agreed for all scâ—…iptures call it the body and some doctours call it a signe But if these thinges can not both be true together awase with signes awaie with tokens let the worde of God be heard which saieth This is mâ—… body This is my blood Is it reason we obeie men or God If both stand in one degree men keping them selues vnder God let both be obeyed But if men draw from God he is more worth alone then all the men of the world What 〈◊〉 we now Will the sigâ—…e of the body and the body it selâ—…e stand together or no If not let the signe of the body which is not in scripture geue place let the body it selfe which is often times found there tarie still If the signe and the truth can not stand together the Sacramentaries must nedes be condemned who denie the truth which is in the scripture and preferre the signe before it which is not in the scripture If the signe truth doe both stand together yâ— Sacramentaries onlesse they repent be condemned because they denie the one part of yâ— twaine For they denie the true presence of Christs body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine In what case stand these defenders which still be in state of damnation whatsoeuer be concluded true We verely teach and beleue the figure and the truth to stand together the supper of our Lord to be the signe of Christes body and to be his owne body The weaker part is the signe the greater is the truth But both doe not only stand together in one Sacrament but farther more the true nature of euerie Sacrament of Christ is to haue both that is â—…aie to haue oue certaine truth one certaine signe of the same truth The truth is hidden vnder the signe the signe is witnes of the truth Which thing once being declared you shall see the vaine doctrine of this Apologie with what kind of worthy Schoolâ—… the English Church is nowe gouerned to the greate 〈◊〉 and destruction of Christian soules Pardon me good reader if I stand somewhat long vpon the name of a Sacrament for in that word lieth hidden all the poyson of the Sacramentarie doctrine ¶ That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament GEue diligent care good Reader to the doctrine folowing Because as it is most true and profitable so is it somewhat hard I will shew that suche a signe as belongeth to Christes institution must nedes haue the same truth present whereof it is the Sacrament or holy signe The naturall sonne of God tooke naturall flesh of the virgin Marie to th' intent he being oâ—…e persone and there in hauing his humane nature common with men and his diuine common with God might by that meanes reconcile man to God againe His diuine personne staied in it the nature of man his manhod partly couered the diuine nature from the eyes of mortall men partly by maruelous signes and workes shewed the same to the faith of 〈◊〉 men Liâ—…ewise man consisteth of two parts of a soule inuisible and of a visible body The soule ruleth and gouerneth the body And the body sheweth to others by outward tokens what the soule thinketh and inwardly worketh Christ therefore intending to leaue certayn holy mysteries vnto his Church thereby to 〈◊〉 to her the fruite of his passion and death as well for regard of his owne selfe in whose personne two natures were vnited as for regard of vs who coÌ„siste of body and soule made the sayd holy Sacramentes to be of a dubble sort and nature so that the one part thereof might appere to the senses the other should lye priuie and only be seene by faith But as the outward workes and doctrine of Christ were vndoubted testimonies of the inward Godhed really present so the outward signe which is in the Sacraments is a most euident witnesse of the inward grace which they worke really present in them Aâ—…ter this sort Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme that we might be newly borne and regenerated of water and of the holy Ghost as him selfe sayd to 〈◊〉 For the outward wasshing of the body in the naâ—…e of the Trinitie is an euident signe that the holy Ghost at the same instant by the meane of the word and water inwardly wassheth yâ— soule from synne Therefore S. Paul sayeth God hath saued vs by the wasshing of water and of the renewing of the holy Ghost The which holy scriptures S. Augustine embracing sayeth Aqua exhibens forinsecus Sacramentum gratiae spiritus operans intrinsecus beneficium gratiae regenerat hominem in vno Christo ex vno Adam generatum Water geuing outwardly the Sacrament or holy signe of grace and the holy Ghost working inwardly the benefite of grace begetteth man againe in one Christ which was begotten of one Adam Water is the outward signe Grace is yâ— inward benefite The outward water which wassheth the body is the signe of the inward grace which is wrought vpon the souâ—…e Here thou seest good Reader the signe of a thing and the thing it selfe to agree so well that the one is alwayes depending of the other Much lesse doth one of them hinder the other Except any man will say that Christ was not God in dede because his works were tokens signes of his Godhead which were a detestable saying Likewise the supper of Christ is both a signe of his body also his true body A signe outwardly the true body inwardly A signe by yâ— sound of words when it is first made a truth by the inward working of the holy Ghost by the meanes of the words of the censecration For as when the Priest spâ—…inkleth or dippeth the child in water saying 〈◊〉 wass he the in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost At the same moment the holy Ghost wassheth the soule of the person baptized Right so when Christ or any lawfull Priest in his name taking bread blesâ—…ing duely sayeth This is my body making in those words an euident token of his body â—…eally present at the same instant the holy Ghost worketh inwardly the true substance of Jesus Christ really present vnder the forme of bread The outward pronouncing of the words ouer bread and wine is the Sacrament or holy signe that maketh and sheweth Christes body and the inward 〈◊〉 ning of the substance of bread into Christes reall body is the grace which is at the same tyme inuisâ—…bly wrought Thus in holy Scripture the signe of body and the true body stand so welâ—… together that both are true because one is true The which doctrine S. Chrisostom confessing writeth Sacerdotis oreverba proferuntur Et Dei virtute proposita consecrantur gratia Hoc est ait corpus meum hoc verbo proposita
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
geuen before vnder Moyses For who can doubt but manna dyd in his owne substaÌ„ce farre passe bakers bread and wine of the grape Is this the end of this long disputation of so many differences put betwene Moyses God the Father and Christ betwene manna Christes incarnatioÌ„ his supper betwene eating by body alone by faith alone by bodie faith together Is this al to haue by yâ— gift of Christ only a token of him selfe in bread and wine how is then the bread which is eaten able to make vs liue for euer if the eating it by faith only at Christes supper make vs lyue for euer and yet we had it by faith before of the fathers geuing then Christe geneth him selfe by none other meane sauing bread and wine then his father had done and doth he in vain trow ye distinct his own gift from his fathers so many waies is it then all one to eate of Christ alone and to eate Christ and of Christ Uerily if concerning our taking of it the thing were throughly one sauing bread and wine he wold not make so many differences But if Christes gift concerning our partaking differ front his fathers gift in tyme in maner in degree why should it be so but that Christ geueth for a greater ioyning of vs to him â–ª yâ— same in truth of nature whiche his father in faith and spirite gaue before as the necessarie preparation to the sonnes gifte His father is only spirite and truth and therefore geueth Christe really to the worlde to be fed of spiritually by vs. But the sonne is fleshe for the worde is made flesh and so geueth really to vs the gifte of that flesh whiche he toke not for his own sake but for ours to th ende we might really eate the spirite of God which is in it Neither let it be strange to you yâ— Christ semeth to geue more to vs then his father for he geueth more both for vs vppon the Crosâ—… and to vs in his supper then his father doth outwardly geâ—… but yet all his gifts come srom his father because his father gaue his only begotten sonne to vs in the truth of our fleshe to th end he should geue the same flâ—…she in his owne person both for vs to vs that by such an excellenâ—… meane we might 〈◊〉 the nerer ioyned to God him self Although the conference of the words of the Ghospel do proue sufficiently that which I haue sayd yet I wil shew also that S. Chrisostom toke this chapiter in the same sense that I haue done First he noteth the diuersitie of persons in that Christ sayd se non patâ—…em dare him selfe to geue and not his Father Secondly the distinct places of the chapiter where Christ speaketh in the one of eating his Godhead by faith in the other of eating his body Primum de diuinitate c. de corpore circa fineÌ„ inquit Panis quem ego dabo c. Christ speaketh firâ—…t oâ—… his Godhead of his body he sayth toward the end the bread which I will geue is my flesh Thirdly S. Chrysostom noteth that the word panis bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluatioÌ„ and faith in him or els his body By which words who seeth not yâ— he distincteth eating by faith alone from eating yâ— body it self The body therefore is it self eaten otherwyse then by fa th Fourthly he sayth vpon these words my flesh is verily meat that Christ sayd so to th end they should not thinke him to speake in parables And yet by flesh to meaue the signe of his flesh or by eating to meane beâ—…uing is to speake in parables Last of all he sayth it is brought to passe by the meat which he hath geuen vs that we should not only by loue but also in dede it selfe be turned into yâ— flesh of his And again Christ mingleth him selâ—…e with vs not by faith only but he maketh vs his booy in it self But if we 〈◊〉 Christ by faith only loue surely we should be reformed to him by none other meane theÌ„ by faith loue But now we are turned from our corruptible nature and are made able to liue for euer not only by the gift of faith and charitie but euen by that we receaue Christes flesh in dede it selâ—…e in his owne substance truthe and nature All these things did S. Chrysostom gather out of Christes words I nede not to shew in many lines that Theophilact and Euthymius folow that same order in expounding S. Ihon which S. Chrysostom before had vsed For I think no man who knoweth their trade of wryting doubteth of it The former saith vpoÌ„ these words The bread whiche I wil geue is my flesh that Christ manifestly in that place speaketh of the Sacramentall communion of his body and that yâ— bread which is eaten of vs in yâ— mysteries is not only a certein resembling of our Lords flesh sed ipsa caro Domini but the flesh of our Lod it selfe Euthymius likewyse agreeth that Christ is bread two ways according to his diuine and humane nature Non autem dixit quem do sed quem dabo He sayd not which I doe geue but which I will geue For he minded to geue it in his last supper Now as Christ is bread two ways so is he eaten two ways As God he is eaten by faith alone as man geuing his flesh to vs at hiâ—… last supper he is eaten not only by faith but in very dede The later way of eating the Sacramentaries take away ¶ The like precept made to men oâ—…lawful age for caring Chrisâ—…es flesh as was made generally for 〈◊〉 sheweth his 〈◊〉 to be as really present iâ—… his 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 is in 〈◊〉 WHen Christ had promised to geue his flesh to be eaten and the Iewes had asked how he was able to doe it Christ answered Except yâ—… eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life euerlasting and I will reise him in the last day These words first were spoken to men of lawfull age as it appereth by the circumstance who are bound to receaue the blessed Sacrament of Christes supper if no lawfull impediment stop them to th end they may nourish and maitein the life which they toke in baptism and increase it to a higher degree of vnitie with Christ him selfe But baptism by our aduersaries confession may and ought to be geuen to infants and yet it could not doe them any good if it conteined not in it self the strength to regenerate them in Christ seing they are not able for their parts to beleue actually Mary if baptism really make them a new creature saue them as S. Paule speaketh the nourishment which we receaue in yâ— SacrameÌ„t of â—… altar being now of perfect vnderstaÌ„ding must nedes be also reall For as â—…regorius of
to an other wax doth make one thing of twain which is the similitude made here by S. Tyrillus What like ioyning to that other similitude of the leauen can be if no leaueÌ„ that is to say no benediction or no flesh of Christ be receaued into vs which may draw vs to it What mingling together is made of things that be so far distant as heauen and earth If you say faith and spirit doth ioyne mingle knitte Christ to vs and vs to Christ and make vs to tarie in him and him to tarie in vs either you geue a cause of yâ— ioyning which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ or els you correct his cause and put a better If the faith spirit whereof you speake shal stand with Christes cause it must be such faith as doth concurre with the eating of his flesh For he now sayd not he that beleueth in me tarieth in me but he yâ— eateth my flesh tarieth in me Therefore though ye beleue neuer so wel yet your present tarying in Christ is not assigned to faith but vnto eating Faith is necessarie to worthy eating and coÌ„sequently to our tarying in Christ. But not euery ground which is necessarie to a thing is by and by yâ— cause thâ—…reof Or though it be one cause it is not the only cause In the former part of this chapiter saith had his due commendation But now Christ speaketh of eating his flesh and saith it maketh vs tary that is to say to be ioyned to him wholy and to be mingled with him as well in body as in soule which thing can not be otherwise then through that we eate his flesh substantially He that leauing that eating of Christes flesh staieth vpon feeding by faith alone correcteth the cause assigned by Christ and also depriueth vs of that naturall tarying in him whereof he now intreateth ¶ We are made one with Christ by natural participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his Father hath assumpted our nature into his own person HE that eateth Christes flesh tarieth in Christ and receaueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirit only but also by natural participation of his flesh which thing Christ declareth by this example As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue for the Father also he that eateth me shal him self liue for me But Christ liueth not for his Father by faith at all because he seeth his glorie face to face nor yet by the meane of spirit alone as we take spirit for deuotion or els for spiritual gifts and qualities but he liueth for his Father hauing his Fathers whole substance really present in him self therefore we that eating Christ liue in like maner for him must haue his whole substance really present in vs and so must we receaue life not by faith or spirit alone but by taking the flesh of life it self into our bodies and soules Thus veriâ—…ic Christ doth meane That we may reache to the true ground of this comparison it behoueth we lerne first how Christ liueth for his Father and then we may vnderstand how we receauing his flesh worthelie shall liue also for him Christ hauing two natures in one person may be sayd to liue for his Father according to either of bothe natures As God he liueth for his Father for that he is eternally begotten of him to whom the Father geâ—…eth his whole nature substance life glorie so that uo diâ—…ference is betwene the Father and the sonne but that the sonne is begotten of the Father and the Father is altogether vnbegotten and without any relation to a farther beginning This order wherein the sonne otherwise equall God 〈◊〉 his Father doth yet alwaies refer his generation and life to an euerlasting beginning is the cause why Christ as God liueth for his Father the which interpretation S. Hilarie S. Basile S. Chry sostom and S. Augustine doe confesse may well agree to this place Christ as man liâ—…eth for his Father because his Father sent him to take flesh whose flesh being of it self neither able to geue life euerlasting nor to haue it in his own nature yet for the word wherevnto it is vnited in one person both hath life and geueth life now the word is naturally one God and one life with the Father this second sense doth better please S. Basile S. Augustine and S. Cyril although they allow the former also but this second sense doth more agree with those words sicut misit me pater as my Father sent me For the sending of Christ was the taking of flesh at his incarnation bothe senses agree herein that both life is really and corporally dwelling in Christes flesh through the Godhead and the Godhead is naturally with Christ through that he is the sonne of God the Father Two things are to be noted in this comparison the one is the real presence of life the other is the hauing of it by gift and by relation to a farther cause or beginning For as Christes flesh liueth for the word of God to whom it is really vnited and the word of God liueth for the Father whose whole substaÌ„ce it hath really receaued by generation without beginning of tyme so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ hauing the substance of his flesh really present with him and thereby partaketh life euerlasting This verie sense Christes words haue both by the conference of the text it self and also by the interpretation of S. Hilarie who by this scripture confuteth the Arrians that sayd Christ to be inferiour to his Father not to be equall God with him To mainteine the which heresie they brought foorth a similitude of vnitie which is made in holy scripture betwene God the Father Christ and vs affirming Christ to be one with his Father as we are one with him but sayd they we are one with Christ only by will and consent therefore Christ is one with his Father only after the same sort to which argument S. Hilarie answering turneth it vpon their own heads in this wise Viuit ergo per patrem quomodo per patrem viuit eodem modo nos per carnem eius viuemus omnis enim comparatio c. Christ then liueth by his Father and as he liueth by his Father after the same maner we shal liue by his flesh for euery comparison is presumed to be made according to the forme and concept of our vnderstanding to thintent the matter whereof we intreat may be so perceaued as the example geueth which is proponed This truly is the cause of our life in so much as we haue Christ abyding by flesh in vs who consist of flesh and he shall liue through him by such condition as he liueth through his Father Yf we then liue through him naturally according to flesh that is to wit hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can he but haue naturally the Father
not in dede a man it shall neuer be the fault of eating mans flesh to eate that bread vnworthely S. Paule saith not only he is gilty who eateth this bread but he is gilty of the body of Christe Howe can that be except this bread which he eateth be the body of Christ â–ª If this bread be his body seing it stâ—…ll appereth bread we must confesse that the body of Christ is really present vnder the forme of bread And truly that is the cause why S. Paule nameth it this bread for yâ— word sheweth him to meane the bread coÌ„secrated at yâ— altar that bread which that Priest froÌ„ thence deliuereth yâ— bread which that people receaueth at the Priests haÌ„d Whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of Christes body because that substance of this bread is that substaÌ„ce of Christes natural body made geueÌ„ vnder that forme of bread If it were not so the eater of this bread could not by his eating be gilty of Christe s body Otherwise the talke of S. Paule would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthely the kings garment is gilty of murdering his person I am loth to heape vp in this place yâ— manifold witnesses of the auncient Fathers whose wordes I haue partly touched also before concerning that euill men eate Christes body Now it shall suffise to shew that they make the same sequele of S. Paules wordes whiche I do for they shew the vnworthy receauer to be gilty of Christes body because he inuadeth the body of Christ and not because he eateth wheaten bread Theodoritus expoundeth these words whereuppon we dispute after this sort Illud autem caeâ—… These words he shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord signifie this much That as Iudas betrayd him and the Iewes theÌ„ selfes insulted and rayled shamfully and sclanderously at him so these shame defile him who take his most holy body with vncleane hands put it into a polluted and vnchaste mouth Lo the taking touching and eating vnworthely Christes body maketh them gilty as Iudas and the Iewes were gilty of Christes death Yea Haymo saieth It were better for him who cometh with mortall sinnes to this Sacramente neuer to haue knowen the way of truth then to goe backward and to do worse then an infidell Primasius faith He despiseth Christ and his body as the Iewes dyd who cometâ—… to it without trying of his own conscience Sedulius besides that common similitude of Iudas and the Iewes vseth another saying If no man dare put it into a filthy cloth or vessel how much more ought he not to put it into an vncleane harte Note good Reader that the self same Sacrament is put in the cloth or vessel which is put in the harte It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries blaspheme breade and wine that is put into a cloth and vessell after consecration and body and blood that whiles the body eateth breade and wine is in hart receaued The same thing is in the harte which is put in the vessell wherein the Sacra ment is kept S. Hierome vsing the same similitude of a cloth or vncleane vessell declareth farther that as Ioseph did folde the body oâ—… our Lord in a cleane sheete so must we receaue him with a cleane coÌ„science Dâ—…u menius declareth the fault of the euill men to be in that they touche the body of Christ with vncleane mouth and impure hands saying that as Iudas betrayed Christ and the Iewes did violently runne vppon him euen so they do shame to him Quòd sanctissimum ipsius corpus manibus impuris suscipiunt veluti tunc eum Iudaei tenuerunt execrando admouent ori Who doe take with impure hands his most holy body none otherwise then the Iewes at that tyme helde him and doe put it to theyr cursed mouth Theophylact sayth of the blood of Christ Qui indignè hunc hauserit nulluÌ„ ex eo fructuÌ„ adeptus frustra ac temerè Christi sanguinem fudit He that drinketh the blood vnworthely he hath shed in vayne rashly the blood of Christ. taking thereof no fruit And again The cause why euil men take no fruit saith Theophylact is not through the nature of that mysteries as the which both haue life in them and geue life but it chauÌ„ceth through the vnworthines of them that come to them who take hurte by them nonc other wise theÌ„ as the sonne is wont to hurte them who haue sore eyes Theophylacte meaneth that as it is oue sonne which shineth to whole aud to sore eyes but yet the sore eyes through their owne defecte take hurt thereof and the whole eyes take good so the mysteries are one to the good and to the bad concerning their owne nature being as he saith always of that nature both to conteyne life and to gene life But the fault why life is not takeÌ„ cometh of the vnworthy receauer We haue now harde that euill men receaue the same true body of Christ which the good men do receaue but not to yâ— same profit because they haue not wel prepared them selues We must not then thinke that euer any auncient Father was of this mind to say that euill men haue in their mouthes only bread and wine and the good men eate only the true body of Christ. That heresiâ—… is as farre from the opinion of the Fathers as it is farre from the truth of the Scriptures S. Chrysostom saith he will suffer his own blood to be shed rather then he will graunt the moste holy blood of our Lord to an vnworthy man Doth not he meane that he hath our Lords blood in his own hand at the tyme of celebrating the mysteries and that he will not deliuer the same to a knowen euill man S. Cyrill noteth that it is not sayd in vaine of Iudas Exiuit continuò he went foorth by and by Timet diabolus benedictionis virtutem ne sintillam in animo eius accenderit The deuill feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kendled a spark of grace or of repentance in his minde S. Augustine hauing spoken of Iudas who gaue him self to the deuill Non malum accipiendo sed male accipiendo not by taking an euill thing but by taking it in an euill maner concludeth generally of all euill men Corpus enim sanguis domini erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit for it was the body and blood of our Lord euen to those to whom S. Paule sayd â–ª he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self It were easy after this sorte to allege a very greate number of yâ— olde Fathers but our aduersaries well knowing that we our selues beleue that the euill men albeit they receaue the substance of Christes body yet they doe not receaue the grace and vnitie
speaketh in an other place of the same matter Suprà dictum est edent pauperes saturabuÌ„tur hîc verò manducauerunt adorauerunt caet It was sayd before the poore shal eate and shal be filled But here it is sayd all the riche of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his body and blood But they adore only and be not filled also because they folow not For although they eate Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe quia Deus excitauit eum a mortuis c. Because God hath raised him from the dead and hath geuen him a name the which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euery knee should be bowed of heauenly earthly and of things vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes and with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come them selues to the table they eate and adore but yet they are not filled because they doe not hunger and thyrst righteousnes Hitherto S. Augustine who speaketh of eating the body of Christ from the table The riche men come to the table of Christ thence to eate his body There also they adore that which they take from the table and that which they eate And how is it possible but that this worshipping and adoring whereof S. Augustine speaketh must belong to the table of Christ that is to say to his body aud blood which is eaten from his table when the Priest geueth it to vs And yet it might not there be rightly adored if it were not reaâ—…ly present vppon the table And there it can not be present vnlesse it ve vnder the formes of bread and wine which only stand vppon the table Therefore this prophecie as wel proueth the adoration as the real presence of Christes body and blood Is it not a great blindnes in our new preachers that whereas the word of God sayeth euen the riche of the earth haue eaten and haue adored or shal eate and shall adore for so one tense doth stand for an other in the holy Scripture yet they wil haue ye eate and not adore to th' intent ye should be more vnkind thâ—…n those earthly riche men were ¶ The adoration of Christes body is proued again out of the Prophet Dauid THe Prophet Dauid speaking of the Kingdome of Christ which he exercised vpon the crosse by conquering the deuil and synne requireth vs to gene praise to him for it and not only to him but euen to his footestole writing thus Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate scabellum pedum eius quoniam sanctum est Exalte the Lord our God and worship his footestole because it is holy The Hebrew readeth because he is holy It is to be vnderstanded that Christ in one person hath two natures to wit the nature of God and yâ— nature of man Dauid willeth both to be adored and first he speaketh of the Godhead saying Exalte the Lord our God Next after of his humane nature in those words Adorate scabellum pedum eius worship his footestole for Godly honour is due to his flesh also because he is holy That is to say because his person is the second person in the Trinitie where vnto the manhod is vnited And through that vnion the nature of man is worthy of Godly honour The Iewes accompted the footestole of God to be the Arke and temple of Hierusalem toward which they bowed and adored God in their tyme of prayers But aswell the Arke as the Temple were the shadowes of Christes flesh and that not only as he was in the visible forme of man but euen as he is mystically vnder the forme of bread For the Arke did foreshadow the Sacrament of Christes body blood as Angelomus hath noted Sacerdos qui Arcam caet The Priest Oza who touched that Arke with vnaduised rashnes purged the fault of his bolde enterprise with death before his tyme wherein we must nedes consider how much he synneth who cometh gilty to the body of our Lord seing that deuout Priest is punished with death who with lesse reuerence then he ought hastely handled that Arke which was the figure of our Lords body Againe the Arke coÌ„teined Manna in it which was an expresse figure of the flesh of Christ in that respect as it is to be eaten of vs as both Christ him self hath declared in S. Ihon and S. Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians Likewise the Temple was a figure of Christes body according as him self sayd Dissolue ye this Temple of my body and and in three days I wil raise it vp againe The Arke therefore and the Temple being the footestole of God toward which yâ— Iewes prayed did signifie that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heauen whether Christ is entred as into the euerlasting 〈◊〉 and most holy of holies but also in the Sacrament of the altar which is the Arke Temple and â—…essell conteining the self same substance of Manna which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father The holy Prophet Dauid requiring vs to adore the footestole of God requireth vs to adore the flesh of Christ as well in the Arke of the new Testament which is the Sacrament of Christes body as in heauen it self because he that hath ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his Father sayd also in his last supper Take and eate this is my body Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Neither doe I make or first inuent such interpretation but the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres left it vnto me sauing that they expound yâ— footestole to be not only the Arke and Temple of â—…ierusalem but also the whole â—…arth in respect of the Godhead because Esate sayeth Heauen is my seate the â—…arth is the settle of my feete But herein wee may rest in S. Hieromes aucthoritie who vpon this place writeth thus Multae de scabello opiniones sunt caet There are many opinions concerning the â—…orestole what it should be But here the Prophete meaneth our Lords body wherein the maiestie of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a 〈◊〉 How so euer then wee interpret the fotestole concerning the literall and firsâ—… meaning yet the naturall flesh of Christe which he assumpted of the virgin is the spiritual truth wherevnto the Prophete directed his wordes That flesh where so euer it be is the fotestole of God and therefore it is euery where to be adored But as the Arcke deserued a speciall reuerence amonge the Iewes although it was the bare figure of Christes flesh in so much that Oza who touched it rashly died for it euen so the Sacrament of the altar which
that he had not one chappell reserued to him in all the world where idolatry was not outwardly committed And how committed by pretence of his owne Gospell of his owne word of his own dede It was Christ that sayd This is my body It was he that sayd Ye beleue in God beleue also in me I and my Father are one thing or substance If it be so wee must worship him as wee adore his Father And his body is vnited to his diuine persone Yea say you but it is not his body but bread still appointed to figure his body Well Syr he sayd it is his body and all the Church hath so far beleued him that all Christians haue worshipped it for euer as being his true body That faith of theirs ioyned with those words of Christ proue to me that it is his body and therefore no idol Moreouer I thinke my self bound to beleue the Prophetes who sayd Christ should destroy y◠idols of the earth which literally is by S. Athanasius S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine and by many others expounded of externall idolatry whereby men fell doune geuing Godly honour to creatures Such a worshipping after the iucarnation of Christ is decayed in the whole world euen among infidels much more it ought to be decayed among the faithfull And yet if our idolatrie be any it is externall What say wee then Is there now a days no idolatry in Christendome Are there no false Gods worshipped yes doubtlesse to many But idolatry partly is outward partly is inward The outward idolatry is decayed by the outward and visible coming of Christ into the world The inward is decayed by the faith and charitie of good people But because not al that be outward Christians be the true seruantes of God therefore they still worship idols in their hartes They adore mony for the desier where of they sel benifices and cure of soules without feare and are content to robbe euen Churches and monasteries although they thinke wel inough both of Priests and Monkes as they vse to say These inward idols bee not taken away but where Christ is inwardly professed And for asmuch as likewise y◠outward idols be taken away where Christ is outwardly professed it can not be that those who beare the name of Catholikes and Christiās should adore by common consent any outward idoll Is there then no outward idol at all Noue surely made with the hands of men among Christians But yet there lack not inuisible idols made by the wit of men whereof S. Cyprian speaketh in this wise Christi aduentu detectus ac prostratus inimicus videns idola derelicta caet The enemy detected and throwen doune by the coming of Christ seing the idols forsaken and his seates and Temples left voide through the great multitude of beleuers deuised a new guile that vnder the very title of Christes name he may deceaue the vnwary He hath found heresies and schismes whereby he might ouerthrow faith corrupt truth and cutte of vnitie Lo the heresies and the schismes are the idols that be inuented since y◠coming of Christ. If you wil knowe a true marke of an idolatour note him y◠diuideth vnitie that maketh parts that goeth from agreement Fifty yeres past there was but one body of the whole West Church All worshipped one God one Christ one body and one blood of his Al were vnder one shepherd the Bishop of Rome Al spake one tong in publike seruice of the West Church all kept one faith acknowledged one truth Luther arose and sayd The Pope was not our head Straight vnitie was diuided For one withdrew him self from the rest Ergo Luther was the first idolatour Anon after he had fellows a pretie flock of idolatours very visibly seen and knowen to dwel at Wittenberge Within fower yeres zuinglius diuided him self not now from y◠Pope but euen from Luther and made two idols of one After which tyme y◠idols haue bene multiplied to the number of aboue three score that canbe named in Germany as it may appeare in Fridericus Staphylus And as for the Sacramentaries in England although they haue receaued into the number of their Gods y◠chief idols both Auther and zuingli◅s yet they worship the idoll of Taluine aboue them both For as S. Hierome saith Sicut idola fiunt manu artificis ita Haereticorum peruersa doctrina quodcunque simulauerit vertit in idolum facit pro Christo adorari Antichristum As idols be made with y◠hand of the craftsmā so what so euer the ouerthwart doctrine of Heretikes cloketh it turneth it into an idol and causeth Antichriste to be adored in stede of Christe As for example Martin Luther or Iohn Caluine being fully determined to breake of from the reste of the Church syt a deuising sith they are at a point not to teache the olde doctrine what new doctrine they may teache Then hath the Deuill power vpon them for so much as they are finaly agr◅ed not to be subiect to any master or preacher in the whole Church of God no though it were a whole generall Councell gathered out of all the men in y◠earth For that intolerable arrogancy the Deuill may rule them as he list therefore sendeth some wicked opinion into theire mindes such as he hath plenty of They a litle while pondering it perhappes i◅dge it impossible to be admitted of men as Luther iudged of the deniall of the reall presence wherein he laboured a certaine time and in that case the Deuill inspireth a newe deuise But when they are once agreed vpon that they will goe foreward withall they haue a strong imaginacion how certeine that opinion is and with an excessiue pride acknowlege them selues the Prophetes of God and imagine what glory they shall come vnto among fooles and mad men Albeit they must take them for no fooles who soeuer wil forsake the faith approued fiftene hundred yeres together and folow the new blast of theire trompet But are they trow ye no fooles because they think them selues none Thus when they haue gotten a sufficient schole and audiēce they publish their doctrine vnder y◠name of Gods worde and so er◅ct a phantasticall idoll But to say that the blessed Sacrament of Christe is an idoll semeth necessarily to imploy that Christe iustituted an idoll which to thinke it were no small idolatry For he and noman els made or published this Sacrament to thend idolatry should cease whiles wee did only adore that body and blood which is vnited to the Godhead in one person But yet if our Fathers did and wee do worshippe wheaten bread and wine our idolatry were more grosse not only then that of the heretikes but also then y◠of the Gentils But that is vtterly against the worde of God therefore wee do not worship any creature at all as
wherein the honour may rest for the honour that wee geue to the body and blood of Christ which was taken of the virgine is according to the doctrine of S. Augustine geuen to his holy person who is the naturall Sonne of God and one substance with his Father true God and true man Thus wee saue the truth of the olde Propheâ—…ies the faith of our forefathers the proprietie of Christes wordes in his supper the honour of his Church the glory of his name who gaue no occasion of idolatry neither in worde nor in dede ¶ The adoration of Christes body in the Sacrament is proued out of the new Testament S. Paule speaking of Sacramtal eating saith he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self not discerning our Lords body that is to say not putting a difference betwene it and other meates For S. Hierome S. Augustiue Sedulius and Primasius expound those words in that meaning The difference which is to be made betwene the meate of Christes supper and other meates consisteth in two points in one that the receauer of Christes Sacrament must prepare him self before hand to be apt to receaue the grace of God in which point Baptisme penance holy orders and other Sacraments agree with the supper of Christe For we may not come being of lawfull age to any of those or such like holy mysteries without due disposing our selues to repentance for our synnes and to amendment of our life The second point of the difference betwene Christes supper other things is that in the Sacrament of his supper we must examine our selues euen for the respect of the substance of that meate which we receaue In baptisme we try our selues not for any honour which is due to the water but for the obteyning of the grace which is geuen in that Sacrament But in the supper a farther difference is to be made What is that The very substance which is taken is to be honoured and adored That is it which S. Chrysoâ—…ome sayth Non considerans vt oportet magnitudinem propositorum non reputans muneris magnitudinem He eateth vnworthely sayeth S. Chrysostome Who considereth not as it behoueth the greatnes of the things set foorth not weighing diligeÌ„tly the greatnes of the gift He speaketh not of the effect which cometh by the Sacrament but of the substance of the things set foorth What are they but such as appeare Bread and wine and yet in dede be Christ him self There fore it foloweth in S. Chrysostome If thou doest lern diligently qui sit propositus who is set before thee thou nedest to accompt nothing els Behold the person and substance set foorth is to be considered only Nullius alterius indigebis ratione Thou shalt nede make no accompt of any thing els For out of that substaÌ„ce which standeth before thee cometh the grace and all other effects of worthy eating as if he sayd prouyde to receaue worthely the person set foorth to thee vnder the formes of bread and thou mayest be secure So that the differeÌ„ce properly belonging to Christes supper is to make a difference of this substance from al other substances That is the difference whereof S. Ambrose saith He that will receaue worthely this meate must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood he drinketh in a mystery What other meaning can these wordes haue but that he must iudge him selfe to drinke not wine but blood not the blood of an earthly man but his blood who is God also and that he drinketh his blood in a mysterie to wit not in his owne forme but vnder the forme of wine for he speaketh of Sacramentall drinking of that which is taken by mouth Therefore the very substance which he drinketh must be disseuered from all other creatures Nowe I say he that is willed so to iudge of the substance of this Sacrament as the substance of him who is God ought to be iudged of he is willed to adore the substance of this Sacrament sith his substance ought to be adored who is God For as S. Chrysostom saith the very table to wit the very meate staÌ„ding vpoÌ„ the table is the strength oâ—… our soulâ—… the synewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light lyfe Thus to iudge oâ—… this SacrameÌ„t by adoring it with true â—…oue in it to adore God that is to adore not only in spirite figures as yâ— Iewes dyd adore but also to 〈◊〉 in spirite and truth as Christ said we should do because our SacrameÌ„ts coÌ„teme yâ— truth which they signiâ—…ied â—…ot only signifying our Sauiour as yâ— old SacrameÌ„ts did but also geuing saluatioÌ„ as S. Augusti doth witnesse And for as muche as the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is the Sacrifice of the new â—…aw willed by him to be made for the remâ—…brance of his death we must both in our spirite and in the truth of naturall coniunction be vâ—…ted and made one with the substance thereof and also in the truth of Christes flesh externally consâ—…crated adore God offering him that reasonable and diuine sacrifice to the end we may render and paie the worship of thanksgeuing due for our redemption in none other substaÌ„ce then in the same which redemed vs. For as it is nostrum holocaustum our sacrifice wholy burnt by death of the Crosse so is it nostra hostia pacifica our sacrifice wherewith we both geue thanks for peace made betwene God and vs and also applie to our selues the fruites of that one burnt offerinâ—… truse made vpon the Crosse which was is the propitiation for our synnes and for the synnes of the whole world This kind of adoration proper to the new testament is due to God of our behalf by the Sacrament and sacrifice of Christes body and blood And herein stanâ—…eth all that which the Apostle speaketh of worthy or vnworthy receauing if the true substance of this SacrameÌ„t be vprightly estemed and both outwardly and inwardly honoured And so doth S. Augustine expound yâ— Apostles minde as now it shal appere Ianuarius had asked what S. Augustine thought concerning holy dayes fasting dayes or such like customes of the Church which are diuersly kept in diuerse countries Among other questions it was also moued what were to be more approued whethere to receaue daily the SacrameÌ„t of the altar or els to abstein sometymes To this question S. Augustine maketh answer that neither of them both depriueth the body and blood of our Lorde of honour if eche of them striue who may honour best the moste healthfull Sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honour our Sauiour in maner by contrary meanes the one by receauing him with ioy into his house the other by saying â–ª Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes
ergo we can not really eatâ—… Christes flesh ergo Christes body is not really in the Sacrament San. Your argument is like to that sophisâ—… You eate not raw â—…sh but you bought raw flew ergo you doe not eate that which you bought S. 〈◊〉 saieth we do not â—…ate the flesh crucified â—…o wit as it was crucified â—…en as he that eateth fleshe doth not 〈◊〉 it as it was raw but as he doth â—…ate that in substance which was in qualitie raw so we eate really yâ— same substance that was crucifiâ—…d but not in the sam sort but in a spiritual and in a diuine mauner not by faith only but also by mouth Harding The Fathers vsed the vvordes really substantially caet to put avvay all dout of the being of Christes verie body in the holy mysteries Iu. He diuineth what they meane before they speake San. Nay because he is sure of theyr wordes he 〈◊〉 theyr minde ¶ A place of S. Chrysoâ—…ome expoâ—…nded HArding The Sacramentaries teache our Lordes body to be represented only in figure signe and token being absent in dede Iu. All the holy Fathers haue vsed those termes San. It is a vaine â—…ster of names without truth They neâ—…er vâ—…ed the termâ—… of only figure nor said not that the truthe was absent Harding Vnder visible signes inuisible thinges be deliuered Iu. Ergo Christes body is really in the Sacrament Sander You leaâ—…e out one peâ—…ce For in dede so it must nedes be in that Sacrament where it is signified really present otherwise the signe should be false For after it is once said ouer bread â–ª this is my body that signe of bread during the body therein 〈◊〉 present doth dure Iuel Chrysostom saith in the same homily if Christ died not whose signe and token is this sacrifice therefore he may be also charged with the Sacramentary quarell San. You proue it a signe hereby but not that the truth is abseâ—…t from the signe which thing you should haue proued But I will proue hereby that the thing or truth signiâ—…d is really present otherwise this signe could not be a sacrifice â—…rsed might â—…e be that defendeth bread and wine to be the final sacrificed sâ—…bstance of the new Testament But this that S. Chrysostome demandeth of is a sacrifice â–ª and that of the new Testament vsed in Christes Church therefore it is the reall body of Christ yet withall a signe because it is geuen inuisibly present to make vs 〈◊〉 the visible sacrificing thereof vpon the Crosse â–ª 2. It is said there 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostom â—…at MarcioÌ„ ValeÌ„tinâ—…s Maâ—…ichens wâ—… deâ—…ied Christes real flesh anâ—… 〈◊〉 are coÌ„founded by these mysteries How can that be if the true flesh of Christ be not really conteined in them For a figure of flesh without the truth doth rather helpe those hâ—…iks then confound them 3. S. Chrysostome sâ—…ith eâ—…en there that it is euident by these mysteries that Christ hath bene already sacrificed whiche saying can not be true if his reall flesh be not prâ—…sent For as a figure of Christes fleshe offered vp in all the sacrifices of the olde law did not proue that Christ was already offâ—…red but that aâ—…terwarde he should be offered so a figure of Chrisâ—…es slâ—…sh now ofâ—…red can not proue that Châ—…ist hath bene offered but only that he shal be offered hereafter But his real flesh being eaten vnder the forme of breade proueth iâ—…incibly that he hath bene already oâ—…ered because no flesh is eaten in any holy sacrifice before it hath bene offered to God of which point I haue spoken in my fifth booke the first Chapiter Iu. How light occasions these men take to deceaue the simple San. What a light occasion toke you euen presently to deceaue the simple by the name of tokeÌ„ which yet so proueth against you in that place that it is not possible for you to auoide it Iu. M. Harding knoweth that Chrysostom speaketh generally of al other mysteries for it followeth euen so â—…n baptisme the water is a thing sensible the regeneratioÌ„ is a thing spiritual Wherefore if M. Harding vpon the occasion of these woâ—…ds wil force his real presence in the one Sacrament he must likewise force thâ—… same in the other San. D. Harding brought that place only to shew that the body of Christ is not visiblie present But othâ—…rwise baptisâ—…e and the Eucharist agree herein that in sensible things other things inuisible and spirituall are geuen And the things geuen are geuen in both but they are in them selues diuerse In baptisme the grace of regeneration whiche is geuen is conteyned and geuen when the word cometh to the water For the water the worde hath the grace of Christ working by it but in the Sacrament of the altar the grace coÌ„teined is the naturall body of Christ which lyâ—…th hidden vnder the forme of bread Thus eche Sacrament hath the gift preâ—…nt but not eche râ—…all presence of fleshe for as flesh belongeth only to the supper of Christe so regeneration beloÌ„geth only to baptism eche grace is present in the visible signe but afâ—…er a diuerse manner because those Sacramentes are of a 〈◊〉 nature as now I will declare ¶ The difference betwene Baptism and our Lords supper Iuel For as much as these two Sacraments be both of force like I wil touch what the fathers think of gods working in baptism The fathers in the CouÌ„cel of Nice bid vs think that the water is ful of heaueÌ„ly fier cae Basil the kingdom of heauen is set open Chrysostom God himself in baptism by his inuisible power holdeth thy head Ambrose in the water is the grace of Christ and the presence of the Trinitie Bernard let vs be washed in his bloode caet â–ª By force of which wordes M. Harding may proue that the power of God the heauenly fâ—…er the grace and the blood of Christ is really present in baptism Sander Manie of these things and other â—…oe are in deed saied of baptism but yet the reall presence of them all is not proued thereby And note good reader yâ— cause thereof which is verie 〈◊〉 table anâ—… shall bring great shame of ignorance to M. Iuel When a thing is affirâ—…ed of a Sacrament it is not by and by present really therein except it be signified present in the wordes â—…ituted by Christ which â—…ake the Sacrament or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferred vppon them as when it is saied I baptise and 〈◊〉 thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghoste none other thing is signified reallie present besides thâ—… effâ—…ctuall wasshing For thereof it is saiâ—…d in the present tense I baptise thee that is to saye I washe thee Therefore reall baptising or washing as well of the soule as of the body is made in those wordes The Trinitie is named but not signified as really present in
Whiche thing he muste doe not only by preferring the holie scriptures before the wrytinges of whatsoeuer men but also by expoâ—…ding the same according to the greatest authoritie that may be founde in that kinde The greatest authoritie among meÌ„ must nedes be in the whole Catholike Churche of Christe the piller and establishment of truthe whose consent in the interpretation of Gods worde because wee can not knowe by the handwryting of euerie particular member for knowledge is not in all persons we therefore muste not so muche seke after the bookes as after the workes and practise of all faythfull nations to knowe by what meanes they expounded Christes Gospell For as the holie Ghoste instructed alwayes theyr hartes wryting his lawes in them so by theyr conformable deedes we lerne what he inspired to theyr hartes As therefore it is most necessarie to conferre one part of holy scripture with an other for the right vnderstanding of both places euen so it behoueth to ioyne with that conference the vse and custome of the people of God To make this matter the playner by an example the Apostles are willeâ—… to teache all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Now shall this precept be vnderstanded For some thinke that teaching before baptisme is so necessarie that no creature ought to be baptised whiche is not first taught Others thinke both necessarie but yet teaching to belong firste to suche as are able to be taught and baptizing firste to suche as are able to be baptized and not yet readie to be taught And because infautes may be baptized before they can be taught they thynke that Christe meant to haue teaching goe before baptisme in men of discretion and baptisme before teaching in children whose parents aske baptisme for them Whiche later vnderstanding is proued to be more agreable to the meaning of Christe not by the order of his wordes but by the vse and consent of all nations whiche are the spouse of Christe For in euerie age and countrie of Christendome children are brought to be baptized by theyr frindes and the Bishops or Priestes of those countries haue alwayes baptized them So that we haue two great and necessarie poyntes expounded in the precept of baptisme by the custome of the Churche The one is that children maie be christened before they are taught theyr beleefe the other that suche children oulie maie be Christened whose parents or frindes aske baptisme for them But if any Iew or Gentil doe liue among vs who wil not haue his child Christened the Apostles by that fame 〈◊〉 of Christ haue no authoritie to baptize suche a childe Whiche thinge is proued because the Church of God hath no suche custome The same strength whiche the practise of Christian men is nowe sene to haue in baptisme is also founde to be no lesse in other Sacraments For likewise al faithful countries haue asked the Sacrament of consirmation for their baptized children and all Bishops haue geuen it oynting and confirming them in the name of the 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby declaring how the holy Ghoste is geuen to the late baptized by the imposition of handes of the Apostles 〈◊〉 all faithfull 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adored the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine after consecration They haue desyred that holy sacrifice to be made and offered for them all Priestes Bishops and Primates haue said masse and allowed that deuotion of the layemen Wherby it is proued that those wordes of Christ This ys mie bodye and This ys my bloode are to be taken properly and not figuratiuely in so muche as the holy Ghost by the vse of all the people of God hath expounded the whole meanyâ—…ge of Christe Therfore whosoeuer teacheth a figuratiue vnderstanding of those words he goethe syrst from the autoritie of the gospell where yt ys 〈◊〉 sayed This is my body Next he 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of the whole Churche whiche so earnestly beleued these wordes and thâ—…effecte of them that she adored the body of Christe present vnder the forme of breade and acknowledged yt to be offered to God vnbloodely for the obteyuinge of the sruites of Christes death Thirdlie he must nedes 〈◊〉 concluded singular and prowd who had rather leane to his owne iudgement or to the iudgement of a fewe lyke him self then to trust either God or his whole Churche And wheras certayne men are wont to saye that the holy Fathers and faythfull people of the first six hundred yeres after Christ did vnderstande the wordes of his supper otherwise It is Good Reader to to palpable and to muche assected a blindnesse not to ponder and wâ—…igh howe vnsensibly that is spoken All men of neuer so meane witte iudge thinges vncertayne by those that are most certayne not contrariwise leauinge that whiche they euidently knowe and measuringe yt by a rule cleane obscure or throwghly withowt the coÌ„passe of their reache Christ in that dreadfull night wherin he was betrayed 〈◊〉 nowe 〈◊〉 the mysterie of owr redemption after breade taken and blessing 〈◊〉 and gaue and sayd This ys my body Hereof S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. 〈◊〉 beare wytnesse Neither may auie man dowt therof who loketh for saluation by 〈◊〉 Agayne whosoeuer is of lawfull age and hath but the vse oâ—… his eyes and eares can tell that in the Catholike Churche all men 〈◊〉 the real body of Christ vnder the 〈◊〉 of that bread which was blessed by the Prieste These two principals no man aliue may deny 〈◊〉 no man is able to deny that 〈◊〉 three hundred and fiftie 〈◊〉 paste it was decreed by 4. 70. Bishops in the great Councell of 〈◊〉 kept at 〈◊〉 that the body and blood of Christ are trulie contayned vnder the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine the substance of bread and wine being changed into the body and blood of Christ by the power of God The same thing is in effect tawght in the Councells kept afterward at 〈◊〉 at Constance at 〈◊〉 at Trent Fowrthly before those Councells 〈◊〉 was condemned by three other Councells and by the preachers and lerned men of that age wherein he 〈◊〉 and therfore he 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉 which now 〈◊〉 mayntayned in England No poynte of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor may be 〈◊〉 denied Wee haue then the wordes of the gospell plaine the worshipping and adoration of the Christians plaine the authoritie of diuers generall Councells exceding plaine These all be thinges so knowen and certayne that our aduersaries cannot say they are not so Albeyt they say they should not be so Well they yet graunt we haue the wordes of the gospell the vse of the Church these nyne hundred yeares and the authoritie of generall Councels of whom I 〈◊〉 on the other side what gospell what Church what Councels they haue First they can bring no gospell where yt is
written This is 〈◊〉 figure of my bodie Secundarily thei can bring no Church where the bodie of Christ was not confessed worshipped and 〈◊〉 Thirdly they haue no generall 〈◊〉 where it was euer said that the wordes of Christ are 〈◊〉 and worke not his bodie present Thereunto they will straight take exception affirming that all yâ— first six huÌ„dred yeres cooke the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue and nedes they must say so muche for 〈◊〉 they should saie nothyng at all But what 〈◊〉 we to that saying of theirs Uerily we 〈◊〉 that it is a mayn lye an impudent assertion a fond imagination as the which hath no ground at all in the first six hundred yeres Which thing although yt may be proued many wayes yet in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is most inuincibly declared by three 〈◊〉 The former is in so muche as diuers holy Fathers 〈◊〉 vs most instantly to beleue the wordes wherin Christ said This ys my body and This ys my bloode although they seme to be agaynst naturall reason and sense and yet no wise man wil requier vs to beleue figuratiue wordes The second is because the same Fathers teach expresly the adoration of that 〈◊〉 and blood of Christe which is in the holy mysteries which 〈◊〉 on the altar and table which is taken into the handes mouthes and bodies of Christian men The third reason is because the holie Fathers teach that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthy recenuing of the blessed Sacrament of his supper All these thinges shal be declared God willing in their places We haue therefore iust cause not to graunt our aduersaries the first six hundred yeres And although we had not so iust cause to shewe the first six houdred to stand so playnlie for vs yet how ys yt possible that they or any man aliue can be sure of the opinion of that age The scriptures that should teache them what thei owght to â—…ue sounde an other waie â–ª The practise of the Churche which hath deriued to vs their custome and vse doth informe vs of a contrary meaning By what meanes then come oure aduersaries to assure them selues of the first six hundred yeres It is cleâ—…ely impossible that any man should haue any sufficient ground whereby to know that the first six hundred yeres were of the 〈◊〉 or Sacramentarie iudgement For the wrytinges of the Fathers whiche only they pretend cannot informe them of any suche their minde for so muche as none of them all writeth so fauorably for them that he hathe gone aboute once to proue that the bodie of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth or hath warned the people to beware of idolatrie or hath vsed suche words in that behalfe as the Sacramentaries of oure tyme do vse And yet suerlie a lyke fayth wolde hauâ—… browght foorthe a lyke doctrine Now where they call the Sacrament a figure and holie signe that doth not withstand the reall presence any whit but rather proueth it to him who considereth the signe we speake of not to be a signe made by men whose tokens do signifie thâ—… truth absent but institued by Christ who maketh reall truth in euerie Sacrament vnder a holy signe therof To be shorte there is nothinge to be sene or readen in the auncient Fathers concerninge the matter of the Sacrament but the same hath bene alwayes acknowleged of the Catholikes for good and sound doctrine euen continually all thies nine hundred yeres when if they had thought otherwise they might withowt reprouffe of any man before BereÌ„garius or after his tyme haue condemned what booke they lysted But no Papist were he neuer so muche addicted to the real presence of Christes body in the Sacrament did find fault with any Catholike Father of the first six hundred 〈◊〉 Undowtedlie because he neuer sawe worde in them against his owne opinion Or tell me doth S. Thomas doth Sâ—…otus doth Nicolaus de Lira doth Dionysius Larthusianus accuse anie Father of the first six hundred yeres as not thynkinge well of the Sacrament No suerlie And that is because they neueâ—… founde in them but the same docteine which them selues beleued and tawght And yet as sone as Berengarius began his newe doctrine euerie lerned man founde fault with yt Likewise with 〈◊〉 with â—…uinglins and with Iohn Caluin It is therfore euident seinge no Catholike nother hathe bene before Luters time nor is nowe offended with the olde Fathers doctrine concerninge the reall presence of Christes body and yet euerie of them is offended with the Sacramentaries doctrine that the Sacramentaries teache not as the olde Fathers did and agayne that the Sacramentaries cannot be suer that their doctrine is found in the olde Fathers For if yt were there to he found why should not Catholikes find yt there as well as they Or what one word can be brought sorthe of them so plainly denyinge the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread as we are able to bringe forth certayne hundred places wherin the said reall presence is earnestly affirmed Admitte the Fathers doctrine were vncertayne were dowtfull obscure yet cowld oure aduersaries neuer be sure therby that the fyrst six hundred yeres were with them Admitte some of them semed rather to fauoure theire side then owrs whiche is vtterly false yet the plaine word of God the plaine generall Councelles the faith of all nations by the space of nine hundred yeres owght to preuaile before the probable and apparant sayenges of a fewe men But nowe seinge the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres are so clerelie for vs that oure aduersaries are forced to excuse the expresse witnesses of S. 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome S. 〈◊〉 alleged for the reall presence of Christes bodie as spoken by plaine hyperbole which in them that professe to teach the Catholike faith is no lesse to say then that these Fathers make rhetoricall lyes in wryting of the blessed â—…ucharist seing they are constrayned to deuie certaine workes of the verie most auncient as of Dionysius Areopagita of S. Ignatius of S. Polycarpus of Abdias of S. Clement of Anacletus of 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 yea of S. Ambrose and of suche like because their sayings are to 〈◊〉 agaynst them seing all that dispute now a dayes with the 〈◊〉 presse them with nothing more customably then with the autoritie of the auncient Fathers Now to saie they leaâ—…e to the first six hundred yeres when the holie scriptures and auncient Fathers generall Counceils and 〈◊〉 tradition maketh agaynst them he that listeth to consyder how 〈◊〉 how vilely how impudently it is pretended may in all other assertions mistrust them as men for great synnes geuen ouer vnto their owne lewd phantasie withowt they repent and call agayne to the holie Ghost for more grace and better vnderstanding M. Nowel in the preface prefixed before the reprouf of M. Dormans prouf semeth to haue
small confidence in the first six hundred yeres and therfore findeth fault with M. Iuell because he gaue vs that most large scope of all Doctors of the Church who haue wryten for the space of six hundred yeres after our Sauior Christes being here in earth and of aâ—…l Councells kept in the said continuance of tyme Whereas M. Nowel wolde haue had him tye vs streightly to the triall of the scriptures the certaine and only iudges sayeth M. Nowell in controuersies of religion Wherin he affirmeth we can saye nothing at all The holy scriptures M. Nowell are so certayne and vpryght â—…udges that if they cowld speake thei wold remoue out of their coâ—…rtes all suche 〈◊〉 tonges as saie This ys not Christes bodie This I say whiche is made at yâ— holy table of Christes supper This â–ª which after blessing and the wordes of consecration spoken is broken and deliuered This which at the handes of the Priest is taken and eaten If scriptures might be heard should he leue one hower that seing a thing so exaâ—…ly taken and pointed vnto and hearing the same with so manie circumstances all tendinge to the makinge a new mysterie of the new testament affirmed to be the body of Christ whiche is geuen for vs yet wold neither care sor the word nor the dede but stowtly 〈◊〉 that this whiche is sene and taken is not by the wordes of Christe made his owne reall bodye And yet haue we nothing at all to say in the holie scriptures Some others graunt we haue somwhat to say in this question of the reall presence but not in any other Whome I beseche to suspend their iudgement vntill they know what they saie For not if they vnderstand not how scriptures belong to vs in other questioÌ„s we doe therfore lack scriptures From the highest question of the sacrifice of the masse to the most abiect in our aduersaries reputation of indulgences and pardons the Catholike Churche neuer lacked nor shall at any tyme lack plentie of holy scriptures as yt shall appere when particular occasion serueth In the meane tyme because I am not able to bring foorth at once what may be sayed owt of holy scriptures for all the conâ—… of our age I haue begâ—…ne first with the cheif of all which is concerning the reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine Beseching God I may haue grace and tyme to bring in other questions other like scriptures I haue examined yâ— wordes of Christes supper I haue noted the ciâ—…cumstances of thinges done and sayd there I haâ—… conferred the holy scriptures of one place with them that in the same matter are written in other places as well of the old as of the new testament I haue ioyned the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres to shewe they thought as the Catholikes nowe doe whom they call Papistes But what circumstaÌ„ce what confereâ—…ce of holie scripture can helpe owre aduersaries Before they can ioyne one place of scripture with an other they must haue some one clere and playne by whiche the other that is more darke and obsâ—…re maye be interpreted and expounded But what playne place can that be in the supper of Christe For if the wordes and dedes that make the supper be obscure if thâ—…y that sulfill the prophecies and promyses goinge before be darke and figuratiue where ys it possible to finde a prophecie a figure a psalme a promesse more eâ—…ident then the perfoâ—…mance therof was Doth not the death of Christ as fulfill so make playne and open all the lawe and prophetes Euen so whatsoeuer is browght apperteininge to the purpose of Christes supper muste nedes be more vncertayne and lesse euident then the supper it self which is the end and perfourmance and therfore the openinge and interpretation of all the rest Who so therfore maketh the wordes of Christes supper figuratiue or vncertaine muche more he maketh al other places that belonge to that argumeÌ„t obscure and harde to be vnderstanded What certentie then can theire belefe haue who neither haue an euident faithe comminge from theire ancestoures to them nor any manifest place of scripture by which they maye iudge and trie other suche scriptures as they bringe for theire figuratiue doctrine As they imagine withowt any prouf at all that they haue the faith of the first six hundred yeres so I thynke they imagine a gospell where it is wâ—…tten This is not my body or This is the figure of my bodie But as with thine eyes thow maiest reade it distinctly wrytten in fower places of the thâ—… 〈◊〉 This ys my body so if thow be of any good yeres thow 〈◊〉 â—…ember the tyme when noman professed the belese that they now doe prosesse And farther if god graunt the to leue but twentie yeres moe thow shalt see manie a thowsand of their owne felowshippe beleue the coâ—…trarie of that whiche in many articles is now professed by the 〈◊〉 them selues For heresie can not staye vntill yt come at the length to infidelitie But as I sayed thow art sure of the gospell where it is sayed This ys my body and sure of the Churche where â—…t both was and is beleued to be Christes body after coÌ„secration so can they neuer be sure where yt is wrytten this is the figure of my body nor yet can they be sure that euer yt was beleued in the first six hundred yerâ—…s to haue â—…ene a figure without the reall truth of Christes sâ—…bstance vnder the forme of bread Tell me masters I beseche yow sith before youre â—…ies the wordes of Christe lie sownding against your opinion and in your knowledge and experieÌ„ce yow haue sene al Christian people profâ—…sse a 〈◊〉 faith vnto yours by what euidence by what inuincible authoritie can yow proue that the first six hundred yeres agreed with yow Is yt wrytten in the gospell It sayâ—…th the contrarie in these wordes This ys my body Is it come to your hands by tradition All tradition maketh agaynst you whereby we are tawght the body of Christ to be made by Christes wordes vnder the forme of bread Did all nations and faithsull pâ—…ople beare wytnes to your opinion It is cleane contrarie For yow can name no people where your opinion was professed before these fiftie yeres albeit a fewe haue in corners now and then 〈◊〉 yt as now some or other alwayes 〈◊〉 the blessed Trinitie Did generall Couâ—…cels teache yow to thynke as yoâ—… dor They are cleane on the other 〈◊〉 as which professe an vnbloody sacrisice and a 〈◊〉 of Christ vpon the altar and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doe the auucieut Fathers tell you that them 〈◊〉 beleued so They tell you cleane contrary as who forbyd you to 〈◊〉 of Christes wordes and bid vs adore his flesh in the mysteries Where is then this faith of six hundred yeres proued Admit you had a worde or two that semed to fauoure your
