say we then This is my body which is geuen for you are they words of promise or no I answere Words of promise may be taken for suche as make a promise or els for suche as haue a promise made cōcerning them Those who beleue in God as Isaac did are named in holy scripture the children of promise not of that promise which themselues make to God but because through the grace of God which he promised before to Abraham in his blessed sede Iesus Christ they are made his chil dren And in that sense This is my body which is geuen for you may be called words of promise in so much as they fulfil at Christes supper the promise made before at Capharnaū When Christ sayd work the meate which the sonne of man will geue you and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh Again these words which is geuen for you at the tyme of Chri stes supper might stand to signifie which shal be geuen for you and so the old Fathers did reade them and the Latin copies of S. Paule haue so at this daye But the◅ the promise was to be consydered concerning the death of Christ which was to come and not concerning his supper which was present Caluin speaking of Christes supper as it is a supper saith this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise and that not because they are iustified concerning a former promise made at Capharnaum neither concerning the death which is now past but because they make a promise of Christes body to be spiritually eaten at his supper For he saith those words were not spoken to the bread wine but vnto the disciples to whom Christ pollicetur promiseth the communicating of his body and blood Also he saith the promises are offered to the faithfull together with bread and wine Moreouer let vs vnderstand saith he these words to be a liuely preaching which maie shew his efficacie in the accomplishement of that it promiseth First these words be a breif collation or sermon Secondly they promise the cōmunicating of Christes ◅ody Thirdly they being receaued of the faithfull bring forth in them that effectual eating of Christ which they promise Last of al he saith Take eate is the commandement like vnto Inuoca me call vpon me This is my body is the promise like vnto Exaudiam te I will heare the. I am the longer in shewing his mind because I feared it might be thought of wise men a great slaunder to faine so folish an opinion vpon a man taken for wise and lerned For it semeth an extreme madnesse to affirm that those words which shew a thing really present and bid vs take the same are notwithstanding words of promise At the transfiguration of Christ it was said this is my derebeloued sonne in whom I haue delighted heare him But who was euer so mad as to think that Christ was promised in those words and not rather shewed present Likewise when Christ said to him that had the palsey take a good hart sonne thy sinnes are forgeuen thee we beleue his sinnes were presently forgeuen him and not only a promise made that hereafter they should be forgeuen A promise lacketh many conditions which the performance hath A promise beginneth the bargain the perfoormance endeth at the least some part of it A promise consisteth in bare words the perfoormance besyde words hath dedes also ioyned A pr◅ mise belongeth to the time to come the performance to the tyme present A promise maie be differred to a certain daie or suspended with conditions the perfoormance must ◅edes be altogether without delay And how can these words Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise which neither speake of the time to come but of the present neither begyn but end the couenant nor consist in bare talk but also in reall dedes nor haue any condition or delay annexed but haue all things presently said signified made and deliuered If this is my body make to y◠hearers a promise of a spirituall communicating then seing those words were spoken to Iudas one of the twelue and are daily spoken to euil men without any condition or exception it maie seme that a spirituall communicating is promised to them which possibly can not be so For how can light and darknesse agree But if Caluin saie these words promise the body of Christ only to the faithfull I aske whether those words be writen in the supper of Christ or no If they be not writen how dareth Caluin supply them It is not said this is my body to you only that be faithfull as Caluin vseth falsely to interprete those words But it is absolutely said This is my body whosoeuer take it and eate it whether he take it by faith to his comfort and to euerlasting life or in deadely sinne to his iudgement and death For as God the Father said This is my derebeloued sonne and as thereof it foloweth that the person then shewed and pointed vnto by y◠voice was y◠sonne of God in dede whether euill men had to doe with him to whom he was y◠sauour of death or good men to whom he was the sauour of life right so this is my body was said of one certain thing then blessed be the man y◠cometh to eate it good or bad And as this is my derebeloued ◅ne are no words of promise but of a diuine witnes ◅oward Christ euen so this is my body promise not but witnesse and make presently the thing shewed to be in dede Christes body If this is my body doe promise the body of Christ yet this must nedes shew where the thing is whereunto it pointeth the body of Christ which is promised is also pointed vnto and the sense is I will geue you this thing to eate which is my body and by that meanes the eating is promised and the body is pointed to but the pointing can be directed to none other sensible thing but vnto that which semeth bread therfore that is affirmed to be Christes body and is promised to be geuen vs as meat bu◅ bread is not naturally the body of Christ therfore it is made his body And consequently Caluin who will haue these words to promise the ◅ing of Christes body by faith must nedes confesse that they make the same body in dede to th'◅nd the promise of eating that body which is so directly pointed vnto maie be fulfilled Howbeit Christ said not I will geue you my body but presently geuing said take eate this is my body But seing Caluin teacheth this that is pointed vnto still to remain bread I see not how those words which as he saith point vnto bread can withall promise the body of Christ. For the proposition is simple and affirmeth but one thing and that thing doth concerne the substāce as we beleue of Christes body as he saith of bread so
the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes Here is the Sacramentaries argument I eate bread and drinke wine in token of Christes death resurrection therefore he is dead and risen I pray you Syr how doth this argument hold What affinitie hath bread and wine with the death and with the resurrection of Christ But if bread and wine be turned into the same body blood of Christ which died and rose againe which wrought all the miracles done in this world Then is the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ in dede it selfe set before the eyes of our faith Because as Chrisostom teacheth Hoc idem corpus cruentatum caet This very same body bloudied perced with yâ— speare gaue as it were out of a spring fountaynes of blood healthfull to the whole world And the selfe body God aâ—…anced vnto the highest seate the which body also he gaue to vs both to th' intent we should haue it and to the intent we should eaâ—…e it But what speake I of S. Chrisostom This sayeth Christ is my body which is geuen for you And againe the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world How ofte so euer sayeth S. Paul ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he comme So that the hauing of the death and resurrection and all yâ— miracles of Christ before our eyes at Masse tyme riseth chiefly of yâ— thing which is the body of Christ. And secondarily of the things which are done about that his body The consecrating the offering the eating of the selfe same body which wrought these miracles which died and rose againe those facts I say in that thing shew his death and resurrection All other wayes of setting the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence of Christ is painting and shadowing in comparison of this liuely representation O how many sayeth S. Chrisostom say now adayes I wold see the soorm shape of Christ I would see his very garmentes and shoowes Ipsum igitur vides ipsum taÌ„gis ipsum comedis Lo thou seest him selfe thou touchest him selfe thou eatest him selfe Non quòd corpus illud sayeth Damascen è coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the body of Christ came downe from heauen but because the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. See now good Reader whether the Apologie say more truly that the signe or token of Christes body and blood the body it selfe not being made present vnder the soâ—…nes of bread and wine as it teacheth doe more effectuously set before our eyes that death and resurrection and all the miracles of Christ or els whether the incarnation life death and resurrection of him be not better and more according to the word of God set soorth by the Catholikes who teach that the substance of bread and wine is changed into that body and blood of Christ to th' end the death and resurrection of the same body might be effectually remembred So teacheth S. Cyrillus in these words Prebet Christus nobis carnem suam tangendam c. Christ geueth vs his flesh to be tou ched that we might beleue assuredly that he hath in deed reised his temple For that the communion of mystical blessing is a certayn confession of the resurrection of Christ it is proued by his own words For he distributed the bread after it was broken saying This is my body which shal be geuen for you for the remission of synnes Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore the participation of that mysterie is a certain true confession and remembrance that for our sakes and for vs our Lord both hath died and is reuiued and through that filleth vs with diuine blessing Let vs therefore flee infidelity after the touching of Christ and let vs be found strong and stedfast being far from all doubtfulnesse Thus far S. Cyrillus Who alludeth in that place to S. Thomas the Apostle And as S. Thomas touching the syde of Christ cried out My Lord and my God euen so S. Cyrillus teacheth that we touche the body of Christ when we come to the holy communion For as vnder the visible flesh of Christ his Godhead lay priuie but yet was truly present and had assumpted his flesh into one person euen so vnder the visible foorm of bread the flesh of Christ is really present in the holy mysteries and therefore we touch that flesh when we touche the foorm of bread as S. Thomas did touche the Godhead when he touched the flesh of Christ. For in eche place we touche not either the Godhead or the flesh visibly but by the meane of that thing wherein it is truly present That thing I say receaued of vs doth make his death and resurrection to be remembred Hath not he all that euer Christ did presently before his eyes who hath Christ him selfe present But take Christ awaye and afterward it is a foolish dreame to talke how his deeds be set before our eyes by bread and wine The apparence of bread is the token that Christes body is here to be eaten And the similitude of wine doth shew that his blood is here to be drunken But the true shewing of his death life and resurrection ariseth of that truth which is vnder those foormes When I eate the body that died I shew the death of it because no sacrificed flesh was euer eaten before the host was offered But we eate really the body of Christ therefore our fact crieth that Christ is dead We eate his body aliue hauing the blood and soule in it therefore our fact crieth he is risen again Thus the Ca tholiks reason Let him that hath coÌ„mon sense iudge who goeth nere the truth of the Gospell the Sacramentarie or the Catholike ¶ Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body TO th' intent we should geue thanks for his death and our deliuerance and that by often resorting to the Sacramentes we should continually renew the remembrance thereof These men presuppose we haue a signe or token left vnto vs in bread and wine to geue thanks withall We haue in deed a token but this token though it were made of bread and wine is not bread and wine For Christ in his last supper tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Behold the token wherein Christ both him selfe gaue thanks and would vs to geue thanks in the same The making of his body for vs is the thanksgeuing for his death and for our deliuerance Ipso genere sacrificij sayeth S.
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
The common Bible turneth In the remembrance of me A thing may be done best in the remembrance of a man when the man is first remembred and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him But Christ meaneth not so he meaneth to haue this thing to witt his body made to this effect that his death may be remembred and so his words do sound Doe and mâ—…e this thing for the remembrance of me to bring men into the remembrance of me For when my body is made by the Priest and listed vp to be adored and all the peple taught to bow doune to the body of Christ and to come with pure consciences to receaue it then Christ is remembred by reason of his body made and so the scripture is fulfilled which saith Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me But the Sacramentaries wold haue nothing made in Christes supper But they wold haue bread eaten and wine druncken which is not able to make Christ to be remembred so effectually and with such contrition confession and satisfaction as he requireth to be remeÌ„bred withall For he seeketh not as the ZuingliaÌ„s imagine a remembrance in words alone but much more in dedes The remembrance of him is the following of his Crosse and death by penance by humility by confessing our synnes to his ministers and taking absolution of them and all this kind of remembrance ariseth by the making of Christes body whiles men are persuaded they may not come to so preciouse a thing without confoorming of them selues to the death of Christ. In translating S. Paule there are other faults not of so greate weight as these others but yet which should haue bene more diligently translated as where the Greek readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CoÌ„municatio sanguinis Christi coÌ„municatio corporis There the common Bible turneth The partaking of yâ— blood of Christ the partaking of yâ— body Whereas it shuld be translated the coÌ„municating of the blood of Christ and the communicating of the body Communicating is more then partaking albeit the old Latin text in the later place doth reade participatio partaking But that excuseth not the Sacramentaries who pretend to correct it allwaies by the Greek and now whereas the Greek readeth twise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin once communicatio the English agreing throughly with neither oâ—… both turneth twise partaking The communicating of Christes body and blood is when it self and all thing that is in it is made common Partaking is when part therof is taken But because after his resurrection Christ can be no more diuided the partaking of his blood is the communicating of it not by the force of the meane but by the dependence of the thing For as he that hath anie part of God must nedes haue all God because God is a nature whole euery where without any parts therof so he that hath any peece of Christes body and blood hath the whole body and blood because it is unmortal and can no more die Yet if it might be diuided it might also bye so that although partaking must in this argument 〈◊〉 stand for communicating yet the SacrameÌ„taries haue shewed their spite against S. Paule in translating it after the worst maner they could 〈◊〉 after S. Paul saâ—…th we being many are one bread because we all partake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should be Englished of the one bread For such strength hath y◠〈◊〉 article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soâ—…time the common Bible turneth the Greek article into that But here it was not for the purpose of the Sacramentaries that it should be meaned so S. Paul meaneth one certain bread of liâ—…e wherof we partake to shew that he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the one bread to witte of the bread which hath no fellowes of that bread who said I am the bread of life and the bread which I wil geue is me flesh If so manie faults be found without curiouse serching which I haue not vsed in so sinal rome iudge good Reader in what case their soules be who take the word of God at these mens handes iudge whose Gospell they haue deliuered to the simple people in English Uerily their own and not the Gospell of Jesus Christ. ¶ The state of the question betwen the Lutherans Zuinglians 〈◊〉 and Catholikes concerning the Sacrâ—…ment of the altar TO th'inthent thou maiest good Reader the better vnderstand to what point and mark the whole disputation shal be 〈◊〉 I will briefly declare how diuersly the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath beâ—… set forth in our dayes From the beginning of yâ— Christian Churche vntill yâ— yere of our Lord 1517. all yâ— on the earth professed openly Christes Catholike faith did beleue as well in the Breke as in the Latin Church the reall presence of Chrisâ—…es body blood vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration dewly made This faith of theirs was preserued by the delyuery from hand to hand of that docâ—…rine euen sithens the beginning of Christes Church and was mainteined by the preaching and writing of the lerned Fathers and protested by the godly honour which all Christen people gaue to the said Sacrament at the time of masse or otherwise Well it might be that sâ—…me one in his harte thought amisse of that hely mystâ—… and that some 〈◊〉 in corners also conspired against the truthe thereof as 〈◊〉 and some other like as now â—…ull many maie be suspected to think that Christ is not the sauiour of mankind 〈◊〉 as â—…o Christian this daie teacheth openly and in expresse 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 is not y◠〈◊〉 of the world so did no man in open 〈◊〉 with the autoritie or toleration of any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preache write or professe that the body of Christ was not present in the Sacrament of the altar if the Priest had once 〈◊〉 the solemne benediction which our lord Jesus commanded On the other syde if in the first six hundred yeres the Christians had beleued as the Lutherans or Zuinglians now doe he that had first begunne to haue taught yâ— real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine must haue ben at that tyme noted reputed for an 〈◊〉 he must haue ben conuinced by som generall or proninciall Councell kept either in the 〈◊〉 Church or in the west the Preachers and Doctours of that age should haue writen against him It is not possible that all the whole Church which to that day had beleued the mysteries that be consecrated vpon the altar to be â—…more but holy bread and wine to be only tokens of Christes body absent in substance to be neither a sacrifice 〈◊〉 nor the reall body and blood of Christ should 〈◊〉 through all nations change the Catholike and vniuersall belefe without any trouble or tumult at all without any contradiction or disputation yea without any man at all knowen or euer
