into That What say you Sander hath the Greeke article such strength alwayes If you say so you wil be thought to be a simple Grecian If only sometimes you must shewe better reason then you do why it hath such strength heere or els the Englishe translation is good inough For by the outwarde signe which is the partaking of one bread the Apostle proueth the spirituall coniunction of all the faithfull in one body and vseth not the name of bread siguratiuely for that which Christ calleth the bread of life c. And vnto this translation agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying The gift that is offered perteyneth to al the people quia in vno pane omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet because in one bread they are all signified for in that we are one we ought to receiue all of one bread Of the same iudgment is Hierom vpon the very place saying Omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread of one cup. The like is Chrysost. all the old writers in a maner You see what shamelesse cauilling racking he vseth to make a shewe of corruption in the English Bible against which his malice is so great that he chargeth not the translators but the English Bible to haue turned to haue falsified to haue corrupted as though that if there were any iust fault to be founde in the translation the English Bible should beare the blame for it and be despised of all English men God be thanked that although it may not be denyed but some faultes haue and may escape the best translations yet the translators haue a cleere conscience from falsifying and corrupting and the faultes are not so great that any pernitious errour may be grounded on them nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latine translation which the Papistes admit as onely Catholike authenticall CAP. III. The state of the question betweene the Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiniâ—â—es Catholikes concerning the Sacrament of the altar This Chapter containeth no proofe of any thing but onely setteth downe the bare assertions of Sander vpon euery matter which if they be false it shall be as easy for me to deny as for him to affirme them referring the tryall of euery cause as he doth vnto the treatise folowing First it is false which he affirmeth that from the beginning of the Christian Church vnto the yere of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greeke and Latine openly professed the carnall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine For the Greek church neuer receiued transubstantiation nor yet taught so grossely of the real presence as the Papists nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists doe For after the wordes of Christ vttered in their liturgye they pray thus vnto God Fac panem quidem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui quod autem in calice est honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante And make this breade the honorable body of thy Christe and that which is in the cuppe the honorable bloud of thy Christe thy holy spirite changing them This was obiected vnto them in the late Councell of Florence It is also false that he sayeth no man in open pulpet with the auctority or toleration of any spirituall pastor did preach the contrary for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer in open pulpet preached the same as his homilies remayning in writing are a playne testimonye as in Hom. 5. Sept. quad in 6. Ioan. Here it is needfull for men to wite that there ben two manner of meates ghostly and bodily but bodily is well knowne But nede were here to knowe how men should ghostlye eate Christ. For no man that hath witte dreadeth that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blode For els no man should be saued for no man is an etene to seede him thus bodily of Christ and therefore it were to witte how men should ghostly feede them thus For Christ telleth in his words how men should eate him ghostly and to this wite saith Christ here that the wordes that he speaketh to them be spirite and life for such is witte of his wordes These wordes in their owne kinde ben such as were his other wordes but wite of these wordes there is spiritual and mannes life Also Christ saieth there soothly that each man that shall be saued shal bee fed of Christ thus But this may not be vnderstonden of fleshly food of Christs body And so it mote be vnderstonden algatys of gostly foode for of bodily foode of Christ may not two be fed together and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food by which many bee fed farre and neere Also the sermon of Aelsriâ— in the Saxon tongue apoynted to be sayed in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine But I breake promise to stand in conâ—â—tation of so impudent lyes And where he sayth a beleeâ—e which had continued 600. yeares could not haue bene sodenly changed it is very true for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence was not come vnto full ripenes before the Councell of Laterane which was more then 600. yeres after the first age of 600. yeres And although the efficacy of error preuayled by Gods iust iudgment ouer a great part of the world yet had Christ alwayes his two witnesses to protest against it as Berengarius Scotus Waldo Henâ—icus de Gauduno Wickliefe c. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretikes yet seing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholike faith of the primitiue church grounded on gods worde their condemnation in an hundreth councels can be no preiudice to the trueth The meane that maketh present that blessed body sayeth Sander is transubstantiation which being made present thereby who can deny but that it is a sacrifice aboue all other external kindes of worshipping syth at the time of the consecration it is giuen for vs vnbloodily as the wordes of Christ sound Luke 22. which is geuen for you But seing S. Paule in exposition of the same wordes sayth which is broken for you who is either so ignorant or so blasphemous to deny that the giuing in S. Luke is to be referred vnto his death and bloudy sacrifice which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all Agayne when al the three Euangelists speaking of the sacrament of his bloud saye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for many and for you sith at the time of the consecration it is shed for vs as well as his body is giuen for vs who is so shameles to saye that it is giuen for vs vnbloudily iny e sacrament Or if the word of shedding being of the preâ—â—nt temps or preterimperfect temps must be referred to the
substance of his flesh and bloud not onely to our soules by wordes of promise but also to our bodyes vnder the formes of bread and wine Note here that the giuing wherein is the controuersie perteineth to our bodies and not to our soules Also that the giuing of Christes fleshe and bloud to our soules if I vnderstand this saying is not really but by wordes of promise whereof it ensueth that they which haue not eaten the flesh and bloud of Christ with their bodies from the beginning of the worlde are all perished because none can haue life in them but they that haue eaten his flesh and bloud which Sander holdeth cannot be eaten really and in deede but vnder the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament CAP. IIII. What the supper of Christ is according to the beliefe of the Catholikes He promiseth to shewe first out of the worde of god and next out of the monuments of the auncient fathers what the beliefe of the Papistes is concerning this sacrament Although he esteemeth euen Albertus Thomas Bonauenture Alexander c. worthie of credit by a rule of S. Aug. cont â—u li. 2. because they liued before this question rose betweene the Sacramentaries theÌ„ by which rule so vnderstoode we may esteme Berengarius Bruno Henricus de Gauduno Waldo Bertrame c. worthie of credite because they liued long before this question rose betweene the Papistes vs. Wherfore in this rule of Augustine is to be considered not betweene what persons but what time the question first arose betweene any persons and so the fathers of the first 600. yeares are the best and lest partiall witnesses Furthermore he sheweth that the supper of the Corinthians was not the supper of Christ but he had a supper of his owne And so rehearsing the wordes of the institution out of the Eua 〈…〉 listes S. Paul hee affirmethâ— that we are informed by these words the supper of Christ to be his owne body bloud giuen vnder the signes of the bread wine whereupon he gaue thankes turning by his almightie power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body bloud That Christ giueth his body to them that receiue the bread and wine worthily it shal be no controuersie betweene vs. But that he giueth it vnder the signes of bread and wine vnderstanding as he doeth signes for accidents he should haue prooued out of Gods worde if either he would or could haue kept promise likewise that Christ gaue thankes vpon the bread and wine and thirdly that he turned the substance therof into the substaÌ„ce of his body bloud But leauing other arguments for other places not being able to proue these things in any place he wil enquire whether the name nature of a supper be more agreable to their beliefe or to our meaning that is saith he whether Christ made his last supper of the substance of coÌ„mon bread wine or of his owne reall body and bloud As though we affirmed that the only substance of Christes supper were common bread wine not the body bloud of Christ. But to proceed let him goe with that lye his first argument to prooue how deintie costly a banket Christ made taking his leaue of his friends is taken of the great preparatioÌ„ promise made of it so long before which promise preparatioÌ„ how euil fauouredly he prooueth out of Melchizedeks bread wine Manna the table of Dauid Salomon the bread flesh of Elias c I omitt His conclusion is we must not suppose that Christ at his farewell gaue any other deinties beside common bread wine sanctified in vse onely and not consecrated in substance You may see howe absurdly he speaketh common bread sanctified which is as good as if he would say Christ gaue white blacke bread or whot colde wine We affirme that the bread wine were consecrated not in accidents but in substance to the vse of an holy sacrament that they might be the body bloud of Christ to as many as receiued the same worthily not by conuersion of the natural substance of one thing into another but by a wonderfull diuine vnspeakable change of that which is ordinatily a weake element of the world to be a mightie foode vnto eternall life The second argument he vseth to proue the excellencie of the banket is of the fine cookerie I vse his owne terme which also he doth exemplifie by making 16. or 20. dishes of egges alone which cannot be without many spices mixture great labour c. But Christ like a most cunning workman of simple litle stuffe and that without help of his disciples to prepare it made the gretest finest feast that euer was heard of vsing no shifts but only blessing or thanksgiuing The sinesse of this cookerie he setteth forth by a fine speculation of the furniture of the world by the Angels heauens elements froÌ„ whence it pleased God to make a reuolt of al things from the bottome of the earth vpward againe towardes him self And so made out of the earth vegitatiue thinges then sensible creatures last man with a reasonable soule as a briefe summe of all creatures a litle worlde who being seduced by the diuel was by the incarnation of the sonne of God restored then al thinges were briefely brought againe to God So that in this banket where Christ is giuen there is serued in one dish a composition most delicate of angels heauens elements of herbes fishes birds beasts of reasonable men and of God himselfe No kind of salet meates sauce fruits consectioÌ„ no kind of wine aqua vitae aqua composita liquors syrops can be found in nature made by art dâ—uised by wiâ—â—e but it is all set vpon this table and that in a small roâ—â—e c. Thus doe the Catholikes teach of the supper of our Lorde and beleeue it agreeable to his worde and worthie his worship What say you M. S. is this the doctrin of the Catholiks that the breade and wine being turned into the body and bloud of Christ are also turned into Angels heauens elements herbes fishes birdes beastes men God him selfe yea into all salets meates sauces fruits confections all kindes of wine aqua vitae aqua composita all liquors and syrops beside porredge puddings pyes pancakes and a great many other thinges which you haue not named but comprehended in generall wordes Is there a reall conuersion in deede by reason of your heraphicall reuolution And is this doctrine agreable to the word of God In what place is it written I pray you I suppose it to be this Eph. 1. It hath pleased God to restore in Christ all things which are in heauen which are in earth in him Where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth a briefe gathering into one certeine head and summe that all thinges in heauen and earth are brought vnto Christ
propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse pernicies námque id est carnis huius mors aduersus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat Terra enim â—s in terram reuerteris propter peccatum â—udiuimus Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc euersurus erat tyrannum propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur oâ—inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati Deo ita volente perniciem essugiebant Quid igitur O Iudaee turbaris praefiguratam veritatem iam videns our inquam turbaris si Christus dicit Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis cùm oporteret Mosaicis te legibus institutum priscis vmbris ad credendum perdoctum ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse Neither let the Iewe of the dulnes of his minde thinke that we haue inuented such mysteries as were neuer heard of for hee shall see if he will search more attentiuely that the same thing hath beene alwaies done by figure since the time of Moses For what hath deliuered their auncestors from the plague of the Aegyptians when death raged against the first borne of the Aegyptians Is it not manifest that they being taught by the institution of God did eate the flesh of a Lambe and annoynted the postes and vpper dore postes with bloude and therefore death departed from them For destruction that is the death of this flesh did rage against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne But because Christ by his flesh was to ouerthrow this cruel tyrant therefore that mysterie was shadowed to the old fathers and being sanctified with the flesh and bloud of the sheepe God so willing they escaped destruction Why therfore ô Iewe art thou troubled seeing the trueth alreadie prefigured Wherfore I say art thou troubled if Christ say Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of Man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in your selues whereas it behoued thee being instructed in the Lawe of Moses taught to beleeuing by the old shadows to be most readie to vnderstande these mysteries This place of Cyrill sheweth at large that he meaneth not by tast and touching or meate which is of alliance with vs the naturall bodie of Christ but the outward part of the sacrament namely the bread and wine for of the bodie of Christ there is neither taste nor touching bodily in the sacrament But euen as by eating of the Lambes flesh and anoynting of the bloude which prefigured the flesh and bloude of Christ and was a meate of kindred or alliance with them with whose taste and touching they were acquainted the Iewes were assured of their deliuerance so we by eating and drinking these outwarde signes of Christes bodie and bloude are assured of eternall life For you must note that he saith hoc ipsum the selfe same thing was alwayes done by figure from the time of Moses What was that namely that not onely our soules by the holy Ghost but also our bodies by externall sacramentes were brought to immortalitie But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christs incarnation therefore Cyrill is nothing lesse then of the Popish meaning The last witnesse is Tertullian de resur Carnis The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is oynted that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defenced The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hande that the soule also may be illuminated The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ that the soule also may be made fat of God They cannot therfore be parted in reward whom worke ioynesh We agree to that which Tertullian saith that our flesh is fed with that body bloud of Christ but not after a carnall or natural maner by receiuing the body and bloud at our mouthes c but after a spiritual manner as he himselfe sheweth in the same booke Nam quia durum intollerabilem existimauerunt sermonem eius quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse vt in spiritum disponeret statum salutis promisit spiritus est qui viâ—ificat For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eateÌ„ of theÌ„ verily that he might dispose the state of saluation into the spirit he saide before It is the spirit that quickeneth In these words Tertullian counteth it the error of the Capernaites to thinke that Christ determined that his flesh should be eaten verily meaning that his fleshe was not to be eaten after a grosse and naturall manner with the mouth and teeth but with faith and heart Againe the argument of the resurrection of our bodies which he draweth of eating the bodie bloud of Christ cannot stande but with a spirituall eating thereof For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ and so many thousand Christians as since that time haue neuer receiued the sacrament haue of the resurrection of their bodies if the vertue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating Therfore Tertullian meaneth plainely that the externall sacraments which are receiued with the body beare the name oftentimes of the thinges whereof they are sacraments are arguments and assurances that saluation perteineth both to the bodie and to the soule and not that the bodie eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine any more then the body receiueth the holy ghost vnder the forme of water or imposition of hands c. What the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof He affirmeth that we say Christ giueth to the bodie breade and wine but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith spirit and vnderstanding This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter But either he is ignorant what we teach or rather he is not willing to shewe it that by rehersing it imperfectly he might haue more aduantage to dispute against it We beleeue that Christ giuing vnto vs bread and wine as visible seales of his inuisible grace giueth to the whole man his body and blood to be receiued of him by faith after a spiritual and wonderful maner passing al vnderstanding of man wherby we are assured that we are spiritually fed vnto eternal life eueÌ„ as by the seale of baptisme we are assured that we are spiritually and wonderfully washed from our sins born anew to be the sonnes of God We say not therefore the god giueth himselfe by faith spirit vnderstanding to our soules onely but he giueth himself vnto vs to be receiued by faith spirituallie But