parte Is that enough to buyld your consciences vpon agaynst the playne scripture vniuersall tradition consent of nations deâ—… of generall Councels and so vndouted witnesses as are in the aâ—…cient Fathers are you so slenderly buylt vpon Christ that euerie blast of 〈◊〉 â—…inglius or Caluins mouth is able to remoue you from the scriptures tradition Councels Fathers and 〈◊〉 belefe of all Christendome I speake not this God is my witnesse to vpbrayd you of your 〈◊〉 but to warne you of the miserable state that your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seâ—…ses haue caried you to I now requier not anie other thing of you then that yow depelie ponder and all parâ—… set a side calling for the grace of God earnestly examine what was the sirst motion that made you doute of Christes 〈◊〉 and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine Was it not your senses Did not your sensuall man saie how can this white round cake be the body of Christ How can this bald shoren Priest make God How can Christe sitting at the ryght hand of his Father he also present in a thousand places at once Tell not me but tell your ghostly fathers whether theis reasons chefely moâ—…ed you not to discredit this high mysterie If those or suche like where the beginning of your departing from the Catholike â—…aith remember that God is almightie that Christ is God that he said This is my body doe and make this thing and all those thoughtes of infidelitie are straight driuen away But if now ye replie that there was in dede the beginning but afterward you found more strong argumentes I tell you the argumentes also be daily the stronger because your faith is daylie the weaker But for so muche as I am not with euerie of you face to face where I maye shew the weakenes of your argumentes I haue answered in this booke such as I found in the Apologie of the Churche of England beseching you most hartely to take my paynes in good worth If any where I seme to charge my aduersaries with malice or any like faulte take not that spoken to you but to hym that is giltie of it If my laboure lyke you in this argument it shal be redie to serue in anie other to my best habilitie Fare well and pray for me as I beseche God of his grace that I may pray especially for all them that reade my booke To th'entent it may offend none but the desperate helpe some that be not incurable comfort others that desier comfort of God to whom be all honour and glorie Amen ¶ Certeyne notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of hym that shall reade this booke IN alleging the holy scriptures although I haue had alwaies dew regard vnto the tonges wherein they were first writen yet I haue specially kept that texte which hath bene aboue these thousand yeres generally receaued throughowt all the weast Churche and therefore is expounded best and best knowen to the Latyns Concerninge the number of the Psalmes I haue followed the seuentie interpretours whom vniuersally the whole Churche hath followed from the Apostles tyme namely in the distinction of the Psalmes Concerning the englyshe bible I haue almost neuer vsed the wordes thereof partely because I am not bounde therevnto but specially because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any controuersie is in these our daies And to omit for this present other falsified places to the number of a great many hundreds these that followe are found not to be well translated in the onely matter of the Sacrament of Christes body and blood Christ saieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true Englishe were worke the meate which tarieth The translation appointed to be read in the Churches turneth Operamini labour for Whereby the sense of the place is corrupted We labour for that which we seeke and haue not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs and must nedes be present before we can worke it I suppose there is a difference whether a carpenter worke a piece of tymber or labour for a piece of tymber He that woorketh it hath it present he that laboureth for it seeketh it absent Christ bad the Iewes not labour for a meate which should be absent when they came to work but he bad them work the meate which taryeth to life euerlastinge which the sonne of man will geue them The sonne of man which is Christ will make the meate present and the Iewes are willed to worke the sayed meate being first made present and geuen to them It is not therfore the commaundement of Christ that they should labourfor it as if it were to be sought out by their diligeÌ„ce for they should labour in vain as neuer being able to find of them selues so preciouse a thing But Christ meaneth that they shuld work by faith and mouth by soule and body by soule in beleuing by body in eating that meate which the sonne of man doth promise to geue them That is the trew meaning of the word Operamini work ye as the wordes that follow to the end of the Chapiter do plainly declare But because the Sacramentaries do not beleue the meate that tarieth which is afterward shewed to be the flesh of Christ eaten in dede whereby he tarieth in vs and we in him for euer to be made really present so that we maye work it by faith and body therfore they haue changed working into labouring for as thowgh in the supper of Christ we laboured for his body and did dot rather work his body Againe Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me ipse viuet propter me The trew English is He that eateth me he also shall liue for me The Englishe Bible teadeth He that eateth me shall liue by the meanes of me There is a similitude made in that place that as Christ being sent of the Father liueth for the Father so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ. The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places It is construed with an accusatiue case in both places it is latined by propter in both places yet in the former place it is englished in the common Bible for the Father in the later not for me as it owght but by the meanes of me Whereas Christ wold proue that as him self doth liue for his Father with whom he is one nature and Godhead by eterna generation so we doe liue for him with whom we are one flesh and manhod by eating him worthely As therforâ—… the Godhead of the Father is really present in the whole substance thereof with Christ so is Châ—…ist really present with vs in his whole substance when we eate him in the Sacrament of which kind of eating he speaketh in that place by the waie of promise as I haue proued vpon S. Ihon. What honâ—…sty can be here pretended in one sentence to turne one
a stroÌ„g stout effectual figure ioyned with words of promise stirring vp the hart of him that heareth the promise and worthely râ—…aueth the pledge therof to mounte into heauen and there by faith to fede in spirite vpon Christes owne body and blood as he in earth corporally feedeth vpon bread and wine For Caluin teacheth bread and wine to be the figures and signes of Christes body and those wordes This is my body to be wordes of preaching or of promising Christes body to them that doe beleue O pitifull tossing and tearing of Gods holy mysteries Are those words which make and shew the body of Christ present words of promise But hereof I will speak more hereafter Now concerning that he willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith know ye not that because our nature was not able to 〈◊〉 â—…y to the seat of God in heauen therefore y◠〈◊〉 oâ—… God came 〈◊〉 from heauen to earth to leade and list vs vp to the â—…ition oâ—… his Father Know ye not that because our body more quickly â—…weth our soule dounward then our spirit is able to draw our body vpward therefore Christ 〈◊〉 not only yâ— soule but also the body of man geuing vs in his last supper that body of his to th'inthent our bodies taking hold in the Sacrament of the altar of his body might be caried into heauen to haue the sight of God And because faith without th'incarnation of Christ cannot lift vp our bodies therefore Christ fulfilled â—…aith with truth and hauing taken of the virgin oure nature gaue his body in dede to our bodies and soules yâ— we again might in body soule be lifted vp with it As a man that is cast into a depe pit calleth by the meane of his tonge for help but when a cord is let doune to him for the aide and 〈◊〉 of him it is not then sufficient to vse his tong still and to let his handes alone euen so our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to help vs to let doune the corde of his humanitie of his flesh and blood And shall we now when it is let doune to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottom of our hartes by eating it really shall wee now refuse it and saie wee will goe into heauen by faith ourselues and there take holde of Christ whereby wee maie be saued and deliuered out of the depe vale of misery As though the corde should haue neded to haue ben let doune if wee could haue fastened our bodies to any thing in heauen and yet our bodyes are they which weigh doune our soules châ—…ely But what meane I to reason in this place of that point whereof in all the booke folowing by Gods grace I will fully intreat For as it happeneth they are the scholars of Calnin with whom specially wee must haue to do at this time Of whose lerning and prâ—…ncie â–ª I most crueâ—…y craue this fauour that none of them all thinâ—… me to speak against their persons but only against their opinions and so to speak against them as I am instructed by the holy Scriptures not graunting that either they loue more intierly or study more carefully or reuerence more hartily the word of God then my Fathers brethren and I my selfe doe in the Catholike Church of Jesus Christ. Only about the meaning of it I rather would trust the common iudgeâ—…ent of auncient Doctours and practise of the whole Church theu mine owne priuate election and phantasie or the deuise of a newly planted congregation A Catholike man must kepe the most auncient path and most commonly troden high waie Priuie bypathes carie mâ—…n a side to the 〈◊〉 dennes of 〈◊〉 My purpose is to proue out of the word of God specially against zuinglius and Caluin that Christ geueth in his last supper the true substance of his flesh and blood not only to our soules by words of promise but also to our bodies vnder the formes of bread and wine And for as much as the present Church of England in the Apologie thereof hath set forth to the world an other doctrine contrarie to that wce reâ—…ued of our fore Fathers I will first disproue and confute the wordes and reasons oâ—… the Apologie and afterward will by the grace of God proue the Catholike faith out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers But first of all I must declare what we Catholiks and what the Protestants and Sacramentaries beleue the supper of Christ to be That seing I make the Title of my booke Of the supper of our Lord it maie straight appere whose 〈◊〉 is more worthy to be instituted of Christ that which we through his word beleue or that which they assigne him against y◠〈◊〉 truthe of his own words ¶ what the supper of Christ is according to the belâ—…e of the Catholikes BEcause my purpose is to intreat of the blessed supper of our Lord I thought it best to declare before hand what we take that supper to be shewing withal how the Sacramentaries vnder the pretense of refoorming the abuses thereof haue taken away the whole supper of Christ and geuen vs a bare drinking of their own 〈◊〉 And whence maie that be more truly and soundly proued then chiâ—…fly out of the word of God next out of the monuments of the a aâ—…cient Fathers The word of God is a most faithfull witnesse oâ—… the institution of Christ the monuments and writings of auncient Fathers doe shew the right vnderstanding of the word of God which thing I speake not as though the Catholike Doctours of this later tyire had not the self same holy Ghost which the first had but seing our aduersaries refuse Albereus magnus Thomas of Aquine Bonauenture Alexander of â—…ales Dionyâ—…ns the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra Gabriel Biel and such other men of excelleÌ„t vertue wit and lerning who not withstanding by a rule that S. Auguâ—…stine geueth ought to be of credit in so much as all they liued before this question rose beâ—…wene the Sacramentaries and vs and therfore can not beare nor shew more affection to the one syde then to the other but seing our aduersaries refuse them for 〈◊〉 and yet follow men of later 〈◊〉 as Luther zuinglius 〈◊〉 we are content to put all the matter into the hands of the old Doctours And to beginne as we promised with the word of God thus writeth S. Paul in his first 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians Conuenientibus vobis in vnum iam non est dominicam coenam manducare vnusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit ad manducanduÌ„ when yow come together now there is no eating of our Lords supper For euery man taketh 〈◊〉 his owne supper to eate By the name of supper in the old tyme that one meale was meant wich ordinarily was made after noon and it serued for diner and supper The Corinthians coming together to yâ— holy communion taried not one for the other but
wil stand sound when Caluin and all his scholars be out of memorie This practise did the Apostles leaue to their successours and scholars as Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus and Eusebiâ—…s witnesse Now consyder what an intolerable spirit of arrogancy was in Caluin who dareth oppose him self against the first hundred yeres after Christ. He dareth affirm that all the Priests and Bisshops of Rome before 〈◊〉 committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist to strangers That all Asia and Brece committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist by Deacons to men that were absent who heard not the words of promise If thou looke to be saued good Reader beware of that arrogant spirit Learning thou shalt not find in Caluin and much lesse honesty Only he hath a sort of smothe words which are poy soned with pride and ignorance If any of his scholars wil take vpon him to defend his errour I wil by Gods grace discouer more ignorance of that arrogant Master of theirs In the meane tyme I wil content my self with these reasons which I haue presently brought against him out of the word of God and out of the sayings and doings of the whole primatiue Churche ¶ The preface of the second Booke FOr so muche as contraric things one being set against the other are both made the more clere and plaine it semed best I should not only confirme the Catholike faith but also con fute the contrarie doctrine which is allowed for good and laudable in the Apologie of the Church of England to thâ—… intent the Reader might iudge whether the Catholikes or Protestauts doe more oftallege more syncerely interprete and more throughly beleue the word of God I feare me he shal find nothing beside the name of the gospell to be among the ProtestaÌ„ts But the true meaning and vse thereof only to remain in that Catholike Church of Christ. Let the thing it self speake I aske but an vpright and indifferent iudge Neither let any man be now shamed to heare that his new chosen opinion is a great deale worse then his old faith was For if he blushed not to forsake the faith of the Catholike Church vowed at the fonte of Baptism and to embrace a truthe lately espied as he thought in the gospell Muche lesse ought he to accompt it any reproche to reade further in the same gospell and there to lern his old profession made at the tyme of his Christendom to haue bene not only the receaued belefe of all Christians but also to haue bene grounded in the true word of God and practised of the Apostles and their Successours from the beginning The Chapiters of the second Booke 1. The Catholiks require their cause to be vprightly tried by the holy scriptures which they haue alwayes studied aud reuerenced 2. It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper 3. The auncient Fathers teache that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. 4. What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood 5. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supp of Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the vnion which is consessed to be made in the supper of Christ. 7. That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God 8. That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more then two Sacraments 9. That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknouledged of the Apologie according to the word of God 10. That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament 11. What signe must cheifly be respected in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper what a Sacrament is 12. Which argument is more agreable to the word of God It is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore the true body of Christ. 13. The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of token 14. That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and this is my blood be figuratiue 15. There all presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. 16. Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body 17. The true resurrection of our bodyes cometh by eating that body of Christ which is bothe true and truly in vs. 18. Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries 19. The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature 20. It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper 21. By eating we touche the body of Christ as it maye be touched vnder the form of bread 22. The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Christ withall 23. The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie 24. The contrariety of the apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harts to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar 25. What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 26. What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper 27. That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries the table of Iayes 28. The bread which is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ. 29. Sacramentall eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apologie ¶ The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightlye tried by the holy Scriptures which they haue alwayes studied and reuerenced THe Apologie of the Church of England boasting it self partly of the word of God partly of the primatiue Church requireth that we call the new gospellers no more by the name of heretykes neither accompt our selues hereafter Catholikes except we coâ—…ince them out of the holy Scriptures as the old Catholike Fathers did vse to conuince the old stubburne heretikes If we be heretikes saith the Apologie they as they would gladly be called be Catholikes why do they not as they see the Fathers which were Catholike men haue done alwayes Why do they not conuince and maister vs by the diâ—…e Scriptures Why do they not call vs againe to be tried by them Why do they not lay before vs how we haue gone away from Christ From the Prophets From the Apostles and from the holy Fathers Why sticke they to do it Why are they afrayed of it It is Gods cause why doubt they to commit it to the triall of Gods word To this proude bragge of the Apologie thus I answere To
the holy scriptures and to the holy Fathers ye haue appealed By the holy Scriptures and Fathers your doctrine shal be tried â–ª The Catholikes neuer feared to be tried by the holy Scriptures but they alwayes feared to abuse them For we yâ— know in dede what holy Scripture is are so carefull how to behaue ourselues reuerently and semely about the same that we lightly vse not to allege any part thereof to proue any rare and harde matter vnlesse we shew some auncient Fathers or Councell to haue expounded that peece of Scripture before vs in suche sorte sense as we by the witnes thereof desyre to persuade and confirme But otherwise the Catholikes neuer refused the triall of the â—…oly Scriptures as yâ— which they alwayes both studied loued Do not the writings of S. Beruard in manner wholy consist of continuall testimonies taken out of holy Scripture Did not Petâ—…â—…ombardus lernedly comment the Psalmes the Episâ—…s of S. Paule and other parcels of Gods word â–ª Did not S. Thomas of Aquin write so vpoÌ„ Iob Esaias Ieremias S. Mathew S. Iohn S. Paule the Canonicall epistles and the Apocalips that he vseth to expound one hard place by an other as nighe as thâ—… thing will suffer Did not Nicolaus de Lyra Dionysius the Carthusian Paulus Burgensis Caietanus the Cardinall with diuerse other expound the whole Bible or make notes vpon it wold they haue don so except they had ben specially delighted with the word of God More ouer when heresies arose in our dayes Did not Contarenus Sadoletus Polus â—…osius 〈◊〉 Gropper Tapper Eckius Pighius Petrus and Dominicus of Soto Miranda Uillegagnon Ioannes a Louanio with diuerse other coâ—…ince those heresies by the holy Scriptures and Fathers And yet as though we brought nothing at all for defence of the Catholike faith out of the word of God or primitiue Churche so dothe the penner of this Apologie more to his discredite then to ours falsely and vnhonestly reporte But now to shew the better his falsehood and dishonestie I thought good for my part to set soorth such holy Scriptures and suche witnesses of the primitiue Churche as plainly confirme the Catholike belefe concerning the chefe matter which at this day is in controuerâ—…e betwixt vs and them The chefe question is about the blessed Sacrament of the altar Our belefe is that after consecration duely made the body blood of Christ is really present vnder the formes of bread and wine The Apologie teacheth other wise as now it shall appeare But whereas there are many questions in this behalfe as of the reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of the masse of communion vnder one kind of receauing alone of râ—…tion of the Sacrament and of suche other I will beginne 〈◊〉 with the matter of reall presence which iâ—… the grounde of all the rest not despayring to haue at other tymes more leasure to handle also the other questions So much therefore as in the Apologie belongeth to the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar I will faithfully set foorth and trie the truth of that doctrine by Gods word and by the holy Fathers Neither let any man be offended yf I seme to kepe no good order in so much as I make no new methode of myne owne but follow the order of the Apologie which sodenly and abruptly thus intreth in to yâ— question ¶ It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper WE do expresly pronounce that in the supper vnto suche as beleue there is truly geuen the body and blood of the Lord. This doctrine being called to yâ— word of God to yâ— iudgement of holy Fathers for his triall will appere false forged Because the holy scripture teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be truly delyuered not only to such as do beleue but euen to wicked men who in their workes haue deuied their faith howsoeuer they kepe it or geue it ouer in hart Iudas one whole yere before the last supper was called a deâ—…ll for so much as Christ knew that he wold betray and sell him vnto yâ— Iewes Which it is not to be thought that Iudas wold haue don if he had bene of the true belefe that Christ was the Sonne of God God him self And yet the body and blood of Christ was truly deliuered vnto him Who although he had beleued the diuine power of Christ yet he had not beleued as we now take beleuing for the fulfilling and perfoorming of all that which belongeth to the state and lawe of the new Testament According as it is written Vt omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam That euery man which beleueth in him may not perish but haue euerlasting life Such a belefe workiâ—…g by charitie Iudas had not And yet he receaued the body and blood of Christ. For albeit some auncient Fathers thought that Iudas went out before the supper of Christ yet farre the greater part teache otherwise And it is much more agreable to the word of God How proue I that S. Mark writeth that Christ came with the twelue S. Mathew sayeth Christ sate down with the twelue and whiles they were eating he gaue his body and blood S. Luke agreeth vpon the very same number and vpon the same gift Among the twelue Iudas is rekoned in S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Iohn And whiles they were at supper which they besyde the twelue Iesus tooke bread and blessed and gaue thanks and brake and gaue to them To which them I pray you but vnto the twelue that came with him and sate with him to yâ— twelue therefore he gaue and said Take eate this is my body And taking the chalice he gaue thanks and gaue them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament Which is or shal be shed â—…or the remission of synnes Et biberunt ex illo omnes And all drank of it Which all if not the twelue Iudas therefore being one of the twelue had the body blood of Christ deliuered to him For Christ said Take eate and drinke ye all of this And as they dranke all so is there no doubt but they all did take and eate therefore Iudas tooke that which Christ deliuered But Christ witnessed himselfe to deliuer his owne body saying Take and eate this is my body And drink ye all of this for this is my blood Therefore the body and blood of Christ was deliuered vnto Iudas And sith Iudas did not beleue the body and blood of Christ was truely delyuered to some such as did not beleue We nowe call these defenders to be tried by the holy Scriptures We make it appere yâ— they haue seuered them selues from Christ from the Prophetes from the Apostles we stagger not we flee not it is Gods
good faith to haue a good charitie to examine him selfe goeth before the supper eating by faith and spirit is a thing required to come worthely to the supper But when we once come thither we all eate one thing one meate one foode one body whether we come worthely or vnworthely euen as all that are sprinkled with water in the name of the Trinitie are baptized in one and the same Sacrament of baptim whether they be good men as Cornelius was or â—…uill men as Simon Magus was For Simon Magus was baptized of Philip yâ— deacon But as it may appere by that is tolde in the scriptures and gathered by the Breke and Latine Fathers he came not worthely to that Sacrament but faynedly as one that hoped to make gain of his faith And yet he had that baptisme which as S. Paul sayeth is but one But he had not the vertue of that one baptisme which is the remission of synnes I trust by this tyme the defenders nede not boast of their doctrine neither vpbraid vs of ours because they teach that only good men haue yâ— body of Christ deliuered to them And we teach that euill men also eate really the true body of Christ. We haue I suppose declared the word of God to stand in our side and seing their doctrine must be tried by the word of God I tell them it is tried and sound to be false and forged except they can proue Iudas to haue bene an honest man For surely that he receaued the body of Christ it is the mind of S. Cyprian S. Hierom S. Chrysoâ—…om S. Augustin S. Leo S. Bede Theodoritus Sedulius 〈◊〉 Euthymius yea it is so farre the common opinion of all men that vpon that example this â–ª conclusion is grounded that we can not remoue 〈◊〉 euill man from the commu nion excepthy order of law we may coÌ„uince him Quia nec Christus Iudam a communione remouit Because Christ did not remoue Iudas from communion Howbeit we stand not in this doctrine vpon the person of Iudas only but also vpon the generall doctrine of S. Paule who teacheth euery euill man to be gilty of the body of Christ for eating that bread vnworthely ¶ The auncient Fathers teach that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. YEa but say they we do affirme with the most auncient Fathers that the body of Christ is eaten of none other but of Godly and faithfull men Seing the holy scriptures are proued to stand on our side it were great marueile if the auncient Fathers did make for you They are not wonte to be contrarie to the word of God But what a miserie is this what a seducing of the people The word of God is pretended the auncient Fathers be named and not one syllable brought forth out of either both concerning this question But as before we brought holy scriptures so let vs now allege the auncient Fathers Origen sayeth Those who come to the Eucharist without examining cleansing them selues are lyke to men sicke of an ague who presuming to eate sanorum cibos the meates of whole men doe hurte them selues Whereby we may perceaue he iudgeth the meate of Christes supper which is proâ—…ded only for whole men yet to be truly but not profitabâ—…y eaten of them who are burdened with great synnes Basile asketh what a man shall say of him qui otiose et inutiliter edere audet corpus et bibere sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi Who dareth in vayne and vnprofitably eate the body and drinke the blood of our Lord Iesus Christ If a man eate in vaine and to his disprofit yet he eateth in dede and as S. Basile sayeth he eateth the body of Christ. Chrysostom writeth thus If those which spotte the Kinges purple be no lesse punished then those that cutte it what wonder is it if those who take the body of Christ with an vncleane conscience haue the same punishment which they haue who pearced him with nailes Behold as it is one purple still whether it be spotted or cutt so is it the same body still whether it be pearced with nailes as the Iewes haudled it or taken with an vnclean conscience as euill Christians order it S. Cyprian in manner of purpose answereth those obiections which might moue any man to doubt how euill men may doo receaue so good a thing as Christes owne body is The Sacramentes sayeth he for their part can not be without their proper vertue Neither doth Gods maiestie by any meanes absent it self from the mysteries But albeit the Sacramentes permitte them selues to be taken or touched of vnworthy men yet those men can not be partakers of the spirit whose infidelitie or vnworthynes withstandeth such holines If by the mynd of S. Ciprian the Sacramentes can not lacke their owne proper vertue come good men or euill to them one substance is alwayes geuen but the euill can not receaue the spirit or grace thereof because they are vnworthie of such a benefite S. Hierome Opponis mihi Gomor Mannae vnam mensuram Et nos Christi corpus aequaliter accipimus Thou laiest vnto me the one measure of Manna called Gomor and we take the body of Christ equally One as well taketh it as an other but as it there foloweth Pro accipientiuÌ„ meritis diuersum fit quod vnum est According to the merites of them that receaue that which is one is made diuerse The Sacrament is one in it selfe yet to one it is made yâ— cause of goodnes when he taketh it worthely to an other the cause of euill when he taketh it vnworthely There also S. Hierome sayeth that Iudas dranke of the same cuppe whereof the other Apostles dranke but yet that he was not of the same merit S. Augustine sayeth Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam DiaboluÌ„ furem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos quod norunt fideles precium nostrum Our Lord him selfe beareth with Iudas he suâ—…th a deuill a theefe and the seller of him selfe to receaue among the innocent Disciples our price which the faithfull knowe If any thing besydes that body of Christ may be our price then S. Augustine might meane that euill men receaue an other thing But if our price be vndoubtedly that body of Christ which by death redemed vs Iudas receauing our price receaued the very true body and substance of Christ. In an other place he writeth Eundem cibuÌ„ sanctuÌ„ alios manducare digne alios indigne Some eate worthely some vnworthely the same holy meate Beholde the meate is the same Whether the euill receaue it or the good And because the Apologie though it name no Father at all yet it maie haue some pretense of certain wordes which are in S Augustine it is to be weighed diligeÌ„tly that Christ hath as well a mystical body as a true naturall body The mysticall body of
Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
cause thereof We are coupled to Christ by eating that flesh of his which he deliuereth to vs. But Christ deliuereth it not only spiritually but also with his hands saying Take eate this is my body As therefore yâ— deliuery is real and not only spirituall so is the eating reall and the coupling reall I haue proued this thing in other places folowing Here it is 〈◊〉 to say this much against the bare words of the Apologie ¶ That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God VVE do acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament yâ— is to say an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the body and blood of Christ. Besides the former vaâ—…t of the word of God already brought foorth to the reproche of the Catholikes also the Apologie aâ—…tle before these words witnessed that yâ— auctours abâ—…tours thereof gaue thanks to God for the light of the Gospel raysed to them which they might allwayes haue before theyr eyes as a moste certayne rule to which all doctrine of yâ— Church ought to be called for his triall And within lesse than 〈◊〉 lines after the same Apologie cometh to denie our Lords supper calling it a Sacrament that is to say an 〈◊〉 token of the body and blood of Christ. What mâ—…ers Hauâ—… you in the holy Scriptures that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament or a signe of yâ— body and blood of Christ From the beginning of 〈◊〉 to the later ende of tho â—…ocalips you finde â—…t our Lordes supper so called Christ in S. 〈◊〉 calleth it yâ— mâ—…e which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not but 〈◊〉 into lâ—…e 〈◊〉 He saieth yâ— bread which he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he will 〈◊〉 â—…or yâ—â—…se of yâ— world He 〈◊〉 it the 〈◊〉 and the blood of the sonne of man meate in dede and drinke in dede his flesh and his blood the eating of him the bread which who so eateth shall liue for euer In S. Mathew and in S. Marke his body and his blood of the new testament In S. Luke his body whiche is geuen for vs and the chalice which is the newe testament in his blood which is shed for vs. In S. Paul the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the coÌ„municating or partaking of Christes blood the one bread yâ— table of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord the body which is broken for vs the chalice which is the new Testament of his blood the eating of this bread and drinking of this chalice So many names are geuen in so many places of holy scripture to this blessed Sacrament and it being no where called a signe or token yet the Apologie which thanketh God for yâ— holy scriptures aâ—…d will trie all doctrine by them in the chief question of our age goeth quite from all holy scriptures and sayeth the Eucharist or the Lordes supper is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. What is the matter that in wordes you make so much of holy scripture and in dede so litle What Apostle what Euangelist what Prophete or Patriarke taught our Lordes supper to be a signe or token S. Paul threateneth damnation to him who vnworthely eateth it and he calleth vnworthy eating not only the contempte thereof or lacke of faith but euen the omitting to proue or examine him selfe before he eate our Lords body And that because he maketh no difference betwixt it and common meates And come you with a new doctrine affirming that we receaue not our Lords body into our bodies but an euident signe and token thereof you 〈◊〉 no authoritie no rule no triall of matters belonging to faith but only the holy Scriptures and immediatly ye breake your owne rule in so much as the holy scriptures call the supper of our Lord his body and blood and you teach it to be an euident token of his body and blood If you kepe not your owne rule whom can you binde to kepe the â—…aine Ye will aske me perhaps whether the Lordes supper be not a Sacrament if a Sacrament then also a signe and token I aunswere ye that prescribe rules of beleuing to the world ye that wil haue all thinges iudged and proued by that touchestone of Gods worde ye that for pretense of folowing the gospell haue stirred vp so greate strife through all Christendome must not talke with vs with if with and with conditions and peraduentures But ye must bring forth the word of God for that ye say Although the supper of our Lord were neuer so much a Sacrament surely to you it were none because ye cannot proue out of the word of God where it is so named To vs it is both a Sacrament and a sacrifice A Sacrament because we are so taught by tradiction from the Apostles A sacrifice because Malachie the prophet in the person of God expressely saieth In omni loco sacrificatur offertur nomini meo oblatio munda â–ª quia magnum est nomen meum in geÌ„tibus In euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed and offered to mie name because my name is greate amonge the gentils There is absolutely no pure and cleane oblation besides the sacrifice of Christes body and blood whiche was offered to death not in euery place but without the gate of Hierusalem alone and the same is at this daie vnbloodily offered in the masse in euerie place where so euer among the gentils the name of God is 〈◊〉 called vpon Thus both we and you maie proue the â—…upper of our Lord to be a sacrifice but that it is a 〈◊〉 â–ª we can proue because our forefathers delyuered such a doctrine to vs You can not proue the same seing you will not be bound to folow vnwritten traditions If you flee to the Church for naming it a SacrameÌ„t the church hathe seuen Sacramentes But ye in this present Apologie acknowledge only two properly to be rekoned vnder yâ— name for so many saie you do we find deliuered and sanctified by Christ and allowed of the olde fathers Ambrose and Augustine Concerning the deliuery of Sacraments by Christ ye might haue found in the word of God ConfirmatioÌ„ Actor 8. Penance IoaÌ„ 20. Extreme vnction Iacob 5. Priesthod Luk. 22. Matrimonie Eph. 5. And not only Baptim and the Eucharist But what kind of talk is this to say that S. Ambrose and S. Augustine allow that workes of Christ was not the deliuery and consecration of Christ of sufficâ—…ent autoritie except Ambrose and Augustine had approued it I thoâ—…ght Ambrose and Augustine should haue bene allowed by the scripture and not the scripture by them I stand with you vpon the autoritie of the word of God proue me thence that these two are Sacramentes alone yea proue that thei are so named at all what gospell calleth baptisme a Sacrament What holy write nameth
the supper of our Lord a Sacrament dare you geue these things a name which is not in the word of God What warraÌ„t haue you for that dede you will say Ambrose and Augustine calle them so I replie Peter and Paul doe not call them so At other times and with other men I will stay vpon the authoritie of Ambrose and Augustine ' whom as I ought to do I reuerence for men of excellent vertue and learning But yet they were men as you are wont to saie they might erre they might be deceaued At this time we haue appealed chiefly to yâ— holy scriptures and out of them we must ground all our talke and next vnto them we will heare what the Fathers saye I saie that neither the old testament nor the new calleth the supper of our lord a Sacrament Therefore the Apologie that so calleth it goeth from the assurance of the word of God to the good and â—…audable inuentions and traditions of meÌ„ which them seiues 〈◊〉 when they lilte And yet the said Apologie so calleth it a Sacrament that vpon that only word the auctors thereof grounde all their doctrine Thence it hath to be a signe to be a token to be a badge a seale a paterne a counterpaâ—…e Thence all the figuratiue doctrine ryseth Thence it commeth that the reall body and blood of Christ is denied to be vnder the formes of bread and wine Shall now so much as Christ hath plainely spoken of his body and blood so much as his Apostles and disciples haue preached and writen in that behalfe shall now all this be ouerthrowen by an vnwritten veritie Are these the men oâ—… God who fâ—…ee from S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn S. Paul to Augustine and Ambrose Will the Apologie allowe that dede If it will not why hath it done so it selfe If none but prophetes and Apostles had written where had they found two Sacramentes where had they readen that the supper of our Lord is a signe and token They make much a doe about the word of God till they haue gotten credit among the ignorant and then they quite lead theÌ„ from all the word of God To you I speake good Christen readers that haue the true loue of the word of God 〈◊〉 in your hartes to you I speake geue not ouer S. Maâ—…hew S. Iohn S. Paul for Ambroâ—…e and Augusâ—…ine 〈◊〉 not ouer Christ who is God and man to haue the opinion of what sâ—… euer â—…ottor and Father in causes of belefe Some men in comparison of others be of greate authoritie But in comparison oâ—… God all men be nothing at all God saieth this is my body Now what so euer man or angell from heauen tell you this is not the body of Christ but only a figure of it beleue him not but let him be â—…cursed to you Shal we not be well occupied if we leaue yâ— plain worde of God and come to see whether Ambrose and Augustine teach two Sacramentes or mo then twaine S. Paul teacheth Matrimonie to be a Sacrament And yet shall we goe from him to Ambrose and Augustine to see whether it be one or no Was euer such a vile practise heard of as to brag of scriptures to boast of holy write to crie vpon vs for comyng to the worde of God and nowe that we are come thither to call vs from all Prophetes and Apostles yea froÌ„ Christ him selfe to Ambrose and Augustine Is this the waie to the holy scriptures Can this fault be excused Can this hypocrisie be tolerated To winne to you the itching eares of the inconstant multitude to get you the applause of licencious libertines in yâ— pulpit you call to yâ— word of God and when you haue gotten them within your nettes you teach them out of Ambrose and Augustine Yea would God ye did so at the least And although it be alitle out of mie way if to detect falshod can euer be out of a mans way yet what if now we proue that ye deceaue them also by fathering that vpon Ambrose and Augustine which they neuer wrote 〈◊〉 thought ¶ That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two Sacraments DOe they teache but two Sacramentes only What if they taught two especially yet if they do not deny the other your proof is none But let vs see Doe they approue no more then twaine What if besydes these twaine which you haue named I bring within the compasse of one chapiter two moe out of S. Augustin as plainly named of him as possibly can be Where then will this Apologie reâ—…t Bonum igitur nuptiarum per omnes gentes atque omnes homines in causa generandi est in fide castitatis quòd autem ad populum Dei pertinet etiam in sancti tate Sacramenti caet The good sayeth S. Augustine which riseth of mariage through all nations and all men consisteth in yâ— cause of begetting children and in the faith of chastitie And in so much as appertaineth to yâ— people of God it consisteth also in the holynes of the SacrameÌ„t through which it is vnlawfull yea though diuorse come betwen to marie an other whiles her husband liueth not so much as for the very cause of bringing foorth of children which though alone it be the cause why mariages are made yet the band of mariage is not loosed vnlesse the husband die albeit yâ— thing folow not for which the mariage is made Much like as if to bring the people together some of the clergie should be ordered or consecrated with holy orders for although the meeting of the people do not insewe yet Sacramentum ordinationis the Sacrament of geuing orders abideth in them that be ordered And if for any fault any man be remoued from the office he shall not lacke the Sacrament of our Lord which is once put vpon him although it remaine to his damnation In these words S. Augustine hath shewed that amoÌ„g Christian men there are two other Sacramentes of Priesthod of Matrimonie besides baptisme and the Eucharist And eche of them so greate and so strong that they can not be loosed and taken awaie but only by death of the partie although the chief cause â—…asse why the Sacrament was geuen I could bring if nede were an other notable place out of S. Augustine where he nameth together the water of baptim oile the Eucharist and the imposition of hands S. Ambrose like wise confesseth moe Sacraments then Baptim and the Eucharist Cur baptizatis si per hominem peccata dimitti non licet In baptismo vtique remissio peccatorum omniuÌ„ est Quid interest vtrum per paenitentiam an per lauacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent Vnum in vtroque mysterium est Sed dices quia in lauacro operatur mysteriorum gratia Quid in paenitentia Nonne Dei nomen operatur Why art thou baptized if it be not lawfull synnes to be forgeuen
by man Truly in Baptim there is forgeuenesse of all synnes What skilleth it whether Priests challenge this right of forgeuing synnes to be geuen them by penance or by baptim The mysterie or Sacrament is one in both But thou wilt say that in Baptim the grace oâ—… yâ— mysteries worketh What in Penance doth not the name of God work Here is the same vertue and name of a mysterie or Sacra ment geuen to Penance which is geueÌ„ to Baptim Whereby S. Ambrose taught as wel that there was a SacrameÌ„t of Penance as the Apologie graunteth one of Baptim But to stand about the proof of all the seuen Sacraments it nedeth not sith in that most notable generall Councell gathered both of Grekes and Latines at Florence all the seuen Sacramentes were according to the word of God confessed proued declared and expounded as in the ende thereof it may appere But neither S. Ambrose nor S. Augustine had the charge committed to them to rekon vp how many Sacraments there are I brought these few places out of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose to shewe as it were to the eyes of all them that will not wilfully blind them selues how these defenders crie out vpon the word of God vntill they haue with swete words wonne â—…anour amoÌ„g the miserable nomber â—…f those vnstable meâ—… that allwayes harken for newes But when they haue them fast then is the word of God cleane forgotten and in siede of it Ambrose and Augustiâ—…e are captiously and falsely alleged For the truth is they that set nought by the word of God can not long esâ—…me Ambrose and Augustine who with all their hartes embraced the word of God and expounded the same according to the auncient tradition of holy Church To what end then doth this Apologie runne Truly to sette vp an Idoll of their owne making in place of the word of God To set vp I say a fantasticall religion of their owne deuising But if they should crie to the people Come come bowe down to the Idoll that we haue deuised for you the people would not come as being feared with yâ— infamouse name of an Idoll Therefore they say come to the word of God come to the holy Scriptures come to the true gospell of Iesus Christ. well Syr you say herein exceding well we are come Teach vs the word of God the Scriptures the gospell Say on a Gods name ¶ That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God WE saye that Eucharistia the supper of the Lord is a Sacrament that is to wit an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is most true that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament yea it is the chief Sacrament of all Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Est enim secunduÌ„ clarissimi praeceptoris nostri sententiam SacramentoruÌ„ Sacramentum The most holy Eucharist which Dyonisius named so a litle before according to the mind of our renowmed maister is the Sacrament of Sacramentes Although Dionysius had S. Paul to his master yet he meaneth at this tyme as vpon him Maximus hath noted by other places of his worke it may well appere to be true Hierotheus an holy Father and Disciple of Christ who in his talke whiche he was wonte to haue with Dyonisius did vse to call the holy Eâ—…charist of all the Sacramentes the chief Sacrament Surely iâ—… there had bene but two Sacramentes both Hierotheus Dyonisius had abused their words For where two things only are of one degree there one may be worthier then the other but neither of the twaiue may iustly be called the chief of the others If in all there be only two Sacramentes baptisme the Eucharist how is the Eucharist the Sacrament of Sacramentes sith when one is taken away there doth remaine but one moe to which relation may be made The opinion therefore of this Apologie standing the Eucharist may be yâ— more chief Sacrament of tâ—…e twaine but not the Sacrament of moe Sacramentes But what nede we stand herevpon seing Dionysius hath at large prosecuted moe Sacramentes then baptisme and the Eucharist as it is easye to see in his workes Seing then the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament and yet not found so to be named in holy Scripture the Apologie is constrained to beleue it selfe and to teach others somewhat which is not readen in holy Scripture Againe that euery Sacrament is a signe and token it is also true but not readen in holy Scripture Thirdly the Sacrament of the altar is an euident token of yâ— body and blood of Christ. But so much is not expressed in holy Scripture Last of all the supper of our Lord is the reall body blood of Christ him selfe And that truth is very plainly very ofte very earnestly sayd taught repeted in holy Scripture Foure thinges are now verified of the supper of our Lord. It is a Sacrament it is consequently a holy signe It is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is the truth and substance of the body and blood of Christ. Of the foure truthes the last only is expressed in holy scriptures because it is the ground of all the other The three first are taught by the Church not coÌ„trary to the scripture but ouer and besides it Now mark well whether these defenders lead vs to the word of God or no. In describing the supper of our Lord they put the three first verities of which neuer a one is named in the scripture And the last veritie which is expresly named in all the foure Euangelistes and in S. Paul as before I haue declared that they vtterly 〈◊〉 aâ—…d leaue out As if they shuld saie we make much aâ—… to pretend yâ— holy scriptures but we will be sure to bring any thiâ—…g soner then the holy scriptures Marke this Apologie who shal he neuer lightly saw any book writen in so many matters of diuinitie wherein so litle scripture hath bene alleged It is full of gloses but the texte it hath very seldome And why They loue not in dede the scriptures they know not the scriptures according to the mind of the holy Ghost but only make a shew of them to entangle the sunple in their snares The supper of our Lord is a sacrament a holy signe an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. hitherto they teache without scriptures It is the body and blood it selfe of Iesus Christ. Hereof speake they at this time neuer a word because it is in the Gospell which they loue not If this last truth can not stand with the first what doubt is there but the worde of God must ouercome and the doctrine of men gâ—…ue place If therefore the supper of our Lord maâ—…e both be the signe of the body and the body it selfe it is well we are throughly
consecrantur The words are pronounced by the Priests mouth And the things set foorth are consecrated by the vertue and grace of God This sayeth he is my body With this word the things which are set foorth are consecrated Who seeth not here the visible Sacrament and the thing or inâ—…isible grace of the Sacrament The Sacrament is the due pronouncing of the words ouer bread oâ—… wine As for example taking bread I say in Christes person This is my body The words naturally haue their knowen signification as other wordes of other things haue Which who so heaâ—…eth spoken or perceaueth to be spoken can tell what they meane and signifie Neither can it be denied but they betoken the being or substance of Christes body That natural betokening of theirs alone without the matter of bread and wine present should not be a Sacrament that is to say an euident signe and token of a holy thing But when those words are spoken ouer bread by a Priest as Christ appointed them to be spoken then by his institution they are a Sacrament to wit an euident token of a holy thing Now as God and Christ can not lye so they do not institute a false signe and token If the token be true and it be the token of Christes body present that thing which it betokeneth by the institution of Christ must nedes be not only true but also present if it be so betokened ¶ What signe must chiefly be respected in the Sacrament of Christes supper And what a Sacrament is IAm not ignorant that in the Sacrament of the altar diuerse kindes of signes tokens are founde some be tokens of the making and consecrating the Eucharist others of it being now consecrated and made vntill the outward signes be consumed a signification also of the Church of Christ is gathered out 〈◊〉 it now made and consecrated Yea the very eating is again a signe of a maruelous banket in the life to come The first signe of all is the signe of consecrating our Lords sup per and it is the words duely spoken by a Priest ouer bread and 〈◊〉 which both betoken the making of Christes body blood and make it in dede The signe of the Eucharist now made is the forme of bread and wine But this later signe presupposeth the first signe and token For except it had bene sayd ouer the bread and wine This is my body and this is my blood the formes of bread and wine could not betoken the reall body and blood of Christ vnder them For not wheresoeuer we see such formes we doe there beleue the body and blood to be except we thinke the words of consecration to haue bene spoken ouer them We now speake of that first signe and token which both signifieth and maketh the Sacrament Wherein Christ would that to be wrought inuisibly whiche the words do signifie to our cares and whicâ—… the doing sheweth to our eyes A man is able to institute a token of the truth but not always able to make present the truth of the token As when he leaueth a ring in token of him himselâ—…e not being able to leaue his owne substance in the same ring or vnder the forme of it But Christ as he is both God and man so he leaneth both an outward token according to his huâ—…ane nature and worketh an inward truth of the same token according to his diuine allnughtynes The outward token is called the Sacrament the truth thereof is called the thing of the Sacrament Christ intending to shewe to the people that his Father allways heareth him sayeth Father I thanke the because thou hast heard me These words betoken a thanksull hart Wheresore if in â—…ede the hart be thankfull they are a Sacrament or holy signe because they betoken a most holy sacrifice of thankigeuing But if in dede the hart geue no thanks they are a false token therefore please not God who is truth and loueth nothing but truth Upon this ground of holy scriptures and of lerned Fathers the definition of a Sacrament is agreâ—…d â—…pon by all diuinâ—…s taken specially on t of S. Augustine as 〈◊〉 doth 〈◊〉 in these words Sacramentum est 〈◊〉 gratiae visiâ—…ilis forma A Sacrament is the visible forme of 〈◊〉 grace whereby 〈◊〉 may perceaue a Sacrament to 〈◊〉 oâ—… two parts the one is ap prehended by faith whiles the other is outwardly shewed to the senses If we see one baptized in the name of the Trinitie we say a Christen man was made to day How proue we that because yâ— Sacrament which we saw telleth vs what was wrought inwardly Therefore seing Christ hath willâ—…d vs to say at his holy table ouer bread and 〈◊〉 This is my body and this is my blood there is no doubt but the very naming of body and blood soleÌ„nly commaunded is the commaâ—…udement to make a holy signe which is asmuch to say as to make a Sacrament Whereof it foloweth that the same thing is inuisibly wrought which is outwardly signified Otherwise a Sacrament may be false it may be of one part alone it may lacke the operation of the holy Ghost And to be short it may be made voide and of none 〈◊〉 The token and signe sayeth when bread is present Hoc est corpus meum This is my body The proâ—…ne Hoc This and the verb est is betoken a thing present The thing spoken of is the body of Christ. If this whereof I speake it be not made my body here presently I signifie and betoken a false thing No false signification can be a Sacrament because rather it is an execration or cursing wherein au vntruth is betokened from which God abhorreth The Apologie confeâ—…eth the supper of our Lord to be a Sacrament and whereas euery SacrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 of words and things of which twaine the words are the more plaine token of the holy thing which is made seing the words of Christes supper are This is my body This is my blood of necessitie there must be a truth of that thing which these words doe signifie And for asmuche as they signifie the presence of Christes body his body must nedes be present where they doe signifie it to be present I will exemplifie it in an other Sacrament also Christ at his last supper hauing sayd This is my body which is geuen for you sayd to his Apostles Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me In these words Christ betokened somewhat surely that they shoâ—…ld make and doe the thing he spake of I aske now whether he gaue in deed power to the Apostles to make and doe that thing for the remembrance of him or no If in deed he gaue them no power the signification of his words was false and the tokeÌ„ which they make to our eares vntrue On th' otherside if in deed by that precept Priests
Christ â—…ayd to the Leprouse man Be thou made cleane which words gaue a signe and token of cleansing therefore in deed he was made cleane Christ gaue a signe and token that synnes were forgeuen to him that had the palsey by these words Remittuntur tibi peccata tua Thie synnes are forgeuen the therefore in deed they were forgeuen Likewise Christ bad him take vp his bed goe home for a token that the sonne of man had power in earth to forgeue synnes therefore Christ in deed had power in earth to forgeue synnes Because his token and signe is neuer false When Iohn Baptiste had sent two of his disciples to know whether he were the man that shuld come or an other were to be looked for Christ gaue a token to the eyes and eares of the messengers that the blind sawe yâ— lame walked yâ— leepers were cleansed Therefore in deed it was so And he bad them tell S. Ihon what they had heard and seen Christ sayd to the deafe and domme man Adaperire Be thou opened and as it foloweth in the Gospell straight ways his eares were opened and the bond of his tonge loosed Thus might I goe through euery example of the whole Gospell and allways when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inward grace is rehersed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh Marke well good Reader that this rule be not wreasted to that mere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing For then I confesse many parables many obscure sayings were vttered to prouoke his audience to be humble to think of their owne ignorance to depend wholy of Christ to aske him the vnderstanding of the darke sayings But now I speake not of sole doctrine I speake of a worke that Christ maketh and of words ioyâ—…d with his worke In this case I say what so euer signe is outwardly made the same is inwardly wrought Christ sayeth to his Disciples Take ye the holy Ghost and withal he 〈◊〉 vpon them Beholde the word and the doing The outward word is a holy signe or Sacrament so is the outward doing which is breathing The inward worke is the perfoorming of thâ—… 〈◊〉 signe which the worde and breath did betoken Seing then Christ at his last supper did somewhat seing he tooke bread seing he blessed seing he brake seing he gaue seing at the tyâ—… of this outward doing and working he sayd somewhat which saying was a signe a Sacrament a figure a token a pledge a 〈◊〉 of his body we are assured by the word of God which neuer shall perish that Christ gaue at the same tyme his true body vnder the forme of that bread which he tooke and which by blessing he turned into his body Hath not now the Apologie depely reasoned Hath it not put a goodly foundation of the Sacramentarie doctrine to saye the supper of our Lord is the euident token of the body and blood of Christ thereby meaning thâ—… his body is not in dede really present wherein although it speake otherwise then the holy scripture â—…oth in the same case â—…et mangre the will of the makers thereof it proueth the Catholike faith because the signe that euery Sa crament of Christ maketh euidently to our senses is inwardly wrought in that creature whereof the signifying words are spoken By this true declaration of the nature of a Sacrament it is proued that so many Fathers as call the supper of Christ a signe or figure geue witnesse that it is also the truth it self And if the Apologie will disproue the reall presence of Christ vnder yâ— foorm of bread it must shew that his supper is not so much as a signe of his body and blood But as long as they graunt vs the sigâ—…e the word of God will conuince the truthe to be present which is signified ¶ The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of tokens WHen I graunt the supper of Christ to be a signe a token a figure yet I do not graunt the words wherewith it is made to be figuratiue If I geue you a ring and say were this token for the remembrance of me I both geue a token of me and name a signe or token and yet my words are not figuratiue It is therefore to be noted that how many Fathers so euer call the Sacrament a figure yet none of them all teacheth these words This is my body and this is my blood to be words figuratiue For when they call it a figure they meane not a figure of Rhetorike but a mysticall figure and calling it a signe they meane not a naturall signe or token but a mysticall signe that is to say a secret and miraculous kind of token such as the state of the new Testament requireth the nature whereof is to doe that which it sayeth â–ª because Christ the speaker 〈◊〉 all that by his diuine power and substance which his word spoken by the mouth of his manhod in holy Sacraments doth vtter and signifie Now he that wold the Sacrament of Christ so to be a signe that he should not make that thing to be his body in deed whereof in word he sayeth This is my body he most wickedly denieth the Godhead of Christ. Ebion was an heretike who denying the diuine nature of Christ sayd him to be NuduÌ„ hominem a bare man Epiphanius will proue against Ebion that he is God How so Because he was geuen to the world for a signe As the holy Ghost had prophecied before of him when he sayd to Achaz Pete tibi signum ask to the a signe And for as much as he wold not ask then sayd the Prophete Ipse Dominus dabit vobis signum our Lord him self will geue you a signe Behold a virgin shall conceaue Now sayth Epiphanius Non potest is qui per omnia homo genitus est signi gratia mundo dari He yâ— is alltogether begotten as a man can not be geuen to the world for a signe For that which is customably don what signe of the Godhead could be therein Epiphanius therefore doth signifie that sith Christes birth was geuen to the world for a signe it could not be such a byrth as other men haue but it must be miraculous and the miracle stode in this point because he was truly born of a true virgin Muche more we may say sith the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath bene left vnto vs as a signe of the body and blood of Christ It could not be so if it were bare bread and wine and not in deed his body and blood what signe what secret token what miracle were in the eating and drinking of bare bread and wine if none other thing were made thereof As the ordinarie birth of man is no mere signe for Christ who is true God so the ordinarie eating of bread drinking of wine is no mete signe for
them consist of two parts as I sayd before Of things and of words the things are diuers as for example water bread wine oile and suche other The mystical words coming to suche things as Christ hath appointed make vp the whole Sacrament So that the things are like stone tymber iron wherâ—… withall a man will build or make somewhat the words are like the order and foorm which the Carpenter will set the stuff in The things are confuse vntill the words determine them particularly to this or that vse Therefore S. Paule saith that Christ sanctifieth his Church Muâ—…dans eam lauacro aquae in verbo vitae Cleansing it with the wasâ—…ng of water in the word of life What is that word of 〈◊〉 â—…erily whereof Christ sayd goe teache all nations Baptizing them in the nanse of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost This is the word which geueth life to him that is duely wasshed Of this word Christ sayd Iam vos mundi estis propter sermonem quem locutus sum vobis Now ye are clean for the words sake which I haue spoken to you S. Augustine demandeth why Christ sayd not ye are cleane for the Baptim wherewith ye are wasshed but rather ye are cleane for the word which I haue spoken to you sauing that euen in wa ter it is the word that cleanseth Detrahe verbuÌ„ quid est aqua nisi aqua Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Take away the word and what is water but water The word cometh to the matter and the Sacrament is made S. Angustine calleth the thing or stuff whereof the Sacramâ—…t is made Elementum Which is to say a materiall thing that serueth for a beginning whereof a farther mysterie may be made when the word appointed by Christ cometh to it The Grecians vse to call those things especially in the supper of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things put or set before the Priest who must consecrate them with the word of God The element therefore whether it be water oile bread wine or any other thing that Christ appointeth is the weaker and infer riour part The word is the more chief and principal Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae saith S. Augustine vt corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo Non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Whence hath water this great vertue that it should touche the body and wasshe the hart but that the word causeth it not only because it is spoken but because it is beleued For in the â—…er e word the souâ—…d which passeth awaie is one thing and the vertue which remaineth is an other thing Now haue we thre things consydered by S. Augustine in a Sacrament the lowest is the element which in baptun is water the higher is the word which again is coÌ„sydered in two respects in one as it is spoken and so being ioyned with the element it maketh the substance of the Sacrament and passeth awaie in the other as it is beleued of him that receaueth the Sacrament and so it worketh in him a grace vertue and effect of the Sacrament If now the word be it that both chefely maketh and effectuallie establisheth the Sacrament it can not be douted but that Christ gaue the greatest diligence of all in assigning the solemn words of his blessed Sacraments For the words appointed by Christ to the making of his Sacraments are so stronge that althoughe the minister be neuer so éuil a man yet as S. Augustine saith God sanctifieth his Sacraments Ad verba quae procedunt ex ore homicidae At the words which come foorth of the mouth of a mankiller And again he saith Deus adest Sacramentis verbis suis per qualeslibet administrentur God is present to his Sacraments and words by whatsoeuer maner of men they be ministred In so much that if at the tyme of celebrating both the geuer and receauer haue don vulaâ—…fully saith S. Augustine Non tamen pro non dato habebitur Yet the Sacrament shall not be accompted as not geuen For seing the word was once spoken and ioyned with the element the substance of the Sacrament was made though it lacked his effect Whereof it foloweth that the SacrameÌ„tal words bring foorth a secret strength for their own part albeit neither the minister nor the receauer be of such worthinesse as they owght to be of In ipso aquarum lauacro saith S. Chrysostom verba Dei sunt quae nos generant In the verie washing of the waters they be the words of God which begett vs. Which thing sith it is so the words of Christes Sacraments doe not depend vpon the vnderstanding either of the minister or of him that receaueth the Sacrament but they haue a sufficient vertue in them selues whereby they may worke It is enowgh that the minister doe as the Church vseth to doe in such cases This intention being kept the words will bring the rest to passe Or if a maliciouse Priest baptize a child with the mind to make him a Lutheran or an Anabaptist shall that child by that intention be made an heretâ—…ke No verily For so much as the words of Christ wherewith he is baptized make him a member of his mysticall body not incorporating him to any other felowship Qui fuerit superbus minister cum diabolo computatur sed non contaminatur donuÌ„ Christi The proude minister saith S. Augustin is accompted with the deuill but the gift of Christ is not defiled To come somewhat nere our purpose S. Ambrose doth by name witnes what strength Christes words haue in making his supper Sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum The words of Christ make this Sacrament Antequà m consecretur panis est vbi verba Christi accesserint corpus est Christi Before it be consecrated it is bread when the words of Christ are come to it it is the body of Christ. Hoc ait Sacerdos est corpus meum Hoc verbo proposita consecratnr S. Chrysostom writeth that when the Priest saith This is my body the things set foorth are consecrated with this word or saying If now it be clere that among many causes which concurre to make a Sacrament one of the chefe is the words pronounced at the same tyme and in the Sacrament of the Altar seing they are This is my body and This is my blood Which are spoken ouer breâ—…d and wine I say these words maie be in no wise figuratiue For by that meanes they shall not only not consecrate the body and blood of Christ but which is more they shall not 〈◊〉 so much as a signe of Christes body and blood For yf words make any thing they make it by signifiyng as the which are not only signes of things but by S. Augustines
the flesh blood of Christ they haue inuented such kind of speaking as may both seme to agree with the Scriptures and yet withall mayntein their false doctrine The which thing that thou mayest the better vnderstand this is to be consydered The Catholike faith is that Christ in one person hath two natures The nature of God and the nature of man which two natures are ioyned and vnited together into one person after such sorte that what so euer is said of the one nature may be sayd of the other if we speake by that worde which signifieth the person For example we may say that man was in heauen before the ascension of Christ and that God died not because the nature of God could be borne of a woman or dye or the nature of man could be in heauen before the ascension of Christ but because that which was borne and dyed was also God and that which was in heauen was also man albeit his byrth and death was by the nature of man and his being in heauen by the nature of God The natures then tary distinct but yâ— pâ—…rson of God man is but one Now shall you see the meane whereby these new prechers go about to deceaue you They say Christ geueth him selfe in his SacrameÌ„ts The word Christ doth signifie his person wherein he is both God man Likewise the word him self is a word belonging to his person wherein both natures of God man are conteyned Now when they say Christ geueth him self they meane that he being God man geueth by some spiritual way the vertue of his flesh blood which they call him self for that he as God being euery where may dwell in vs more excellently by charitie as the Father and the holy Ghost doe But they meane not by geuing of him selfe the reall gifte of his person and of both natures which are ioyned therein after such sort that our whole nature might receaue his nature For then they should teache that which we doe But howsoeuer they bable of our soules they will graunt our bodies no touching nor tasting of him no not so much as vnder yâ—â—…oormes of bread and wine You haue heard what they say Now heare what Christ sayeth Christ speaketh of him self in diuerse places diuersely Due where he sayeth I will not leaue you Orphans I will come vnto you There he speaketh of his person and concerning the nature of Godhead as it appereth afterward where it is written If any man loue me he will kepe my word and my Father will loue him and we will come vnto him and make a mansion or dwelling with him or at his howse Here he speaketh first in such sort of his own coming that his Father as it appered afterward might come after the same sort Then was it the coming of God and not of man At his departure when he ascended from the world into heauen he sayd Behold I am with you all dayes euen vntill the consummation of the world These words may be meant as well by the nature of manhod which we haue with his Godhead in the Sacrament of the altar and so some holy Doctors haue taken them as also by the only nature of the Godhead which is euery where by maiestie and in good men by grace In an other place he sayd Poore men ye shall haue allwayes with you me ye shall not haue allwayes Where by the word me he meaneth not his Godhead which is allways euery where but the nature of his manhod and that not as it is in the Sacrament but as it was when he spake in a visible forme of a poore man who had not any howse of his own where he might reste his head Last of all let vs marke after what sorte he sayd that he wold be in his blessed supper Dyd he say I will geue my self to be eaten and to be drâ—…nken If he had sayd so yet seing he had mentioned eating and drinking which according to the letter rather belongeth to his manhod then to his Godhead we should rather haue thought that the words must haue bene taken properly then improperly To eate the substance of a man may be sayd properly for in deed it may be eaten with mouth and teeth but to eate the substance of God it is sayd vnproperly For it can not be eaten with teethe and mouth as also S. Cyrillus hath noted but only with vnderstanding and faith If then Christ had sayd before supper I will geue my self to be eaten and had sayd at his supper I do geue my self to be eaten These words with a circumstance of a supper had made so stroÌ„gly for the bodily geuing of him selfe that their part had bene more probable who had vnderstanded it of his manhod With whom if the tradition of the Apostles had stood there were no doubt but he should haue bene a wicked heretik who when Christ had sayd I geue my self to be eaten wold haue denyed that we had eaten the humane nature of Christ. But now attend what words Christ vsed He forcseing this hearesie made 〈◊〉 agaynst it and therefore he sayd not I will geue or do geue my self to be eaten as heretiks now delight to speake but I geue my flesh my body my blood These are not wordes of personage which may be applyed two wayes but they are the words of nature and only of mans nature For God by yâ— nature of his Godhead hath neither flesh ne blood ne soule ne body ne bone Christ as man hath all these things Now do the heretiks and false preachers of our age maruclously deceaue the people of God who alwayes say that they diminish not Christes benefite nor do not abuse the Lords supper 〈◊〉 say they we teache that Christ geueth his owne self and they repete agayne and agayn his owne self his owne self And thereby they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by fayth spirit and vnderstanding Wholy robbing vs of that flesh which dyed for vs and of that blood whiche was shed for vs. For although God was able to haue saued man otherwyse yet he swetely disposed our saluacioÌ„ by sending his dere soÌ„ne to take of the virgyn our flesh and blood This flesh and this blood worketh our saluacion Which he yâ— taketh away from the Sacrament of the altar depriueth vs of the meane whereby to come to life euerlasting For as by this flesh and blood we are redemed So that redemption is applyed to all that be of lawful age by worthy eating and drinking thereof Now when these preachers cry vnto you of God of fayth of spirit of vnderstanding of vertue they seme perhaps to say goodly things but they craftily put you from that only meane of fleshe and blood whereby God hath ordeyned our saluacion Abraham was the sather of al beleuers because neuer any mans belefe was so