not to geue vs a drinking in stede of a solemne feast In comparyson of this banket all fayth is impeâ—…t For we eate the ende of our belefe All vnderstanding fayleth in so much as more is in our mouth then we are able to comprehend in our wyt or mynde All spirituall gyfts are inâ—…erlour because the flesh is present which triumpheth ouer death and ascending into heauen sytteth at the right hand of God thence distributing gyfts vnto men We haue the cause of all 〈◊〉 present and letting it go shall we chiefly commend the feast for â—…ertayn spirituall effectes In respect of Christes reall substance thy supper O Caluyn is but a mere sauour of swete meates Geue me the flesh of Christ and take thou the sauour of it But alas the sauour hath alredy kâ—…lled thee â–ª so much the lesse I wonder if thou art wery of the flesh it selfe In setting forth our damnation in old Adam thou lackest neither diligence nor eloquence thou hast therin set foorth the lumpe of perdition the seuere doctrine of induration the impotent weakenes of the wounded man to helpe forward his owne destruction But when thou commest to Christ the new Adam he hath a sâ—…ly pore vnknowen and vnsene cumpanie fewe children a cold supper small offering of sufficient grace his baptisme is with thee lyke a marke set vpon shepe that sheweth somewhat and worketh nothing his Church hath no externaâ—… sacrifice no priesthod no one chief shepherd in earth no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saâ—…ts by the way of praying to them or for yâ— soules departed no reall ioyning vâ—…iting with Christes flesh and blood in the holy mysteries What is this but to preferr euill before good the deuill before God shadowes before truth vice before vertue and the power of darknes before the kingdom of light It is no eating now as S. Paule sayeth of our Lords supper for euery heretyke taketh a supper of his owne before hand making Christes supper to geue place to hym And that I maye speake nothing of so great change of communions as hath bene in England Luther saith that Christes words be proper and that his supper is bread and flesh wyne and blood as though the immortall flesh of Christ must be eaten with materiall bread How do mortal things agree with immortal in one banket Carolstadius supposeth that Christes words be proper but that he touching hym selfe on the brest sayd Take bread and wine this is my body which I touche as though it were a supper mete for Christes making if he only shewed his body to his Apostles which euer was in their sight not suffering them to eate thereof Zuinglius said the bread and wine were only figures of Christes body and blood geueÌ„ to our bodies to represent to our harts tâ—…e death of Christ. And that the words of Christes supper were figuratine only by which reason the supper of the Paschall lambe was better then the supper of Christ because the dead flesh of an vnspotted lambe was more apt then bread and wine to shew the death of Christes innocent flesh wich is the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Calâ—…in added to Zuinglius bare figures an efficacie of feeding by faith and taught the words of Christ not so much to be figuratiue as words of promise which being heard with faith cause that the minde by faith eateth of Christ sitting in heauen a mete supper for such a deuiser who setting the men that should be fed vppon earth kepeth the meate wherof they should be filled in heauen promising them who consist also of bodies mortal and corruptible that they shall fede vpon immortall meat in their soules such an eating were good for Angels I denie not but it is not the supper that Christ made to corporall men for his farewell when he said Take and eate this is my body and Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood Taking with our bodies is more then beleuing in our soules eating yâ— body of Christ is more then signifying the eating of his body The meate is the body of Christ the drinke is the blood of Christ. Beleue and thou hast it in harte before thou commest to the table But come to the blessed Sacrament of the altar and thou hast it in thy mouth and body Bothe is better then one Christ hath 〈◊〉 and fullfilled all maner of iustice he made both body and soule redemeth both fedeth both rayseth both crowneth both He doth not now diuide the hand from the harte the mouth from the minde the figure from the thing the token from the truth That he sayth he doth that thou beleuest in heauen thou receyuest at his table in earth yea earth is heauen to thee saith Chrysostom through this mysterie make his gift no lesse then he nameth it leste for vnthankfullnes thou be giltie of iudgement He that beleueth his plaine wordes is on the surer syde The Corinthians fault concerning the supper of our Lord was partely for that they came to it after they had eaten their own supper and vndoutebly so doe heretyks They first deuise with them seâ—…ues what supper they will allow to Christ and then they come to his supper entending to conforme it to their formeâ—… deuise Partely the 〈◊〉 were reproued of S. Paule for eating and drinking alone without making their meate common to the poore Euen so the heretiks eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ only by the measure of his own faith which hath diuerse degrees in euery man and therefore it maketh euery man eate Christ after his own faith only Whereas the supper of Christ is equall and common to all as S. Cyprian S. Hierome and Theodorite witnessed before wherein he geueth oâ—…e 〈◊〉 one blood one person to all that come without any respecte concerning the meate and substance of the supper although not without discerning the diuerse merites of the geastes It is the honour of him that maketh the feast to haue the meate most bouÌ„tifull and most reall howsoeuer the weak stomaks of euill men are able to beare it Wilt thou yet see more plainly how liberall Christ is in his supper All that he hath he geueth for he geueth his own selfe indifferently to euery man that sitteth at his table be the nian riche or poore good or bad The 〈◊〉 of this feast at his table is the maker of the feast him selfe Who sayeth so Uerily he that caÌ„not lye Who after that he said My flesh is meate in dede douted not to add moreouer He that eateth me shall liue for me doing 〈◊〉 to vnderstand that by eating his flesh we eate himself The same thing teacheth S. Hierom a man worthy to be credi ted as well for his own great learning as for that tyme wherein he liued and the faith wherof in his writing he witnesseth S.
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
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
iudgement they are the chefe among all signes And as the same Doctour saith in an other place Signum nisi aliquid significet noÌ„ potest esse signum A signe except it signifie sumwhat can not be a signe Now that which doth not signifie a thing at all can not by signifiyng make and work that thing which it doth not signifie Take these fower words This is my body Neuer a one of them doth signifie washing Therefore if a maÌ„ washing an other with the mind to make him a member of Christes body should saie This is my body out of doute that man washed with those words should not be baptized What is the cause Washing was vsed the minister was present with intent to baptize some words also lacked not but yet because those words lacked which might signifie washing in the name of the Trinitie he was not baptized If then the words of Sacraments must signifie that which shal be made these words This is my body spoken by any Priest shall neuer make the signe of Christes body Because they doe not signifie any figure or signe thereof Ou the other syde If they be in dede figuratiue as the Zuinglians affirm them to be they shall not make the body of Christ because they say Christ meant not so but only meant a figure to be made in bread and wine Behold to what case we are now brought We haue striued so long about the words of Christ whether they be proper or figuratiue that now they are proued to make nothing at all if they be figuratiue For they make not the body of Christ because if they be figuratiue they meane not to make it They make no figure of the body because they name and signifie no figure And that which they do not signifie they by signifying can not make Foâ—… their whole institution vse nature and commoditie is to signifie to shew foorth to betoken make plain the mind of the speaker That which words doe not signifie they do not work That which they work not is neuer don by them But these words This is my body and this is my blood signifie no figure no signe no token for so muche as they signifie an other thing therefore they work no figure they make no signe they leaue no token And then haue we no Sacrament at all made because none is made without suche words as may signifie that which is made and wrought If any man saye Christ may meane a figure and signe and by his meaning these words This is my body may work a figure oâ—… his body I answer if Christ wil work by his meaning who can forbed him seing he is almighty And if he will work without any words who caÌ„ gainsaye him But then his words work not And why then are they deliuered to vs as the chief instrument to work withall Why sayd he Hoc facite Doe and make this thing why are they rehersed in euery Masse and communion Why doe the auncient Fathers teache the bread and wine to be consecrated by them Why may not Baptism be made by other words then by those which Christ instituted Surely to say that these words This is my body make a figure of his body because Christ wil haue it so is to say that Christ will not hane words necessarie to the making of his SacrameÌ„ts Or it is to saie that he will haue a thing wrought by words to work the which they be vumete instruments as if a man wold take a saw to plane timber withall a beetil to cutt down a tree Christ being the word of God hath geuen that honour to words of men but yet to such as are appointed by him self that they should principally among instrumentall causes work and make his Sacraments Next vnto words he chose maruelous conuenient things wherewith they should concur The things to be most agreable to th â–ª effect which they are sett to work all men agree It is conuenient for water to washe for bread and wine to concur to the Sacrament of the Altar as meetest to nourish for oile to serue in ointing at the vse of other Sacraments And now hath Christ erred in chosing his words hath he 〈◊〉 body to signifie the figure of his body To whom doth it signifie after that sort Surely not to all men as it is eâ—…ident not to all Christians as it maie appere in that we hearing it said that Christ had a mans body or walked in a mans body or that our bodies shall rise at the later daie in all these phrases we take not the name of body for a signe and figure of a body but we take it to meane the true substance of flesh and blood How then shall the word body be taken only in the supper of our Lord for the signe and figure of body Wher is that rulâ—… readen Wher is that secret reueled â–ª For dowtlesse if it were true it were of it self a mysterie and an vnwont acception appointed by Christ and it had neded to haue ben registred in the Scriptures or in the holy Fathers or at the least to haue ben deliuered to vs by tradition But who teacheth that body standeth to signifie the figure of body many Fathers saie the words of Christ are plain manifest true and effectuall but no man telleth vs of such a strange taking of the words body and blood noman witnesseth them to be taken for the figures of body and blood and no maruail For no man knew that iuterpretation They knew that the true body of Christ geuen after such a sort vnder the foormes of bread and wine was a figure of the self same body either walking visibly vpon the earth or suffering death vpon the crosse or sitting now at the right hand of his Father or intending to come to iudgement They could tell that a thing present in a secrete maner is a token a signe and a watch word to all the faithfull of an open maner either past or to come in the same thing By this meanes they confessed the Sacrament to be the figure of Christes body and blood but they knew no such figure as the SacrameÌ„taries haue deuised they neuer could tell of Synecdoche or of Meronymia they knew Sacramentall and not Rhetoricall figures Mysticall and not Poeticall holy and not prophane Let him therfore that will haue any thing at all made by Christes words acknowlege them to be proper to signifie sumwhat and to make that they signifie which is the true body and blood of Christ. ¶ The reall presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. WE doe acknowlege the Eucharist to be a Sacrament wherein is sette after a manner before our eyes the death of Christ and his resurrection and what soeuer he did here in his humane body The eating of common bread and drinking of common wine is but an homely maner of setting
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
geue it them This is a hard talk sayd they they were hard and not the talk for if they were not hard but gentle they wold say to them selues He speaketh not this thing rashly but because there lieth priuie some Sacrament â—…eing gen tle not hard they wold â—…arie with him and should learn of him that thing which after their departure those lerned who taried for when yâ— twelue had taried with him the other being departed they as who were sorie of yâ— others departing warned Christ that they were offended with his word so were departed but Christ instructed them and sayd It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh profiteth not the words which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life vnderstand that which I haue spoken spiritually Ye shall not eate this body which ye see ne shall not drink that blood which they shal shed who wil 〈◊〉 me I haue commended to you a certain Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstanded shal make you liue and although that Sacrament mustenedes be visibly celebrated yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded thus much S. Augustine First I note in these words against the Lutherans that S. Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament of his last supper for there only a Sacrament of his death is visibly folemnized and inuisibly vnderstanded Secondly I note against the Zuinglaâ—…s that the figuratiue speache which S. Augustine acknowlegeth in Christes words is to be measured and meant according to the natural and customable speaking and vnderstanding of carnall men who yet be not fully faithfull for they thought they should haue eaten Christes flesh torne into peeces to fâ—…l their bellies there withal for in dede the eating of flesh naturally imploieth cutting or tearing before it come to our month and afterward chawing with the teeth and so the filling of the bellye but in respect of all suche meanings the words of Christ be figuratiue For seing it is against the honestie of maners to order mans flesh after such a cruel fashion the Iewes should haue deuised how to make an honest meaning of his words whom they confessed to be a great Prophete or at the least they should haue asked of Christ the true meaning of his own words For seing Christ had multiplied siue loaues miraculously to feed them and did so many other miracles and so much good in al the countrie that all men who were voide of malice confessed him to be of God reason geueth they should harken obediently to his words as the which they might perceaue to be spoken by no meane or common man and that therefore they should not measure them by their own phantasie experience Now then to say that except ye eate my flesh is a siguratiue speache is no more to say but you must not take the eating of Christes flesh so as at the first sight it cometh to your mind neither concerning the vsuall maner nor concerning the customable end of yâ— eating for that is vnhonest Tarie therefore vntill you find a better sense Whiche sense is found when it is knowen that Christ vnder the forme of bread geueth the substance of his flesh whole sound and quick with the Godhead corporally dwelling in it to the end we should liue spiritually for euer by worthy receauing it into our bodies and soules Thirdly I note much the kind of speaking which S. Augustine vseth For he calleth that thing a Sacrament vpon yâ— words of the Psalm now alleged which in his bookes of Christian doctrine he called a figure Shewing him self to take the name of a figure for all that when a farther and higher thing is to be vnderstanded then was outwardly expressed in which case the thing expressed is a Sacrament to wit a figure or a holy signe of that higher truth which is to be vnderstanded but he meant not by the name of a figure either to exclude the truth of eating Christes flesh or the truthe of drinking his blood but only the grosse maner of eating and drinking it to a carnal end which the Iewes thought vpon for as the killing and eating of the Paschall lamb was not only natural but also gaue yâ— faithful to vnderstand that Christ â—…ould be both killed on the crosse and eaten in a Sacrament and as the figure which was in that Lamb did not diminish the real killing and eating thereof but only did refer it to a higher truthe so the figure which is in eating Christes flesh doth not diminish the true eating thereof but only declareth that eating to be a figure because it is referred again to a higher truthe both in Christ whose flesh that once died is now eaten and in vs who eate it not so much for to eate it corporally as to fede spiritually of God him self who maketh that flesh profitable and that S. Augustine thought so it is euident by his own words vpon S. Iohn ye know not what is that maner of eating this flesh but except ye eate it c. Lo the maner of eating was secret but the thing that should be eaten was naturall flesh Again Carnem sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur non quomodo spiritu vegetatur They so vnderstode flesh as it is torne in a carcase or solde in the shambles And not as it is quickened with the spirit or Godhead Here it is reported wherein the Iewes did erre They toke the word flesh amisse not concerning the substance of it which must be really eaten but concerning the maner of eating it Is not modus Latin for the maner Is not quomodo as much to say as by what maner The Iewes vnderstode yâ— name of flesh Quomodo dilaniatur non quomodo vegetatur After such maner as it is torn into pecces and not after such maner as it is quickened with the spirit of God Do not these words import that the Iewes erred in the manner of eating Christes flesh Doth not he that findeth fault only with the maner of eating flesh sufficiently allow the eating of the flesh it self if it be done after a good maner Yea farther doth not he that sheweth the maner how it may be well eaten approue that kind of eating it As we must not â—…ate Christes flesh after such a grosse maner as is vsed in eating such flesh which is commonly cut into peeces Right so we must eate Christes flesh after such maner as it is quickened with the Godhead So doe S. Angustines words import I beseche thee good Reader see the oddes betwene the argument of a Catholike and of a SacrameÌ„tarie He reasoneth thus we must not eate Christes flesh carnally and butcharly therefore we must not eate really yâ— substance thereof We reason thus We must eate Christes flesh as it is quickened with the Godhead therefore we must eate really the substance thereof The argument of the Sacramentarie is naught