Christ we are nourished to immortalitie Hereupon Sander inferreth that nourishmeÌ„r is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present This shal be graunted that the bodie bloud of Christ is really present with them whom it norisheth vnderstanding really for truly and indeede and vnfainedly But Christ saith Sander gaue with his handes that which nourisheth In proper forme of speech this is false for he had not his natural bodie and bloud in his hands but a sacrament thereof which was a seale and certaine perswasion vnto the faithfull of the performance of his promise which was the communicating of his body and bloude which was performed after an heauenly and spirituall manner CAP. VI. The vnion which is made by eating Christes reall flesh must needes be a naturall vnion before it be a mysticall For this naturall vnion he bringeth no proofe but promiseth the proofe in other places following therfore vnto those places I deferre the answere In the meane time it is a monstrous absurditie that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ is of all the elect that euer were he affirmeth that it cannot be without a naturall vnion by eating Christs flesh and bloud in the sacrament CAP. VII That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper goeth cleane from the word of God The wordes of the Apologie are these We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a sacrament that is to say an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God saith he to the traditions of men For where haue you in all the scripture that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ that is a sacrament And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures from the beginning of the Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalipse writen in so many letters he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg against the authors of the Apologie for going from the worde of God to the authority of men Augustine and Ambrose c. Then the which quarels nothing can be inuented more foolish or further from all witt learning and honesty For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges we neuer meant or saide that all other wordes should be forsaken which are not expressed in the bible but that no doctrine is to be credited by what terme so euer it be vttered except the same be grounded vpon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture either expressed in plaine wordes or els gathered by necessary consequence Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament signe or token may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures and for that cause haue ben taken vp and vsed by the ancient fathers in the primitiue Church wee vse them as freely as they did and as we vse other names likewise the meaning of which is plaine to be found in the scriptures although the termes them selues be not as Trinity persons consubstantiall c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament signe or token to be agreable to the scriptures I would take paines to prooue them but seing he confesseth that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question Among the names that are giuen to the Lordes supper in the scripture That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ and that of S. Paul the supper is called spirituall meate and spirituall drinke which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth it doth proue the names of sacrament signe and token soe inuincibly that we are no more afraide to vse them then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture The name of sacrifice which he enterlaceth by the way because it is afterward more at large discussed I omit to write of at this time CAP. VIII That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined and then this trifling should not haue arisen of the word Sander himselfe vnderstandeth mysterium in S. Ambrose for a mystery or sacrament And in deed the Greekes call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latines call Sacramentum But if euery mystery shall be a Sacrament in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called there shall not be onely seuen Sacraments as he would haue but more then seuentie The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery is somtims generally taken for euery secret thing that hath an hidden vnderstanding so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie and ordination is vsed De bon Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands cont Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose is inforced for speaking of the power which priestes haue to remitt sinnes by repentance or by baptisme he saith Vnum in vtroque mysterium Sed dices quia in â—auacro operatur mysterioruÌ„ gratia Quid in poenitentia nonne dei nomen operatur There is one mystery in both But thou wilt say because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke What in repentance doth not the name of God worke in these wordes although he call them both mysteries Yet he putteth a manifest difference for in baptisme he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke with that visible seale in the other the name of god onely wtout a visible seale which Sander perceiuing and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the Apologie for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written who he saith had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are And I say that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth vpon the surâ—ised reconciliation of the Armenians which is of small credit the same Eugenius for his notable wickednes being long before deposed by the councell of Basil and an other Pope being chosen in his place CAP. IX That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament aboue the other and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect there is no cause why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other as Sander would imagine But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes whereby it is not onely proued to
myracle made in meate gaue occasion to that doctrine vttered in that Chapter as S. Iohn sheweth The 3. circumstance the Propheticall promise what he would doe the Easter tweluemoneth after I answere that promise was fulfilled in his passion The 4. the conference of thinges done and said about the sea of Tiberias at Capernaum with that was done and said in the last supper This conference followeth afterward in the 17. conferences The 5. the present eating of the fathers gift The 6. the eating of Christes gift to come To these two circumstances I answere that Christ exhorteth the Iewes to the present eating of his flesh vpon paine of damnation Except ye eate the flesh c. He which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therfore the flesh bloud of Christ might be eaten and drunken before his supper Wherfore none of these circumstances do proue a promise of a sacramentall eating which may be without profite nor an eating of the naturall substance of flesh and bloud of Christ in the sacrament which at that time was not instituted But nowe we must come to the conferences Foure of which conferences are bread 2. blessing 3. thanksgiuing 4. eating in both I answere so there was in all the dinners and suppers that euer hee did make Beside that heere is multiplying and fish which is not in the last supper Therefore a vaine conference The fift is that as heere hee beginneth his talke of common breade and endeth with eating and drinking his fleshe and bloude so in his supper hee tooke common breade in his handes and ended his banket in eating and drinking of his body and bloude But when Sander can make a consequence of this conference I will yeelde vnto it that he speaketh of Sacramentall eating The 6 and 7. the sonne of man is the giuer meate is giuen in both ergo hee speaketh in both of the Sacraments I denie the argument for the meate which the sonne of man giueth may bee eaten without the Sacrament and therefore hee saith he that nowe eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud when as yet that sacrament was not instituted The 8. conference Hee saith the breade which I will giue is my fleshe and not the bread which I will take So in his supper he tooke one kinde of breade and gaue another This is a noble conference to tel vs what Christ said not According to which I might conferre this He saith the breade which I will giue hee saieth not the drinke which I will giue is my bloude therefore in the supper he giueth not his bloude The 9. conference the fleshe is giuen in the one and nothing but the bodie in the other for the substance of common breade was chaunged This reason in deede is of great weight if transubstantiation were granted The 10. No common breade is giuen in either of both places if by common breade he meant prophane breade and not dedicated to holy vse I confesse the conference but seeing by common breade he meaneth naturall breade I denie it For though no naturall or materiall breade was promised to bee giuen in the sixte of Saint Iohn yet was naturall breade giuen in the Sacrament The 11. The fleshe that dyed for vs is giuen in both That is true but after diuerse manners in the one it is giuen in a Sacrament in the other more generally but in both to bee spiritually receiued and not carnally The 12. The gift is eaten in deede in both I confesse but spiritually and by faith yet with this difference that in the one it is eaten often without the sacrament the other is a seale or a sacrament of that which is eaten euen without it The 13. The bloude of Christ is drunke in both It is so drunke as the flesh is eaten The 14. As in the sixt of Iohn there is no wine spoken of so Christ in his supper neither spake of wine but of drinking nor gaue any wine at all to bee drunke because it was by his wordes chaunged into his bloude I answere If bread were spoken of in that which was taken into his hands wine by Metonymia was spoken of by taking the cuppe Secondly if the fruite of the vine be the matter of wine wine was spoken of At Caparnaum there was no wine spoken of nor any occupied Let Sander see howe hee can make the conference with the supper in which wine was occupied although he say it was not drunk which is a weightie argument when that which is in question is brought for the proofe Last of all if Christ at his supper gaue no wine at all to be drunke as Sander saith howe agreeth the Popish communion with Christs supper seeing the Papistes doe giue wine to bee drunke vnto the laye people The 15. The twelue Apostles most faithfull taried with him at Caparnaum so they alone were admitted in the night of his betraying to his holy table In the faithfull tarying of the twelue Apostles he forgetteth Iudas and that the twelue onely were present at the institution of the supper it is vncertaine For it is certaine there was more then twelue present at the eating of the Passeouer and it is prooued before that Iudas went out before the Sacrament ordeined The 16. Peter with the twelue protested in both places not to forsake Christe So they did at other times and places where no mention was of eating Christ. The last Iudas was reprooued in both places I answere Iudas was reprooued in other places where no promise or mention of the supper is made Finally I answere that not any one nor altogether of these conferences can make any consequence to prooue that our Sauiour Christ in that sixt of Iohns Gospel speaketh of the Sacrament otherwise then as it is a seale a pledge an vndoubted token of assurance of that spirituall eating drinking of Christs flesh and bloud which in that Chapter is commended vnto vs. CAP. III. It is prooued out of the holy Fathers and generall councels that Christ in S. Iohn spake of his last supper I haue shewed euen nowe in what sort Christ may bee saide to haue spoken of his last supper in that chapter and of that sense and meaning are the most ancient and sounde fathers whome Sander citeth to bee vnderstoode And not one which affirmeth the eating of Christes fleshe and bloude which there is spoken of to bee peculiar vnto the supper and singulerly to bee vnderstoode of eating in the sacrament and not otherwise which is the onely thing which we denie and not that the doctrine of that Chapter doeth not at all pertaine to the supper but that it is further to bee extended then to the supper by which the carnall manner of eating of Christes flesh is manifestly ouerthrowne But let vs briefely runne ouer his authorities First Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen hee omitteth because they speake nothing almost sounding to his purpose But Cyprian in orat dominica
seemeth vnto him clearely to prooue that it is ment of the supper because hee writeth that who so is any long time kept from the sacrament is in daunger of euerlasting life alleaging this text of saint Iohn Except yee eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. For hee shoulde wholie faile of his proofe saith he if that place did not prooue the necessitie of communicating sacramentally I denie the argument for hee speaketh of them which were cut off from the bodie of Christ by excommunicatioÌ„ whose admission vnto the coÌ„munion was an assurance of their incorporation againe This place is answered more at large in my confutation of Heskins lib. 2 cap. 4. The second is Athanasius in syn nou test lib. 4. which saith Christ reasoneth with the multitude concerning the misteries A sorie argument as though the spirituall eating of Christs flesh were not a mysterie It had bene very vnseasonable to reason with them of that which as yet was not instituted although as I haue saide his doctrine may be extended also to the sacrament The 3. is Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. disputing of the natural veritie of Christ which is in vs by the sacrament alleageth these wordes My flesh is meat in deede I answere Hilarie affirmeth that the naturall veritie of Christes flesh is in vs by his incarnation if we be faithfull which is testified by the mysterie and sacrament of bread and wine Therefore he saith nâ—â—què verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we doe truely vnder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie Againe naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobiâ— communicande carnis admis 〈…〉 it hee hath ioyned the' nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated with vs. The 4. is Basil Dei bap lib. 1. Cap. 3. comparing the words of his supper with the words of this Chapter which prooueth not the matter in hande otherwise then I haue shewed but of Basil wee must see more afterward touching this controuersie The 5. is Gregorie Nyssene his brother in vita Mosis who saith that the breade which came downe froÌ„ heaueÌ„ which is the true meat is no vnbodily thing for howe should a thing that lacketh a bodie be made meaâ—â— vnto the bodie Doubtlesse saith Sander Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where but onely in the Sacrament Sanders Doubtles is all the argument iudge of it as ye list The 6. is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mistagog 4. who intreating of the Sacrament citeth these words except ye eate ergo these words are to be vnderstood only of eating in the sacrament Heere hee desireth license being coÌ„passed with such a multitude of witnesses brieflie to runne ouer the rest as he hath not beene very long in any of the other and the like license I require that one answere may serue them al which are worth the answering that although the Fathers did referre the doctrine of the sixt of S. Iohn vnto the supper yet they referre it not onely vnto the supper which is the matter we sticke vpon Neither Ambrose nor Eusebius Emissenus much lesse Chrysostom Augustine which do plainly extende it further then to the supper And last of all Hierom in the place by Sander cited in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Eph. where he saith the fleshe and bloud of Christ is vnderstanded two wayes either that spirituall diuine wherof he sayd My flesh is meate in deede c. or else that flesh which was crucified for vs that bloud which was sâ—ed with the speare of the souldier Where either he speaketh not of the Sacrament at all or else he declareth manifestly that the flesh which was crucified is not giuen vs in this Sacrament And what his iudgement is of that place he sheweth euidently in Ps. 147. Quando dicit qui non comederit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius corpus Christi sanguis eius sermo scripturarum est diuina doctrina est WheÌ„ he saith he which shall not eate my flesh nor drinke my bloude c. although it may be vnderstood in the mysterie yet more truely the bodie of Christ his bloud is the wordes of the scriptures it is the doctrine of God The next is Cyrillus whome Sander most impudently affirmeth to interpret the whole Chapter of the Sacrament of the altar because sometime he nameth the mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holye cup. For thus he expoundeth that saying which Sander maketh the promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per meipsum omnes vinificeÌ„ caro mea omniâ—â— redemptio fiat moriâ—tur enim mors morte mea siâ—ul me cum natura hominuÌ„ resurget I die saith he for al men that I might quicken al men by my self my flesh may be made the redemption of al men for death by my death shal die the nature of maÌ„ shal rise again togither with me Likewise he expoundeth these words He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me â—inhim QuoniaÌ„res ardua est fide magis quaÌ„ alio modo recipitur ideo multis atque varijs modis mirabileÌ„ eius vtilitateÌ„ exponit fundamentum basim fidem esse confirmans Because the matter that is high and is receiued by faith rather then by any other means he setteth forth the merueilous profite thereof by many and diuers meanes confirming yâ— faith is the ground foundation Concerning the rest whom he reherseth as Sedulius Leo Isychiuâ— Proiper Eucherius Casâ—iodorus Primatius which apply any text of this Chapter to the Lords supper I answeâ—â— as before it is not sufficient to proue that the bread is either only or principally to be vnderstoode of the Lordes supper As for Damaseen Haymo Bernard with other late writers the last councell of Trent and the second of Nice what errors they followed we haue not to regard and much lesse the practice of the Popish Church reading that text for the Gospell of Corpus Christi day but the first councell of Ephesus which he iumbleth vp among the rest in Epistola at Nestorium affirmeth no such matter as he adnoucheth but sheweth what they iudged of that flesh wherof they receiued the sacrament namely that it is the flesh of the sonne of God able to giue life as more at large I haue shewed in answere to Heskias lib. 2. Cap. 16. CAP. IIII. Answere is made to their obiections who teach out of the holy fathers that the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spirituall eating Where it is alleaged that the fathers expound the wordes of that Chapter partly of beliefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth
by the Sacramentes of baptisme and penance saith Sander this shal be a sufficient answere First so many fathers do â—et expound it of any others argument as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord. To this I reply yâ— al or in a maner all do interprete it of our spiritual coniunction with the body and bloud of Christ whereof the supper is a Sacrament and confirmation Secondly he answereth that those fathers which haue expounded the wordes otherwise then of the supper haue also expounded them of the supper whereby their authority is as great for that which I say as it is against it I reply that none of them expoundeth the wordes of the supper so as they be singular vnto the supper and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose nor expounde them otherwise then I haue shewed in reply to the first answere Thirdly he answereth that no one of the fathers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to apperteine to the supper A lewde answere for none of vs denieth those wordes to apperteine to the supper but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper Fourthly many of the places brought for the contrary opinion doe manifestly and as it seemeth to Sander inuincibly prooue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally ment of the supper of Christ. This shall appeare by the examples following First Cyprian ad Quirâ—num lib. 3. Cap. 25. 26. writeth that a man can not come to the kingdom of heauen without baptisme because it is writen Except a man be borne againe c. and likewise Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Heere saith Sander he expoundeth not the wordes of baptisme but meaneth according to the custome of the Church which was to giue the cummunion to infantes not so much for necessity as for suerties sake of which custome we haue mention in Dionysius Ambrose and other The like answer he saith may be made to Innocentius Augustinus and Eusebius Emissenus which bring these wordes against the Pelagians Except'ye eat the flesh c. to prooue that infantes can not haue life except they be baptized To this I reply it can not be denied but such an erronious custome coÌ„trary to the word of God was vsed in those ancient times to giue the communion to infantes whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity which Pope Innocentius and Augustine and all the West Church as Augustine saith did hold although Sander would excuse it to haue bene practised not for necessity but for suerty yet hereof it followeth not that the wordes of S. Iohn in Cyprian and the rest are literally vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ which Sander confesseth may to be without the Sacrament euen of such eating of the flesh of Christ as the fathers were partakers of vnto their saluation before Christ came in the flesh wherof Augustine speaketh most plentisully In Ioan Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question Huius rei Sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis c. A Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in some places by certaine distances of daies is prepared in the Lords table and from the Lords table is receiued of some to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of none to destruction whosoeuer shall be pertaker of it And because Sander saith the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily vpon the Eucharist alone The same Augustine saith to the contrary Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proâ—ul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudiâ—itan sibi manducat bibit For this it is to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abide in vs. And by this he which abideth not in Christ in whom Christ doth not abide out of al doubt neither doth he eate spiritually his flesh not drinke his bloud although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing vnto his own damnation Heere Augustine opposeth the eating of Christes flesh spiritually with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally whereby he sheweth that Christes flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction And by this you may see howe well red Sander is in Augustine which professeth that in his workes he neuer sawe one sillable why to thinke that he would the litteral sense of the sixt of S. Iohn to belong onely to spirituall eating when Augustine saieth expressely This is to eate that meat to eate spiritually to haue Christ abiding in vs c. But that same Augustine de peccat merit lib 1. Cap. 20. saith Dominum audiamus inquâ—m noÌ„ quidem hoc de Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de Sacramento sanctae mensae suae quò nemo ritè nisi baptizaâ—us accedit Nisi manducaueritis carnem meam c. Let vs heare our Lord I say not saying in deede this of the Sacrament of baptisme but of the Sacrament of his holy table whither no man commeth well vnlesse he be baptized Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue life in you c. Heere saith Sander it is plaine by Augustines iudgment that Christ in that Chapiter speaketh not of baptisme and that he speaketh of his supper I answer Augustin writeth against the Pelagians which denied baptisme to be necessary for infantes as for them that had no originall nor actual sin laboring to prooue the necessity of baptisme by those wordes of Christ Except a man be borne of water and of the holy Ghost c. to bring infantes vnder the compasse of sinne and to establish their saluation onely by grace not by merite of their workes His cause in deede was good but his argument was weake to proue the necessity of baptisme by that texte euen as to prooue the necessity of communion for infantes by this text of the 6. of S. Iohn which is not needful nor lawful to be giuen vnto them at all Yet such was his error that he thought infantes were charged by this text to coÌ„municate in paine of daÌ„nation That he iudged they ought to be partakers of the body bloud of Christ it is true by that text but that he thought this partaking
will giue to you and not only for you But his death was giuen more properly for vs then to vs. For it was paied to God for our debtes but was not properly giuen to vs for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vs and consequently God the father robbed of his glorie What say you Sander Can nothing be said properly to be giuen vs but that which is sacrificed vnto vs So God loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne that euery one which beleeueth in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting Iohn 3. And Esai saith The sonne is giuen to vs. The spirit of God is giuen to vs c. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice are you not ashamed of such senseles shiftes Christ in his death was giuen in sacrifice to his father for vs and his father being reconciled to vs by that sacrifice giueth him to vs and Christ also giueth himselfe for vs because all the fruite of his death and sacrifice is referred to our saluation The fourth reason is that Christ naming breade meate foode Manna c. promiseth an eatable thing which is his flesh in a banket the Iewes vnderstoode his flesh really not erring in vnderstanding but in faith for Christ coÌ„firmeth their vnderstanding with an oth sayth verily verily except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. ergo their sense which reterre the gift onely to his death is not sufficient but it must be meant also of the last supper This argument followeth not for although the names of bread food flesh c. proue that Christes flesh is eatable yet it proueth not that it is eatable only in the supper Secondly that the Iewes erred only in faith it is false for they erred also in vnderstanding taking the eating of Christes flesh to be perfourmed carnally which he ment only spiritually His oth confirmeth not their vnderstaÌ„ding but his owne promise of giuing his flesh for the life of the world which except they did eat spiritually they could haue no life in them But whereas it is obiected that Christ speaketh of that gift which was common to the whole world euen to the Patriarkes Prophets therefore it is a spirituall gift for else Dauid AbrahaÌ„ could not haue partaken it he answereth that Christ doth not pro mise any one meat vnto the whole world but his flesh to be eaten which is giuen for the whole world I reply the words are plaine the bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world not only for the Iewes Neither doth Christ in his supper giue a far better meat than he gaue to Moyses Elias for he gaue euen to theÌ„ his flesh bloud to be their spiritual food vnto eternal life witnesse the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat drink the same spiritual meat that we do and that their meat drinke was Christ. Concerning that dayly we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth he answereth the Sacrament is left to be our daily supersubstantial bread either because we may receiue it daily if we wil or because it tarieth alwayes with vs by some spirituall effect To this I answere that all men cannot receiue it daily and some men not at all which yet must haue spirituall foode to feede them vnto euerlasting life therefore this breade may be eaten without the Sacrament The last argument that he woulde seeme to answere is this Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that eating which maketh vs tarie in him him in vs therefore not of Sacramental eating for Christ tarieth not in all that eate him in the Sacrament He answereth the fault is not in the Sacrament but in them that abuse the gift of God to their own hurt As though our Sauiour Christ did speak only of the power of his flesh being eaten not of the effect The flesh of Christ being eaten maketh vs one with him him But Augustine is cited contr Crescon gram lib. 1. Cap. 〈◊〉 Quid de ipso corpore what say we concerning the very body and bloud of our Lorde the only sacrifice for our saluation Although our Lord himselfe saith Except a man doe eate my flesh and drinke my bloud he shall not haue life in him doth not the Apostle teach that the selfe same thing is made hurtfull to them that vse it euill For he saith whosoeuer shall eate the bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But it followeth immediatly in Augustine Eâ—ce quemadmodum obsint diuina sanctamatè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus See how diuine and holy thinges doe hurte them that vse them amisse Why not baptisme after the same manner These last wordes declare that Augustine saying that the body and bloud of Christ may be hurtfull speaketh of the Sacrament and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament as in baptisme As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint Iohn The Sacrament of this thing saith he is receiued of som to life of some to destruction but the thing it selfe or matter of the Sacrament which is the body and bloud of Christ is of none receiued to destruction but of all vnto life as many as receiue it By whose whole discourse it is manifest that Augustine vnderstandeth Christ speaking of spirituall eating which may be without the Sacrament and maketh a difference betwene the meat there spoken of which presently was offered to be eaten the Sacrament therof which afterward was instituted Therfore whatsoeuer Sander doth glory of all authority vpon earth concurring to his position there is no authority from heauen to prooue that Christ in the 6. of S. Iohn spake of his supper at all or that his supper may be vnderstood therin otherwise then the Sacrament and seale of that spirituall and heauenly eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud which of the fathers and of all the faithfull hath bene eaten and drunken vnto eternall life not only in this Sacrament but in other Sacramentes of Gods ordeining and without all Sacramentes by faith and power of Gods spirite CAP. VI. The meate tarying to euerlasting life which Christ promiseth â—o giue is meant of his reall flesh and bloud to be giuen at his last supper Sander by conference of this verse Operamini cibuÌ„ c. labour for the meate or as he translateth iâ— worke the meate that perisheth not c. with that which foloweth where he saith the bread which I will giue c. prooueth that Christe speaketh of his flesh and bloud to be eaten and drunken But that the same is to be giuen only at his last supper which is the onely matter in controuersie he is not able to prooue His first reason is that because Christ saieth his flesh is meate in
deede the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke by faith but a true worke of the body and soule the one in beleeuing the other in eating As though Christ is not meat truly when he is eaten by faith in the soule or as though a metaphorical meat can not be called a meate truly or in deede when Christ speaking metaphorically saith he is a true vine But Tertullian saieth the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ as before wee haue often heard where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes as of baptisme oynting imposition of hands c. What Theophylact a late writer saith we esteem not worth the weighing But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ and not to his supper In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation c. Last of all he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos who expoundeth the bread and flesh and bloud spiritually and not of the Sacrament Non mihi placet c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not I will haue the bread of God the heauenly breade the breade of life which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and I will haue the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible loue and life euerlasting If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting then is it the effect of Christes bloud that Ignatius speaketh of and not his naturall bloud which is the cause thereof Other prooues then these Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose which prooue it nothing at all CAP. VII The equality of substance with his father which Christ alleageth for his gift prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar euen as God the father gau◠him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation This argument is thus framed The sonne of man i◠equall with God his father God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world and made him true man the true bread of life therefore God the sonne being equall with his father will giue vs the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vs to euerlasting life But his father gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in reall and substantiall flesh Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie that he will giue in his supper wherof he speaketh not in spirite and faith only but in truth of nature and substance the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane so many false propositions so many petitions of principles so much more in the conclusion then was in the premisses finally so many words and so litle to the purpose But I will make answere briefely and plainly The equally of Christ with his father prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giue his reall substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose But he promiseth to giue vs the same true flesh which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vnto eternal life This promise he perfourmeth daiely vnto the electe making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vs to be food of euerlasting continuance Yea saith Sander but God gaue him to the world not only in faith and spirite but in trueth of nature and substance therefore Christ will giue vs his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onely A strange argument God gaue Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of fleshe not in spirite and faith only What mean you by this God gaue him not in spirite and faith onely For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning God gaue him not in faith spirite at all For when you speak of Christs incarnation and of God sending him in the flesh what sense is it to say he sent him in faith or in spirit But God gaue him naturall flesh and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh How did all the Patriarkes Prophetes and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him who being giuen to the world must needes be giuen to them also Verily no otherwise then in spirite and by faith Euen so Christ promising to giue his flesh and his bloud to be meate drinke vnto vs meaneth not that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith either in his supper or in baptisme or without any of the Sacraments And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith that he can giue vs his very naturall and diuine flesh to be receiued spiritually and faithfully to feede and nourish vs vnto life euerlasting assuredly CAP. VIII Seeing Christ is the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirite sufficeth not but it selfe also must be really eaten It is marueile why it should not suffice vs to eate hi◠flesh which is the breade of life as all the children of God did eate it before his incarnation and as many thousandes since which haue beene partakers of eternall life and yet neuer were admitted to the Lordes supper But Sander sayeth it is expressely against the worde of God that by the incarnation of Christ wee haue not the breade of life giuen vs by any other way then wee had it before The reason belike is this That the bread of life is nowe first promised by the gift of Christ as who came into the worlde to bring vs this euerlasting meate Marke this Popish diuinitie which restraineth the vertue of Christes incarnation to the instant time in which he tooke flesh and thereby denyeth eternall life to all the Patriarches and Prophets who by his reason neuer tasted of the bread of life He talketh much and to litle or no purpose of the controuersie that the godhead is life properly which that it might be communicated to vs it assumpted flesh and this flesh is made meate for vs but what is the conclusion It is giuen at Christes supper vnder the forme of breade no other meane of giuing will serue Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternall life which haue not beene admitted to the Sacrament and yet like a folish hypocrite he cryeth out of our crueltie which depriuing men of the true flesh of Christ depriue them of the godhead and of eternall life Whereas he slandereth vs altogether
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