and geue him self present in thâ—…e mysteries or no You graunt he doth be these mysteries in heauen or in earth I suppose they be in earth Then say I your words import thâ—…t Christ geueth him self present in the earth How then doe you straight way inferre by a therefore that we are bid lift vp our harts to hâ—…nward because he is there by whom we must be 〈◊〉 fed If you meane he is both there and here you say very wel buâ—… thâ—… you graunt his body to be at once in diuers places at the least by yâ— way of SacrameÌ„tall being Except you will say his body is not in these mysteries and then he geueth not him self present For his body is the chefe thing whereof this Sacrament is named Neither we are flesh of his flesh in those mysteries where his flesh is not present to be ioyned with ours You say that Christ geueth him self present yea so farr present that we know certainly we are flesh of his flesh and yet you bid vs goe to heauen because he is there of whom we must be ful fed As though his mysteries were not in earth in which you graunt he geueth him selâ—… present If any spark of grace remaine in you consyder that God hath geuen you ouer into a lewd vnderstanding into a blind hart in to palpable darknesse Ye wold set God and the deuill together ye wold reconcile your fond hearesie with the healthfull Gospell of Christ you wold seme to confâ—…e with Christ yâ— he geueth him self present in these mysteries with S. Paul that we are flesh oâ—… Christes flesh and yet withall you will ioyne your own repugnant assertion that the body of Christ is only in heauen and consequently not in these mysteries which are in earth The longer you stand in this repugnance the more you shame your selues I haue not spoken this for any other cause but to stirr vp your minds by words of sharp warning which S. Paul biddeth vs vse to heretiks thereby to prouoke some such as haue regard to their soules to repent in tyme and to persuade them selues that they are not able to geue a new exposition of Christes supper which may stand with the old Gospell of Christes Church The body of Christ is the meat of his supper For thereof he sayd Take eate this is my body If then Christ geue him self present in these mysteries he geneth his body present If his body be present how say ye we must lift vp our harts to heauen there to be ful fed Is not Christ him self being present able to feed vs full How is it then that we must goe vp to heauen to be ful fed But let vs farther consyder your discrete discurse It is said in the preface of the Masse Lift vp your harts which words you interprete as though it were sayd your meat is in heauen and not vpon the holy table This argument I maruail if any man be able to answere The people are warned before coÌ„secration to liâ—…t vp their myndes to heauen Therefore the body of Christ is not really present on the alter aftar consecration As much to say as Before the incarnation of Christ the Prophetes and Patriarchs called and cried to God them selues and also exhorted the people to praie for the coming of Christ therefore when he was come he was not true God and true man in earth We crie Lift vp your harts before the body of Christ is made as beseching God we may haue his body made for vs. when it is made we lift the body it self vp to be adored and worshipped of the faithfull people as hauing then obteined our desier and that because it is the true body of true God And yet euen after consecration and after the body is really present it might wel be sayd lift vp your harts to heauen where by lyfting vp we should meane nothing ells but that the faithful men should not geue them selues to wordly thoughts of the earth of mony of flesh but list vp their minds to thinke of euerlasting ioyes Againe by naming heauen we meane not to denye yâ— real presence either of God in the whole earth or of Christ on the altar but only to shew that we should looke for another worlde and yâ— life thereof This argument might haue become a tinkar better then a diuine and least of all it could become a superintendent who ought to haue knowen that yâ— Church is yâ— kingdome of heauen and therefore the kingdome of God is within vs that to consyder what Christ worketh in his Church and for her sake is also after one sort to lift vp our hartes to heauen last of all he ought to consyder that S. Chrysostom writeth Diddest thou not promise yâ— Preist when he cryed lift vp your minds and hartes and saidest thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries the Lamb of God is offred for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fyre floweth from the table See what lifting vp of harts was to the old Fathers It was to acknowlege the mysteries vpon the table to beleue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to deny the real presence of Christ. That is in deed a homely lifting vp of harts to lift the body and blood of Christ cleane from the altar and holy table Such lifting away becometh theues Hitherto these men brought neither any euident authoritie of Scripture thereby to fortifie their opinion nor any sentence of auncient Father coÌ„cerning the question of the reall presence And now I pray you see what worshipful geare they bring We say in the Masse lift vp your harts before yâ— body is sanctified and made present therefore it is not made present at all We say grace before the meate is set vpon the table therefore none at all is set there This is the stuff of them that boast so much of the Gospell This is my body is forgotten which is fower tymes repeted twise of two Apostles and twise of two Euangelists Yet is that forgotten and lifting vp of harts which came of the good inuention of Godly Fathers but yet from men it came that is called in for a witnesse against the truth of the Gospell And yet euery man thinkeththey bring nothing but the pure word of God for their false doctrine ¶ What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. ANd Cyrillus sayth that in the receauing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Here is the second authoritie alleged against the reall presence of Christes body and that I warrant you full strong Grosse imaginations must be put awaye in receauing the mysteries therefore Christ spake not properly nor truly when he sayd This is my body Are we not now happy to haue such fine preachers who can shew the beleuing of that which Christ sayth
when it is sayd ouer the bread of Christ him self This is my body This grosse imagination maketh Christ a lyer as Cyrillus hath witnessed And now came our Apologists and bring those wordes against the Catholikes as though they had a grosse imagination who thinke and teach the wordes of Christ to be true to worke that they speake when soeuer they belong to any Sacrament And therefore the substance of bread and wine to be turned into that substance of the body and blood of Christ the formes of the same bread and wine remaining as veyles and cortaines to couer the sayd flesh as well because our faith should haue merit as because our eyes be not able to see that gloriouse mysticall kind of presence The which consecrating of Christes body is an vnblody sacrifice wherein God is put in mind of the death which redemed the world Euery part of that Sacrament hath in it whole Christ euery kind alone is sufficiēt to norish him to saluatiō who worthely eateth it And yet both kinds together must be cōsecrated to shew the death of Christ. This belefe hath no grosse imagination in it as shall appeare in all the worke folowing ¶ What the first Councel of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper ANd the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greek of some doth expresly forbid vs that we should not basely occupy our minds about the bread and wine set before vs. The words of the Nicen Councell whereof the Apologie spea keth are these Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa caet Again here also in the holy table let vs not basely attend the bread and cup set before vs but lifting vp our mind let vs vnderstand by faith That Lamb of God which taketh away the synnes of the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sitū esse to be put and laid on that holy table incruente a sacerdotibus immolatum to be vnbloodely sacrificed of the Priests and that we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verè Truly and in deed taking his own precious body and blood doe beleue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause we take not much but litle that we might know we take not to fill vs but for holynesse In these words many things are affirmed of the blessed Sacrament of the altar euery of the which doth proue or helpe to proue the real presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread and wine First the Councell sayeth the bread and the cup to be set before vs vpon the holy table bidding vs not basely attend or consyder them What other thing can these words meane then to warne vs ▪ that we should not looke to the natural appearing or shew of the bread and of the cup but to a greater vertue which lieth priuie vnder their formes Therefore begin we to collect that the bread and the wine which stand vpon y◠holy table kepe not any more their old nature substance but contein vnder their old formes the new substance of Christ. For if they remained as before consecration they were materiall bread and wine then we nede no warning to put away base considerations of them sith by that opinion we are bound to beleue earthly bread and wine to be still bread and wine and to be nothing bettered in substance Then as concerning the vse of them so long as y◠blessed word of God which is the form of the Secrament is ioyned with any element which remaineth still in his old nature so long y◠word and the element make a mysterie But when the word or form is ended the Sacrament is ended as the which only worketh and hath grace annexed to it whiles it is in the vse whereunto Christ hath appointed it So long as the Priest whiles he washeth is saying I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost so long y◠baptim is a doing and working when the wordes be ended the Sacrament is ended For seing y◠promesse of forgeuenesse of synnes is geuen to the washing in y◠name of the Trinite when that is done the promesse is sinished for that course The councell of Nice speaketh of the bread and of the cup after consecration after that it was sayd ouer thē This is my body and this is my blood which wordes are the form of that Sacrament For the councell speaketh of the being and standing and of cōsyderig these things vpon the holy table not only whiles y◠wordes are spoken but still afterward vntill they be receaued If then both the wordes of the Sacrament be past and yet y◠councell say we must not basely attend the bread and the cup that are vpon the holy table It geueth vs to vnderstand that the wordes did not only come to the elements of bread and wine to make them a Sacrament after the commen sort of making which is in baptim in confirmation in holy orders and in penance but also that the wordes did worke some reall thing vnder y◠formes of bread wine which remaineth still as long as y◠sayd formes signes remain For this cause the councell sayd we ought not basely consyder the bread and cup for that more was vnder the shew and colour of them then our eyes could tell vs. What must we then doe We must resort to a higher master then our eyes are we must lift vp our mind we must vnderstand not by loking seing but by faith Whether must we lift our mind To heauen That is not euill but the councell sayth an other thing We lifting vp our mindes must vnderstand by faith Then the lifting vp of our mind is the renouncing of our senses the cleauing to our faith We must beleue that which we can not see What must we beliue That the Lamb of God is vpon the holy table Which Lamb He that taketh away the sinnes of the world On which table On the holy table whereon that standeth which semeth bread and wine How is y◠Lamb there He is put layed situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of an other thing For of such a situation the councell speaketh so we must beleue of it Now put this geare together and thus the councell sayth Consyder not basely that bread and cup which standeth before you For although it seme that which nature made yet we must lift vp our mind and vnderstand by faith that thing or substance which is standing on the holy table how so euer it appere bread and wine to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world Now we see what is base and what is high Bread and wine is base Body and blood is highe That must not be consydered because the substance thereof now hath ceased to be This must be beleued because it is made present in
reall flesh 17. VVe are one with Christ by eating his flesh in the naturall substaÌ„ce thereof as he is one nature with his Father by eternall generation 18. The reall presence of Christes hody vvas so true that it vvas taught with the losse of many disciples 19. How the flesh profiteth nothing vvithout the spirit 20. The wordes of Christ being spirit and life make and witnesse his flesh to be present miraculously and aboue the course of nature ¶ The argument of the sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon is declared WHereas Christ may be receaued either by faith spirit only without the Sacrament of the altar or els in the Sacrament of the altar only without liuely faith and grace or in both together which is the most fruitfull kinde of communicating some haue thought that in the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn there is no talke of the second and third kinde of receauing which is referred to the Sacrament of the altar but only of the first which is by faith and charitie Merily those men are not to be blamed for saying yâ— Christ speaketh not there of yâ— second kinde of eating which is by SacrameÌ„t alone without spirituall eating and drinking for thereof in deed he speaketh not but they are to be reprehended if they denie yâ— he speaketh of such SacrameÌ„tall eating as is vsed in our Lords supper when it is as it always ought to be worthely receaued My purpose is at this tyme to shew that albeit Christ in the former part of that Chapiter speaketh for the most part of spirituall eating and drinking only yet afterward he speaketh also of that eating which is by receauing worthely the Sacrament of that altar at yâ— Priests hands for to that ende chiefly goeth all the talke of it not as though spirituall receauing alone were not better then only Sacramentall receauing but because both together are better then one alone Christ presseth his Disciples to such a receauing of him selfe as is most perfit of all For proofe of which thing I am constrained briâ—…fly to touche the tyme and order of Christes talke A litle more then one whole yere before his passion Christ about the greate feast of Easter went beyond the sea of Galilee and wrought that notable miracle wherein he fedde about fiue thousand men with fiue loaâ—…es and two fishes Wherby yâ— people were induced yâ— rather to seeke him that next day at 〈◊〉 Whom he no 〈◊〉 sawe but he did put them in mind of yesterdays miracle telling them that they followed him not for the signessake which they had sene but because they had eaten their bellies full of bread as though he had sayd my intent was that you should rather haue noted the miracle then haue respected your bellies â–ª which 〈◊〉 sith you haue not done of your selues I warne you thereof willing you to worke not the meate which perisheth as yesterdays bread fish did but that which tarieth vnto life euerlasting which the Sonne of man will geue you In these words Christ doth manifestly declare as also S. Chryâ—…ostom hath noted that the miracle of fiue loaues appertained in some part vnto his last supper whereof he intended at that tyme to speake taking an occasin of that bread which by blessing and thanksgeuing he had multiplied For which cause he sayd worke 〈◊〉 other kind of meaâ—…e then ye did yesterday for yâ— meate is now perished and ye are a hungred againe Worke a meate that may tary longer with you yâ— may tary vnto euerlasting life Hitherto the words of Christ may be meant â–ª by spirituall eating and drinking only Bâ—…t the words that follow do meane also a further kinde of eating and drinking For when he sayth which the sonne of man wil geue you he plainely meaneth that gift of his last supper as Theophylact doth witnesse but yet vttereth his meaning after a secret sort as S. Cyrillus doth write vpon the same place And in dede that is the gift which is namely reserued in this Chapiter to the sonne of man as it shall appere afterward But because they could not come to yâ— worthy working of Chrstes own gift vntill yâ— worke of faith were by y◠〈◊〉 wrought in them he straight declareth by an occasion taken of the olde figure manna how they must haue faith from God to beleue vpon him for that he was the bread of life who came downe from heauen to geue life euâ—…rlasting both in body and soule to all such as his Father brought vnto him for who so euer should eate of that bread which him selfe was should liue for euer After which preparation made he retourneth to expound his owne gifte which he named the gifte of the Sonne of man shewing most expressely that which he will geue in his last supper And the bread which I will geue is my flesh for the life of the world The gift of spirituall eating by faith charitie was not to come when Christ spake vnto his Disciples For it was then present therefore he sayd presently I am the bread of life meaning that he was presently so coÌ„cerning spiritual feeding in so much as if any man would haue beleued in him euen at that instaÌ„t he might through grace haue eaten of Christ. But Christ sayth his own peculiar gift was to come and there fore he continueth expounding his gift in many sentences vntill at the last he sayth he that eateth this bread which him self had before promised to geue to be eaten shall liue for euer I will by Gods grace make the proofe hereof so plaine hereafter as any reasonable man shall desire Only first protesting that I folowe not myne own braine herein but that iudgemeÌ„t of all yâ—â—…cient Fathers who with one accorde haue taken this Chapiter to speake by way of promise of the Sacrament of the altar which was iustituted by Christ in his last supper ¶ It is proued by circumstances by the coÌ„ference of holy Scriptures yâ— Christ speaketh in S. Ihon of his last supper HE yâ— doth well consider the only time when this talke was had he that weygheth how Christ hauing made that greate miracle in blessing fiue loaues doth the next daie about the time of Easter one whole yere before the celebrating of his last supper as it wer make both a prophecie and a promise what he would do yâ— Easter twelue moneth after he that conferreth as well what was done and sayd abonte the sea of Tiberias and at CapharnauÌ„ as what was done and said in the last supper which was kept the night wherein he was betrayed he that noteth the fathers gift to be accompted present and that to be the working of belefe in that hartes of the faithful which is a spiritual eating of Christ but yâ— soÌ„nes gift to be rekoned as a thing to come hereafter and to be called eating his flesh and drinking his blood Wich if it
Christes Church sheweth that after our second birth nourishment is necessarie to vs straight way bringeth foorth Christes words in S. Ihon ioyning them with the words of his last supper which S. Basile sayeth to be writen in the end of the Gospels thereby geuing vs to vnderstand that as the performance was made in the end so the promise went before Is it not maruaile now that any thing should be pretended out of this blessed man for the contrarie opinion But how iustly it is pretended wee shall see afterward Gregorius of Nyssa brother to S. Basile teacheth the flesh of Christ to be a bodily thing because it is made meate for mans body That it is meate he proueth out of S. Ihon. For there only are found the chief words by him alleged which are Panis enim qui de coelo descendit qui verus cibus est non incorporea quaedam res est For the bread which came down from heauen which is the true meate is not a thing without a body Quo enim pacto sayth he res incorporea corpori cibus fiet For by what meanes will a thing which lacketh a body be made meate vnto the body Doubtlesse Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where els but only in the SacrameÌ„t of his supper And therefore this great clerck thought him self to reason wel in bringing such words as are in S. Ihon for that effect which belongeth to the holy coÌ„munion Because he iudged both places of holy Scripture to be of one argument Cyrillus of Hierusalem intreating of the Sacrament of the altar so euidently citeth these words of S. Ihon Excepte ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man caet that noman may doubt of his meaning And because this part of my work wold be ouer long if I should staye so long vpon euery of the auncieÌ„t Fathers I besech the studiouse Reader to be content that hereafter I may in fewer words declare euery mans iudgemeÌ„t shewing him the place of the author where if it please him he may at more leisure examine all the circumstances S. Ambrose disputing of the truth of Christes flesh in the Eucharist although it selfe be not sene bringeth out of S. Ihon My flesh is meate in dede and except ye eate the flesh c. Eusebius Emissenus hauing spoken of the bread and wine of Melchisedech sheweth Christ to haue spoken of eating his own â—…esh of drinking his own blood in S. Ihon as of two kindes whereby he is receaued which is done no where but in Christes supper S. Chrysostom is so plaine herein that of those wordes the bread which I will geue is my flesh he maketh none other literal meaning but such as apperteineth to the Sacrament of Christes body And yet he expoundeth the former partes of the Chapiter indifferently of spirituall eating and drinking S. Augustine albeit he may seme vpon S. Ihon to presse most earnestly vpon the wâ—…itie which we haue with Christ by eating his â—…esh and drinking his blood and by tarying in him hauing him tarying in vs yet he meaneth not to exclude out of those wordes al Sacramentall receauing but only the vnworthy Sacramentall receauing For he sayth expresly he that tarieth not in Christ eaâ—…eth not spiritually his flesh â–ª albeiâ—… carnally and visibly he presse with his teath the SacrameÌ„t of 〈◊〉 body and blood of Christ. So that by S. Augustine there is a dubble spirituall eating of Christes flesh one without the Sacrament and an other with the Sacrament Christ so spake of both that he spake specially of the most perâ—…it which is obteined by worthy receauing of the Sacrament Out of this worthy receauing riseth that greate societie vnitie with Christ his mysticall body whereof S. Augustine so much speaketh This is the SacrameÌ„t of Godlines the signe of vnitie the bonde of chaâ—…itie Without eating of this one way or other no life euerlastiÌ„g is to be loked for by eating yâ— same wor thely in yâ— best kinde of way which is in the Sacrament of the altar the highest degree of vnitie with Christ our head is obâ—…eined As the best signe of vnitie is in the forin of this Sacrament so the best effect springeth oâ—…t of the worthy receauing of the substaÌ„ce which is vnder that form Therefore in other places S. AugustiÌ„e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words out oâ—… S. Ihon This bread wâ—…cih I wâ—…ll geue is my flesh for the life of the world to shew the Priesthod of Melchisedech which Priesthod him selfe declareth to be in the Sacrament of the altar saying Melchicedech prolato Sacramento mensae dominicae nouit aeternum eius Sacerdotium figurare Melchisedech by bringing forth the Sacrament of our Lords table did know to shew the â—…igure of his euerlasting Priesthod Furthermore S. Augustine expounding these words of S. Ihon of the last supper in very many places of his works most expresly sayth that S. Ihon spake nothing of the body and blood of our Lord in the thirtenth Chapiter where he mentioned the last supper sed plane alibi multo vberius hinc Dominum locutuÌ„ esse testatur But verily in an other place S. Ihon witnesseth our Lord to haue spoken much more copiously thereof Except S. Augustine thought yâ— sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon to appertein literally to the Sacrament of the altar he wold neuer haue sayd that S. Ihon spake not of the supper in the due place because he spake of it in an other place more copiously But of S. Augustie I will speake again hereafter S. Hierome sayth the flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstanded two ways or in two maners Either that spirituall and diuine whereof he sayd My flesh is meate in dede and my blood is drinke in dede c â–ª or els yâ— flesh which was crucified for vs and yâ— blood which was shed with the speare of the Souldiour And that one substance is in eche maner of flesh and blood only the maner of geuing it being diuerse it appereth also by the senteÌ„ce folowing where he sayeth one flesh of the Saiâ—…res may see the saluatioÌ„ of God an other flesh can not possesse heauen Not that the substaÌ„ce of natural flesh but the worthines of the men is diuerse S. Cyrillus of Alexandria writing vpon S. Ihon of purpose and shewing the most literall sense thereof that he could deuise or learn interpreateth the whole sixth chapiter of S. Ihon of the SacrameÌ„t of the altar naming very many tymes the partaking of the holy mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holy chalice Also vpon those words I will reyse him vp again he maketh this exposition Ego id est corpus meuÌ„ quod comedetur resuscitabo eum I will reise him that is to say my body that shal be eaten shall reise him As if he sayd I will reise him because my body which shal be eaten of him shall reise him Sedulius proueth the
chalice of blessing to be the communicatiâ—…g of Christes blood according as Christ said He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. Leo the great sayth we ought so to communicate with our Lords table that we doubt nothing of the veritie of his body and blood seing he sayd Except ye eat the flesh c. Theodoritus speaking of the holy mysteries ioyneth with the words of the supper these also The bread which I wil geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world Isychius shewing that the penitent person may eate the bread whereof Christ sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh ioyneth there with all the words of S. Paul Let a man proue him self and so eate Declaring both sayings to belong to one mysterie Theophilact vpon these words The bread which I will geue witnesseth that Christ manifestly telleth vs in this place of the mysticall communion of his body Damascenus declaring that Christ sayd This is my body and not the figure of my body bringeth for the same purpose Except ye eate the flesh c. Prosper Aquitanicus ioyneth these words Except ye eate the flesh c. with these except a man be born again of water to shew that the Sacraments of Christ doe geue vs grace and not oâ—…r own works which goe before baptism As therefore S. Cyprian and S. Augustin applie those two sayings to two seuerall Sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist so must we think that Prosper doth who most diligently folowed S. Augustine Proco pius Gazeus writeth yâ— these words except ye eate my flesh c. Typum mysteriorum quae sub ipso latent continent conteine the foorm of the mysteries which lie priuie vnder it Eucherius teaching that Christ feedeth vs with the nourishmeÌ„ts of the healthiull mysterie saith that he distributeth to euery man a â—…ake of that bread which came down â—…rom heauen and geueth life to the world Cassiodorus saying that Christ did coâ—…secrate his body blood in geuing of bread and wine proueth it because him self sayd Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Primatius shewing how the chalice of blessing is the communicating of the blood of Christ bringeth our Sauiour his words in S. Ihon saying he that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him S. Bede folowed in all points S. Augustin whose words he reciteth both vpon S. Ihon vpon S. Paule And therefore we nede not doubt but he is wholy of yâ— same mind Angelomus vpon the first booke of the kings reciteth S. Ihon in the same sense Haimo vpon S. Paule intreating of the Sacrament conferreth S. Paules words with the sixth of S. Ihon. S. Bâ—…rnard although he say the eating of the flesh of Christ to be the folowing of his painful conuersation in suffering voluntarie 〈◊〉 for his sake yet well knowing that Christ spake literally also of an other kinde of eating he saieth that Christ did speake of penance in a figure that is to saie couertly as rather including penance vnder the wordes which he named then expressely naming it Vnde hoe designat illibatum illud altaris sacramentum vbi dominicum corpus accipimus wherefore that pure Sacrament of the altar where we take our Lords body betokeneth so much Behold the true and literall meaning of Christes wordes is to haue his flesh eaten in the sacrament of the altar But that eating importeth a folowing of Christ in his painful conuersation For as that forme of bread saieth S. Bernard is seene to enter into vs so let vs knowe that Christ thorough that conuersation which he had in earth eutreth into vs to dwell by faith in our hartes Whereby we maie perceaue that S. Bernard vnderstandeth the sixth chapter of S. Iohn so literally of the sacrament of the altar that thereupon he buildeth a couert and a figuratiue preaching of penance Euthymius noteth that Christ did not say I do geue my flesh but I wil geue because he minded to geue it in his last supper Nicolaus Methonensis hauing first rehersed the wordes of the Gospell this is my body straight expoundeth all the chapter of S. Iohn thereof shewing the profit which we take by this Sacrament Samonas after the wordes of the supper declared as not betokening a figure or image affirmeth Christ to haue said in other places the same thing and straight reciteth the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn I omitt here Petrus Cluniacensis Guimundus Algerus Lanfrancus S. Thomas de Aquino Albertus Magnus Dionysius the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra a great number of late writers which all agreed vpon the same vnderstanding of the sixth of S. Iohu But what speake I of these Fathers one by one not only the Councel of Trident hath taken witnesse for the Sacrament of the altar out of S. Iohn but also the seuenth kept at Nice and the first kept at Ephesus doth allege against Nestorius the heretike for the presence of Christes person in the SacrameÌ„t the wordes of S. Iohn his gospell Yea the whole west church readeth the same gospell of S. Iohn when it celebrateth the feast of corpus Christi daie And surely wheÌ„ the Church kepeth any feast whereof there is mention in the gospell according to the letter it alwaies chooseth to reade that part where the feast is literally mentioned It wold therefore be very absurd sith S. Mathew S. Marke and S. Luke haue written so distinctly the historie of Christes supper to leaue them all and to reade the wordes of Christ in S. Iohn if the same wordes had any other sense more literall then that which belongeth to the supper of Christ. So that I trust there is no possible cause of doubting to a sober man but that the wordes of Christ in this chapiter maie literally and according to the first and chief meaning of them be brought to declare what we ought to thinke of his bodily presence in the Sacrament of his last supper But if any man be not fully satisfied therein let him reade the processe folowing and he shal haue lesse cause to doubt any more in this matter ¶ Answer is made to their obiections who teache out of the holy fathers that the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spiritual eating FOr their opinion who think the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn to speake only of the spiritual and not of the worthy sacramental eating of Christes body the authoritie of certaine fathers is alleged who are thought somtimes to expound the wordes of this chapiter partly of belefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth by the sacramentes of baptisme and of penance But it maie seme a sufficient answere to that obiection if we saie first that so many fathers do not expound the wordes of Christ in the sixth chapter of S. Iohn of any other one
argument as doe conformably expound it of the supper of our lord And when we speake of the authoritie of the fathers their consent and agreement in one point is the chiefe waie to know according to the promise of Christ in what case they are specially to be followed Secondly those fathers which are named some where to haue expounded these wordes otherwise then of the supper of Christ haue them selues in other places expounded the same wordes of the verie supper As we maie perceaue by the places of S. Cyprian of S. Hierome of S. Augustine and of S. Bernard before alleged Whereby their authoritie is as great for that which I say as it is against it Thirdly no one of the auncient writers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to appertaine to the supper And what skilleth it if many senses of one place be found out so long as they all stand together Is it not S. Augustines rule that all such senses may be well kept and all admitted Fourthly many of those places which are brought for the con trary opinion do manifestly and as it semeth to me inuincibly proue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally meant of the supper of Christ. S. Cyprian who is first alleged for the other side putteth forth this truth that a man without baptisme can not come tâ—… the kingdome of heauen because except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kingdome of God Likewise except ye eate the flessh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you Now they suppose that S. Ciprian bringeth these two sayinges for baptisme alone Wherefore say they it was not sayd of the supper except ye eate the flesh c. But herein they seme to be deceaued because the custome of the primitiue church i many places was to geue the sacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar together with the sacrament of baptisme not so much for necessitie as for sureties sake Hereof we haue mention i Dionysius Areopagita and in S. Am brose In so much that the very infantes were in the primitiue church in some countries made partakers of the sacrament of the altar Seing then the sacament of the altar was vsed to be geuen straight after yâ— sacrament of baptism therefore S. Cyprian ioyned together those two witnesses whiche did belong to those two Sacramentes that is vndoubtedly proued by his owne wordes for after he had cited those wordes in S. Iohn it followeth â—…mediatly Parum esse baptizari et eucharistiam accipere nisi quis factis et opere perficiat It is litle worth to be baptized and to receaue the eucharist except a man by deedes and workes make all perfit Behold as he alleged two sayings of Christ so he nameth the two sacrameÌ„ts whereof they were spoken Thus I think it most clere that S. Ciprian did not expound the eating of the flessh of Christ as spoken by baptism only And the lyke may be said of Innocentius Augustinus Eusebius Emissenus and of suche others whiche bring these woords of Christ except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. against the Pelagians to proue that infantes cannot haue lyfe in them selues vnles they be first baptized For seing they knew that no man could come to the eucharist except he were first baptized as also Iustinus Martyr hath witnessed seing yâ— Eucharist was namely called the bread of life whiche who so did eate he should liue for euer and who by any fault of his own did not eate it he should not haue life in himself moreouer seing the person baptized had not only Christ in him spiritually through baptism but had right vnto the very Sacrament of Christes supper and also being of lawfull discretion customably receaued it straight after baptism these things being so it is most true that who so is not at all baptized he is not only excluded from yâ— kingdom of heaueÌ„ as yâ— Pelagians graunted but likewise whiche thing they denyed from euerlasting life because he is by all meanes excluded from the food of life whiche except we eate by some meanes or other we cannot haue life in vs. we cannot eate it by any meanes at all that is to say not so muche as spiritually except we be first baptized either in deed or in perfit desire And being once baptized we doo eate it in some effect at the very font and really may and commonly must eate it afterward in the Sacrament to a farther effect So that the reasons of those Fathers do not import as though Christ meant in S. Ihon of spirituall eating only but that he meant of that kind of eating at the least and meant a farther kind of eating also in that case when farther occasion should be ministred For as when Christ saide except a man be born againe of water and of the holye Ghost he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen he so meant in those wordes to include his saluation that would be born vowed him self to be born again although by preuention of death he were not really so borne that yet not withstanding he meant muche more to haue most men really so born of water and of the holy ghost Right so when Christ sayd except ye eate the â—…lesh of the sonne af man drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you he so meant to binde vs to eate his fleash that he should haue life which was at the least spiritually fead there with in baptisme and yet also that most men should be bound to feed really thereon and that he should haue most perfit life who was â—…d sacramentally with his fleshe and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar As therefore not withstandinge that the will of being baptised â—…seth to some others must be sacramentally baptised by that very precept of Christ in S. Ihon euen so though it be sufficient for â—…tes to eate Christ in baptisme spiritually yet other are bouÌ„d by yâ— same very precept to eate his flesh SacrameÌ„tally Now to aâ—…irme the one sense whiche was lesse meant denying therewithall the chief sense which was principally meant it is no smal iuiurie to Gods worde Certeinly S. Innocentins Gusebius S. Auguâ—… in saying that infants can not haue life except they â—…t the least wise eate Christ in baptisme did not meane to say that these wordes except ye eate the flesh cae were only spoken of baptisme or els more principally of baptisme then of Christes supper but rather they meant cleane contrarie as it may appere by S. Augustines owne wordes who disputing against the PelagiaÌ„s in this very question which we now speak of saith expresly Dominum audiamus non quidem hoode Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de sacramento sanctae mensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit nisi manducaueritis carnem meam
of eatinge him by faith and therefore saith this is the worke of God that ye should beleue in him whom he hath sent He that beleueth in 〈◊〉 shall not hunger but there be some of you whiche beleue not so that the eating is the beleuing and the not beleuing is the not eating Christ in dede speaketh of belefe which is very necessarie and euen the foundation as S. Cyrillus noteth of his last supper but he speaketh also of a farther act whiche is to build vpon the foundation of faith the working of the euerlasting meat that he wil geue â–ª and to work not onely by faith but lykewise by eating and drinking and therefore as he chalengeth belefe to his godhead so doth he say that we muste eate his fleshe and drinke his blood according as he is the sonne of man Thus may we consyder in Christes wordes a dubble kind of eating the one is called maÌ„ducare ex hoc pane to eate of his bread the which bread Christ is the other is manducare hunc panem to eate this bread by faith we eate of Christ by his last supper we eate Christ. By eating of him we partake some effect of grace froÌ„ him By eating him we receaue his whole flesh blood soule and godhead into our bodies As therfore Christ willeth vs not ouly to eate of him but also to eate him self so besyds the eating which is by faith he geueth vs to vnderstand there is another eatinge proper to his last supper described in S. Ihon. The third argument of theirs is that Christ was the bread of life presently when he spake to the Iewes For he sayd I am the bread of life or the liuely bread which am come downe from heauen my father doth geuâ—… you yâ— truâ—… bread from heauen Therefore Christ was presently the bread of life yea rather he was so when he was incarnate firste of the virgin for euen then he came down from heaueÌ„ but how can this stand together if his words be applied to his last supper which was not yet instituted Christ through his Godhead was the bread of life to vs all for euer and straight vpon his incarnation he was the bread of life through his manhod and so continued stil at the tyme when he spake to the Iewes and after that visible and corporall sort he was to be eaten by faith not corporally But he saâ—…d also worke the meate which the Sonne of man wil geue you and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh This gift which Christ sayth he wil make differeth in tyme and maner from the gift which his Father doth presently make so that as he is the bread of life by faith so he wil be the bread of life by corporal participation which second gift is fulfilled in his last supper which he him self now promiseth For no reason can be shewed why Christ should say his gift was to come except it had bene some other gift theÌ„ to eate him by faith alone The which eating by faith sith it was lawful euen at the same instant wherein he spake he wold not say I wil goue of any spiritual eating therefore he spake of the Sacramental geuing which he intended to make at his last supper Against this last saying of mine Caietane or some other of his opinioÌ„ wil pretend that Christes gift whereof he speaketh in S. Ihon was in dede to come but yet not meant of his last supper because it was the gift of him self to death vpon the Crosse which he meant And therefore he sayd the bread which I wil geue is my 〈◊〉 for the life of the world signifying that the gift which he wil make shal be such as shal redeme the world Which gift was only performed vpon the Crosse was partaken always of the old Fathers and may be dayly howerly partaken of vs. Which points doe not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes â—…upper This argument although it were wittily deuised yet it is insufficient and for many causes First becausâ—… Christ spake of a meate which he wold geue euen vnto our bodies and not only vnto our soules And that may â—…ppeare to be so as wel for that he ordeined the miracle of multiplying fiue loaues to be an introduction to this talke the which loaues were corporally eaten as also for that he shewed him self to be the true bread which would fulfill and excede â—…anna the figuratiue breade of the Iewes and therefore S. Cyrill saith that Christ saying my fleshe is meat in dede maketh a distinction betwene the mysticall benediction and manna â–ª for manna dyd not geue life euerlasting but by the blessing of the mysterie saith S. Cyrill we take the verie sonne of God Nowe seing manna was eaten of the Iewes both spiritually of the iust men and also corporâ—…llye of all the Israelites Christ who sayd his father to geue presently the true bread and promysed that him selfe would geue hereafter his flesh to be eaten which is â—…ate in dede dyd shewe the spirituall eating of manna to be presently fulfilled by his fathers gifte whereby he toke fleshe and that the corporall eating shuld likewise be hereafter fulfilled in his last supper Whiche being wel consydered it is plain that Christ when he speaketh of a gift which he will make doth speake of suche a kind of gifte as the miracle of fyue loaues as the figure of manna as the name of bread and nature of eating requireth But his death vpon the crosse is not the fulfilling of manna in that respect as manna was eaten either corporally or spiritually It is in dede the cause of all our feeding both in spirit and body the fontain of all our sacraments the welspring of al grace Bâ—…t we seek a similitude of things which are spoken together an agreement of one matter with an other Manna was a sacrameÌ„t onely and not properly a sacrifice and therefore it being eateÌ„ betokened the gift of Christ which he wold make in his supper wherein the true manna shulde be sacramentally eaten For which cause after Christ had said the bread which I will geue is my flesh he both commanded his flesh to be eaten shewed the profit of eating it and concluded in this wise not as your fathers haue eaten maÌ„na be dead he that eateth this bread shall line for euer If now we must eate that which he wil geue we must eate it after the rate as manna was eaten albeit yâ— thing eaten is far better surely the gift promised must be of a thing that shal be geuen to vs in a supper and not yâ— shal be made for vs vpoÌ„ the Crosse. for noman as it is alleged out of Origines eateth properly the flesh of Christ as it was crucified In so much that S. Hierom distincteth expresly the flesh of Christ whereof Christ speaketh in S. Ihon from the respect
whiche the same flesh hath being crucified For although it be one substāce yet it is cru◅fied as a sacrisice onely but it is eaten as a sacrament wherin the sacrifice is partaken Secondarily the Greeke text maketh mention of two gifts The one of that which Christ will make to vs which also is y◠same substance y◠he wil geue for vs. The bread sayth he which I wil geue is my flesh the which I wil geue for the life of the world It is not in vaine sayd twise I wil geue For he wil geue one and the same flesh both as a Sacramētal food as a bloody sacrific◅ the one gift he wil make in his supper the other vpon the Crosse Neither doth it skill that the latin copies report but once I wil geue for as they say that which is true so the same truth is made the plainer by the greke text God forbid we should so vnderstād the one as to make y◠other false or super◅ons seing both may stand right well together Thirdly it ought diligently to be marked y◠Christ sayd before worke the euerlasting meate which the Sonne of man wil geue you He there said he would geue meate vnto them but he determined not what kind of meate it was but now expounding the kind of meate be sayth and the bread or meate which I wil geue is my flesh As then the meate which y◠Sonne of man sayd he would geue was promised to be geuen to vs for he sayd dabit vobis he wil geue to you euen so the kind of meate to wit the ◅esh of Christ which he wil geue must be vnderstāded of that gift which he wil make nobis to vs and not only pro nobis for vs. But his death is geuen more properly for vs then to vs. His death I say was paied to God the Father to whom we were detters and it was paied for vs and in our behalf but his death was not properly geuen to vs. For then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vs and consequently God the Father is robbed of his glory and that glory is geuen to men From which thought all good men doe abhorre All is one to say the sonne of man will geue and I will geue to say euerlasting meate and the bread which is Christes flesh But it was expresly sayd in the first proposition Dabit vobis he will geue it to you therefore in the second it is to be supplied the bread which I will geue to you is my flesh for the life of y◠world that is to say it is the same flesh which I will offer to my Father to the end the iust men of the world may liue for euer And so a reason is geuen by Christ why his flesh is that euerlasting meate vnto vs which he sayd before tarieth into life euerlasting For y◠which is offered meritoriously to God for the life of the whole world must nedes euen by that sacrifice haue strength in it selfe to quicken all that eate it worthely and to reconcile the partakers thereof to God Farthermore when Christ sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh he sayd in effect The eatable thing which I wil geue is my flesh as if it were in other termes sayd I wil geue you my flesh to be eaten For bread vnto the Hebrewes doth shew all y◠which is apt to be eaten of man Christ ◅ad the Iewes work the euerlasting meate which he wold geue They straight sayd their Fathers had eaten Manna thinking that Christ was not able to geue them a better kind of bread Then Christ shewing that his Father had geuen them him self by his incarnation the true bread of God last of all cometh to shew what bread he him self wold geue them And the bread sayth he which I will geue that is to wit the Manna the foode the meate which I wil geue is my flesh so that by the promise of bread he sheweth him self to speake properly of a banket which is to come The Iewes who knew the Hebrew phrase albeit they did amisse in that they taried not to see how y◠promise should be perfoormed yet they vnderstode right well that Christ sayd I will geue you my flesh to eate And therefore they in other words reporting the same sense ask how this man is able to geue them his flesh to be eaten As who should say we vnderstand that he promiseth vs the eating of his flesh but we see not that he is able to perfoorm it in such sort as Manna was geuen to our fore◅athers Neither is any man able to deny but the Iewes toke the words of Christ after this sense ◅s knowing him to promise his flesh to be really eaten The which sense surely is against their opinion who suppose that Christ meant only of the gift of his flesh vpon the Crosse. Yea Christ alloweth the sense of the Iewes cōcerning the naturall sound of his words and as S. Basile hath noted with a vehement repetition signifieth he wil so truly geue his flesh to be eaten that except they do eate is they shall not haue life in them selues Neither is it to be doubted but if they had so obediently submitted them selues to Christ cōcerning the maner of perfoorming his gift as they vnderstode what he promised they had not offended at all For they lacked rather belefe then wit or vnderstanding What shall I say more The circumstance of the whole talk the Greektext the like words going before the propriety of the Hebrew tong the vnderstanding of the Iewes the othe and cōfirmation of Christ geue a witnesse aboue al exception that when he sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh he meant I that am the true bread which by incarnation came down from heauē I that am presently sent and geuen to you to be beleued on of my Father I will hereafter geue mine own flesh euen the same flesh which is offered for the life of the world to be meate vnto you y◠wil tarie with me which haue the words of eternall life Which sense being thus proued their sense who wold haue the gift of Christes death only to be meant is not sufficient or full enough for the right interpretation of this place but it must be also meant of the last supper as all the Fathers both Greek and Latin haue bene shewed before to ha◅e taken it and as all these reasons doe euidently conuince Now whereas they who dissent from me in this matter say that Christ speaketh here of that gift which was common to the whole world euen to the Patriarchs and Prophets and therefore that it is a spirituall gift for els Dauid and Abraham could not haue partaken it I answere that Christ doth not promise in these words any one meate vnto the whole world but he promiseth his flesh to be eaten the which flesh is geuen for the whole world For as at his
for his gift proueth the reall presence of his body and blood in the SacrameÌ„t of the altar euen as God the Father gaue hun reall fleshe and blood at his incarnation CHrist for the meate whiche he promysed to gene in his last supper alleaged his diuinity as who shoulde plainly say wonder not that I promise you suche a thing of so greate difficulty and miracle for I am God His wordes are these worke saith he to the multitude of the Iewes not the meate which doth perish but that which tarieth to life euerlasting which the sonne of man wil geue you for him God hath signed that is God the father hath printed his diuine substance vppon him by eternal generation or hath oynted him with the oile of gladnes aboue al others because his humane nature is vnited to the godhed whereby he is able to do as much as his father It is not to be thought that Christ would haue alleged his equall auctoritie with his Father for a gift which were not of equall truth and of equall power with that which his Father is sayd to gene But his Father gaue him not only the vertue and 〈◊〉 of flesh but reall and natural flesh and blood at his incarnation thereâ—…ore God the Sâ—…nn 〈◊〉 to geue vs the same 〈◊〉 â—…ral fâ—…sh in his last supper For which cause he doth immediatly declare both God his Fathers gift and his own 〈◊〉 his Fathers gift he say 〈◊〉 My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen for it is the bread of God whiche cometh downe from heauen and geueth life to the worlde But what breade is this I saith Christ am the bread of life I am the liuely bread which came downe from heauen â—…ow we haue lerned that God the Father gaue Christ his Sonne from heauen when he sent him to take the flesh of man which flesh assumpted oâ—… the word is also by vnion to the word made the bread of life Christ therefore hauing shewed his Fathers gift and that him self is the bread of liâ—…e cometh to shew his own bread which he wil geue saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The brief discourse of yâ— who le doctrine is this work the meate which tarieth for euer which the Sonne of man wil geue you for this Soâ—…ne of man is equall with God his Father whose naturall image he hath printed in him God the Father hath geuen his Sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life Therefore God yâ— Sonne being equall with his Father wil geue vs the same true flesh of the Sonne of man as meate yâ— shall tarie with vs to life euerlasting But his Father gaue him â—…o the world not only in faith spirite but in real and substancial flesh Therefore God the Sonne by the drift of all his talk doth signifie that he wil geue in his supper whereof he speaketh not in spi rite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the 〈◊〉 same real and substanciall flesh First he sayth he wil geue that meate which shal tarye to life euerlasting Secondly that he is able to doe so as one signed of God his Father Thirdly he sheweth what bread and meate his Father hath geuen him that is to say the true flesh wherein â—…e spake to that preseÌ„t multitude of men Fourthly he sayth yâ— breade that he wil geue is his fleshe Last of all who so cateth it hath life euerlasting Doth not all this goe to proue that as he bad them work the meate which tarieth for euer and shewed him sefe concerning his 〈◊〉 to be made that meate sent from God his Father so he is able to geue them that meate which his Father gaue him and sayth he wil geue it them to the end they eating it may liue for euer he tarying in them and they in him And yet is not that his reall and substanciall flesh which he promiseth Or did he not perform in his supper that which he pro mised If he can not be false of his word we haue in our Lords supper where he perfomed this promise the reall and substancial body of Iesus Christ as truly as euer his Father gaue him reall and substancial flesh in this world And consequently we haue it not only by faith and spirite but in truth and substance This plainly is the discoâ—…rse of Christ him selfe who by his Godhead assureth vs of the gift of that incorruptible meat which is his flesh Whereupon S. Hilarie sayth that no man douteth of yâ— veritie of Christes flesh in vs except he deny Christ to be true God ¶ Seing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith spirit only suffiseth not but it self also must be really eaten GOd sent his Sonne who is by nature the bread of life as hym self hath witnessed to take flesh for vs that in his flesh he might geue vs the same diâ—…ine nature which is the 〈◊〉 bread of life Therefore when Christ had sayd The Sonne of man will geue you the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting straightways he sheweth in one word three causes of yâ— his promise For God the Father sayeth he hath signed this SoÌ„ne of maÌ„ that is to say he hath geuen him hys owne substance concerning the diuine nature of Christ and concerning his humane nature he hath shewed his will by hym as by a seale of his owne hand Farthermore he hath assigned hym to bring vs this meate which tarieth to life euerlasting The verb Signauit he hath signed may signifye the printing of the same forme and ymage which the originall seale hath as S. Cyrillus hath noted in this place also it may stand to shew or confirme a thing by witnes of seale as Theophilact expoundeth it Orels to assigne or appoint a thing to some certain effect and purpose as S. Chrysostome and Eâ—…thymius take it God the Father signed Christ after the first sort by geuing him his own nature And after yâ— secoÌ„d sort by shewing him through miracles wrought in his flesh to be his own Sonne And last of all in appointing to haue his will done most perfitly and executed by him as Christ him self said It is my meate to doe the wil of him that sent me According to this last sense it was the wil of God that Christ should geue vs the euerlasting â—…eate which naturally is his Godhead and by the mysterie of the incarnation it is his flesh And to signifie so much Christ sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate because my Father hath signed me to this purpose The whiche sense S. Chrysostome followeth in the first place of his interpretation writing thus Signauit hoc est misit qui hunc vobis
cibum ferret God the Father hath signed that is to say hath sent the Sonne of man to bring you this meate And Eâ—…thymius agreeth with S. Chrysostome therein Christ therefore being sent of his Father to geue vs the euerlasting meate of life first fayeth I am the bread of life And then sheweth how he will geue the same bread saying And the bread which I will geue is my flesh S. Cyrillus vppon those words I am the bread of life writeth thus His verbis subostendit sanctissimi sui corporis vitam gratiam qua in nobis vnigeniti proprietas id est vita ingreditur permanet In these words he sheweth priuily the life and grace of his most holy body whereby the proprietie that is to say the life of the only begotten both entreth into vs and tarieth Likewise S. Hilarie hath these words Si verè verbuÌ„ caro factum est nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est If the word be truly made flesh and in our Lords meate we truly re ceaue the word made flesh how can it be but he must be iudged to dwell naturally in vs Christ being for euer God in the fulnesse of tyme toke flesh and when the hower of death was at haÌ„d he gaue vs that flesh to be eaten by the which eating we reâ—…eaue the word it self that is to say the naturall Sonne of God into our bodies and so Christ dwelleth in vs not only by faith spirit or vnderstanding but naturally Wherefore S. Hilarie sayth we take and receaue the word truly Verè verbuÌ„ sumimus We receaue truly and in dede the word which was with God in the beginning and which was God But how can we receaue God truly or naturally God is a spirit and our nature consisting of a body can not fede truly and naturally vpon a spirit but only by faith and charitie How â—…hen receaue we God truly For south because 〈◊〉 toke flesh truly and we receaue truly the word made flesh Noman doubted but we can truly receaue flesh seing then the word is made flesh we thereby can receaue the word it self not only by vnderstanding but also whiles his own proprietie that is to say whiles the life Godhead which corporally dwelleth in Christes flesh entreth into vs with his flesh tariâ—…th in vs if we receaue worthely his most holy body Thus it appeareth that Christ in his flesh geueth vs the bread of life which he was sent to geue and he geueth it because that flesh is vnited to the word of God which is life by his own nature But if this flesh of his be geuen to vs by faith alone and vnderstanding or spirit alone and not in very dede We haue not yâ— bread of life in dede geuen to vs but only geuen to vs by faith spirite or vnderstanding And so it was geuen to vs before yâ— incarnatioÌ„ of Christ. For God was euer beleued on of the iust men â—…oth to be and to be the rewarder of them who seeke him as S. Paule sayth And faith by nature is due to God as Christ sayth 〈◊〉 beleue in God beleue also in me Therefore although Christ hath taken flesh yet if his flesh he geuen to vs only by â—…aith and spirit the bread of life and nature of God which dwelleth corporally in that flesh is not geuen vs after the coming of Christ by any other meanes then by faith And so by the incarnation of Christ we haue not the bread of life geueÌ„ to vs by any other way then we had it before Which is expresly against the word of God where the euerlasting meat and the bread of life is now first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the world to bring vs this euerlasting meate And the bread which he will geue is his flesh Therefore to saue the truth of yâ— Gospell which neuer caÌ„ faile we must beleue that by the incarnation of Christ and by his gifâ—… at the last supper we haue his reall flesh and in it the bread of life geuen to vs more then by faith or vnderstanding or spirit that more is the gift of the true substance of flesh and of blood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth And by it the Godhead is receaued of vs not only by an effecte of grace by a certain verâ—…ue but in such truth of nature as it is corporally dwelling in the person of Christ who is one in substance with his Father For although God be euery where by nature and fill both heauen and earth yet as Iustinus Martyr witnesseth he is in the Sonne of man by so excellent a meane of vâ—…g man to God that he is no where els after that sort And by that singular meane he was promised vnto vs as who is only the euerlasting meate which alone satisfieth the hunger of man whose harte as S. Augustine confesseth is without rest vntil it rest in God because it was made to come to God And nothing is at quiet vntill it hâ—…ue obteyned the end wherevnto it was first made Seing then God is by nature yâ— only euerlasting meate which perisheth not and seing he must be geuen to vs in his own nature and we are not able to receaue him as he is a spirit he hath done for vs as good mothers and Nourses doe for their babes The mother eateth bread by her eating turneth it into milk and that milk she geueth to the infante and by that meanes the infante eateth bread made milk This similitude S. Augustine bringeth for the same purpose whereof I now speake In the beginning was the worde and the worde was with God and the word was God Ecce cibus sempiternus Behold sayeth S. Augustine the euerlasting meate Sed manducant Angeli But the Angels eate it Quis homo posset ad illum cibum What man were able to attayne to that meate Oportebat ergo vt illa mensa lactesceret ad paruulos perueniret It behoued therefore that foode should be turned into milk and so come to litle ones Vnde cibus in lac conuertitur nisi per carnem traijciatur By what meanes is meate turned into milk except it be conueyed through flesh Quomodo ergo de ipso pane pauit nos sapientia Dei How then hath the wisedome of God fed vs with yâ— bread it selfe Quia verbum caro factum est habitauit in nobis Because the worde is made flesh and hath dwelte in vs. And so S. Augustine coÌ„cludeth yâ— man hath eateÌ„ Angels food and that as he sheweth there in the new sacrifice of Christes supper For of that sacrifice Sacrament he intreateth Thus we see that God him self must be eaten of vs not only by faith for then he neded not to haue bene made man but he must be eaten also as infants eate milk by mouth
and body And because that could not be vnlesse God were made man he vnited to his diuine person the nature of man thereby making the bread of life and the food of Angels apt to be eaten of men And at his supper he gaue that flesh wherein the Godhead corporally dwelt by which only meanes yâ— word of God is fulfilled where he sayeth Worke the euerlasting meate which the Sonne of man wil geue you For God the Father hath signed hym to this intent that he should bring and geue you this meate The way of bringing was for the word to become man The way of geuing was for the Sonne of man to geue the flesh of his which is vnited to the Godhead to be eaten It is geuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of bread No other meane of geuinge will serue for eating by faithe alone be it neuer so liuely a faith lacketh the Godhead in suche sorte and truth as it hath assumpted the fleshe of man to fede vs therewithall No spirit no vnderstanding no faith no grace no other gifte in heauen or in earth besyde the naturall substance of Christ can supplie the gifte of Gods nature dwelling corporally in Christ. What thing can be equall to the gift of yâ— euerlasting meate and to the gifte of yâ— bread of life There is but one meanes in all the world for vs to obtein yâ— substance which meanes is the fleshe of Christ where it only dwelleth for vs. and God assumpted that flesh to geue it vnto vs. And now what crueltie is it to spoile vs of that flesh thereby to spoyle vs of God of life and of the spirite That spirite is it which we muste eate The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth it is the Godhead that feedeth God is a spirite And because man consisting of a body could not eate God therefore the spirit assumpted flesh and quickned that flesh singularliâ—… for our sakes That flesh is geuen vs and is profitable not in respect as it is flesh but because the spirite of the Godhead and the life it self dwelleth in it and that not by faith or vnderstanding alone but corporallie That Godhead the Sacraâ—…entaries depriue vs of that spirite they plucke from vs and it is no where els to be so eaten of man Heauen and earth Angels and archangels yea all that creatures can not geue vs God corporallie dwelling in them â–ª and so to be eaten in anie kynde of meate besydès the flesh of Christ. But in that flesh we eate the substance it self of God him self So teacheth blessed S. Ambrose saying Tu qui accepisti eius carnem diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris alimento Thou that hast taken his flesh art made partaker of his diuine substance in that fode It is not possible to vnderstand this saying of anie spirituall vertue or of anie other thing then of the real flesh of Christ. Therein only is the substance of God made mete to be eaten of man No signe suffiseth to conuey to vs that heauenlie brâ—…ad It is an haynous impietie and an horrible blasphemie to say that a peece of bread can make vs partakers of the substance of God as it hath assumpted flesh in one persone Or to say that my faith is able to deriue the substance of God as meate into my sowle and body faith is a great gifte of God but yet a creature only wherein the fulnes of Godhead dwelleth not and therefore it is not able to aâ—…iue to the vnion of Gods nature and much lesse able to geue it me But Christ although he be true man yet is he God also in one persone equal with his Father and that fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth in his flesh that flesh he geueth in it the fulnes of the Godhead So may we eat the meat which perisheth not So we receaue the bread of life But other way in the whole world none can be deuised how we may eate God or carie hym in our bodies properly and corporally ¶ By the three diuerse geuings which are named in S. Ihon it is shewed that Christ geueth his reall flesh vnder the figure of an other thing IN that wonderfull disputation which our sauiour had at Capharnaum and which is described by S. Iohn dyuers persoues at three seuerall tymes are shewed to haue had somwhat to do about the geuing of bread or food God by the mynisterie of Moyses God the Father him self and Iesus Christ God and man God by Moyses is sayd to haue geuen in tyme past He hath geuen them bread from heauen to eate God the Father him self is sayd presently to geue my Father geueth you from heauen the true bread Iesus Christ sayth that hereafter he wil geue Work the euerlasting meate which the sonne of man wil geue you the bread whiche I wil geue is my flesh God by Moyses gaue bread which was figuratiue coming from the vppermost part of the ayer not able to geue life of it self and therefore not the true bread The bread of God the Father was from heauen it self able to geue life of it self and therefore the true bread Christes bread is such according to the forme thereof as both God by Moyses had figured which was maÌ„na and such in substance as God the Father gaue which is the flesh of his sonne incarnate and therfore it is called the bread which is the flesh of Christ. Christes bread concerning the substance thereof is the same flesh which geueth life euerlasting which is made the proper flesh of the worde and it is vnder the sorme of bread in token that he fulfilleth the figure of manna For Christ being true God with his Father and true man with Moyses doth both geue vs by his Godhead the same true fleâ—…h which his Father gaue to him and also he geueth it by his manhood vnder such a figure and forme of bread as in the ministerie of the law was vsed and eaten with the paschal lambe a litell before the making of his owâ—… supper He geueth not the substance of common bread as Moyses did for then the outward substance of his gyste had bene no better then God by Moyses gaue neither geueth he the shape of flesh as his Father gaue for then he had kept no agreement with the figuratiue law of Moyses but he geueth as true flesh as his Father gaue him because he is one with his Father and couereth yâ— same flesh with yâ— forme of bread because he is not only God with his Father but man also with Moyses and with all vs. By whiche manhood he is lesse then his Father and therefore as vnder the forme of man he couereth his true Godhead wherein he is equal with his Father so vnder yâ— forme of bread he couereth the gifte of his flesh wherein he geueth as much as his Father gaue him Only this difference there is that