because a certain vse or maner of a thing forbidden doth not infer that the substance of the thing it self is forbidden Yea contrariewise the forbidding of one maner semeth to licence the same thing in an other maner As if the law say let noman were a sword in the city it semeth to graunt that men may were a sword in the highe way And yet because S. Augustine sayth we ought to take Christes words figuratiuely in respect of such a foule maner of eating his flesh as the Iewes imagined the Sacramentarie will conclude that Christes flesh it self must not be eaten really and substancially at all See on the other syde why the Catholikes argument is good and laudable Euery maner and qualitie which is graunted coÌ„cerning the vse of any substance doth infer of necessitie the hauing of that substance But we may externally in a Sacrament by our fact and dede as wel as by faith eate Christes flesh Quomodo spiritu vegetatur after such maner as it is quickened with the spirit therefore we must haue it substancially and really present to the end we may so eate it in the sayd Sacrament The not eating it after a grosse maner doth not take away the eating of it in substance but the eating of it in a Sacrament whereof we now speake as it is dwâ—…t in of the 〈◊〉 which is a moâ—… pure maner of eating it doth include the eating of it in substaÌ„ce where dwelleth the Godhead but in the substance of Christes flesh Or how can I eate it as the spirit doth quicken it if I eat not the substance of it which only is quickened and vnited to the Godhead which thing sith it is so S. Augustine meaneth noâ—… by calling Christes words figuratiue to exclude the eating 〈◊〉 his flesh substancially but to exclude the eating of it by peece meale or els for the filling of the belly And therefore vppon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he writeth Quomodo illi intellexerunt carnem non sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam After such maner as they vnderstode flesh I do not so geue my flesh to eate What is this to say but I gâ—…ue my flesh to be eaten after an other sort but not in an other substance then the Iewes thought of The Iewes erred in the maner of eating as thinking they should eate it in that visible quantitie wherein Christ spake and so they erred in the maner but not in the substance of Christes flesh But the Sacramentaries erre in the substance it 〈◊〉 The Iewes thought Christes slesh should haue bene eaten properly and naturally as other meates are eaten which are diuided and perished in the eating The Sacramentaries think that Christes flesh must not be eaten substancially or in truth of his own nature but 〈◊〉 and by faith alone The truth receaued in the whole Catholike Church is that Christes flesh is eaten both substancially and figuratiuâ—… in such sort that the 〈◊〉 eating is referred to an eating by faith we eate Christes flesh substancially because his true substance was both shadowed in the law of nature and of Moyses to be eaten and prophecied of before as meate and drink and promised by Christ vnder those names And deliuered by his own hands with these words This is my body and this is my blood take and eate and beleued in the whole church and adored vnder the formes of bread and wine through all Christendome we beleue that same substance of Christes flesh to be also eaten figuratiuely because it is not remoued thereby from his place in heauen but is made present by wordes which signifie worke the presence of his flesh and blood It is not sene in his own shape not felt nor tasted in his own proprieties not cut into peeces although diuerse take it together it is not perished by eating it â—…deth not the belly or yâ— sensible but the reasonable spiritual life it is not eaten only to be eateÌ„ but to make vs remeÌ„bre effectually and to conforme our selues to the death and life of him whose flesh it is And thereby to make vs to loue him to beleue him to be the bread of life to all the faithsull and no lesse to gather diuerse men into one mysticall body of his church then diuerse bodies of wheat and of grapes are made into one artificiall body of bread and wine the which mysticall body he will no lesse change from mortalitie then he hath changed the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his flesh and blood Seing the flesh of Christ may signifie so many things vnto vs through the maner of the presence it were more then madnesse to say it is not a figure or is not eaten figuratiuely But because it signifieth so many things therefore to deny it to be present is to take away no lesse the figures whiche come by the presence of it then the thing it felfe Christ is the figure of his fathers substance the image of God who can not be sene he is 〈◊〉 in shape as a man But what is he not therefore the same substance with his father 〈◊〉 God with him and true man in dede who reason thus but 〈◊〉 who but ArriaÌ„s but Marcionits but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did S. 〈◊〉 gustine euer meane suche a figure of Christes 〈◊〉 whiche was voide of the truth sigured taught he not that we must adore the body and blood of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 it â–ª but of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 doth not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 or twain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that bread is there to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lose is both bread 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread in 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 so is the 〈◊〉 of Chri. a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vs. It is the flesh it self and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 owne substance without any 〈◊〉 or lacke and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of death whiche the same 〈◊〉 hauing 〈◊〉 once 〈◊〉 not now suffer but would by his own 〈◊〉 make it 〈◊〉 to vs in suche sort that we should 〈◊〉 the death of 〈◊〉 and partake the fruites of the death as oft as we came to receaue that 〈◊〉 worthely what nede more wordes To geue a brief resolution of S. 〈◊〉 mynd it is to be noted that both by his iudgemeÌ„t and by the 〈◊〉 of the Sa cramentaries these words except ye eate the flesh c. belong to the mysterie of Christes supper therefore if they be figuratiue they must shewe some figure in one parte or other of the supper The supper coÌ„sisteth of bread wine as of material parts â—…of it must be made and of pronouncing vpoÌ„ or ouer them as S. Iustinus the martyr speaketh the wordes instituted by Christ this is my body and this is my blood the which words wheÌ„ they come to
of the argument or the desyre to haue the thing wel remembred or my forgetfulnes may cause me to fall in to that default The Chapiters of the fourth Booke 1. That no reasoÌ„ ought to be heard why the words of Christes supper should now be expouÌ„ded vnproperly or figuratiuely that the Sacramentaries can neuer be sure thereof 2. That as al other so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly vntill the coÌ„trarie doth euidently appere 3. The proper fignification of these words this is my body and this is my blood is that the substance of Christes body blood is conteined vnder the visible formes of bread wine 4. That the pronoune this in Christes vvords caÌ„ point neither to bread nor to vvine 5. That the pronoune this can not pointe to any certein acte vvhiche is a doing about the bread and vvine 6. That the sayd pronoune pointeth finally to the body and blood of Christ and in the meane tyme it signifieth particularly one certaine kind of food 7. The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of the vvords to be figuratiue but helpeth much the reall presence 8. That the vvordes of Christes supper be proper though many other vnlike to them be figuratiue 9. The reall presence is declared by xxvij circunstances vvhich belong to Christes supper 10. The same is proued by conference of holy scriptures in the nevv Testament 11. Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration 12. The real presence is proued by câ—…nference of holy scriptures of the old Testament 13. Item by the vvords hoc facite vvhich do signifie make this thing 14. Item by the vvords for the remembrance of me 15. The grosse error impudent chalenge of M. Novvell is corrected and fully satisfied concerning the coÌ„ference betwene these vvords this is my body and I am the true vine ¶ That no reason ought to be heard why the words of Christes supper should now be expoundâ—…d vnproperly or figuratuely and that the Sacramentaries can neuer be sure thereof CHrist in his last supper was bâ—…th like a testatour who disposeth before his death what shal be comâ—… of his goods afterward and like a maker of lawes who prescribeth an order to be kept in his commoÌ„ weale The legacie bequeath ed or rather the gift made by his life tyme in consyderation of death cerâ—…einly approching was the deliuery of those inestimable tâ—…wels which he called his own body and blood willing his heyrs and fruids to take to care hâ—…s bodâ—… which should be geuen for theÌ„ and to drink his blood of the new Testament which should be shed for the remission of synnâ—…s The law which he made was that the Apostles and their successones in the like degree of Priesthood should make that Sacrament which he had then instituted for the remembrance of his death vntill he came again to iudge the world His Testament and the gift made therein was confirmed by that famouse death which he siffered the next day vpon the Crosse. His law was receaued and practised from the coming doune of the holy Ghost euen to this day through al the catholike Church A few yeres after Christes death his TestameÌ„t and law which he made by mouth was by witnesses of sufficient credit put in writing published and acknowleged of al faithful men If therefore any question arise coÌ„cerning such words as were either in yâ— last wil or in the law or the narration of them who wrote the Gospell We ought to weigh whether that question be moued of a thing not already determined or els vpoÌ„ that which many yeres before was accustomed and receaued For as reason would a new doubt to be newly dissolued so no reason no law no conscience can suffer that a matter once fully decided and perfitly ended should be again called into iudgement The question is whether the words of Christ be figuratiue or proper I say that question was decided aboue fiftene hundred yeres past For when that wil law of Christ was first published al men toke those words This is my body and this is my blood to be proper And so we receaued of our forefathers from hand to hand in so much that the Church neuer heard before these daies any other doctrine preached by publike auctoritie it neuer saw other practise then to adore with Godly honoure those things ouer which the Priest as Christes mynister had sayd the words before rehearsed The vniuersal preaching and vsage of Christes Church is a sufficient witnesse that it hath always taken those words to be proper not figuratiue Whiche thing sith it is so minimè sunt mutanda sayth the lawier quae interpretationem certam semper habuerunt Those things are least of all to be changed whiche haue always had a knowen vnderstanding And yet if we should come to geue accompt of these vniuersall customs how reasonably might it be applied to our purpose which yâ— same lawier saith Si de interpretatione legis quaeratur inprimis inspiciendum est quo iure ciuitas retro in huiusmodi casibus vsa fuisset Optima enim est leguÌ„ interpres 〈◊〉 If a question be moued coÌ„cerning the interpretation of a law it is principally to be attended what order and law the common weale hath vsed before in those cases for custome is the best interpreter of lawes We are sure that before the birth of â—…uther yea also of Berengarius al the Church vsed to worship the body blood of Christ vnder the forms ofbread and wine and yet it could not haue done so if it had taken the word body for material bread only signifying the body that name of blood for wine which was appointed only to signifie Christes blood For the Church of God wold neuer haue worshipped with Godly honour bakers bread wine of the grape though they were tokens of neuer so goodly things But if the Sacramentaries answer that once the Church did other wise and that the auncient fathers neither adored the body blood of Christ vnder that formes of bread and wine nor preached the words of Christes supper to be proper besyde that such answer of theyrs is stark false as by that plain words of S. Ambrose of S. 〈◊〉 of S. Augustine and of Theodoretus it shal hereafter euideÌ„rly appere yet surely though so much could not be presently declared yet it were a great folly vpon the allegation of a thing so far beyond memorie of maÌ„ as the primitiue Church is to leaue the manifest vse and custom of the present Church the which Christ no lesse redemed no lesse gouerneth and loueth theÌ„ he did the faithfull of the first six hundred yeres Furthermore if all that is presently beleued shal be vndone as oft as it is pretendâ—…d that the primatiue Church thought otherwise what quietnes can there be in the Church after this order what end shall we haue of controuersies When shall
the masculine gender and the pronowne hoc this of the newter gender and God prouided of purpose that the article this should neither agree with bread nor with wine but only with body and blood or with the chalice wherein the blood is conteined ¶ That the pronoun this can not point to any certain acte which is a doing about the bread and wine LEast any man should thinke that in these wordes this is my body the prononuâ—… this doth stand to signifie neither bread nor body but only this thing which is a doing whereby a certaine taking and breaking and eating of bread in the remembrance of Christ should be meante he must vnderstand that euery thing which is so distinctly shewed is a particular thing and it is but one thing otherwise it should haue bene sayd in the plurall number these things are the tokens of my body of my blood But now sith it is sayd in the singular number this it must nedes be only one singular thing which is spoken of Therefore if you will haue hoc this thing to appointe to a doing name which doing it is For Christ did many thinges in his supper He took bread he blessed he brake he gaue To which doth hoc this thing pointe To all it can not sor they all be not only this one thing in the singular number but many thinges If any one be named I aske which of them If breaking which is one of the most like of all owtward actions to signifie the death of Christ I aske how you are able to proue that breaking is pointed vnto surely S. Paule saith the bread which we break is the communicating of our lords body which could not be so if the words of Christ which make it the signe of his body had not bene first spoken ouer the bread For as Iustinus Martyr Gregorius Nyssenus S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine and briefly all the Fathers teache the bread is consecrated by these words of Christ This is my body And surely before it be consecrated there vnto bread can not signifie Christes body nor it can not be to vs the communicating of Christes body Therefore seing the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body as S. Paule sayeth the words which were spoken ouer yâ— bread before the breaking of it can not presently point to that which is not yet done And consequently this doth not point vnto the acte of breaking nor vnto the act either of geuing or of eating which folowed after the breaking If any man say that Christ whiles he spake these wordes dyd breake the bread or eate it him felf or make his Apostles eate it the vuiuersall custome of the Churche in all ages doth shewe the contrarie Whiche all euen from the Apoâ—…les tyme haue vsed to consecrate aud to say these wordes this is my body aud this is my blood ouer bread and wine at the holy altar and table a good tyme before the breaking or eating and drinking of them as the auncient Liturgies manifestly declare Besydes if the act of breaking whiles it is adding dyd only betoken to vs his body when that act were past the signe of his body were ended and so we should not eate the signe of Christes body Moreouer seing neither the chalice nor the wine is broken therein should be no signe of Christes blood at all On the other syde if eating or drinking only were the signe pointed vnto it should be no signe before the eating and therevpon it would follow that the bread which we breake is not the coÌ„municating of Christes body sith no signe at all is made therein if the whole signe depend vpoÌ„ the eating alone For if the signe depended of both together it could not be said this iâ—… the singular number as I sayd before but it must haue bene sayd these actes and these doings about these creatures do signifie the body of Christ. But seing it is sayd this is my body whiche this can point but to one thing and seing that one thing can be neither breade wherewith it agreeth not in gender nor any one acte or doing which alone doth not signify the body of Christ doubtlesse this can by no meanes be referred to any other word or deede then to the true substance of Christes body vnder the forme of bread and vnto the true substance of his blood vnder the forme of wine The whiche thing once graunted after that Christ hath taken bread and blessed and sayd this is my body whatsoeuer is done either in breaking or in eating or in geuing and taking doth siguifie the body of Christe because it is done to that thing and about it which is the true substance of his body the breaking of the forme of bread vnder whiche the body is doth signifie the body of Christe once to haue ben broken with scourging and nailing to the Crosse and now also to be impassible The taking and touching signifieth the visible and palpable body which walked vpon the earth preaching visibly to his disciples The eating signifieth it to be the true bread of life whiche who so eateth worthely he shall liue for euer and shal eate it in heauen after a new maner The geuing of it doth signifie how Christ gaue it â—…or vs to death To be short whatsoeuer is done about yâ— which is the body oâ—… Christ doth signify somwhat either past or to come in that same body it doth signifie it so muche the more because the presence of Christes glorious substance is such that nothing done to it can hurt it or bring any detriment thereunto For the breaking taking geuing and eating is done in a figure and mysterie the which figure is grounded in the reall presence of Christes body which if it were not vnder the formes of bread wine the things sayd done about the SacrameÌ„t should not be so mysticall and miraculouse as they are ¶ That the pronoune this pointeth finally to the body and blood and particularly sigâ—…fieth in Christes supper one certein kinde of foâ—…e SEing it is declared that yâ— pronoun this pointeth neither to bread wine nor to any act done about them it remaineth yâ— it pointeth only to the body and blood of Christ and so long as the words of Christ are a speaking which in so few words is not long the pronoune sâ—…pendeth his last determination And when al the words are ended his pointing is also ended Theresore 〈◊〉 expounding what hoc this doth finally meane writeth â—…us Dicens hoc est corpus meum ostendit quod ipsum corpus domini est panis qui sanctificatur in altario non respondens figura Christ saying this is my body sheweth that the bread which is consecrated on the altar is the self body of Christ not a figure which answereth thereunto And again in an other place he saith hoc est corpus meum hoc inquam