otherwise be brought to incorruption and life vnlesse the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it This is true but the manner of the coniunction is all the matter we stand vpoÌ„ which we affirme must be such as may ioyne euery body of Gods elect that hath bene shall be to the body of the naturall life which cannot be the SacrameÌ„tal coniunctioÌ„ or corporal receiuing of Christs naturall body into our bodies which was denied to al the fathers before Christes incarnation And yet except euery one of their bodies had bene ioyned to the body of Christ which is the body of naturall life they could not be partakers of incorruptioÌ„ life as Cyril saith Therefore the manner of our coniunction is not the receiuing of Christes body in at our mouthes but an heauenlie diuine manner wrought by the spirit of God apprehended by faith in all that haue heard the word of God â—â—d are partakers of it CAP. XVIII The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was 〈…〉 ght with the losse of many disciples If Christ had not meant to giue his flesh in deed saith Sander he would not haue cast a stumbling blocke in his disciples way nor hindered their faith by wordes more hard then needed I answere he ment to giue them his flesh in deede to be eaten not only in his supper but euen then presently if they had bene faithfull to haue receiued it And therefore he saith to them he that eateth me shall liue for me or by me my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Sander must remember what he hath taught vs before that Christes fleshe cannot bee meate in deede except it bee eaten but Christ saith it is meat in deede before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirite and he speaketh not there of Sacramentall eating onely Neither doth Cyrill say that only in the Sacrament Christes flesh is eaten although he shew that Christ instructed his Apostles when he gaue them fragmenta panis pecces of bread how his flesh might be eaten in Ioan lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally CAP. XIX The right vnderstanding of these wordes It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Basil Chrysostome and Augustine saith Sander expounde the name flesh for carnall and fleshlye vnderstanding of the Iewes which Caluine of Luciferian pride reprocueth And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l doe chiefely followe another vnderstanding which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth that Christes flesh should not profit any thing but that by the spirite of his Godhead it is made able to giue euerlasting life See the ranâ—or of Sander which condemneth Caluine of diuellish pride for refusing one interpretation of some fathers taking the exposition of others and that which one of the same fathers doth cheefely followe as Sander doth confesse But now saith he what neede more adoe If this saying apperteine not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our beleefe If it doe apperteine they are wordes propheticall fulfilled in the supper I haue often shewed how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ perteineth to the supper and howe it perteineth not And this I prooue out of this saying against your Popish opinion wherein you holde that wicked men eate Christes flesh Our sauiour Christe shewing whence his fleshe hath power to giue life namely not of it selfe but of the spirite doth also shewe the necessary effect of his spirit which is neuer separated from his flesh The spirit saith he quickneth or giueth life seeing therefore that no man can receiue the fleshe of Christe separated from his spirite no man can receiue his flesh but he that receiueth it quickning or giuing life But where Sander saith that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spirituall sorte and noâ— after a fleshly manner It might seeme that he fully agreed with vs in minde as he doth in wordes but when he coÌ„meth to expounde spiritually and fleshly he declareth that he meaneth not to exclude all fleshly manners but only one maner of eating his body by pieces as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner but when he coÌ„meth to spirituall sort he expoundeth it only by inuisible sort as though he which giueth a piece of golde closed in a paper so that it could not be seene did giue it after a spirituall manner As for the conuersion of bread and wine into his body and bloud his presence at the table and in their mouthes and in heauen c. shew not a spirituall manner of giuing his body but a monstrous alteration of bodily thinges which are affirmed to be so really and corporally and yet contrary to the nature of all thinges and bodies spoken of I omitt his ridiculous interpretations of Ieremies saying Let vs put wood into his bread which he applyeth to the crucifying of Christs flesh where yet wodde was not put into his flesh but his flesh put vpon wodde But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his aduersaries which threatened to giue him wood in steede of bread that is to famish him in the stockes Likewise of Abacuks saying Hornes are in his hands which he meanein of the almightie power of God often called figuratiue hornes Sander referreth it to the corners of the crosse which yet were not in the hands of Christ but his hands stretched out toward them CAP. XX. The words of Christ being spirite and life shewe that his 〈◊〉 flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of 〈…〉 reason Sander as his manner is can rest in no certeine 〈…〉 sition but wil haue euery interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place if it affirme any thing that 〈…〉 first because the flesh of Christ is vnprofitable 〈…〉 the spirite which giueth it power of quickening 〈…〉 haue this saying all one in effecte with the wo 〈…〉 ing before it is the spirite that quickeneth 〈…〉 vpon occasion of a phraâ—e vsed by Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈…〉 wordes are of the spirite he wil haue the meaning to â—e that the wordes of Christ haue in them some of his spirite diuine power therfore the naming of flesh bloud before was not figuratiue but proper I graunt the conclusion but I denie the argument for he vttered other words before which weâ— figuratiue vnproper as I am the bread that came c. yet were these wordes spirite life and so are all the words of the Gospel that is giue hâ—â— if they be spiritually vnderstood I say not alwayes figuratiuely but always beleued to be true in that sense they are vttered ment by him whether they be figuratiue or proper as concerning the prhase Thirdly the wordes of Christ are spirite and life because they make the spiritual bodie of Christ which is a spirituall food as
the other Although he speake contrary to poperie which teacheth the presence to be after consecration and not at the time of consecrating But what bridle may hold in the shameles furie of Sander The third figure is of the paschall lambe which was a figure of Christs death and so applied by S. Iohn in that saying you shal not break a bone of him Ioan. 19. S. Paul 1. Cor. 5. not a figure of the supper from which as it differeth in signe so it is all one in the thing signified The fourth is the prophesie and figure of Manna which as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10 was the same spirituall meate that we eate not a figure thereof but a sacrament of our spirituall feeding by the flesh of Christ like as the water of the rocke which was Christ was a Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment by the bloud of Christ. Wherefore the partes of this comparison as they haue ben all answered before in the third book so they are of no force to prooue the real presence or transubstantiation but the contrary seing the differeÌ„ce of these two Sacramentes Manna and the Lordes bread is only in the signes nothing at all in the vertue of the things signified according to S. Aug. rule The fist figure is of the bloud of the old Testament wherunto the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse doth answere as the Apostle manifestly teacheth Heb. 9. therefore these wordes of the supper This is the bloud of the new Testament of necessity must be figuratiue euen as these which are of the same sense This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud For we may not so farre aduance the Sacrament that we abase the death of Christ which is the only Sacrifice for our sinnes The sixt is the prophecy and figure of Iob which is a manifest peruerting of the scripture from the true meaning for either Iob complaineth of the cruelty of his seruantes that would euen eate his flesh in his aduersity and speaketh not of the loue that his seruantes had to be ioyned vnto his flesh as the context of that place Iob. 31. doth euidently shew or els he sheweth the complaint of his seruantes that were so occupied in hospitality that they had no leasure to eate their meat and therefore desired to eate the meare that was prouided for the stranger Or if with Chrysost. we should vnderstand their desire to be of eating of Iobs flesh yet it perreineth not to transubstantiation seing we may eate the flesh of Christ without eating of the Sacrament The seuenth conference is of prophecies taken out of Dauid and Salomon whereas neither of both speaketh of the Sacrament Dauid saith Psa. 22. Thou hast prepared a table in my sight against them who afflict me By which wordes he sheweth how bountifully God had bestowed his benifâ—â—â— vpon him both in this life and also with assurance of the 〈◊〉 to come without any special regard vnto the supper of Christ or any Sacrament that was of the same signification vnto him The saying of Salomon Pro. 9. I haue an swered in the beginning of this work where it was placed by Sander The 8. conference is another Prophecie of Dauid where he saith all that be fat vpon earth haue eaten adored Sander saith they haue adored that which they do eat but Dauid saith not so Ps. 21. but that they shal worship God the author of their food as it followeth immediatly They shall all fall down c. And whereas Sander quoteth Aug. in Ps. 98. to iustifie the adoratioÌ„ of the blessed Sacrament of the altar the footstoole wherin the fulnes of the godhead corporally dwelleth you shall vnderstaÌ„d that Augustine vtterly denieth the Lords supper to be that bodie that was crucified but a Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken vs. The last conference is of many prophecies figures ioyned together as he saith for breuities sake The first is of Noe being naked after he was drunk laughed to scorne of his sonne So saith Sander was Christ after he had drunke his owne bloud in his supper which he planted for him selfe in the virgins wombe hanged naked laughed to scorne not only of the Iewes but also of the Sacramentaries for so grosse a deede that he drank his owne bloud vnder the form of wine What shal I say to this monstrous blasphemie wherein he compareth that filthie drunkennes shameles nakednes of Noe to the holy mysterie and passion of Christ After this he ioyneth the cakes that Abraham set before the Angels as figures of that mystical cake which was to come in Christs supper but whereof then were the butter milk calues flesh figures O madnesse more then folly for now wheresoeuer bread corn wine vines fruits of the earth were named all were figures of the sacrament wherin yet he saith is neither bread nor wine nor substance of any earthly fruit Isaac blessed Iacob which corne wine saying to Esau what caÌ„ I do more to theeâ— Iacob prophecied of the fat bread of Aser that should giue deinties to the faithful kings of that church God promiseth as the highest reward for keping of his coÌ„mandement to blesse the loaues of his people to giue abundance of bread wine If it be lawfull for Sander on this sort to play with the holy scriptures he may proue what he list And more probably might we proue the substaÌ„ce of bread wine to remaine in the SacrameÌ„t of which the scripture speaketh so often with so great coÌ„mendation if we should reason after his maner As for the meat of the sacrifice the she we bread the priests Ioaues they were in deede figures ofy e spiritual feeding that both they we had haue of yâ— flesh of Christ. But the curse of Elies house that his posterity should come beg a morsel of bread at the successors of Sadoc it is a grosse prophanatioÌ„ of Gods word to apply it to a submission of the Priests of the Church to obteine the Sacrament And the dissembling of Dauid before Achis which came of infidelity is blasphemous to apply to our Sauiour Christe and especially with such termes as Sander vseth At his last supper he driuelâ—d like a child to their seeming that be wise in the world he changed his countenance and caried himselfe after a sort in his owne handes when holding and giuing to be eaten that whith seemed bread he doubted not to say this is my body c. For Christ carying him selfe after a sort in his owne handes Augustine is cited in Ps. 33. who being deluded with that fond translation ferebatur in manibus suis which is neither according to the Hebrue text 1. Sam. 21. which saith he plaied the mad man in their handes nor according to the vulgar Latine which saith collabebatur inter manus eorum he fell downe among their handes troubleth himself to find how Dauid as a figure of Christ should
eating and drinking are more proper for breade and wine then for the bodie and bloude of Christ of which they cannot be saide but figuratiuely especiallie seeing you hold that the bloud of Christ in the cuppe is not really separated from his bodie howe can you properly say that the bloude of Christ is drunke when onely the bodie with the bloude in it is swallowed downe the throate Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament breade at the least sixe times after consecration As for the often repetition of flesh and bloude in the 6. of saint Iohn pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper But let vs see master Sanders autorities for this argument of repetition First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostome saith Hoc dixit This he saide confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically Yea sir but Euthymius saith otherwise if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole Caro mea verè est cibus Verus est cibus siue aptissimus vtpote animam quâ— propriissima hominis pars est nutriens Et similiter de sanguine Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod noÌ„ aenigmaticè neque parabolicè loqueretur My flesh is meate in deede it is true meate or most apt meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the most proper part of man And likewise of the bloud Or else he saide this confirming that hee spake not obscurely or in parable Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Aut quod is est verus cibus qui saluat animam aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur What meaneth this my flesh is meate in deede and my bloude is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meat that saueth the soule or else that hee might confirme them in that was saide before lest they shoulde thinke that hee had spoken darkely in parables By both these places which are disiunctiue sentences it is plaine that the flesh and bloude of Christ is meate to feede the soule which must needes be spiritually because the soule cannot eate carnally and then you see howe plaine and without parable the speach of Christ is to be taken Next these are cited Oecumenius in 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait corporis sanguinis domini manifestat quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur sed ipse dominus factor omnium vt videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat By this that he often saith of the bodie and bloud of our Lord he sheweth that he which is offered is not a bare man but the Lord himselfe and maker of all thinges to the ende verilie that he might put them in a terrour by these thinges This writer affirmeth nothing but that the breade and cuppe is not the sacrameÌ„t of a bare man but of him that is both God and man therefore not the bare substance of breade saith Sander I confesse but a Sacrament of the flesh and bloude of the sonne God Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simulque horribilius c. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently and more fearefully the condemnation by repetition What is this to the reall presence But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith Neque enim c. For it is not said in one place or shortlie so that it may be drawen or peruerted into another meaning by the ouerthwarting of neuer so subtil a Sophist But what I pray you that meÌ„ ought to work with their hands Doth not this make much for the reall presence confirmed by oft repeating of the names of bodie and bloud when bread and cuppe c. be as often repeated But to conclude Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense saieth Sander Non obdurescamus c. By Master Sanders leaue I will repeate the wordes of Cyrillus a little more at large that wee may see in what sense he writeth Quapropter saluator varia oratione moâ—â— aenigmaticè atque obscurè modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem Iudaeis proposuit â—vt excusari nequeant si resilierint sed mali malè perdentur tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes Iterum igitur planè clamat Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi Illa figura imago vmbráque solùm fuit Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum Ego sum panis viuus si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternum Non obdurese vâ—â—â— igitur toties veritatem a Christo audientes Non est enin ambigendum quin summa supplicia subiucri sint qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt Wherefore our sauiour by diuerse kinds of speach sometimes enigmatically and obscurely sometimes cleerely and plainely hath set forth the same thing vnto the Iewes so that they cannot bee excused if they start backe but being euill men might be destroyed euilly as they that with their owne hande thrust a sworde into their owne soule Therefore he cryeth out againe plainely I am the breade which came downe from heauen That was a figure image and shadowe onely Heare you this which is clearely spoken I am the liuing breade if any man shall eate of this breade hee shall liue for euer Therefore let vs not harden our selues hearing the trueth so ofte of Christ. For it is not to be doubted but they shall suffer most extreme paines who receiue not these things so often repeated of Christ. Out of this place first I note that sometimes Christ spake in this Chapiter obscurely and figuratiuely contrarie to that which Sander before woulde seeme to affirme out of Euthymius and Chrysostome Secondly that Cyrillus speaketh not of the wordes whose repetition Sander vrgeth but of the matter of our spirituall feeding by Christ onely often repeated in the sixte of Iohn Thirdely that Cyrillus vnderstandeth the matter of this Chapiter to bee all one contrarie to that which Sander before hath stoutly defended that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament vntill hee come to that saying And the breade which I will giue is my flesh Fourthly that Cyrill affirmeth Christ to haue beene the breade of life which was receiued of the godly Fathers vnder the figure of Manna And last of all that the wordes following And the breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde Cyrill vnderstandeth of the death of Christ and not of the sacrament for which Sander straue so much in the thirde Booke The saying of Cyrillus vpon the wordes of Christ And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe c. is in the 12. Chapiter of the same Booke Morior inquit pro omnibus vt per me ipsum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur enim mors morte mea simul mecum natura hominum resurget I dye