of God to make you beleue neither doe they differ onely because in the supper a bodily signe of that thing is eaten where vpon we feed by faith but because that thing is receaued into our bodies where vppon we feed by faith In so much that of purpose Christ impugneth destroyeth the SacrameÌ„tary doctrine by these his wordes in this Chapiter wherein as I haue heretofore noâ—…ed diuerse kindes and tymes of geâ—…ng because God by Moyses gaue naked figures in the tyme past the father him self geueth presently the true naturall flesh of his naturall sonne to our eyes and hartes and Christ will geue hereafter the same true fleshe vnder the forme of breade to our mouthes and mindes so now must I note diuerse workings of the sayd gifts One worke aunswered to Gods gift by Moyses another to the fathers gist and the third to Christes gift By Moyses his minister God gaue Manna This bread was only corporall and the people wrought the substaÌ„ce thereof only with their teeth bellies other thing was there not in it whiche myght be wrought for although it were ordeined to be a figure oâ—… a greater thing to come in Christ yet that was no parte of the Manna it self but consisted and had his whole ground in the appointemeÌ„t of God and in the vnderstanding of yâ— people of God to whom if they were well instructed and so toke it MaÌ„na was a figure and whether they toke it so or no it was ordeined to be a figure but not to them profitable who toke it onely for bodily food Again those which vnderstode wel what Manna signified had not any good by the meat it self but looked for it of the truth which Manna shadowed for whiche cause Christ saith your fathers haue eaten Manna in the desert and are dead as who should say Manna by his owne vertue could saue none of them all but that true breade Iesus Christ only saueth whiche Manna dyd signifie The second gift is the present gift of the Father whereof Christ sayeth My 〈◊〉 doth geue you the true bread froÌ„ heauen This gift of the father muste be wrought not by teeth and bellies as Manna was but by fayth and spirite And therefore S. Augusâ—…ine saith vpon this place Vt quid paras dentem ventrem Cre de máducasti What doest thou prouide tooth and belly beleue and thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third gift is that where Christ promiseth to geue his flesh and the working of it is to eate worthely the same fleshe vnder the forme of bread God the father is sayd to gene the true bread whiche is Christ him selfe in such sorte as he is God and man in one person and the same one God doth worke faith in all that heare his voyce by the which faith they may worke vpon Christ and eate of him by spirit Of this worke it is sayde This is the worke of God that ye beleue vpon him whom he hath sent of this kind of working it is sayd He that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer To be short of this worke doth Christ speake specially and in maner wholy from that place where he sayd that the Father geueth the true bread for twenty sentences together vntyll he conclude that kind of working by these words If any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer â–ª Take the payne to reade ouer once or twise the Chapitre of S. Jhon from that place where it is sayd operamini worke not that meat which perisheth and so forth to the end and conferte therewith that which I now write and you shal see as clevely as can be that Christ distincteth as thre giftes so thre workings of theÌ„ As God by Moyses gaue the delicate bread called Manna so they wrought vppon it by eating the same bread with their teth As God the father geueth yâ— true bread Iesus Christ so the faithfull must worke it by beleuing and their reward shal be life euerlasting But as thou doest tender thy soule health so goe forward with me to the third giâ—…t and the third working or eating which in dede yf it be done profitably conteineth both a bodily and a spi rituall working a bodily with manna a spirituall with the gifte of God the father a bodily to 〈◊〉 the manhod of Christ a spirituall to eate it fruitfully the eating is spirituall because it requireth faith in Christ and loue towards God and our neighbours the same eating is bodily becauâ—…e it in dede eateth vnder that forms of bread and wine that fleshe of Christ whiche it beleueth in saith and harte First Christ sheweth his gift saying And the bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world That this gifte doth differ from the gifte of Moyses who gaue bare breade it is easily sene For the sonnes gift tarieth for euer but MaÌ„na perished and they that dyd eate it concerning any vertue that Manna had in his own substaÌ„ce to saue them from death The working of this gift is also named eating and drinking but yet after another sort then the eating of Manna was vnder Moyses for here the truth is eaten that was figured in Manna But how it differeth from the fathers gifte and the worke whiche belongeth to the fathers gifte there standeth a great part of this question Here I must warne the Reader that he coÌ„found not him self for in ofte repeating what the Father and what the sonne why the Father and why the sonne geueth this or that it is to be seared least the mynd gorâ—…et the chief distinction and so take one part in stead of the other The Father and the sonne yea the holy ghost also be all one God and giue al one thing But the holy scripture for the instruction of vs and by reason of Christes flesh assumpted doth attribute sometyme one thing to the Father an other to yâ— sonne an other to the holy ghoste meaninge most commonly by the name of the Father God and the whole Trinitie according to the whiche appropriation of workes and giftes we now intend to speake The Father is sayd to geue many waies in this chapiter he geueth faith into our hartes he geueth Christ to the world in flesh he geueth Christ to vs and geueth vs to Christ. Therefore the gift of the Father may be respected speciallie two wayes either in Christ him self or in vs toward Christ. The Fathers gift in Christ him â—…elf is reall and externall because he sendeth and geueth his only begotten Sonne in the true flesh of man to be seen heard and felt The Fathers gift in respect of yâ— we receaue of him is reall but internal spiritual and without working outwardly that same sensible gift which is wrought inwardly For after the Father had once geuen flesh to his Sonne all sensible and externall working was worthely committed
to that heauenly instrument of Christes flesh So that sometyme we say the Fathers gift is reall and externall but then we meane the visible flesh of Christ in his owne person Somtyme we say the Fathers gift is only spiritual and then we vnderstand the faith charitie and grace which the Father worketh in vs whom he bringeth to Christ by faith and spirit This distinction well remembred I trust to make the matter playne enough The state of our nature is suche that sith we consist of body and soule our soule being the chief part of vs and our body the inseriour parte God the Father in his gift intendeth to feed our soules which being fed our body shal be fed by reason it dependeth vppon the soule But Christ considering that our heauy bodies most commonly weigh down our soules to the pit of hell wold also inuent a way that our very bodies might not only not hindre but rather helpe our soules and not only through our soules but also through a meate that them selues should receaue be made lyght and meet to rise vpward and to obey the spirit gladly So that the meate which God the Father geueth to the soule Christ bringeth to the body And because the body hath no faith to apprehend the flesh of Christ withall neither vnderstanding nor spirite whereby to folowe the flesh of Christ into heauen it hath pleased his infinite mercy to leaue his flesh in so maruelouse a manner vnder the forme of bread that it might be geuen into our handes mouthes and breastes by which meanes we are able to receaue it corporally and naturally The Sonne therefore and the Father geue one thing on Christes behalfe but not one way on our behalfe For the Father geueth Christ vnto the world in dede but to vs in faith and spirit The sonne geueth him self to vs in faith and spirit with the Father and moreouer he is here sayd to geue him self in truth of body and blood to oursoules and bodies Because therefore the thing it self is one which the Father and the Soune geue one effect doth folowe in vs of both gifts For as it is sayd of the Fathers gifte He that beleueth in me hath euerlasting life So it is sayd of the Sounes gifte He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life But for so much as the Father and the Sonne geue not theire gifts after one sorte Therefore their two giftes are in this chapiter of S Ihon diuersly described First as I sayd before of the Fathers gift it is sayd He doth geue the true bread in the present tense Of that Sonne I wil geue in the future tense The Father geueth Christ in the forme of man and therefore it is sayd This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleueth on him may haue euerlasting life and again ye haue sene me and haue not beleued Behold by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithful may see that Sonne of man vppon whom they beleue But of the Sonnes gifte it is only sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh where it is not sayd that his flesh shal be seen but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder a couering of an other kinde of food which the naming of bread signifieth And in the supper where this prophecie was fulfilled it is most clere The Fathers gift is called Verus panis de coelo the true bread or meate from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not only true bread but also truly bread and meate in dede Caro mea verè est cibus my flesh is truly meate some true meate may chaunce not to be truly meate because it is not eaten but nothing is meat in dede and truly meate except it be in dede eaten There is difference betwene being the true vyne and a vyne truly Christ sayd him self was the true vyne but he sayd not that he was truly any certeyn vyne The Iewes and Disciples went not away from Christ for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gyfte For albeit they beleued not Christ to be yâ— sonne of God yet they well perceaued that suche a gifte of eating by faith myght stand with the custome of Gods people but when the sonnes gifte came to be declared they could abyde no longer Seing then it is playne that they lacked faith but yet lacked not vnderstanding we may be sure they sawe more apparaÌ„t absurditie in the sonnes gifte as they toke it then in the Fathers because it semeth straunger for mans flesh to be eaten as the sonne semed to saye then God to be made man which is the Fathers gift who sent his sonne to take our flesh The gifte of the Father is called by suche names only as belong to the persone of Christ or to his dyuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God only is absolutely the true bread of life or by the pronownâ—… ego which is to say I. but yâ— gifte of Christ is called also by yâ— names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and blood oâ—… the sonne of man An other difference may be to coÌ„sider that Christ endeth his talke of eche gifte with repeating the old figure Manna betokening yâ— as wel by the giste of the Father as of the sonne the shadow of manna was fulfilled But as it shall hereafter appeare Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doynges by the sonnes gift As therefore when he had longe reasoned of the belefe which they ought to haue in him whom God the Father had sent he last of al concludeth I am the bread of lyfe Your Fathers did eate manna in the desert and be dead yf any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer ryght so hauing at large reasoned of eating his owne flesh and of yâ— effect which ryseth thereof he at the last endeth This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your Fathers haue eaten manna and be dead he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer The like peroration vsed in both places with wordes somwhat vnlike doth declare that one substance is gyuen of the Father to be eateÌ„ of vs by faith and of the sonne to be really eaten so that the maner differeth because we eate only ex Christo that is to say of Christ by faith but we eate and receaue Christum Christ him self in the Sacrament of the altar For it pleased the whole Trinitie yâ— the fulnesse of our saluation should be in the manhood of Christ whose food it is to end his Fathers worke The Fathers gift is to beleue in Christ the soÌ„nes gifte is to eate and drink in very dede his flesh and blood In working the Fathers gifte a working faith is sufficient in working the sonnes gifte â—…aith is required with taking and eating that wherein we
beleue The Fathers gifte is to worke Christ in vs as Christ is God and man but more as he is God then as he is man for oure â—…aith and belefe is due to the Godhead first of all aâ—…d vnto the manhood because it is ioyned vnto the Godhead and therefore Christ sayd ye beleue in God beleue also in me But drinking and eating is first apperteyning to the manhood and afterward reacheth vnto the Godhead because yâ— Godhead is in that meaâ—…e and drinke which we take therefore Christ sayd he that 〈◊〉 my flesh dwelleth in me and I in him The Fathers gift is belonging first to our spirite and then to oure flesh because it is the flesh of such a spirit which beleueth in God and loueth him the sonnes gifte is first in our body and flesh concernyng the Sacramentall receauing of him and then in our spirite because it is a spirite belonging to such a flesh which receaueth the flesh of God thorough Christ. In the Fathers gift we are not sayd to receaue yâ— true bread it self which the Father gaue into the world but to receaue as it were an effect wrought by yâ— streÌ„gth thereof for after Christ had at large described his Fathers gifte he said this is the bread comming downe from heauen to the entent that if any man shal eate ex ipso of it he may not dye he saith not ipsum if any man eate it but of it Again Ego sum panis qui de coelo desceÌ„di si quis manducauerit ex hoc páne viuet in aeternum I am the bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer to eat of this bread is to receaue some grace and effect comming from it And this much coÌ„cerning yâ— Fathers gift But concerning the sonnes gifte Christ saith except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ He saith not of the flesh but yâ— wholè flesh it self Again My flesh is truely meaâ—… he that eateth my flesh tarieth in me and afterward he that eateth meâ—… he saith not now of me but me Last of all qui maÌ„ducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shal liue for euer he saith not now he that eateth of this bread as he sayd before speaking of spirituall eating but he that eateth this bread And yet to make the matter more playne such an eating is assigned to the gifte of Christ which is made in his supper as before was named of MaÌ„na for it was sayd thereof Our Fathers did eate Manna they sayd not of Manna but Manna in his owne substance which words are three tymes conformably rehearsed and euery where they did eate Manna not only of Man na as though they had only taken a certeyn vertue out of it but they did eate Manna as we eate common bread Seing then we may eate of a thing or els the thing it self the eating of it is a spiritual eating by faith and vnderstanding But the eating it is a reall eating in the nature and substance of the thing it self When I say that by the Fathers gifte we eate of Christ and by the Sonnes gifte we eate Christ I meane not to deny but that also by the Sonnes gifte we eate of Christ. For as he that hath syxe hath fower so he that eateth worthely Christes flesh eateth both Christ and of Christ but not only of Christ for he eateth Christ in his humane nature wherein the diuine nature dwelleth and is geuen thereby to be eaten of He eateth of Christ I say concerning that effect grace which by Sacramentall eating the Godhead worketh in his body and soule For the Godhead it self is the bread whereof we must partake But the meane to partake it most abundantly is to receaue worthely yâ— manhood wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth Therefore Christ geuing all the spirituall gifts that his Father doth as meane to make vs partakers of yâ— Godhead geueth also besydes all them the truth of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar as yâ— meane far yâ— highest to ioyne vs most nigh to yâ— spirit of God And although his Father geue vs by his appointment the same flesh and blood which Christ doth geue yet Christ calleth it for a great reason his own gift because the substance of it procedeth from his own person where vnto he assumpted flesh and blood For in this Chapiter as in many other places by the Fathers gift the gift of God and of the whole Trinitie is meant And by yâ— Sonnes gift that chiefly is meant which peculiarly procedeth by meane of yâ— incarnatioÌ„ strength of Christes flesh ioyned always with yâ— dyuine nature the which flesh we receaue in the Sacrament of Christes own institution wherein he sayd in his own person Take and eate this is my body drink ye all of this for this is my blood Who seeth not nowe the difference betwene the gift that God geueth vs by charitie which he spreadeth in our hartes and the gifâ—… wherein he gaue his owne Sonne wheÌ„ he toke flesh and became man with vs and the gift which the Sonne being made man geueth in his supper No gifte of God could saue vs the prophecies standing as they did but only the geuing of his soÌ„ne into the world when he tooke reall flesh for vs. And yet was not that enough except the Sonne again had geuen him self to death for vs. Then the flesh of Christ is the meane for vs to be saued that is a ladder let down from heauen whereon we may steppe and so clyme vp God him self we could not eate thereby to be chauÌ„ged into him and made membres of him But God became man that we eating maÌ„ might receaue God as he dwelt in that flesh which we reâ—…aued The conclusion is that if the Fathers gifte which is the inâ—…arnation of Christ and his manhood be to be taken in spirite and faith concerning the feeding of our soules as you haue seen it plainly proued the sonnes gifte which is an other different maner of geuing and hath an other kynde of working appoin ted to it must be receaued not in faith spirit and vertue only but also in the substance of flesh and blood Our new preachers expound the whole matter as though Christ gaue his flesh in his last supper noâ—…e otherwise excepting materiall bread and wine then his Father geueth it vnto vs by faith And therefore they teache that we receaue in the supper of our Lord with common bread and wine Christ him self by faith and spirit But by that meanes Christ geueth a great deale lesse then his father gaue For bread and wine is lesse then the gift of faith when Christ geueth faith he doth it as God therein being one with his father Is then his owne gift only bread and wine Came he into the world to geue a lesse tokeÌ„ then God had
the sigure of his flesh That is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speach which they find â—…n the text and yet that might be wel born withal if thei rested there For in dede it is meant in some sense of Christ except ye eate the figure of my flâ—…sh to wit except ye eate that inuisible sâ—…stance of my fleshe which is a figure of my visible passible 〈◊〉 ye shall not haue life in you But now they can not so â—…ke it For they will not graunt that Christ meaâ—…t of his owne substance to be really eaten For which cause they must goe forward and expoâ—…d again the figure of Christes flesh saying â—…xcept ye eate the â—…gure of my flâ—…sh the which â—…igure bread wine shall make ye shall not haue life in you Did S. Augustin referre the â—…gure he 〈◊〉 of to bread and wine Did he once touche or mention those materiall elements in declaring the figuratiue speach thâ—…t Chrâ—…st by his iudgement vsed where named S. 〈◊〉 bread and wine He sayth our Lord commanded vs to communicat with his passioÌ„ to remember swetely the flesh which was crucified for vs. In that communicating and remembrance he putteth the figuratiue speache So that if we marke wel the reall eating of Christes flâ—…sh is not 〈◊〉 but left stil as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the â—…gure must be built The figure must be in the end of the worke and not in the beginning therâ—…of 〈◊〉 â—…gure looketh higher to a truth aboue it and not lower to 〈◊〉 elements which â—…re 〈◊〉 it â—…rily neither Christ nor S. Augustine did speake or meane of bread and 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ sayth except ye eate my 〈◊〉 â—…hey sâ—…y 〈◊〉 ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shall 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…s this to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood to 〈◊〉 bread and wine and there 〈◊〉 to make 〈◊〉 wine to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood What ignorance what abusing of Gods word what a blasphemy is this to make yâ— higher 〈◊〉 first to siâ—…nifie the lower that the lower may afterward 〈◊〉 yâ— higher It is as muâ—…h to say as Chrâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a doore then a doore is sâ—…oÌ„darily the token of Christ. Where is honesty where is shameâ—…nes where is coÌ„mon 〈◊〉 I aske of them whether these words except ye eate belong to yâ— supper They say they doe belong to the supper so truly that they build vppon them falsely the 〈◊〉 of both 〈◊〉 Then say I â—…ating is meant not only of eating by hart and faith but also by mouth as S. Basil S. Chrysoâ—…ome S. Cyrillus S. Augustine with all the rest of the fathers besore alleged doe coâ—…fesse and the Sacramentaries graunt the same most willingly Then we are agreed that eating standeth in some part properly concerning that some one thing eaten shall enter into our mouth I aske theÌ„ wherein the figure cheefely standeth They say in yâ— word flesh principally secondarily in eating yâ— is in remeÌ„bring by that thing which is eaten an other thing and I conâ—…e it also What is now meant by that word flesh They say the figure of flesh and that doe I graunt although it were more properly sayd that flesh meaneth and is the figure of the passion But let flesh stand for the figure of flesh Here beginneth the issue What meane you by the figure of flesh Bread say they That say I is starke false and vnpossible For how commeth flesh to be latine for breade By what grammaticall by what Rhethoricall by what Mosaical or mysticall figure is that interpretation brought about All the world seeth that in proper speach he that wil haue bread vseth not to cal for flesh Or if he doe so I think the butcher wil soner serue him then the baker Moreouer no figure wil serue to make one thing meane another except there be some affinitie or dependance betwene them but fleshe and bread are cleane seuerall kindes of natures Thirdly Christ neuer in any couenant or truse instituted flesh to signifie material bread we haue no such SacrameÌ„t neither in the old nor in the new Testament and surely sith flesh is neither a naturall nor a diuine token of breade nor so vsed in common speache it can not by any ordinarie meane betoken bread In so muche that the lawiers who of all men best know the proprietie of wordes and are most prone to expound them fauorably in the testamentes of men departed yet haue coÌ„cluded that if any man erre in naming the kinde of thing as if intending to bequeath his garmentes doe say I bequeath my siluer or contrarie wise the legacie can not hold For saith Ulpian Rerum vocabula immu tabilia sunt hominum mutabilia Proper names geuen by men may be changed and therefore an errour in them is tolerable but the appellatiue names of things can not be changed and yet our new brethern can fynd the meanes how fleshe may stand for bakers bread blood for wine of the grape The coÌ„trarie might stand right wel because bread and wine were instituded by God in the law of nature and of Moyses as the fact of Melchisedech the figures of the lawe do shewe to figure shadow Christes flesh blood So was the rock instituted to signifie Christ manna to be a signe of his last supper But that flesh yea the flesh of Christ who is the end of the law that it should serue to signifie wheaten bread that diuinitie was born and sprang first in our dayes being vnknowen to S. Augustine and to all other Fathers and Councels yet it is so good diuinitie iu England that a maÌ„ may soner haue a bishopprick for it then for saying God is one in thre persons I haue stode sumwhat long vpon this place because it is one of them where vpon the Sacramentaries vse fondly to boast bragg as thowgh they had gained sumwhat by the name of a figuratiue speache which S. Augustine saith is in Christes words but yâ— figure serueth to shew a higher a more profitable mysterie theÌ„ the word nameth but not as they vulearnedly wold haue it to shew the base creature of wheaten bread wyne It is the passion of Christ the spirituall maner of eating in respect where of Christes speache is called of S. Augustine figuratiue for if Christes flesh were eateÌ„ only to fill the bellie without farther accompt of spiritual grace and life then were the eating of that flesh natural sensible accustomable and without all figure and should be eaten by cutting tearing and wasting it but in that case flesh profiteth nothing the flesh we speake of must be be eaten as a figure as a mysterie as a Sacrameut as a holy signe of a higher truthe wrought in the soule then that bodilie eating doth work So likewise in baptism we are washed in a fi gure because the
verily meat For he sayd not only my flesh is true meat but it is truly meat It hath not only yâ— true nature of meat but also yâ— true maner of it for as verus cibus is true meat so is verè cibus truly meat As true meat is sayd in respect of the essentiall proprietie and effect of meat which is to nourish so is the flesh of Christ truly meat in respect of the maner of it because it is receaued in at the mouth goeth into the body after such sort as other meates doc although it nourish spiritually I haue sayd often tymes that Christ in this chapiter speaketh both of spirituall eating alone and besydes that of Sacramental eating together with spirituall He speaketh of spirtuall alone about the middest of the chapiter â—…raight after those words work the euerlasting meat which the sonne of man will geue you Which words are the generall theme to the whole Sermon folowing But of Sacramental eating as being the sâ—…cond part of his Sermon Christ speaketh specially and expresly from these words forward and the bread which I will geue is my flesh Whiles Christ was yet about the first part of his Sermon which beloÌ„geth to spiritual eating alone he sayd Patermeus daâ—… vobis panem de coelo verum My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen Qui credit in me non sitiet vnquam He that beleueth in me shall not thirâ—…t at any tyme. As Christ is only beleued on and only receaued by faith so he is panis verus the true bread or meate But when he was come to the second part of his Sermon where he spake of Sacramentall eating as well as of spirituall there he sayd for Pater meus dat ego dabo For verus verè In stede of my Father he sayth I in stede of doth geue he sayth I will geue In stede of him self to be true food he sayth His flesh is truly food There is in the second parte none other substance then was in the first to th' end we should vnderstand that Christ geueth in his Sacrament the same reall flesh which his Father gaue him when he came down from heauen by taking flesh But there is an other tyme of Christes gift at his last supper and an other sorte or maner of his geuing For that which God the Father gaue vnto the soules of the faithfull God the Sonne geueth to their bodies also And by that meanes he is not only true meate but also truly meate And that without all dark speaches or parables S. Hilarie well vnderstanding the strength of the same word Verè truly or verily or in dede presseth the old Arrians and new Sacramentaries therewith in this maner De naturali in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus nisi ab eo discimus stultè atque impiè dicimus ipse enim ait caro mea vere est esca caet Thus they are in English That we say concerning the naturall truth of Christ being in vs except we learue it of him we say it foolishly and vngodly For him self sayth My flesh is meate in dede and my blood is drink in dede he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him There is no place of doubting left concerning the truth of flesh and blood for now both by the profession of our Lord and by our own faith it is truly flesh and truly blood And these things taken and swallowed are the cause that we tary in Christ and Christ in vs. Is not this thing the truth It may well chaunce not to be true to them who denye Iesus Christ not to be true God S. Hilarie disputing in those words against the Arrians who wolde Christ to be one with his Father in will only doth proue that we also are one with Christ naturally by some â—…anes that is to say by naturall partaking of Christes flesh in his last supper And to proue that thinge albeit he might hauc brought many places out of the Ghospell or out of S. Paule yet 〈◊〉 to bring this place out of S. Ihon as the which he thought no lesse plaine then any other was And twise he repeteth that the flesh of Christ is truly meate Dâ—…ce as being spoken of God an other tyme as being also beleued of vs. and farther he affirmeth vppon this place that the flesh and blood of Christ being taken and swallowed bringe to passe that we are in Christ and Christ in vs. The taking of Christ by faith doth not proue S. Hilaries purpose for he must shew that we take Christ in body and nature euen as he defendeth Christ to be one nature and substance with his Father The being of Christes flesh in our bodies and the reall ioyning of the one to the other is that which S. Hilarie forceth vppon And therefore he sayth afterward that Christ naturaliter in nobis permanet tarieth naturally in vs. By that word naturally S. Hilarie expoundeth how he taketh the word Verè truly For he taketh it as if it were writen my flesh is to be naturally receaued of my Disciples as meate The which thing he had twise expressed before saying nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus We take yâ— word made flesh truly in our Lords meate And again Verè sub mysterio â—…arnem corporis sui sumimus We take the flesh of his body truly vnder a mysterie Lo by thies meanes the naturall veritie of Christ is in vs according as we learned of him saying My flesh is meate in dede All men knowe what we receaue into oure mouthes and bodies in Christes supper That very thing is affirmed of Christ to be his flesh And by that receauing of ours his flesh is truly meate S. Gregorie of Nyssa brother to S. Basile the greate warneth vs puro defaecatoque animo coelestem cibuÌ„ sumere To take the heauenly meat â–ª with a pure â–ª and cleane mind The which meat sayth he no sowing brought forth vnto vs by the arte of tilling the ground But it is bread prouided for vs without seed without sowing without any other worke of man It flowing from aboue is found in the earth for the bread which came downe from heauen which is the true meate which is obscurely meant by this historie of Manna is nor a thing without a body For by what meanes caÌ„ a thing without a body be made meate vnto the body The thing which is not without a body is by all meanes a body This blessed man alludeth euidently to the wordes of Christ in S. Iohn where he saith my flesh is meate in dede for the bread whiche came downe from heauen whiche is the trew meate is none other thing then the flesh of Christ. this kind of thing is not a spiritual thing that lacketh a body but it is a trew body how doth S. Gregorie proue it to be a trew body because it is made
in him self according to the spirit or Godhead sith he liueth through the Father S. Hilarie sheweth first in these words y◠there is a similitude of liuing betwene vs and Christ and betwene God the Father and Christ. we liue for Christ by eating his flesh as he liueth for his Father who sent him but we saith S. Hilarie liue for Christ by eating his flesh in such sort that we haue the nature of his flesh in vs. Therefore Christ liuing for his Father hath his Fathers nature in him self Thus haue the Arrians gained nothing by saying that the Father was one with Christ as Christ is one with vs. For Christ is found to be one with vs naturally and thereunto it suffiseth not that Christ toke our naturall flesh in his mothers womb for Christ spake not of that vnitie otherwise the gentils Iewes heretiks and heinouse synners should be naturally one with Christ which thing is not so for to be one with Christ it behoueth that as he toke our nature into his own person we take his nature into our bodies soules Two reasonable parties which haue both free will consist of bodies be not properly made one in nature if they bothe do not as well consent thereunto in mind as also approche in bodies Lett vs put an example betwene Dina and Sichem for although Sichem had by force oppressed Dina corporally yet she not consenting in hart thereunto was not throughly and in her whole nature made one with him for that the cheif part of her dissented Again lett vs put the ca◅e that two other persons be together in hart wisshing to be man and wise but yet that they can not come together because bothe or one of them is inclosed in prison these also are not one naturally as long as their bodies be asonder euen so albeit Christ haue the same nature which all men haue excepting synne yet he is not naturallie that is to say in the whole truth of nature one with vs thereby except we both in hart and body approche vnto him If we come to him in body alone we come vnworthely if in hart alone it is a spiritual coniunction which will serue if either necessitie or infamie kepe vs from natural coniunction but if we come to lawful age haue opportunitie we must approche both in body and soule to the Sacrament of Christes supper to be made one with him naturally that is to say to take his body really into ours to th' end the spirit and Godhead which dwelleth corporally in that body of his may fede our spirit and soule which beleueth in him to life euerlasting Of this kind of liuing Christ spake when he sayd he that eateth me lineth for me as I liue for my Father And it is to be consydered that Christe brought the similitude of his own liuing for his father to shew thereby how we doe line for him when we eate him But S. Hilarie was so sure of this later part of the similitude to wit that we liue for Christ by naturall coniunction of his body and spirite to our bodies and soules when we eate him that thereby he proued Christ to be one with his father in nature and substance And now come our new Sacramentaries teaching the argument of S. Hilarie to be nothing worth because they presuppose Christes fleshe not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his own nature and substance whereby they also affirm that the father is not proued to be in Christe naturally by these wordes of our sauiour as the liuing father sent me and I liue for the father also he that eateth me shall liue him selfe for me For if here the comparison be only in this point that as Christ referreth his life to another beginning which is his father so we liue by Christ who is the cause of all the grace we haue if I say nothing els be respected in both partes but that a thing whiche is lesse receaueth a benefite by the greater these words rather seme to proue against the Godhead of Christ then for it Yea the māhood is not by thē shewed to be really vnited to the worde And so that which the Catholike fathers bring for the truth which is beleued in Christ the Sacramentaries make altogether voyd Let vs adde to the former consyderations that we eating Christ liue for Christ. we then so liue for him as we eate him For seing the eating is the cause of the life such is the life as the eating is But the Sacramentaries auouche that we eate bodily nothing els at Christes supper beside bread and wine therefore by theyr iudgement we shall liue bodily none other way then to that end whereunto bread wine cā fede vs. They can not feed vs to life euerlasting therefore it foloweth of the Sacramentarie docrine that our bodies haue no meate whereby they may liue for euer What say ye masters Haue we not bodies as wel as soules ▪ Doe not our bodies eate in theyr kind as wel as our soules Do not our bodies line by theyr proper meat as our soules doe liue by the meat which is conuenient for them If Christ be meat vnto vs is he not meat to vs as well in respect of our bodies as of our soules Doth he not heale the whole man regenerate the whole feed the whole and saue the whole ▪ Then by like he feedeth our bodies to life euerlasting What food it that Where is it geuen how cometh it vnto vs The Catholiks answere It is the flesh of Christ which is geuen to vs vnder the form of bread But ye Zuinglians who deny that real presence of Christ shew what meat our bodies receaue which is able to make them liue for euer Either say they shal not liue or shew the meane of life You say our bodies eate sanctified bread at Christes supper Be it so But is that sanctified bread stil bread or is it made the flesh of Christ which is the bread of life If it be made Christes fleshe ye agree with me our bodies haue the true food of life But if it tarie bread stil it can not geue our flesh life euerlasting Ye will say Christ is able to vse wheaten bread tarying bread for his instrument or tokē to geue vs by that maane euerlastiug life As common water tarying water is in baptism y◠instrumēt meane as wel to our bodies as to our soules of life euerlastig In which reason ye vaunt your selues ouer much and think ye haue found a goodly defence But beware least ye triūph before the victorie As hitherto I haue resorted to the word of God to confute your vain doctrine so now I wil repair to the same vndouted fountain of true wisdome It is most certain that God were able to saue vs by what mea nes he would But his will is now committed to writing that heretiks might
not fame vpoÌ„ him what should please them but should be controlled by his word For as vniuersal tradition suffiseth to Catholiks who beleue it so the heretik who estemeth no tradition must haue his ouerthrow by the holy Scriptures In them we read that who so beleueth and is baptized shal be saued Whereby is most clere that baptism hath his promse of saluation annexed to it But when we come to our Lords supper no promise at al is made to him that eateth material bread or driketh wine Therefore no man may be so bold to say that by eatig bakers bread we shal be saued Eating verily hath his promyse of saluatioÌ„ annexed thereunto but it is the flesh of Christ whiche must be eaten it is the blood of the sonne of man which must be drunken it is the food of life Christ him felf whiche must be Sacramentallie receaued In all S. Iohn there is promyse of life made to none other thing At the last supper it is said this is my body take eate and this is my blood drinke ye all of this Where no mention of eating bread or of drinkâ—…g wine is made much lesse anie promise of life is thereunto annexed S. Paul speaketh of none other breade then of that which is the communicating of his flesh and which being one is receaued and partaken of al faithful and yet neither in him nor in the actes of the Apostles nor in anieplace place els is any promise made by Christ that who so eateth material bread in his remembrance though he eate it neuer so deuoutly shall by that eating liue foreuer Nowe whereas Caluin pretendeth yâ— words of Christes supper to be words of promise it is already confuted and albeit they were words of promise yet they neither promise bread to be eateÌ„ nor life to them that deuoutly eate bread In coÌ„sideration whereof we may conclude that water is the instrument to giue life because baptism is expresly named andd hath the promyse of saluation in Gods word But seing bread hath not suche promise they speake beside all scriptures who think it sufficient for our bodies to eate bread and to drinke wine at Christes supper And lest any man should think that I may be deceaued in the word of God and that some promise there made to bread wine may escape me I answer that euen here Christ sheweth vs not only to liue for him but also to line for him by eating him so that we haue the word of God that Christ him self is our food not only by faith but by eating We haue then two aduaÌ„tages one that no promise of life is made to bread and wine The other that expresse promise of life is made to him who eateth Christ. whereupon thus I reason Either this promise of life which is made to him that eateth Christ suâ—…iseth in the kind of eating or no. If this suffise not the word of God is reproued which sayth He that eateth me shall liue for me And by eating Christ he vnderstandeth as I haue often tymes declared beleuing vpoÌ„ him doing his wil and besydes al that the receauing of him corporally in the Sacrament of his supper If now his promise of life be alone sufficient what place is left for the Sacramentaries to chalenge life to their bodies by the eating of wheaten bread and by drinking wine Their bodies verily can not liue without the food of life for as Christ said before except ye eate my flesh ye shall not haue life in you and I am sure he spake to men that had bodies But material bread is not Christes fleshe neither hath it any promise to geue life to our bodies therefore either our bodies die for euer or els they liue through yâ— that they receaue Christ into them corporally the which saying of myne is confirmed by this place of S. Cyrillus Non poterat aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem vitam traduci nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur This corruptible 〈◊〉 of the body could not otherwise be brought to incorruption and life 〈◊〉 the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it which if it be true 〈◊〉 not they who take the body of Christe who is the naturall life from 〈◊〉 corruptible bodies depriue vs of all hope of life in our bodies How theÌ„ do we lyue for Christ through him as he liued for his father Doth not he liue for his father as well in body as in soule because his manhood is vnited to the word which word is the sonne of yâ— father Therefore as we liue for him by eating him as he liueth for his father who sent him so must we be naturally ioyned to his flesh in the SacrameÌ„t of his supper by receauing yâ— same worthely into our bodies liue in body and soule for euer ¶ The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was taught with the losse of many disciples IT is not to be thought that Christ who forbiddeth all occasioÌ„s of geuing offence to other men wold him self cast a stumbling block in his disciples way by pressing them to eate his fleshe and to drinke his blood if in dede they were not really to be eaten and drunken But if Christ spake that which was true in dede and spake it as it was true then was it their fault who had sene him the day before working so great a miracle not to beleue such a Prophet as their own experieÌ„ce and expresse words witnessed him to be If then they were bound to beleue him and yâ— they could do no otherwise then if they beleued that he would geue them his flesh to eate in dede their fault was in that they did not beleue that he was both able and in dede would by a conuâ—…nient meane geue them his true flesh in the way oâ—… meate and his true blood in the way of drinke If that were their fault then is it their â—…ault likewise who in our daies thinke teach that Christ hath not geuen vs in his last supper his 〈◊〉 flesh to be really eaten true blood to be really drunken 〈◊〉 the maner of eating flesh and drinking blood 〈◊〉 should in time conuenient haue learned that also Al men do know that when a thing is to be done the first question is to demand whether it may be done or no. wherein it is also conteined how easily a thing may be done The second is whether it be worthy yâ— taking in hand The third how it may be brought to passe As loÌ„g as the thig is thought either vnpossible or very hard or vnproâ—…itable so long it is in vaine to talke of the maner of the doing it Christ did talke with the Iewes of the two first points shewing that he was able to do it Quia hâ—…nc pater signauit Deus because God the father hath signed him whereby he declared
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
taking bread wine he putteth vs in mind of that great Priest Melchisedech who brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham As therefore Melchisedech toke bread and wine to offer them first vnto God next to communicate AbrahaÌ„ with them so doth our true king of rightuousues intend to offer to God and his Father the present bread and wine which he taketh And because the thing sacrificed is to be changed one way or other euen in substance from the former nature which it had as being sometymes killed sometymes burnt and sometymes eaten when Christ as the high Priest of God for so it appeareth in the end toke bread wine he toke them to offer coÌ„sequently to thange them in the most perfit maner that euer could be deuised as who is the most perfit Priest And into what substance shall he chaÌ„ge them but into the sede of Abraham his own body who came to fulfil the law and gather all things into him selfe and so to bring them again vnto his Father For which cause S CypriaÌ„ sheweth that as Melchisedech first brought foorth bread wine that so the blessing might duely be celebrated about Abraham so Christ fulfilling the truth of the prefigured image offered bread wine suum scilicet corpus sanguinem that is to say offered his own body blood This great mystery could not be throughly haÌ„dled in a whole booke much lesse I am able to coÌ„clude it within the cumpasse of a circumstance it is now sâ—…icient to touch the chefe points of so long a matter ¶ The tenth circumstance of blessing OUr chefe Bisshop did not only take bread and wine but he blessed also Benedictio blessing is as it were a blessed saying and because God sayth and it is done in him blessing is doing and in Christ who is both God man blessing is most properly of all a doing by the meane of saying or signifiyng for not alwayes when he blesseth he nedeth to speake but if he blesse as man he maketh at the least some outward token of the good dede which he is about either by lifting vp his eyes or hands to heauen or by making the signe of the crosse or by speaking certeine words Howsoeuer it be it caÌ„ not be well imagined that blessing should be in God or in Christe without a doing otherwise it should not differ from a simple saying yea it should be the saying of mâ—…n rather then of God But now it is called the blessing as if we should say a beneficiall saying which in God always importeth a doing In this place it sheweth also what intent and purpose Christ had For whereas Christ might haue spoken in the way of exhorting or of prophecying or of threatening or of comforting when it is writeÌ„ he blessed and sayd we may learne that he speake in the way of doing of working of bestowing some real benefit and of geuing vertue and strength vnto his word for that effecte which being so we can not now with any pretense of honestie imagine that those words are in the substantial parts of them 〈◊〉 at the prononcing whereof the Gospell hath rehearsed the word and vertue of blessing For as a figuratiue saying is an imperfect speache and therefore lesse then a common kind of speaking so is blessing farre more theÌ„ any speaking and therefore a true doing What repugnance then were it to say that Christ blessed at such tyme as he not only did no great miracle but also did lesse then the ordinary nature of speaking requireth For ordinarily men vse proper words Well that blessing in this place is to be referred to the words This is my body and this is my blood it is the doctrin of the most auncient fathers For S. Ambrose calleth this mystery benedictionem verborum coelestium the blessing of the heaueÌ„ly words and S. Cyrillus commonly nameth the blessed Eucharist benedictionem Christi or mysticam benedictionem the blessing of Christ or the mysticall blessing The like doth S. Chrysostome writing vpon S. Paule Now for so much as blessing standeth here beâ—…wene taking of bread and saying this is my body the which bread and body caÌ„ not be truely verified of the same thing at once the blessing so declareth the working and making present of Christes body that it doth intimate withal the bread to be changed into his body For as all blessing doth geue some benefit so when a creature taketh a benefit it is châ—…ged into a better state For which cause both S. Gregorie of Nyssa and S. Ambrose atâ—…ribute the chaunging of the nature of bread and wine into Christes body and blood to the vertue of his blessing It would paâ—…e yâ— describing of a circumstaÌ„ce and become a whole booke if I should prosecute any of these matters so largely as the thing would beare which at this tyme I may not doe ¶ The eleuenth circumstance of gening thankes GOd blesseth his creatures in bestowiing some benesite vpon them and the creatures blesse God by praising and rendring 〈◊〉 vnto 〈◊〉 Blessing thereâ—…ore in a diuerse sâ—…se is coÌ„mon to God and man but thanksgeuing is the proper duety whiche man oweth to God As Christ by blessing at his supper shewed his intent of changing bread and wine to a better nature then they before had so by geuing thanks he declarerh his change to appertein to the honoure of God and that after such speciall sort in this Sacrament that the whole mysterie taking thereof his name is called as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse Eucharistia that is to say the geuing of thanks Whereas thanks be geuen by words alone or dedes alone or in both together it can not be denied but those are best thanks wherein most excellent dedes are ioyned with most true and reall words And who can dout but it is a more worthy dede to make present the body of Christ vnder the form of bread yâ— God may thence be glorified thanked then to make bread stil taryiÌ„g bread to be an effectuall signe of Chistes body Who can dout but the words of thanking are more true which say this is my body and meane the same then those which name yâ— body of Christ meane the figure of his body The Chatholiks beleue that Christ gaue thanks to his Father with moste true words and with most perfit dedes in so much that we deny any perfiter worke to be any where done vpon any creature in the whole world then that was wherein Christ wrought his body present vnder the form of bread to thend it should be a sacrifice of thanksgeuing to God And consequently we confesse with S. Ireneus eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt corpus esse domini that bread wherein thanks were geuen to be the body of our Lord. And therefore he addeth iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia it is not now common
his word 〈◊〉 this whereunto he pointeth to be in substance his oâ—…n body but his dedes perform only a signe of his own body as the Sacramentaries teach May I not now say to the Sacramentaries the like to that which Malachie the Prophet sayd to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Iewes who offered in the temple of God â—…ind lame and feint or sicke oxen and shepe Offer illud 〈◊〉 si placueret ei aut si susceperit faciem tuam Offer such halting presents to thy Lord or capitain tel me whether it wil please him or whether thou shalt be welcome to him or no. If one should come to a greate personage and with solemne thaÌ„ks make him a preseÌ„t in words of a fat oxe or of a couragiouse horse and when the noble man were come forth to accept the present he should geue him a peâ—…ce of paper wherein it were writen this is a fat oxe or a couragiouse horse wold the noble man take it well Now come these new preachers and whereas they confesse yâ— Christ gaue thanks to his Father and sayd in words This is my body yet they feare not to teache that he offered more to him in words then he performed in dedes Yea they doubt not to teache that the words wherewith he maketh his present are vtterly vnproper and figuratiue not withstanding that S. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 supper sayth In coÌ„secratione diuina verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur In the diuine consecration the selfe words of our Lord and 〈◊〉 doe worke â–ª The words doe worke how theÌ„ are thei 〈◊〉 A figuratiue word is like a paited image which may be somewhat if the thing meant thereby be real and true but otherwise it is an idole and nothing at all But as an image of neuer so liuely a truth absent in substance froÌ„ it can not it selfe worke or doe any thing because it is dead no more can words grammatically figuratiue worke of them selues for that they are dead as not hauing theyr meaning which is theyr life present with them S. Chrysostom likewise writeth hoc est ait corpus meuÌ„ hoc verbo proposita consecrantur This saith he is my body with this word the things set foorth are consecrated And yet can this word whiche doth so wonderfull an act can it be in the meane tâ—…me so weake so feble so dead that it hath not in it self so much as the naturall proprietie of common wordes Commonly wordes do meane as they sound and those whiche do not so be concerning the vse and seruice of words which is to vtter a maÌ„s minde of baser condition then other wordes are But Christes words be so liuely that they haue power to work and make that which they sound in so much that he called them in S. Iohn life and spirit therefore it is vnreasonably said that they are figuratiue Hoc est corpus meum are but foure words of which foure they leaue neuer a one in his own significatioÌ„ and some of them they pluck from his gender other they pluck from their case which they were put in hoc this is the neuter gender with his noune substantiue corpus body they draw it to the masculine gender that it may agree with panis bread Est is a verbe substantiue signifiyng the substance of that noune substantiue with whom it is ioyned They draw it from that signification to signifie an accident in bread which in these words is not named They put corpus meum which is by Christes setting the nominatiue case into somtime the accusatiue somtime the genitiue case for they â—…ay this doth signifie my body then is it in yâ— accusatiue case or this is the figure of my body and then it is the genitiue case what miserable taking is this of so heaueÌ„ly words but hereof I think to say more vpon those words this is my blood least I now excede the measure of a circumstance Yet this one thing I can not but warn yâ—â—…eader of although it may seme to some man of no great weight But I thinke with S. Chrysostom no syllable or prick in the word of God to be superfluously placed S. Paule reciting the words of Christes supper placeth them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body For where as the other Euangelist had writen the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last place as we likewise in latin put meuÌ„ last the holy Ghost foreseing the heresy yâ— now should rise caused S. Paul to ioyne that proâ—…oun belonging to Christes person vnto yâ— other pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc this For although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ruled of the noun body and in sense must nedes follow after it yet it pleased God to place the same pronoun with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this shewing thereby that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must finally be referred vnto the noun corpus body as wel as the other pronoun meum mine as if it were in latin hoc mei est corpus this of me is the body That ioyning I say of this and of me together doth geue such coniecture as in the order of words may be had that as of me is the genitiue case coming after yâ— noun body so this likewise apperteyneth to the noun substantiue body and only resteth and endeth his signification in that word Whereas on the other syde if this were only referred vnto bread no reason could be brought why S. Paule should ioyne the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of me vnto it This bread of me is the signe of body iudge what a hard speache it were Let noman wonder if I so narrowly scan euery syllable For you shall see before all is done that God hath caused the wordâ—… of his last supper by so many circumstances of writing and speaking to be opened vnto vs that when the rest is all heard it wil seme probable enough not so much as the setting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue bene superfluouse ¶ The. 〈◊〉 circumstance of these words Which is geuen for you ALthough S. Mathew and S. Mark thought it sufficient to report that Christ sayd This is my body as the which words both were plaine enough able to make the mysterie of Christes supper yet the holy Ghost stirred vp S. Luke to adde the other words which Christ had also vsed to thâ—…ntene the literall meaning of Christes words might be most câ—…tainly confirmed and therefore he writeth that Christ sayd This is my body which is geuen for you In all the which words there is none other noune substantiue named besides the only substance of Christes body With it agreeth Hoc This with it quod the which It cometh after the verb est is and goeth before the verb datur is geuen If now we interpret the noun corpus body by figura corporis the â—…igure of
play with Gods word to elude the scriptures and to destroy the whole writen Gospell ¶ What the new Testament is whereof the holy Scripture speaketh FOr as much as in consecrating of the blood S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule make mention of the new Testament it is necessarie for the vnderstanding of the circumstances which folow â–ª to declare what the new TestameÌ„t is A Testament is the solemne ordeining of a thing by words which is wont to be confirmed by naturall or violeut death For neither the last will of any man is of strength and force vntil the testatour dye Nor any truse or 〈◊〉 is perfit vntil it be dedicated with sacrifice wherein some liuing creature is wont to be offered vnto God bloodily Of Testaments one is old an other new For it was of old tyme couenanted with the Iewes that in case they kept the law of Moyses they should haue a temporall inheritance for keping it Christ made a new truse that if we kept his law we should haue forgeuenes of synnes and enioye the euerlasting inheritaÌ„ce of God The old truse was dedicated as S. Paule speaketh by the blood of calues or oxen which were offered for the confirmation thereof The new truse is dedicated by Christes own blood which was shed for the confirmation of his new law and promise The blood of the old truse was put into basâ—…s and so sprinckled with hysope vpon the people The blood of the new truse is put into a cup or chalice and thence it is drunk by the people of God They that kept the old truse enioyed the land of promise and they that kepe the new truse enioye the kingdom of heauen Now because there are many things requisite to a TestameÌ„t first a law couenant or promise next a bloodshedding to confirm the promise thirdly an application of the blood that was shed for to be as a witnesse and a remembrance to all them who bound them selues to kepe the conditions agreed vpon it may so be that either all these things or some one of them alone may be called the new Testament When God sayeth by Jeremie consummabo Testamentum nouum he meaneth all together For he will as well publish his true law as confirm it by blood and distribute the blood wherewith it is confirmed to the faithfull when Christ sayeth This is my blood of the new Testament he meaneth the first part of the new Testament which is the law and promise it self of forgeuing syâ—…s And therefore it foloweth the which shal be shed for many for the remission oâ—… synnes In which words he sheweth how this is the blood of the new Testament Uerily because it is the blood which shall obtein and merite the forgeuenesse of those synnes which the new law promiseth to take away â—…e called it sayth S. Chrysostom the blood of yâ— promise of yâ— new law And again Testamentum nouum hoc ipso confirmatur The new Testament is confirmed with this very blood Tertullian sayeth of Chrâ—… Testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum He establisheth the Testament that is to say the law sealed with his own blood But when S. Luke and S. Paule report Christ to haue said This cup is the new Testament in my blood they seme to take the word Testament for the substance of the thing which doth confirm the new Testament or witnesse it to be confirmed and not properly for the new truse and promise thereof For this that is in the chalice is not the promise of remitting synnes but it is the new Testament in Christes blood that is to say it is the thing that confirmeth the new law or that witnâ—…h it to be confirmed So doth Sedulius very well expound the words of S. Paule saying Ideo autem calix Testamentum vocatur for so I think the true reading to be and not Testamenti quia testatus est pòst paululum passionem futuram nunc testificatur factam The chalice is therefore called the new Testament because it did beare witnesse at Christes supper that the passion should be a litle after and now it doth beare witnesse that yâ— passion is made or done Thus we see that whereas a Testament hath a law a confirmation and a witnesse of the confirmation the blood of Christ is not the law it self but it is both the thing which confirmed the law and the thing which doth witnesse it to be confirmed The which if it be well remembred I trust the circumstances of greatest importance whereof I shall speake hereafter wil be the better vnderstanded ¶ The. xxiiij circumstance of the blood of the new Testament THis is my blood of the new Testament sayth Christ that is to say the blood wherewith the new Testament is con firmed and sealed as S. Chrysostom Tertullian Theophilact and the other auncient Fathers declare But the blood of Christes new Testament was reall and true Therefore this which Christ doth point vnto is the true reall blood of Christ and not the substance of wine which the Sacramentaries imagine to be a figure of this blood And so consâ—… the words this is the sigue of my blood of the new Testament But their interpretation is proued false by conferring the old Testament with the new For as the old Testament had none other thing to signifie the blood thereof besyde yâ— self same blood of the calues which was shed to confirm the old couenant so much more the new Testament must haue noâ—…e other thing to signifie the blood thereof besyde the self same blood of Christ which was shed to confirm the new law For if it be a perfection not only to haue the truâ—…e and law confirmed by blood but also to haue the confirmation thereof witnessed by sprinkling yâ— blood which was shed vpon the people it is not possible that the old law should in that point passe the new For as S. Chrysostom sayth the figure neither is cleane different from the truth yet if it kepe the condition of a shadow minor erat veritate it was lesse then the truth And yet the basin of calues blood were more then the truth if the substance of common wine were set to shew that the new truse is confirmed Again S. Paule and S. Luke so euidently expound these very words by reciting them otherwise that no reasonable man coÌ„â—…ing the words together will say that in these words blood may stand for a figure of blood They write thus Hic calix nouum Testamentum est in meo sanguine This cup is the new Testament in my blood but the new TestameÌ„t is not in the figure of Christes blood but in his true blood Therefore the name of blood which Christ vsed in consecrating the liquor in the chalice is not vsed figuratiuely For the same blood whereof S. Matthew S. Mark do speak is also meant of S. Luke and
seede of man but formed and conceaued of the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin in the which manhod of Christ the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth corporally As for those places where Christ sayth Poore men shall ye haue with you always but me ye shall noâ—… haue And he is rysen he is not here And whiles Christ blessed his Disciples he went from them and was caried into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father vntil the end of the world with such like they â–ª are not to be conferred with these words This is my body because they speake of a naturall being of Christ and not of such a being as is peculiar vnto the Sacrament of Christes supper Neither is it possible that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉 should impugne yâ— other sith Christ hath ordâ—…ed both the Church did 〈◊〉 always both together Christ ascended into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father and leauing vs the beleefe thereof as a chief article of our faith Christ made his own supper saying This is my body and commaunded his Apostles and their succâ—…s to make the same saying Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore neither the making of Christes body neither the belefe thereof can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father Agayne sith nothing is impossible to God albeit that which imploietâ—… coÌ„tradiction in it self be therefore impossiple because it repugneth to the truth it self which is in God it is not possible to God yâ— yâ— body of Christ should both be in heauen after one visible sorte and in the Sacrament after a mysticall sorte It were in dede impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heauen and not to be in heauen Or to be in the Sa crament and not to be there in the same respect but to be in heauen and in the Sacrament or to be in many places at once that maketh no 〈◊〉 but onely sheweth an allmighty and infinite power in him who worketh it Of this minde all the Church of God hath bene hitherto and therefore it hath beleued as well the sitting of Christ at his Fathers râ—…ht hand in heauen as the reall presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar Yea it hath beleued the one because of the other For in so much as Christ is so almighty as to sit at the right hand of God he is able to performe his owne word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar And therefore in the sixte of S. Ihon when he spake of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood which he wold geue he also declared that he wold goe vp into heauen in his manhood where he was before in his Godhead And that thing he spake as S. Cyrillus hath noted to declare that he was God and therefore able to worke that which he spake of in so much as his words were spirit and life For this cause Chrysostom cryeth out ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem Qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodnes of God He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same very momenâ—… of tyme is touched with the hands of all men and deliuereth himself to those that wil receaue and imbrace him Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur Seme these things to thee worthy to be despised neglected Sacra nostra non modò mira esse videbis sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia Thou shalt perceaue our holy things not only to be wonderfull but also to excede all wondringe and astonyng of the mynd Yf then we vnderstand that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lords supper and no contradiction at all to any other partes of our belefe we may be sure that none other article of our crede doth driue vs to miscredit the reall presence of Christes body and blood in his owne supper And therefore where we dispute of his last supper we must examine yâ— meaning of yâ— words which were spokeÌ„ there according to other places of yâ— Scriptures which belong vnto yâ— last supper The places apperteyning to Christes last supper according to the interpretation of ancient doctors are these the later part of the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn the supersubstantiall bread in the 6. of S. Mathew and the supper it self in the 62. of S. Mathew in the 14. of S. Marke the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapiter of the first epiâ—…le of S. Paule to the Corinthians in the 5. to the Ephesians in the 2. chapiter of the first epistle to Timotheus in the 13. to the Hebrewes in the 2. 13. and 20. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles In all which places other if there be any like we finde much to conâ—…e the reall presence but nothing to leade vs to a siguratiue meaninge These wordes which be in S. Iohn the flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quickeneth my wordes be spirit and life be declared in the former booke when we disputed of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn ¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament for that it semeth in many places to be called bread euen aâ—…ter consecration and that aswell in S. Iohn as in S. Paule and in the Actes of the Apostles noman I say ought vppon this slender argument to change his belefe otherwise grounded vpoÌ„ so plaine scriptures the faith of yâ— Church so generally receaued but rather he ought to lern the cause why the body of Christ is most iustly called bread in this SacrameÌ„t The custome of speaking in holy scriptures came chefely from the Hebrew tonge wherein the old Testament was writen as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paule to the Hebrewes were The residue of the Apostles and Euangelistes albeit they wrote in Greeke they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their wordes Bread in the Hebrew tonge his called Lehem and commeth of the verbe Laham whyche signifieth to â—…ate so that al which man may eate is meant by the Hebrew worde Lehem as wel bread as flesh or fruytes in so much that sometyme it signifieth only flesh as the Hebrew Doctors haue noted out of the sixte and seuenth chapiter of Iob. Now yâ— Apostles and Euangelistes writing also in Greeke haue put for the Hebrew word Lehem the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that translated the scriptures into latin haue turned it into panis and we in our vulgar tonge name it bread by which meanes it cometh to passe that the Greeke Latine and English worde must be takeÌ„ in holy scriptures
which words all the Fathers haue called the words of consecration The reall blood of Abel was taken into yâ— mouth of yâ— sensible earth They deny the Church which is the earth of God to take the blood of Christ into her sensible mouth whereas S. Augustine sayth Terra quae ore accepit sanguinem Ecclesia est The Church is the earth which hath taken the blood in her mouth The blood of Abel cried from the bowels of the earth to God They deny the blood of Christ to cric to God out of our bowels Abel figured both the supper and passion of Christ They deny Christ to haue fulfilled the figure concerning his supper Abel offered him selfe two ways once vnder a signe and again in the visible truth of nature They deny Christ to haue offered him self vnder any signe but only in yâ— visible truth of his nature The deuil had the more power vppon â—…ain because he came to the high office of sa crificing vnworthely They graunting that Satan entred into Iudas at the banket of Christ yet deny Christ to haue made a sarifice there And so coÌ„fessing that Iudas did eate vnworthely they will not confesse the worthines of the thing eaten To be â—…hort the Sacramentaries who teach bread and wine which are fruites of the earth to remaine in theyr owne earthly nature not hauing the body and blood of Christ offered vnder the formes of them and accepted make the supper of Christ to be like the earthly fruites of Cain who neither him selfe went about to change them neither obteined to haue yâ— earthly grossenes of theÌ„ pâ—…rged with fieâ—… from heaueÌ„ neither offered his owne body and blood vnder the outward signes of them but keping backe that which was of most price he offered only a few base fruites of the earth geuing an example for his part what a base and â—…arthly communion heretikes would set vp directly against the blessed sacrifice of Abel which in all pointes Christ fulfilled the Catholikes doe kepe and folowe If I should haue handled euery member of this comparison at large thou maiest iudge good Reader how great a booke it would haue made In matters of the old Tâ—…stament I had rather be short then tediouse which excuse I desire thee to accept throughout euery part of all this whole chapiter ¶ The figure of Melchisedech THe Sacramentaries deny yâ— Christ exercised any Priestly office after the order of Melchisedech in his last supper As though â—…elchisedech did not bring forth bread and wine and Christ like wise did not take at his last supper bread wine Melchisedech did blesse and Christ blessed Melchisedech gaue thankes to God and Christ gaue thankes The thing blessed by Melchisedech was Abraham And the thing made by Christes blessing was his owne body the seede of Abraham Melchisedech gaue thankes to God for the victory of Abraham by coÌ„secrating the person him self who was the conquerour saying Blessed be Abraham to the high God So did Christ make his â—…charist yâ— is to say he gaue his thankes to God for the victory obteined at his death by consecrating the selfe same body which died and wherein he wan the field saying This is my body which is geueâ—… for you And yet did not Christ at his supper sulfill the whole order of Mâ—…lchisedech The weakest and basest thing that Melchisedech had in all his Priesthod was the bringing forth of bread and wine At yâ— which he staied not but went forward to blesse Abraham the end of his sacrifice And now the Sacramentaries make Christ to staie vpoÌ„ the substance of bread and wine without going forward by blessing to make there of his blessed body the seede of Abraham Melchisedech gaue his bread to Abraham to the ende it being eaten of him might be made a better substance in his flesh then it was in it selfe But Christ geueth not vs the naturall substance of common bread for coÌ„mon bread profiteth nothing but Christ changeth it into a better substancâ—… verily into the substance of his owne flesh to the ende we eating his flesh might be made a better and more holy substance whiles we abide in Christ whom we eate and to whom we are vnited The Sacramentaries who confesse Melchisedech to haue had Abraham really present as it were in his handes at the tune of blessing and consecrating him to God denie Christ to haue had his owne body and blood present in his handes at the time of his blessing and consecrating which he made in his last supper As though Melchisedech were the figure of Christ because Christ who is the truth should haue lesse then he had Melchisedech in the shew of bread and wine shewed an image of the supper of Christ. But vnder his image he had not present the reall truthe because an image of a liuely thing made in a dead kind of stuff or matter differeth from the chief paterne in substance But Christ acknowleging his owne image in the sacrifice of Melchisedech kept the formes of bread and wine because they were images and formes of the priesthod which he excersiced in his supper but he changed the inward substance of them for so much as the substance of bread and wine were not the substance of his priesthod And in dede an artificiall image of a liucly thing made by man neuer can haue the truth it selfe vnder it whose image it beareth but when Christ had put the substance of his owne flesh vnder the formes of bread and wine then was the image and shadow of Melchisedech fulfilled with the truthe which it signified And so is the whole Tatholike faith perfitly shadowed by conferring the figure of Melchisedech with the supper of Christ. ¶ The figure of the 〈◊〉 Lambe THe paschall Lambe was taken vp that tenth daie of yâ— first moone that fourtenth daie at night it was after y◠〈◊〉 thereof wholy offered and 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 bread the blood being sprinkled ouer and vpon both postes of the dore Christ is the Lambe of God who in his owne person came to 〈◊〉 the tenth daie of yâ— first moneth being receiued with great triumph in somuch that daie tooke thereof the name of Palme sondaie The fourtenth daie at night which was 〈◊〉 Thursdaie he offered him selfe to God by consecrating his owne body and blood turning the substance of common bread wine by the fier of his diuine word into the pure substance of his heauenly flesh which him selfe tooke of his mother and he gaue the same selfe body of his to be eaten vnder the forme of vnleauened bread sprinkeling with it as well the post of our mouth as of our harte in token that we receiue the same selfe blood into our mouth which our harte beleueth In which supper Christ must be vnderstanded to be as truly offered rosted eaten and his blood as really sprinkled after a mysticall sorte as all this was visibly done
