Nicolas de Lyra vpon those words Memoriam fecit Our Lord hath made a memorie of his marueilouse thinges Thus he writeth Eucharistiae cibus sapidus est gustui spirituali propter quod dicit Saluator Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternuÌ„ The meate of the Eucharist is a sauerie meate to the spiritual taste Wherefore our Sauiour saieth if any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer Is Eucharistia the Sacrament or no Are the other wordes in S. Iohn or no It is then perceaued by his comments vppon that psalm that you speake falsely of him and in verie deede so falsely that he is wonderful plaine iâ—… al his workes concerning that the sixth of S. Ihon perteineth to the last supper As for the Replica which of late is printed with Nicolas of Lyra remember that it is no part of Lyra and that you are conuersant in gloses neither with truth nor with diligence ¶ M. Iuel hath not conferred the supper with the sixth of S. Ihon as it ought to be IVel. Christe in S. Ihon speaking of spirituall eating by faith made no mention of any figure but in his supper he added an outward sacrament to the same spiritual eating which the Fathers oft call a figure San. You can not tel what you say For if in S. Ihon spiritual eating by faith be only spokeÌ„ of why is it said dabo I wil geue Whereas spirituall eating was alreadie geuen to al that euer beleued and therefore it was not to come But the bread whiche Christ wil geue is his flesh and the gift thereof is to come therefore it is more then a spirituall eating by faith whiche was both past and present but there is no mention of any figure say you in S. Iohn Thereforâ—… say I seing the promise of his fleshe whiche is to come is not a promise concerning the figure thereof it is surely a promise coÌ„cerning the substance thereof If it be so and yet it must nedes be more theÌ„ a promise of eating by faith which was not come it wil folow that it was a promise of a bodily eating aswell as by faith As if Christ said the bread whiche I will geue to be receaued bodily at my last supper as I haue and presently doe geue the same to your soules that doe beleue in me that bread is my flesh But leste I should leaue this matter only in confutinge your surmise it is to be knowen that when a promise and a performance of God belong to one thing the promise is made plaine by the performance thereof and seing this word dabo I will geue is a word of promise concerning Christes fleshe we must seeke the performance of it which will neuer be found to be fulfilled any where but only in the last supper and there the old Fathers sought the performance of it as in my third booke I haue declared Therefore as all the promises made before Christes coÌ„ming were plaine when he had taken flesh and when God from heaueÌ„ said of him This is my derebeloued sonne so is the promise made in S. Ihon very plaine when Christe hauing taken bread and geuen thanckes brake and gaue saying take eate This is my body The words this is doth answere yâ— word dabo I wil geue for as Tertullian wel noteth this is ar words af performing of fulfilling the promise Thus he writeth of God the Father who hauing promised his sonne did also performe his promise in geuing him really Itaque iam representans â—…um Hic est filius 〈◊〉 vtique subadditur quem repromisi Si enim repromisi aliquaÌ„do posteâ—… dicit hic est eius est exhibâ—…ntis voce vti in demoÌ„stratione promissâ—… qut aliquando promisit God therefore making him present saieth this is my sonne surely it is to be supplied whoÌ„ I haue promised For if he promised him at any tyme and afterward saith hic est this is he it belongeth to him who sometyme made the promise to vse the word of bringing foorth really or of deliuerance in shewing the thing promised Applie this now to our purpose Christ saied the bread which I wil geue is my flesh which I wil geue for the life of the world At his supper after bread taken and blessing vsed he saith take eâ—…te This is my body which is geueÌ„ for you This is are words which shew present and bring â—…oorth really and deliuer the flesh before promised But these wordes take eate this is my body make present and shew and deliuer Christes body to vs bodily therefore the promise wherein Christ said I wil geue was also meant I will geue to you bodily euen by the ministerie of mie hands and you shal receaue it with your hands or mouthes or with both together Which being so the Fathers who cal Christes supper a figure must nedes meane such a figure as was promised But when the promise was made at Tapharnaum M. Iuel confesseth as the truth is that no mention was made either of bread or of wine but only of Christes own flesh therefore in the last supper the selfe same substance of Christe is called of the Fathers a figure because it is in such sort present Iuel M. Harding putteth no difference betwene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Sander Origines doth speake of them who reading