〈◊〉 of Godhed dwellech corporally in Christes flesh so his flesh râ—…ally eaten of vs with due faith charitie is a maruelouse instrument to geue vs the euerlasting meate and to ioyne vs most 〈◊〉 to the spirit of God Marke well that concerninge the eating God by saith and minde we approue it as a speciall good thinge but we say farther that God came in flesh to be eaten in flesh of them that consist of flesh And therefore hauing sayd my Father geueth you the true bread from heauen and I am the bread of life which hitherto is meant to be eaten by faith he also goeth forward promising an eating to come herafter that is to say in his last supper and thereof saith the bread which I will geue is my flesh and he that eateth me tarieth in me The same Christ commeth in his owne person to performe yâ— former promise not saying only beleue ye in God and in me as I teache you but saying and doing that is to wit taking blessing geuing and saying take eate this is my body which is geuen for you 〈◊〉 this only pointe were depelie pondered it semeth to me that the almightie speaker so sent so promising and so doing ought to be of suche aucthoritie that nothing should staye vs to beleue that externall thing to be his body whereof he sayd this is my body Let vs now adde hereunto the wisedome the prouidence the truthe and the goodues of yâ— speaker who wold not of purpose blind his owne spouse with siguratiue wordes both of promise and of performance and yet the one ioyned with the other and the person who both speaketh and doth well considered make to men of reason suche persuasion of a proper speache that no sufficient cause is lefte why to presume those wordes to be figuratiue Of this first circumstance Eusebius Emissenus writeth Ad cognoscendum percipiendum sacrificium veri corporis ipsa te roboret potentia consecrantis Let the very power of him that consecrateth it strengthen thee to know to perceaue the sacrifice of the true body Again recedat omne 〈◊〉 ambiguum qui auctor est muneris ipse etiam testis est veritatis Let al doutfulnes of insidelity depart he that is the authour of the gift is him self also the witnes of the truthe ¶ The second circumstance may be to consyder the tyme when the supper was made THe tyme of speaking was the nyght before Christ departed out of this world at what tyme men are wonte to speake most plainly And S. Paule himself noted that circumstance saying our lord in the night that he was betrayed toke bread c. For when the howre of death draweth nere men vse manifestly to shew their last wil without al figures tropes as nighe as the matter will suffer And how much more wold the wisedom of God vse wordes warily in this case specially seing S. Augustin witnesseth that he gaue this Sacrament after supper when his passion was at hand to thintent the highnes of the mysterie might the better sticke in the hartes and memorie of the disciples whereas otherwise the Churche is taught by the holy ghost to receaue this Sacrament fasting for the honour saith S. Augustine of so great a Sacrament Let vs now a litle weigh with our selues whether any good and discrete man knowing his parting hower out of this world to be at hand will speake of purpose such words of ordeining matters to be done after his death the which words he foreseeth wil cause his heyres either to synne greuously if they obserue theÌ„ plainly as they should or els to haue an inward dissensioÌ„ if some affirme them to be plaine others denying and 〈◊〉 them â—…o be figuratiue for if Christes words be in dedt figuratiue the Catholiks synne both in teaching the contrarie and in adoring Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and 〈◊〉 which thing they are constrained to doe by the force of the words and then they are giltie of 〈◊〉 who possiblie can find no cause why they should not beleue their master so speakig and doing as he spake and did and thus lieth the â—…ander vpon Christ himself but if the words be in dede plain then Christ is purged and the only sault is in them who will not beleue I think it far the better to beleue the wonderfull discretioÌ„ of Christ â—… so 〈◊〉 him to mistrust the infidelite of wicked men ¶ The third circumstance concerning the persons who were at the last supper THe hearers were his twelue Apostles who should instructe yâ— who le world of that which they lerned of Christ in this very busines whereof we talke and so they did neuer leauing in any peece of all their writinges or preachinges that Christ leste a figure of his body without the very truthe thereof conteined in the Sacrament of the altar To the same Apostles it was geuen to know and vnderstand the mysteries of the kingdom of heauen whereâ—…ore it is very iueredible that the greatest mysterie of the whole Church was either hidden from them by Christ or by them hidden from vs. Yet it can not be denied but it is in some part hidden if that words which report it be figuratiue and parabolicall for parables are spoken as Christ himself witnesseth out of Esaias the Prophet so that men hearing doe not vnderstaÌ„d in hart the things which are spoken Thyrdly the Apostles were those who taried with Christ at Capharnaum where he promised his flesh and blood therefore if Christ had then spoken figuratiuely to the people yet now at the least he should and wold haue declared the matter more plainly and so he did in dede not verilie adding any word which might shew his former talke to haue beue figuratiue conceruing the substance of flesh to be eaten the substance of wine to be drunken but only teaching the maner of geuing them his flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to be figuratiue and mystical because they are not geuen to fill the bellie but to fede the soule not so much for the fleshes sake which we 〈◊〉 as for yâ— spirit Godhead which replenisheth that flesh of Christ. ¶ The fourth circumstance concerning the ending of the old passouer and the making of a new THe occasion mouing Christ at his last supper rather then at any other tyme to say ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my blood was the setting and placing of the new Paschal Lamb in stede of yâ— old For least his Churche should be without a mysticall sacrifice called according to the law of Moyses a passouer that is to say a sacrifice betokening our passing ouer the sea of synne and our 〈◊〉 to the Land of grace and life which we looke for as sone as the old Lamb was eateÌ„ and the tyme come that shadowes and figures should be fultilled by
the more particular my reasoning is the more it ought to moue them earnestly to looke to the worde of God and not to contente them selues with the bare shewes thereof For my exposition beside the very order and conference of Christes supper hath for it as auncient a witnesse as Iustâ—…s Martyr is a man within the first two hundred not only within the 600. yeres whose works Robert SteueÌ„s printed in greke at Parise An. Dom. 1551. Thus he writeth The Apostles in their com meÌ„taries which are called gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundement who when he had taken bread geuen thanks said do and make this thing for the remembrance of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est corpus meum That is to say my body Thus I reade the words thus they are vnderstanded make this thing That is to say make my body They that haue translated Iustinus haue turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est whiche words may be Englished as if the cause had bene This is But they also may signify hoc est that is to say For so the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in greke in the way of interpretation or of exposition when the wordes that went before are expounded by the wordes that follow The same phrase is vsed in S. Matthew where after the Hebrew wordes were writen which Christ said vpon the Crosse Fli Eli Lamalabachtami it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is to say my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Therefore albeit the Latins can not distinct betwene hoc est whiche signifieth this is and hoc est whiche signifieth that is to say yet the grecians write the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing Iustinus also hath obserned in the wordes belonging to the blood putting in euery letter The last they write leauing out yâ— last letter of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Apostrophe in pronountiation making one word of both And this sense is proued true by the processe of Iustinus who after that he had said we are taught the meat whiche is consecrated by the praier of the word whiche we toke of Christ to be his body and blood He would proue it to be still so because the Apostles dyd witnesse Iesum sic sibi mandasse Christ to haue geueÌ„ theÌ„ such a precept Hoc facite make this thing what thing my body Now if this thing were not meant to be yâ— body of Christ Iustinus had proued no commandement thereof and consequently no fleshe of Christ present whiche yet he affirmeth most plainly Therefore straight after he had rehearsed the commaundement Hoc facite make this thing he sheweth what thing it is â—…aiyng that is to say my body whereunto we must nedes vnderstand to make vp the full sense make my body or make this thing which is my body Therefore as well by the force of the letter of the Gospell as by the authoritie of S. Iustinus these words can be verified of no signe or figure nor by any other way theu by that we make the selfbody of Christ which always is this thing because it always tarieth one and the same in number person whereas the taking of bread and breaking or eating it is alwais such anotherthing but neuer this thing ¶ the xxi Circumstance of the words in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me THe finall cause of instituting this new passouer was to make the remembrance of Christes death which so effectually and profitably for vs could be made in nothing els as in the same flesh that died for vs and being made therein it forceth vs by al meanes through the presence thereof to remeÌ„ber him whose flesh it is If now he that hath a busines to doe will those the beast meanes he can to bring it to passe if Christ came into the world to redeme vs by his death and if in beleuing and folowing that death our life consist seing no meane possibly can be deuised so effectuall to make vs remember and partake his death as if the thing which died be it self made present with vs and it self deliuered to vs a wise man may easibly iudge whether Christe hath not rather leaft his own body to vs for an vndoubted token of his death seing his words doe sound so theu that he hath leaft a peece of bread and a litle wine which neither be spoken of in the deliuery of the mysticall tokens nor be aptâ—… enough to worke the matter for which they are sayd to be least Therefore S. Chrysostom shewing the difference betwene other figuraâ—…iue remembrances and this truthe sayth Tibi quotidie ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur Christ is euery day him self put before thee least thou shouldest forget him Note that Christ him self in this Sacrament is a remembrance of him selfe dying for vs euen as Manna was kept in the taberâ—…le of God to be a remembrance of it self Kepe it sayth God Vt nouerint filii Israël panem quo alui vos in solitudine That the children of Israel may know the bread wherewith I fed ye in yâ— desert So likewise the self body of Christ is kept as it were and preserued in the tabernacle of this blessed Sacrament that we may know by that knowlege which is meete for faithfull men that our Lord hath died for vs. ¶ The xxij circumstance of these words Drink ye all of this AFter the cup was taken and thanks geuen Christ gaue to his disciples and sayd bibite ex hoc omnes drink ye all of this In S. Luke it is sayd take and diuide among you By these words Christ meaneth literally that all the twelue should drink of that one cup and S. Marke witnesseth this precept to haue bene fâ—…illed saying Et biberunt ex illo omnes and all drank thereof This interpretation S. Dionysiâ—…s the Areopagite confirmeth saying that one chalice was diuided among them all And as S. Lyrillus witnesseth Circumtulit calicem dicens bibite ex hoc omnes He caried about the chalice saying drink ye all of this By carying about he meaneth all the twelue to haue receaued the drink out of that one cup in order Christ then would that his twelue Apostles should al drink of the same cup. The reason why he wold haue it so foloweth For sayth he this is my blood as if he sayd I haue conserated this cup only and none other therefore drink yâ—… all of this For if two or three of the twelue should haue drunk vp all that was in that cup either Christ must haue consecrated the cup again or the rest must haue receaued a drink not consecrated But it is not the wil of Christ that one Priest should coÌ„secrate in one Masse any more then once eche kind of the Sacrament because Christ died but once and then he onght to consecrate both kinds together because Christes blood and
arise the third day And straight he sang an hymne and with his Apostles went forth of the parler where they had supped Although the hymne or song of praise whereof S. Mathew speaketh doe not alone proue the real presence of Christâ—…s body and blood yet it helpeth thus far toward it as to shew and expresse a singular banket to haue bene made after which so rare and solemne a praise was geueÌ„ to God as again is no where els mentioned For albeit no man may doubt but Chist did always geue thanks vnto God after his meate receaued yet we neuer reade of an hymâ—…e sayd or song after any other Feast besyde this And yet I doubt nothing atall but that Christ gaue him self by faith and spirit euen at the supper tyme to some of his Disciples before this night and namely to the blessed Mary which at Bethaâ—…y oynted his feete at supper tyme. but that geuing of him self to Sainâ—…t Mâ—…ry or any other to be eaten of by faith was not this dreâ—…ful giâ—…t of Christs supper The hymne which was externally song or said was â—…ue to this externall worke of God wherein he witâ—… 〈◊〉 own hands gaue his own body and blood to his disciples To conclude at the length coÌ„cerning all these circumstances of this heauenly supper I besech the Reader to accompt weighe them all together and not only to consyder them a part albeit many of them alone are not able to be answered but a circumstance is not a perfit thing of it self but is a part of that whole thing about the which it hath his being and place If all these circumstances ioyned together doe proue the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder yâ— formes of that bread and wine which Christ toke and sayd thereof this is my body and this is my blood I haue my purpose and intent but he dealeth vnhonestly who diuiding them a part cauilleth at one or two and wil not looke to al at once If al these ioyned together proue not my purpose let him who thinketh so either shew me so many so strong for his contrary assertion or let him yeld to yâ— Catholiâ—… faith ¶ The real presence of Christes body and blood and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken ouâ—… of the new Testament and speaking of our â—…ords supper EUery place in holy scripture hath not another place like or in apparance coÌ„trarie to it whereby the more light may be taken for the vnderstanding thereof but when there are any such places they helpe marueilously toward the vnderstanding of holy scripture Christ one yere before his last supper said at Capharnaâ—… The bread whiche I will geue is my flesh my flâ—…sh is meat in dede At his supper he toke bread and hauing blessed said Take eate this is my body and this cup is the new Testament in my blood S. 