for Christ to worke But it is a great deale more semely for him to turne bread into his body then to turne him self into a vine Because it is to be thought he being the wisedom of God changeth allways for the best Which were not so if in stede of him self he should leaue vs a materiall vine and yet in turning bread into his body the change is made for the better by infinite degrees Therefore these words I am the true vine though al other thigs were equall could neuer proue that vnwise change so well as This is my body wil proue a most wise happy change of common bread into the bread of life Morcouer these words the vine albeit they were ment of a certeyne vine yet there is no necessitie that they should shew it present Sith those words may be verified of a vine which being a hundred mile thence were knowen to Christ alone as likewise wheÌ„ S. Paule sayd The rock was Christ the rock whereof he spake was not present 〈◊〉 him but in his mind he noted a certeyne rock which yet in truth it self was not very certeyne touching any one materiall rock because two diuerse rocks were stryken out of which water flowed at diuerse tymes But as I was about to say the true vine being only described by those termes might be vncerteine to the Apostles and to the hearers of Christ either because they neuer knew it or because they haue forgotten it So that these words I am the true vine will not as well proue a transubstantiation as the other words This is my body For both the bread which was changed was first present and the body wherevnto the change is made is presently shewed taken and eaten vnder the forme of the same bread It is doubtlesse a great help in prouing transubstantiation to know both the vttermost partes and to be able to bring that foorth into the which the other is changed For the nature of proof among men consisteth in making a thing plaine to reason by the meane of senses and among faithfull men it consisteth in making it plain to faith by the meane of the same senses If one should aske where the vine is whereof Christ sayd I am the true vine and ye could not bring it foorth and on the other syde if I could bring foorth the body of Christ into which yâ— bread were changed although you might as wel beleue the transubstantiation of Christ into the vine through the word of Christ as I do beleue the transubstantiation of bread into his body yet you could not so wel proue it because you could not shew it so well The vine is lesse then this vine and the proof that this maketh doth far excede the proof that the can make If an inquisition were made who had done a certeyne murder and you said the man hath done it but I could say this man hath done it I suppose all the Iudges in the world wold say that I proued the murder done better then you When it is sayd the man hath done such a murder albeit the Iudge beleue the saying yet his vnderstanding is not quieted but he asketh farther which man is that But when you come so nigh to the point as to say this man hath done it nothing caÌ„ be asked more plaine Which being so albeit I graunted a transubstantiation in eche saying yet M. Nowell had not sayd truly in affirming that these words I am the true vine do proue as well a transubstantiation as This is my body By how much this in making proof doth passe the by so much the later words wold better proue a transubstantiation then the first Besydes this when two transubstantiations are affirmed of the which one hath bene in some like sorte practised before but the other hath not bene likewise practised those words which affirme such a transubstantiation the like whereof hath bene before done do proue the sayd transubstantiation better then those that speake of a thing that neuer was done Bread was vsually turned into Christes body whiles he lined in earth for his body was nourished with bread the which bread was turned into his flesh Quamobrem rectè nunc etiam Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credimus im mutari Wherefore now also we beleue well sayeth Nyssenus brother to S. Basile the bread which is sanctified with yâ— word of God to be changed into the body of God the word This argument also Damascene Theophylact and Euthymius do make So that it is no newes for bread to become Chri stes body but for Christ to become a vine that as it is throughly impossible because Christ is God and vnable to be changed so albeit we did graunt it possible yet it were yâ— harder to proue it because it had not benâ—… done before Last of all there was neuer any auncient Father or Generall Councell nay there was neuer no learned man were he Catholike or otherwise there was neuer none of the lay people no woman no childe no naturall foole which tooke or thought any vine or rock in the whole world to be the naturall substance of Christ Notwithstanding that Christ had sayd I am the true vine and S. Paule that the rock was Christ. But if we come to these words This is my body and consider them so pronounced as they were we shal finde not only thousand millions of faithful people to haue beleued the bread ouer which those words are spoken to be changed into Christes body but also whole Generall Councels wherein many hundred of Bisshops and of great clerks haue bene gathered together to haue taught and decreed directly or by manifest sequele yâ— doctrine of transubstantiation as the Councels of Lateran of Basile of Constance of FloreÌ„ce of Trent Which all are knowen to haue agreed in this behalf Besides many auncient Fathers haue moste constantlie writen the same as S. Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom with all the rest The prosecuting of which argumeÌ„t were at this present to far distant from my principall intent but in case I may vnderstand that these few reasons doe not satisfie M. Nowell or any other man to whome my labour may doe good I will proue moste fully the doctrine of transubstaÌ„tiation both out of the holy scriptures and out of the holy Fathers Now for M. Nowell not withstanding al these sâ—…ueÌ„ differences to affirme that no Papist shal euer be able to shew cause why I am the true vine doth not proue as well a transubstantiation as these words This is my body it was an ignorance in a preacher not pardonable For if I should only staye vppon the last argument wherein all Christendom is shewed to haue beleued transubstantiation through these words This is my body and that as well before in dede as by confession of our aduersaries euer sence the great Councell of
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
body Behold in promising his flesh and in affirming it to be meate in dede Christ spake not in parables much lesse could he do so in performing his promise and in saying Take eate this is my body Yet M. Nowell thinketh a parable as plaine as that speache which is no parable Forgetting yâ— Christ said him self to speake in parables to the multitude so that the hearers did not vnderstand him Yet M. Nowell wil haue I am the true vine whiche is a parable to be as plaine as this is my body S. Augustine saith Christe is called a vine by a Similitude or Metaphore but he neuer taught the like of this is my body For he saith Noster panis calix certa consecratione mystious fit nobis noÌ„ nascitur Our bread and chalice is not borne but is made mysticall to vs by a certain consecration That whiche is consecrated is in dede made somwhat which it was not before not only shewed to be a thing by a similitude A parable or similitude as I am the true vine is hath no consecration belonging to it but our bread hath a certeine consecration which worketh some mysterie and what consecration is that besyde the effectual operation of these words this is my body Christ was the true vine before he said I am the true vine but the thing pointed vnto at his supper was not his body before it was said This is my body Therefore these words which make a new thing when they are spoken are more pithy then those which only shew a thing already extant But are metaphors vsed to be really made after acerteine mauer of consecration Master Nowell They be named and writeÌ„ many tymes but they be neuer coâ—…secrated 〈◊〉 made really S. Cyrillus 〈◊〉 that he called himself a vine exempli ratione by the way of example But what said he likwise this is my body as it were for examples sake wheÌ„ we bring an example we bring it to proue some other thing which is more principal then the example was Christ inteÌ„ding to teach in what sort his disciples depended vpon him for their spiritnal life sheweth it by an example of the vine but in his supper his own body consecrated made and eaten was not an example brought to declare an other thing but it was the principall thing it self which was intended Therefore this is my body was more pithily said then I am the true vine For the principal is always more pithy then that which is alleged for to serue an othâ—…r purpose in so muche that S. Cyrill sayth Longè ab omni ratione remotum est ad naturae substantiaeque rationem illud traducere quod per similitudinem dictum est It is far distant from all reason to apply that which was spoken by a similitude to a comparison of nature and substance Which words S. Cyrill spake of the Arrians who denying these words to be ment of Christes humane nature by the similitude went about to proâ—…e that as the vine and the husbandman be not of one nature so God the father who is as it were the husbandman and Christ who is the vine were not of one nature And as the Arians did amisse to applie the words spoken by a similitude to the denying of Christes own diuine substaÌ„ce right so M. Nowell doth applie the same similitude euill to disproue by the example thereof the substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament But as S. Cyrillus doth returne the argument of the Arians vppon their heads by shewing how Christ is the vine and we the braunches according to his humanitie so may we shew to M. Nowell that these words of Christ I am the true vine serue to shew the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament of the altar S. Augustine sayeth Christ was made man to th' end the nature of man might be the vine in him of which humane nature we men might be the braunches S. Cyrill affirmeth likewise Christ to be the vine euen according to the flesh and vs to be braunches both spiritually and corporally He proueth it for so much as the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell corporally also in vs by the communicating of the flesh of Christ. What meaneth he by dwelling corporally Himself sheweth saying Non habitudine solum quae per charitatem intelligitur veruÌ„ etiá naturali participatione Not only by habit by power by effect or by the state and condition of charitie alone but also by naturall participation â—…o he placeth naturall participation as a farther degree beyond that dwelling of Christ in vs which is by faith or charitie M. Nowell will say peâ—…haps that the naturall participation of Christes flesh is to beleue that he is true man and true God and so to fede vpon him by faith at the tyme of eating bread and of drinking wine Such cursed interpretations now adaies they bring as though he that doth not beleue Christe to be in dede true man and true God can be ioyned to Christ at all â–ª by faith and charitie But S. Cyrill speaketh of that participation which is made not only by faith and charitie but also by naturall partaking his body and blood We must put a certeine iust man to beleue most pâ—…y who yet hath not receaued the mysticall blessing or communion of Christes flesh That iust man is ioyned to God by faith and charitie but not yet corporally He is a branche of the Godhead which is principally the true vine and a braunche of the manhod in that he beleueth in Christ who is true God and man but he is not yet corporally a braunche of the manhood which is also the true vine except he 〈◊〉 worthily the mysticall blessing which is the Sacrament of Christes supper the which maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally also Note the word quoque also For Christ dwelt in his Apostles harts before the last supper by right faith and charitie and therefore he sayd they were all cleane sauing Iudas but this mysterie maketh him dwel in them corporllay also And S. Cyrill expoundeth farther how Christ by the Sacrament dwelleth in vs. For whereas Christ had sayd except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood ye shall not haue life in your selues He interpreteth life the flesh of life in your selues in your body That is to say except ye eate my flesh ye shall not haue the flesh of life in your body Vita autem iure ipsa vitae caro intelligi potest The life may well be vnderstanded the self flesh of life In vobis ipsis dicit id est in corpore vestro Christ sayth except ye eate yâ— flesh and drink yâ— blood of the sonne of man ye shall not haue life in your selues that is to say in your body Is not this plaine enough Then heare yet a plainer
vine or els a vine which for his fruit bringeth foorth veritie and truth Now such an addition doth rather detract sum what from the naturall and very vine whereof M. Nowell speaketh then help it any thing For which cause he should not haue had such a rule with vs as he thinketh if it were sayd This is my true body sith the word true might haue ben taken for the effect or frute proceding from his body which wold not haue bene so much for our purpose as when it is sayd This is my body which is geuen for you Thus euery way M. Nowell is deceaued in his construction And no wonder sith he buildeth not vpon the rock planted by Christ in the Catholike Church but vpon Caluins new inuentions which are more feble then the sands them selues M. Nowell ¶ Christ saith Ego sum panis I am bread and yet no transubstantiation of his body into bread Why should these words Hoc est corpus meum this is my body more transubstantiate bread into his body HOw long will you continew in falsifying the holy Scriptures M. Nowell When shall a man find you to deale vprightly Where is it writen I am bread Where sayeth Christ those words Uerily if he had sayd them yet you may know he meant him self to be bread only by a similitude or Metaphore as it was expounded before in the words I am the true vine And therefore I am bread could import no transubstantiation for seuen causes * 1. The bread he speaketh of is no certayne or limited substance * 2. Christ can not be personally changed for that he is God * 3. The verb sum I am being ioyned with two natures cleane distant doth always signifie a like condition or propertie and no identitie of substance * 4. It were a change made for yâ— worse such as Christ vseth not to make * 5. It wold be yâ— harder to be proued because the thing whereinto the change should be made is not pointed vnto as present * 6. It had bene a change the like whereof had not bene vsed before * 7. It was neâ—…r taâ—…ght nor beleued in the Church But in these words This is my body * 1. The body is certayne * 2. The bread taken is a creature made to be changed * 3. The verb est is doth not stand betwene two diuerse substances but betwene the pronoune and his only noune substantiue * 4. The change is for the better * 5. It is better to be proâ—…ed because it poynteth presently to the thing made * 6. Bread was before changed into Christes flesh whiles he eating bread liued thereby * 7. The Church beleued the Fathers taught and the Generall Councels decreed the change of the bread into Christes body It had not bene haâ—…d to haue answered thus if Christ had sayd I am bread But phy vppon that impietie of yours M. Nowell who in so few words commit so many faults You reporte that Christ sayd I am bread and therein you falsify the word of God It is not sayd any where I am bread For what call you the saying of Christ It is writen Odiui omnem viam iniquitatis And again Omnem viam iniquaÌ„ odio habui I haue hated euery way of iniquitie I haue hated euery vniust way Were it now truly reported that God had sayd I haue hated euery way And thereof to conclude that noman may either walk by the high way or walk in the path of God because God hath hated euery way After the like maner doth M. Nowell reporte the words of Christ who sayd twise I am the bread of life And once he sayd I am the liuing bread Now cometh M. Nowell and leaueth out the genitiue case in the two first sayings and the participle in the last and the article in both and affirmeth that Christ sayd I am bread In dede M. Nowell these words be found as likewise we find I haue hated euery way but it is no small sacrilege to allege Gods word leauing out any essentiall part thereof And specially when the word left out is so ioyned with the rest as yâ— genitiue case is ioyned to the noune which it foloweth or as the participle is ioyned to his noune substantiue It had bene bad enough to haue sayd in our tong which hath articles I am bread of life for euen so the article â—… the had bene left out because it is writen I am the bread of life or I am the liuing bread And not I am bread But to leaue out both the article the and the genitiue case of life or the participle liuing and to argue vppon that false ground that Christ is not transubstantiated into bread it is so dissolutely done that it may warne you M. Nowell of your owâ—… blindnesse of hart and of yâ— blindnes of all such other falâ—…e preachers as you are Who through what other great synnes I can not tel but certeinly through schisme are so wonderfully forsaken of God that you see not now not only what his true meaning what his worde and Ghospell â–ª what the moste syâ—…cere faith of his Church is but you see not that which naturall Philosophers which men of common reason which children in yâ— Catholike Church see You see not the dependence betwene the pronoune adiectiue and his noune substantiue but referre hoc to panis and hic to vinum you see not how the nominatiue case agreeth with his verb but in expounding Hic est sanguis meus for hic significat sanguinem meum you leaue the verb without a noune substantiue to goe before him which is not so when we say Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood taking the verb substantiue est is properly For sâ—…ing here is in all but one substance named the pronoun hic this is so referred finally to the blood alone that yet we do not construe the words saying this blood is my blood but we make the last determination of the pronoune this to rest only in the substance folowing And so as long as the substance is vnnamed the noune substaÌ„tine to the pronoune is vnknoweÌ„ as in Hic est filius meus haec vidua erat hoc est verbum fidei but strayght vpon the naming thereof the proâ—…oune is ruled in case gender and number of his noune substantiue which coâ—…eth after the verb. But when you haue expounded the words of Christ by hic sinificat sanguinem meum when al the speache is fully ended your pronoune of the masculine gender of the nominatiue case findeth no noune substantine at all with whom he may rest but styl is without his due construction You turne the nounes corpus and sanguis from the nominatiue case into the accusatiue You diuide the relatiue quod which from his antecedent corpus body in that you make him repete but halfe the signification of his antecedent You diuide the
one with vs. Vt corpus cuÌ„ corpore vniretur That the body might be vnited to the head Behold we that by baptisme were the body must yet be vnited with our head what by only vnitie of wâ—…l or faith and loue all that we had before but we must be vnited now in nature in real coniunction of body and blood S Cyrâ—…l writeth thus If we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christ suffereth not himselfe to be diuided or separated Therefore the Church also is made the body of Christ and â—…uery one of vs according to S. Paule yâ— members of Christ. For we being ioyned to Christ alone through his body because we haue receaued him in vs who can nat be diuided our members are rather applied to him then to vs. Theodoritus toucheth as well the vnion of baptisme as of the Eucharist saying As Eue was formed out of Adam so we out of Christ our Lord. For we are buried together with him in baptism and we rise together with him and we eate his body and drink his blood Thus we are members of Christ either by faith and mysterie which is done in baptisme or by â—…is body blood which is done in the Eucharist That is the beginning of our vniting this is the end that is the foundation of the house this is the top that is in spirit chefely this in chefely in flesh But now let vs graunt that when S. Paule saith we are meÌ„bers of his body of his fleshe and of his bones that he meant we in baptisme are members of Christes mysticall body and we are members as it were taken out or proceding from his flesh bones that is to say we are one mystical body because the flesh bones of Christ haue geueÌ„ vertue to the font of baptism wheÌ„ce we are regenerated Let vs admit S. Paule had meant so the contrarie whereof al the auncient fathers teache yet the wordes which folow in S. Paule can by no meanes 〈◊〉 auoided For he vseth the example of Adam and Eue shewing it to be a great mysterie in Châ—…ist and the Church and that mysticall example may be applied to the vnity which is betwene Christ and vs either in baptism or in the supper of our Lord. For coÌ„cerning baptisme as Eue was not corporally begotten of Adam but was taken out of his syde whiles he slept so our regeneration is made by the water which flowed from Christes side whiles he slept vpon the Crosse without the personall begetting of Christ him selfe in his owne substance But what â–ª stayeth S. Paule in this part of the similitude Goeth he not forward to a greaâ—… mysterie Saith he not for this cause the man which is Christ shall forsake Father and mother and shall cleaue to his own wife which is the Church and they shal be two in one flesh Eue was taken out of Adam and was flesh of his flesh but as the spirit of God and not Adam wrought that birth so yâ— vnion of baptism is wrought rather by the spirit of Christ then by his flesh Albeit his 〈◊〉 flesh is yâ— material patern according to which God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flesh in baptism euen as Adam was yâ— material patern according to which God formed Eue. But Eue was borne beside the customable course of nature to betoken that the Church should be born of the vertue of Christes flesh not by company of two sexes but by the working of God without the natural seede of man But when Adam knew his wife carnally then the flesh taken before out of him by God was not only ioyned again to his flesh by God but also by the actuall cooperation of Adam him self â–ª theÌ„ two were made not only out of one flesh which was the miraculouse work of God in forming Eue out of Adam but also two diuerse persons already made by God are by natural coÌ„iunction of both theyr bodies made really one flesh euen as man and wife when they beget children are not now two as Christ him selfe testifieth but one flesh This is a great mysterie I meane sayth S. Paule that it is great in Christ and the Church For when the faithfull members who were incorporated to Christ in baptisme by the vertue of his flesh really absent in substance but presente in efficacy when those members come againe to Christ in the sacrameÌ„t of his last supper they then find not his flesh absent in substance as before but two that is to say Christ and his spouse the Church are in dede one flesh they are in deede soyned together in truth of substance on eche part Christ by his power and vertue prepared our flesh in baptism and by cleausing it there he made it a mete spouse to receaue his naturall flesh in his own real substance But in the supper we are not only of him but we are him selfe For we two are one flesh for the tyme that the coniunction dureth for as the man and wife be not always ioyned in the act of begetting children no more is yâ— real flesh of Christ always ioyned in his own substaÌ„ce with our flesh albeit his spirit and the vertue of his flesh tarie stil with vs and make vs tarie in him but when we come to the Sacrament whereof he said take eate this is my body then we really haue yâ— substance of Christes flesh in our mouthes and bodie In mariage there are diuerse degrees of coupling the first is by words of promise for mariage to ensew The second is by words of present bargayning the third is when the man wife deliuer theyr bodies eche to other for begetting of children Christ was made one with his Church in the way of spousage from the beginning when he promised that the sede of yâ— woman should tread downe the serpents head The which promise the Patriarches beleuing were euen then ioyned by faith aud loue vnto God The signe whereof Abraham and his sede caried in theyr flesh and it was renewed to Dauid and denouÌ„ced by many Prophetes as by the lawfull proctours of God At the length Christ by taking fleshe came to the house of his spouse to see whether she would goe forward in mariage or no. And although the vnfaithfull Jewes forgetting the couenants of spousage plaied the harlots parte with Christe whereof he greuously complaineth in his Prophets yet Christ keping his promise went forward in mariage with them who would receaue him Who consenting to his conditions by the aunswere of a good coÌ„science in baptisme were by present words made surâ—… vnto him for euer renouncing all other â—…orain husbands aâ—…ter which consent eche part hath right vpon the others body newe may the party baptized call for the Sacrament of Christes body if he be of the yeres of discretion And likewise him 〈◊〉 is on the other syde boâ—…nd to obey the
the faith of that eater neuer so great did not shew Christes death past but only to come so this eating of common bread in our Lords supper doth not by the eating inferre the death of Christe to be past but rather as being to come For euery shadow belongeth to a truth whereof it is the shadow and is 〈◊〉 vntil the truth it self come but when the truth is ones present the shadow is no more a bare shadow but a shadow fylled with the truth But by the Zwiâ—…glians opinion the Sacrament of Christes supper is common bread without any reall truth made or wrought abowt it therefore it is a figure a shadow and an imperfyt worke whereas if yâ— truth of it were come it should not be only a shadow but should haue a truth vnder the shadow Thus we may perceyue that the eating of common bread for a figure of Christes death with neuer so greate a faith doth not so much by the eating shew his death past as to come hereaâ—…ter Agayne were it graunted that by reason of the faith of the eater it shewed the death past yet because it sheweth it in a simple figure it may seme that it is past in a simple figure whereby this Sacrament aâ—…ter the interpretation of our new preachers is no sufficieÌ„t meane by the dede it selfe to shew that true death which Christe suffred for vs vppon the crosse and yet S. Paule saith that by eating this bread we shew the death of Christe that is to say we shew him to haue died by eating it I say For now we speake not of preaching the Ghospell not of remembring the articles of our crede nor of other vndoubted wytnesses whereby it is proued that Christe hath died for vs. We speake of S Paules argument who â—…aith by eating this bread we shew Christe to haue dyed for vs. which argument is none is vayne is rather agaynst the faith then with it if the bread that we eate be not the reall flesh of Christe But if we once confesse that we eate the subsâ—…aÌ„ce of Christes natural body drinke the substance of his naturall blood then doth it follow inuincibly that Christe is dead for vs. It followeth I say by the order of Gods words for no flesh is eaten whiles the beast liueth whose â—…lesh it is as it is written Carnem cum sanguine non comedetis ye shal not eate the flesh with the blood in it or any member cut from the liue beast whiles the blood yet remayueth in it Agayne the order of religion as wel vnder the Patriarkes as vnder the law of Moyses sheweth that no beast was eaten Sacramentally before it was kylled and offred From the sacrifice of Abâ—…lto to the comming of Christ certeinly Christ is really dead for vs and being his true fleshe that we eate we shew his true death â–ª and we shew it past and not to come Neither let any man say that Christ in his last supper gaue his fleshe before he died for he dyd not that before his death was at the very point to be fulfilled The Iewes began their feastes on the euening tyde couÌ„ting the day from Son set to the next Son set according as it is writen A vespera in vesperam celebrabitis Sabbata vestra from euening to euening ye shall kepe your holy days Christe therefore kept his supper the mauÌ„dy thursday at night after Son set when yâ— goodfryday whereon he dyed was now begon when he was already solde vnto the Iewes and all things prepared for his death so that he came to the geuing of his flesh as men do come in their death bed to dispose what shal be done after their death willing this mystery to be made for the remembrance of him And as it may appere in the actes of the Apostles after the 〈◊〉 of Christ and comming down of the holy Ghost the ChristeÌ„ mâ—…n begaÌ„first to kepe coÌ„tinue this at which time they shâ—…wed him both dead rysen sitting at his Fathers right haÌ„d in heauen And surely as well S. Iames in his liturgie as Damascen expounding these wordes of S. Paule whereof we speke â—…aieth Mortem filii hominis annunciatis resurrectionem eius conâ—…itemini â—…onec veniat ye shew the death of the son of man and coÌ„fâ—…sse his resurrection vntil he come Thus by eating this body we shew Christes true death by eating it being in it self aliue we shew also yâ— which folowed his death which was his resurrection and ascension Bâ—…t by a figuratiue eating we should not shew his true death and much lesse his true resurrectioÌ„ for as the death is shewed by eating the body which died so the resurrection of the said body is shewed by eating the body which died now is a liue the death is shewed whiles the body is vnder the forme of bread and the blood a part vnder the forme of wyne as though they were styll a sunder The resurrection is shewed whiles vnder eche forme whole Christ is conteyned Therefore we eate Christ more then in a figure and more then by faith and spirit we eate him in dede whereby it followeth that he is dead for vs in dede we eate him aliue without impairing or diminishing any part of him whereby it foloweth he is rysen from death and remaineth immortall Now let vs heare how S. Chrisostom alludeth to the same reason who speaking os Christes last supper writeth in this maner Quando id proposituÌ„ videris dic tecum Hoc corpus cae When thow seest that body set before thee say with thy self This body nailed and beaten was not ouercommed with death This body the â—…onne seing crucified turned away his beames Through it also the vele of the temple was torne and the rocks and the whole earth shaken The self same body made bloody wouÌ„ded with a speare gusshed out in founteines of blood water healthsome to the whole world Seest thou after what sorte Chrysostom talketh of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar â–ª Seest thou by what means he there sheweth the death of Christ This body saith he was nailed wounded perced with a spere It is then the reall body that sheweth the reall death of Christe and that sheweth it not only when we remember that Christ dyed when we thinke of his resâ—…rrection and ascension but though no man think of his death yet the very eating of this very reall body sheweth his death to men to Aungels to God The dede I say and fact of eating sheweth him to be dead whose fleshe is eaten euen as the blood of Abel cried to God from the earth where it lay and as the body of Christ in heauen by his only presence maketh continual intercession to God the Father for vs alwaies putting God in minde of his death and of our saluation ¶ The real presence is proued by the illation which S. Paule maketh concerning the
twentie tymes to the intent it might at the least wise sinke at the lengthe into some of his disciples minde And how much lesse should I either thinke it long to dilate this argument either the Reader be wery thereof S. Paule sayth eadeÌ„ vobis scribere mihi quidem non pigruÌ„ vobis autem necessarium To write the same thinges vnto you it is not lothsom vnto me but truly necessarie vnto you Euen so Christe for our greate profite always repeted that he would geue meate whiche should not perish a bread which was his flesh And that we should eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood that who so did eate his flesh and drink his blood should haue life euerlasting for his flesh is meate in deede and his blood is drinke in deede who so doth eate his flesh and drinke his blood doth tarie in Christ and Christ in him and he that doth eate him should liue for him and that this is the bread which came doune from heauen an other manner of bread then MaÌ„na was He that doth eate this bread shal liue for euer Thus about tenne tymes we finde that in S. Ihon he said one thing though not in one words Sometyme calling it flesh sometyme blood sometyme him self sometyme this bread sometyme meat Put now here vnto that he toke bread and wine blessed gaue thankes brake and gaue and said take and eate this is my body and drinke ye al of this for this is my blood and make or doe this thing for the remembrance of me Remember farther that three Euangelists wrote the history of the supper in diuerse yeres all after one sort that S. Paule wrote the same adding more terrour to it by shewing that some died at Corinth for the vnworthy receauing the body and blood of Christ with all the rest which the Apostle sayth in that epistle and we shall find that the holy ghost hath confirmed and verified the knowen and litterall vnderstaÌ„ding of the words flesh blood body meat without any figuratiue speache or meaning Albeit God meant not his body and blood to be eaten and drunken after the common vsual manner of eating rosted flesh or drinking raw blood but that we should eate it drinke it vnder the forms of bread wine For which cause he also vsed yâ— name of a certaine kinde of bread A bread I say which came donne from heauen because it is vnited vnto yâ— sonne of God who was for euer equal with his Father in glory nature honour This repeting of one thing so many tymes is a great argumeÌ„t of speaking plainly without all figures or parables This argument to begin wth the weaker the greke author Euthymius maketh who vpon those wordes my flesh is truly meate saieth hoc dixit confirmans quòd non aenigmaticè neque parabolicâ—… loqueretur This he hath said coÌ„firming that he spake not 〈◊〉 either els in the manner of a parable Which obseruation Euthymius borowed of S. Chrysostom who saith that Christ affirmed his fleshe to be meate in dede to confirme his disciples least they should thinke him to haue spoken obscurely in parables But the ofte repeting is of it selfe the confirming and assuring vs that he spake not so Oecumenius also vse th the same reason in a like matter Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quòd non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec iplos exterreat in that he many tymes nameth the body and blood of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man as the Nestorians did falsely teache but the Lord him self and maker of all things to th end he might verily put them in a terrour by these wordes if the ofte naming of Lord did shew it to be the body not of a bare man but also of God how much more doth it shew that it is not the bare substance of bread but the body it selfe of Christ who is our maker S. Basile noteth in the Apostle S. Paule coÌ„cerning this very matter VehemeÌ„tius simulque horribilius proponit ac declarat condemnationem per repetitionem The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemeÌ„tly to the more terrour of the vnworthy receauers the condemnation by repeting it S. Augustine in his booke which he made concerning the working of muncks perceauing that some thought yâ— Apostle to speake figuratinely wheÌ„ he requireth that all men should labour and worke who would eate among other arguments wherewith he disproueth these figurantiue workers vseth this also Neque enim aut vno loco aut breuiter dictuÌ„ est vt possit cuiusuis astutissimi tergiuersatione in aliam traduci peruertique sententiam â—…t is not said in one place or in shorte wordes so that it may be 〈◊〉 and peruerted into an other meaning by yâ— ouerthwarting of neuer so suttle a sophist Thus reasoneth S. Augustine vpoÌ„ the ost repeting of worke of labour of miniâ—…ring with handes prouing thereby that the Apostle meant in dede bodily worke and not only working with mind or tonge But I am assured there is not more in the new testameÌ„t concerning the precept of working with handes then is of the body and blood of Christ of his flesh of the meat which perisheth not of such substanciall bread of taking eating drinking communicating partaking the body and blood of Christ of making the same of geuing breaking and distributing of not discerning it of being gilty for vnworthy eating of true meate true drink oâ—… reising vp him that eateth it of his abyding in Christ and liuing for Christ of the Church and Christ being twain in one flesh of being one bread one body all that partake of the one bread of liuing for euer if any man worthely eate this bread which is the flesh of Christ which he wil geue for yâ— life of that world it is not said in one place neither in short or few words therefore it ought not be drawen into an other meaning then the words do sound â—…y the ouerthwarting of neuer so suttle a sophist To conclude S. Cyrillus writeth in the same sense Non obdurescamus toties a Christo veritatem audientes non est enim ambigenduÌ„ quin summa supplicia subituri sunt qui saepius haec a Chisto iterata non capiunt Let vs not harden our selues hearing the truth so oft of Christ. for it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most â—…reme paines who receaue not these thinges whiche are so many tymes repeted of Christ. The preface of the sixth booke BEcause the adoration of the body and blood of Christe in the Sacrament of the Altar is a matter whiche moste manifestly conuinceth the reall presence of Christ vnder the forme of bread I thought it best to handle it a part
and had made petition for his resurrection and saith he wil now performe the vowes which he made for the obteining of his resurrection Those vowes were to haue Gods name tolde and his 〈◊〉 published To that ende serueth the mystery and sacrifice of his body blood for God is thanked in the Eucharist and praised in the cup of blessing as in yâ— publike sacrifice instituted by Christ to remaine in his Church vntill his second comming Therefore when he saith I will performe my vowes he meaneth I wil offer the sacrifice of my body and blood as S. Hierome expoundeth it And therein S. Augustine fully agreeth with him saying Quae sunt vota sua Sacrificium quod obtulit deo Nostis quale sacrificium Norunt fideles vota quae reddit coram timentibus eum And afore Sacramenta corporis sanguinis mei reddam coram timentibus eum What are his vowes The sacrifice which he hath offered to God Knowe ye what maner of sacrifice The faithfull knowe the vowes which he rendereth before them that feare him I will render the Sacramentes of my body blood before them that feare him Cassiodorus consentâ—…th saying Vota mauult intelligi SacrameÌ„ta corporis sanguinis sui caet He rather would the voweâ—… be vnderstanded the Sacramentes of his body and blood the which are rendred those being present which are subiecte to him in holy feare To be shorte see what foloweth the poore shal eate and be filled These are the vowes whereof he spake before S. Bede also writeth Vota quae feci cum meipsum in ara crucis obtuli illa reddam in Ecclesia magna id est iterum per quotidiana sacrificia meorum in sacramentis offeram vota dico eadem verè in coÌ„spectu timentium eum id ist quantuÌ„ ad intellectum bonorum etsi non sint eadem in conspectu malorum qui nihil in Sacramentis nisi quod exterius apparet intelligunt The vowes which I made when I offered my selfe on the altar of the crosse those I will render in the greate Church That is to say I will offer them againe in the Sacramentes by the daily sacrifices of my ministres I meane the same vowes in dede in the sight of them that feare him to witte concerning the vnderstanding of the good men albeit they be not the same in yâ— sight of euil men who vnderstand nothing in the Sacramentes but that which appereth outwardly Here S. Bede expoundeth the rendering of the vowes of Christe to be the offering of the very same body blood which was offered vpon the crosse And that the good see by faith and vnderstand by beleuing more then the eye seeth But the euil men will vnderstand no more then they see iudging that which semeth bread and wine to be still in dede bread and wine But the truth is the same substance of Christes flesh and blood is offered in the Sacramentes which was offered on the crosse Concerning my purpose S. Hierome S. Augustine Cassiodorus Bedafull well agree this place to apperteine literally to the Sacrament of the altar Yea Arnobius who was elder then all they saith that Christ being vpon the Crosse praieth for them that crucifie him that his praise may bee in the greate Church and that he may render his vowes before them which feare him Dum edunt corpus eius pauperes Spiritu whiles the poore in spirit shal eate his body Neither doe the Latines only expound this place aâ—…ter that sorte but also the Grecians Euthymâ—…s hauing expounded the vowes to be the promises of praising Gods name and the eating of the poore men to be their feeding vppon the doctrine of the Apostles addeth also the other interpretation saying Vel aliter comedent fideles Saluatoris corpus cum quo sanguinem eius bibent c. Or els according to an other meauing the faithfull shall eate the body of our Sauiour wherewith they shall drink also his blood And shall be silled verily filled with the holy Ghost and shall extoll God with hymnes and praises in that table So that the former versicle may conteyne not only a prophecie of the Gospell but also the mysticall Sacrament of that table In which interpretation the Fathers agree so throughly that they conferre those words of the pâ—…alme their hartes shall liue for euer with those of Christ I am the bread of life and if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Now if this psalme do literally speake of the offering and eating of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of his supper as ye see plainly it doth it can not be auoided but the same place shal proue that the body blood of Christ must be adored in the Sacrament For yâ— same that is eaten is here prophecied also as a thing to be adored It is sayd manducauerunt adorauerunt they haue eaten haue adored Both be referred to one thing But they haue eaten is referred to the Sacrament of the altar therefore they haue adored is referred to the same Sacrament Apostoli vel caeteri sancti sayeth S. Hiâ—…rome manducauerunt corpus Christi The Apostles and other saiutes haue eaten the body of Christ wherevppon it foloweth that they haue adored it also S. Augustine expresseth it more plainly Manducauerunt corpus caet Euen the riche of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord. They are not filled so that they wil folow as the poore men were but yet they haue adored Behold three verbs which all belong to the very body of Christ eating adoring filling The poore in spirite haue eaten and adored because al nations haue adored before him and they are filled The riche haue eaten and are not â—…illed but yet they haue adored What haue they both eaten The body of Christ Wherewith are the poore filled With the body of Christ. What haue that riche adored The body of Christ but yet they are not filled therewith because they will not folow the humilitie of Christ. And seing this eating pâ—…rteyneth to the Sacrament of Christes supper as it was before prourd the adoring also apperteyneth to the same Sacrament That is eaten which appeareth to be bread therefore that self substaÌ„ce is adored which appearing bread is in dede the truth of Christes own body S. Bede expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shal adore because they shall come with a certeyne outward worshipping Behold the worshipping of the riche is outward and not from the hart whereas it ought to haue beue both outward and inward both in spirit and in truth But through their hypocrisie it consisteth only in bowing their bodies because other men do so and not in true and perfite charitie of God Moreouer S. Augustin
of Christ made vnder the forme of bread and wine that is called any earth not because Christ hath any moe then only one body and one blood and one earth which is to be adored but because that one earth is in many places after the sorte I said before to wit vnder many formes of bread That is it which S. Augustine saith when thou bowest thee or doest cast thy selfe prostrate before any flesh of Christ in what soeuer Church house or place in what soeuer altar pix or table where soeuer thou fallest doune prostrate before the Sacrament of the altar adore it so that thou remember the flesh is to be adored for the persons sake whose flesh it is By this place it is inuincibly proued that it was the custome of all Catholike people in S. Augustines tyme to be prostrate to bow doune and to adore the blessed Sacrament of the altar But that should neuer haue bene suffered in Afrike no more then now it is suffered in England except the real substaÌ„ce of Christes flesh had bene certainly beleued of all men to be present vnder the formes of bread and wine Therefore be thou assured as those yâ— now sorbid thee to adore the Sacrament of Christes supper doe not beleue the flesh of Christ to be really present vnder the form of bread wine so they who willed all Christians vnder paine of syn to adore the earth flesh whiche they receaued before that they recâ—…aued it did vndoubtedly beleue the reall presence of Christes â—…lesh vnder the visible formes of bread and wine This was the faith of the first six hundred yeres which dured from the Apostles tyme till this our daies and yet dureth in all Catholike countries ¶ It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatrie to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar MAny things are to be abhorred which are in these our daies taught againste the truth of the Gospell yet neuer was any thing so maliciously inuented so blasphemously vttered so foolishly mainteined as to say that it is idolatrie to worship with godly honour the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar For that saying presupposeth externall idols not to haue bene taken away by the comming of Christ whiche is against the expresse word of God It presupposeth also that idolatry should be mainteined among Christians them selues not only in groâ—…es hilles and corners but euen openly in the middest of the whole Church by publike doctrine and vniuersall practise which neuer chaunced no not among the Iewes And which is most abominable of all it presupposeth that Christ who came to end and ouerthrow all idols and specially those which were made by hand of man now him selfe should geue occasion why his own people should worship bakers bread and wine of the grape and that this idolatry should be committed by pretense of his owne word yea that it should be done vnto him selfe in his owne mysteries falsely and wickedly if by any meanes Christ may be falsely adored Can there yet a more lewd and foolish pointe be added to this opinion Yea verily They that teache the worshipping of the Sacrament of the altar to be idolatry say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping they teach also the Bishop of Rome to be Antichrist whiche Antichrist is well knowen to impugne by al meanes the honour of Christ. And yet they confesse that both only Christe made and instituted the same Sacrament and that the Bishop of Rome him selfe worshippeth the same Thus at the length it commeth about that Antichrist finding this great mystery made by Christ setteth it vp to be worshipped of others and him selfe worshippeth the same all together pretending the honour of Christ and yet intending thereby as they say to debate his honour Who euer saw a doctrine so euill hanging together Antichrist as S. Paul saieth aduersatur is an aduersarie that is to say he is one that setteth him selfe against Christ and aduaÌ„ceth him selfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he doth sitte in the temple of God shewing or boasting him selfe as if he were God Behold Antichrist setteth him selfe against Christ and much lesse would he be content as the Pope is to call him self the vicar of Christ or seruant of his sernants Againe Antichrist is aduanced aboue all that eyther by nature or by deceite of the Deuill is worshipped His pride is so great that he wil not only disoaine to bow to any externall ydoll for that coÌ„meth of a superstitious feare and pusillanimity but also he will not yeld to God him selfe When S. Paul saieth he is aduanced aboue all that is called God He meaneth aboue all false Gods who are Gods by name and not in truth As Iuppiter Mars Uenns Minerua were So that we are assured by the expresse worde of God that Antichrist shall set vp no ydoll besydes his own selfe He shall say him selfe to be God and shall shew false signes miracles able to deceiue those wicked meâ—… who disdayning the felowship of the knowen Church and the saith of their fathers thinke them selues able to plant a new faith according to the vnderstanding whiche they conceaue of Gods worde That is the chefe way for Antichrist to preuaâ—…le if the preaching of nine hundred yeres and the saith of so many Christian countries may be dispised and consequently a new religion sought out at the deuising whereof ye may be sure yâ— deuil is president of the couÌ„sel To come to our purpose Antichrist is aduanced by him selfe aboue all idols therefore he shall set vp no idoll besides him self And consequently if the Pope be Antichrist he setteth not vp any idoll besides him selfe But our aduersaries confesse the Pope to set vp the body and blood of Christe to be adored of all men and him selfe to adore the same herefore the Pope is not Antichrist You will say he may be a limme of Antichrist although he be not Antichrist him selfe I answere euery lymme of Antichrist is like his head and the rest of the body whereof he is a lymme Antichrist is he that professeth him selfe an aduersary to Christ and goeth about to diminish his honour But the Pope professeth him selfe to haue all his whole honour of Christ and geueth all the whole honour he can deuise to Christ. He worshippeth the Sacrament of the altar because it is the body of Christ. He reuerenceth the signe of the Crosse because it is signe of Christ. He praieth to the Saints which are now in heauen because they are members of Christ being assined they heare his praier in Christ theyr head with whome they make one body Those are the lymmes of Antichrist who can abyde neither the godly worshipping of Christes body nor the reuerent vsing of his holy Crosse nor
coming of his grace into our hartes His grace can not come except we first be made mete to receaue it but his body may come to our bodies so may condemne our soules before that we are made mete to receaue it His grace therefore must come first to vs by faith and charitie that we may thereby haue power to receaue worthely afterward his blessed body least if we receaue it vnworthely we take it to our damnation But so great preparation should not be requisite if our bodies receaued none other substance besyde bread and wine for they are of baser degree then eating by faith is But now we may somtime absteine from the Sacrament euen for honour and reuerence whiche we beare to it and yet we may not absteine from eating by faith or spirite Therefore it is a worthier kind of substance which is receaued in the SacrameÌ„t then the grace is which is the effect of spirituall eating And seing it should not be a worthier thing if it were the substance of bread and wine we may be assured the substance of the Sacrament to be that selfe body whereof the Centurion sayd Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roof It is the honour of that body whiche S. Paul and S. Augustine respect and not the honour of bread and wine in so much that the faithfull as well in the Greke as in the Latin Churche haue vsed alwaâ—…s the very same wordes in adoring the Sacracrament whiche the Centurion vsed to Christ. one praier to one Lord the same reuerence to the same God and man ¶ That the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ did adore the body and blood of Christe in the Sacrament of the altar DIonysius Areopagita scholer to S Paule made a praier to the Sacrament of the Altar in these wordes Sed ô tu diuinum sanctumque Sacramentum c. but o thou diuine and holy Sacrament open and display clerely to vs as it were the veyles and clokes wherewith thorough the signes of obscurities thou art couered and fill the eyes of our vnderstanding with suche clere light as may no more be dymmed Thus did that auncient Father pray not to bread and wine ye may be sure but to that blessed body of our Lord which is present in the mysteries Upon whiche place Pachymeres noteth that S. Dionisius speaketh vnto the Sacrament as being a thig which hath sense and life and that worthely For so the greate diuine Gregory saith But o passouer that great I say and holy passouer For that our passouer and this self holy Sacrament our Lord Iesus Christ him self is to whoÌ„ the holy man spâ—…aketh Lo this selfe holy Sacrament is Christ. And as nothing in the world is our great and holy passouer besyde Christ him selfe so this holy Sacrament hath none other substance at all besyde the substance of Iesus Christ who couereth him selfe as it were with the veyles of bread and wine As you haue heard the most direct wordes of S. Dionysius adoring this blessed mystery and of Pachymeres geuing the reason why he did speake vnto it as the which is Christe him selfe now you shal perceaue that all the other Fathers did beleue the same in so much as all men will graunt that they must needes adore that thing which they confessed to be either Christ or God or one in person with the sonne of God S. â—…yprian writing of the Sacrament of Christes supper saith In sacrificio quod Christus est non nisi Christus sequendus est In the sacrifice which is Christ only Christ must be followed It is knowâ—…ll well what sacrifice we offer how we take bread and wine coÌ„secrating them by the wordes of the last supper wherein it was said This is my body and this is my blood doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me This consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is our sacrifice and because Christ is not diuided nor dieth any more but where his body and blood is there him selfe is therefore S. Cyprian saieth Our sacâ—…ifice is Christ. Neither doth he speake of the death and passion where Christ was our sacrifice bloodily but he speaketh of the sâ—…pper of our Lord where we daily sacrifice Christ vnbloodily For he speaketh of yâ— matter of coÌ„secration which he saith must be wine mingled with water and not water alone because Christ made his owne blood of wine mingled with water Now saith S. Cyprian In the sacrifice which is Christ none must be followed but Christ. If our sacrifice be Christ because of bread and wine which we bring foorth the body and blood of Christ is made by his word is it possible that Christe should not be worshipped of S. â—…yprian with godly honour If Christ be so worshipped and our sacrifice be Christ our sacrifice must be worshipped with Godly honour our sacrifice I say because the thing that is made by coÌ„secration is none other besyde that body of Christe which is the price of the world and the only sacrifice for mankinde The same thing S. Ambrose saith euen as expressie of the Sacrament which S. Cyprian speaketh of the sacrifice In illo SacrameÌ„to Christus est quia corpus Christi in that Sacrament Christe is because it is the body of Christe To the same purpose apperteine the words of S. Ignatius calling this Sacrament the bread of God the heauenly bread the bread of life which thing saith he is the flesh of Christe the Sonne of God And of S. Ambrose calling it the nourishment of the diuine substance And of Eusebius Pamphili calling it Sacrificium Deo plenum And againe horroreÌ„ afferentia mensae Christi sacrificia a sacrifice full of God and the sacrifices of the table of Christe making men to tremble and quake And of Cyrillus saying those that receaue those mysteries to be made diuinae naturae participes Partakers of the diuine nature And again corporaliter in nobis Christum habitare participatione naturali that by these mysteries Christe dwelleth in vs corporally and by naturall partaking And of Isychius calling the same mysteries the bread of life panes mysticos viuificantes and mysticall loaues and those which quicken vs to life euerlasting And is it to be thought that Christ that the bread of God of life the diuine substance the sacrifice full of God which maketh men tremble quake that yâ— mysteries which cause Christe corporally to dwell in vs yâ— the nature of God whereof we are partakers by eating that the Sacrament of Christes supper being al this yet should not haue godly honour done to it Did al the Fathers who wrote thus of that mysterie honour and worship it according to their own doctrine and writings If all they and al the rest did professe that which was vpon yâ— table of Christ
which was receaued at the holy coÌ„munion which dwelleth bodily in vs to be not only yâ— flesh and blood of Christ for those words should be eluded with figures and signes but to be the substance and nature of God which nature is not possible to be eaten of vs corporally otherwise then as it dwelleth 〈◊〉 in the flesh of Christ which we eate corporally in the Sacramenâ—… seing the nature and substance of God must be adored it is not possible to imagine but all yâ— Fathers gaue Godly honour to the mysteries of Christes holy table But yet let vs heare a more full witnesse S. Chrysostome exhorting his people to come to this Sacrament with zeale and most vehement loue writeth thus Hoc corpus in praesepe reueriti sunt Magi c. The wise men commonly called the three kings reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion barbarouse they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iorney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at the least wise follow those barbarous men For when they saw yâ— manger and cottage only and not any of those things which thou now seest they came with most great reuerence quaking But thou seest that thing not in the manger but in the altar not a womaÌ„ which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy Ghost copiously spred vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither thou lookest barely vpoÌ„ the body as they did but thou knowest the power of it and all the order of dispensing things And thou art ignorant of none of those things which were done by him and thou hast bene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs proseâ—…e openly a greater denotion then those barbarous 〈◊〉 if we come barely and coldly we ieopard our head into a more â—…ehement fyre Hitherto S. Chrysostome If there were any other refuge left for our aduersaries they wold neuer admit this place they would say in words yâ— which the masters of them must nedes sometyme think in hart They would say what care we for Chrysostome He was a man he might erre he did erre in this matter But now they may not flee to this miserable refuge for seing they lacke the Gospel and the faith of Christian people for nine hundred yeres together as them selues confesse there is no place for them to hyde their head in but only among the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres For this cause they caÌ„ not reiect S. Chrysostome who is one of the chief lights of the East Church His bookes also they can not deny and least of all his commentaries vppon the blessed Apostle What shift then find they to avoide this place In truth they can finde none but they must nedes preteÌ„d to say somewhat out of their common places of Khetoricall figures yâ— vse whereof they can father vpon whome they list S. Chrysostome in these words expressy teacheth as well the reall presence as the adoration of Christ vpon the altar He compareth the holy mysteries with Christ in the forme and truth of a childe He compareth the altar where vpon the mysteries staÌ„d with the manger wherein Christ lay He compareth our blessed Lady which sometyme held Christ in her armes with the Priest present at the altar who sometyme handleth the holy mysteries He compareth the three wise men who came out of yâ— East with the Christian people who come to heare Masse He compareth the adoratioÌ„ and worshipping which those three wise men vsed with the adoration and worshipping which faithful men ought to vse at the tyme of oâ—…r Lords supper He sayeth the body of Christ to be the same in both places but yâ— cause of worshipping to be greater in them who come to the holy mysteries He sayth by the body Hoc corpus in 〈◊〉 sunt Magi This body the wise men worshipped in the manger which this body surely whereof he sayd before Quando id propositum videris dic tecum propter hoc corpus non amplius terra cinis ego sum When thou seest it set before thee say with thy self for this bodies sake I am no longer earth and ashes Behold he speaketh of the body which is set before vs. Uerily of that which at Masse tyme all men see vpon the altar And againe he sayd of the same Quod etiam nobis exhibuit vt teneremus manducaremus The which also he hath geuen to vs that we should hold it and eate it This body then which is put before vs in yâ— Church which is holden and eaten This body the wise men worshipped in the manger If our figuratiue diuines expound this body for the signe or the representing of this body as they are wont to doe then the wise men adored in the manger the signe of Christes body But if they adored not the signe but the truth then this body is meaÌ„t this true body of Christ. And seing S. Chrysostome sayeth that the wise men adored this body meaning by the pronoun this that which we haue in the holy mysteries it is clere that he putteth it for a most knowen and certeyne veritie that we haue present before the tyme of receauing the reall body of Christ vpâ—… the altar And so haue it present that we are bound to adore it being vpon the altar Tu verò non in praesepe sed in altari vides Thou seest this body not in the manger but on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not only comprehended by faith but by the meane of yâ— forme òf bread it is seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome bringeth fower reasons why Chrystian people should rather worship the body of Christ at Masse then those wise men did worship it in that homely cottage First because they were not Godly men for so S. Chrysostom doth call them because they had not the knowlege of al true deuotion and Godlinesse although in that acte they shewed them selues Godly But we are instructed in all true religion therefore should souer worship this body of Christ then they did Secondly they were Barbarous men but S. Chrysostome spake to 〈◊〉 who were most ciuill leste Barbarous of all people in the world So much the rather they ought to know it to be their duety to worship the body of their maker Thirdly the wise men saw Christe in a manger where such things are not wont to lye as must be reuereÌ„ced worshipped but thou seest this body vpon the altar which is a place made for holy things to stand on And so much the more ought we Christians to adore the body of Christ being set before vs vpon the altar then those wise men did adore it in a manger They saw it also in the mothers armes which was a woman neither is any thing which a woman holdeth bringeth foorth wont
shewed a litle before that they were after consecration the body and blood of Christ. Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the body and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his body blood and so they are beleued to be and are adored or â—…neled bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the body and blood of Christ No Syr. but as being in dede the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstaÌ„ded and beleued to be They are adored because they are the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were verè existeÌ„tia quae creduntur being in dede things whiche they are beleued to be So speaketh S. Ihon saying of Christ vidimus gloriam eius gloriaÌ„ quasi vnigeniti à patre we saw his glory a glory as of the only begotten of the Father to wit we saw the glory of him being in dede the only begotten of his Father Uppon which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that coÌ„firmeth and betokeneth an vndouted determination as when we see a king comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a king that is to say he came forth as being in dede a king So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Thedorite vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speak The holy mysteries are adored as being those things in dede which they are beleued to be This place is such as can not be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or geuing godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is in dede the body of Christ as it is beleued to be But it is beleued to be the body of Christe after consecration therefore it is adored as being yâ— true body of Christ. For Theodorete before hauing confessed the mysteries to be called after consecration the body and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther doest thou beleue that thou receauest the body and blood of Christ he answered to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I doe beleue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mystical signes to be in deede after consecration the body and bâ—…ood of Christ which they are beleued to be and so beleued that they are receaued of vs. Euery word must be weighed because we haue to do with Heretikes who must find shifts or els theyr deceite will appere to al the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the body and blood Secondly that the mysteries are vnderstanded to be the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleued to be so Fiâ—…tly they are adored for that they are in dede those things which they are beleued to be And last of all they are receaued The first saying the second and the last the Sacramentaries can beare â—…ithall to wit that they are called the body and blood and are vnderstanded to be the body and blood and that the body and blood are receaned For they would haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a myssecaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name SecoÌ„dly they would haue them vnderstanded to be the body and blood and yet not to be so thereby shewing that they delight in false vnderstandings for no good men would haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which in deede it is not Againe they would the body blood to be receaued How trow you In the faith of the man but not in the truth of the body thereby declaring that they diuide faith from truth as men that haue a presuasion of things that in dede be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receauing Theodoret ioyneth also beleuing adoring and being And the beleâ—…e which he speaketh of is not referred to heaueÌ„ but vnto the holy mysteries They are beleued they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be The thing that is called or named Christes body blood is in dede that thing whiche it is called Christ can missename nothing at al. For if he should call that which were before aier water or earth by the names of fier stones or bread aier earth and water would soner cease to be fyre bread stones would come in theyr place theÌ„ God should cal any creature by a wroÌ„g name He called bread his body therefore bread is vnderstaÌ„ded to be made the body of Christ. You say the vnderstaÌ„ding of man taketh his beginning of senses which tel me it is bread I say in matters belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth me it is the body of Christ and Theodorete saith it is beleued so to be and it is worshipped for that it is so And he geueth the same very word of worshipping to the holy mysteries the which in the same sentence he geueth to the immortall body of Christ sitting at the right hande of his Father And no wonder For seing it is one body whether it be worshipped in heauen or vpon the altar one worship is always due to it Thus we haue witnessed by Theodoretus that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his body aad blood but as being in dede his body and blood Therefore worship is not geuen to them as to images whiche represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really conteine the truth represented by them ¶ The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is proued by the custom of the Priests and people of the first six hundred yeres FRom the Apostles tyme to this day the very same holy mysteries which were consecrated by the Priest vppon the altar were adored of the saithful people which thing is euidently proued out of the Massebooke of the primitiue Church For the Liturgies or Massesbookes of S. Iames the Apostle of S Clement Bishop of Rome of S. Basill Bishop of Cesarea of S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and the exposition which both S. Dionysius Bishop of Athens of Paris Cyrillus Bishop of Hierusalem Germanus Bishop of Constantinoplâ—… Maximus the munk and diuers others haue made vpon the holy mysteries do al with one accord teache and confirme that first the Deacon said Let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence And straight therevppon euen before the tyme of receauing the body and blood of Christ the Bishop or Priest who said Masse