miraculouse 26. Ye expound to be gilty of Christes body and blood for eating that is to say for not eating or resusing to eate For you teache euill men not to eate the body of Christ which is against S. Paule 27. Ye will not haue Christes supper to be an externall sacrifice but to be worse in that point then the Iewish or idolatours altars and tables who both did sacrifice and also S. Paule compareth Christes table with theirs 28. Ye so expound the shewing of Christes death by eating bread a figure of him that you rather shewe him not to be truely dead because your figure is yet emptie voide which can neuer proue Christes death truely past 29. Ye expound the not making a difference betwene Christes body eaten and other meates in suche sort that ye wil not haue the body present wherein the difference is to be made 30. Ye deny our vnion with Christes flesh by corporall participation which S. Paule teacheth by the example of Adam Eue being two in one flesh 31. Whereas S. Pauie saieth Christe to be so muche better then Angels by how much he had a more excelleÌ„t name theÌ„ they you regard not yâ— name body blood geuen to yâ— mysteries of Christ but affirme them to be still that they were before and therefore not to be that excellent substance which they are named to be 32. In all the scriptures so great and oft mention being made of Christes supper as there is yet no promise can be found made to him who eateth materiall bread and drinketh wine But all the promise is made for eatinge Christes fleshe and drinkinge worthely his blood Therefore you affirm bread to be eateÌ„ and wine to be drunken in Christes supper beside the word of God 33. Although Dauid prophecied of cating and adoring yet you wil graunt no such meat to be geueÌ„ to vs which may be external ly adored 34. Notwithstanding that the prophets teache that by Christes comming al externall idolatrie shal be taken away yet you feare not to say that Christes owne Sacrament bearing the name of his owne body and blood is it selfe an idol which was left with vs to kepe vs from all idolatrie 35. The sonne of man came as to saue so to fede the whole man why then denie you the food of life to our bodies affirming them to eat common bread and to drinke common wine whiles the soule is fed by faith with the body and bloode of Christ 36. If in the Sacrament of the altar we fede vpon Christ by faith alone why is that Sacrament called a supper more theÌ„ baptism where also we must fede on Christ by faith 37. Seing a figure may also be the truth it selfe whereof it is the figure as Christ is the figure of his Father and yet the same substance what reason haue you why you would rather detract this hoâ—…our from Christes Sacrament then geue the same vnto it 38. Christ being equal with his Father made promise to vs of his â—…ne fleshe whiche his Father had geâ—…en Why then denie you the gift of Christ to be as real to vs as his Father gaue him real fleshe 39. How teache you the words of Christ which are spirit life to be notwithstanding figuratiue and consequently deade and voide of al life or strength 40. Because yâ— word of God who was only able to be fed vpon by faith and so was the food of Angels or soules woulde be also the meate of man in respect of the body it toke flesh aâ—…d at his supper sayd to vs take eate this is my body And yet you make him still to be only the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded frome hauing God corporally in vs through the fleshe of Christe 41. To coÌ„clude whereas ye find flesh bodie blood ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking geuing breaking distributing coÌ„municating dâ—…udicating ye expound all those words figuratiuelie as though God by so manie waies repeating those words had not strengthned the coÌ„mon and proper significatioÌ„s of them Let this suffise for this time to shew that you obserue nor gender nor number nor nominatiue case nor verb nor antecedent nor relatiue nor the condition of the maker of the supper nor the nature of the sacrament nor the state and perfection of the Gospel nor the sayings of the prophetes nor