〈◊〉 speaking of the self same mysterie wryteth thus The chalice of blessing which we blesse is it not the communicating of Christes blood And the bread which we breake is it not the com municating of the body of our Lord Let vs now conferre euery word together That whiche was promised in S. Iohn by these wordes The bread whiche I will geue is discribed in the supper presently by these words Take eate this and this cup. not that I make this the accusatiue case to the verbe eate but only to shew that these three wordes agree with the first words in S. Ihon. And afterward in S. Paule it is called The bread which we breake so that these foure particles belong in effect to one thing The bread whiche I will geue The bread whiche we breake and take eate this or drinke ye this cup. By which conference we learne how the pronoune this may be particularly expounded in Christes supper for of his generall signification whiche is to shew vnder a visible form an inuisible substance I haue spoken before sufficiently This then is as much to say as this meat drink or food which is now broken and geueÌ„ and willed to be taken and eaten or drunken is my body or blood It hath bene euidently proued vppon the sixt of S. Ihon that yâ— bread which he promised was not meant of wheateÌ„ bread whereof Christ spake not in yâ— place but of the meate and foode of euerlasting life Therefore when Christ sayth this in his last supper he meaneth none otherwise then this eatable thing or this which is to be drunken this kind of meate or drinke and food which I nâ—…w geue is my body or bloâ—…d otherwise iâ—… it were not his flesh and blood but material bread and wine it were not the euerlasting meate which Christ at Caphaâ—…namn promised to geue and now at his supper doth geue So that whereas Christ both brake and gaue after blessing said take eate this therewith beginning to consecrate the Sacrament of his last supper we haue it expounded what this doth 〈◊〉 by three 〈◊〉 ways by the tyme to come when it is sayd the breaâ—… that I wil geue â—…hich out of question is vnderstanded the food 〈◊〉 Christ wil geue For Christ him self called it before the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting Agayne the pronoune this may be wel expounded by the dede exercysed about the Sacrament after cousâ—…ration when it is sayd of S. Paule The bread which we breake for the breaking is vsed after consecration in the signe and form of bread to shew the death of Christ wherein his flesh was in dede broken and to distribute the mâ—…rites thereof by the holy communion The third way is by conferring together the very words of the consecrating the two kinds For as he said of the bread this alone so he sayd of the wine this cup. geuing vs to vnderstand that as this cup must of necessity be resolued into yâ— thing within the cup so in the other kind we should resolue the pronoune this into that which is within this visible form Thereby declaring that this generally meaneth the substance vnder this and particularly meaneth the food vnder this All is in effecte to say The meate that I will geue the eatable thing that we breake at Masse that whereof Christ sayd take and eate that which is conteyned vnder the apparant formes that is it which in the supper is termed by the pronounâ—… â—…his The next word is the verbe is which can very hardly be expounded by any other word in any tonge because it being the verbe substaâ—… is in all tonges set alone to signifie yâ— being or substaÌ„ce that euery thing hath and no other one word is equal to it which may expound it Yet I may boldly say the holy Ghost hath done so much to expound this verbe as may suffise to any reasonable creature For Christ sayd before any signe of his body was 〈◊〉 The bread
which I wil geue is my flesh WheÌ„ Christ made that promise there was nothing in yâ— who le world whereof the verbe is might be verified in the present tense but only that substance of Christes flesh which he had in his natural body The outward gift of the supper was then to come yet Christ sayd of the substance of his gift The bread which I will geue is my flesh I say not only that it shal be my flesh but I say it is my flesh at this tyme because the substance that I will geue is now present with you although the manner of deliuerance be to come Let vs therefore so expound the verbè is in the supper that it may agree with the verbe is in S. Ihon where it cannot be taken for a bare significatiue being because then there was no signe of his body made Moreouer S. Paule writing after the supper was past doth interprete the verbe is as plainly as can be deuised to signifie a substancial and not an accidentall being for he sayth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes flesh it is yâ— communicating as though he sayd it is so truely Christes flesh that no differeÌ„ce is betwene it and the being or substance of Christes flesh All thing is common betwene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction coÌ„meth betwene these two All this the word communicating doth signifie and more to For the bread which we breake is so farre Christes body that it maketh vs also the body of Christ. The bread which 〈◊〉 breake is so 〈◊〉 distant from being a bare signe that it hath Christes body made common to it by consecration and it maketh Christes body common to vs by communion so that for est is S. Paule putteth communicatio est it is the communicating or the hauing or making common Christes body and blood S. Chrysostom so vehemently presseth the word coÌ„municating vnion whereof the Apostle speaketh yâ— he sayth S. Paule would not leaue so muche as a little difference betwene the men which doe communicate and that which is communicated and yet if that which is communicated were materiall bread it would so much differ from Christ our head and the mysticall body which we are in Christ that it should be an other nature and substance cleane diuerse from it not only not communicating in one and the same meÌ„ber of a mystical body but neither in the whole kind of things which the Logicians call speciem or genus proximum Let vs adde hereunto that if we take est for significat in these words hic significat sanguinem meum the verb shal lacâ—… a noune substantiue to be his nominatiue case And that S. Luke by leauing est to be vnderstanded by common reason doth shew it signifieth properly as men commonly are wonte to vse that verbe Thus much being said for this and is the worde body remayneth to be declared by the conference of holy scripture In S. Matthew it is called supersubstantiall breade In S. Iohn it is called my flesh whiche I will geue for the lite of the world In S. Matthew and Marke my body in S. Luke my body whiche is geuen for you in S. Paule my body which is broken for you or shal be betraied for you the body of our Lord this bread the one bread Likewise concerning the blood it is called the blood of the sonne of man my blood the blood of the new Testament the new testament in my blood The chalice of blessing whiche we â–ª blesse the blood of Christ the blood of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord. Of the body it is said take eate of the blood take diuide among you and drinke ye all of this Of both together it is said to the Apostles make and do ye this thing Of euill men it is said that they eate this breade and drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely not iudging rightly our Lordes body And last of all he that eateth me shall liue for me If now we will expouÌ„d body for the signe of body it will folow that the signe of Christes body was gâ—…n for vs. And when it is sayd He that eateth me shall liue for me it must be expounded He that eateth the signe of me shal liue for the signe of me To conclude as this belongeth not to the substance either of bread or of wine wherewith it can not agree in 〈◊〉 as the verb est is can not stand for significat to signifie least it lack his nominatiue case as the cup shed for vs can not stande for wine shed in sacrifice or els for the signe of blood shed but only for the substance of blood shed on the crosse so corpus body can not stand for a figure or a signe of the body because hoc est corpuâ—… meum datum pro vobis accordingly as the Greeke hath can not be interpreted this is yâ— figure of my body which is geueÌ„ for you â–ª except with Ualentinus Marcion Manicheus it shal be sayd yâ— figure of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. Wherefore I may boldly coÌ„clude that stubburnly to defend that the words of Christes supper are Grammatically or Rhetorically figuratiue coÌ„cerning the substantial parts of the chefe propositions is extreme ignorance in the rules of Grammar and of Logicke palpable blindnes in the studie of diuinitie and a malice inexcusable at the day of iudgement if the party repent not Now on the other syde conferre Scriptures whether Ihon Baptist be Elias it is euident that it is not so There was betwene them in tyme aboue fiue hundred yeres Ihon Baptist was killed Elias liueth yet The Angel sayd by Ihon Baptist He shall goe before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Elias He sayd not in truth and person And Ihon Baptist being asked whether he were Elias or no answered plainly Non sum I am not It is plaine enough that Ihon Baptist is not Elias in person but only in like office and function Thus you may see good Reader what oddes is betwene those places which our aduersaâ—…s wold haue like and wold make you beleue that these words This is my body be no more properly spoken then these He is Elias The like may be sayd of the rock which meaneth two diuerse natures â—…se geuing water as it is described in the bookes of Moyses and well knowen to be neither Christ by nature neither by coÌ„neâ—…on of any rok into Christ. For neither Christ euer sayd of the rock This is my body neither did he commaund vs to say so What shall I say of that vnsensible obiection that God dwelleth not in Temples made with mans hand For we now speaking of the body of Christ speake not of the dwelling which belongeth to God but of that which belongeth to his humane nature which it self also is not a Temple made with the hand of man or begotten by the
not born is made I say Therfore hoc facite signifieth make this thing 〈◊〉 sayth Inefficabili operatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traÌ„sformatur etiam si nobis videatur panis although it seme bread to vs it is made an other thing or transformed by an vnspeakeable working 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after this sorte If the word of God be liuely and of efficacy and all things what soeuer it wold it hath made if it sayd Let light be made it was made let the firmament be made and it was made If the 〈◊〉 be establyshed by the word of God and all the vertue of them by the spirit of his mouth if heauen and earth water fier aier and all the decking of theÌ„ and man himself a lyuing creature spred and made common euery where were made perfecte with the word of God If God the word him self of his owne wil was made man and hath vpholden and staied in his own person flesh without seed of maÌ„ out of the most pure and 〈◊〉 blood of the holy virgine is he not able to make bread his own body and wine and water his blood He said in the beginning let the earth bring forth 〈◊〉 spring to this day reyne being made it bringeth forth springs holpen and strengthned with the commandement of God God hath sayd This is my body and this is my blood and make this thing for the remembrance of me Et omnipotenti eius praecepto donec veniat efficitur and by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made 〈◊〉 he come Marke whether Damascene doth not ground all his authorities vppon making and the authoritie of Christes supper vpon these words make this thiÌ„g 〈◊〉 expouÌ„ding these words Hoc facite sayth Hoc inquit nouum mysterium non illud vetus make this new mysterie sayth he and not that old Haymo sayth Hoc facite id est hoc corpus sanctificate sanctifie this body that is to say make holy and consecrate this body 〈◊〉 Archbysshop of Cantorbury although he sheweth first that by this word Hoc facite eating and drinking for the remembrance of Christes death is commamded to al Christians yet declaring also a farther sense of yâ— same words he sayth Aut corde vos qui Sacerdotes estis hoc facite quod ego 〈◊〉 feci id est calicem vini consecrate vt 〈◊〉 sanguismeus hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemorationem vt in hoc facto sitis memores mei eorum quae pro vobis passus sum Or els ye that are Priests make that which I haue now made that is to say consecrate the chalice of wine that it may be made my blood make this thing for the remembrance of me and of those things which I haue suffred for you 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople sayth that the holy Ghoste maketh the mysteries by the hande of Priestes and toâ—…g Nicolaus Methonensis sayth the body and blood of Christ to be those thinges quae hoc ritu perficiuntur which are made peâ—…fit with this ryte If sanctificare efficere panem corpus Christi panem facere corpus Christi vinum sanguinem if consecrare operari diuinissima fieri eucharistiam facere panem corpus Christi conficere corpus Christi ore conficere oblationem Christi conficere paneÌ„ calicem mysticum fieri panem sui ipsius corpus facere nouum mysterium sacere corpus effici corpus hoc sanctificare coÌ„secrare calicem vini vt fiat sanguis Christi If al these phrases and kindes of speache can not be â—…nglished by doing but only by making and yet the aucthority and commandement that any Priest hath to make the body and blood of Christ commeth only from these words Hoc facite it must nedes be confessed that these words do signifie much more make this thing then doe this Otherwise we should not make the body of Christ at al whereas S. Iames Dionysius Areopagita S. Iustinus S. Ireneus Tertâ—…llian S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Augustine Theophilaet Euthymius Haimo Damascene Germanus Methonensis yea al the whole Church doth say with one accorde that Priestes doe make and are commanded to make the body of Christ. Is it now possible that the body of Christ which is thus made froÌ„ of wheaten bread by yâ— coÌ„mandement of God him self should not be for al yâ— present with vs vnder the form of the same bread If when the word was made flesh in the virgins wombe it was present with vs not only by saith and spirit but dwelt really in the world being conuersant among men and was sene in earth likewise when the body of Christ is made from of the creature of bread by the Priests mouth in the vertue of Christes word it is present with vs not only by faith and spirit but in deede and trâ—…th it self it dwelâ—…eth not only among vs but euen within vs as meate dwelleth in him who receaueth it weth a sound stomake and digesteth it well For seing Christ hauing taken bread and blessed sayd this is my body and â—…ad his Apostles make this thing bread is in such sorte made his body yâ— when y◠〈◊〉 of the words is past the body of Christe remaineth still according to the distinction of S. Basill as the work which was wrought by yâ— sayd words and it is receaued of the faithfull people vnder the form of bread to nourish theyr soules and bodies to euerlasting life ¶ What these words doe signifie For the remembrance of me that they much help to proue Christes reall presence vâ—…der the formes of bread and wine IT may be some man will say I deale not honestly â–ª for Christ sayd not only make this thing which I haue most pressed vpoÌ„ but he added other words thereunto which declare that a figure should be made and not his true body For he sayd do this in the remembrance of me If it be a remembrance of Christ how is it Christ him self The remembrance of a man differeth from the man him self Thus much if any man say against me I feare nothing but I shall satisfie him concerning my doing if now I shewe that the words of remeÌ„brance whereof he taketh holde doth much more help my saying theu his Which that I may the better perform I besech him to remember that Chist said not hoc agite in coÌ„memoratione mei doe this in my remembrance or in remeÌ„brance of me but hoc facite in meam commemorationem which signifieth as wel to make as to do this thing not only in but rather for the remembraÌ„ce oâ—… me and yet so haue these words bene commonly Englyshed and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 as though he had said only hoc agite doe this not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite which is both doe this and make this thing Again as though he had said in mea commemoratione in the ablatiue case in the remembrance of me and not 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in meam commemorationem in the accusatiue case the true English whereof must be for the remembrance of me Christ sayd make this thing for the remembrance of me that is make my body which is geuen for you to thend my geuiug of it for you vpon yâ— crosse may through that your fact and doing be remembred This is the true meaning of Christes words For so doth S. Paule expoimd them to the Corinthians where after he had declared the history of Christes supper of purpose teachig vs what is meant by the remembrance of him thus he writeth As ofte as ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice ye shall shew our Lordes death vntill he come Lo the shewing of our Lordes death is the kind of remembrance for which Christ willeth his body to be made eaten his blood to be made and â—…runken Wherefore saying make or doe this for the remembrance of me he sayth this much Take bread blesse saying this is my body breake geue eate and all to this ende that my death may be remembred vntill my second coming Here we learne that the remembrance whereof Christ speaketh is the shewing of his death and that not by word only but by dede and facte and by making and doing For the making of Christes body by chaunging the substance of the bread into the substance of his flesh is a marâ—…ilouse shewing of his death For as his death was the dissolution of the soule from the body so his soule which as S. Ambrose noteth is vnderstanded by the blood is shewed vnder the form of wine his body is shewed a part from it vnder an other form of bread I doe not say that either the body is without soule and blood or the blood without flesh and soule but I say the shewing of the body vnder form of bread and of the blood vnder yâ— forme of wine in â—…che of which whole Christ is conteyned is the shewing of his death and also of his resurrection For at the death in dede the soule and body were a sonder and at the resurrection they came againe together Euen as now in figure and shew they are a sonder not withstaÌ„ding that in truth they are together But if the bread and wine remayned in their old