is suche as betokeneth shewing and lifting vp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly betoken suche a shewing as is made by listing vp It is much to be noted yâ— S. Basil asketh what Saint to wit what Apostle or Euangelist hath left in writing to vs the order of saying Masse and the praiers which therein we vse Non enim iis contenti sumus quorum caet For we are not content with those things whereof the Apostle or Gospel hath made mention but both before and after we say certeine other things as hauing great strength about the mysteries which are taken out of the doctrine which is deliuered without writing The Apostle and Gospel hath only told the substanciall points of the Masse but the rest hath bene left vnto vs as S. Basil saith by secret doctrine yet by the same auctority which gaue vs the substanciall points Well seing that S. Basill speaking of the whole Masse yet nameth it ostentionem Eucharistiae the eleuation and sheing of the 〈◊〉 he geueth vs to vnderstand the eleuation to be next vnto the consecration a most principall parte of the Masse in so much as the whole may be named by it While the bread of yâ— Eucharist was shewed these were and among the Breeks are the words of inuocation Vnus sanctus c. one holy one Lord in the glory of God the Father Amen These words if they did not belong to the holy things which are shewed why are they spoken at that tyme why are they called the wordes of inuocation the words that acknowlege so holy thinges to be shewed and holden vp that they are the only holy and one Lord Iesus who is in equall deitie and glorie with his Father Maximus in his notes vpon S. Dionysius after some other interpretations made vpon the shewing of the diuine mysteries resteth in this that Dionysius meaneth the lifting vp and eleuation of the one blessing which is yâ— of the diuine bread which the Priest lifteth vp saying Holy things for holy men And as it may appeare by Maximus in the primatiue Church the mysteries were twise shewed at the first tyme the diuine bread alone was listed vp and before the communion as wel that diuine bread as also therewithall the chalice Germanus writeth thus Elatio autem in altum diuini corporis repraesentatcrucis elationem mortem in ea ipsam resurrectionem The lifting vp a high of the diuine body doth represent the lifting vâ—… on the crosse and the death in it and the very resurrection After the lifting vp of Christes body and the adoration thereof the holy communion folowed of the which Eusebius Emissenus writeth in this maner Cum ad reuerendum altare salutari cibo potuque reficiendus accedis sacrum Dei tui corpus sanguinem fide respice honora mirare mente continge cordis manu suscipe maximè haustu interiore assume when thou comest to the reuerend altar to be refresshed with the healthfull meate and drink looke with faith vpon the holy body and blood of thy God honour it wonder at it touche it with thy minde receaue it with an inward swalowing The first thing to be noted in these words is that he which is desirous to receaue the blessed Sacrament of Christes body must know where to haue it The second how to take it and last of al how to vse it profitably Concerning the place Eusebius sayth when thou comest to the reuerend altar to be fed with yâ— healthful meate and drink Doing vs to vnderstand that the body blood of Christ which only is our healthful meate and drink standeth vpon the altar thence to be distributed to the faithfull people Concerning the maner of taking the sayd body Eusebius biddeth vs honour it and wonder at it Concerning the profitable vse thereof he biddeth vs take it with our hart and minde for if we toke it with our bodies alone we should rather take it to our damnation then to our profite The English homilies rehersing this place in the secoÌ„d tome haue translated altare the communion and salutari cibo potuque spirituall meates whereas altare is an altar and salutare is healthful But the brethern who 〈◊〉 ouerthrowen altars were loth by naming them to recite their own damnation Eusebius beginneth with the altar as the which is the grouÌ„d of all the rest Upon the altar the healthful meate is consecrated made ready for the faithfull people There it is looked on not by the bodily eye which seeth nothing besyde the outward formes but by faith which is taught the body and blood of Christ to be present vpon the altar vnder those formes There that meate is honoured thence that is taken which refresheth vs. To that meate the receauer sayd Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roof For he that seeth the diuine food lifted vp vnto him and afterward speaketh these words seing he taketh corporally that bread into his mouth and only in respect of that corporall receauing sayth I am not worthy that thou should est enter Doubtlesse he speaketh to the bread it self calleth it his Lord. For none other Lord entreth vnder the roof of his mouth besyde that bread It is lifted vp to receaue it he cometh to it he speaketh it entreth vnder his roof It is therefore a fond preteÌ„se to say those words were spoken to God in heauen not vnto yâ— holy Sacrament Cyrillus of Hâ—…erusalem describing yet more particularly the gesiures of them who receaue the holy coÌ„munion biddeth them to take the King and the body of Christ in the hollow of the right hand saing Amen And to sanctifie their eyes withall vsing all diligence that no crum thereof perish or fal away But what neded that precept if it were the substance of commoÌ„ bread Surely seing no such diligence was vsed in Baptisme we may well perceaue that as because that substance of water doth still remaine it skilleth not where it fall so for so much as no crum of bread must be lost it is not the substance of wheaten bread which is so carefully kept After the communion of the body Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christes blood bowing down saying in the maner of adoring and worshipping Amen Here the right hand receaueth the King surely not by faith which yâ— hand hath not therefore the King of glory was meant to be taken in the hand by meane of the forme of bread vnder which our King Iesus Christ is really present Here is bowing down and adoring at the very instant when the holy communion is receaued As therefore when we reade that the Disciples went back from the place of Christes ascension adorantes adoring we may wel conclude that they adored Christ him self and not only God yâ— Father in him or by him As againe when the Centurion sayd
of Christ who was coming to his house Lorde I am not worthy that thou should est enter vnder my roof we thereby know that he spake to Christ and called Christ his Lord and not only God in heauen so when we reade that the receauers of the holy communion did say at the tyme of receauing the Sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou should est enter vnder my roof and that they did bow downe adore worship at the same tyme we must vndoubtedly conclude that both the Sacrament was spoken vnto and called Lord and also bowed to and adored Thus I haue proued the adoration of Christes body blood euen as it is a Sacrament out of the Prophetes out of S. Paul out of the anncient Fathers out of the publike seruire of the primitine Church and out of the custome of the faithfull people Al which proufes I haue applied to this end that the body blood of Christ should be knowen thereby to be really present in that self Sacrament which we take into our mouthes And for so much as that is so euery faithful man ought to beleue most constantly the sayd reall presence and to detest the contrary doctrine as a most perniciouse heresy ¶ The reall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers IF euery man is to be credited and ought to haue authoritie in his owne arte facultie if when we build we call a Carpenter to counsell and when we make gardens a gardener how much more must we esteme the holy Doctors of the Churche who are not only cunning by long labour bestowed â—…pon the science of diuinitie but also haue so vertuously vsed them selues that they haue bene abundantly instructed in all knowlege by marnailons inspirations of the holy Ghoste whose names are so greate that the very Heretiks can not deny them to be holy Sainctes in heauen and therefore they pretend to haue the first syx hundred yeres on their side It is then a good sure way to worke with the aduise of those auncient Fathers whose sayings because I haue particularly alleged and examined in euery article and chapiter of my former bookes as occasion suffered I thought good not to prosecâ—… them now again at large but rather to shew briefly by what generall chapiters a man may be vndoutedly assured of their belefe and doctrine First very many Fathers speaking of Christes words or dedes when aâ—…ter bread taken and thankes geuen he sayd this is my body allege the almighty power of God to defend the veritie of those dedes and wordes Therefore the same Fathers beleued those words this is my body to be true in so wonderfull a maner as they sound at the first sight And seing they meane according to their moste vsuall sound that this which is pointed vnto though it seme still bread is notwithstanding yâ— substance of Christes body we ought to think that those Fathers beleued the reall presence of Christes body Otherwise they wold neuer haue alleged his Godhead or almightie power and omnipotencie for the instituting of a figure and signe of his owne body sith for the institution of signes and figures such an authoritie might haue serued as God gaue to Moyses who yet was but the feruant of Iesus Christe and not almighty God S. Ireneus How can they be sure the bread whereon thankes are geuen to be the body of their Lord the chalice of his blood if they say not him to be the Sonne of the maker of the world S. Ireneus was so sure that Christ through his diuine power made the bread wherein thankes were geuen his owne body that if the Godhead were denied which should work that presence no man could be sure of the presence of Christes body and yet he might haue bene sure of a figuratiue presence though Moyses had bene the minister of the SacrameÌ„t and not Christe S. Cyprian That bread which our Lorde gaue to the Disciples by the omnipotencie of the word was made flesh What neded omnipotencie be alleged for a fact that were not supernaturall S. Hilary speaking of the Sacrament saith By the profession of our Lorde it is truely flesh and truely blood Is not this thinge the truth â–ª It may in dede chance not to be true to them who deny Icsus Christe to be true God As who should say if his Godhead may stand his flesh must nedes be truly present S. Basilius to shew yâ— these wordes This is my body make full persuation allegeth out of S. Iohn the glory or Godhead and also the incarnation of Christe because except he were both true God and true man this is my body should not make full persuasion sith if he were not man he should not haue a body whereof those words might be verified If he were not God we might dout how he were able to make his word true but seing he is God and man and sayd this is my body there is no dout of the presence of his body S. Ambrosius Our Lorde Iesus him self crieth This is my body he hath sayd and it is made S. Chrysostome O miracle He hath sitteth aboue caet And againe Let vs euery where geue credit vnto his wordes specially in the mysteries Eusebius Emissenus Let the very power of him that consecrateth strengthen thee S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Seing God worketh let vs not aske how Damascene We know no more but that the word of God is true strengthfull almighty but the maner is inscrutable No wise man requireth vs earnestly to beleue the words which himself doth think to be figuratiue and parabolicall but he rather should bid vs beware that we mistake them not as S. Chrysostome vpon those words God repented crieth out See a grosse word not that God repented God forbid but God speaketh to vs according to the custome of man Likewise S. Augustine saith in respect of those words Iohn Baptist is Elias Our Lord spake figuratiuely but S. Ihon saying I am not Elias answered properly If now these words This is my body were figuratiue we should haue ben'e warned by the watchmen of God to beware of them and not require d to beleue them as now we are required yea we are so required to beleue them that it is wonderfull to see and to consyd er how earnestly the Doctours speake in that behalf S Basilius The certeintie of our Lords words who sayd This is my body which is geu en for yow make this thing for the remembrance of me ingender full persuasion Surely figuratiue words can not make ful persuasion because theÌ„ selues are imperfite as lackin g their proper signification which is the chiefe vertue of words whereby they should fully informe vs. for no figuratiue speache is so plaine as a proper speache is
them Therefore in this behalfe we are clere as who neuer departed from the Apostles nor froÌ„ their 〈◊〉 â–ª But your departing is knowen I 〈◊〉 that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berengarius about the yere of our Lord. 1000. I can tell when 〈◊〉 renewed the same heresy when Luther when Zwinglius began Who knoweth not where the Churches are whence they depâ—…rted To wit in Italy in France in Spaine in Germany so forth I can tell the CouÌ„cels wherin it hath bene condemned At 〈◊〉 at Uercels at Tours in the great Councel of Lateran at â—…iemia in Feance at Basill at Constance at Florence at Trent All things are knowen so manifestly concerning the begiuning and proceding of the Sacramentaries that they can not be denied To couclude our faith is 〈◊〉 by the testimonie of yâ— Church which in al ages hath beleued yâ— real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in so much that S. Hilary saith there is no place left of douting of the veritie of Christes fleshe blood why so nunâ—… enim ipsius Domini professione fide nostra verè 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 verè sanguis est â–ª for now both by the profession of our Lord him self by our faith it is fleshe in dede and blood in dede Lo By our Lordes profession and by our faith S. Hilary confesseth that all Christians beleued that the SacrameÌ„t of Cjroâ—…tes body and blood whereof he there spake was his fleshe in dede and his blood in dede for he had spoken before of the Sacrament which be called also a mystcrie and our Lords meate and the Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to vs which Sacrament is Christes fleshe in dede and being receaued maketh the same fleshe naturally and corporally to dwell in vs. This was not only the minde of S. Hilary but he saith it was the profession of our Lord and the faith of the Churche whiche two groâ—…ids are so sure that no place of douting is left For the faith of the â—…hurch doth expound declare witnesse how Christ our Lord ment when he said my flesh is meate in dede This faith can not be vayne or voide for by it we ouercomme the world the deuyl and hel gates By it we know the difference betwene these words This is my body and these I am the dore the vine the way the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias and such like For no man taught in any age neither ChristiaÌ„ people did at tyme beleue that Christ was a material dore vine or way neither that any rock was turned into Christ neither that Ihon Baptist was Elias in person Faith always did vnderstand these propositioÌ„s and such like to be a phrase of speaking without any effect of working any farther thing But when a lawfull Priest saith vppon bread at the altar This is my body then no faithâ—…ul man euer douted but there was wrought the body and blood of Christ. and so our fathers and great grandfathers deliuered to vs that belefe Certainly a surer rule to vnderstand the word of God then faith is neuer was heard of for it is the life and graâ—… of the new testament which the holy Ghost hath geuen into the whole Church of God It is the gift of knowlege to euery good beleuer which directeth him to al truth S. Augustine shewing that the Manichees thought the visible sonne to be Christ although he might by many meanes haue impugned that errour yet he specially chose to say Catholicae Ecclesiae recta fides improbat tale commentum diabolicam doctrinam esse cognoscit credendo The right faith of the Catholike Church disproued that fable and knoweth it by beleuing to be a deâ—…ylish doctrine Euen so by beleuing the Sacrament of the altar to be Christes true flesh we know the doctrine of the Sacramentaries to be a fable aud an heresy Epiphanius writing of purpose against figuratiue and allegoricall interpretatious geueth likewise a most clere witnesse of the belefe of all the Church in his tyme and before him For disputing what it is for man to be made according to the image of God He shewith at the last whatsoeuer it be once it is true because God through grace hath geuen man that image Though we can not tell wherein it standeth And for example he bringeth how Christe tooke at his last supper bread and wine and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body and this is my blood 〈◊〉 Epiphanius nameth not these things because the 〈◊〉 should not by his bookes vnderstaÌ„d our mysteries coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he sheweth that the thing coÌ„secrated is not like neither to the manhod of Christ nor to his Godhead For it is of a shape and to looke vnto a dead or vnsensible thing yet Christ by grace hath said This is my body and This is my blood Et nemo non fidem habet sermoni Qui â—…nim non credit esse ipsum verum sicut ipse dixit is excidit à gratia salute and euery man beleueth the saying For who so doth not beleue the saying as him selfe said it he is fallen from grace and saluation If the word saying be this is my body this is my blood If euery man beleue the saying if he that beleueth not the saying to be true and so to be true euen as Christ spake it as he sounded it as he vttered it if he that beleueth not these things be fallen from grace and saluation who wil now beleue that this is the signe of my body and not the truth thereof and then he must say likewise that in dede we are not made according to the image of God Euery man in the tyme of Epiphanius did beleue not only yâ— truth of Christes body blood in heauen nor only the dwelling thereof in vs by faith but euery man did beleâ—…e this selfe saying this speache and this proposition This is my body If this saying must be beleued it must be true if the speache it selfe be true the thing thereby signified is true But the wordes doe signifie the substance of Christes body for his body is a substance therefore it is true yâ— this is the substaÌ„ce of Christes body But if it be still bread it is not so for material bread is not the body of Christ therefore it is so the substance of his body that it is not bread or wine which is the signe of his body as the Sacramentaries teach In this saying This is my body no bread is named no signe no figure â—…ut only the selfe body of Christe which is one certaine substance Therefore all the Church in the tyme of Epiphanius and alwaies before did beleue the thing pointed vnto in those words to be the substaÌ„ce of Christes body For how so euer it semed vnsensible as also it is not sene how we are made according to yâ— image of God yet yâ— saying was beleued euen
as Christ said it sicut ipse dixit as him selfe said it without glosing without additioÌ„s without figures orparables euen as Christ spake it so it was beleued and beleued of euery man And who so did not beleue it was rekoned a damned person without grace without saluation without life euerlasting Thus haue we heard two notable witnesses of the faith of the whole Churche the one a Latine S. Hilarius the other a grecian Epiphanius But now I will bring foorth not as before the old Fathers bearing witnesse of the belefe of the people but I will bring foorth the whole people it selfe yea the people of the primatine Church You shall heare al the citizens of the house of God through out the world witnessing with one voice in one word their most constaÌ„t faith touching the Sacrament of the altar Amen is an hebrew word which partly wisheth and partly affirmeth signifying as it were at once be it so and it is so It signifieth be it so when it is ioyned with praiers and petitions It signifieth it is so when it foloweth any parte of Christes doctrine which is alredy pronounced or affirmed Thence we reade so oft in holy scripture Amen amen I say vnto you which is to say verely verely S. James the Apostle S. Iustin the martyr S. Clement S. Cyrill of Hicrusalem S. Basil S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostom doe witnesse that the people vsed at Masse tyme to answer Amen Which thing they did specially twise once at the consecration as well of the body as of the blood and againe at the tyme of communion At the consecration the Priest in the person of Christ pronounceth most determinatly ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my bloood Therefore when the people answer to those blessed sayings Amen they affirme the same that is affirmed as though they said with one voice It is verely the body of Christ and it is verely the blood of Christ whereof you speak And least you should thinke this coÌ„ment to be of myne making S. Ambrose expounded yâ— same word before me saying Ipse clamat dominus Iesus hoc est corpus meuÌ„ our Lord Iesus him selfe crieth this is my body He calleeh the crying of our Lord when his minister crieth so in his name For of that crying he speaketh as it may appere by the word folowing Wel Our Lord Iesus him self crieth out this is my body before the blessing of yâ— heauenly words it is named another kind after consecration that body is signified him self calleth it his own blood before consecration it is called an other thing after consecration it is called blood and thou sayest Amen that is to say as S. Ambrose him selfe expoundeth it verum est it is true That the mouth speaketh let the inward mind confelse that the speache soundeth let the hart think Hitherto S. Ambrose who would not bid the people thinke that whiche the speache soundeth if the speache were figuratiue for a figuratiue speache soundeth otherwise then we ought to thinke thereof as when we say God is sory Christ is made synne the rok is Christ. As it was the custome of the primatiue Church for the people to say Amen straight vppon the consecration of the body and blood whereby they shewed them selues to beleue the wordes of Christ and the work of the Priest euen so was it also the custome that when the tyme of communion came as S. Clement and diâ—…erse others doe witnesse the Bishop should geue the oblation to the people saying â–ª Corpus Christi the body of Christ and he yâ— toke it should say Amen it is true And yâ— Deacon wheÌ„ he deliuered yâ— chalice did say sanguis Christi calix vitae â–ª yâ— blood of Christ yâ— chalice of life he that drank said Amen so it is or that is true To which custome being in vse at his tyme S. Ambrose alluding writeth thus Dicit tibi Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis amen hoc est verum quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The Priest saith to thee the body of Christ and thou saiest Amen that is true that which thy tonge confesseth let thy hart kepe But what speake I of S. Ambrose Would the Apostles haue made all the people to cry amen to that which had not bene so as the word did sound Would they haue made the simple men to witâ—…esse their belefe to such words as neded a farther commeÌ„t or interpretation It is rather to be thought yea to be most assuredly beleued that they ordeined that custome to thend all men might know that the thing consecrated vppon the altar was in dede the body of Christ S. Augustine beareth witnesse to the same custome saying Habet magnam vocem Christi sanguis in terra cùm eo accepto ab omnibus gentibus respondetur Amen the blood of Christ hath a greate voice in earth when after it is taken all nations aunswere amen Haec est clara vox sanguinis quam sauguis ipse exprimit ex ore fidelium eodem sanguine redemptorum This is the cleere voice of the blood the which voice the blood it selfe forceth out of the mouth of the faithfull being redemed with the same blood Pope Leo the greate agreeth with S. Clement S. Ambrose and S. Augustine Sic sacrae mensae communicare debetis caeâ—… Ye ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and blood of Christe for yâ— thing is taken in the mouth which is beleued in faith And Amen is in vayne answered of them who dispute against that which is receaued This place declareth that some disputation was moued by some of the heresy of Manicheus who liued in Rome vnder Leo against the real presence of Christes body and blood vnder the forme of bread For seing the Maniches beleued not Christ to haue a true body at all they might well doubt of the truth of his body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar But that holy Bishop biddeth the people not doubt thereof shewing that we do not eate the body of Christ only by faith but also by mouth Now because Leo setteth the receauing of the truth of Christes body by mouth against the receauing thereof by faith only we may coniecture that heretikes euen in those days were of the mind that their ofspring is now of verily to draw as much truth from Christes works as may be and to set all things vpon faith spirit and vnderstanding But Leo proueth his doctrine by the generall custome of the whole Church â–ª wherein the people answering Amen did in open words witnesse them selues to beleue that it was true which the Priest sayd concerning the body of Christ. Now because some of them who vsed to say Amen disputed whether the substance and truth of Christes body were present in the mouthes of
Chapiters of the seuenth Booke 1. Maister Iuel hath not answered D. Hâ—…rding wel touching the vvords of Christes supper 2. That the supper of Christ is a naked bare figure accordig to the Doctrine of the SacrameÌ„taries 3. That Christes bodie is receaued by mouth not by faith only 4. M. Iuel hath not replied vvel touching the sixth Chapiter of S. Iohn But hath abused as vvell yâ— gospel as diuerse authorities of the fathers 5. Item he hath not replied vvell touching the Carpharnaites 6. Neither conferred the supper vvith the sixth of Iolm as it ought to be 7. Neither disputed wel touching the omnipotenâ—…ie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh 8. Whether the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 exponÌ„d more vnpropertie or inconuenientlie the vvords belonging to Christes supper 9. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel 10. Of the signification of aduerbs 11. Of the first author of the SacrameÌ„tarie heresie 12. Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded 13. A place of S. Chrysostom examined 14. The difference betvvene baptisme and oure Lordes supper 15. The ansvvere to M. Iuel concerning the Nicene Councell S. Augstine caet 16. VVhether Christes bodie dvvelleth reallie in our bodies by his natiuitie 17. Item vvhether by faith 18. The contradictions of M. Iuel in this article 19. Whether by baptism Christe dvvelleth reallie in our bodies 20. Item VVhether by the Sacrament of the altar or no. 21. Christes bodie is proued really present by S. Chrysostoms vvordes 22. Item by the vvordes of S. Hilarie 23. Item of S. Gregorius Nyssenus 24. Item of S. Cyrill ¶ Master Iuel hath not answered D. Harding well touching the words of Christes supper IVel. fo 316. The people was not taught in the first 600. yeres to beleue that Christes body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the Sacrament Harding Of the termes really substantially corporally coet found in the doctors Iuel His answere is that Christes body is corporally vnited to vs but whether it be corporally in the Sacrament he answereth not one word Harding The termes are fouÌ„d in the doctors treating of the true being of Christes body in the Sacrament Sander Ergo M. Iuel said not truly For as D. Harding now saith it so he proueth afterward Christes body to be really in the Sacrament Iuel In this matter he is able to allege nothing for direct prouf Harding Christen people hath euer bene taught that the body of Christ is present verely in the Sacrament vvhich doctrine is founded vpon Christes plaine vvords Sander Ergo M. Iuel â–ª he was able to allege some what Iuel It is marueil the people should be taught without a teacher or without â–ª words â–ª or those not writen Harding Christes vvordes are expressed by three Euangelists and S. Paule Take eate this is my body this is my blood coet San. Ergo M. Iuel hath 〈◊〉 plainly 〈◊〉 whereby direct prouf of Christes real presence is 〈◊〉 â–ª Harding Neither saieth our Lord only This is my body but to put the matter out of dout he addeth vvhich is geuen for you Iuel 317. Hereupâ—… M. Harding fouÌ„deth his carnal presence 318. in such grosse sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament c. San. It is no grosse sort of presence whiche is reall true and miraculouse as being of Christes own institution Marcion and Apelles herein your auncestors M. Iuel thought it a carnall a grosse a fleshly thing for Christ to lie nine moneths in his mothers belly to be nourished there with blood and humours to be borne naked to be wrapped in clouts For a remedie of which absurdities the one of them deuised that Christ was not really borne but that which Tertullian saith against Marcion shal be my answere to you First God saieth he hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound men that are wise in their own conceit 2. Whatsoeuer is vnworthy of God is expedient for maÌ„ 3. Be thou assured Christ had rather be borne then in any parte to make a lye Now if we applie all these sayinges to Christes presence in the Sacrament it shal be lesse carnall lesse grosse lesse fleshly to haue the substance of Christes corporall flesh in a spirituall manner really present vnder the forme of bread then either to be corporally in his mothers womb or to think that he made a lye when he said take eate this is my body Iuel Christ vseth not any of these words San. I will say with S. Augustine although the word be not found the thing is found Harding 130. Though this manner of speaking be not thus expressed in the scripture yet it is deduced out of the scripture Iuel Christ vseth no leading thereunto Sander The worde 〈◊〉 â—…id lead the Apostles to that which was in Christes hands or which lay before him the wordes is my body shewed the substance thereof as if I shewing to a man that kind of beast should say this is a lion the word this leadeth him to that beast which he feeth and whereunto I point is a lion sheweth the substance of the thing pointed vnto This oddes only there is that a man by pointing speaking can shew only that which was before but God who spake it was made by pointing and speaking doth make that to be the substance of his body whiche was not so before Nowe as when it is truly said this is a lion it wil follow thereof vnder this visible forme which I shew a lion is substantially conteined so seing Christe pointeth to the Sacrament saying This is my body it will follow thereof in this Sacrament my body is conteined substantially corporally c. Thus Chrisâ—…es wordes lead vs to his body substantially present in the Sacrament ergo M. Iuel must subscribe by his owne promise Iuel 317. D. Fisher saith this sense can not in any wise be gathered of the bare wordes of Christ. Sander Wel fisht I promise you if he fish wel that catcheth a lie 1. The blessed B. of Rochester had said that the vnderstaÌ„ding of the Gospell is more certeinly obteined by the interpretation of the Fathers and by the practise left by them then by the bare words of the Gospel For example hereof he saith no man shall prone by the bare wordes of the Gospel that any Priest in these daies doth coÌ„secrate the true body and blood of Christ. Marke good Reader whereof he speaketh For although saith he Christ him self did in dede make his body and blood of bread and wine yet except the like be promised and graunted to vs we can not be sure we do it but no suche thing is promised For in S. Mathew now followeth one of the places alleged by M. Iuell No word is put whereby it maie be proued that in our Masse the very presence of Christes body and blood
is made S. Mathew then proueth it not neither S. Marke And whereas S. Luke and S. Paule witnesse that Christ said make this thing for the remembrance of me albeit that was spoken to the Apostles yet it is not thereby proued that the successors of the Apostles maie doe it Then cometh he to the later words which M. Iuel citeth Non potest igitur per vllam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cum nec istud in scripturis contineatur It can not therefore be proued by any scripture what can not be proued M. Iuel gâ—…ue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it can not What can not Iuel D. Fisher saieth the carnall presence can not be proued neither by these wordes this is my body nor by any other San. Then you make carnal presence the nomninatiue case to the verbe Potest but D. Fysher spake not thereof The whole speache which foloweth is that whereof he speaketh to wit that either a lay man or a priest shall when he attempteth it make the body and blood of Christ of bread and wine as well as Christ did that thing can not be proued for asmuch as it is not conteined in the scriptures But it followeth after that by yâ— interpretation and practise of so long time the holy gost hath expounded to vs these words Hoc facite make this thing in such wise that the successours of the Apostles may consecrate Christes body and blood How manie enormouse faultes haue you committed here in M. Iuel first D. Harding affirmed these words This is my bodie to teache a reall presence But B. Fisher spake of these wordes Make this thing and not of the words This is my bodie 2. D. Harding spake of the real presence whiche wyll manifestlie be proued if any sacrament at all be commaunded to be made by Christ. D. Fisher spake of this point whether any man had authoritie by the scripture to make any sacrament at al or no. 3. D. Harding spake of Christes wordes B. Fisher of our doinges 4. B. Fisher neuer doubted but that these wordes This is my body when thei were spoken by christ or his Apostles made and proued the re al presence of his bodie and blood But he asketh of heretiks how thei can proue by only scriptures that any man after the Apostles is able to make the supper of Christ not that he douted of the thing it selfe but he asketh for the prouf thereof out of the new testament Now for M. Iuel to cite B. Fishers words leauing out the nominatiue case which immediatly folowed and to supply a false nominatiue case neuer thought of by B. Fysher it is a figure of a man that hath repelled al good coÌ„science and therefore it is no woÌ„der if he haue erred in faith not caring what he writeth so he maie be counted lerned in their eies that know neither greeke nor latin neither verb nor nominatiue case Iuel M. Hardings frendes D. Smith D. Stephen Gardener c. can not agree vppon the termes naturally or sensually c. San. Where is the word of god M. Iuel whereof you boast so much are B. Fysher and D. Smith and D. Gardener your Euangelistes to them now you flie to answere S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule you haue forbidden vs all the fathers of these nine hundred yeres and shall it be lawfull for you to answere the words of the blessed Euangelists by a cauil moued vppon men of our age al who are wel knowen to haue condemned your opinon for heresie and al thes beleue that naturall presence which you impugne And that which you bring concerning the sense of the termes naturallie sensually or so foorth is 〈◊〉 ke moued only concerning the maner of signifying Christes reall presence which is no weighty mater when the real presence it selfe is once agreed vppon Iuel This article cannot be proued by the old doctours as M. Harding graunteth by his silence Sander If it be proued by Christ whome D. Hardinge citeth what nede a better doctour and yet he briugeth also moe doctours then you haue answered to as it shal appere afterward Iuel The question is not of Christes words but of his meaning which must be coÌ„sidered chefely as the Lawiers and S. Augustine saie Christ meant not this to be his bodie reallie Sander S. Hilarie disputing against the Arrians whome he intended to confute by the natural presence of Christes bodie taken by vs really in the sacrament made this preface to his talke coÌ„cerning yâ— words wherein Christ praied that the faithful might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christe in hym Aut fortè qui verbuÌ„ est significationeÌ„ verbi ignorauit et qui veritas est loqui vera nesciuit et qui sapientia est in stultiloquio errauit et qui virtus est in ea fuit infirmitate ne posset eloqui quae vellet intelligi loquutus planè ille est vera syncera fidei Euangelicae Sacramenta neque soluÌ„ loquutus est ad significationem sed etiaÌ„ ad fidem docuit ita dlcens vt omnes vnum sint sicut tu pater in me et ego in te vt et ipsi vnum sint in nobis Either perhaps doth he which is the word not know the signification of the word and doth not he which is the truthe know to speake true things hath he which is the wisdom erred in folish speaking and is he which is the power of such 〈◊〉 that he can not vtter those things which he wold haue vnderstanded he hath spokeu plainlie the true and syncere mysâ—…eries of the faith of the gospel Nâ—…ither hath he spoken only for significations sake but also he hath taught for faiths sake saying thus that all may be one as thou O Father art in me and I in thee they also may be one in vs. If then Christ much more in his last supper spake in such sort that he did not only signifie his minde but also taught vs the faith of the Sacrament what a folly is it to pretend that he spak otherwise then he meant Specially sith in this place we are so farre from any circumstance which may hinder the proper meaning of Christs speach yâ— these words which is geuen for you doe put yâ— matter out of al dout as D. Harding hath told you before and that is further proued inuincibly after this sorte This is my bodie which is geuen for you but my body geuen for you is real substantiall natural therefore this is so This argument can not be answered except ye say the signe of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. For yâ— participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in english geue
the relatiue quod in latine in english whiche doth so restraine the noune corpus body vnto that only meaning wherein it is said the true body is geuen for vs that no scape may be had beside infidelitie and heresy whereof I haue spoken at large in my fourth booke the 6. chapiter the 18. circumstance If now this which is pointed vnto be the reall natural and s◅bstantial body of Christ which died for vs seing this that he pointeth vnto is meant of the Sacrament Christ meant that in this Sacramēt his body is really naturally substantially present And therefore M. Iuel must subscribe Iuel Christ was the rocke but yet not reallie Sander First these wordes were not spoken of S. Paule with the intent to make any Sacrament or anie other thing 2. Two diuerse natures are named in them which can neuer be one i◅ substāce but only in qualitie or in similitude but this is my body nameth one substance only and signifieth it alone really present 3. It was not anie one certeine rocke in number whereof S. Paule spake for the water flowed out of two rocks in two diuerse partes of the wildernes Either of which did signifie Christ and they bothe are only one rock in meaning and in the substāce figured 4. Therefore S. Pa◅le meant only by the name of the rock the spiritual rock which in substance was Christ him selfe They dranke saith he of the spirituall rock But this is my body is spoken of a real truth made present at Christes supper and shewed outwardly aparte from Christes own visible body 5. He saied not this rocke pointing to it but the rocke 6. Not is Christ but was Christ. 7. Such effectua words folowed not to shew that any real rocke was meant as these words are which is geuen for you whiche folow and expound the other wordes This is my body Iuel D. Harding must seek helpe of 16 or moe sundrie figures not knowen to the old Fathers Sander 1. You seeke one figure for all which taketh away the substance of Christes supper frome his externall table frome his hand from his word and from the Apostles bodies 2. D. Hardings figures be to defend Christes words yours to destroy thē 3. It is not true that he is constreined to seeke either sixten or sixe figures as it shal appere in due place Iuel the old Fathers thought it no heresie to expound Christes words by a figure Sander They thought it here◅ie to expound these words This is my body by a rhetorical or grāmatical figure as by Synecdoche or Metonymia or anie other which may exclude the substanciall presence of the thing figured Iuel Christ gaue his disciples as S. Augustine saith the figure of his body and blood Sander He did so 1. but he gaue such a figure of his own body which is also the substance of his body as him selfe being a figure of his Fathers substance is also the selfe same substance with his Father 2. He gaue a true and not a false signe And yet it were false if this which he pointeth to and affirmeth to be his body were not in dede his body seing the words signifie so much as I haue declared in my second booke xij chapter 3. He gaue a miraculouse not a common figure in the secōd booke xiij chapter 4. A diuine not a rethorical figure in the secōd booke xiiij chapter 5. A mystical not an artificial or natural figure in y◠fifth booke sixtenth chapter 6. He gaue at his supper a figure of the new and not of y◠old testament that is to yas a figure which hath the truth in it and not of that kind whiche only both betoken the truth absent from it which thing S. Augustine declareth most euidētly saying The old Fathers did celebrate the figure of the thing to come when as yet the true sacrifice which the faithfull know was foretolde in figures these sacrifices being as wordes that promise a thing are taken away Quid est quod datum est completiuum What is it which is geuen as accomplishing or performing the old figuratiue sacrifices which promised a true sacrifice S. Augustine answereth Corpus quod nostis quod vtinam non ad iuditium noueritis The body which ye know is the accomplishmēt of the old figures the which body I would ye might not know to your damnation And again exhibita est veritas promissa the promised truth is presently brought foorth In this body we are of this body we are partakers we know what we receaue Here S. Augustine manifestly calleth the body whiche we receaue in the Sacrament the very truth promised which accomplished the the old figures 7. He gaue a figure but he spake not a figure You bring this autoritie to proue that Christes words be expounded by a figure as though S. Augustine thought the speach to be figuratiue For so your word expounded by a sigure must import but this authoritie proueth not your intent For S. Augustine speaketh of Christes deede and not of his words 8. The names of body and blood as they are vsually taken of men doe signifie such a visible a corruptible and mortall nature as al we haue which thing S. Augustine wel knowing and of all men most depely po◅dering the same in so much that he was afeard least childern wold thinke that Christ had walked none otherwise vpon the earth then in the shape of bread for that respect he always teacheth that the body of Christ in the Sacramēt is the signe and figure of Christes visible body After suche sorte S. Paule speaketh of Christes fleshe saying Although we haue knowen Christ according to the flesh yet we know him not In which words he meaneth not that Christ now lacketh his flesh but that he now is no more visibly seen in his former mortall shape 9. Your abusing of S. Augustine in this behalfe if it come of ignorāce ye are not worthy to be a preacher as who vnderstand not your booke if it come of malice you are not worthy to be a man as who delighteth in leading soules to damnation Iuel Tertullian saith This is my body that is to say the figure of mie bodie Sander He meaneth so as I sayd before S. Augustine did meane which solution might serue all this whole article of the real presence but the truth is so wel armed that euery word you bring may be turned vppon your owne head Tertullian doth witnesse that the Marcionites brought forth a place of S. Paule where it was writen of Christes manhood accepta effigie serui non veritate the shape of a seruant being taken not the truth said the Marcionite in similitudine hominis non in homine and in the likenes of a man not a man figura inuentus homo non substantia id est non carne
is the Godhead to be eaten of man really whiles man eateth that flesh wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth You teache the Godhead to be eaten by faith alone as it was eaten before the incarnation of Christ and none otherwise Iuel Christes body is meate of the mind not of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyprian San. I find no such wordes in S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it who soeuer doth speake these wordes of the Sacrament it will folowe that the meate he speaketh of is not materiall bread for then it should be meate of the belly but it is only the bread of God and flesh of Christ. Which in 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 to fill the bellie but rather to tame it and to make vs more temperate and chaste Iu. Beleue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body San. Thou hast eaten by faith but not yet in SacrameÌ„t Those words were spoken of spiritual and nor of Sacramentall eating Therefore do you 〈◊〉 to apply them to yâ— Sacrament albeit faith is necessarie also to receaue the Sacrament worthely Iuel It is better to vse the word figure then the wordes really corporally San. It is better to vse the word body flesh blood whiche are the words of scripture then the word figure which is vsed of the fathers only to shew in what sort the body and blood of Christe is present vnder the formes of bread and wine bâ—…t not to change yâ— words of scripture flesh body blood into other words figure signe tokeÌ„ God forebid yâ— men should vnplace Gods words but they added vnto the words of scripture other words to expouÌ„d that this is not Christes visible body but the 〈◊〉 thereof because it is the substance thereof vnder an other form â–ª but you M. Iuel are coâ—…tent to forget the word of God at this tyme and to name the Fathers Are they then aboue the word of God How long wil you halt Come home to the word of God to yâ— Gospel to the holy scripture which M. Harding alleged out of the EuaÌ„gelistes and out of S. Paule and you wandering in 〈◊〉 and seeking phrases of speache haue not alleged out of the worde of God 〈◊〉 that effect of the Sacramentall presence not so much as one syllable So well you loue the Gospell whereof you talke so much Iu. The old Fathers vsed not these words corporally substancially in case of being really in the Sacrament San. It is an impudent mouth which so speaketh I will construe the Fathers words to you in due place ¶ M. Iuell hath not replied wel touching the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn but hath abused as well the Ghospel as diuerse authorities of the Fathers HArding The promise of geuing the flesh vvhiche Christ vvould geue for the life of the vvorld being only performed in the supper proueth the same very substance to be in the Sacramente of the supper vvhiche vvas offered vppon the Crosse for the life of the vvorlde Iuel This principle is false in it selfe San. It is a true principle as it shall appere afterward Iuel It is full of daungerous doctrine and may lead to despeâ—…tion Sander It is daungerous to you because it sheweth that you must either subâ—…cribe or despeire but otherwyse it is not daungerous Iuel M. Harding supposeth no man may eate the flesh of Christ but only in the Sacrament San. You misrâ—…port the meaning of D. Harding who denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eateÌ„ spiritually both by faith as the iust Patriarches and Prophâ—…s had already eaten it and also by baptisme according to the whiche way those had eaten it whom Christ before this talke made at Capharnaum had baptized by the meane of his disciples Which two wayâ—…s notwithsâ—…anding for so muche as Christe promâ—…h at Capharâ—…m to gâ—…ne his â—…she afterward to be eaten that giste must differ both from eating by faith and by baptisme And therefore D. Harding worthely saith it was only performed in yâ— last supper the which way of geuing his flesh was only to come and it is not only spirituall but also reall Iuel The words be plaine and general Vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man ye shall haue no life in you San. It is not saied in S. Iohn habebitis nullam vitam ye shall haue no life but non habebitis vitam ye shall not haue life in you I thinke it escaped you without malice but yet it chanced not wel to put the negatiue to the noune which should haue bene ioyned to the verbe Christ meaneth that no man shal haue life who being of discretion to proue him selfe refuseth to 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of Christes supper Iu. Seing Christian children receaue not the Sacrament by M. Harding it wil follow they haue no life San. It wil folow that they haue not in them selues the fleshe of life as S. Cyrillus expoundeth these words non â—…bitis vitam id est carnem vitae ye shall not haue life that is to say the flesh of life in vobis id est in corpore vestro in you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in your body But you make an vntrue sequele thereof to say they shall haue no life at all For he that is borne againe in baptisme hath the life of spirituall birth whiche suffiseth him if he die before the yeres of discretion but afterward he is â—…und to comâ—… for the maintenaunce of his spiritual liâ—…e to the SacrameÌ„t of life which is the supper of Christ. Iuel Christ geueth his bodie not only in the Sacrament as M. Harding imagineth but at al tymes to the faithfull San. You 〈◊〉 a pleasure to 〈◊〉 vpon D. Harding without a plaine song D. Harding granteth that Christ gâ—…th him self by faith and 〈◊〉 but geueth not his fleshe by sacramâ—…nt and naturall participation which as S. Cyrill saieth is obteined by partaking the mysticall blessing but only in the supper Iuel S. Ambrose saieth Christ geueth this brâ—…ade to all men daily and at all times San. S. Ambrose may well meane either of the gift whiche is made in spirite to them that beleue loue god or in sacrament to them that come to the holy table which is alwaies 〈◊〉 for good men For he teacheth the Sacrament of Christes supper to be our supersubstancial and daily bread And wold men daily to come vnto it Iuel Then it is false that Christe perforâ—… 〈◊〉 promise and geueth his bodie only at the ministratâ—… of the Sacrament Sander It is an vnhonest thing thus to misreporte D. Hardings meaning You mingle the performing of one certain promise of Christ made in S. Ihon with geâ—…g his bodie any way at al. D. Harding spake not of euerie geuing his body but of yâ— geuing wherein he performed only that promise made in S. Ihon. Whereafter yâ— promise of geuing he saith his flesh is verely meat his blood verely drinke
therefore yâ— substance of Christs flesh is promised to be eaten verily and not only by faith but also in a sacrament That kind of promise was only performed in the laste supper when he sayd Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you There was euery word literally performed For the particular declaration whereof I beseche the reader to consider that which I haue writen vpon S. Ihon in the 3. booke the 2. Chap. Iuel S. Augustine saith Thei eate Christes body not only in the Sacrament but also in verie dede Behold not only in the Sacraâ—…ente San. To 〈◊〉 out a peece of the sentence of S. Augustine and such a peece as vtterly changeth the â—…eaning of his words is it not the signe of one that hath cast of all feare either of god or of man S. Augustine saith thus some men promise pardon to Catholiks though they liue noughtily because they haue eateÌ„ yâ— body of Christ not only in yâ— SacrameÌ„t but in very dâ—…de But how yâ— body of Christ is 〈◊〉 in very dede that M. Iuâ—…l would not write and yet it is a peece of the very same clause The rest of the wordes are in ipso eius corpore constituti de quo Apostolus dicit Vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus Being stablished in the selfe body of his of the which S. Paule said we being many are one bread one body which yet is againe expounded afterward 〈◊〉 iâ—… coâ—…pore Christi id est Ecclesia Catholica sumpseruÌ„t baptismum Christi manducaueruÌ„t corpus Christi Euil Catholiks 〈◊〉 not coudemned as some men said because they haue receaued the baptisme of Christ and haue eaten Christes body in the body of Christ that is to say in the Catholike Church This false opinion proponed in the xx chapter is impugned by S. Augustine in the xxv of the same booke Where he sheweth that none other are to be accompted the members of Christ beside those that tarie euen to ytâ—…d in the vnitie and charitie of his mystical body the Church But M. Iuel playeth the Sophist by taking the word body otherwise then S. Augustine meant it for as the cumpanie of Merchants in London make a certaine feloship among theÌ„ selues therefore may right wel be called a collegiate body euen so the cumpanie of faithull men who beleue and liue well make a certain body of Christ which is called his flocke his elect his fold most often of al his mysticall body â–ª Now M. Iuâ—… taketh yâ— word body which signifieth both Christes naturall mystical body as if it signified only his naturall body He wil proue the body of Christ to be eaten without the Sacrament and therein he taketh it for the natural body whiche 〈◊〉 at the right hand of God He proueth it by S. Augustine who speaketh of the mystical body which is the cumpanie of the elect and the holy Church of God Is not this man worthy to be a preacher â–ª Iu. S. Augustine contrarie to M. Hardings doctrine so farre forceth this difference that he maketh the eating of Christes body in the Sacrament to be one thing and the very true eating thereof in dede to be an other thing San. Why then doe you mingle the one with the other Why 〈◊〉 you against D. Harding who speaketh of the Sacrament â—…ly that place which spâ—…th oâ—… an another thing that is to say of the mysticall body You 〈◊〉 him vniustly and condemne your self most â—…ly He denieth not the mystical body and therfore is not contrarie to S. Augustine but he sheweth that Christ promised a real eating beside al other kinds of eating The promise of that reall eating you would exclude by shewing yâ— Christ may be eaten by other waâ—…s then by the Saâ—…ment â–ª as if wheÌ„ you had dâ—…d a â—…an to haue in his house yâ— armour which he is bound by lawe to haue ready you would afterward acquit your selfe if you proued that he had horsâ—…s in his stable and oxen in his pasture As though the hauing of the oâ—… proued the lacking of the other For how many waies oâ—…â—…ating Christ soâ—…r there are yet the â—…ating of his real flesh which was promised at Capharnaum is thereby rather coâ—…ed then â—…isproued Iu â–ª S. Augustine saith â–ª the Fathers of the old law receaued the 〈◊〉 same body that is now receaued oâ—… the faithfull Sander You leaue out some words of S. Augustine you adde other of your owne S. Augustine saith the old Fathers diâ—… eate the same spiritual meate which we eate you leaue out the worâ—… spirituall wherein he chefely 〈◊〉 His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vppon S. Paules words is that the olâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eate the 〈◊〉 spirituall meate the same saith he I can not find how I may vnderstand but the meate which we also eate Some man then will say was this which I now take manna is there nothing then at this time come if it was before is then the slaunder of the crosse made voyde How els did the Fathers eate the same meate but that the Apostle added spiritalem the same spiritual meate Againe Eundem ergo potum quem nos sed spiritalem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corpore hauriebatur The old Fathers drunk the same drinck which we doe but the same spirituall drinck that is to say which was taken by faith not which was drunck by body Is it plaine enough M. â—…uel that S. Augustine speaketh not generallie of the same meat but of the same spiritual meate why leaft yoâ—… that word out why sayd you in stede thereof that the old Fathers did eate the self same body that is now receaued of the faithfull What delight haue you to misreport the auncient Fathers where is it writen the self same body saieth not S. Augustine eundem potum quem nos sed spiritalem they dranke the same drinck which we doe but spirituall did he not expound the word spirituall saying the which was taken by faith and not drunk by body Note well those wordes M. Iuel noÌ„ qui corpore hauriebatur they drank not that which we doe concerning the drink which is taken into the body that is to say they tooke not the blood of Christ into their bodies as we now do they toke a signe of Christes blood as we doe and among other figures they had also bread wine At the time of which figuratiue bankets the iust men did fede in spirit vpon Christ but we fede vpon him also in body we eate the same in spirit and also in body which they did eate in spirit only We meete with them in the meate as it is spiritual but we differ in the same and farre passe them as it is corporal Therfore S. Augustine saith vpon S. Ihon Spiritalem vtique eandem 〈◊〉 corporalem â—…lteram quia illi manna nos aliud â–ª they did
Augustine when he sayeth He will not geue his body in that maner as you thinke As who should say he will geue it one way but not that way as you Capharnaites imagine He will not geue a shoulder to one and a leg to an other But the supper sheweth the maner of the geuing Where bread was taken and after blessing and the words pronounced Christes body was geuen to the mouthes of the Apostles Iuel This is the table for Egles and not for Iayes sayth Chrysostom San. I haue answered your iangling talk of Iayes in my iâ—… booke the. xxviâ—… Chapiter And haue turâ—…ed it vppon your own head Iuel S. 〈◊〉 let vs goe vp with the Lord into heauen into that greatparlar and receaue of him aboue the cup of the new â—…estament â–ª San. Certein men had imagined that Christ should reign corporally in earth a thousand yeres together drinke a new kind of wine who grounded their heresie vpon these words of Christ I say vnto you I will not drinke from hencefoorth of this frute of the vine vntill the day when I will drink it new with you in the Kingdome of my Father S. Hierom calling that 〈◊〉 Iudaicas fabulas Iewish tales therwith declareth what kind of wine we must drink in the Kingdome of God which is the Church saying Si ergo panis qui de coelo caet If then the bread which came down from heauen be the body of our Lord and the wine which he gaue to the Disciples be his blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of synnes let vs repell Iewish fables let vs ascend with our Lord vnto yâ— great parlar spread and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cup of the new Testament Hitherto S. Hierom. whose authâ—… ritie M. Iuel hath abused diuerse ways First you adde to S. Hierom these two words into heauen without cause For it folowed in S. Hierom whither we should ascend coenaculum magnum vnto the great parlar there to take of Christ the blooâ—… of the new Testament aboue that is to say not in the stalenes of the letter but in the newnes of the spirit as it foloweth afterward And yet againe more plainly in regno Ecclesiae in the Kingdome of the Church And last of all Impleamus opus eius Christus nobiscum bibet in regno Ecclesiae sanguinem suum Let vs fulfill his work and Christ will drinke with vs in the Kingdome of the Church his blood Thus it is plaiue that S. Hierome spake not of going into heauen by faith to drink the cup of the new Testament but oâ—… going vp into the great parlar which is the Church and Kingdome of God S. Hierom alluded to the Historie of Christes last supper which was kept in a parlar spread and strawed as it is thought in the mount Syon Let vs goe thither sayth S. Hierom there let vs receane the new wine whereof Christ spake S. Chrysostom also alluded to the same parlar saying yâ— Christ maketh this supper which now his Priests doe consecrate as well as he made that wherein he deliuered his owne banket Hoc est illud coenaculum caet This is that parlar wherein Christ was then with his Disciples Hence he went to yâ— mount of Oliues â–ª which sith it is so it was very euill done of M. Iuel to diuide the verb from his accusatiue case and to put an other â—…oun betwene against all reason grammar and honestie S. Hierom sayd ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum 〈◊〉 vs goe vp with our Lord to the parlar M. Iuel putteth the noun in coelum into heauen betwene As if when a man sayd let vs goe vp to the chamber he wold put an other word beâ—… and say let vs goe vp into the sliple into that chamber For after he had conueyed into S. Hierom his words into heâ—… uen he secondly turned coenaculum that parlar where is that in S. Hierom M. Iuel That was of your putting in to make vs beleue that heauen is the parlar whereof S. Hierom spake Thirdly M. Iuel left out these â–ª words which went immediatly before and shew in what respect S. Hierom spake of going vp Iudaicas fabulas repellamus Let vs put away Iewish fables and so let vs goc vp with our Lord to the great parlar by keping that which Christ instituted and by leauing other fables Fourthly whereas in the same very question it foloweth that not Moyses but our Lord Iesus gaue vs the true bread himself eating and being he that is eaten How can M. Iuel find in his hart to allege this place of S. Hierom against the reall presence For how is our bread more true then the bread of Moyses if at Christes supper we must goe vp into heauen to eate it Might not Moyses eating Manna doe the same How is Christ the maker of the feast and the meate it selfe if common bread be eaten and not his flesh Is common bread the maker of the feast If not the maker of the seast neither is it the meate for al is one saith S. Hierom. Iuel Cyrillus saith our Sacrament anoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the minds of the vnfaithfull in vngodly maner to grosse or flesh cogitations Sand. A man would scant beleue how wickedly this place is abused First these are not the words of S. Cyrill â–ª next he neuer meaÌ„t not so much as by dreame any such thing as M. Iuel doth father vppon him His own words are spoken vpon such occasion Nestorius the Heretike sayd that Christ had two persons and that his â—…hod was not â—…nited 〈◊〉 one person to the sonne of God Against whom S. Cyrill saith in that place proprium â—…orpus dicimus factum esse verbi non hominis alicuius seorsum separatim we say the body of Christ to be made proper of the word that is to say to be the words own body and not to be the body of any man apart or separated Nestorius replied out of Christes words He that eateth my flesh tarieth in me what eate we sayd the heretike the Godhead or the flesh meaning therby to conclude that seing the Godhead can not be eaten with our mouth yet the flesh was really eaten that there was one person of the Godhead an other of the flesh Cyrillus answereth Doest thou then affirm that there is an other sonne and Christ besyde the word coming from God the which hath appered to whoÌ„ alone the matter of Apostleship may be coÌ„mitted Now follow yâ— words corrupted by M. Iuel Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc sacramentuÌ„ pronuncias doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament to be the eating of a man M. Iuel turneth these words as though S. Cyrillus had set foorth a doctrine of his own without any respect to the heresie of Nestorius but the
omnipotencie alone as you caâ—…ill ¶ Whether the Catholiks or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the words belonging to Christes supper HArding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his very body the Fathers say it is really in the Sacrament Iuel A thing is taken to make prouf which is doubtfull and the antecedent is vnproued Sand. Sayd not Christ take eate this is my body Say not the Euangelists that he gaue vnto his Apostles How then is the antecedent vnproued Iuel The Fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image caet Therefore Christes words may be taken with a Metaphore trope or figure San. It standeth well together to be a signe and the truthe As Christ is the image of God and yet also God The higher euery signe or image is the lesse it differeth from the truth and therefore the figure of Christes body and blood differeth in form but not in substance from Christ him self and so albeit the Sacra ment be a figure yet the words this is my body be not tropâ—…call or vnproper Iuel Euen Duns saw that folowing the bare letter we must nedes say that the bread itself is Christes body San. Thinke you any man doth beleue you without allegiâ—…g the place who haue abused so many Fathers already Or â—…row you we speÌ„d so much time in reading Duns that we know all that is in him Iuel So the words stand This bread is my body San. Where stand they so Is it writen in any place of the Ghospell this bread is my body And yet you say the words stand so I think it be so in your Ghospell but surely it is not so in ours Iuel They saâ—… this meant not this bread but one certein thing in generall San. I haue shewed how it is taken in my 4. booke in the 4. 5. and. 6. Chapiter it can not signifie bread by any meanes Neither doth it only signifie in generall as you say but it signifieth that which is conteined vnder the forme of bread Iuel Est they expound erit it shal be San. It is a shameful pleasure that this man hath in falshod For we beleue that Christ toke this word est is to consecrate his body withall because of all words it signifieth a most present being of a thing And for asmuch â—…s God worketh in a moment or at the instant of his word he chose to say this is my body foorth with making it so as S. Chrysostom Gregorie Nyssen affirme But he wold not say this shal be my body which had bene a promise only and not the working or making of the mysterie Iuel Erit they expound the substance of this vncertaine generall one thing shal be changed San. These interpretations be false neither is the substance vncertein which is chaunged For the substance of the bread is changed and that because Christ affirmeth that which was bread before he spake at the end of his speache to be his body to whose voice the substance of bread geueth place to what him list Iuel Is geuen they expound shal be geuen San. What a vaine tale is this seing we vppon the present gist shâ—…w an vnbloody sacrifice euen preâ—…ently made and therefore we vrge always this is my body which is geuen for you Although it be also true that it shal be geuen and both are true together the one in the supper concerning the vnbloody sacrifice the other on the crosse concerning the bloody sacrifice but yet against heretikes we vrge most the present gift This man by mocking vs semeth to say that Christes body was not geuen at all For at the supper he will not graunt a sacrifice And he mocketh at datur for dabitur Yet if it be meant of the crosse it must be so expounded of him self it is geuen that is to say it shal be geuen it is broken is in the same condition with is geuen Iuel Doe ye this they expound sacrifice ye this San. Nay Sir They hauing first controuled your English as imperfit though not false afterward will haue hoc facite also to signifie make this thing to wit make my body The making of which sacrificed substance must nedes be always a sacrifice I haue spoken hereof in my iiij booke the. xiij Chapiter Iuel This bread they expound this that was bread San. You should name the place where we so expound it For according to the circumstance it may be so taken But much rather we take it for this food which is the body of Christ after consecration Iuel These verbs he tooke he blessed he brake he gaue stand together and rule one case San. They stand together in order of writing but not in order of doing For if Christ had not sayd this is my body before he had broken S. Paule wold not haue sayed the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body For it commeth of the word of God this is my body that it is the communicating of Christes body If then the words of 〈◊〉 were spoken before the breaking what wonder you 〈◊〉 the thing that was taken being changed we change the construction of those verbs which folow the change Iuel He toke bread he blessed it away San. You iest But in dede we teache not the bread to be annihilated or done away but to be changed into a better substance For blessing bestowed vppon a creature is the abettering of it Which is not done without some change Now if the thing pronounced at the tyme of blessing by God be an other substance the former nature by blessing is then changed in substance God blesse me from such a man who scoâ—…th at the holy mysteries Iuel He brake the accidents San. That is true because there was none other thing left after consecration to be broken And that you wold confesse if you thought Christ to haue vsed a proper kind of speache which allways you ought to think if it may possibly be defended as it may and must in the words of the supper So that the chief question is of those words this is my body The rest must be ruled by them Iuel He gaue his body San. We beleue it a meter gift for Christ then to geue common bread Iuel Vppon these few words of Christ thus many figures and moe they haue imagined Sand. Is it not 〈◊〉 sayd of you vppon these few words of Christ as though all these were Christes own words whereas the foure verbs be all writen of the Euangelists but neuer a one of them spoken by Christ. which thing S. Ambrose also hath noted but D. Harding spake only of Christes words wherein he 〈◊〉 his body in al which you haue yet found neuer a figure for this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing are all proper words and
signifie most properlie Iuel Besy de these figures they haue imagined many moe Sand. We haue imagined none but we teache as we receaued But wil you geue me leaue M. Iuel to repete a few of your figures or of your absurd doctrines in this behalfe and then let the discrete reader iudge who doth more contumelie to Gods words you or we 1. First ye ioyne together this bread otherwise then the Ghospell hath don where it is not sayd this bread is my body but this is my body 2. Ye haue don it cleaue against the Ghospell for hoc this is of the newter gender but panis bread is of the masculine gender 3. You haue iterated the same fault in ioyning hic this being of the masculine gender to vinum wine being of the â—…ter gender 4. You haue diuided the pronoun this both 〈◊〉 the body and blood of Christ with which substantiues only it may agree in right construction 5. You expound the same pronoun somtime for bread somtime for the body when ye say this is my body are words of promise For I dare say you meane not that bread is promised to any maÌ„ If theÌ„ the body be promised by these words this is my body as Caluin your homilies say doutlesse in that interpretation this doth appertein to the body and not to bread 6. Est is you expound for significat it doth signifie and that without any example For that verb In this is my body standeth not betwene two seueral natures as in these words the rock was Christ but it only 〈◊〉 meth one substance of Christes body 7. You take the very same verb est is properly referring it to the body of Christ which 〈◊〉 euery maus hart you consecrate by preaching these words this is my body as Caluin teacheth 8. Some other of you will haue the verb est alwaies to stand properly euen in respect of the bread because it is a signe of Christes body and in dede it must nedes stand so for you know that the verb substaÌ„tiue is nâ—…cessarily eyther expressed or supplied in euery propositioÌ„ in so much yâ— these words this doth signifie my body must be resolued this is signifying my body 9. When the verb est is in greeke is left out by S. Luke ye supplie it by force of common vse which leaueth out that verb as being easye to be vnderstanded and when you haue supplied it you cast it out again as though it were superfluouse 10. The â—…oun body you take properlie when you haue taken est for significat 11. The same noun you take vnproperlie for the figure of Christes body when est is taken properlie 12. You expound the relatiue quod which so as it can not agree with his antecedent and with the verb solowing together for when body is taken for the signe or figure of body as you take it most commonly and therein pretend to folow Tertullian S. 〈◊〉 then the relatiue which must nedes repete his antecedent in his whole sense and so the sense is This is the figure of my body the which figure of my body is geueÌ„ for you Now as you will say this is the figure of Christes body wherof he sayd this is my body so you can not say that the sâ—…gure of Christes body is geuen for vs. Thus quod the which standeth betwene corpus body and datur is geuen in such sort that it can not agree with both except ye say with Marcion that a figure is geuen or offered vp to God for vs. 13. Datur is geuen you expound dabitur it shal be geuen denying that it is presently true that it is geuen at the supper We say it is geuen at the supper shall be geuen also vpon the crosse not denying one truthe by an other 14. You expound facite â—…oe ye only whereas it is also make ye we graunt both ye denie the one sense 15. Hoc ye English this expound it in your homilies thus do ye as if it were sayd fic or ità do ye so or do ye thus whereas the true English is this thing 〈◊〉 In meam commemorationeÌ„ ye english in the remembrance of me whereas in with an accusatiue case doth signifie rather for the remembrance of me as we say in meam gratiam fac hoc doe this thing for my sake and nâ—…t in my sake 17. When you haue expounded est is for significat to signifie then remaineth the pronoun hic this in the confecration of the blood without a noun substantine For Hic significat sanguinem meum can haue at all no substantiue with whom it may agree in case and gender sanguinem is the accusatiue case and vinum is the neuter gender 18. If in these words this cup is the new Testament in my blood ye take the noun blood for the signe of my blood the new Testament is established in a figure of blood and so is worse theÌ„ the old which was established in true blood of oxen 19. If there you take the name of blood properly and without a figure likewise in these words this is my blood of the new TestameÌ„t it must stand properly which is against your doctrine 20. The construction of these words this cup is shed for you in S. Lukes words doth import this sense The thing with in this cup is shed for you but you say the thing within the cup is winâ—… therefore you teache wine to be shed for vs. but we teache the thing in the cup to be reall blood therefore we teache blood to be shed for vs. 21. When Christ sayed the bread which I wil geue is my flesh You so expound I will geue that it meaneth also I haue geuen and I do geue For you take it spoken only of a spirituall geuing which was both past and present and therein ye breake the nature of the word 22. In S. Paule the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body you expound signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paule distinâ—…eth our Sacraâ—…ent from theirs 23. The cup of blessing which we blesse you will haue to be a cup of wine still as though the blessing wrought nothing in it For if it work any thing it worketh the blood which at the consecration is affirmed present 24. You make Christ geue thanks to his Father in beginning the state of the new Testament in better words then dedes for his words be this is my body Yet you will haue him in dede to offer no body at all to his Father in that thanksgeuing but bare bread and wine still to remain 25. You teache Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to geue externally that is to say to our mouthes bodies lesse then Moyses For Manna was better then common bread and a gist more