the â—…ulfilling of the old law nor the oft repeting of the matters belonging to Christs supper but onlie to serue the eye and the senses deny al the marueilous workes of the new testament yâ— remeÌ„brance of al which this one mysterie is affirmed to be â—…rag no more M. Iuel of our figuratiue expositions sith you haue thus erred in graÌ„mar in Logick in Diuinitie in truth in faith in coÌ„mon sense Iu. If in these words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ ye follow the letter it killeth San. To follow yâ— letter is to take words as thei sound to an inâ—…del as to haue flesh torn in to peeces and so eaten but he that taketh them as Christ in his supper by his fact did expound them doth folow yâ— spirit and not the letter ¶ A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel IVel. S. Augustine sayth The Sacrament of Christes body after a certain phrase or manner or trope or â—…igure of speache is the body of Christ. Sander This place is wickedly abused because it is nakedly alleged and falsely englished whereas it dependeth wholy vpon the words going before which are these Nónne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in Sacramento caet Was not Christ once offered vp in him selfe and yet in the Sacrament he is offered vp for the people not only at euerie feaste of Easter but euerie day Neither surely doth he lye who being demanded Eum responderit immolari Doth answere that he is offered vp For if the SacrameÌ„ts had not a certain likenes of those thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes they were not at all Sacramentes Out of this likenes they take also for the most parte the names of the things theÌ„ selues As therefore according to a certaine â—…anner the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christe the Sacrament of the blood of Christe is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith In these words of S. Augustine it is to be seen euidently that he putteth a difference betwene the thing and the Sacrament of that thing The thing therefore it selfe must be first knoweâ—… and then we shal see how the Sacrament thereof is both like vnâ—… it and taketh the name thereof The thing it selfe in ouâ—… question is Iesus Christ not only so but the true body of Iesus Christe neither only true in substance but euen
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
Matth. 9. The calâ—… of Goâ—… Ozee 2. Roma 9. Ozee 1. Roma 9. De ijs qui init myster Capit. 9. Tertull. aduers. Marcioâ—… lib. 4. 1. Cor. 11 Hebr. 1. Psal. 14â—… Lucae 2â—… 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 Leuiti â–ª 1. Math. 21. Ireneus Libro 5. aduersus haereses Ireneus aâ—…uersus haeres li. 3 Cap. 34. Iustinus Martyr â–ª In apolog 2. Math. 21. Caluin is shewed to be an idolatour Acto 14. Hierony mus ad 〈◊〉 to 2. Augustinus in Psal. 39. Iustinus in apol 2 Augustiâ—…us â—…pist 59 â—… Tim. 2. The obla tion of the 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Epist. 59 S. Augu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reth 〈◊〉 words this is â—…y body to â—… vpon yâ— table not vnto the audience Gen. 14. Psal. 109. Marci 14 Lucae 22. Lib. 4. cap. 32. Malac. 1. In Orat. 〈◊〉 Chryso hom de prodâ—…io ne Iudâ—… to 3. Ambros. de Sacra lib. 4 c. 5 The custom of yâ— East Churche at consecration De iis qui init cap. 9. The cnstom of the west â—…hurch in consecrating Hebr. 9. De Sacra lib. 3. cap. 1. â—…useb li. 5. c. 24 The Eucharist was sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the priâ—… Churche The custom of y◠〈◊〉 Church is against yâ— doctriâ—…e of Caluin Luc. 22. Christ â—…ad not his Apostles make a promise of a thing but make the thing it self The 〈◊〉 charist was caried by 〈◊〉 to y◠〈◊〉 perâ—… without wordes of prâ—… mising Hieron Euagri to 2. Iustinuâ—… Martyâ—… in apolog 2. The words of Caluin De Coen Domini Caluin re proueth the 〈◊〉 Church Caluin bringeth no reason for his 〈◊〉 reâ—… of the Apoâ—…â—…lers Matt. 26. Nothing knoweÌ„ to be coÌ„secra ted maye be 〈◊〉 teo again Hebr. 5. A DeacoÌ„ cannot coÌ„ secrate the holy myâ—… The intolerable pride of 〈◊〉 The first Chapiter The wor des of the Apologie Fol. 14. b vi pag 1. The answere S. Bernard Petrus Lombarbus Tho. de Aquino Lyranus Dionysius Bur gensis Caietanus The 〈◊〉 question of our age The secoÌ„d Chapiter The Apo logie Fol. 24. c. 8. pa. 1. The answere Euill men 〈◊〉 yâ— body of Christ. Tit. 1. Ioan. 6. Leo. de passione Domini Sermo 1 The body of Christ was deliuered to Iudas Belief is takeÌ„â—…tune for yeâ—…hole state of the gospell Ioan. 3. Galat. 