nature still taking only the name and signe of Christes body blood Then should nothing be made for the remembrance or to shew our Lords death whereas he sayd Make this thing for the remembrance of me That is sayeth S. Paule for the shewing of my death the which death is yet fâ—…rther shewed when the same body in a signe is broken and geuen to be eaten the blood drunken For then as Christes flesh was in dede broken vppon the Crosse so it is in shew signe broken first in the Priests hands vnder forme of bread and next in his or their mouths who communicate with him by eating and chewing of it And likewise yâ— blood is powred or shedde into his or their mouthes vnder the forme of wine as it was in dede shed vppon the Crosse and as in dede Christ there deliuered his ghost into his Fathers hands But if the breade and wine were not changed into the body blood of Christ then that body which at all were not so much as in signe and shew broken because it were not present and that blood whiche were not so muche as in apparence apart from the fleshe or shed into the mouthes of the receauers could not shew our Lords death at all whereas Christ would his own death to be shewed by the making of his own body and blood with the signes of breaking shedding parting and dissoluing Thou seeâ—… now good Reader how the kind of remembrance which Christ required to he had of him is not only nothing at all against the reall presence of his body and blood yea rather it is so singularly set forth thereby that without the presence of the body blooâ—… it shal be somewhat hard to deuise what memorie at all here can be of Christes death Most sure it is that though mans wit may deuyse much yet can it neuer inuent so perfect a meane to make the death of Christ be remembred as if his own self be present to warne vs thereof If it hath chaunted to any man whiles by manly fighting he hath delyuered his frind from perill of death to take some great wound in his owne face tell me on thy conscience is there any way more effectual for that wounded man to put his frind in remembraunce of that fighting then if him self come with the skar in his face to his frinâ—…s presence and sight Is it not more then if he sent an hundred letters an hundred tokens and messengers to warne his frinde thereof Euen so fareth it with Christ at this tyme who fighting for vs vppon the Crosse whiles he delyuered mankind from the bonde of death toke a wound which made him geue vp his ghost Can therefore a more vehement remembrance be stirred vp in our harts then if the same Christ offer him self present to vs with â—…he skar vpon his face Thou wilt I think graunt that nothing would moue vs or make vs more vehemently remembre the death which he tooke for vs. But thou wilt say that Christ now coÌ„meth not before vs that we see him not Well Sir First you graunt that the remembrance of Christes death is nothing at all hiudered by the presence of his body why then sayd you before if the Sacrament of the altar be a remembrance of Christ it is not Christ him self Why sayd you that the remembrance of a thing must uedes differ from the thing it self And now you see and confesse that Christ present with the resemblance of his woundes should make you best remember his death Beware hereafter of this kind of reasoning Christ made a resemblance of his death at his supper therefore it is not his own body That argument is not good yea rather this is good Christ made a perfecte remembrance of his death therefore his own body is geuen to put vs in mind that he died for vs. Now let vs returne to that you said Christ was not seene of vs. If he were seene your faith should be of small merite besyde that you could not receaue him into your body after that visible quantitie wherein he walked vppon the earth He therefore that died for you hath now geuen you the substance of his naturall flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine Where he is as verily present as if you saw him or touched him For I trow you vnderstand that eye sight is not necessary to make a thing present Otherwise blinde men were in euill case and to them nothing should be present Which seing it is not so the body of Christ is not therefore the lesse present because you see it not But if it may please
this cost is bestowed vppon a peece of bread and wine Two kindes of sepulchers we reade to haue bene alwaies this day to be in vse the one is where the body lieth present and that is properly the place of buriall the other when the body is absent and only a token of it is erected and this later kinde is called Caenotaphium a voyd monument without hauing the body in it Iudge good Reader whether it be more semelie sith Christ wold this Sacrament to be made for his remembrance that it be a void monument without hauing the body in it or els a sepulcher truly conteining his body within it whose name it beareth specially seing himself sayd of this tumb and sepulcher This is my body and this is my blood The body is named of the Greekes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say of yâ— buriall or sepulcher as though the soule were buried therein as the carkase is put in the sepulcher And yet it is much more apt to call the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar the sepulcher of his passion because in it is buried yâ— who le vertue of that gloriouse sacrifice and thence it is applied and dispensed to the faithfull S. Chrysostom also called the body of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carkase because it is present after the same rate as it was dead in the sepulcher not in dede without soule and life but yet without sensible mouinge as Epiphanius also hath noted The holy Martyrs whose death was of great price in yâ— sight of God haue leaft their bodies behinde them to our comfort neither haue they yet receaâ—…d the second robe of their flesh Deo pro nobis melius aliquid prouidente vt non sine nobis consummarentur God prouiding some â—…etter thinge for vs to the intent they should not be made throughly perfect without vs. euen as the Fathers of yâ— old Testament of whome S. Paule speaketh had not the reward of their faith vntill some of the new Testament were ioyned to them S. John the Eâ—…angelist although his carkase appered not yet he was not vnremembred because manna flowed out of his monument abundantly as Abdias hath witnessed And now shall Christ leaue a void memorie without his body or without Manna in it Are the reliques of the blessed Martyrs profitable vnto vs and is not the flesh of Christ who is Lord of all Martyrs more then necessary for vs It was mete that Christ should arise with body and soule because he is the first fruites of all them that arise from death But he now sitting at the right hand of his Father had before instituted a memorie wherein bread and wine should be conuerted into the substance of his body and blood that thereby we might both haue his body him selfe not lack it For so it becommed all iustice to be perfectly fulfilled in his person I trust by this tyme it appeareth that the remembrance of Christes death is maruelously set foorth by the reall presence of his body and blood Seing then the sayd remembrance is yâ— end why the Sacrament is made it is a better kind of reasoning to affirme that so profitable a meane as the body blood of Christ is for the remembrance of his death was not omitted by Christ then to teache that because it is a remembrance therefore it is not the body of Christ. Specially sith Christ sayd This is my body For when the thing which is intended is the more furthered by taking the words properly then figuratinely as wel the proper nature of the words as the scope of the whole matter compelleth vs to take them as they naturally and vsually sounde without any â—…arther circuition or seking of figures Si resâ—… icias sayth Origenes ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit Dominus Hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemoratio nem Inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat hominibus Deum If thou looke to that remembrance whereof our Lord sayd Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Thou shalt find that this is the only remembrance which may make God mercifull to men Mark this propitiatorie kind of remembrance S. Augustine also declareth by conferring the Sacrament of the altar with the facrifices of the law how it is the remembrance of Christ saying In isto sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit In this sacrifice a thanksgeuing and a remembrance is of the flesh of Christ which he offered for vs and of the blood which the same God did shed for vs. Therefore in those olde sacrifices it was figuratiuely signi fied what should be geuen vs But in this sacrifice it is euidently shewed what hath now bene geuen vs. In those sacrifices it was before hand shewed that the sonne of God should be afterward kylled for wicked men But in this he is shewed to haue bene allready kylled for wicked men By this writer whether it were S. Augustine or as others think Fulgentius the whole nature of the remembrance which we kepe of Christes death is shewed wherein the death is in dede past and absent but the body of him that died is present But in the old sacrifices neither the death neither the body was preâ—…ent but only a shadow of both Therefore those sacrifices are a figuratiue signification as Fulgentius sayeth But the Sacrament of the altar is an euident shewing Marke the wordes of Fulgentius and you shall see two words of the old law answer vnto other two of the new law By the old sacrifices he sayeth siguratè significabatur it was figuratiuely signified By the new sacrifice euidenter ostenditur it is euideÌ„tly shewed Looke how much difference is betwene shewing signifiyng betwene euidence and figures so much is betwene the old sacrifices and the new Yet if vnder forme of bread the body were not and the blood vnder the forme of wine surely the olde did better shew Christes death then this for there was flesh to shew flesh and blood to shew blood The blood was both in dede and in shew also shed and in dede separated from the flesh and poured vpon the altar and the flesh in dede eaten by them that made the offering Therefore our sacrifice doth not passe that in shewing outwardly the maner of Christes death but in euideÌ„t shewing that which died In euident shewing I say vnder the forme of bread and wine which shewing is called euident not for the seing but for the certeyntie of the place and circiut within the which we know by Gods word yâ— flesh and blood of Christ to be vnder the same forme because Christ him self shewing to vs the foorm of bread sayd This is my body What nede I to bring the Fathers one by one sith the whole
second Councell of Nice doubted not to say Nemo sanctorum Apostolorum qui tuba sunt Spiritus sancti aut gloriosorum Patrum nostrorum incruentum nostrum sacrificium in memoriam passionis Christi Domini Dei nostri totius suae dispensationis factum imaginem corporis illius dixerit None of the holy Apostles who are the trumpet of the holy Ghost either of our glorious Fathers hath sayd our vnbloody sacrifice which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion and of his whole conuersation to be aâ—… ymage of that body No Apostle no Father hath called this remembrance an image of the body so as it should be denied to be yâ— body it self An unage of the death it might haue bene called but an image of Christes body no Doctor euer called it because it is yâ— truth it self It is the body of Christ made for the remembrance of his death accordingly as Christ said This is my body which is geuen for you make this for the remeÌ„brance of me Shewing my death vntyll I come ¶ Answere is made to the chalenge of M. Nowell concerâ—…ng the difference betwene I am the true vine and This is my body MAster Nowell iu his reproufe of M. 〈◊〉 proufe hauing occasion ministred to speake of these words This is my body about the whiche M. Dorman had sayd that Luther and Caluin did not agree he answereth first they agree both in this that the Papists exâ—…ound them â—…alsely Next he affirmeth that M. Dorman nor all Papists with him shall neuer be able to shew cause why these words Ego sum vitis vera I am the true vine doe not proue as wel a transubstantiaton as hoc est corpus meum this is my body I am M. Nowell one of those Catholiks whom you cal Papists who by Gods grace will shewe sufficient cause why these words I am the true vine doe not proue as well a transubstatiation as This is my body In these words I am the true vine I say not only that there is no transubstantiation but I affirine also that in them there can be no transubstantion at all Whereas in the words This is my body a transubstantiation both may be and is To make the proufe where of plaine it is to be knowen that by the word transubstantiatioÌ„ the change or passing of one substance into an other is meant To haue one substance goe and passe into an other it requireth that two seuâ—…rall substances be first or last really found of which two yâ— one must be extant before it be changed the other must at the least be extant when the change is made though it were not extant before As for example The bread which at his supper Christ toke into his hands was one certaine substance the other was his owne body which he had taken of the virgin Mary Now when Christ sayd ouer the bread which he had taken This is my body we beleue that he changed the bread into his body and we call the passing of the substance of bread into yâ— substance of Christes body transubstantiation This 〈◊〉 we build vppon the deedes and words of Christ. Uppon his dedes that he toke bread and blessed or gaue thanks Uppon his words in that he sayd This is my body we beleue his words to be proper because beside that he spake them in the way of blessing of 〈◊〉 a Sacrament and of commanding his Apostles to make this thâ—…g he also expoâ—…ded them him self as not being only contented to say This is my body but adding thereunto which is geuen for you Uppon these vnfallible grounds we say that the thing pointed vnto is Christes owne substance really present at yâ— speaking of the wordes And seing we know the same to haue bene bread before and that it can not be at once both materiall bread and withal Christes body for that the substance of bread is not vnited to the person of Christ we are constrained to beleue that the bread was changed or 〈◊〉 into Christes body Such a change is not only possible became bread is a creatâ—… able to be changed into Christes owne body but it is also most conuenieâ—…t as well to make the external sacrifice of the new testament for no externall sacrifice is made without a change as 〈◊〉 to make it according to the order of Melchisedch whose oblation began in bread and wine but was ended in blessing Abraham and in pronouncing him blessed to the high Godâ—… the which propheticall figure the true Melchisedech Iesus Christ fulfilling toke bread and wine to begiune his new sacrifice withall but by blessing pronouÌ„cing this is my body he 〈◊〉 his â—…nblody sacrifice in that blessed sede of Abrahams owu body and blood Thus we 〈◊〉 touching these words this is my body both a sufficient cause why transubstantiation may be in them beleued and an vndoubted possibility of the same But concerning the other words I am the true wine alleged by M. Nowel the very first ground of al transubstantiation lacketh in them For whereas in euery transubstantiation two particular and seueral substances are to be graunted one which may be chaÌ„ged an other into which the change may be made in these wordes I am the true vine here is but one particular substance which is Christ him selfe As for the true vine â—…ither it is Christ him selfe and so it is no seueral substance from him whereunto he may be changed or els it is no particular substance at all but only a general â—…ame of a kind of substance which hath in it self no dotermined and proper being For as before Christ spake there was no such vine extant which might be pointed vnto so 〈◊〉 speaking he made no such true vine any where he brought foorth no such materiall thing nay he ment not of any vine or of any other creature vnder the sonne but only ment him self to be that in his own person towards vs his members which the natural vine is towards his branches And therein him selfe to be so much the â—…uer kind of vine theÌ„ yâ— natural vine is because the iuyce which vniteth his members to him the head of his mysticall body is more true and more nigh to the spirit of God which is the truth â—…t self then any material vine can be nigh to his own braunches Seing then transubstantiation can not be made otherwise then by turning oâ—…e materiall substance into an other where one material substance only was found there possibly could no transubstantiation be made Christ in dede is one substance but the vine he spake of was no one particular substance at all It was therefore a great ouersyght to compare these wordes I am the true vine to these This is my body which words were so spoken that by the circumstance of the supper they are vnderstanded to pertein after a sort to two substances to the one