of Christes passion Sander The speach is figuratiue not in the substance to be eaten but in the manner of eating therfore when Christ had consecrated bread into his bodie that speache was not figuratiue because the maner of eating was determined vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulk Saint Augustine hath stopped that starting hole expounding the meaning of that figuratiue speach not of eating Christ vnder the forme of bread but of communicating with the passion of Christ which is represented by the Sacrament and is perfourmed without the Sacrament So you faile both in your substance and manner of eating Sander Of the whole saying of Augustine I haue entreated more fully lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulke And I haue answered more fully Iewel Tertullian saith The Capernaits thought his speach was harde and intollerable as though he had determined to giue them his flesh verily and in deede to be eaten with their mouthes therein saith Tertullian stoode their error Sander The worde ve 〈…〉 doeth not shewe that they tooke it to be eaten in substance but that they thought they should eate it carnally they thought not of eating vnder the forme of bread Fulke Not onely the worde verè must needes shewe they thought the substance of his fleshe shoulde be eaten verily but also the argument of Tertullian doeth plainly proue it For he answereth the obiection of them that denyed the resurrection of the fleshe because of the Angelike perfection whereunto the children of the resurrection shal be changed shewing that the perfection shall not bee through vertue of the fleshe but through the incorruption which the flesh shall put on Vsing a similitude of the flesh of Christ which of it self doeth profite nothing but by vertue of the spirit which maketh it able to giue life Wherefore the error of the Capernaits was in that they imagined the substance of Christes flesh should be eaten bodily which Tertullian affirmed should be eaten spiritually and by faith of his worde onely As for the authoritie of Lyra which followeth is not worth the contention CAP. VI. Sander Master Iewell hath not conferred the supper with the sixt of S. Iohn as it ought to be Iewell Christ in S. Iohn speaking of spirituall eating faith made no mention of any figure But in his supper he added an outward Sacrament to the same spirituall eating which the fathers oft call a figure Sander If spirituall eating by faith be only spoken of why saith he dabo I will giue when spirituall eating was alreadie giuen Fulke Because he would continue his giuing as he had done before and accomplish his passion by which his flesh was made meate Sander The perfourmance doeth expound the promise especially when he saith this is c. Fulke Here is no newe promise but a continuance of the olde of spirituall eating by faith Sander The fathers who call Christs supper a figure must needes meane such a figure as was promised Fulke There was no figure promised in the sixth of Iohn therfore they meane another thing then was there promised or spoken of Iewell Master Harding putteth no difference betweene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Origen in Cantic Sander Origen doth speak of them who reading that book would perhaps apply the names of loue there vsed carnally Fulke Prolog in Cantic he speaketh of diuers meate of the inward man and of the outwarde man The meat of the outward man is agreable to his nature bodily and earthly The meat of the inward man is the bread which came downe from heauen c. Sander You haue set forth the booke of canticles in the vulgar tongue contrary to Origens iudgemēt to be reade of euery wanton boy or girle Fulke As though that booke was not in the vulgar tongue in his time when it was in the Greeke tongue Beside that he saith the litle ones can take no great hurt if they reade it although it bee meate for perfect men Iewell The bread is a figure Sander Before consecration S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure but not after the wordes are said ouer it Fulke He confesseth it to be bread before and to be called the bodye of Christ after consecration and that the body of Christ is signified thereby De myst Cap. 9. Yea he calleth it a figure of the body bloud of Christ De Sacram lib. 4 Cap. 5. For it can be no figure of Christ before consecration Touching Damascen and Rabanus Maurus I will not striue because they are both later wnters then 600. yeres although the later be cleare against this peece of Popery the other not clearly for it Iewell The Sacrament saith Augustine is receiued from the Lords table Of some vnto life of some vnto destruction The thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament that is the body of Christ is receiued of euery man to life of no man vnto destructiō whosoeuer be partakers of it Sander Here is a heape of falshood and lies Fulke Here is an impudent cauillation Sander The thing of the Sacrament is not the body of Christ sitting in heauen but the company of Saints and the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ not his natural bodie but his mysticall bodie the church Therfore he saith not simply The Sacrament but the Sacrament of this thing that is to say of the body and bloud of Christ which fiue words M. Iewel hath left out Fulke These fiue words help you as much as fiue egges whereof foure be rotten For Augustine by them vnderstandeth the flesh bloud which Christ promised to giue which if it be not the same bodie which sitteth in heauen that bodie which sitteth in heauen is not giuen by his iudgement in the Sacrament For thus he writeth vpon these words of Christ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therefore he hath not this life which eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall they cannot haue at all Therefore he that eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath not life in himselfe and he that eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud hath life eternall And that he saith euerlasting life answereth to both it is not so in this meate which we take for sustentation of the life of this bodie for he which taketh it not shall not liue and yet he shall not liue which shall take it For it may be that by olde age or sickenesse or some chance many which shal take it may die but in-this meat drink that is in the bodie and bloud of our Lorde it is not so for both he which taketh it not hath not life he which taketh it hath life that verily eternal Therefore he will haue this meat drink vnderstood to be the fellowship of his body his members which is the holy church in his saints and faithful ones predestinated called iustified glorified Wherof
Sander S. Augustine spake these wordes to the faithlesse Iewes of Capernaum and not to Catholikes Fulke If Iewes become faithfull what differ they from Catholikes why should they haue another maner of eating Christ then other Catholikes Sander S. Augustine confesseth vs to receiue Christ by mouth also Hominem Iesum Christum c. We doe receiue with a faithfull heart and mouth the man Iesus Christ giuing his flesh vnto vs to be eaten and his bloud to be drunke although it may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kil it and to drinke mans bloud then to shedde it Therefore his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body as Master Iewel most impudently saith Fulk He remoueth not the natural office of the body from eating the Sacrament but from eating the natural body of Christ. And most horrible is the impudence of Master Sander which dissembleth that S. Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh of figuratiue sayings contra aduers. leg proph lib. 2. Cap. 9. Immediatly before the words by him rehearsed comparing our eating of Christes fleshe with Christ beeing one flesh with his Church and immediatly after the wordes aforesaied concluding that figuratiue sayinges must not bee contemned Sicut duos c. Euen as wee doe knowe Christ and his Church to be two in one flesh without any obscenity against the will of these men Euen as we receiue with faithfull hart and mouth the mediator of God and man the man Iesus Christ c. Atque in omnibus And in all the holy scriptures if any thing which is spoken or done figuratiuely bee expounded according to the rule of sound faith of any matters or wordes which are conteined in the holy scriptures let not that exposition bee taken contemptuously Sander Said he not for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy ghost that our Lordes body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates and yet is the office of the body remoued and that vtterly remoued Fulke Said he not before it was a figuratiue speach to eate the flesh of Christ and to drinke his bloud and is it then a great merueile if the Sacrament be called by the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the bodye of Christ should be preferred before other things but whether the SacrameÌ„t shuld be receiued fasting or after meat The rest of your chat concerning the councell of 8. Cardinals compared with the conference Wittenberg I passe ouer as conteining no argument touching the matters in question CAP. XVI Sander Whether Christes body dwell really in our 〈◊〉 by his na 〈…〉 itie Iewell Foure speciall meanes there be by euery of which Christes body dwelleth in our bodies not by imagination but really substantially naturally fleshly and in deede Sander You had ben better to haue subscribed foure times than to haue made an assertion so vaine as this Fulke The assertion is of the phrase or manner o speaking against which you cauilâ— most vainely Iewell Christes body by his natiuity whereby hee embraceth vs dwelleth in our bodies really substantially c. Sander If you had said by his incarnation he dwelleth naturaly in vs or we in him that saying might haue a true sense but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies not onely naturally but also really c. it seemeth to me very hard Fulke His natiuity importeth his incarnation And what meane you by naturally but in the trueth and real substance of his body after a naturall manner Sander Christ tooke not the common general substance of all mankind but onely the whole particular nature of man Fulke Sander fighteth against his owne shadowe for heere is no man that saith against him and so through the whole Chapiter Wheras Master Iewel defendeth the phrase of speaking Christes body dwelleth really c. in our bodies which in som sense is true Sander answereth it is not true in euery sense And he dwelleth not onely by his birth wheras Master Iewel affirmeth three other waies by which Christ may be said so to dwell in vs. Sander One thing I must put you in mind of You defend that Christes naturall body may not be in many places at once but you say now that his body by his natiuity dwelleth really c. in our bodies which dwel in mani places therfore you are against your own doctrin Fulke So long as there be no greater contrarietie in Master Iewels doctrine it is safe inough This is miserable sophistry more worthy to be hissed at among boys â—hen to be answered of learned men I thinke there is no cobler in Cambridge or Oxforde but he could winde himselfe out of this fallacia To dwell in all men by participation of common nature is one thing and one whole bodie to be whole in tenne thousand places is another thing CAP. XVII Sander Whether Christes bodie dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. Fulke The question should be whether this manner of speach in some sense may not be iustified Sander Master Iewels phrase defendeth Ioan of Kents heresie Fulke If he had saide the virgine Mary conceiued Christ by faith in her heart more happily then carnally in her wombe In affirming the one he had not denied the other and yet he had said nothing but the trueth Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith before his incarnation Did they not eate and drinke the bodie bloud of Christ by faith before his bodie was conceiued in the virgins wombe If these sayings be true the other phrase according to this sense may be defended CAP. XVIII Sander The contradiction of M. Iewel concerning Christ really dwelling in vs by faith and not really dwelling in vs by faith Fulke If the worde really may be taken in diuerse senses what contradiction is there when he saith Christ dwelleth in vs really by faith the word really is made opposite to imaginatiuely figuredly or phantastically and signifieth Christ in deede is communicated vnto vs by the effectes of his incarnation death passion resurrection c. Where he saith Christ is not really and fleshly placed in our hearts by faith the word really is opposite to faith which is a substance of things to be hoped foâ— which are not actually present signifieth that the naturall substance of Christs flesh lyeth not locally in the substance of our heartes According to these two significations what contradiction is there but that you are disposed to cauil CAP. XIX Sander Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme or no. Fulke This saying may be iustified in the affirmatiue as wel as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of his supper The diuerse vnderstanding of the word really maketh al the controuersie in this matter M. Iewel taketh it in one sense M. Sander in another Not ignorantly mistaking but wilfully maliciously
of Christ. Iewel Emissenus saieth Christ is present by his grace Sand. You haue put a false nominatiue case it is victima the oblation which is present in grace Fulke And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice but Christ for the action you confesse to be vtterly past Iewel Saint Augustine saith Christ is present in vs by his spirit Sand. That is true when he is in vs by his flesh Fulk It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present to vs after a wonderfull manner Iewel You shall not eate this bodie that you see it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you Sand. The wordes of S. Augustine are I haue commended or set forth Fulke To commend or set forth is to deliuer in doctrine Sand. That which was commended at Capernaum was onely the same flesh which dyed for vs therefore that flesh must be deliuered not in a visible manner but yet in truth of giuing by bodie taking by bodie Fulke That giuing and taking by bodie Saint Au gustine denieth in the person of Christ ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see nor drinke that bloude which shal be shedde It is a sacrament or mysterie which I haue commended vnto you which being sp 〈…〉 itually vnderstoode shall quicken you Sand. In deede M. Iewel Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum as at his supper by your doctrine But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel Fulke The Gospel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man and doe drinke his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue not nowe life in you Christ speaketh in the present temps But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that they might haue life except he did then deliuer his flesh as well as at his supper For many of theÌ„ might die before the institution of his supper Againe he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he which doth eate my flesh which doth drinke my bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath nowe life euerlasting and I wil raise him vp in the last day For my fleshe is verily meate my bloude is verily drinke Howe was it verily meate and drinke when he spake if no man might eate and drinke it before his supper Againe He which doth eate my fleshe and which doth drinke my bloude doeth abide in mee and I in him How can this be verified in the present temps so ofteÌ„ repeted except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten dronken before his supper but onely promised them at Capernaum Iew. Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present not corporally Sand. Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie haue the worde corporally concerning the sacrament Fulk But neither of both saith that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally I 〈…〉 Not carnally S 〈…〉 S. Hilarie hath the word carnally Fulk You play mockeholiday S. Hilarie saith not That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally Iew. No 〈…〉 rally Sand. S. â—â—larie hath the tearme naturally diuerse times and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking and naturall vnion Fulk Neither the one nor the other euer saide that Christ is in the sacrament naturally Touching the naturall participation and vnion it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present naturally in the sacrament Iew. But as in a sacrament by his spirit by his grace Sand. Here appeareth what stuffe you haue fedde the reader withall in your whole booke For partly you denie a trueth which is that Christ is not corporally present against the expresse worde of God and the fathers as I haue shewed Fulk And yet neither the expresse word of God nor any of the fathers haue this sentence Christ is corporally present in the sacrament or any thing equiualent to it Sand. Partly you prooue that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace then if he be present in his flesh Fulk The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace excludeth your heresie of presence corporally and he is better present by spirit and grace whereby he tarieth in vs for euer then by your imagined presence of his body in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie Your conclusion being for the most part but a repetition of such cauils slanders and railings as you haue vsed throughout the booke deserueth no seuerall answere partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie and partly because both they and the rest conteine nothing but generall accusations without any speciall argument to proue them As for that you make bost that you haue pr 〈…〉 euerie one of your bookes whether I haue a 〈…〉 ough briefly yet sufficiently confuted or no I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers GOD BE PRAISED Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuke Bristowe â—Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe F 〈…〉 Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe â—ulkâ— Bristowe Fulkâ— Bristowe â—â—lke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fuâ—ke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristo Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowâ— Fulke Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulk 〈…〉 Ambros. de Sacralib 1. cap. 1. Bristowe Fulke Bristowe Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander â—ulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Ser. 6. de Ieiâ— 7. mens Sander Fulke Esay 9. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Ful 〈…〉 Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sand. Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Cont. duaâ— epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander 〈◊〉 Sander Fâ—lke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulk Sanden Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Sander Fulk Sande Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke 3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19. Sander Fulke Sander Fulke 〈…〉 der Fulke Sander Fulke â—ander â—ulk Sander Fulke Sandeâ— Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulke Sander Fulk Sander Fulke