miraculouse 26. Ye expound to be gilty of Christes body and blood for eating that is to say for not eating or resusing to eate For you teache euill men not to eate the body of Christ which is against S. Paule 27. Ye will not haue Christes supper to be an externall sacrifice but to be worse in that point then the Iewish or idolatours altars and tables who both did sacrifice and also S. Paule compareth Christes table with theirs 28. Ye so expound the shewing of Christes death by eating bread a figure of him that you rather shewe him not to be truely dead because your figure is yet emptie voide which can neuer proue Christes death truely past 29. Ye expound the not making a difference betwene Christes body eaten and other meates in suche sort that ye wil not haue the body present wherein the difference is to be made 30. Ye deny our vnion with Christes flesh by corporall participation which S. Paule teacheth by the example of Adam Eue being two in one flesh 31. Whereas S. Pauie saieth Christe to be so muche better then Angels by how much he had a more excelleÌ„t name theÌ„ they you regard not yâ— name body blood geuen to yâ— mysteries of Christ but affirme them to be still that they were before and therefore not to be that excellent substance which they are named to be 32. In all the scriptures so great and oft mention being made of Christes supper as there is yet no promise can be found made to him who eateth materiall bread and drinketh wine But all the promise is made for eatinge Christes fleshe and drinkinge worthely his blood Therefore you affirm bread to be eateÌ„ and wine to be drunken in Christes supper beside the word of God 33. Although Dauid prophecied of cating and adoring yet you wil graunt no such meat to be geueÌ„ to vs which may be external ly adored 34. Notwithstanding that the prophets teache that by Christes comming al externall idolatrie shal be taken away yet you feare not to say that Christes owne Sacrament bearing the name of his owne body and blood is it selfe an idol which was left with vs to kepe vs from all idolatrie 35. The sonne of man came as to saue so to fede the whole man why then denie you the food of life to our bodies affirming them to eat common bread and to drinke common wine whiles the soule is fed by faith with the body and bloode of Christ 36. If in the Sacrament of the altar we fede vpon Christ by faith alone why is that Sacrament called a supper more theÌ„ baptism where also we must fede on Christ by faith 37. Seing a figure may also be the truth it selfe whereof it is the figure as Christ is the figure of his Father and yet the same substance what reason haue you why you would rather detract this hoâ—…our from Christes Sacrament then geue the same vnto it 38. Christ being equal with his Father made promise to vs of his â—…ne fleshe whiche his Father had geâ—…en Why then denie you the gift of Christ to be as real to vs as his Father gaue him real fleshe 39. How teache you the words of Christ which are spirit life to be notwithstanding figuratiue and consequently deade and voide of al life or strength 40. Because yâ— word of God who was only able to be fed vpon by faith and so was the food of Angels or soules woulde be also the meate of man in respect of the body it toke flesh aâ—…d at his supper sayd to vs take eate this is my body And yet you make him still to be only the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded frome hauing God corporally in vs through the fleshe of Christe 41. To coÌ„clude whereas ye find flesh bodie blood ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking geuing breaking distributing coÌ„municating dâ—…udicating ye expound all those words figuratiuelie as though God by so manie waies repeating those words had not strengthned the coÌ„mon and proper significatioÌ„s of them Let this suffise for this time to shew that you obserue nor gender nor number nor nominatiue case nor verb nor antecedent nor relatiue nor the condition of the maker of the supper nor the nature of the sacrament nor the state and perfection of the Gospel nor the sayings of the prophetes nor the â—…ulfilling of the old law nor the oft repeting of the matters belonging to Christs supper but onlie to serue the eye and the senses deny al the marueilous workes of the new testament yâ— remeÌ„brance of al which this one mysterie is affirmed to be â—…rag no more M. Iuel of our figuratiue expositions sith you haue thus erred in graÌ„mar in Logick in Diuinitie in truth in faith in coÌ„mon sense Iu. If in these words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ ye follow the letter it killeth San. To follow yâ— letter is to take words as thei sound to an inâ—…del as to haue flesh torn in to peeces and so eaten but he that taketh them as Christ in his supper by his fact did expound them doth folow yâ— spirit and not the letter ¶ A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel IVel. S. Augustine sayth The Sacrament of Christes body after a certain phrase or manner or trope or â—…igure of speache is the body of Christ. Sander This place is wickedly abused because it is nakedly alleged and falsely englished whereas it dependeth wholy vpon the words going before which are these Nónne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in Sacramento caet Was not Christ once offered vp in him selfe and yet in the Sacrament he is offered vp for the people not only at euerie feaste of Easter but euerie day Neither surely doth he lye who being demanded Eum responderit immolari Doth answere that he is offered vp For if the SacrameÌ„ts had not a certain likenes of those thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes they were not at all Sacramentes Out of this likenes they take also for the most parte the names of the things theÌ„ selues As therefore according to a certaine â—…anner the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christe the Sacrament of the blood of Christe is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith In these words of S. Augustine it is to be seen euidently that he putteth a difference betwene the thing and the Sacrament of that thing The thing therefore it selfe must be first knoweâ—… and then we shal see how the Sacrament thereof is both like vnâ—… it and taketh the name thereof The thing it selfe in ouâ—… question is Iesus Christ not only so but the true body of Iesus Christe neither only true in substance but euen
true in shape in form in quantitie and qualitie Christ was made man in dede borne in dede he grew and walked vpon the earth in dede according to the true and visible nature and forme of man He suffered death in the same forme and did shed his blood apart from his fleshe Now marke when it pleased him to depart out of this world he woulde haue all these thinges beleued of vs remembred of vs and folowed as our weakenes through his grace might suffer In cōsideration whereof he iustituted a Sacramēt of his own body and blood Of which body Of that which he had taken which was but one The first point of this Sacrament must be saith S. Augustine that it haue a certaine likenes or similitude with Christes own body and blood and consequently that likenes shall make it to haue the name it selfe What is the likenes in the sacrament of Christes supper betwene it and the naturall body of Christ Seeke as long as you are able M. Iuel prie and serche neuer so intierly you shall find the likenes to be in this point specially that the substance of Christes body blood not hauīg any outward image made of them are made presēt vnder the forme of an other thing are so made present that thereby all the highe mysteries of Christes visible body are mystically set before the faith of the true beleuer Christ being the sonne of God was made man by turninge some of the purest blood of the virgin Marie into his own flesh and blood and that was done without the sede of man by the vertue of the worde and power of the whole Trinitie through the ministery of the Archangel Gabriell euen so the purest creatures of bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ and turned into the substance of them not by generation corruption but by the vertue of these wordes This is my body Which thing y◠who le Trinitie worketh by the ministerie of the Priest who is the Angel of Christ. Christ thus borne and hauing walked in his flesh came to die vpon the crosse where his blood was diuided from his flesh the soule from the body but the Godhead taried stil with both right so this sacrament hath the body consecrated vnder one kind the blood vnder an other kind and they are adored of the saithfull a part yet the person which is one whereunto they are vnited and the Godhead in that person causeth the two partes to make but one Sacrament and the whole to be vnder eche kind Thus the likenes whiche is not in form but in substance and in the consecration of true faith betwene Christ him self and this sacrament maketh this sacrament to be called his body blood although in al respectes it be not so Upon whiche ground S. Hierom saith Dupliciter sanguis Christi caro intelligitur c. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstanded two waies either that spiritual and diuine whereof him self said my flesh is truly meate and my blood is truly drinke and except ye eate my fleshe and drinke my blood ye shall not haue euerlasting life or els the fleshe which was cru cified and the blood which was shed with the speare of the soldiour Thus haue we one fleshe and blood in substance consydered vnderstanded two waies and that not falsely vnderstanded as the Sacramentaries imagine but truely and in dede For a false vnderstanding is hated of God This difference and this likenes is also noted in the present words of S. Augustin when he saith Christ was once offered in him self Note the worde in him selfe to wit in his visible shape form and truth as wel of substance as of quātity the same Christ is dayly offered in a sacramēt Are not these S. Augustines words ▪ Christ is offered in him self Christ is offered in a Sacrament is it not all one Christ or is Christe diuided No no al is one substāce but the m◅ner is not al one And farther note very dyligently good Reader that of the two immolations or offeringes the one is referred to the other The one is the signe token figure Sacrament of the other And therfore the one is but once done because it was y◠great immolation which absolutely fulfilled al the law prophets and it was made vppon the Crosse. The other being made in the Sacramēt sheweth kepeth preserueth and applieth daily the fruits of that one oblation but Christ is alwaies one in bothe Now this likenes of the Incarnation and passion of Christ made and represented to the faithfull by the Sacrament of the altar causeth it to be called the body blood of Christ. And therefore S. Augustine concludeth The Sacrament of Christes body according to a certain maner is the body of Christ. M. Iuel englisheth these wordes according to his maner falsely corruptly and ignorantly he turneth Secundum quendam modum after a certaine Phrase or maner or trope or figure of speache True it is that modus doth signifie a maner or meane Again it may be sometime y◠the maner is tropicall or figuratiue but now it is not so meant And that is proued two waies First because S. Augustine saith the Sacrament of the body of Christ according to a certein manner est is the body of Christ. he saith not only it is called the body after a certain manner but it is the body Therefore the manner that that he speaketh of is in the Sacrament in the thing it self in the substance thereof and not only in the phrase or trope or figure of speache as M. Iuel would haue it Againe the name whiche the Sacrament taketh is geuen as S. Augustine saith according to a likenes which is betwene the Sacrament and the thing it selfe That likenes then must be first in the Sacrament really and afterward in respect of priority of nature though not in respect of tyme the name is geuen Seing then the likenes of things goeth before the likenes of names When S. Augustine saith the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christ according to a certain manner that manner must respect the likenes of the thinges before it respecte the likenes of names Therefore M. Iuel hath erred altogether in translating modum a phrase or manner of speache But first he should haue sought wherein the things were like for in dede the likenes in dinerse things is diuerse In one thing it is in substance as God the Father and his sonne are like equall and one in substance Yet because there is some difference in that they are diuerse persons the sonne is the figure of his Fathers substance according to a certaine manner to wit as he is a diuerse person but not as a diuerse substance In other things the substāce may differ also as the rock and Christe and
so that the substance of flesh and blood shal be excluded by all meanes And as for the qualitie of Christes fleshe he wil haue it corporally in our bodies without any substance thereof wherein that qualitie may rest which his opinion is against all the course of nature Agayn when S. Hilarie saith that Christ tarieth naturally in vs what qualitie wil M. Iuel assigne to that aduerb shal he tary in vs in the maner of a natural tarying and yet shal not his true nature be in vs let vs go a litle farther S. Hilary saith Christus natualiter secundum spiritum in se patrem habet Christ hath the father in him according to yâ— spirit naturally How wil M. Iuel expound the worde naturally whether that Câ—…riste hath a qualitie of his fathers nature in him not the whole true substaÌ„ce Last of al S. Hilarie expoundeth his owne wordes euen as D. Harding hath done For as he saith in one place Ipso in nobis naturalitr permanente he tarying in vs naturally so he saieth in an other place a litle before Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem Therefore he is in vs him selfe by flesh Aâ—…d again Naturaliter secundum carnem per eum viuimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti We liue by him according to the flesh naturally that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh Consider good Reader that naturaliter viuere to liue naturally is by S. Hilarie thus resolued to liue by hauing the nature And to liâ—…e naturally according to the flesh is to liue by hauing yâ— nature of Christes flesh Who is now the more ignorant in grammar D. Harding or M. Iuel And yet M. Iuel in that childish eloquence of his triumpheth vpon D. Harding saith childern are taught these things Iu. God regardeth not the doing of any thing but the manner of doing But M. Harding will ouerloke the grammar rules San. That rule is to be vnderstande in matters belonging to manners But now we dispute of substances and not of doings We say Christes body is in our bodies naturally this truth is to be discussed and not any morall action of ours Iuel Our childern must lerne a new grammar for thâ—…se mens pleasure otherwise these mens dâ—…initie can not stand San. Priestes childern may 〈◊〉 a new grammar but as the old faith so the old grammar wil â—…erue other mens childen It is verily a verie new graÌ„â—…r to say that aduerbes taken of nounes neuer signifie the substance Good Scholmasters wil not admâ—…e such rules Iu. Haue these old Fathers nor names nor wordes San. As though you knowe that they folowe hereafter when you are come to them you wil be quickly werie of them ¶ Of the first Author of the Sacramentarie heâ—…sie HArding Berengarius first began openly to shevv the Sacramentarie heresie touching the veritie of Christes body in the Sacrament Iu. Before M. Harding said the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresie and so his tales hang not together Harding The Messalians opinion VVas the Sacrament of the altar did nor good nor euil And therein they VVere the first parents of the Sacramentarie heresie San. That which the Messalians did begin priuily by generall disgracing the Sacrament Berengarius began openly by denying this speciall vertue thereof which is the real presence and so there is no contradiction at all and you are founde but a cauiller Iu. Ioannes Scotus and Bertram mainteinâ—…d the same doctrin before Berengarius Sander If these men did barke in priuie corners at anie ceremonie which thing yet is not euident to vs but if it were so yet thâ—…y mainteined it not For then they had bene condemned of heresy But if that also were true you haue gained litle more theÌ„ two huÌ„dred yeres and those but by surmise without knowledge thereof left in any good historie And what is that to 〈◊〉 hundred yeres of continuall practise and open doctrine suche as we Catholiks haue had Iuel For farther declaration hereof it shal be necessary to open Berengarius iudgement San. Nay Sir it is enough to vs that you are at a stay can bring your faith no higher then to Ihon Scote and Bertram If your faith began priuily almost eight hundred yeres after Christ shall we here the declaration thereof if that may be permitted the heresy of the Arrians may be heard againe who was before Bertram Iuel Thus Berengarius wrote San. I care not what he wrote sith he recaÌ„ted yâ— same The 〈◊〉 wil standeth in his force and no wise man knowing that he repeuted his follie will afterward allege his authoritie for that which he recalled Iuel But his iudgement is confirmed by the Fathers San. It is not possible that the Fathers should confirme his iudgement who impugned their vniuersall tradition in so muche that he him selfe 〈◊〉 his own iudgement For seing he recanted his whole opinioÌ„ he recanted also that verie errour which he had coÌ„ceiued as by pretense of yâ— fathers words What a madâ—…es is it for you to allege any of both in his name for he in his recanting hath answered his own authorities alleged before out of the Fathers Iuel Let vs see the confutation hereof San. Seing Berengarius is the coÌ„futour his own true word is enough to vndoe as muche as his word had falsely stablished before Iuel Berengarius was forced to recant in this wise San. Force is not done to the free 〈◊〉 of man Iuel I beleue that the bodie of our Lorde Iesus Christ sensibly and in very dede is touched with the hand of the Priest brokeÌ„ and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithfull San. You haue englished the wordes very spitefully you haue added rent of your owne head and atteri doth signifie to be broken in peeces or to be wasted which may be done without grinding You are so accustomed to falsify things yâ— no mans wordes may escape your poison Iuel The very glose saith vnlesse you warily vnderstand these words of Berengarius you will fal into a greater heresy then euer he heald any San. The glosse warneth vs that all the touching breaking and wasting or coÌ„suming is to be referred to the formes of bread and wine the which thing if you had not left out you had alleged some one glosse without falsifying the same Iu. These Fathers redresse the lesse errour by the greater San. The cause whie Berengarius recanted by those wordes rather theÌ„ by anie other were two the one for yâ— he had taught in the tyme of his errour the body of Christ not to be before our eyes Against whiche words he now saith it is sensiblie handled The secoÌ„d was for that the body being vnder the form of bread and touched by the Priestes hands and broken by reason of the same form is thereby shewed most really present to witnesse the whiche reall presence S. Chrysostame had
vsed the same kind of speach before saying NoÌ„ se tantum videri permittens desyderantibus sed tangi manducari dentes carni suae infigi desyderio sui omnes impleri Christ permitteth him self not only to be seen of theÌ„ that long after him but also to be touched eaten the teeth to be fastened to his fleshe and all men to be filled with the desire of him Which notwithstanding M. Iuel writeth in the margent of Berengarius his consâ—…on This is an horrible blasphemie not knowing that the denying of this reall presence vâ—…der those formes of bread and wine is that horrible blasphemie whereof he speaketh And not to speake as S. Chrysostome and other holy Fathers haue spoken Iuel Bertram and Ihon Scotus wrote openly against it with the contentation of the world San. Against which it did they write Iuel Against this if it be the Catholike faith Sander Which this Whether against the confession of Bereugarius You say theâ—… were two hundred yeares before hun what then wrote thei against the Catholike faith if they did so howe could the Catholike world be content therwith again where are the words which the world was contented withal thinck you it lawfull to faine or glose what you list Iuel That M. Harding calleth the Catholike faith is in dede aCatholike errour Sander No errour can be Catholike because Christe said hell gates should not preuaile againste his Church And it is a citie built vpon a hill which can not be hiddeÌ„ The rest of your words shall hereafter be proued vayne ¶ Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded HArding The body vvhich vvas before the death thereof thrall and frail is novv spirituall Iu. M. Harding in the end concludeth against him selfe San. You say so but you proue it not Iu. Only Stephen Gardener geueth the world to vnderstaÌ„d that Christ is not yet fully possessed in this glory thus he saith the time of the despensation or seruice of his hâ—…militie remaineth stil vntil 〈◊〉 deliuer vp the Kingdom vnto God his Father Sand. B. Gardiâ—…er dot noth say that Christ is not fully possessed in his glory for his own part that is your addition Again the word seruice was of your putting in least any authority might escape you vncorrupted How be it B. Gardiner semeth to meane no more therein then S. Paule sayd before him witnessing that Christ sitteth at the right hand of the maiesty in heauen minister sanctorum the minister of holy thinges for he is yet a minister stil by reason of his mysticall body If it were any part of our principall purpose to stand vppon that matter I wold shew you what holy things they were and how he ministred them by dispensation of his humility during the time of the peregtination of his members notwithstanding his own glory at the right hand of his Father wherein he is fully possessed Iuel To what end allegeth M. Harding the spirituall state of Christs body Eutiches sayd it is changed into the very substance of God which heresie is like M. Hardings if it be not the same Sand. I know not what you meane by burdening D. Harding with the heresie of Eutiches sith the defence of the reall presence is as directly against that heresie as may be for how can the naturall and substantiall flesh of Christ be present in the Sacrament if his flesh were turned into the substance of the Godhead as Eâ—…tiches sayd could that be in the Sacrament which were not in it self Therefore the places alleged out of S. Augustine S. Dionysiâ—…s S. Cyprian and other holy Fathers concerning the truth of Christes humane substance and nature â—…ill remaining and not changed into the diuine substance or els concerning our â—…mitation or likenes of God is wholy confessed of vs. neither doth D. Harding meane by the body deiâ—…ed other then yâ— body immortal spirituall yet so farre aboue our bodies as the vâ—…ion in yâ— person of the naturall sonne of God excedeth our adoption by grace But for so much as you doubted not M. Iuel to burden D. Harding with the Eutichian heresie I will briefly shew that your opinion is far more like vnto it then D. Hardings belefe As Eutiches destroyed the truth of humane flesh in the person of Christ so the Sacramentaries destroye the truth and reall presence of the same flesh in the Sacrament of the altar And yet the old Fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two things of the signe or foorm of bread and of yâ— body of Christ so Christ consisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane But seing the Sacramentaries take away yâ— reall presence from the visible signe of bread they falsifie the argumeÌ„t of the old Fathers and further the cause of the Eutichians For as the Eutichians turned the naturall flesh of Christ into the Godhead so the Sacramentaries turn the Sacramental eating of naturall flesh into mere diuine and spirituall eating which is made by faith alone But as the old Fathers proued against the Eutichians that Christ who truly suffered death could not suffer it in his diuine nature so I tell the Sacramentaries that Christ who â—…aid take eate this is my body can not be taken into our hands or eaten with our mouthes by faith and spirit aloue We must haue such an eating as may proue Christ to haue had reall flesh because we eate by mouth his reall flesh So S. Hilarie proued our naturall vnion with Christes flesh against the Arrians S. Gregorie Nyâ—…sen that Christ had taken true flesh of the Uirgin For how can a thing saith he which hath no body be made meate vnto the body So S. Cyrill proueth that there is but one person because the flesh which we receaue doth geue lifâ—… to our soules and bodies which it could not doe except it were the proper flesh of God who only geueth life Thus M. Iuel may perceaue that his opinion agreeth with the Arrians Ualentiâ—…ians Neâ—…orians Eutichians And the like might be sayd of the Marcionites Manichees Apellians briefly of all those heretikes who denying a reall truth of Christes diâ—…ine or humane nature were always confuted by the Fathers by the reall truth of Christes manhod and Godhead confessed of the Catholikes in this blessed Sacrament Harding S. Hierom shevving tvvo vvays of vnderstanding Christes flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it vvas crucified declareth the maner of eating it only to differ from the maner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iuel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence San. He meaneth both Iuel S. Hierom speaking of the dubble vnderstanding of Christes flesh meaneth that we haue our saluation in Christ eating him and liuing by him not for that his flesh was
spiritual flesh by mouth and not only by faith eating by faith is rather more due to the flesh of Christ as it hangeth crucified then to any other maner of the same slesh For we must swetely remember his death and be partakers of his passioÌ„ by faith but not by mouth On the other syde we must eate Christes diuine and spirituall flesh as it is vnderstanded in another way distinct in maner from his crosse and passion therefore that other eating is an eating by mouth and not only by faith Iuel ClemeÌ„s AlexaÌ„drinus saith there is a fleshly blood wherewith we are redemed and a spiritual wherewith we are anoynted and this is to drink the blood of Christ to be partaker of his immortality As Christes blood is not really present to anoint vs â—…o it is not really present to nourish vs. San. Clemens Alexandrinus diuiding Christes blood into carnall spirituall agreeth with S. Hierom in the former part of the diuision that is to say in carnall blood but in the later part he speaketh of an other thing For whereas S. Hierom toke spirituall flesh and blood for the substance of them as they are eaten and dronken in the Sacrament which thinge may appere for that he citeth these wdrds of Christ my flesh is verily meate and except you eate my flesh ye shall not haue life euerlaâ—…ing which words are meant of the SacrameÌ„tal eating Cleâ—…eÌ„s doth not respect so much the Sacrament of the altar it self as the effect and fruite of Christes carnall blood how soeuer it be partaken and that is euident by his owne words where he saith this is to drincke the blood of Iesus to be partaker of his immortality To partake the immortalitie of Christ is an effect which may rise of faith of Baptism of penance of the Sacrament of the altar and of all other meanes or instruments whereby the saluation of Christ may be deriued vnto vs. Clemeâ—…s therefore speaking of an effect which may â—…e wrought by one meritoriouse cause only that is to say by the death of Christ but vnderstanding the meanes to applie that cause vnto vs to be diuerse he spake not directly of these mâ—…anes but of that spirituall fruite which either one or moe of them doe bring foorth in vs. For the oynting whereof Clemens doth speake is to be referred to the spirituall grace which is gâ—…en to the soule and not to the substance of the Sacrament whereof we dispute It will not therefore folow that because the blood whereof Clemens doth speake sometime is not really present when through grace we are ointed with it that the blood also whereof S. Hierom speaketh should not be really present sith they two speak not of one kind of spirituall blood Iuel This nouris hing and this anoynting are both spirituall San. That is true but not both after one sort For S. Hieroâ—… speaketh of the spirituall blood in the substance thereof as it is verily drink in yâ— Sacrament Clemens as it is fruitfully partaken of vs and not as it is considered in his own substance S. Hierome speaketh of the Sacrament Clemens of the end and fruit of al our belefe That S. Hierome speaketh of the SacrameÌ„t it is proued because he citeth suche wordes out of S. Iohn as all yâ— Fathers and manifest reasons conference of the scriptures proue to appertein by the way of promise to the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper Which thing I haue proued in twentie chapters together in my third booke to which reasons vntil M. Iuel hath answered he shal geue me leaue to put it for an vndoubted truth that Christ in the later part of the sixth chapter of S. Ihon speaketh most literally of the gift of his fleshe blood to be made at his last supper But Clemens doth speake of that spirituall drinking Christs blood whereof S. Augustin saith Hunc cibum potum societatem vult intelligi corporis membrorum suorum quod est sancta Ecclesia This meate and drinke Christ willeth to be vnderstanded the felowship of his body and members which body the holy Church is Now to be partaker of the vnity and spirit which is made in Christes myâ—…ical body that is to be partaker of the immortalitie and glorie of our Lorde For as S. Paule saith he is the Sauiour of his body Iu. S. Augustine saith Iudas betraied Christ carnal thou hastâ—… betraied Christe spirituall For in thy fury thou betraiedst the holy Gospel to be burnt with wicked fier These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreing so nere in 〈◊〉 â—…nd phrase with the words of Hierom may stand for sufficiente exposition to the same San. These wordes goe so nere yâ— one to the other thâ—…t in sense they differ exceding much For now S. Augustine taketh Christe spiritual an other way cleaue diuerse from Clement or S. HieroÌ„ and that may be easily seen if a man will reade the line which foloweth next in S. Augustine For he saieth Iudas betraied the lawmaker vâ—…to the perfidious Iewes thou hast betraied to meÌ„ as it were reliquias eius his reliques to wit the lawe of God to be destroied S. Augustin then taketh Christ spiritual for certaine reliques of Christ which although they be no partes of his corporal body yet they belong to him for yâ— of his great prouidence toward vs he lest theÌ„ to be deuoutly readen kept what meane you M. Iuel to miâ—…gle things impertineÌ„t together Think you wheresoeuer you find yâ— word spiritual yâ— by by it perteineth to your purpose or do you only inteÌ„d to abuse that not lerned reader The word spirituall being maned of spiritus a spirite mâ—…ste nedes be taken â—…s manie wayes as yâ— word spirit is taken which doth signifie God that is to say the whole Trinitie For God is a spirit 2. The holy Ghost of whom Christ was lead into the deserte 3. Christ him selfe as S. Cyrillus hath noted 4. Angels 5. 〈◊〉 6. Spiritual gifts 7. The soule 8. The imagination 9. The breath of mans â—…outh 1â—… Anger or punishmeÌ„t and many other things By which diuerse taking of this one worde aâ—… of diuerse others in the holy scripture such difficulty riseth to a man though not vnlerned that without the help of vniâ—…sal tradition he can not vnderstand them That whiche you bring out of Athanasâ—…s appertemeth to the Capharnaites to no man els Iu. Thus M. Harding reasoneth we eate not the flesh of Christ that was crucified ergo Christes flesh is really in the Sacrament Sander You leaue out the chefe part of the argument We eate Christes diuine and spirtual flesh and yet we eate it not so as it was crucified therefore S. â—…icrom spake of that eating whiche is not only made by faith for so the crucified fleshe may be eaten but of that which is made by mouth also Iu. We can notthen eate the flesh that was crueified
yâ— water otherwise theÌ„ as it is present in all places but only as working by his power For in the name of the father is to saie in yâ— power strength of yâ— father Thus the power vertue of god is really preseÌ„t 〈◊〉 or renewig is really made But if it were sayd at the tyme of washing by the institution of Christ This is Christ who baptiseth or washeth thee theâ—… doubtlesse Christ should be beleued really present Albeit therefore some Fathers say God holdeth thy head at the fonte and other say the water is full of heauenly fier and so foorth yet these are maners of speache without reall or naturall operation according to the letter because they be not words instituted of purpose by Christ to work a speciall effect in the Sacraments Although they shew by similitudes that a reall working of diuerse graces is made in the Sacraments But Christ sayâ—… in his supper this is my body In which words the body is affirmed present vnder that signe of bread wherevnto Christ pointeth If M. Iuel knew not this ods he may be ashamed to teache that he knoweth not If he knew it why doth he lead men to hell willingly But because this man goeth about euery where to abuse the holy communion by shewing like phrases vsed sometymes of Baptism as are vsed of Christes supper I will geue him a copie of certeyn phrases which either he must find in the holy Scriâ—…tures and in the holy Fathers or els he shal be coâ—…rayned to confesse a more corporall and reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar then in Baptism First the name of Baptism differeth from the name of Christes body and blood Baptism signifieth an action of a washing and therefore it is no work tarying or during in his owne substance but only the effect thereof remaineth But the name of Christes body blood is the name not only of making a work but euen of a substanciall work it self as when we say a house a pillar a tree Whereof it followeth that when Christ hath done washing baptism is past But when Christ pointing to a visible thing hath said this is my body The body tarieth still after the speaking is done so long as the visible form dureth which is to vs the signe of the body present Nowe as S. Paule noteth that Christ so far passâ—…th the Angels by how much his name is more excellent then theirs right so the Sacrament of the altar so farre passeth baptism as Christes own body is a name of more excellency then the name of washing or cleansing 2. Baptism must goe before the Eucharist as Iustinus yâ— marâ—…yr saith which thing is done to th end we may come cleane and pure to the blessed bodie of Christ. Therfore the Eucharist passeth it as farre as baptism passeth the vertue of penance which prepa reth mâ—…n of discretion to be baptized 3. Baptism maie be ministred of dâ—…oÌ„s of lay men yea of women in the time of necessity The Eucharist is consecrated only of priests who haue special power geuen them to make Christes body accordingly as him self said make this thing for the remem braunce of me And S. Hierome excludeth Deacons â—…rom this highe office 4. Baptism may be â—…inistred at any time of the day but S. Augustine sheweth that the holy Ghost hath taught the whoâ—… Church for the honour of so great a Sacrament to receaue it only fasting without a case of necessitie 5. In Baptism the water must be of necessitie beleued to remaine because washing is not made without water nor it shall neuer be found that it was taught to be changed but in the Euchariste no breade or wine remaineth because no such thing is signified at the time of consecration and the Fathers teache them to be changed into Christes body and blood 6. Baptism was administred in the running water and no regard had of the material water when the act of washing was done But the Eucharist was euer so warily administred that no crum thereof was suffered to fall as Optatus Cyrillus of Hicrusalem S. Bede and others do witnesse 7. Baptism was neuer adored though it were reuerenced the SacrameÌ„t of the altar was alwayes adored with the highest honour due to God alone as I haue shewed at large in my sixth booke 8. As Baptisme is the first Sacrament and most necessarie so the Eucharist is the last and most honorable That to cleuse vs this to feed vs. That to marie vs by consent of mindes to Christ this to ioyne vs to his flesh and blood by reall copulaâ—…ioÌ„ of bodies That prepareth to this this maketh that in al degrees perfit That without this is a true mariage but yet it is without the last end of mariage which is carual copulation This coÌ„ming to that and to all the other Sacramentes maketh vs to be most perfitly vâ—…ted with Christ. For this cause S. Dionysius Areopagita sayeth Dicimus ergo caet We say therefore other Sacraments or signes of holy things whose communion is graunted to vs to be finished â—…y the diuine and perfiting giftes of the Eucharist And holy Ephren also writeth thus of the most perâ—…ite and consummated vnion which is made in the same Eucharist saying Anima nostra sponsa estimmortalis sponsi copula autem nuptiarum coelestia Sa cramenta sunt quia cum manducamus corpus eius sanguinem bibimus ipse in nobis est nos in ipso Our soule is the spouse of the immortall Bridegrome that which coupleth them in mariage are the celeâ—…iall Sacraments for that when we eate his body and drink his blood he is in vs and we in him 9. Moreouer we are by Baptism vnited to Christ and not at all to Baptism But by the Eucharist we are sayd to be vnited to the very body which is in the Sacrament becausâ—… it is all one with Christ himself Of which difference I will speake more hereafter 10. Last of all the perpetuall custome of the people of God and the vniuersall tradition hath always obserued great difference betwene these two Sacraments And thereby any wise man may know what belongeth to the one and what to the other If now M. Iuel will proue Baptism and the Eucharist to be of like force concerning the meane of vniting vs to Christ he must bring foorth such phrases where Baptism may be called of Christ him self the body of Christ. Where the Eucharist may be sayd to prepare vs to Baptism as well as Baptism to it Where Baptism is sayd to be worthy the highest honour as it is sayed of Christes body in the Sacrament Where the last and highest copâ—…latioÌ„ is assigned to Baptism as it is to yâ— Eucharist Where speciall consecration of Priests speciall prerogatiue of tyme speciall warmesse in vsing the matter
c. What shall I speake of the administration of the word sith their whole indeuour is not to conuert Ethniks bâ—…t to peruert our men thei rather couet after this glorie to ouerthrow those that stand then to raise vp those that are fallen because yâ— verie worke of theirs coÌ„meth not of their building but of the destruction of the truth They vndermine our works that they may build vp their owne Thus Tertullian said of you before you were borne It is theÌ„ small issue that you haue hitherto obteined by ouerthrowing as outwardy monasteries Churches altars scholes hospitals so inwardly faith humâ—…tie chaâ—…tie obedience all 〈◊〉 loue of God or of our neighbours Iuel These Cardinals espied suche faults as euery childe might haue found San. Neuer a Priestes childe in England is able to vnderstand them now that they are found much lesse euery child would find them if they were to be sought out Iu. They neuer redressed any of the same San. You say not truly which thing as it might be declared in manie other points as wel of making Priests of geuing beuefices as also in other faults there named so is it most euident to yâ— eye coÌ„cerning yâ— harlats which neither ridde in coche nor dwelt in any palace since that tyme nor went in the tyre of any honest matrone Iuel If M. Harding had bene in the Apostles tymes he would hâ—…ue made some sporte at theyr Councâ—… 〈◊〉 where or in what house assembled they together San. They assembled in the house of S. Iohn as Nicephorus thinketh when they chose Mathias into yâ— nuÌ„ber of the Apostles Againe they assembled to decide the coÌ„trouersie risen coucerning the obseruances of the law of Moyses in diuerse other places Whereat D. Harding will make no sporte because wheresoeuer they assembled they were laufully asseÌ„bled being sent to yâ— who le worlde by Iesus Christe But anie such couâ—…sion Luther and Bucer can not shew Iu. What Bisshop or Pharisee was among thâ—…m San. They had one Bisshop 〈◊〉 the lest among 〈◊〉 and him appointed by Christe to whome he committed both his shepe and lambes But in dede all the Apostles were also Bishopes as it maie apere in that S. Mathias toke the Bishoprike of Iudas â—…ccording to the Prophecie of Dauid Were Luther Bucer and Melancthon so made Bishopes Or will you haue the Churche beginne again in our tyme as it began or rather toke his perfection in Christ Shall Luther be Christ will you be new Apostles to vs Heare what Tertulâ—…an saith hereof also ProbeÌ„t se nouos Apostolos c. Let theÌ„ proue them selues to be new Apostles Let theÌ„ say that Christ hath descended againe yâ— he hath taught againe bene crucified againe dird againe risen againe for so he was woâ—…t to make Apostles more ouer to geue theÌ„ power to do those things which he him self did I would therefore declare their power vertues but yâ— I know theyr chefe power to be in yâ— they do follow the Apostles peruersly For they did make those yâ— were dead to liue but these doe make those that liue to die Hitherto Tertullian Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lacked Bishops in theyr assembles as being all sent with full authority into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…or your assemble had 〈◊〉 Bishop at al Because since Christes assension 〈◊〉 had authoritie to preach or to cal assâ—…bles muste nedes 〈◊〉 of them or of theyr successours to whome Christ gaue suche authoritie But Luther being sent of no man who 〈◊〉 ordinarily to the Apostles must nedes be a false Prâ—… as who ranne before he was sent And truly sith Christe 〈◊〉 noâ—… him selfe to the authoritie of Apostleship but was called of God thereunto and proued his commission by his manifold worâ—…es and miracles it is an intolerable pride for Martin Luther at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worde without anie other miracle 〈◊〉 yâ— he was the most fyithiest maÌ„ both of mouth and life ther lightly was in â—…he earth to require all the world to to beleue his new 〈◊〉 Iu. S. Augustine 〈◊〉 conference and disputation with â—…tius the Arrian at Hippo in a priuate house of one Anitius San. But I 〈◊〉 you it was kepte of S. Augustines part to maintein the knowen 〈◊〉 faith and not to ouerthrow if Yea it was kept to maintein yâ— word homusion which yâ— heretike Pascentius alleged not to be in the holy scripture and therefore that it ought not to be admitted Iu. There be euer some that laugh at the repairing of Hierusalem as Origen saith San. You are of that summe for you laugh at S. Augustine who brought the faith into England and at the eight Cardinals who went about to repaire the wals of the Church But Origenes speaketh of idolatours and Gentils who euuied at yâ— rising and not at the repairing of the wals of the Gospel because it greued them to see moe new Christians daily made of iufidels ¶ Whether Christes body dwel really in our bodies by his natiuity Iuel The old Fathers speak not any one word that serueth to M Hardings purpose San. This lying brag can not face the matter as it shal appere hereafter Iu. M Harding proueth Christes body to be really in vs and not in the Sacrament thereby altering the question Harding Christ dvvelleth in vs truly because of our receauing his body in this Sacrament San. Ergo M. Iuel said not truly that D. Harding hath altered the question For that which he now saith he also proueth Iu. Four special meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination buâ—…â—…ally substancially naturally fleshly and in dede San. You had ben better to haue subscribed sour 〈◊〉 M. Iuel than for gredines of denying the real presence of Christes body in the Sacrament to haue made an assertion so vain as this is Iu. Christes body by his natiuitie whereby he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwelleth in our bodies really substancially caet San. If you had only said that Christ by his incarnatioÌ„ dwelleth naturally in vs or we naturally in him that sayinge might haue had a true sense for that Christ by taking yâ— nature whiche we are might haue bene said to dwell among vs and to be 〈◊〉 of vs. But to say not only that Christ but that his body not only dwelleth in vs but in our bodies and that not only naturally but also really substancially in dede to affirm coÌ„stantly so much it semeth to me very hard First Christes natiuitie no more caused his body to dwel really in our bodies then his incarnation For when the word was made flesh euen then it dwelt in vs. Secondly his incarnation may be considered three waâ—…es one way as if he had taken 〈◊〉 by thought or imagination only and not in verie dede of which opinion you are not as it may appere
haue but because his words did not serue the turn it pleased this corruptour of all good authors to geue him new words The first place in S. Ignatius is vt credentes in mortem eius per BaptismuÌ„ participes resurrectionis eius efficiamini To th' intent ye beleuing in his death through Baptism should be made partakers of his resurrection Here is not that for which M. Iuel seeketh because Baptism is also named whereof as yet it is not his course to speake Again here is no reall or substanciall dwelling spoken of The other place is Vos verâ—… inuitat Christus ad suam incorruptibilitatem per passionem suam ac resurrectionem qui estis membra eius Christ inuiteth you who are his members to his immortalitie by his passion and resurrection But this place wâ—… not serue M. Iuels purpose For it is not sayd we are made the members of his body which is the thing that M. Iuel must proue That word body was not in S. Ignatius but is cast in by M. Iuel 2. Moreouer though it had bene expressed it had bene meant of Christes mysticall body â—…oncerning faith and not of his naturall body whereof we now dispute 3. S. Ignatius speaketh not of our incorporating to be now first made by faith in Christes passion but he saith Christ inuiteth vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being his members he speaketh not of that we are made his members that word made M. Iuel made of his own head 4. S. Ignatius spake of this point how those that are already the members of Christ which thing they were not by faith alone but by Baptism and the Eucharist how those I say were inuited not now to be made members but to be made immortal with Christ their head Thus M. Iuel doth order the holy Fathers words ¶ The contradiction of M. Iuel concerning Christ really dwelling in vs by faiâ—… not really dwelling in vs by faith c. WHat shal we say of M. Iuel who in one and the selfe same diuision affirmeth two propositioÌ„s cleane contrarie For as here he saith Christes body dwelleth in our bodies by euerie of the four meanes of which one is a dwelling by faith so afterward expounding out of S. Augustine the very same wordes of S. Paule whiche he now bringeth for the dwelling of 〈◊〉 body in our bodâ—…es really Thus he â—…aith Christe is in thee not really or bodily but because his â—…aith is within thee And those wordes not really or bodily are not the wordes of S. 〈◊〉 but the wordes of M. Iuell Who within the câ—…mpasse of two leaues affirmeth more coÌ„tradictions neuer able to be recâ—…ciled The one place saith Christes body is in our bodies by faith The other saith Christ is not really in vs but by faith If there be any ods betwene Christ and his body it maketh altogether against M. Iuel For whereas Christe maie be said to be where his body is not and maie be said to be in vs when his body is not in our bodies M. Iuel 〈◊〉 in the one place not only the body of Christe to be really in vs but also he denieth that Christ is really iâ—… vs. and in the other he affirmeth not only Christe to be really in vs by faith but also his body to be really not only in vs but euen in our bodies by faith You pretend some contradiction M. Iuell here and there betwen D. Hardings own words but I 〈◊〉 you no such is to be fouÌ„d as this is You note in this article that D. Harding is contrarie to him self because he saiâ—…th in one place Berâ—…ngarius first begaÌ„ openly to sowe the Sacramentarie heresie in an other he said the Messalians were the first parents of this heresy But what a poore contradiction is that sith one may be the first parent of an heresie in geuing secret occasion thereof the other may beginne it first in professing it opeÌ„ly and publikely as D. Hardings own wordes expressly say But if D. Hardinges contradiction were like yours it should saie Berengarius began this heresie first openly and Berengarius began it not firste openly The same termes being kepte the one shoulde haue affirmed the same thinge whiche the other had denied No no it is for M. Iuel to haue suche contradictions and for no man els But what credit shall any man geue to your wordes sith yoâ—… doe not only saie these two contradictiones but you teache them both You hold that Christe is in vs by faith and therefore that his body is really in our bodies You set it foorth as a doctrine of yours you make a preface to it solemly say for answere hereunto it shal be necessarie first to vnderstand howe manie waies Christes bodie dwelleth in our bodies and thereby afterward to view M. Hardinges reason Four speciall meanes there be whereby Christe dwelleth in vs and we in him His natiuitie whereby he embraced vs. Our faith whereby we embrace him The Sacrament of baptism and the Sacrament of his body By euerie of these meanes Christes bodie dwelleth in our bodies and that not by waie of imagination or by figure or phantasie but really naturally substantially fleshly and in deede Are not these your own words M. Iuel Are they not spoken of you not only in the wai of answering wherein somtime a maÌ„ vseth some shift but are they not your own words setting foorth a doctrine whiche you would haue beleued and embraced Well Why then saie you afterward the contrarie and that not only once but in diuerse places For againe in an other place before you said Christe dwelleth in our hartes by faith must he nedes meane that Christ is really and fleshly placed within our harts Meane you not there to saie that though Christe dwell in vs by faith yet he is not really placed in vs What meaneth this contrarie doctrine Surely thus it meaneth yâ— you knowe not what you saie you vnderstand not whereof you dispute You prouide only to contrarie D. Harding and through him the Catholike Church and that by al meanes possible to be deuised by phrases of speache by the authorities of schole meÌ„ by falsifying yâ— auncieÌ„t Fathers And now through vehement bending your self against our reall receauing of Christes bodie into our bodies which the Catholikes beleue you haue inuented three other your selfe in the meane time assuredly beleuing that there is neuer a corporall coniunction at all with Christes naturall bodie Of other petie contradictions I speake in other places ¶ Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme or no IVel. To increase this vnion God hath specially appointed his holy Sacraments San. Not only to increase it but also to make it For partly now all men be baptized being yet infantes when they doe not actually beleue partly though they did beleue their saith maie be to weake to worke the incorporation as S. Augustine saeith
and specially of al Christ hath appointed baptism to be after his coming so necessary a meane for our incorporatioÌ„ to his mystical body whereof he is the Sauior yâ— except a man be born again of the water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kyngdome of heauen Again some Sacraments are appointed to reconcile vs to god if we synne after baptism For except we doe penance we shall perish all together Iuel Thei that are baptized are planted into Christ. San. You should shew that Christes body is plaÌ„ted into their bodies and that really and substantially 〈◊〉 Haue you forgotten your promise Iuel Thei haue put Christ vpon them San. You should shew that Christes body is put within their bodies euen fleshely Iuel By one spirite thei are baptized into one body San. You should shew that the naturall body of Christe is by baptising really in their bodies For the body whereof S. Paule speaketh is the mysticall body Iu. S. Augustine saith This is the vse of baptising that thei that be baptised may be incorporate into Christ. San. It would haue bene englished hereunto baptising is available that is to say this is the strength and the force of baptism But you beleue baptisme to be only a seale of an incorporation alredie made and not in dede to incorporate vs into Christ and therfore you falsified S. Augustine according to your shamâ—…ul custome Well we are incorporated by baptisme yet the body of Christ is not thereby shewed to dwell really in our bodies A man may be incorporated to the cumpanie of Marchants in the citie of London yet the cuÌ„panie of Marchantes shall not dwell really in his body All this doth not proue your principall proposition that by baptism the body of Christ dwelleth really in our bodies Iuel Being baptised we are turned into God saith Dionysius Sander The word that he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which importeth a participatioÌ„ of diuine nature howsoeuer it be brought to passe insomuch that the Angels may so be made as it were gods or be made like to his nature Therfore it is not proued by yâ— words of Dionysius that Christs body dwelleth in our bodies really or substancially by baptism nor he nameth not turning but rather a deification or a comming to be like vnto god Iu. Pachimeres saith we are graft into Christ and made one nature with him by holy baptism Sander You haue turned him falsely For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie one nature but diuerse men of one nature kinsmen as it were and men of the same stock or of the same route or graffinge It is not al one to be made one flesh of one flesh In baptism we are al made of one flesh and we al are graft into one mystical flesh of Christ but by yâ— Sacrament of the altar we are during yâ— time of the coÌ„iunction one self flesh with Christes natural flesh There we are two in one fleshe as I haue shewed in my 〈◊〉 boke yâ— v. Chapter But seing you crane ayde of Pachimeres you shal heare his mind coÌ„cernig yâ— blessed sacrameÌ„t of the altar theÌ„ iudge you whether he say or meane the like of baptism The bishop saith he beleueth that euen the things which are set forth he meaneth the bread and wine were changed into the preciouse body blood of Christ by the holy goost who worketh all If then the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ yea and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the first paterns sor so he called them before the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh relation to al that went before if then the bread and wine be chaÌ„ged into those first examples of flesh and blood which were taken by Christ of his mother seing we partake those holy mysteries aster the chaÌ„ge it is easy io iudge that Pachymeres taught otherwise of one vnion to god concerning the meane of Christes supper then euer he taught concerning baptism ¶ Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar or no. IVel. Thus much may sufsice to discry M. Hardings slender argument San. Not so M. Iuell you must expound the fourth member of your diuision You haue told that Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies by his natiuitie our faith and by baptisme come now and shew how it dwelleth in our bodies really by the Sacrament of the altar Was not al the other talke made for that end why flie you when you are come to the very point but who would not laugh to see this mans doing He saith Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies and that four waies And when he hath endeuored to shew that it is so in three of the first in the whiche in dede it is not so then cometh he to declare in the fourth way by which only Christes body dwelleth really in vs when we receauâ—… the Sacrament of his body there he spendeth al his strength to declare that Christes body is not really dwelling in our bodies Why Sir Did you so forget your selfe that you haue â—…mitted your principal part You wil say perhaps that D. Harding hath done that for you and that the places whiche he bringeth do shew so much be it so At the lest then you should not impugne D. Harding as you doe If his places proue not yâ— Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies as you say thei doe not proue it then it is your part to proue so much for you aâ—…cmed it before Iuel Notwithstanding by the Sacrament of baptisme Christ be naturally in vs yet M. Harding may not therefore conclude that Christ is naturally in the Sacrament of baptisme San. It is false that Christ by the Sacrament of baptisme is naturally in vs. For as the father who begetteth a childe is not thereby naturally dwelling in the childe albeit an effect of his nature was one of the causes of the childes nature so Christe by regenerating vs in baptisme by his worde whiche is in place of the seede and by water whiche is as it were the wombe of the mother doth not thereby dwell naturally in vs albeit we haâ—…e an effect of spiritual grace whiche came to vs by meanes of his fleshe Iuel Bonauentuâ—…a saith wel we maie not in any wise saie that the grace of god is conteined in the Sacraments as water in a vessel For so to say it were an errour But thâ—… are said to 〈◊〉 gods grace because thei signifie gods grace SaÌ„ BonaueÌ„tnâ—…a was a Cardinal of Rome a scholastical writer a man lesse then three hundred yeres old one that said masse and yet with M. Iuel now he is a good author saith well But yet what 〈◊〉 you in englishing his words to leaue yâ— aduerb essentialiter essentiallie vnenglished
Baptism only Christ ioyned vs to him selfe then as it were he should put vs foorth to nurse for neither faith nor baptism is Christ him selfe But when he fedeth vs with the reall substance of his own body and with it not only apprehended by faith but receaued by mouth then he fedeth vs by his own self and by him selfe vniteth vs to him selfe To conclude S. Chrysostome saith writing vppon S. Iohn Cum suum c. Christe intending to shew his loue towards 〈◊〉 hath mingled him selfe with vs by his body and hath brought him selfe into one with vs to thend the body should be vnited to the head Here are foure things to be noted First that Christe worketh the vnion Secondly that loue causeth him to worâ—… it Thirdly that the meane whereby he worketh it is affirmed to be his owne body Fourthly that so the body whiche is the Church is vnited to the head who is Christ. In whiche consideration Christ as sitting in the glorie of his father is the worker of the vnion His body as present in the Sacrament is the instrument whereby he worketh Christ as the Sauiour of his body whiche is the Church is the end whereunto the vnion doth bring vs. And herein appereth his loue that he him selfe in his owne substance is the beginning the middle the end of the vnioÌ„ The fondation the wall the top of the spiritual building The carpenter the instrument the dweller in the house of his ownâ—… handy working Now M. Iuel I will geue you certein phrases to pick out whereof you shal neuer be able to rid your handes 1. You proue right well that by faith we are dwelt in of Christ proue now that such dwelling is made by the thing it self and not by faith only â–ª for els Christes dwelling in vs by faith is not so reall a dwelling as that whereof S. Chrysostom speaketh which is not by faith only but by the thing it self to wit by the reall body of Christ. 2. You say in Baptism we are made Christes flesh and so we are made in dede his mystical flesh proue now that we are made also his flesh in baptism per corpus Christi by the body of Christ â–ª for els the vnion of the Sacrament wil be more real because the meane is more reall and more excellent 3. You proue that we are vnited to Christ by faith and Baptism proue now either that we are vnited vnto faith it self and vnto Baptism it self or els the vnion made in this Sacrament will farre passe the ioyning which is made in the other For here we are vnited to the same body wherewith we are fed which we see touche but there we be not vnited to the water wherewith we are washed 4. You say we are made Christ by Baptism but proue now that Christ is there deliuered in sensible things to your hand to your mouth to your tonge so that you may haue him within you as it is done in Christes supper These phrases you must proue to be verified by faith and Baptism if you will haue as reall a ioyning made by faith or by Baptism as is made by the Sacrament of the altar Iuel As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the body of our Lord euen so the bread of idols is the partaking of diuels and if we eate one bread with idolatours we are made one body with them San. You falsifie the words of S. Paule who is not reported by Primasius to saie that the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the bodie of our Lord but the bread which we breake is the partaking of the bodie of our Lord. That which S. Paule spake of the substance of the bread which is the coÌ„municating of our Lords bodie that thing you assigne to the action of breaking And whereas Primasius saith the bread of Idols is also the partaking of diuels as the bread which we break is the partaking of our Lords bodie it sheweth yâ— he toke not yâ— name of bread materiallie for wheateÌ„ bread but for all kind of meare drinck which the Idolatours vsed And therefore he meant likewise yâ— the bread which we breake is no material bread but a kiÌ„d of meate which Christ hath prepared specially for vs. Againe as the Idolatours did offer their meate vnto diuels so much more the Christians did offer theirs vnto god And seiÌ„g the Idolators did in will and consent of mind partake with the diuels to whoÌ„ they offered the Christians did partake with God not only in will mind those I meane that were faithfull but also in body and mouth by receauing the natural flesh of Christ into theire bodies For Christ herein specially had honored his Church to theÌ„d the external sacrifice thereof should be no more any earthli creature but 〈◊〉 his own body blood the only propitiatorie sacrifice for al maÌ„kind ¶ It is proued that S. Hilarie taught the body of Christ to be really in the Sacrament HArding If the vvord be verily made flesh and vve receaue verily the vvord being flesh in our Lords meate hovv is he to be thought not to dvvell in vs naturally vvho both hath taken the nature of our flesh novv inseparable to himself in that he is born man and also hath mingled the nature of his ovvn flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnder the Sacrament of his flesh to be receaued of vs in the communion Iuel M. Harding hath not hitherto found that Christes body is naturally or corporally in the Sacrament San. You found such a deuise M. Iuel to call for Fathers for their names and their words before their place was come that a maÌ„ wold haue thought when they were once come you wold haue examined their sayings most diligently But now your first shift is to heape them vp altogether And whereas in matters of lesse weight you did diâ—…ide D. Hardings words into a competent number of lines here you will not answer to the testimonies one by one least your nakednesse appeare but lay them all in one so to hyde your ignorance in answering Your second shift is to intreate of things out of order speaking now of one now of an other confusely But I wil bring your words to their due order as nigh as I can Your third shift is to let goe S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie and to râ—…ne to iâ—…pertinent sayings of S. Augustine of S. Bernard and of Cyrillus which are already answered The fourth shift is to say â—…alsely that M. Harding findeth not Christes body to be naturally or corporally in the Sacrament The which point God willing I wil now declare against your dissembling assertion 1. S. Hilarie disputeth against the Arrians which thing also M. Iuel in this article confesseth 2. The Arrians alleged against the Godhead of Christ diuerse arguments the which I must nedes repete
and set foorth with the coâ—…tation of them vsed by S. Hilarie because M. Iuel taketh part with the Arrians against S. Hilarie not in dede concerning the professioÌ„ of their heresie but in that he taketh away the strength of S. Hilaries answer And applieth that answer to one part of the Arrians argument which S. Hilarie did vse to aâ—… other 3. S. Hilarie first professeth that he will refell them ex his ipsis quibus vtuntur out of the very same things which they vse 4. The first argument of the Arrians is this Of the multitude of the beleuers there was one soule and one hart Lo sayd they this is the vnitie of will and not of nature 5. S. Hilarie answereth two ways the first answer is that euen this vnitie which is by faith cometh not only of the will but also it hath an vnitie of nature ioyned withall what nature is that Forsouth the nature of faith For the faith is one as S. Paul sayth And therefore it is one certain nature which being promised S. Hilarie coÌ„cludeth thus Si ergo per fidem id est per vnius fidei naturam caet If all they were one by faith that is to say by the nature of one faith how is it that thou vnderstandest 〈◊〉 not a naturall vnitie in them who are one by the nature of one faith 6. Now for Gods sake good Reader see how M. Iuel applieth this geare vnto his purpose and know him to be a very desperate man Iuel Against the Arrians Hilarius reasoned thus 1. Christ is as really ioyned vnto the Father as vnto vs. 2. But Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature 3. Therefore Christ is ioyned to God the Father by nature San. In dede S. Hilarie maketh such an argument But how doth he proue that Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature Iu. He proueth it thus We are ioyned vnto Christ by faith that is by the nature of one faith and that is to say naturally San. If euer anie man spake ignorantly falsely impudently this man is giltie thereof at this tyme. Note I beseche you the number of faults committed by him First he maketh S. Hilarie to bring such kind of proofe as he doth not bring for proofe of that proposition which M. Iuell hath set foorth For S. Hilarie did bring that which is said of the nature of faith to answere the argument taken out of the Actes of the Apostles which I now haue proponed Secondly M. Iuel omitted the true and only argumeÌ„t which S. Hilarie bringeth in dede to proue that Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature The which proof of his I will hereafter prosecute at large Thirdly M. Iuel doth make S. Hilarie a verie foole in the kind of proof which M. Iuel assigneth him For whereas by M. Iuels consession he should haue proued that Christe is ioyned vnto vs by nature M. Iuel maketh him to saie that we are ioyned vnto Christ by faith and so that we are naturally ioyned to him Where is your memorie M. Iuell It is to be proued that Christ is ioyned to vs and not only that we are ioyned to him And that he is ioyned to vs by his nature and not only that we are ioyned to him by a nature of faith whiche is not in him For Christ hath no faith because from the instant of his incarnation his soule and vnderstanding was illuminated with the vision of God to whose nature it was ioyned in one person and where clere vision is there is no faith in so much that faith shal cease when we come to see God in his glorie And how is Christ ioyned to vs by that faith which he hath not at all Fourthlie M Iuel ouerthroweth wholie the true argument of S. Hilarie whose intent is onlie as yet to shew that faythfull men are one among themselfes by the nature of faith also and not onlie by wil and consent as I haue declared before He speaketh I say of our ioyning one to an other not as yet of Christes ioyning to vs or of ours to Christ. Fifthlie M. Iuel falsifieth the words of S. Hilarie for he maketh him to say that we are ioyned to Christ by faith naturaliter naturally he writeth that word in such letters as he is wont to write the words of the fathers in But S. Hilarie saith not nor neuer meaÌ„t that we are ioyned to Christ by faith naturally Ther is no such word in him What honest nature thoughe heretofore he did beleue M. Iuel will now any longer stick vnto him sith he is found to be without al wit or conscience Trulie Simon Magus was no more filthie in his iuggling knaks theÌ„ this man is But let vs goe forward in S. Hilarie The second answer of S. Hilarie to the first argâ—…ment of the Arrians is that the Christians are one also by the nature of one baptism and not by Will onlie Iuel Likewise he saith we are ioyned vnto Christ by the regeneration of one nature and againe we are ioyned to Christ by the nature of one baptism hereof he concludeth therefore are we naturally ioyned vnto him Sand. In so few words it is hard for a man â—…udued with reason to make so many faultes as M. Iuel hath now committed First he wil make S. Hilarie proue that Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature because we are ioyned to him by regeneration of one nature Which argument will not hold for it will not follow yâ— because we are ioyned to an other by some inferiour meanes yâ— he therefore is ioyned to vs by a higher meane To be ioyned to vs in nature is a higher thing then for vs to be ioyned to Christ in Baptism How can then the baser coniunction infer of necessitie a higher kind of ioyning Secondly M. Iuel doth falsifie S. Hilaries wordes reporting that he sayth we are ioyned to Christ by the nature of one Baptism S. Hilarie saith it not but only that all the Christians are one among them selues by these things and not one naturally with Christ. His own words are Whereas in so great diuersitie of nations of conditions of sexes the faithfull are one cometh it of the assent of will or rather of the vnitie of the Sacrament because both Baptism is one vnto them and all they haue put on them one Christ Therefore what shall the concord of minds doe here for as much as they are one thereby because they are clothed with one Christ by the nature of one Baptism Thirdly it is most impudently affirmed of M. Iuel that S. Hilarie concludeth hereof therefore we are naturally ioyned vnto Christ. S. Hilarie hath no such conclusion neither could he haue any such because it is not yet his purpose to open how Christ is ioyned vnto vs by nature You wil say is it not then true