very same that is put to death for you but concerning the true vine he saith As the braunche can not beare fruit vnlesse it be in the vine so can not we beare fruit except we tary in him The particles as and so be words of similitude and not of substance Behold how he is a vine by a similitude and by a metaphor by an exaÌ„ple by hauing a like propriety towards vs as the vine hath towards his owne braunches These be other manner of circumstances for the pithy and plaine setting forth of his reall body vnder the form of bread theÌ„ you can bring any to make so much as an apparence that Christ should be a vine And is yet the one with you so plaine so pithy as the other To what case would you bring the words this is my body if your power were to your will S. Iustinus the Martyr calleth them words of praier because they were spoken with thankesgeuing S. Chrysostom words which consecrate the things set forth because they make a Sacrament of yâ— bread and wine S. Ambrose calleth them words of blessing and a speache which worketh because they are spoken with the intent of working that they souÌ„d S. Augustine nameth them a mystical praier of consecrating of vowing or offering because they consecrate vow and offer vnto God the substance of bread and wine to theâ—…d it being accepted of him may be made the body of Christ our only sacrifice wherein the oblations of the new law must end You making these words no more pithy theÌ„ I am the true vine would haue them worke no more then metaphorical words do work which is to say that they teach only a comfortable doctrine but worke no essentiall thing in the substance of bread whiche is set forth to be consecrated Christ after his body was consecrated sayd to his Apostles Make this thing for the remembrance of me but after the wordes of the true vine were spoken he bad no thing to be doâ—… or made for any purpose or effect The making of Christes body was eâ—…r accompted a greate sacrifice as the greeke Liturgies and latine â—…bookes delare but there neuer was hard of auy vine that was in that opinion among the faithfull The words which consecrate Christes blood shew likewise what is to be thought of this is my body but the true vine is not so conâ—…d by any other like consecration annexed The blood is pointed vnto within a cup or chalice declaring the body also to haue bene pointed vnto vnder the form of bread but the vine was not so limited within a certaine place where it might appere to any sense of the Apostles It is called the blood of the new tostament or the new testament in Christes blood the like addition is not made to yâ— true vine The very cup of Christes supper is said to be shed for vs because the blood is conteined in it which was only shed for vs yâ— like is not said of any thing wherein yâ— vine might be conteined The wordes of Christes supper be so playne and so pithy that if we take them not as they sound the pronoâ—…nes hoc and hic shall lacke theyr noune substantiue The verbe est is being once taken for significat shall haue no substantiue at all to be his nominatiue case The noune corpus body being expounded for the figure of Christes body shall not agree with his participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 datum geuen or els the relatiue quod which shall not agree with his antecedent corpus body except we defend a figure of Christ to haue bene crucified for vs. None of all these things compell vs to take these wordes I am the true vine in suche sorte There is no pronoune no Relatiue or Participle which may so restrain the nature of the wordes but that we may take Christes kind of being the true vine for hauing the qualitie of a true vine and not being any vine in a seuerall substance Three Euangelists haue writen This is my body one after an other confirming the propriety of the words but only S. Ihon wrote that Christe said I am the true vine Nowe that is not so plainly said whereof four men write conformably as that which one writeth alone For if an other had writen the parable of the vine perhaps he would haue added other words to haue made it plainer although it be plaine enough already For the honour of these wordes This is my body Churches and Altars haue bene builded where that blessed body might be coÌ„secrated vnder the forme of bread For any vine I neuer thinke the like to haue bene done You your selues allow at the least a square table where this is my body may be solemnly pronounced but not so for these words I am the true vine The body whereof Christ spake hath bene taught to be adored vnder the forme of bread by S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine all the Fathers You are the first M. Nowell who would either a vine to be adored equally with Christes body or els his body to be no more adored in the Sacrament of the altar then a parabolicall vine For to that end your words runne that as wel Christ should be a vine as that whereof he spake in his supper should be his body to say that his body is only present in a parable at Christes supper S. Chrysostom calleth these words I am the true vine a parable and theresore saith Quid vult haec parabola significare what will this parable meane And againe Vide quà m diligenter hanc parabolom exequitur See how diligently he prosecuteth this parable But thought he trow you that This is my body was likewise a parable No no it neuer was his minde For writing vpoÌ„ these words Take eate this is my body and hauing asked why the disciples were not troubled hearing that thing he aunswereth Quia multa iam magna de hoc anteà disseruit because Christ hath disputed of this thing many and great things before Where no dout at al can be but that S. Chrysostom meaneth the the disputation kept at Capharnaum where Christ promised the bread whiche is his flesh affirming his fleshe to be not only true meate but to be meat truely therein shewing that it is meat not only concerning the truth of nourishing but also concerning the mancâ—… of caâ—…ing it vpon whiche place S. Chrysostome writeth that Christe called his fleshe truely meate either because it is the true meate which saueth the soule or to confirme them in his former sayings ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur sed scâ—…rent omnino necessarium esse vt corpus comederent least they should thinke him to haue spoken darkly in parables but should know it to be by all meanâ—…s necessary thaâ—… they should eate his
Paule speaketh of is named specially also the communicating of Christes blood A generall blessing geueth a general benefite as when we say our Lord blesse you God send you good speede the right hand of God blesse this meate the holy Ghost sanctifie this wine and make it to be a remembrance of Christes bloodsheading These like wordes be blessings hallow or sanctifie the thing blessed as S. Paule saith the creatures to be sanctified by the word of God and praier But when a speciall blessing is geuen a speciall sanctifiyng must folow As when God blessed the 〈◊〉 Benedixitque eis dicens Crescite multiplicamini replete aquas maris and God blessed them saying Increase and multiplie and fyll the waters of the sea this special kinde of blessing worketh a speciall benefite vnto the creature which is blessed â–ª and it worketh euen that which the word signifieth â–ª who doubteth but by these words of Gods blessing increase and multiplie the fisshes toke the vertue of increasing and multiplying which before these words they had not for this kind of blessing gaue them this kind of benefite Seing then Christ blessed the chalice saying This is my blood of the new testament out of doubt he gaue it really this vertue to be the blood of the new testament Tell me no more that Christ willed it to signifie his blood for I tel you out of yâ— word of God what soeuer words haue bâ—… spoken belonging to any creature by the way of blessing they haue wrought that which they did signifie But Christ said in the way of blessing â–ª This chalice is the new testament in my blood Therefore he made by that blessing his blood within the chalice Bring me no more of those paltry examples I am a dore I am a vine the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias the holy Ghost is a doue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that sort I 〈◊〉 in one word to al that none of these were spoken by God in the way of blessing The 〈◊〉 saieth not that Christ blessed any certaine vine saying this is Christ or This is my body â–ª He sayd many thinges without blessing and he blâ—…ed sometymes without speaking But when blessing words are â—…oyned we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens and bare sigâ—…s but working and making that which is said For if they promise a thing to come they worke by the way of causing the promyse in due tyme to be fulfilled as when a soâ—…e was promysed to Abraham by the Aungell of God If they be spoken as betokening a present verbe they presently worke the thing betokened Let no 〈◊〉 deceaue thee good Reader There is a dubble blessing spoken of in S. Paule there is the chalice of blessing and the chalice which we blesse The chalice of blessing as S. Chrysostom saieth is that which wheÌ„ we haue before vs we prayse God with admiration and horrour of the vnspeakeable gift but it is not the chalice of blessing vntill we haue blessed it The blessing whiche maketh it the chalice of blessing is that we speake of and that is the blessing whiche is made by the wordes of consecration as I haue said before Therefore S. Chrysostom wryteth thus vpon this place of S. Paule Cùm benedictionem dico Eucharistiam dico dicendo Eucharistiam omnem benignitatis Dei thesaurum aperio magna illa munera commemoro When I say blessing I say the Eucharist and in saying the Eucharist I open all the treasour of the goodnes of God and I make rehearsall of those great gifts But least any cauill should be made as though the wordes of 〈◊〉 were not the words of blessing heare what S. Ambrose aâ—…th of this Sacrament Quantis vtimur exemplis vt probemus non hoc esse quod natura formauit How many 〈◊〉 vse we to proue that it is not yâ— thing whiche nature made but that which blessing consecrated Lo that which conâ—…eth is blessing But what blessing After yâ— S. Ambrose had bronghâ—… many examples to shew what strength blessing had at the last he concludeth Quòd si tantùm valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur If the blessing of man was of that power that it changed nature what say we of Gods own consecrating where the self words of our Lord Saniouâ—… do worke Marke good Read er blessing consecrating and the words of our Sauiour working is all one matter And yet againe to make it playner S. Ambrose saieth Nam Sacramentum istud quod ac cipis Christi sermone conficitur for this Sacrament which thou receauest is made with the wordes of Christ what the words be he telleth him self Vide omnia illa verba Euangelistae sunt vsque ad accipite siue corpus siue sanguinem inde verba sunt Christi Behold al those are the words of the Enâ—…ngelist vntill we come to this word take either body or blood from thense they are the wordes of Christ. Yf blessing be that which consecrateth both blessing consecration be made with the words oâ—… Christ his words he those which folow the word take yâ— words which folow be these This is my bodie and This is my blood who perceyueth not yâ— these only are the words of blessing Then we blesse the chalice when we consecrate when we say This is my blood of the new testament when we blesse saying the wordes of blessing in Christes mysteries then we make so much as our words do signifie For which cause S. 〈◊〉 concludeth that yâ— chaâ—…ce which we blesse is the coÌ„municating of the blood of Christ. In saying which we blesse he sheweth the cause why it is Christes blood In saying it is the communicating of Christes blood he sheweth both yâ— effect wrought by blessing which is yâ— presence of the blood of Christ and the cause finall why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the sayd blood was shed for the remission of synnes If the â—…halice after blessing had no blood in it how did it communicate to vs the blood of Christ S. Chrysostom geuing the literall sense of these woordes writeth thus EoruÌ„ auteÌ„ huiusmodi est sententia Quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit et illius sumus participes of these wordes this is yâ— meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side aâ—…d thereof we are pà rtakers He affirmeth S. Paul to say that both yâ— blood which flowed from Christes side is in the chalice also that we are thereof partakers But yâ— blood whereof we are partakers by the confession of yâ— Sacramentaries is yâ— naturall blood of Christ therefore the natural blood of Christ is coÌ„teined within yâ— chalice And consequeÌ„tlie
his mysteries to naked names shall enioye his glorie no more really then they allow him a reall truth in his blessed Sacraments ¶ The reall presence is proued by the example which S. Paule vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentils SAint Paule intending to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking with the Gentils at their false and vaine sacrifices vseth in that behalf this kind of argument Whosoeuer doth eate or drink that which is offered vp in sacrifice he is made one with the oblation it self and with it to whome the things eaten and drunken are offered This proposition he proueth by example of the ChristiaÌ„s who by partaking of the bread which we breake and of the chalice which we blesse which are the communicating of Christes body and blood are made one bread one body because they partake all of the one bread The like is sene also in the carnall Iewes among whom they that eate the oblations or things offered thereby were partakers of the altar to wit of the sacrifice and of the worshipping of God to whom it was offered Therefore if the Corinthians wold also partake of the meate offered to ydols it must follow that they should be partakers of the ydolatrie For although the dead ydoll be no true God nor any thing at all wherewith they may communicate yet a societie is ioyned thereby with the deuils who reigne in those ydols Therefore as ydolatry it self so the eating of the meates offered to ydols is to be auoided Out of this discourse it is proued that the Christians Iewes Gentils eche of them haue a God true or false eche of them offereth an externall sacrifice to him eche of them vse to partake of the things offered and eche of them communicated among them selues The meat offered and eaten of the Iewes was the flesh of such cleane beasts or such other oblations as were allowed by yâ— lawe of Moyses The meate offered and eaten of the Gentils was such as their superstition had receaued To one ydol a shepe was offered to another an oxe The meate offered and eaten of the Christians is described of S. Paule to be the bread which we breake which is the communicating of Christes body and the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the communicating â—…f Christes blood The vnitie rising thereof is to be one bread one body because all partake of the one bread Uppon which ground it may be wel built that the meate partaken at Christes supper is the body and blood of Christ wherein we passe and ouercome the Iewes Gentils who had other earthly oblations but none of them had this foode which came down from heauen For as S. Paul sayeth We haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle But surely they might eate bread and wine who serued the tabernacle therefore the meate of Christes supper is not bread and wine but the bread of life and the blood of Christ. And whereas the Iewes had certeyn obseruancies of eating this and of leauing that meate or that the Leuits should eate this and the Priest that and the laye people an other meate S. Paule counselleth them to stablish their hart with grace and not so carefully to obserue the old law which commaunded so many differences of meate How beit if it be a good thing to haue some meates reserued for the Priests which the common people may not eate as the Iewes think then sayeth S. Paule we Christians also haue an altar to wit a thing offered vnto God and that so preciouse that the very Priests and Bisshops who serue in the tabernacle may not eate thereof That meate is as Theodorite sayth Hostia rationalis diuina A reasonable and diuine sacrifice as Sedulius writeth yâ— altar whence we partake the body and blood of Christ as Theophtlact witnesseth the vnbloody sacrifice of the body which quickeneth This then being the meate of our altar it foloweth that this meate is no lesse present vppon his holy table then that which the Iewes or ydolatours did eate was present at their sacrifices But that which they did partake was really present anâ—… receaued into their mouthes therefore likewise 〈◊〉 flesh is really present and is receaued into our mouthes The meate of the Iewes and of the Gentils was made one natural flesh with the partakers thereof therefore we likewise are made one naturall flesh with the meate of Christes tabâ—…e But herein is the oddes that their meat was turned into their flesh because it was weaker then their own nature but our flesh is turned without losse of his owne substance or proprietie into the nature of Christes flesh because it being the flesh which is dwelt in by the Godhead is stronger then our nature Again as the Iewes and Gentils by eating meates offered vp are made one body among them selues by coÌ„formitie of wil and mind alone because the meate was not able to tary in his own nature and to draw them vnto it so contrariwise we that eate Christes body are made really one flesh with Christ amoÌ„g our selues because as S. Cyrill declareth Christ suffereth him self to be no more diuided but kâ—…ping his owne flesh whole he gathereth all vs into it And seing we all that eate Christ are made naturally one with Christ we are also one among our selues For they who are one in any third are withall one among them selues Thus the meate of Christes table hath more truth in it then the meate of the Iewes or Gentils had according to the Catholike doctrine ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kind of shewing Christes death QVotiescunque manducabitis paneÌ„ hunc calicem hunc bibetis mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat How often so euer ye shall eate this bread and shall drinke this chalice ye shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come Shewing may be either in word alone or in dede alone or in both together S. Paul speaketh in this place of that shewing which is by dede alone for eating and drinking is a kind of doing But not the eating of euery bread and the drinking of tuery chalice doth shew Christes death except it be this bread eaten that chalice drunken whereof S. Paule had sayd in Christes person a litle before This is my body which is broken for you and this cup is the new Testament in my blood The eating and drinking of â—… sacriâ—…iced body and blood doth euidently shew the death thereof as the which should not be eaten and drunken if it were not already consecrated by death vnto God For who doth eate the flâ—…sh of any creature whiles it yet liueth and hath blood in it Or how can blood be drunken in a cup if it be yet in the veines of the body The nature of the fact is such that it presupposeth the immolation and sacrifice and
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