not onely minister the communion to in 〈…〉 ntes contrary to the doctrin of the Apostle Let a man â—xamine himselfe c but also that they thought it ne 〈…〉 ssarie for them in paine of damnation to receiue the â—ommunion which error I supposed the papistes them â—â—lues woulde not defend Heere first Bristowe accuâ—eth my boldnesse in that I affirme the Papistes will not â—efende this error and secondly my wilfull ignorance â—hat I neuer redde the councell of Trent wherein it is â—eclared that they doe defend it with an admonition to his couÌ„trie men what blind guids they haue of me and such as I am c. Concerning the boldenesse I desire â—ardon of the Papistes if I thought not so euell of theÌ„â—s they deserue And touching my wilfull ignorance â—nd blindnesse I must needes vse the prouerbe Who â—s so bolde as blinde Bayarde Bristowe which so conâ—tantly affirmeth that it was not possible for him to â—nowe Fulke neuer redde the councell of Trent and that iâ—â—tterly false for as I knowe I haue redde it so suppose 〈◊〉 haue redd it before Bristowe But admitte I had neâ—er seene the report of that 5. session vnder Pius the 4. which was helde the 16. day of Iuly 1562 are all blinde guides that neuer sawe that session O waightie censure of a proude papist whiche by a fault called of the Greekes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinketh that to bee the highest point of learning which he hath learned latest But what if the councell of Trent doe not onely acknowledge it to bee an error but also doe anathematise all them that holde the contrarie Then haue I not slaundered the Papistes but Bristowe hath slaundered mee The verie wordes cited by Bristowe out of the 4. Cap. shewe that the Papistes helde it for an error that it is necessarie for infantes to receiue the communion That infantes lacking the vse of reason are by no necessitie bound to the sacramentall receiuing of the Eucharist Also the fourth Canon of the same session thundereth out anathema against them that say otherwise Si quis dixerit parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem Anathema sit If any man shall say that the communion of the Eucharist is necessarie for infants before they come to the yeares of discretion let him be accursed But the same councel in the Chapter by Bristow cited affirmeth that Antiquitie is not to be condemned if it practised that maner sometime in some places and that without controuersie it must be beleeued that they did it not for anie necessitie of saluation And this declaration saith Bristow may suffice not onely all Catholikes to whoÌ„ it is the declaration of the holy Ghost himself but also any other reasonable man Indeede if any resonable man wil be satisfied with such a grosse ledging of the whole matter in controuersie it is a good satisfaction The councel of Trent saith so therefore although Augustine Pope Innocentius other witnesses of antiquitie say the coÌ„trary of themselues yet we must not beleue them That Kemnitius a Lutheran toucheth not this error of the couÌ„cell of Trent it is a great argument such as Bristowe often vseth that it is no error Kemnitius if he had beene as quicke eyed as Bernard yet saw not all things neither was he bound to confute all errors that he sawe But for further satisfaction of all men Bristow will open the case particularly which is this in effect The Pelagians affirmed that children without baptisme should haue euerlasting life although not in the kingdome of God Wherevnto the Catholikes replied they could not haue eternall life except they did eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud in the coÌ„munion but the communion they could not receiue before they were baptised therefore without baptisme they could not haue eternal life Now Bristowe putting the case that a childe were baptised and then immediately dyed before he receyued sacramentally the Eucharist demandeth whether the father granting to such a childe by force of baptisme remission of sinnes do not also allowe him eternall life and the kingdome of God And let any man saith he bring me one place of those Doctors speaking to this case holding the contrarie I aunswere seeing they vsed immediately after â—aptisme to communicat the infant the case that Bristow â—utteth is too rare to happen in 500 yeres that any queâ—â—ion might grow vpon it But what their opinion was â—f the necessitie of the one sacrament as much as the oâ—her it is easie to proue both by their argument which Bristow confesseth they vsed also by their own words whatsoeuer the blind guides of the Tridentine councel â—ay in their defence They brought in the Eucharist saith Bristow onely to proue that baptisme is necessary to the euerlasting life of children Verie well but what force â—n the worlde hath that argument of the Euchariste for the necessitie of baptisme if the Eucharist also bee not necessarie for children For the Pelagians might reply that if the Euchariste be not necessarie no more is baptisme for the atteyning of eternal life But those fathers labored to prooue the necessitie of baptisme for infants by the necessitie of the Euchariste for infantes And this appeareth by many places of S. Augustine As cont Iul. â—ib 1. cap. 2. Where he speaketh of Innocentius Bishosh of Rome Qui parvulos c. which hath defined that infantes except they eate the flesh of the son of man can haue no life at all in theÌ„ And there he meaneth of eating sacrameÌ„tally as his owne words cited by Augustine declare Cont. duas Epist. Pelag lib. 2. cap. 4. speaking of the rescript of Innocentius to the Bishops of Numidia Nónne apertissimè de parvulis loquitur Haec enim ejus verba sunt c. Doth he not most manifestly speake of infantes For these are his owne wordes Illud verò quòd eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare c. But concerning that your brotherhood affirmeth them to preach that infants may be rewarded with the rewards of eternal life euen without the grace of baptisme it is a verie foolish thing For excepte they shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud they shall haue no life in themselues But they which defend theÌ„ to haue this life without regeneratioÌ„ seeme to me that they would make frustrate baptisme it selfe when they preach them to haue that which we beleue is not to be conferred vpon them but by baptisme c. And within fewe lines after Augustine saith Ecce beatae memoriae c. Beholde Pope Innocentius of blessed memorie saith that infantes haue not life without the baptisme of Christ and without participation of the body and bloud of Christ. Agayne lib. 1. Cap. 2. hee speaketh against the Pelagians which granted that baptisme was necessarie for infantes to attaine to the kingdome of heauen but not for remission of sinnes Nec illud cogitatis c.
Neither doe you consider this that they cannot haue life which are expertes without part of the body and bloude of Christ seeing hee sayth himselfe Except you shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude you shall haue no life in you Agayne Contra Pelagianos Hypognost lib. 5. Si enim intelligeretis crederetis quare dixerit Dominus Non opus est san◠medicus c. If you did vnderstande you woulde beleeue wherefore our Lorde saide The whole neede not the Phisition but they that are sicke you would beleeue truely that they are not whole but wounded which are offered to be healed to our sauiour the Phisition at the station of Baptisme and that they shoulde not haue life except they eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of him which is life For he him selfe hath said Except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal not haue eternall life in you and hee which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life Howe therefore doe you promise the life of the kingdome of heauen to infantes not borne againe of water and the holy Ghost Non cibatis carne atque non potatis not fedd with the flesh of Christ and which haue not dronke the bloud of Christ which is shedde for the remission of sinnes For it is his decree If any man bee not borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen For to enter into the kingdome of heauen is none other thing but to liue in a blessed life which remayneth for euer and euer Beholde hee which is not baptised and he also which is depriued of the vital meate and cup is diuided from the kingdome of heauen c. To the like effecte hee writeth Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bon. lib. 4. cap. 4. Si omnibus c. If reconciliation by Christ be necessarie for all men sinne hath passed oouer all men by which wee were enimies that we haue neede of reconciliation This reconciliation is in the lauer of regeneration and in the body and bloude of Christ without the which no not infantes can haue life in themselues Also Contra Iulian lib. 3. cap. 11. deriding his pietie that infantes shoulde be damned for not doing that which they coulde not doe he addeth Vbi etiam ponis c. where also wilt thou place them because they shall lacke life seeing they haue not eaten the flesh of the Sonne of mā nor drunke his bloude Also de peccatorū meritis remissione lib. 1. cap. 20. a place cited by Bristowe but mingled with many intersections of his owne as his maner is After Augustine hath rehearsed the text Ioan. 6. Except ye eate c hee addeth Quid vltrà querimus c. What seeke wee further What can they aunswere to this except stubbornes doe stretch their striuing sinowes against the constancie of the manifest trueth Or dare any man say this also that this sentence pertayneth not to infantes and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them c Likewise cap. 24. he saith Optimè Punici c. Best of all the Christians of Africa do call baptisme it selfe nothing else but health and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else but life Whence but of an auncient as I thinke and apostolike tradition by which they holde it ingrafted vnto the Church of Christ that without baptisme and participation of the Lordes table no man at all can come not onely not to the kingdome of God but neither to health life euerlasting For this also the scripture testifieth according to those thinges which wee haue sayde before For what other thing doe they holde which call baptisme by the name of health but that which is sayde hee hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and that which Peter saith so also doeth baptisme in like manner saue you What other thing also doe they holde which call the sacrament of our Lordes table life but that which is saide I am the breade of life which came downe from heauen and the breade which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the worlde And except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you If therefore as so many and so greate testimonies of GOD doe consent that neither health nor life eternall without baptisme and the body and bloud of our Lord is to be hoped to any body in vaine without these is it promised to Infantes Furthermore if from health and life eternall nothing but sinnes do separate by these sacramentes nothing but the guilt of sinne is loosed in infantes These places of Augustine I haue rehearsed the more at large that the impudencie of the councell of Trent and of their poore patrone Bristowe might appeare whiche would excuse the errour of the auncient Churche and of the Bishoppe of Rome in those times in saying that albeit they vsed to minister the communion to infantes yet they did it not for any necessitie to saluation whereas the contrary by so many places and more then I haue rehearsed doth most manifestly appeare As for the practise whiche he confesseth of giuing that sacrament to infantes he saith is not against Probet seipsum c. Let a man examine himselfe c. Because that infantes may examine them selues by others whiche is a monstrous kinde of speache as well as beleeue and repent by others Here is one errour of Augustine defended by an other of his for infantes are not baptized for the faith of other men but because they are comprehended within the covenant of GOD to whome baptisme is no more to be denied then circumcision was to the infantes of the Iewes The Prophet sayeth Iustus c. The righteous man shall liue by his owne faith It is not the faith of other men that can procure life vnto vs. Neither is faith required of infantes before they can heare the worde of God which is the onely ordinary meanes by whiche faith commeth But infantes sayeth Bristowe bee in no mortall sinnes being newely baptized and therefore they neede no examination for feare least they should come vnworthily Saint Augustine confesseth that hee was in mortall sinne euen in his infancie Imbecillitas membrorum infantium innocens est non animus infantium The weakenesse of the members of infantes is innocent not the minde of infantes Afterwarde hee bringeth examples of enuie euen in an infant and at last concludeth Quod si c. And if it be so that I was conceyued in iniquitie and that in sinnes my mother in her wombe nourished me where I beseech thee my GOD when LORDE was I thy seruant where or when was I innocent By this you see there is no shorte time of mans life free from sinne Neither may you cavill that Augustine was not baptised in his infancie seeing he speaketh generally
the holie Ghost or else he acknowledgeth him present vnder the formes of breade and wine without distinction of persons and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case seeing he wil admit no figure but a most proper speach in these wordes This is my bodie Whereas it is euident to all men that are not obstinately blinde that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is and would haue declared the same in proper speach he would not haue saide This is my bodie and this is my bloud which is but a part of him and the lowest part of him but he would haue saide take eate this is Iesus Christ or this is al that I am But when he saith this is my body this is my bloud which if it be not a figuratiue speach should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud he sheweth manifestly that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud but an heauenly and diuine mysterie teaching vs and assuring vs that God the sonne being ioined with vs in the nature of his humanitie which he hath taken vnto him by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vs on the crosse doth wonderfully feede vs and nourish vs as it were with meate and drinke vnto eternall saluation both of body and soule If any man think that I referre the words of Sander to the Sacrament which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally let him reade the whole Epistle and comparing it with the title of salutation which I haue set downe in his owne wordes consider whether Sander professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ after any other sorte then vnder the formes of breade and wine Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication tending to so grosse heresie were a declaration of his proude stomake nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onely Sauiour and Redeemer whome we adore and worship as our King and God not vnder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine but aboue all principalities and powers sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen to whom with thee and the holie Ghost we giue al honor praise for euer vouchsafe if it be thy holy wil to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie vnto the true vnderstanding of thy blessed word or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit so require shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion that we thy humble seruantes beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes may laude and magnifie thy holy name as well in the saluation of thine elect as in the destruction of thine enemies to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer Amen The preface to the Christian reader THe proposition of this painted preface is that the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde which Sander assumeth to be the vse custome and practise of the Catholike Church This assumption is false although if it were true it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times for any error which they maintaine against vs. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures is of the holy Ghost whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde but in the scriptures them selues wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God is of greater auctority then the practise of men The scriptures inspired of God are able to make vs wise vnto saluation they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people must be examined by the scriptures and not the scriptures expounded after it Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith Rom. 12. But faith is builded vpon the worde of God and not vpon the custome of men therefore exposition of the scriptures must be according to the word of God and not after the vsage of men The example which Sander vseth to confirme his false assumption is of baptising of infants of Christians before they be taught which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations To this I aunswere that the vse and consent of all nations were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places As is manifest in the institution of circumcision According to the couenant whereof the Apostle saith that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy therefore to be admitted to baptisme 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant according to which scriptures they are baptized the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused and not onely vpon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin as Sander affirmeth which custome is good because it is grounded vpon the Scriptures but the scripture is not authorized by that custome Wherefore popish confirmation and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament although he falsely affirmeth that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures but are proued contrarie to the same But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ to be against transubstantiation and adoration Sander replyeth that things vncertein must be iudged by things certeine and not contrariwise This principle is true but it is false that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine as also that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth be either all certeinties or certeinly on his side The first is the wordes of the scripture This is my body about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation The breade which we breake c. so often as ye eate of this bread c. The second is false that in the Catholike church all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnder the formes of bread c. for it is the practise onely of the Popish Church and that but of late yeres neuer admitted by the Orientall churches beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West that euer did abhorre it Thirdly the Councell of Laterane