that we are ioyned to Christ by faith and by Baptism Yeas Syr and by will also But note the point we stand vpon we are not ioyned naturally to Christ nor he is not ioyned by nature vnto vs by our faith or Baptism It is yâ— term naturally which M. Iuel denied at S. Poules crosse and that teâ—…n D. Harding hath found to appertein to the Sacrament as it shal be be made most manifest That term M. Iuel wold wrest to faith and Baptism And for that termes sake he is almost become a wicked Arrian or a naturall The second argument of the Arrians is He that planteth he that watereth are one Ergo sayd they the vnitie of will is in both them and they meant of will only and not any other vnitie S. Hilarie answereth that they are one because to them being born again in one Baptism one ministerie or dispensation of the one Baptism which doth regeneraâ—…e is graunted So that they are onâ—… because they haue one ministerie and not only because they 〈◊〉 of one minde At the last S. Hilarie geueth a generall rule qui per eandem rem vnum sunt naturâ etiam vnum sunt non tantum voluntate Those who are oâ—…e by the same thing they are one by nature and not only by will The third argument of the Arrians is Exemplum vnitatis istius sayth S. Hilarie caet The Arrians haue brought foorth an example of this vnitie out of our Lords words also to th' end all may be one As thou O Father in me and I in thee that they also may be in vs. To this argument S. Hilarie answereth declaring now first that which M. Iuel spake of before out of place Now first beginneth S. Hilarie to shew how Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we in him And consequently how we also dwell in his Father by the meane of him To this matter should M. Iuel haue applied his solutioÌ„ For vppon the discourse made by reason of this argument D. â—…ding did ground his proof of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament What saith M. Iuel to this matter Iuel Thus it appeareth by S. Hilarie we may haue Christ naturally within vs by three other sundry meanes and therefore not only as M. Harding holdeth by receauing of the SacrameÌ„t San. Thus it appeareth say you but I haue shewed that no such thing appereth For S. Hilarie neuer sayd hitherto that we were naturally in Christ. Iuel Like as Christ is naturally corporally and carnally in vs by faith by regeneration and by Baptism euen so and none otherwise he is in vs by the Sacrament of his body San. First you begin with a thing not confessed nor agreâ—…d vpon and thereof you conclude a manifest falshod Christ is in vs by faith and Baptism but not corporally in our bodies But by the Sacrament of his body he is both in vs and in our bodies in the true and corporal substance of his own flesh blood Secondly you distinguish regeneration from Baptism as though Baptism were not the Sacrament which doth regenerate vs euen by S. Hilaries own doctrine alleged before Thirdly if Christ be none otherwise in vs by the Sacrament of his body then by faith or Baptism why do you make it a seuerall way from the other named before Why is that counted by your self a fourth meane of Christes being in vs which disferâ—…th not at all from the other three At the length it is tyâ—…e that I proue out of S. Hilarie which thing you M. Iuel dissemble and denie Chrisles body to be really present in the Sacrament It is to be remembred that whereas the Arrians had sayd aâ—… vuitie of will to be only betwen God the Father and the sonne as we likewise are one with Christ by will only for so thei sayd S. Hilariâ—… doth not in that case rest vpoÌ„ this answer that Christ by his birth is one with vs in truthe of flesh blood and therefore not in will and assent only as the Arriaâ—…s pretended and as M â–ª Iuel did before goe about to proâ—… S. Hilarie I say rested not therein because the vnitie of nature which was made with mankind by Christes Incarnation â—…ight be thought to pertein no more to the good then to the euill whereas Christ prayed for the vnitie of good men aloâ—…e that they might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christ in him Therefore S. Hilary seking an other meane of our natural vnitie with Christ thereby proueth seing the faithfull men are one with Christ not only by faith or Baptism but by naturall coniunction and by corporall partaking of his own substance that much more Christ is one with his Father in nature and not in will alone S. Hilarie then must prone that we are one with Christ naturally which thing he doth after this â—…ort The word is verily made flesh and we take verily the word being flesh in our Lords meate therefore Christ is to be iudged to tary is in vs naturally Thus doth S. Hilari reason as I haue now shewed his coÌ„clusion is yâ— Christ tarieth in vs naturally yâ— meane to proue it is dubble one because Christ hath true flesh and blood whereby it is shewed to be possible that he may dwell naturally in vs the other is to shew that Christ gaue vnto vs aâ—…d that we take verily the same word being flesh in our Lords meate whereby the flesh that was able to be geuen to vs because it was really assumpted of Christ cometh in dede reallie vnto vs by his gift â–ª our Lords meate whereof S. Hilarie speaketh is the Sacrament of Christes supper wherein only he â—…ed vs corporallie with the word being flesh therefore S. Hilarie doth vs to vnderstand that in the Sacrament we take the word made flesh and so verily take it as the word was verily made flesh â–ª Iuel That we verily and vndoutedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament it is neither denied nor in question SaÌ„ You sayd before pag. 323. that Christ in his supper added an outward Sacrament to the spirituall eating named in S. Ihon which Sacrament you sayd was commonly called a figure and again you sayd the bread is a figure Last of all you said out of Rabanus that the Sacrament is receaued with the mouth but now you say it is not denied yâ— we verily receaue Christes bodie in the Sacrament whereof I say it must nedes folow that Christes body is receaued with the mouth For it is receaued in the Sacrament as here you confesse and the Sacrament is receaued with the mouth as you taught before therefore by your doctrine Christes body is receaued by mouth which is against your third conclusion pag. 319. Who can tell where to find you But to return to my purpose the aduerb verily doth signifie in this place naturallie
it to passe that both we maie be in Christ and Christ in vs. Besyde this it followeth Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem Christ is him selfe in vs by his â—…leshe Note how he is in vs and by what meane not by the meane of bread and wine but by the meane of his fleshe And afterwarde he is beleued to be in vs by the mysterie of the Sacraments ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente Him self tarying naturally in vs which is the effect of the SacrameÌ„ts At the length he concludeth his chefe intent against the third argument of the Arrians saying Si ergo nos naturaliter fecundum carnem per eum viuimus id est naturam carnis suae adepti c. If then we liue naturally according to the fleshe by him that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his fleshe how can he but haue the father naturally in him self according to the spirite seing he liueth for the Father Out of whiche place it appereth that as the substance of God the Father is really in the person of Christ so S. Hilary meant that Christes naturall substance by meane of the Sacrament receaued is within our own persons For the naturall being of Christ through the SacrameÌ„t in vs is the meane to proue that God the Father is naturally in Christ. But if Christe through the Sacrament were in vs as only eaten by faith God the Father should be proued to be in his sonne by faith only and not by nature whiche thing the Arrians would haue concluded whom M. Iuel doth help al that he may and hindereth the prouss of the consubstantiality of Christ with his father But S. Hilary saith By the Sacrament of flesh and blood the propriety of naturall communion is graunted Againe by the sonne tarying carnaliter fleshely to wit in truth of flesh in vs. Laste of all the mysterie of tâ—…ue and of naturall vnitie is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter inseparabilirer vnitis We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably Thus S. Hilarie hath proued most directly and hath affirmed by diuerse words of one meanig about twelue times that Christ is ioyned to vs by nature of his flesh And not by the nature of faith or of baptism as M. Iuel most desperately affirmeth For Christ neither hath anie faith in him whiche maie be of the nature of our faith Nor anie baptism of the same nature of forgeuing synnes which our baptism is of it is the nature of flesh and blood onlie whereby Christ is naturally carnally and corporalâ—…y ioyned vnto the faithful men at what time thei reâ—…aue his mysteries This point so euident when M. Iuel dissembled and forged an other had he not don better if he had subscribed teÌ„ times Iuel These words that Christ corporally carnally and naturally is within vs in their own rigour seme very hard San. They must nedes seme hard to him who beleueth not a hard talke saith S. Augustine but to hard harted meÌ„ incredible but to them who beleue not Iuel Hilarius saieth We are one with God the Father and the Sonne not only by adoption or consent of minde but also by nature which according to the letter can not be true San. Why bring you not the latin words where he saith it wil you now spet 〈◊〉 your poyson of lying also against that blâ—…ssed father S. Hilarius He teacheth that Christ and his Father are one nature and likewise that we and Christe are one nature because he toke our flesh of the virgin Marie and gaue vs the same flesh in the Sacrament whereunto we being ioyned prosiceremus ad vnitatem patris might go forward to the vnitie of the sather And again he saith that he rehersed these things coÌ„cerning our natural vnitie with Christ because the hereâ—…ikes falsely affirming the vnitie of will only betwen the father and the sonne did vse yâ— example of our vnitie to god as though we were vnited to the sonne and by the sonne to the father by obedience only and deuout wil without anie propriety of natural communion being graunted to vs by the SacrameÌ„t of flesh and blood where both by the honour of the sonne of god geuen vnto vs and by the soÌ„ne tarying fleshly in vs and we being vnited in him corporally and vnseparably the mysterie of true and natural vnion is to be prea ched taught It is answered therefore of vs to the folly of suriouse meÌ„ Hitherto S. Hilarie where he teacheth in dede that we are ioyned to the Father but per filium manenteÌ„ in nobis carnaliter by the Sonne tarying in vs carnally to witte in truthe of flesh which thing he also teacheth to be doâ—…e per SacramentuÌ„ carnis et sanguinis by yâ— SacrameÌ„t of flesh blood But that we are one with God yâ— Father by nature or one with God yâ— Sonne in his diuine nature it is a most impudeÌ„t lye forged vpoÌ„ S. Hilarie you that do forget it haue passed herein al the bounds of honestie to accuse S. Hilarie of so blasphemouse a saying as that had bâ—…ne Iu. The Fathers hauebene fain to expound and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kinds of speache San. Now you shew your self in your own colours M. Iuel Whatsoeuer you haue hitherto pretended you thinke in your harte that the Fathers doe not speake well for violent speaches be no good speaches and excessiue speaches be not literally true You would not call them hyperbolicall speaches least any man should thinke you inteprete and excuse their wordes by a figure oâ—…hetorike But yet al is one to them which vnderstand greke to say theyr speaches are more then true and to say they are excessiue But I muste nedes cal you accompt you a wicked man for such 〈◊〉 speaking and I require you by the force of this confession of yours to subscribe For it is enough yâ— the Fathers doe speake so plainly againste you that you are constrained to cal it a violent and excessiue speache It standeth not now in you to say that they spake more then is true You haue promised to subscribe if any one sufficient senteÌ„ce were brought foorth out of the first six hundred yeres S. Hilarie is nere vpon the first three huÌ„dred yeres He sayth that Christ is naturally in vs by his flesh communicated in a Sacrament receaued vnder a mystery and carnally and corporally tarieth in vs. Therefore you muste subscribe not only through promise but to saue your soule frome hel fyre But what say we doth S. Hilarie speake more then is true Could the Arrians haue wished a better Patrone for their faction then M. Iuell is or is not Christe muche bound to M. Iuel whose diuiâ—…e nature S. Hilarie defending is said to speake excessiuely Is not God yâ— Father much beholden to M. Iuell who impugneth yâ—
doe you 〈◊〉 his wordes Iuel So this article is concluded with an Ignoramus San. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christes presence but of his real presence though the maner be vnknoweÌ„ But did you call that an â—…gnoramus if we know not how Christ is vnder the foorm of bread I am sure you know not howe the vnion was made in the virgins womb are you therefore reproued as ignorante In dede if ye belâ—…ue not Christes presence ye haue concluded this article with a Non credimus whiche is a worse fault then Ignoramus For he that beleueth not shal be con demmed Iuel The old lerned Fathers neuer left vs in suche doutes San. S. Cyrillus in this very matter willeth vs to geue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way and knowlege of his worke vnto god the first part you haue broken The first and last D. Harding hath obserued and you shal be concluded with a dam naberis if ye repent not S. Chrisostom saith it is the part of a scholar not to serch out curioufly the things which the master affirmeth but to here and to beleue and to looke for a conuenient time of soyling the question Iuel Emissenus saith Christ is present by his grace San. You haue put a false nominatiue case 〈◊〉 doth say that Christ consecrated the Sacrament of his bodie and blâ—…od to thend Perennis illa victima viueret in memoria et semper praesens esset in gratia that euerlastig sacrifice should liue in remembraÌ„ce and be alwaies present in his grace It is victima the oblatioâ—… or sacrificed hoste which is present in grace for in dede the act of crucifying is vtterlie past but the sacrifice is present in his grace for so muche as it is present in that flesh whiche suffered death Againe he saith not yâ— it is present bi his grace as you haue turned it but in his grace You wold haue grace to be the meane of presence but it is not so Grace is the effect of presence But the meane of the grace in this Sacrament is the presence of Christes own body Iuel S. Augustine saith Christ in vs by his spirit San. That is true also when he is in vs by his flesh for in that flesh his spirit dwelleth And he that denieth Christ to be in vs by his owne flesh taketh away the chefe way by whiche the spirit of God may be in vs. Iuel Ye shall not eate this body that ye see it is a certain Sacrament that I deliuer you San. The words of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set foorth a certain Sacrament to you and not I deliuer you a câ—…rtain Sacrament For this was spoken of S. Augustine in Christes person in respect of the talke had aâ—… CapharnauÌ„ Where the Sacrament was commended before it was deliuered But that which was commended at Capâ—…naum was only the same flesh which 〈◊〉 for vs Therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible and sensible maner but yet in truth of geuing by body and of taking by body For of such geuing and taking Christ spake as by the last supper it may appere where he perâ—…oormed his promise But M. Iuel was lothe that relation should be made to the talke had at Capharnanm For then he saw that the very reall flesh must be the thing which should be deliuered again he wold not haue either the commendatioÌ„ past or the gift to come and thereforâ—… he turned commendaui into trado I haue coÌ„mended into I deliuer Indede M. Iueâ—… Christ deliuered his flesh as well at Capharnaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Ghospell Where the promise is shewed to be made at Capharnaum and the perfoormance at the last â—…upper In which supper neither the body which the Iew s saw was deliuered and much lesse bread or wine which was not promised but vnder the forme of bread wine that flesh and blood was deliuered which at 〈◊〉 was promised Iuel Thus the holy Fathers say Christ is present not corporally San. Both S. â—…yril and S. Hilarie haue the word corporally as I haue shewed concerning the Sacrament Iuel Not carnally San. S. Hilarie hath the word carnally in the 23. chapit the number 37. of this booke Iuel Not naturally San. S. Hilarie hath the term naturally diuerse times S. Lyrill calleth it naturall partaking and naturall vnion Iuel But as in a Sacrament by his spirite and by his grace Saâ—… Here appereth what stuff you haue fed the reader with all in your whole booke For partly you deny a truthe which is that Christ is not corporally present and that you doe against the expresse word of God and the Fathers as I haue shewed partly you proue that your heresy by an other truthe which rather stablisheth then hindereth the real presence For Christ can not be better present in spirit and grace theÌ„ if he be present in his flesh therein to conuerte to vs his spirit and grace for the cause of his taking flesh was to make his flesh an instrument to deliuer his spirit and grace to our flesh to thend no meane of prouiding for our saluation might be omitted by so louing a Father In consideration whereof S. Ambrose saith Thou that takest his flesh art made partaker of his diuine substance in that food Note that the spirit substance of God cometh to vs by taking Christes flesh ¶ The Conclusion COnsider first good Reader that of moe then twenty articles there is but one answered yâ— not the longest wherein if aboue two 〈◊〉 faultes and vntrutâ—…es without curiouse searching be 〈◊〉 what may a man thinke of the wholâ—… booke of M. Iuell how many hundred yea 〈◊〉 thousand vntruthes may you think to be conteined therein who when he proueth his matter bâ—…t and least of all abuseth himselfe his proufe is none other then to say one thing is not true because another is true Thus he teacâ—…th Christ to be eaten by faith and spirite and thinketh that thereof he may conclude Christ is not eaten in the sacrament by moâ—…th Christ is corporally in heauen therefore his bodie is not vnder the forme of bread The Sacrament is a figure therefore by his iudgemeÌ„t it is not the truth As well he might say a man hath a soule and therefore no bodie or Christ is man and therefore not God In Disputinge of the holie scriptures he neuer answereth to these words which is geuen for you beyng the most principall poynt of D. Hardings answere he neuer considereth the promise made by Christ in yâ— tyme to come Dabo I wil geue but talketh of it as if it were past and present He hath Englished non habebitis vitam Ye shall haue no life He expoundeth that we are
flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones by his natiuitie whereas thereby Christ is of vs because he toke our nature rather then we of him except by faith we begin to depeâ—…d of him Moreouer he thereby makethe Christe the vine and vs the branches after which râ—…te 〈◊〉 Iudas are braunches of the true vine which is Christe For Christes natiuitie perteineth to their nature also He tâ—…neth out of Priâ—…asius in stede of the breade whiche we breake the breaking of the bread attributing that to the actioÌ„ of breakinge which S Paule did attribute to the substaunce of the bread which we breake He bryngeth late writers to buyld his doctrine vppon their words such as he hath refused to admyt agaynst himselfe as S. Bernard Scotus Nicolaus de Lyra BonaueÌ„ture D. Fisher B. Tunstall D. Smith and the gloses of the Cannon lawe and yet he leaâ—…eth so to their authoritie that in the matter of churche â—…eruice he hathe no higher doctors to proue that in the primitiue church yâ— praiers were in a knoweÌ„ tonge besyde S Thomas and Lyra whose resolution notwithstanding he wil not followe therein He setteth all diuinitie vppon phrases of speache thinking he hath aunswered sufficiently if he can shewe a speach any thing like vsed in an vnlike matter by yâ— which order he may disproue the diuine nature of Christ because men are also called Gods c. And the vnitie of substance in the Trinitie because the faithfull are called one as Christ and his Father are one He may defend yâ— word to be none otherwise made flesh then he graunteth bread to be made Christes bodie And yâ— water at Cana of Galile none otherwise to be made wine then he graunteth the wine of Christes supper to be made blood To be short he hath begunne the high way to set all the mysteries of Christ only vppon phrases And consequently to bring the most helthfull knowledge of diuine matters to a talke and maner of speach But in handling his phrases he neuer maketh any discourse out of yâ— Scriptures to shew like reason betwene diuerse places by him selfe alleged but as children in grammar scholes picke Latin phrases out of Plautus Terence or Salust not being able to iudge how yâ— one phrase differreth from the other so hath he most ignorantly done in the Scriptures and in the Fathers He compareth the Eucharist to Baptisme both for like presence of Christ in both and for like adoration of both and would haue most things like betwene them Whereas though in somewhat they agree yet in most things they diâ—…fer excedig much as I haue declared He allegeth phrases coÌ„cerning the holy Chrism and yet he beleueth not the phrase which himself bringeth He missexpoundeth yâ— sayings of the Fathers interpreting spirituall flesh whereof S. Hierom intreateth to be so named because it is the flesh of the Sonne of God thereby denying if that interpretation be true the flesh of Christ as it was crucified to be the flesh of God For it is sayd of S. Hierom to differ after that maner from the spirituall flesh He taketh yâ— word flesh in Leo and the word bodie in S. Augustine and the same word bodie in Gregorie Nyssen for Christes naturall flesh and naturall bodie which were spoken of his mysticall flesh and his body the Church He missenglisheth many words Atteri at one tyme to be grinded at another to be touched Which is properly neither of both Accedere he calleth to reache And in the same senteÌ„ce he turneth hoc corpus yâ— body because he wold haue it thought absent whereas it ought to be englished this body which pronoune this doth declare that S. Chrysostom spake of the body which was present vppon the altar Valet he turneth this is the vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature whereas it is of one planting or perteyning to one nature De meo est it is of my body SecunduÌ„ quendam modum after a certain phrase and maner of speach He repor teth of S. Hilarie who sayd sub mysterio as if he had sayd in a mysterie Whereas it is to be englished vnder a mistery but that sub vnder greaueth him to the hart because it betokeneth the presence of Christ so real that it is vnder the mysterie which we take into our hands and mouthes at the holy communion He slaundereth vs in saying we expound est for erit and erit for transubstantiabitur and datur for dabitur benedixit for he blessed it away in place of it he putteth another substance For we teach the chaunging and not the putting away of a substaÌ„ce He burdeneth D. Harding with contradiction which is none With Eutiches heresie which heresie is directly against yâ— which D. Harding defendeth He sayth D. Harding will haue children condemned who receaue not the Sacrament which he neuer meant nor sayd He calleth for Doctors before the time and place and when they are come he heapeth them altogether and disputeth coÌ„fusely of their sayings so that any man may perceaue his euill conscience vaine bragging For where the points are most easy there the staieth longest where they are moâ—…t hard there he iuggleth and runneth in and out hoping to cast a myste before the Readers eyes He denieth adverbs taken of nounes to signifie the substance of any thing which is a childish ignorance as likewise in the words of Gregorie Nyssen to beginne the construction with corpus and to make humana natura to followe the verbe est whereas he should haue done the contrarie in his construction though the words there be placed out of order He addeth words of his owne betwene the Doctors words not only such as may expound things otherwise hard but euen such as weigh downe the question betwene vs and him which thing is so common with him that almost no longe senteÌ„ce escapeth a parenthesis of his owne patchinge in He missapplieth things attributing that to the Sacramentall eating which S. Augustine spake to an vnfaithfull Iew. not regarding how he mingleth vnlike things that which Cyrillus spake against the heresie of Nestorius concerning that we eate the flesh of no bare man but of God he reporteth as if it had bene a Catholike doctrine taught without disputation and as if the sense were we eate not by mouth at al the flesh of Christ. And that which S. Augustine speaketh either of the figures of the old law or generally of all signes he maketh serue against the holy mysteries of Christes supper which do farre excede other sigâ—…es figures It were to much to reckoÌ„ vp how oft he erreth in this behals yet this may not be omitted yâ—
he applieth the answere made by S. Hilarie concerning the vnion betwene our selues by faith as though he had sayd it of Christes vnion with vs. a matter of great weight is so shamefully belied He writeth things expressly contrary as that by faith Christes body dwelleth in our bodies really and corporally and that Christ dwelleth in vs not really or bodily but because his faith is in vs. Againe what contradiction is it to say all accidentall coniunction is remoued and yet not to graâ—…nt a reall and substantiall coniunction to say the Sacrament is taken with our mouthes and that we vndontedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament and yet that Christes body is not receaued into our mouthes really but by faith only That our coniunction with Christ is called corporall because it is spirituall He vseth a point of so great and shamefull dishonesty as one boy in scholes wold not vse in reasoning against an other Making D. Harding to reason so as he neuer thought os as to say 1. The Capharnaites mistoke Christes words 2. Christ speaketh of his ascension 3. We eate not the flesh that was crucified Uppon euery of which propositions and many suche like he maketh D. Harding conclude ergo Christes body is really in the Sacramâ—…nt Either falsifying the whole argument or leauing out a principall part or putting that in one part which should haue stode in an other And when he hath done his feat then to amend the matter he is wont to come in with a But M. Harding will say cet A man of good conscience and of learning wil rather make his aduersaries reasons stronger and then answere them when they are at the worst then to dissemble the strength of them and only to blere mens eyes with defacing his Aduersaries strong argument by falsifying his proof D. Harding requireth only that men of vnderstanding wil vouthsafe to reade his words againe after M. Iuel hath made his argument and then to consider his vnhonest report a witnesse of his euill conscience He falsifieth the doctours by making them to say more then they do say He putteth into S. Hierom these three words into heauen that whiche doe vtterly change the sense He reporteth that S. Augustine teache th the olde Fathers to haue eaten the selfe same body that is receaued now of the faithful all the which wordes are forged In the words of Cyrillus he did put in these three wordes non aliud quà m He maketh S. Hilarie to say that we are one with Christ by faith naturally He leaueth out certein words of the doctours whiche were of importance touching the principall question The nominatiue case in the B. of Rochesters words conueying in also a false nominatiue case in steede of the true In S. Augustines wordes in one place he left out the genitiue case vnitatis and huius rei and in the same place the verbe praeparatur in mensa Domini In the third place the noune adiâ—…ctiue spiritualem wherein the whole weight of the cause rested in the fourth the ablatiue case in ipso eius corpore constituti In Anacletus he left out Chrismati putting in oleo for it In Alexander he omitted MissaruÌ„ solennia In englishing yâ— wordes of BonaueÌ„ture he left out the adueâ—… essentially In S. HieroÌ„ he left out repellamus Iudaicas fabulas which wold haue shewed whereof he spake In alleging â—…usebins Emissenus he left out three linesin yâ— miâ—…dest ioyning yâ— foormer part with the later He affirmeth Gregorie Nyssen not to speake one worde of the Sacrament and therein formeth D. Hardings argument Christ is borne of the virgin ergo his body is really in the Sacrment whereas Gregorie Nyssen said cleane contrarie Christ is made meate to to the body ergo he was borne of the virgin and thereof D. Harding concluded ergo he was as really made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament as euer he was really borne sithe his being real meate proueth his birth He saith one Iohn Scote and Bertram wrote openly against the real presence with good contentation of the world a more impudent lye was neuer vttered by man He disgraceth S. Hilarie and priuily fathereth vppon him a great blasphemy as though he taught that we are one with God the Father and the sonne in nature of the Godhead whereas his mind was nothing so as I haue declared before He calleth the Fathers wordes spoken in the matter which is in question betwen D. Harding him hot violent rigorouse excessiue therein plainly yelding him selfe giltie that he ought to subsribe as who would not find fault with those three most lerned and auncient Fathers words Hilarie Chrysostome Cyrill vnlesse he clerely saw them to speake vtterly against his doctrin I beseche God to geue him grace to amend these enormouse faults It is better M. Iuel once to subscribe hartely then to be damned for euer Now to leaue M. Iuel and to speake these few words to thee good Christian Reader I chose to speake so copiously of this argumeÌ„t partly because it is the safer way to offend in that side partly because this one questioÌ„ is the ground of a great number â—…oe whiche depend of it For if the body and blood of Christ be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine which thing nowe is most fully proâ—…d there is no doubt of transubstantiation as the which is the most conueâ—…ient way to make the body present Againe wheresoeuer that body is it can not be but a propitiatory sacrifice sith it is the substance once bloodily sacrificed wherein the merite of that sacrifice still remaineth Thirdly seing that body being risen from death dieth no more the whole must nedes be vnder eche soorme and therefore albeit the consecration muste be necessarily made in two kindes to represent the death of Christ where his blood was apart from his flesh yet no lesse merite vertue grace cometh to him who receaueth worthely one kind alone then if he receaued both together Fourthly there can be no dout but the body of the sonne of God both ought to be adored being present for vs may be preserued for our necessity So that all these truthes and many moe depend of this one wherein the reall body of Christ is proued to be present in the Sacrament And seing it is proued present by the word of God as it hath bene declared in the third fourth and fifth bookes seing it hath bene taught to be adored as it is declared in my sixth booke seing it is 〈◊〉 to be taken into our 〈◊〉 mouthes and bodies and to nourish our very flesh to resurrection to be made meate to our bodies which haue neither faith nor spirit but only flesh and bones to receaue
vntruth The 90. vâ—…truth The 91. vntruth Matt 19. 15. The 〈◊〉 Chapiter The 7. 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 vntruth The 93. vntruth Heb. 〈◊〉 The 94. vntruthe Cypria de coena Dom. de cons. dist 2. c. Hoc est quod dicimus Theod. in dialo Math. 26 Lib. 8. de Trin. In vita Moysis Ad Euo Anath 11 § 5. The 95. vntruthe The 96. vntruthe The 97. vntruthe De â–ª consecrat dist 2. c. de Sac. Quae 〈◊〉 rabiliter fit In Ioan. Hom. 47 De doct Christ l. 3. cap. 16. The 98. 〈◊〉 The diâ—… flesh is cateÌ„ by mouth In paeda 〈◊〉 2. ca. 2. The 99. vntruthe Ioan. 9. Vnctio 1. Ioan. 2. Ioan. 6. Tract 〈◊〉 in Ioan. Ephes 5. Cont. liâ—… Petil li. â—… â–ª cap. 8. The 100. 〈◊〉 Christes reliques are yâ— holy Bibâ—… Ioan. 4. Matt. 4. Rom. 8. Heb. 1. Psal. 47 â—… Cor. 14 Ioan. 19. â—… Cor. 14 Gen. 6. The 101. â—…truth The 102. â—…truth The 8. diâ—…ision The 103. â—…ntruth The xiiâ—… Châ—…piter The 1â—…4 â–ª 〈◊〉 The 10â—… â–ª vntruth The 10â—… â–ª â—…ntruth 〈◊〉 3. Oâ—…li Chri stâ—…s real fleshe proueth his death to be past The 107. vntruth The 108. â—…ntruth The xiiâ—… Chapiter The 109. vntruth De sanâ—… baptis In Matt. hom 51. De sacr li. 1. ca. 5. Serm. 3. super missusest â–ª 〈◊〉 28. Matt. 26. The diâ—…e rences betwene baptisme the Eâ—…charist Heb. 1. 2. In Apol. 2. 3. In Epist. ad Euag. 4. In epi. ad 〈◊〉 5. â—…oncil Lateran 6. Lib. 6. Cate. my stag 4. in martyro logio Tarsi 7. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. 8. De eccl Hierar cap. 3. Li. 4. de similitudine platatâ—… arbo ris c. 9. Union 10. 1. 2. 3. 4. The xv Chapiter Diuision 〈◊〉 § 5. The 110. 〈◊〉 Gaspar Cassalius Lusitan decalice Garet in centen 4 The 111. vntruthe Ephes. 3. Apoc. 5. Ad Marcâ—…llam Act. 1. De recta fide The 〈◊〉 vntruthe Op. de coena Do mini loan 14. Rom. 4. 9. The 113. 〈◊〉 De Dei naâ—…ura Hom. 4. De myst cap. 3. The 114. 〈◊〉 CoÌ„t Ma xim li. 3. cap. 22. In Math. Hom. 83 Luc. 22. The 115. vntruthe Easter kept in S. 〈◊〉 age with 〈◊〉 De cons. dist 2. c. quia cor pus The 116. vntruthe The mystery Transubstaâ—…ation Ioan. 2. In serm ad infan 1. Cor. 10 apud Be dam. The 117. vntruthe The 118. vntruthe M. Iuel â—…eth to a terme â—…or lack of a good answer The 119. vntruthe The 〈◊〉 rence betwene Christ being a true â—…ine and truly 〈◊〉 The 12â—… vntruth in Ioan. tract 26. Ioan. 6. Aug. coÌ„t aduersariuÌ„ legis prophetaruÌ„ Epi. 118. The 9. diuision The 121. vntruth Galat. 2. De praescript aduersus Haeret. The 122. 〈◊〉 The 123. â—…ntruth De praescript The 124. vntruth 1. Tim. 〈◊〉 The 125. vntruth De praescript â—…he 126. â—…utruth Iere. 6. The 127. vntruth De praescript The 128. vntruth in iij. tomo conciliorum Anno D. 1538. The 129. vntruth The 130. vntruth L. 2. 〈◊〉 hist. ca. 1. Act. ca. 1. Act. 15. Matt. 28. Ioan. 20. The 131. vntruth Ioan. 〈◊〉 Psal. 〈◊〉 Act. 〈◊〉 Dé praescript Rom. 10 Ior. 23 Heb. 5. Ioan. 10. 〈◊〉 178. The. 13â—… vntruth In CaÌ„tica Can. 4 The xvâ—… Chapiter The 133. vntruth The 134. vntruth The 135. vntruth The 136. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 2. Damasc. de orth fi li. 3. c. 6. 11. Heb. 2. 〈◊〉 4. 〈◊〉 h. 1. In Ioan. li 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 12. Rom. 8. The 113. vniruthe Serm. 〈◊〉 de Epip Ioan. 1. Ad Caesa rienses The 138. vntruthe M. Iuel hath erred in constru ction In dictuÌ„ Apostol tunc filius sub ijcietur He speaketh still of the mystical body Note The 〈◊〉 vntruthe The 140. 〈◊〉 Ioan. 1. Hom. 11. in â—…oan Aug. tractat 2. in Ioan. The 141. vntruthe Ioan. 15. In Ioan. tract 80. Lib. 10. cap. 13. The 〈◊〉 vntruthe Ephes. 4. Math. 1. Prou. 9. In Ioan. li. 1. ca 〈◊〉 One temple naturall One body Ephes. 2. M. Iuels contrary doctrine The xvij Chapiter Ephes. 3. Ephes. 3. M Iuels phrase defendeth Ioan of kents heresie Petr. 1. Catech. mystic 4 2. Pet. 1. Ad Tral The 143. vntruthe Ad Tâ—…allianos 〈◊〉 â—…ying 〈◊〉 â—…ying The 〈◊〉 Chapiter Contradi ction in M. Iuel 341. lin 4 〈◊〉 10. 341. lin 26. 344. lin 24. 25. 317. 81. M. Iuels â—…oroes 336. lin 10. The 〈◊〉 Chapiter August Epi. 2â—… Aug. ad Simplic quaest 2. Ephes. 5. Ioan. 3. Ioan. 20. Luc. 13. Impertinent Impertinent Impertinent False 〈◊〉 Incorporation False traÌ„slation The 144 vntruth False traÌ„slation â—…sticall â—…eshe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes. 5. In eccl Ilâ—…er c. â—… Par. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The xx Chapiter The 145 vntruth M. Iuell breaketh promise M. Iuel 〈◊〉 aâ—…ainst him self The. 146 vntruth Chry. ad Ro. Ho. 16. 〈◊〉 place falsified Tâ—…e 147. vntruth 〈◊〉 word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 4. sent dist 1. quaest 3. The xxi Chapiter the 148. vntruth For it could â—…ot 〈◊〉 said so The 149. vntruth The 150. vntruth The 151. vntruth The 152. 〈◊〉 What corâ—… S. 〈◊〉 vsed Hom. 46 In Ioan. Hom. 45 In the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 60 61. Vt ita dicam â–ª is noâ—… in the greke The 153. vntruth Oyle ChaÌ„gingâ—… 〈◊〉 wordes of the Fathers The 154 vntruthe wordâ—…s left out in yâ— middest of the sentence The applying of Alexander his words Against 〈◊〉 â–ª The 155. vntruthe Contrariety 1. Cor. 12 In Ioan. li. 1. ca. 16 Ephe. 5. Math. 19 De coena Domini Damasc. de Orth. 〈◊〉 li. 2. c. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dâ—… paâ—… â–ª In Ioâ—… tracta 〈◊〉 One is not there The 1â—… vntruthe In Ioaâ—… tracta â–ª 〈◊〉 Mat â–ª 28. 〈◊〉 2. 3. 4. 5. Reipsa 〈◊〉 self Ioan. 3. Note not only the vnion but yâ— meane thâ—…of The constructioÌ„ of the place Thethinâ—… it selfe Being touchâ—… 〈◊〉 In Matt. Hom. 83 The change The sacrifice Hand Mouth Tonge Note the meane of the vnton Hom. 60 ad pop 〈◊〉 Hom 60 ad pop Antioch 60. Hom Hom. 45 Per corpus suuÌ„ 1. Cor. 10 Ephes. 5 1. 2. 3. 4. The 157. vntruthe Primas in 1. Co. 10. 1. Cor. 1â—… Falsâ—…â—…ying Breaâ—… The xxij Hilar. de Trini l. 8 The 158. vntruthe M Iuels disseÌ„bling 1. 2 â–ª 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. Lib. 8. de Trinit 4. Act. 4. 5. Ephes. 4 â–ª Pag. 346 8. 9. 10. 11. The 159. â—…ntruthe Actor 4. 12. The 160 vntruthe 13. The 161. vntruthe Christ had not faith but more then faith 1. Cor. 13 14. The 162. vntrutâ—… 15. The 163. vntruth Falsifying 16. 17. 18. 19. The 164 vntruthe 20. 21. Lib. 8. de Trinit 22. The 166. vntruthe Note well Naturally 23. 24. 25. 26. Ioan. 17. 27. The. 167 vntruth the 168. vntruthe The 169. 〈◊〉 Nâ—… 24. in tâ—…is 〈◊〉 28. The vnitâ—… of Chri â—…tes birth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioan. 17. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of S. Hâ—…ary 29. The conclusion the prouâ—… Cibusdo minicus 〈◊〉 Pag. 343. Tâ—…e
170. vntruth Confuse contrary doctrâ—… Not the worde verè The 171. vntruth The 172. vntruth 344. The 173. vntruth 30. Under Sub. Before pag. 323. The 174 vntruth 31. 〈◊〉 323. lin 30. 33. The 175. vntruthe De verb. Apo. ser. 2. The 176. vntruthe â—…2 Proprietas The word Sacrament is twise named 33. Ioan. 6. Verè The thing takeÌ„ into our mouth is flesh in dede 34. By flesh 35. By the mysterics 36. Naturally 37. The nature of his sleshe 38. 39. Carnaliter 40. 〈◊〉 The 177. vntruth De verb. Apostol serm 2. The 178. vntruth Note all the words of S. Hilarie Our ioyning is by the sonne The 179. vntruthe M Iuels true mind of the Fathers Hyperbole M. Iuel hath yelded himself gilty About the beginning of the 8. booke De doct Christ. l. 3. cap. 10. The 〈◊〉 Chapiter De vita Moysis The 180. vntruthe The 181. vntruthe The 182. vntruthe In vita Moysis Manna The heauenly meate The occâ—… sion of Nyssenâ—… talke Note the point 1. 2. 3. 4. He speaketh not of eating by faith 5. Corpori cibus fit 6. Note this discourse Ioaâ—… 14. 2. Cor. 6. 7. Sap. 16. 8. Nescit la befieri 9. Qui haÌ„c nobis meÌ„ sam praeparauit 10. M. Iuel is mad 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 Extreme malice A rule for yâ— simple Ep. 118. insoleÌ„tissimae insaniae Math. 5. 1. Tim. 〈◊〉 Ephes. 5. The 183. vntruth Exod. 16 The 18 â–ª vntruthe In Esa. cap. 62. the 18â—… 〈◊〉 M. Iuâ—… 〈◊〉 oâ—… 〈◊〉 The 186. vntruthe â—…ying The 187. vntruth Ioan. 14. The 188 vntruth 〈◊〉 The 189 vntruth The 190. vntruth The 〈◊〉 Chapiter The 191. vntruth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naturall Corporalâ—… Ephes. 2. The 192. â—…truth Ephes. 2. Spiritually By faith Corporally alsâ—… According to flesh The 193. â—…ntruth Quoque Colos. 2. With M. Iuel corpus is 〈◊〉 for truth The 19â—… vntruth Ephes â–ª 5. The 195 â–ª vntruth The 196. â—…ntruthe The 197. vntruth Impertiâ—…nt The 198. â—…truthe Euill vnâ—… De coena Domin â–ª Ephes. 5 â–ª 〈◊〉 SactameÌ„to Sine Saâ—…ameÌ„to The 199. vntruth CoÌ„trarie to himself The 200. vntruthe The 201. vntruth The 202. vntruthe The 203. vntruth In epi. ad Ephes. hom 20. De eccl Hierar ca. 2. 3. De Sacr. li. 4. ca. 3. Ad Quir. li. 3. ca. 25 hom 5. epi. 106. The 204 vntruth 1. In Ioan. li 4. c. 14. Ad Euo anath 11. 2. Lib. 4 cap. 17 3. Cyril li. 10. ca. 13. li. 11. c. 26 â–ª 27. Benedictio In Ioan. li. 4. c. 17. 1. Lib. 4. cap. 16. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 17. Ad Euo anath 11. In Ioan. l. 12. c. 50 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the faith â—…i 2. de peccat me re mis. c. 26 The 11. 〈◊〉 The â—…50 vntruth Damasc. de Orth. â—…d li 4. cap. 14. in 〈◊〉 â–ª 〈◊〉 26. in Matt. in 6. Ioan. in 1. Cor. 10. in Cano. Missae in lib. de corp D. in Sacra Most of theÌ„ wrote aâ—…st Be 〈◊〉 Bernar. in sâ—…rm de SaÌ„cto Martino Not carâ—…lly coÌ„cer ning the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Carnis ipsius vera substaÌ„ tia in SacrameÌ„to The 〈◊〉 â–ª vntruth Luc. 8. Matt. 28. Ephes. 5. The 207. vntruth 〈◊〉 traÌ„â—…ation Terere The 208. vntruthe Cyril in Ioan. lib. 10. câ—… 1. M. â—…uell agreeth 〈◊〉 yâ— Arrians The 20â—… vntruth The 210. vntruthe The 211. vnruthe The 212. vntruthe Ignoramus Non cre diâ—…us Marc. 19. The 213. vntruthe lib. 4 in 〈◊〉 c. 13. In â—…oaÌ„ hom 45. The 214. vntruthe Impertinent the 215. vntruthe Commâ—… daui psâ—…l 98. Ioan. 6. Math. 26 Falsiâ—…ying The 216 â–ª vntruthe The 217. vntruthe The 218. vntruthe In Ioan. li. 10. c. 13 11. c. 26 Impertinent Ambros. lib. 6. de Sacram. cap. 1. M. Iuels kâ—…d of rea soâ—… fo 319. 337. 324 323. Abusinâ—… of the holy scriptures 316. 320. 320. 341. 341. 343. 4. M Iuels Doctours 317. 319. 324. 156. 5. Phrases of speache 341. 342. 343. 344. Ioan. 10. Ioan. 17. Ioan. 1. 342. 425. 6. False com parisons 341. 342. 7. False commâ—…ts 332. 342. 320. 341. 8. False traÌ„slatioÌ„s into English 328. 347. 319. 341. 326. 344. Slaunâ—…ers 9. 326. 328. 331. 10. â—…sting 327. 341. 342. 11. Childish errours 326. 341. 12. Craâ—…y conveâ—…ce 324. 344. caet 13. False applications 319. In Ioan. tract 26. 50. 318. 346. 14. Contradictions 341. 344. 345. 323. 343. 319. 345. 15. A moste shameles shift 321. 324. 333. 324. caet 16. False additions to the Fathers words 324. 321. 344. 346. 17. Words of importaÌ„ce falsely left out in the doctours words 317. 323. 321. 320. 342. 342. 341. 324. 336. 18. 343. Most imâ—…udeÌ„t lies 329. 19. False accusing of S. â—…ilary 344. 20. Gilty 344. By this point he â—…eldeth himself gilty 1. 2. 3. 4.
his derebeloued phaâ—…tasy such is the stubburnesse of heretiks The holy Bishop and Martyr S. 〈◊〉 doth witnesse as 〈◊〉 allegeth him that the Bishops of Rome before the tyme of Pope Uictor to wit Soter Anicetus Pius Higinius Telesphorus Xistus did all kepe Easterday alwayes vpon the sunday and yet withal kept peace with ohter Churches which did otherwise For a demonstration of that peace 〈◊〉 allegeth generally that all the Priests which were before Uictor which were in number from S. Peters time twelue at the least vsed solemnely to send Eucharistiam the Eucharist which is the Sacrament of Christes supper to suche Priests who came out of those quarters where Easter was kept otherwise then it was at Rome By that sending of the SacrameÌ„t from the Pope to other Priests aâ—…d Bishops Jreneus concludeth all those to haue communicated together To our purpose I note that there is a certain thing so â—…crated in Christes supper that it hath in it the whole vertue of yâ— sâ—…pper And it is a torporall and real thing which may be â—…ued caried sent vp and down and so at the last receaued Mark wel the Historie Al the Bisshops of Rome vsed to send to straÌ„ge Bishops comming to Rome the holy Eucharist in token that they were al of one communion of one Church and one religion This Eucharist was the Sacrament of Christes supper this Sa crament was first made and then kept for straÌ„gers and sent vnto them when they came Which they receaued as the bond of peace loue The consecration of that Eucharist could consist in none other thing so essentially as in the pronouncing ouer bread these words This is my body Now remember I beseche you what Caluin iudgeth of our Lords supper He teacheth those words to be words of promise and of preaching Which being heard of the faithfull stirr vp their harts to receaue Christ by faith But the custom of the primatiue Churche euen of the first hundred yeres after Christes death manifestly reproueth his opinion For the Eucharist was made then and sent afterward to those who were not present at the making thereof Who neither heard any preaching nor toke hold of any promise but came like strangers to Rome and so had the blessed body of Christ deliuered them wherefore his body was not only coÌ„secrated in the harts of men but also in a corporall thing which might be sene touched caried deliuered and râ—…ceaued The consecration was fulfilled in that external thing which was called the Eucharist And so it is proued without any escape that when bread was taken and blessed these words This is my body were said to the bread and ouer it and changed it into the substance of Christes body And by that meanes the body of Christ was conteined vnder the foorm of bread and so caried vnto the faithfull Prelats which came to Rome The Eucharist it self was caried The body of Christ was sent from one Bisshop to an other The words which Caluin dreameth to be words of promise were not suche but in dede were wordâ—… working the reall presence of Christes body And truly when Christ gaue his Apostles authoriâ—…ie to make his last supper He â—…ad them not make a promise of any thing But he said Hoc facite Doe and make this thing A certayn external thing was made and don by Christ which he wil led his Apostles to doe make He said not to them preache thâ—…s nor say thus nor doe thus albeit the homilies corrupt the gospel after that sort but he said doe this thing make this thing to wit make my body with the same words of blessing which you heard me vse when I toke bread and hauing gâ—…uen thanks sayd thereof This is my body make this thing Which thing the Apostles and their successours haue alwayes made not in pulpits as Caluin who wold haue them words of promise and of preaching must nedes allow best But they haue made the body and blood of Christ vpon the blessed altars holy tables where they oâ—…ered vnblody sacrifice and sanctified the holy mysteries with that mind oâ—… celebrating of daing and making but not with the mind of promising or preaching Neither only was this the custom of Rome to send the Eucharist already consecrated vnto other Bisshops but wise and learned men think the like vse to haue bene in euery other Churche And certeinly Iustiâ—…us Martyr of sufficient antiquity to them that care for Apostolical doctriâ—… or traditioâ—… doth witnesse that the Eucharist was made in the assembles of the 〈◊〉 and afterward sent by the Deacons to those that were absent by Deacons I say who could in no wise them selues either consecrate or iterate again the words of consecration already spokeÌ„ For as S. Hierom writeth Priests differ from Deacons because at the prayer of Priests the body and blood of Christ is made Which thing the Deacons can not doe They on'y can minister vnto the people the body and bâ—…od already consecrated and made by the Priests And therefore Iustinus Martyr writeth thus of them and of the whole making of the mysteries Panis vinumque aqua afferuntur tumque is qui primum locum tenet eodem modo preces gra tiarumque actionem pro virili mittit populusque acclamat dicens Amen Et ijs quae cum gratiarum actione consecrata sunt vnusquisque participat Eademque ad eos qui absunt Diaconis dantur perferenda Bread wine and water are brought And then he which is chief prayeth and geueth thanks to the vttermost of his pâ—…wer after the same maner which was described before and that people reioysingly crieth Amen And euery man partaketh those things which are consecrated with thanksgeuing And the same things are geuen to the Deacons to be caried to these which are absent What can be more plainly spoken Bread wine and water are consecrated by the words of prayer which we toke of Christ. those words are This is my body and this is my blood After which consecration the people cried Amen And the consecrated things to wit the body and blood which are made by the consecration of bread wine and water the body and blood I say are deliuered by the 〈◊〉 to them first which are present And when they haue communicated to others also which are absent Therefore the holynes rested in yâ— things that were consecrated and was not made by 〈◊〉 in the eares and 〈◊〉 of yâ— people but the consecrated mysteries were geuen and caryed geuen to yâ— present caryed to the absent geuen by hands not by words geuen to their hands or mouthes and not to their eares they were caried to the absent as hauing real vertue made in them by the words of Christ. what saith Caluin to these practises of the primatiue Churche what spirit will he in this point shew to vs whether will he shew the spirit of humility in wondering at and in following those Fathers which lerned all their
seruice and orders of the Apostles them selues If Caluin had that spirit he were farr from hearesy But now see what spirit Caluin hath Thus he writeth in this matter Immediatly after the words which I rehersed in the 〈◊〉 of this chapiter thus he writeth His rationibus constat repositionem Sacramenti c. It is euident saith Caluin by those reasons the reseruation of the Sacrament which some men presse to th end it maie be distributed extraordinarily to the sick to be vnprofitable For either the sick shall receaue it without rehersall of the institution of Christ or the minister together with the signe will ioyne the true explication of the mysterie If the institution of Christ be not spoken of it is an abuse and a fault If the promises be rehersed and the mysterie be declared so that they who shall receaue maie receaue with fruit we nâ—…de not dowt this to be the true consecration To what purpose then is the other whose strength reacheth not so farr as to come to the sick But you will saye they that doe so to wit that reserue the Sacrament haue the example of the old Churche Fateor I graunt but in so weighty a matter wherein errour is not committed without great danger nothing is more safe then to follow the truthe it self Hytherto Caluin hath reasoned who putteth the whole streÌ„gth of the Sacrament of Christes supper in promising and preaching therefore if any where preaching and promising be not vsed in the geuing of the Sacrament he calleth it an abuse and fault And seing the primatiue Church euen whiles the Apostles were â—…liue did by the witnesse of 〈◊〉 reserue the SacrameÌ„t so long after consecration as to send it to such Bishops which might come to strange dioceses out of an other prouince and seing the deacous vsed to carie it in the tyme of Iustinus Martyr who liued within a hundred yeres of Christes death to those which were absent Caluin I saie perceauing the vse of all Apostolicall Churchs to stand against him will seme to conâ—…ute them all with this fond reason Either the sick and absent persons for all is one concerning this matter shall receaue that which was consecrated in the Church without a new rehersall of these words This is my body And then it is an abuse saith Caluin a fault he calleth it an abuse which the scholars of the Apostles vsed or â—…ls saith he the words shal be ioyned with the signe and it is a true consecration And then saith he the first consecration made at the Church was in vain concerning the sick and absent men But the second is good which is made by preaching and rehearsing the words of promise to the sick persons I haue most faithfully behersed the opinion of Caluin But let vs now examine why it is an abuse and fault to deliuer to the sick or to the absent persons the holy hoste which was consecrated in the Churches without a new rehersall of Christes words why is that an abuse who told Caluin it was an abuse or a fault For south his own mind gaue him so his wisedom thought so his grauitie said so his blasphemonse penue wrote so But other cause reason or scripture he bringeth none for it â—…e first 〈◊〉 that the consecration of Christes supper consisteth in saying to the people This is my body which is geuen for you And proneth it not at all but graunt him once his dream consequently he inferreth that if such an hoste whereupon the words of consecration were once dewly pronouÌ„ced be afterward geueÌ„ to him that heaâ—…d not those words of promise because he was sick or absent if the â—…ost I say he geuen without a new rehersall of the words it foloweth that it is an abuse Yea but some Papist will saye the old Churche did so For now he calleth the primatiâ—…e Churche the old Churche I graunt saith Caluin But it is better yet to follow the truthe it self Why 〈◊〉 doest thow only know what the truth it self is we allege the old Church to proâ—…e that the truthe 〈◊〉 Christes gospell doth stand for vs and to proue that consecration is not made by preaching and by the hearing of the people but by the vertue of Gods word which spoken ouer the elements of bread and wine saith by the one This is my body making it so And by the other This is my blood making it so We saye these words make the body of Christ vnder the form of bread and his blood vnder the form of wine For our saying we bring the gospell where â—…t is writen this is and this is When other 〈◊〉 the gospell we shew that the Apostles and their successours practised this which we beleue For they all vnderstode by these words directed to brcad and wine that the body and blood of Christ was really made vnder the formes of them How proue we that Because if once the words had ben spoken by a Priest vpon those elements the things consecrated were afterward kept and caried as a most holy sacrifice to men abâ—…ent as the which things coÌ„teined really within them the body blood of Christ. Why els should they be caried to others that were absent A 〈◊〉 maye say that when they came to the absent persons the words were again rehersed First that appereth not in Iustinus or in Ireneus of whom the one sayth the 〈◊〉 was sent to straâ—…gers the other saith that the things consecrated which were receaued of the present Christians the same were caried to the absent How is the Eucharist sent if it be no Eucharist vntill it come to the stranger and then be made a new Or is it 〈◊〉 to iterate the consecration of any Sacrament Hath Caluin lerned so farr Did the first consecration lack â—…ertue so that an other must be made or the first be repeted Last of al the Deacons caried the Eucharist who possibly could not reherse the words of consecration This is my body and this is my blood And yet if they were words of promise preaching the Deacon who may 〈◊〉 and in preaching may 〈◊〉 yâ— spiritual seeding of our soules might also reherse those words But from the Apostles tyme to this day it was neuer heard that â—… Deacon might consecrate the body and blood of Christ. For noman is able to doe any more then wherevnto he is lawfully called But no Deacon hath the power to coÌ„secrate geuen him And that his name sheweth which is to say a 〈◊〉 or a waiter on For he waiteth vpon the Priest at Masse and is not as yet promoted to the office of 〈◊〉 Seing then the Deacons caried the Eucharist and they could not say the words of consecration doubâ—…lesse they that receaued it of their hands receaued neither words of promise nor of preaching but they receaued that blessed body and blood of Christ which was coÌ„secrated before vnder the foormes of bread wine This faith
it was expedient for vs the flesh assumpted of Christe to tary flesh still in dede seing God is by all meanes immutable neither could the word be changed into flesh neither flesh into the word but sith the substance of common bread doth not helpe vs to life enerlasting and may be chaunged into the flesh of Christ it is by the power of Christ chaunged into his flesh when he taking bread and blessing saith this is my body Hereby we may see how the name of brâ—…ad and the figure of Manna is ioyned with the flesh of Christ as the processe of this chapiter teacheth Hereby we may vnderstand how the blessed seed of Abraham which is the body of Christ is ioyned with the apparent shewe that Melchisedech made of bread and wine how the vnleauened bread eaten with the old lambe is the couer of the trew paschall lambe Iesus Christ and to be short how the substance of the old figure is gone into the substance of Christes flesh and how the outwarde forme of the figure remayneth vntill we come to heauen where we shall see face to face without any vayle or shadow put betwene vs and the gloriouse flesh of Christ. Hence it cometh that as S. Ireneus doth witnes the Eucharist consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and of wine of the other heauenly which is the substance of Christes body and blood But if Christes gift consisted of the substance of bread being only sanctified in quality and made a signe of Christes body as yâ— Sacramentaries teache it should neither be that true bread which his Father gaue him nor be in substance better then manna but rather worse for that Manna was miraculously wrought by angels whereas at Christes supper common bread is taken nor it should not be disâ—…ncted from the gift made in the law for as much as there also while Manna was eaten the iust men had grace frome God geuen them because it was a Sacrament of the law It is not therefore grace and commoÌ„ bread which Christ geueth but the substance of his flesh made vnder the forme of common bread by his almighty word ¶ By the shadow of the law past and by the 〈◊〉 truthe to come in heaueÌ„ it is perceaued that yâ— midle state of the new Testament requireth the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of breaâ—… THe occasion of the thre tymes the past the present and the future and of the gifts made in them which are named in S. Iohn doth prouoke me to eÌ„tre into a farther discourse whereby it may appeare to those that delight in conferring the holy scriptures what wonderfull witnesse euery part of them doth beare to that truthe which our forefathers beleued and we that are not bastarde children doe kepe and mayntaine The law saieth S. Paule hath the shadow of good things to come not the very image of things whereby he meaneth that as the lawe had but a shadow so the ghospell hath the thing it self but yet not clere and playne for as the same Apostle sayeth we in this world walke by fayth and not by vision and clere sight If Christ gaue not vnto vs his reall and substanciall flesh vnder the forme of bread how gaue he vs the thing it self How were he by that gyfte proued greater then Moyses and equall with his Father If on the other side he gaue vs his flesh naked how were our state an image of the things them selues Christ is our mediatoure A mediatour is in the myddle to ioyne two partes that otherwise do not agree then if he will make man agree with God he must haue â—…oth the nature of God and of man ioyned in one person likewise if he wil make the state of the ghospell present agree with the law past and with the state of glorye to come he must take the similitude of the law and the nature of the glorye of heauen and ioyne these two into one mystery and so he hath done For as he is in one person very God and very man so he hath perfectly expressed the old state of the lawe and the state of heauen in oâ—… Sacrament The nature of the law of Moyses was to shew Christ and to be a guyde vnto the schole of Christ which thing it did by diuerse figures The nature of glory is to see face to face to haue all truth with 〈◊〉 any figure Now the state of the new Testament being the middle state betwixt the law and the glory of heaueÌ„ must haue the very truth that is in heauen which is the true flesh of Christ whereon Angelles desyer to looke and the true Godhead which is the full blessednes of all sainctes and this thing it must haue vnder a figure Therefore the theâ—…e Sacrament thát Christ left vnto his Church which also he called the new Testament in his blood must by the same reason haue yâ— true flesh of Christ wherein the Godhead dwelleth corporally and yâ— vnder a very figure which is the forme of bread Aâ—…d truly this forme of bread and of wyne is only a true figure because there is in it none other substance but the bare figure Other figures of the olde lawe were set to signify being them selues 〈◊〉 other substance in nature as the arke the tabernacle the vayle the â—…hewebread and all the sacrifices but the bare figure of bread without the substance of bread set to signifie the bread of life really present vnder it that is the only true figure as the whiche hathe none other truthe in his own substance but only the truth of a figure because the substance thereof is turned into that flesh of Christ who vnder the figure of yâ— ordre of Melchisedech whereof he is priest fullfilleth all figures that euer haue bene of him in his real and substanciall flesh which real flesh yf we had not in our SacrameÌ„t of the altar Christ gaue no more in his outward mysteries then was geuen by Moyses he were not equal with his Father by his gyfte he were not yâ— corner stone ioyning the state of Moyses law which was only 〈◊〉 aâ—…d the veritie of glory together But if these are great â—…rrours let vs stedfastly beleue that Christ left vs his very crue rcall flesh in the blessed Sactament of the altar vnder the forme of bread and wyne For as in other precepts we may vnderstand the old law not to be taken away concerâ—…ing the spirit which laie hid in it but only to be fulfilled and made more perfect so notwithstanding the old figures be dead and changed yet the state of fulfilling them is suche that the new Testament is not it self without all figures but rather conteineth the truth couered with a conuenient figure Uerily Christ sayd so much in effect when he taught that he came not to putt away the law but to
true bread not because it was not a signe of true bread neither because who so deuoutly receaued it should not be deliuered froÌ„ euerlasting death of God but because it selfe had not in it any thing which being corâ—…ally taken â—…ight saue a man otherwise good from euerlasting dâ—…ath whereas the true bread which the Apostles toke into theyr hands through Christes gift was that very â—…esh which by the power of the Godhead whereunto it is annexed kepeth our soules that they dye not by synne and râ—…eth out bodies to liue for euer S. Augustine sayth Dominus sinit Iudam accipere inter innocentes disipulos quod fideles nouerunt preciuÌ„ nostrum Our Lord suffereth Iudas to take among the innocent disciples our price which the faithful know See what kind of taking S. Augustine speaketh of surely of that which was common to Iudas and which was made with hands See what Iudas toke precium nostrum our price Is bread and wine our price We are then derely bought in dede But if the reall substaÌ„ce of Christes body and blood be only our price when Christ sayth take he meaneth take yâ— real substance of my flesh into your haÌ„ds that thence it may come afterward vnder your harâ—…s ¶ The sixtenth circumstance of eating CHrist sayd eate ye once only and he sayd it of that one thing only which he deliuered to his Apostles corporally and they so toke it but Christ meant they should eate it as wel in soule as in body as wel by faith as by mouth For he had sayd before worke ye the euerlasting meat which the sonne of maÌ„ wil geue you and he declared the worke of God to be this that they should beleue in Christ who is the bread of life and who said his flesh to be meat in dede â–ª therefore when Christ sayd eate this is my body he meant eate bodily that I geue you and eate it also spiritually because it is a heaueÌ„ly kind of bread and a meate which neuer perisheth Neither doth the verbe eate by this meane stand vnproperly because â—…ating belongeth naturally both to the soule and to the body but yet concerning the cause of eating principally to the soule as the which alone geueth power to the body to eate and concerning the meane of eating principally to the body as the which only hath conuenient instruments to receaue corporall meat For neither a dead body can eate at al neither a soule which lacketh a body can eate properly Now when the soule and body may both not only eate but also be nourished by the eating that is the truest eating which can be deuised Christ then in saying eate meaneth eate ye as ye are men who consist of soules and of bodies eate in both and feede them both together For this is my body which hath in it the Godhead corporally dwelling Eating this you eate a food both spirituall and corporall This feedeth the whole man this is it which TertulliaÌ„ saith Caro c. The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ that the soule may also be made fat of God Note the perfit eating the flesh is fed and yâ— soule is made fat The Catholiks vpon this ground beleue the flesh which must be eaten spiritually to be vnder the form of bread which is eaten really and that Christ saying to a reasoable man eate this is my body saith by the reason of that kind of meat which he nameth eate in body and soule my body The SacrameÌ„taries teache a dubble substance to be eaten in a dubble maner of which yâ— one is present corporally yâ— other absent they teach bread wine to be eaten drunken corporally as things present but the flesh of Christ only to be eaten spiritually as a thing absent in his own substance they diuide the work of our bodies from the worke of our soules But the word eate ye can not be so meant sith it only pointeth to yâ— which the disciples had taken into theyr hands none other literal meaning can be of this word eate eating by faith hath no part in Christes supper neither is at al commanded if the thing eaten be not in the haÌ„ds of the Apostles ¶ The 〈◊〉 circumstance of these words this is my body I Wil speake of these wordes not al that may be sayd but rather no more then the nature of one circumstance among so many as Christ vsed in his supper will conueniently beare who taking bread after blessing and thaÌ„ks geuing sayd this is my body If yâ— meaning be this bread is yâ— signe of my body he gaue thaÌ„ks for the institution of a bare signe for so I must needs call it seing bread remaining still in his owne nature can neuer be any more then a bare signe so long as it is not the body it self which it doth signifie For euery figure image token whiche differeth in substance from his originall is always bare and naked in respect of that truth which it 〈◊〉 hath not the same in it selfe So was Christ a bare maÌ„to the Ebionits because they denied yâ— substaÌ„ce of God to be in him howsoeuer they extolled him otherwise 〈◊〉 Christ come theÌ„ to leaue naked bare signes to his Church and is he so glad of that promotion that he thanketh his father for it was this the ioy he had of eating the new passouer wherein he would geue vs only bread and wine mixed with water in â—…ede of bread wine herbs and flesh which were geuen vnder the law of Mâ—…yses is not his outward gift at the least desaced by this doctrine Uerily seing with thanks geuing Christ ioyned this is my body presenting in effectuall words that whiche his hart intended before to consecrate vnto God we must no more say that he instituted a bare figure of his body in these wordes then that he presented a bare signe in his hart when he gauc thanks For who can think that Christ who had said by God and by his Prophet Dâ—…uid Sacrifice and offring thou wouldest not but thou hast framed me a body meanig that none other sacrifice pleased God beside his vnspotted fleshe who can thinke that he now expresly naming that his body yet presenteth to his father bread wine only as figures signes of his body and blood and that he gaue thanks for them â–ª Melchisedech ended the mysterie of his bread and wine in the blessing of Abraham him self and doth Christ after bread wine taken end his blessing only in a figure of the sede of AbrahaÌ„ that whereof Moyses said this is the bread which our Lord hath geueÌ„ you to eate was in dede a more excelleÌ„t bread then he could name and â—…oth Christ name more then is really present Surely the signe of Christes supper is so bare if that which he pointeth vnto be not in dede his body yâ— in words he geueth greater 〈◊〉 to God his Father then in his dedes For
for which it is geuen abuse maliciously the words which S. Augustine speaketh of the effect of Christes body against the reall substance thereof But what speake I of the iniury done to S. Augustine sith they haue done so great and manifold iniuries to the word of God it self ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kynde of discerning our Lords body LEt a man examine him self and so eate of that bread and drink of the chalice for he that eateth and â—…nketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self not discerning our Lords body That is to say not putting a difference betwene it and other meates The not making of this difference may rise vpon mysbeleâ—…e as when a man thinketh that Christ was not able to make the bread his body or that his flesh is vnder yâ— forme of bread apart from his blood An other sorte of men may so contenme Christes body that he will not worship it although he beleue it to be present But S. Paule speakâ—…th not of those desperate men who through their special malice be gilty of Christes body before they come vnto it 〈◊〉 they are the more gilty for touching it really He speaketh of them who oâ—…it to examine them selues in so much that S. Augustine writeth thus of this very mater De his erat sermo caet â–ª when the Apostle sayd this thing the talk was of them who did receaue the body of our Lord indiscretely and negligeÌ„tly as if it were any other meate And againe If the negligeÌ„ce of the guest be touched with reprofe with what punishment is he vexed who sold the maker of the feast Here S. Augustine doth witnes that S. Paul speaking of vnworthy receauers did meane them who for negligence omitted to proue and examine them selues comming to the supper of our Lord as if they came to a prophane supper S. Chrysostom and after him Decumenius accompt the fault of the Corinthians to haue beue the dispising of the poore men because S. Paul sayd in the same Chapiter Ye put those to shame who haue not goodes of their own Theodoretus sayeth besydes that some of them were ambitious others also did eate the things offered vp to Ydols one had maried his own mother in law these were the faultes of the Corinthians and not any speciall contempt of hart namely against these holy mysteries According to which sense the Prophet Malachie doth say that the offering of polluted bread vppon the altar of God was the despising of him and S. Hiâ—…rome there sayeth Opera peccatorum despiciunt mensam Dei the workes of synners despise the table of God Seing then S. Paule speaketh of such fault and contempt of the Corinthians as riseth of their negligence and for the lacke of discretion this kind of giltines can not come only of the mind it self whose iudgement is rather vpright but it cometh for so much as the fault is committed about that thing wherein the body and blood of Christ is really conteyned For whereas an iniury done may either touch our body or estimation and when we will persecute the same reason and law wold we should specially describe the kind of iniury least we doe wrong to him whome we burden falsly with a more greuouse kind of fault then he hath done seing S. Paule doth by name burden the vnworthy recâ—…auer of this Sacrament with being gilty not only of Christes worship or name wherewith in other places he burdeneth other great synners but with being gilty of his own body and blood with which fault he neuer 〈◊〉 any other then the vnworthy receauers of this blessed Sacrament or yâ— Iewes who layed 〈◊〉 hands vppon Christ at his death it must nedes be yâ— such a coÌ„municant receaâ—…eth Christes owne naturall body so offendeth Christ not only in his name or in his estimation but also in his naturall flesh blood Moreouer seing when he warneth him to beware of doing this euil dede he biddeth him only put a 〈◊〉 betwene Christes body and all other meates it is euident that none other meate is here present besyde the body of Christ. Otherwise he should haue sayd Non dijudicans panem vinum figuram corporis Domini Not discerning bread and wine the signe of Christes body But now he only sayeth not discerning the body of our Lord. And yet it is much more to be noted that S. Paule nameth not any other meates but only he nameth the body of our Lord shewing thereby yâ— we must discerne it not only from other meates but from al other creatures in the world As if he sayd he that eateth vnworthely considereth not whose body he cometh vnto For as S. Chrysostome sayeth The receauer nedeth to consider nothing els but only qui sit propositus who is set foorth Et magnitudinem propositorum and the greatnes of the things set â—…oorth If the body were not present we ought rather to consider who is in heauen and where the truth of this image is then who and what is set before vs. Which as the Sacramentaries falsely teache is bread and wine but as the holy Scriptures and Fathers affirme it is the substance of Christes body ¶ No â—…igure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently gilty of Christes naturall body IN all this question of vnworthy receaâ—…ing the holy mysteries the chief refuge of the Sacramentaries is to say that seing the bread eaten and the wine drunken are the figures of Christes body and blood who so taketh them vnworthely he is gilty of the body and blood them selues which those figures doe signifie This pretensed excuse of theirs I will now consâ—…te God willing When a man by wilful contempt doth breake or defile yâ— image of a great Prince it is reputed all one as if he had stryken the Prince himself not because the dede is one but for that his will is thought to be no lesse vttered against the Prince by his demeanure toward the signe then if he had 〈◊〉 touched the Prince him self But S. Paule speaketh not of any such matter in this place as who maketh his argument rather vppon yâ— reall fact it self â—…hen vppon the wil or mind of the doer Neither doth he reason vppon presumption surmise or any like far fet interpretation but absolutely pronounceth him to be gilty of Christes body who eateth this bread vnworthely Therefore he ment not that the image or figure of Christes body was eaten but the true substance thereof He spake not now only of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing of not examining a mans self â–ª and of despising the poore Secondarily they that say the signe image or figure of Christes body is abused must shew wherein that figure doth consist Figures and images be either externall or internall Those be iudged by the eye these by the vnderstanding Those are