for naught that you talked of a phrase His phrase was such that you were afeard to vse it The Chrism had such vertue of the holy Ghost mingled in it that one who was not of the holy Ghost could not abide to name it No not so much as when he had â—…ede to vse the words of the same sentence to serue his turne Iuel Alexander sayeth the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments San. Yet shall we haue an other Pope I feare me this man wil be come Popish shortlie The world goeth hard with his note booke when he fleeth to these Decretall Epistles for the profe of any thing and specially for â—…atine phrases But one thing I promise you M. Iuel You may better proue Masses oâ—…t of that Epistle yea I goe nere you out of that self senteÌ„ce which you allege then you may proâ—…e any other phrase which shall presently serue your purpose But if you had not lest out the middle words which he speaketh of Masse your brethern wold haue ben so angrie with you for bringing this testimonie that they wold altogether haue misliked your phrase The words of Pope Alexander be these In Sacramentorum quoque oblationibus quae inter missarum solennia Domino offeruntur passio Domini miscenda est In the oblations also of the Sacraments which are offered vnto God at yâ— solemnities of masses the passion of our Lord is to be mingled And farther expounding his own meaning he saith that his passion may be celebrated whose body and blood is made If now as the passion of Christ being absent in quality concerning that Christes body sâ—…ffereth nothing at this present is yet present in his whole value concerning that the felf same substance is here which suffered death for our sakes if I say as the passion is in this wise presentlie mingled with the Sacraments and offered vnto God so M. Iuel wâ—… graunt that Christes body being absent in shape and quality concerning that it is not sene presently in his own foorme is yet present in his whole valuâ—… â—…oncerning that the self same substance is vnder the foorme of bread which walked visiblie vpon the earth if I say M. Iuel will graunt such a presence of Christes body throughe which it may be mingled and really ioyned to vs then the phrases of S. Chrysostom of Alexander shal be somewhat like and he shall gaine nothing at all Iuel â–ª Nyssenus saith S. Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy Ghost San. Which saying of his doth right wel proâ—…e that the gracâ—… of the holy Ghost was really in S. Stephen and not only imputed vnto him euen as Christes body is really mingled with our bodies Iuel Chrysostom meant that we should consyder that wonderfull coniunction which is betwene Christ and vs euen in one person San. This man denâ—…ed hitherto that Christ is really mingled with vs by the reall presence of his body and now he confesseth more then we aske For the coniunction which is made in onâ—… person is much greater then euer any other could be in so much that the ioyniâ—…g of our nature to the Godhead in the person of the sonne of God is the highest mystery that euer was heard of I am not ignorant that S. Paul calleth as well the head of the Churche as all the members by the only name of Christ nor that S. Cyrill saith we are all in Christ and that the common person of mankind was reâ—…ed in Christ nor that S. Paul saith of Christ and the Churche two shal be in one flesh nor that Christ concludeth thereof therefore they be not now twain but one flesh but all this doth not import that Christ is in vs we in him euen in one person For S. Cyprian saith our coniunction with Christ doth neither mingle the persons nor vnite the substances Therefore seing we stand now vpon precise truth of doctrine not writing at pleasure but disputing of a matter in coÌ„trouersie in this case you might haue forborn this your more bold then wise phrase of speache For as Damascene hath well noted whereas the blessed Trinity is one substance and we of one substance and Christ one with God one with vs through his dubble nature yet according to his person which he calleth Hypostasim differt a patre a spiritu a matre â—… nobis Christ in his person differeth from the Father from the holy Ghost from his mother and from vs. And yet M. Iuel will bring vs euen into one person Iuel Leo saith â–ª the body of him that is regenerate is made the flesh of him that was crucified San. Here is the thitd Pope in whose phrase M. Iuel doth solace himself He saith that by Baptism we are made the flesh of Christ and I beleue the same But he speaketh of his mysticall flesh whereof no question is betwene vs and M. Iuel For we only dispute now of Christes naturall flesh which is not in Baptism but only in the Sacrament of the altar Iuel S. Augustine saith â–ª we are made Christ c. and both he and we are one whoâ—…e man San. Albeit the matter be not great yet S. Augustine saith not one whole man as M. Iuel doth â—…nglish it but the whole man for he now speaketh not of any one maÌ„in nuÌ„ber nor of any one singular person but of a mystical body which coÌ„sisting of diuers persons as of diuerse members is made vp perfited into a whole collegiate body but S. Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning him self to euery faithfull man one by one at the tyme of receauing his body into our hands and mouthes as I wil shew anon Iuel As we are by baptism made Christes flesh and Christ in the same sense Chrysostom saith we are made one lump with Christ and Christ hath tempered and mingled himself with vs. San. If we wil without fraude vnderstand the mind oâ—… S. Augustine of Leo and of S. Chrysostom we must not only consider that they speake of our vnioÌ„ and ioyning to Christ but also by what meanes they vtter that their mind S. Augustine speaketh generally of euerie kind of vniting vs to Christ. Leo doth not only saie we are made the flesh of Christ but shewing the meane he saieth 〈◊〉 The bodie of him that is regenerated is made the flesh of Christ. The name of regeneration importeth the meane of Baptism by which we are grafted into Christe S. Chrysosâ—…ome speaketh of an other meane which is the Eucharist But what is that meane Baptism al men confesse to be the wasshing with water in the name of the Trinitie What is then the Eucharist What is the substance I saâ—…e whiche in the Sacrament of the aâ—…ltar worketh our vnion with Christe Is it water No. Is it bread and wine Yea saith M. Iuel No saeâ—… we Now then let vs
marke yâ— point consider the whole discourse of S. Chrysoâ—… who writeth thus Because Christ hath said this is 〈◊〉 bodie let vs be â—…gled with no dout Thou saieth Chrysostome desirest to see his garments but he deliuereth him selfe to thee Vt tangas in te habeas so that thou maiest touch him and haue him in thee Beware therefore lest after so great benefites thou begiltie of his bodie and blood by receauing with an vncleane soule For it suâ—…ed him not to be made man to be scourged crucified but he mingleth him selfe with vs or bringeth vs into one lump with him and â—…hat not by faith alone but he maketh vs his own bodie by the thing it selfe This is the true discourse of S. Chrysostom in that place as it may appere to any maÌ„ who shall reade it We are theÌ„ made one with Christ to worke the whiche thing it is common to faith and to baptisme or to the Sacrament of â—…ance But S. Chrysostome saith farther that the meane of this making vs one is in that Christe deliâ—…eth him selfe to vs. Ipse se ipsum tibi tradidit he deliuereth his owne selfe to thee And by that meanes he is mingled with thee not by faith alone but by the thing it selfe By which thing By him selfe or by his own body so that the excellency of Christes loue consisteth as much in the 〈◊〉 of the vnioâ—… â–ª â—…s in the vnion it selfe God might haue saued vs without sending his sonne to take flesh but when he sent his only begotten and made him in his own humane nature which he assumpted the meane to saue vs then his loue appered most singularly Euen so at this tyme the meane of the vnion is that whereof S. Carysostome speaketh For whereas there is a meane by faith to vnite vs to God he saith Christ was not content to be made man neither to die for vs by whiche points the faith of the old Fathers was fulfilled and therefore it might haue suffised for Christ to haue rested in his naâ—…tie and in his death letting our faith through his grace to make vp the knot of vnion without going any farther but that meane suffised not He hath brought vs into one lump with him not by faith alone to wit not by the meane of faith alone after his natiuitie Crosse he was not conteÌ„t with the meane of his birth death faith but he mingleth him selfe with vs by the thing it selfe Faith is one word yâ— thing is an other Fide is the same case yâ— re ipsa is one verb doth serue both As therefore it must of necessitie beenglished efficit he maketh nos vs suum corpus his own bodie non solum not only fide by saith so must it be englished sed but re ipsa by the thing it selfe The vnion therefore is made by faith and by the thing it selfe I come nere you M. Iuel I saie the thing it selfe is neither water nor bread and wine nor â—…th nor anie other creature but only the real substance of Christes bodie blood The which â—…bstance is yâ— meane whereby we are vnited yet yâ— same snbstaÌ„ce is not the meane exept 〈◊〉 be deliuered in the Sacrament of the altar for of that Sacrament and of the worthie coÌ„municating and of the 〈◊〉 thereof S. Chrysostom now speaketh it is called not only the bodie of Christ but Christ him selfe and therefore Christe is said not only to be seen but to be touched eaten and to be within vs. That bodie and blood of Chriâ—… being consecrated 〈◊〉 the holy table and so seen vnder the forme of bread being deliuered by the priests hand to vs and so touched eaten and being within vs that is the thing it selfe whereby we are nowe made the mystical body of Christ. That hody and blood was made present by changing the bread and wine into theÌ„ And therefore S. Chrysostom saith in yâ— same homilie Qui haec sanctificat transmutat ipse est It is Christe him selfe who maketh holie and changeth these things That bodie and blood is offered and partaken and therefore it foloweth immediatly after the wordes whereof we now chefely dispute that he ought to be cleaner then anie thing Qui hoc sacrificio participaturus est who wil partake this sacrifice That hand which breaketh in peeces this fleshe the mouthe which is filled with spirituall fier the tong whiche is made red with this wonderful blood ought to excede the sonne beames â–ª What can be deuised of man more plaine then to name changing sacrifice hand mouth tong seing touching eating hauing within vs Al these words are affirmed of these marueilouse gifts of Christes supper It is not therefore bread and wine which is res ipsa the thing it selfe but it is the body of Christ and that body being made in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is the meane to make vs one mystical body therefore that bodie is really present in the Sacrament of the supper How could it otherwise be seen touched taken into the hand into the mouth be receaued with the tong and be in vs and whiche is the chefe of al howe could it be the meane to make vs one bodie For as when by faith or Baptism we are incorporated faith is present really with vs and Baptism is really present so when we are vnited by the bodie of Christ it must nedes be really present And how present If thou wert without a body saith S. Chrysostome God had geuen thee his giftes naked and without bodies But because the soule is knit vnto the bo dy In sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi praebet In things yâ— are sâ—…sible he geueth thee things which are intelligible or such as may be atteined only by vnderstanding The bodie of Christe therefore as it is the thing it selfe which vniteth vs in his Sacrament so is it geuen vs in sensibilibus in things which maie be seen felt and touched And to speake all in one the real bodie is geuen really to vs vnder the formes of bread and wine Moreouer when we are vnited by faith Baptism we are not vnited vnto faith or vnto Baptisme but by them vnto the flesh of Christe But of this Sacrament it is said not only that we are vnited by it but also vnto it in so much that S. Chrysostom saith That thing at the sight whereof the Angels quake neither dare boldely behold it for the brightnes whiche shineth out of it therewith we are fed thereunto we are vnited Lo we are vnited to the thing wherewith we are fed â–ª and straight S. Chrysostom sheweth that whereas no shepherd fedeth his shepe with his own blood yea whereas some mothers geue out their childern to be nourished Christ doth not so but he fedeth vs with his owne blood and by all meanes he ioyneth vs to him selfe If by faith
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
psal 98. Coloss. 2 Gen. 9. Cypr. li. 3. epist. 3. ad Caecilium Gen. 18. Gen. 27. Gen. 49. Exo. 22. Leuit. 2. Iustin. in Triph. Leui. 24. Leui. 21. 1. Reg. 2. Mala 2. Aug. de ciuâ—… Dei li. 17. c. 5. Luc. 22. 1. Reg. 21 secuÌ„d 70 Aug. in Psal. 33. Ioan. 6. Luc. 22. Psal. 4. Psal. 103. Psal. 22. Psal 110. 3. Reg. 17 3. Reg. 19 Esaiae 62 Hieron ibidem Iere. 11. Zach. 9. Mala. 1. Psal. 77. Ioan. 6. Eccl. c. 3. 5. 8. Eccl. c. 7 Aug. de eiuitate Dei li. 17 c. 20. The best thing vnder yâ— Soâ—… may be eaten and drunken Origin tractatu â—…o in c. Math. 22 The custom of scriptures in coÌ„mending so much bread and wine sheweth that the body blood of Christ should be geuen vnder their formes Eph. 5. Ioan. 17. Now all things are one by the Sacrament of yâ— altar Eccles. 3. 5. 8. Luc. 22. The xiâ—… Chapiter Facere Hoc facere The supper had both doing making Creare Facere Cont. Marc. l. 4 Facere ex aliquo Facere de aliquo De Sacâ—… li. 4. c. 4. Basilius hom 1. in hexame specular Agere Facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ireneus li. 4. c. 32. The pricst hod of the new testament Aâ—… sauing yâ— body of Christ is rather a like thing then this thing Ioan. 13. Psal. 110. A memorie is made Can. 32. â—…acobus in liturgia Clemens li. 〈◊〉 constâ—…ut Apoâ—…ol Cyrillus in Caâ—…a myst 5. Dionys. de eccle hierar cap. 3. The most 〈◊〉 things be made â—…ustin in Apol. 2. Ireneus aduersus 〈◊〉 l. 5 The 〈◊〉 is made 〈◊〉 aduersus Marcionem li. 4. To 〈◊〉 bread his body Amb. de iis qui 〈◊〉 myst c â—… The body is made We make Christes â—…ody because he said make this thing Hoc 〈◊〉 in Epist. ad Heli. The body of Christ is made 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. â—… The priest maketh yâ— holy oblation Chry. de sacerdotio li. 3. Chrys. hom de prodit Iudae Man maketh not Christes body by his own vertue Aug. coÌ„tra Faust. Man lib. 20. ca. 3. Ourbread is made vnto vs mysticall Theoph. in Math. 26. Damasc. de Orth. fide li. 4. ca. 14. Psal. 113. 134. Ge. ca. 1. Psal. 32. God was made maÌ„ Christ ma keth bread his 〈◊〉 body Gen. 1. Euthy in ca 26. Matt. Make this mysterie Ansel. in epist. 1. Cor. c. 11 Make yâ— whiche I haue made Germ. in rerum Eccles. theoria in tract ad eos qui haesi Aâ—… authority of ma king Chri stes body â—…ometh froÌ„ these wordes make thâ—… thing Ioan. 1. Barâ—… 3. Basil ho. 1. in Hex The 〈◊〉 Chapiter An obâ—…tion The aâ—…swere The wordes of Christ were not wet Englished by the Prote 〈◊〉 What the remembraÌ„ce is whereof Christ spaâ—…e 1. Cor. 11 The remeÌ„ brance of Christ is the shewing of his death by fact Ambros. in ca. 11. 1 ad Cor. Christes body and blood made vnder diuerse kinds doth shew and make vs remember his death The reall body with the signes of breakig is the remeÌ„brance yâ— Christ spake of The presence of yâ— benefactour is yâ— best meane to make his good dede 〈◊〉 bred The presence of a man hyndreth not his 〈◊〉 A perfect remeÌ„braÌ„ce requireth yâ— real presence of yâ— thing remembred A thing may be pre seÌ„t though it be not seen The faith of Christ his body is as much to vs as the sight of it The new preachers What kiÌ„d of fruitful remeÌ„bran ce the belief of Christes bodily pre sence did worke Basil. de baptis li. 1. cap. 3. How Christ is remeÌ„bred in eating bread in drinking wine The tuÌ„bs of the Egyptians The body of a faithful man is the tumâ—… of Christ. The monument of Christ. What remeÌ„brance is made of Christ at the masse tyme. Malac. 1. Esaiae 11. Psal. 100 Two 〈◊〉 des of sepulchers Caenota phium Christes remeÌ„braÌ„ce is no void monumeÌ„t The body is yâ— tumbe of yâ— soule Chrys. in 1. Corin. Hom. 24 Epipha in Ancorato Psal. 115. Heb. 11. Abdias historiae Apostol li. 5. 1. Co. 15. Math. 3. The body of Christ is the best mean to re member his death The inteÌ„t of Christ is furthered by taking the words 〈◊〉 Origen Hom. 13. in Leuit. A propitiatorie re meÌ„brance Aug. de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Euidenter osten ditur Mark the difference betwene a figurauue signifying an euident shewing If we had not Christes body present yâ— old shadowes wold shew 〈◊〉 is death better then bread and wine Concil NicenuÌ„ secuÌ„dum In vnblo dy sacrifice in the remeÌ„braÌ„ce of Christ. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Fol. 102. M. Nowels words The aunswere to M. Nowell What traÌ„substaÌ„tiation meaneth 〈◊〉 real substaÌ„ces be requisite to a transubâ—… Two grounds of traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ Breade is not â—…ited to Christ. Leu. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 bread is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christâ—…s body Gen. 14. Psal. 109. Cyp ep 3. lib. 2. The true vine is no particular substance distincted froÌ„ Christ How Christ iâ—… the true vine Ioan. 2. In these words eyther christ is changed or nothing Câ—…rist coÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mala. 3. The bred is 〈◊〉 to change M. Nowels 〈◊〉 assertion Eche part of M. N. propositioÌ„ is against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eche part in this pro position beareth a transubstaÌ„ tiation The obietion The aunswere The signi fication of the verbe Sum es fui how sâ—…nne is said to be God is most properly Exo. 3. Particular â—…ces haue their being next vnto God Ioan 1. Ioan 6. Matt. 12. 〈◊〉 1. Maâ—… 16. Matt. 21. Why the verbe Sum â—…th not â—…gnifie Christ to bâ—… the substanâ—…e of a 〈◊〉 It is against reason to take away Christes subâ—… by words which signifie a vertue thereof Ioan. 10. 14. 15. 1 Co 10. Math. 11. Two sub stances be neither na med nor meant in This is my body This can not be referred to bread or wine The body of Christ is not com moÌ„ bread The consequent whereby â—…substan station is gathered Euery â—…ord of y◠〈◊〉 â—…ropo â—…tions is against 〈◊〉 Noâ—… That is grated for argumeÌ„ts sake which is not true The more semely traÌ„ substantia tion wold be the â—…ter proued The both not shew a thing present 1. Co. 10. Exo. 17. Num. 20 The true vine might be 〈◊〉 to the â—…posties Proufe He proueth best who sheweth the thing moste really present Bread was turned into Christes body whiles he liued In orat Catech. Li. 4. ca. 14. in Ioan 6. in Math. 26 Noman euer tokâ—… any vine or 〈◊〉 to be Christ. TransubstaÌ„tiation 〈◊〉 TransubstaÌ„tiation decreed taught In Apo. 2 2. li. 4. ca. 34. 3. l. 4. coÌ„t Marc. 4. de caen Dom. 5 de ijs qui init cap. 9. 6. hom 60. ad P. Antio The faith 〈◊〉 doctri ne of the Church is a reason of the thing taught 1. Co. 15. M. Nowell Act. 15. Galat. 1. Ioan. 21. Chryso ibidem These words be