meate which abideth vnto eternall life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but once set downe which must be referred as wel to the meat which perisheth as to the meate which taryeth but being applyed to the meate which perisheth it cannot be turned Worke not the meare which perisheth as stuffe that is present but Labor not or seeke not for it as you doe which is absent therefore it must be so turned as it may serue for both And where as Sander saith that this meat is not laboured for because it is not sought out by our diligence but giuen by Christ it is a fonder reason except you wil say that we must not labor for any good thinges because all good thinges are the giftes of God Finally that you may see what a singular quarrelling vaine glorious person he is to seeke a knot in a rush you shal vnderstande that the papistes themselues translate this place euen as the great bible doeth namely Heskins as well learned a Papist as Sander lib. 2. Cap. 2. of his popishe Parliament The second text which he pretendeth to be falsified is ver 57. of the same chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me ipse viuet propter me The true English is He that eateth me he shal also liue for me The english bible readeth he that eateth me shall liue by the meanes of me The best colour of his cauil is that propter patrem is translated in the same ver For the father Howbeit seing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or propter signifieth the efficient cause there is no fraude in turning it By the meanes of me which is the same that is meant by For me and as I thinke was so turned by the translators to shewe that For the father includeth not the finall cause as it might seeme but the eternall efficient cause of life As for the cauillation that a man may liue by meanes of him which is absent is altogether childish and ridiculous for who can vnderstande him to be absent which is eaten The controuersie is not of the presence but of the maner of the presence But howe can the Papists digest this saying of Christ He that eateth me shall liue by me or for me when they affirme that wicked men eate him which liue not by him for this is generally true of all that eate him and not to be restrayned to them that eate him worthily For the Sacrament in deede may be eaten vnworthily but Christ himselfe is not eaten but where he giueth life The 3. corruption obserued by Sander is vers 58. of Iohn 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum The true English were He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer The Bible doth english it He that eateth of this bread The adding of this word Of may be the Printers fault for many translations reade without Of. But seeing Sander confesseth it is a true saying he that eateth of this breade vsed by Christ before verse 51. heere can bee no corruption or falsification prooued As for the distinction which Sander maketh betweene eating Christ and eating of Christ eating his flesh and eating of his flesh is friuolus and vaine for none eate of him but they which eate him Yes saith he Of him we may eate without the Sacrament but him selfe wee properly eate onely vnder the forme of breade Howe vntrue this is you may see by this argument None can haue eternall life except they eate Christ and the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloode But manie haue eternall life which eate not the Sacrament Therefore manie eate Christ and the fleshe of Christ which eate not the Sacrament Ioan. 6. ver 53. 57. The 4. falsification is in S. Matth. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm accepisset Iesus panem gratias egisset fregit dedit discipulis ait The true English is Iesus hauing taken breade and giuen thankes or blessed brake and gaue to the disciples and saide The common Bible readeth Iesus tooke breade and when he had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue i◠to the disciples The holy scripture saieth not that Iesus brake it neither that hee gaue it but that hee brake and gaue Againe in saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul fiue times putting the particle it which is neither in the Greeke nor in the Latine Bible Who woulde thinke that an auncient man would play the boye so kindly What say you Sander is not the particle it added neither in Greeke nor Latine When the accusatiue case is once set downe and then followe transitiue verbes is it the phrase of the Greeke or Latine tongue to adde the particle it You say he brake and gaue but not brake it nor gaue it Will you teach vs a newe Grammer that fregit and dedit be verbes newters absolute Or if you wil say they bee verbes actiue transitiues lest the wilde Irish boyes that goe to the Grammer schoole should hisse at you as you goe about your popish and trayterous commission I would wish some young Redshanke ladde to oppose you and aske you what hee brake and what hee gaue If hee brake not and gaue not it which hee tooke If you say hee brake his bodie and not the breade because you say he so gaue his bodie that hee gaue no breade aduise your selfe howe you will aunswere the breaking of Christes body which was but once broken for vs on the crosse but yet not broken into seuerall peeces as that thing whatsoeuer you will call it was broken which hee gaue to his disciples And this vndoubtedly you meane when you say The wordes of saint Matthew doe not all stande in order in so much as Christ said the wordes of consecration before hee brake the sacrament or gaue to his disciples And doe you nowe complaine of Saint Matthewe for disordering the words Verily saint Marke saint Luke and saint Paul place the wordes in such sort as saint Matthew doeth And if all these Euangelists and Apostles doe set the words out of order whence come you that will take vpon you to set thē in order Haue you other places of scripture to proue this pretended inuersion of order And if you had haue you forgotten what you did write euen nowe in the preface that if there bee any obscuritie founde in the wordes of the supper there is no other part of scripture that can cleere them But standing of the wordes out of order and that in euerie one that rehearseth them must needes make vncerteintie and obscuritie yea this standing or not standing out of order may decide a great parte of the controuersie for if the wordes were spoken after he brake and gaue then he brake and gaue breade And seeing the placing of the wordes in all the Euangelistes and saint Paul fauour this opinion you shall not easily prooue the contrary against so manie faithfull and prudent witnesses which had a care to place
passion which was afterwarde who is so madde as D. S. to referre the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is giuen to a present giuing or sacrifising But proceeding in his vaine purpose he sheweth that the faultes of the popish clergy aduanced by transubstantiation caused them to bee contemned of the people which contempt by Gods iustice stirred vp Martin Luther like a proude king of Babylon to come out of the North to fight against Ierusalē Can you forbeare laugh ing They that were carnal in the Popish Church priests bishops to holde their liuings Abats and Monkes for good pensions receiued this doctrine and gaue vp their abbies to the Prince But this good hath Luther done that he separated the good from the badde especially from the Popish votary the maried Monke and vowed Preist which sayeth No man ought to vowe chastity condemning therby not only an infinit number of virgins but also the blessed mother of God To this I answer that first of all he slaundereth them which denye the vow of chastity or rather celebrate for euery man is bound to liue chastly to be lawfull for they denye it to be lawfull only to those which are not certeine that they haue the gift of continency to continue with them long as they liue And as for the vow of the virgin Mary I pray you how proueth he that she made any Because saith he she wondered how she might haue a child seing she knew not any man Wherunto her own reason might haue replyed that hereafter shee might knowe a man except shee had vowed her selfe not to knowe at all any man I answere that though her reason might haue so replied for hauing a child yet for hauing such a child as should be the sonne of the highest reason could not satisfie her and therfore shee desired to be instructed by the angel by what meanes it should be without that any vow of virginity can be concluded in any lawfull forme of argument out of this place by any Logician in the world But contrariwise that she was betrothed vnto a man it is an vndoubted argument that she vowed not virginitie For if she should haue made any vow before her mariage she would not haue deluded her husband to promise her body to him when she had determined the contrarie If they say she vowed after mariage it is plaine by the Gospel she did it without her husbandes knowledge and therefore her vowe could not be lawfull For before Ioseph was instructed by the Angel of her case his purpose was to haue taken her home to him and vsed her as his wife vntill she was perceiued to be with child and then he would haue priuily forsaken her After this he sheweth what were the opinions of Luther Zwinglius and Caluine which he maketh to be three in number when by the consent of the Churches of Heluetia Sabandia it is manifest that the iudgement of Zwinglius and Caluine concerninge the manner of eating and drinking of Christes bodye and bloud in the sacrament of his supper was all one Now concerning that Caluine willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith there to feede of Christ spiritually Sander liketh it not because our nature not beeing able to climme vp to the seate of God in heauen the sonne of God came downe to vs to life vs vp into heauen in taking vpon him our humaine nature So when our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to helpe vs he let downe the corde of his humanitie and of his flesh and bloud And shall wee nowe when it is let downe to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottome of our heartes by eating it really shall wee nowe refuse it and say wee will goe into heauen by faith our selues and there take holde of Christ whereby we may be deliuered out of the deepe vale of miserie As though the corde shoulde haue needed to haue beene let downe if wee coulde haue fastened our bodyes to anything in heauen and ye◠our bodies are they which weigh downe our soules chiefely In deede if the sonne of God had not come downe vnto vs and ioyned our nature vnto his the anchor of our faith could haue had no hould in heauen But seing the sonne of God did not only come downe vnto vs but also is ascended from the earth and hath caried vs vp into heauen with him Eph. 2. ver 6. he letteth no more downe vnto vs the corde of his humanitye but we cast vp the sure anchor of our soules which is fayth entring into the inward parte of that spirituall tabernacle which is heauen whither our forerunner Iesus is entred being an high preist for euer after the order of Melchizedek Heb. 6. ver 19. And vnto this ascension by fayth the Apostle exhorteth vs Coll. 3. 1. If you be risen againe with Christ seeke those things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God set your minde vpon things that are aboue not vpō things that are vpon the earth These authorities proue sufficiently that we must goe into heauen by fayth our selues for the sonne of God after his dispensation fully accomplished in this world cōmeth no more downe to vs in his humaine nature vntil he come againe to receiue vs actually into the participation of his glory according to his promise Iohn 14. 3. But now let vs see what wholesome doctrine Sander teacheth in those his wordes euen nowe set downe First that fayth perteineth onely to the fathers before Christ and in them called for Christ to come downe vnto vs which when he is come dayly letteth down the cord of his humanity we haue no neede of faith to fasten it in our bodyes and hartes but of our hands For fayth he compareth to the tongue by meanes whereof helpe is called for but when a corde is lett downe the vse of the tonge is needeles and the handes must be occupied Therfore he saith It is not sufficient for a man to vse his tongue still and to let his handes alone So that by this kind of reasoning eating it really being let downe is the hand that without the tongue of faith fasteneth it to our bodies hearts Thirdly he holdeth that Christ neded not to haue ben incarnat if men could haue fastened their bodies to any thing in heauen Whereby he denieth that the fathers of the olde Testament by fayth were fastened in heauen before the incarnatiō of Christ restreining the vertue thereof not onely vnto the time since the same was actually perfourmed but also to the actuall and carnall manner of coniunction of the body of Christ with our bodies which they imagine to be in eating the flesh of Christ really To conclude professing that hee intendeth not to speake against the persons but against the opinions of the Sacramentaries specially against Zwinglius Caluine his purpose is to proue out of the worde of God That Christ giueth in his last supper the true
now let vs see what fault he findeth with our saying we say the truth saith he but not all the trueth For this had bene somewhat worth before the incarnation of Christ wheÌ„ Christ was eaten only by faith but since his incarnation he giueth vs an other kind of truth theÌ„ euer he gaue to theÌ„ So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith our fathers did al eate the same spiritual meate that we do and drink the same spiritual cuppe that we do for they dranke of the rocke which rocke was Christ as substantially as the bread and wine are his body bloud vnto vs. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth because the whol maÌ„ is not fed I answere that is no cause for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ to be saued both body soule For wher he â—â—ith that faith seedeth but the soule it is false for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vnto eternal life But this is Sanders error that he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith except he thrust his body in at our mouthes He might likewise say that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onely because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies yet we beleue that we are washed regenerated wholy both in body and soule so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death burial resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue that by eating of this bread drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ vnto euerlasting life And wheras Leo saith That is taken by the mouth which is beleeued by faith he meaneth none othewise then when the scripture saith that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration and when we confesse that the body of Christ is eaten when we meane the sacrameÌ„t therof is eaten bodily In which sense the same Leo writeth Epistel 10. ad Plaui against the heresie of Eutyches Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi intelligat vnde saÌ„gnis aqua esfluxerint ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur poculo Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles hath hanged on the woode of the crosse and when the side of him that was crucified was opened let him vnderstand from whence that blood water flowed that the church of god might be moistened both by a lauer by a cupp By these words he sheweth that the bloud in the cuppe is none otherwise the bloud of Christ theÌ„ the water of baptisme is the water that issued out of his side which is far from the popish vnderstanding As for the often eating drinking recorded in the scriptures in the sacrifices Manna the rocke water the Paschal lambe the shewbread c which SaÌ„der wold haue to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christs flesh I answere they were sacraments of the spiritual norishmeÌ„t of the faithful appointed for that time as this supper is appropriated to our time and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit could not otherwise be purged from vs but by bodily eating of Christs flesh as he assurmeth The sinne of Adam was not in eating but in eating disobediently so that eating of it selfe was no fault nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite that was eaten as Sander dreameth but disobedience was the sin of Adam which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth Rom. 5. ver 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite De Coen Dom. Bibimus c We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding being partakers of eternall life with him and by him abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud granting our selues by tast of sinne to haue ben depriued from blessednes and condemned except the mercy of Christ had brought vs againe vnto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud Although Cyprian here allude vnto the acte in which disobedience was committed yet in the end he sheweth that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vs we are restored into the fauor of God and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise Cont. Collat Liberum ergo arbitrium c. Free will therfore that is the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued and the aydes of his owne happines waxing of such account with it bent his impotent greedines vnto the experience of disobedience dranke the poyson of all vices and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud he digest that deadly surset he fayleth in memory erreth in iudgment wauereth in going neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good from which man is fallen before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table as euery Papist will confesse What impudencie then is it vpon shadowe of some allusion to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple for so he calleth it saith it is no more needfull that euery maÌ„ should eate the body of Christ in his own person then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty but it is absolutely needful saith he that some â—r other eate it as really as euer the apple was eaten that all the rest who by baptisme enter into the same body may be one perfectly with Christ whiles they are one mystically with theÌ„ who really eate the substance of Christes flesh being the substance of our true sacrifice truly rosted vpon the crosse This shift of descant then will not serue the fathers of the old testament which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde but in figure only Secondly if any such real eating were necessary it were not to be fulfilled by any but by our sauiour Christ for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was who being but one made al guilty of damnation that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man which was Christ sufficient for all men vnto iustification of life Rom. 5. ver 18. Last