5. Hilarius in Matt. Matt. 26. Marc. 14 Matt. 10. Marc. 3. Luc. 6. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Marc. 14 Iudas drank yâ— which the other Apostles did Matt. 26. Iudas did not be leue well The 〈◊〉 logie Fol. 90. m. ij pagin 2. 〈◊〉 answâ—…re Victor persecutionis vand li. 1. cap. 3. Optatus lib. 6. de schisma Donat. 〈◊〉 men are worse theÌ„ dogs Heb. 10. The Fathers teach that Iudas did eate the body of Christ. 1. Cypri de coena Domini 2. Hiero. Li. 2. ad uers Io. 3. Theodorit in 3. Cor. 11 4. Chrysost Ho. deprodit 5. Augustinus in Ioà . tractat 50. 6. Leo in Ser. 1. de passione 7. Sedul in Carm. Paschali 8. Beda in Ioà . 6. 9. Theophil in Matt. 26. 10. Euthi mius 64 in Matt. Lucae 22. S. Augustin de verb. do serm 22. so expoundeth it 1. Cor. 1â—… Unworthy eating presupposeth 〈◊〉 eating Machab. li. 2. ca. 5. â—…andling 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 handling Gene. 3. An vnworthy ea â—…ng is an 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 11 Bread is takâ—… in holy scripture for all yâ— which is eaten The grek article yâ— pronoun make plam the words of S. Paule Matt. 26. This can not be spoken of two things August in loan tracta 50 Peter and Iudas to ke of one bread Lucae 22. This can meane but one thing which all the â—…postles did take a â—…ke Christ made but one gift of his â—…ody If Iudas did not eate the body neither any o ther coâ—…ld eate it The eating in Christes supper was bodily Mat. 26 â–ª Mar. 14. drink 〈◊〉 all of this and they all drank muste nedes be said of one thing Iudas dranke yâ— samethig but not to the same merite 1. Cor. 10 Sap. 16. Augusti tractat 50. in Io. Peter toke to life Iudas to death Faith was nessa ry not to yâ— drinking but to the worthy drinking Ioan. 13. 1. Cor. 11 Eating bi fayth is a 〈◊〉 to worthy 〈◊〉 of yâ— sacramtÌ„ It is one bapâ—…e to good euill Acto 2. Simon Magus was bapti â—…ed as wel as Cornelius but not so meritoriously Ephes. 4. Tit. 3. Acto 2 â–ª C. Si Sacerd de off Iudi. ordinar Chryso hom 83. in Mat. The third chapiter The Apo logie The ansâ—…e Origines in Psal. 37. Hom. 2. Basil. de Bapt. 〈◊〉 â–ª 〈◊〉 ca. vlt. Chrysost. in Ioan. Ho. 45. Cyprianus de Coena Domini Euill meÌ„ receaue yâ— SacrameÌ„ts but not the holines of them in Epist. 162. Iudas did eate our price which is yâ— reall body of Christ. Contra Crescor li. 〈◊〉 ca. 25 Christ hath both a natural and a mystical body 1. Cor 10 Euil men receaue not the vnioÌ„ which is in the mystical body August â—… Ioan. tra ctat 26. August de ciuita te Dei li. 21. c. 25 Ioan. 6. De verb. Domini Serm. 22. Grego in prim reg li. 2. Cap. 1. Beda in Lucae ca. 22. Arnobius 1. Cor. 11 Euery SacrameÌ„t hath a substaÌ„ce and an â—…ffect Euil men receaue the substance of Christs body but â—… not yâ— effect What com parisons yâ— Fathers vse in shewing yâ— good euil 〈◊〉 re ceaue one 〈◊〉 in the Sacraments The fourth Chapiter The Apo logie Fol. 24. The answere The Apo logie by his own confession defendeth the reall presence Matt. 26. A work belonging 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of Christ must haue a truth ac cording to the manhod The 〈◊〉 heresic The deliâ—… of a corporall tâ—…ing must haue some â—…t of the body The fifth Chapiter The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fol. 24. The â—…swere 〈◊〉 is by 〈◊〉 râ—…y preâ—… Christ gaue with 〈◊〉 hâ—…s yâ— which nourâ—…sheth The sixth 〈◊〉 The Apo 〈◊〉 The aunâ—… Ioan. 1. The deâ—…s oâ—… re â—…ing Christ in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supper Hilarius de trinit li. 8. Ioan. 6 Math 26 The seueÌ„ th chapter The Apo logâ—… The aunswere The â—…or des of the Aplogie The scrip 〈◊〉 call not yâ— supper of 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 Ioan. 6. The naâ—… of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt 26. Marc. 14 Lucae 22. 1. Cor 10 1. Cor. 11 The Apo logie goeth quite from the scriptures 1. Cor. 11. What vnworthy ea ting to in S. Paule The Apo logie breakâ—…th 〈◊〉 own rule The sâ—…pper of our Lorde to â—…res is no â—…acramet Malac. 1. The supper of Christ is a â—…acrifice Heb. 13. It is a tradition vnwriten that our Lords suâ—…per is a Sacrament The Apo logie Fol. 24. â—…a 8. pa. 1 Nor baptim nor yâ— supper is called a sacrament in yâ— scriptures The wor de SacrameÌ„t is yâ— ground oâ—… 〈◊〉 yâ—â—…ro testars â—…o 〈◊〉 in our Lordes supper The Apo logie fleeth from yâ— writen worâ—… to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man is to be heard who saieth This is not the body of Christ.