euery promise should haue a condition for many promises are made absolutely But Gods promises require the condition of faith in them that shall obteine the performance of them and so doeth this And therefore the promise of spirituall communicating which Sander obiecteth helpeth not Iudas because he receiueth it not with faith Sander asketh Caluine whether the condition of faith be written in the supper or no If not how dare Caluine supply it Hath he not choked Caluine with this question trowe you But if Caluine can finde a couenant in the supper he wil not seeke farre off to finde faith necessarily required in the receiuers thereof But he hath two other reasons against the promise one of the worde This another of the worde Is. This saith he sheweth where the thing is that it pointeth vnto The body of Christ is promised also pointed vnto If the worde This be such a pointer I praye you syr where is that which is pointed vnto when hee saith of the cuppe This is the newe testament in my bloud Was that which seemed the cuppe or that in the cupp the newe testament which was pointed vnto If it were a sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in his bloud which was shed for vs then was the other a Sacrament or seale of the newe testament confirmed in the breaking and giuing of his body for vs. It angreth Sander that Caluine should say Christ saying This is my body speaketh not to the bread but to his disciples wherein he would make him so singular that not onely the Papistes but also all Lutherans Zwinglians do confesse the wordes to be spoken to the bread which is a shamefull lye both of the Lutherans of the Zwinglians for none of them is so madde to thinke that when he began to speake to his disciples and saye Take and eate then he turned his tale from them and spake to the breade when he saide This is my body then againe to his disciples when he saide which is giuen for you For if hee had spoken to the bread hee would haue saide thou art my body and not this is my body which is of the thirde person And to put all out of doubt S. Mark saith speaking of the cuppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he said vnto them This is my bloud If he spake not to the wine but to his disciples when he said this is my bloude then surely hee spake not to the breade but to his disciples of the breade when he said This is my bodie Marke this well for although it bee but a small matter yet it ouerthroweth the whole mysterie of Popish Consecration The argument of this verbe est is taketh for proofe that which is in controuersie namely that it is put properlie because it is indeede Christes bodie when the wordes are spoken But seeing by your owne diuinitie it is not the bodie of Christ before the laste syllable vm bee pronounced howe coulde the Verbe est bee taken properly when neither before it was spoken nor while it was in speaking the bodie of Christ was made of breade But Sander will knowe by what Scriptures Caluine proueth his lewde interpretation As though Caluine affirmeth any thing of this matter which hee prooueth not plentifully by the scriptures which are of the nature of Sacraments generally and of this Sacrament especially of the nature of the humanitie of Christ of manie tropicall speeches vsed throughout the scriptures which hee that wil may read at large in his writings In the meane time let vs see how Sander doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God The first argumēt of confutation is gathered of the present tēps vsed in these words This is my body which agreeth not with the nature of a promise which is a prediction of a thing to come I haue before answered this lewd argumēt for al promises are not vttered in the future temps Esay saith Puer natus est nobis a child is born vnto vs when he was not borne 500. yeares after I haue shewed before that the words This is my bodie haue relatiō to the eating which followed after they were vttered Caluine saith further that Christ speaketh not to the bread that it should be made his bodie But he cōmaundeth his disciples to eate promiseth them the cōmunicating of his bodie bloud Against this Sander replieth that God said to his disciples take eate which is a commandement and no promise He saith further This is my body that is the making of the meate which must be eaten the shewing of it but no promise S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of the body of Christ Who dare say the cōtrarie But is the bread which we breake an actual communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it No verily Howe is then the bread that we break a communicating of the bodie of Christ before we eate it but by promise of communicating to them that shal eat it faithfully And if these words This is my bodie be not words of promise of cōmunicating his bodie what other words of promise can Sander shew in the institution But nowe will Sander prooue at large that Christ spake not to his disciples when he saide This is my bodie but to the breade Although I haue alreadie prooued out of the words of S. Marke that Christ spake to his disciples so plainely that Sanders eares may gloe on his heade for shame to reade it yet will I consider all his particular argumēts by which he taketh vpon him to prooue that Christ spake to the breade The first reason Christ speaketh somtimes to vnsensible creatures as to the windes the figtree and all creatures heere the voyce of God whē he speaketh to thē so he speaketh heere to the bread If this consequent did hange to the Antecedent by any necessity I would grant it otherwise I must denie it Well yet thus much is gained that it is not absurde that Christ should speake to the breade being a senseles creature yes verie absurd that beginning to speake to men he should sodenly make an apostrophe to bread and without any transition but euen with a relatiue as sodenlie return to speak to men And that speaking to bread he should vse no word of the second persō which he vseth in speaking to the Winds to the Figtree The second reason beginneth thus Caluine saith Christ spake not to the bread I tell him he spake to the breade not as to a thing which shoulde carrie bread but as to that which shoulde be chaunged into his bodie For he called the bread his bodie Is not this a magistrall or doctorall kinde of reasoning I tell him quoth Sander it is so but how proueth he that Christ spake to the bread because he called it his bodie Which if Caluine wil denie hee hath it readie out of Tertullian aduer Marc. lib. 4. Panem
our price as it is called the bodie of Christ for as touching that Iudas receiued not the same with the rest of the Apostles Augustine sheweth in Ioan. Tract 59. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They did eate that breade which was the Lorde hee did eate the breade of the Lorde against the Lord. What should I saye more when Sander confesseth that Saint Augustine saith de ciuitat Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. Euill men are not to be sayd to eate the bodie of Christ. But this hee shadoweth with a vaine glosse that they receiue not the effect of the body of Christ and citeth other words of August De verbis Dom. Ser. 22. Non quocunque modo c. Not howsoeuer a man eate the flesh of Christ and drinke the bloude of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certaine kinde of way As though S. Augustine said saith he Euery way the flesh and bloud of Christ is receiued in the supper of our Lorde But howe shamefully he belyeth S. Augustine you shall heare by his owne words Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi vt alia taceam non possunt simul esse membra Christi membra meretricis Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit saÌ„guinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neither are euill men to be said to eate the body of Christ because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ for to speake nothing of other matters they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not as farre as a sacrament goeth but in verie deede to eate the fleshe of Christ and to drinke his bloude This saying of Augustine may serue to expounde not onely what he himselfe but whatsoeuer any other ancient Father seemeth to saye of wicked men eating the bodie of Christ namely that they doe it Sacramento tenus but not reuera they eate the bodie of Christ as it may bee eaten in an outwarde sacrament but not in deede The sixte witnesse is Gregorie in prim reg libr. 2. C. 1. Salutis c. They receiue not the fruite of saluation in eating of the healthfull sacrifice Of these words Sander can gather nothing but that hee addeth of his owne that the healthfull sacrifice is nothing but the naturall bodie of Christ which Gregorie neither saith nor meaneth but the sacrament which is healthfull to them which receiue it faithfully The laste that speaketh for hee hath sixe or seuen more dombe names is Beda in Lucam Cap. 22. Whose antiquitie although it be not so great as that we should bee bounde to take him for a lawfull witnesse yet because he liued before the carnall eating of Christes bodie was receiued we will admitte him Hâ—â— compareth saith Sander that man to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate illud inestimabile inuiolabile domini corpus that inestimable and inuiolable bodie of our Lorde Howe coulde hee violate it with his members if no part of his bodie touched it I answere by violating the sacrament thereof which they receiue vnfaithfullie and contemptuously Howe can hee treade vnder his feete the sonne of God and esteeme the bloude in which he was sanctified coÌ„mon c. which neuer came neere the one nor the other with his bodie Heb. 10. Let the reader iudge whether the iudgement of the Fathers doeth fauour Sander more then the Apologie If any man will see more of this controuersie he may resort to mine answere vnto Heskins lib. 3. from the 46. Chapter to the 56. CAP. IIII. What is the true deliuerance of Christes bodie and bloude The Apologie saieth that in the supper there is truely deliuered the bodie and bloude of Christ the fleshe of the sonne of God quickening our soules the foode of immortalitie grace trueth life This doctrine Sander confesseth to bee sounde and Catholike but out of it he will prooue the Popish reall presence and that by two arguments The first reason is Christ deliuered but one thing at each time when he said This and This The Apologie confesseth that hee deliuered his bodie and bloude ergo hee deliuered neither breade nor wine but in appearance and his bodie and bloude onely in deede I denie the Maior for vnto the faithfull of whom the Apologie speaketh he deliuered two thinges of diuerse natures in one sacrament or one thing consisting of two diuerse natures the bread and wine corporally his bodie and bloud spiritually as Irenaeus saith Neither is there such force in this and this but that one thing of diuerse natures or two things in one mysterie may be signified thereby When God said This is the passeouer it were a madde conclusion to say it were no Lambe or This is the newe Testament therefore it is not his bloude because This can bee but one thing Yet ' Sander clappeth handes to his owne argument O masters trueth is straunge and by the aduersaries owne weapon getteth the victorie His second reason is When the bodie of Christ is truelie deliuered it is deliuered according to the truth of his owne nature The nature of a bodie is to be deliuered after a bodily maner therfore the bodie of Christ is deliuered bodily The Maior is false for the bodie of Christ may be truely deliuered when it is deliuered after a spiritual and diuine maner For in the saying of the Apologie truely is contrarie to falsly not to spiritually And all the Papists confesse that the body of Christ may be must be eaten spiritually Which of them dare say the bodie of Christ is eaten falsely when it is eaten spiritually or not eaten when it is eaten spiritually euen without the sacrament Againe if Sander like this Maior I will thus inferre vpon it When the bodie of Christ is truely deliuered it is deliuered according to the trueth of his owne nature But the nature of a bodie is to occupie but one place at once and that to fill with his owne quantitie c. Therefore the bodie of Christ is so deliuered as it occupieth but one place reteyneth quantitie and all other things required in the nature of a true bodie Finally whereas Sander in the determination of the Apologie misseth quickening of our bodies but that he is disposed to play Momus hee might haue founde that he misseth in the foode of immortalitie which toucheth our bodies as wel as our soules and more properly CAP. V. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supper of Christ. The Apologie saith that by the partaking of the body and bloude of
figuratiuely because a figuratiue speach can signifie no certeine thing vntil it be plainly vnderstanded This I denie for a figuratiue speache may signifie one certeine thing which the speaker meaneth although the hearer vnderstand it not at all Howbeit that which Christ did here speake figuratiuely was easily vnderstood of all his hearers which were well accustomed to such kinde of speaches But Sander replyeth that the Apostles were simple men Idiots and vnderstood not the scriptures therefore they could not vnderstand how the signe might be called by the name of the thing I answere although they were simple vnlearned men in deede and such as vnderstood not the scriptures in such full measure as was necessarie for them to discharge so great an office as was laid vpon them yet Sander doth them too much wrong to make them or any godly person of that time so ignorant in the scriptures that they vnderstoode not the nature of a Sacrament considering they were circumcised did celebrate the Passeouer euery yere the verie name wherof must needes teach them howe the signe may be called by the thing signified And therfore it is out of measure ridiculous foolish that Sander prateth of the true first meaning of the wordes of Christ. For what will the vaine iangler make to be the true and first meaning of these wordes of Christ This cupp is the newe Testament What verifying of contradictories what diuers soundings what true tokens what things present O great diuinitie of Popish doctors But the Apologie is confuted by his owne saying when he calleth the Eucharist an euident token of the bodie and bloud if it be euident saith he it is quickly vnderstood Call women and children and aske them what token the wordes of Christ make Nay rather call Turkes Sarazens and aske the question if it must be euident to them vnto whome the mysterie is not reuealed The token is euident to them that are instructed not to such as neuer heard of it as belike where Sander hath to do women and children are But God be thanked women and children instructed in the Church of Christ can tell him howe euident a token it is of their spirituall feeding on the bodie and bloud of Christ. But that wordes must be taken as they commonly sound he will proue by the institution of the sacrament of Penance as he termeth it Whose sinnes you forgiue they are forgiuen c. where as much is giuen as is signified by the wordes If this be true all cases reserued both episcopall and Papall are in case to bee forgiuen by euery priest of the lowest degree But here the Apologie which denyeth the Sacrament of Penance is charged to haue falsified the wordes of Christ saying they are meant whose sinnes you declare to be forgiuen If the Apologie doe not truely expound the wordes of Christe yet doeth it not falsifie them except Sander will saye that euerie wrong exposition is a falsification Howe Christes wordes are to be taken as Sander will not dispute in this place so neither will I stande here to discusse But this is a bolde determination of him that many wordes may signifie vnproperly in other places but the principall wordes of a Sacrament cannot be vnproper For the nature of the thing doeth limit the interpretation of the wordes If this doctorall determination be true then these are proper speaches The rocke is Christ the Lambe is the Passeouer the cuppe is the newe Testament baptisme is the lauer of regeneration And S. Augustines rule De doct Christ lib. 3. Ca. 16. must giue place to D. Sanders decree Si autem flagiâ—iis c. If the words of scripture seeme to coÌ„maunde any wicked nor vngodly acte or to forbid any profit or well doing it is a figure Except ye shall eate saith he the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shal haue no life in you it seemeth to commande a wicked or heinous act Therfore it is a figure commanding vs to communicate with the Lordes passion and profitable to kepe in remembrance that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Againe Locut de Gen. lib. 1. fol. 72. Tres fundi tres dies sunt noÌ„ dixit tres dies significaÌ„t Et multuÌ„ haec locutio notanda est vbi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur Inde est quod ait Apostolus Petra autem erat Christus non ait Petra significabat Christum Three basketes are three daies he said not they signifie three daies And this kind of speech is much to be marked where any signifying thinges are called by the names of those thinges which they doe signifie Hereof it is that the Apostle saieth And the rocke was Christ hee saith not the Rocke did signifie Christ. Finally where Sander saieth it is against the nature of a Sacrament not to signifie plainly I agree with him affirming that the bread and wine which is eaten and dronken doe plainly signifie that we are fed spiritually with the very body and bloud of Christ vnto the full assurance of our perseuerance continuance in the fauour of God euen vntill we be put in possession of eternall life and the wordes in this Sacrament be as plaine as in the other but the diuell to aduance the kingdome of Antichrist hath deuised a monstrous interpretation of them to make a most abhominable Idoll of desolation of the most holy and comfortable sacrament of Christes death and passion CAP. XII Which argument is more agreeable to the word of God it is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore it is the true body of Christ. Sander to dispute for his life would take the conclusion thus it is a signe of his body therfore it is his bodie in deed So that Sander to dispute for his life would ouerthrow the nature of opposites which cannot stande both together at one time and in one respect But as though Logike were contrarie to the word of God hee will haue the argument tryed by the word of God And first he reiecteth the Sacramentes instituted before the incarnation of Christ which he saith were signes in part emptie and voide of the trueth which they signified because trueth is made by Iesus Christ. As though Iesus Christ concerning the trueth of doctrine and the grace of saluation were not yesterday and to day the same for euermore the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde Hebr. 13. Apocalipse 13. Secondly hee bringeth examples of the Angell speaking to Marie of Christe speaking to the leprous man to him that had the palsie to the disciples of Iohn baptist to the dumme man to proue that when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inwarde grace is rehearsed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh When Sander shal dispute for his life he must chuse him an easye aduersary for els he will soone loose
to receiue the mysteries another thing to receiue the bodie in such manner as the Papistes doe teach And Chrysostome vsing the same wordes but not in such context ad Pop. Antiochen Hom. 21. hath also linguam sanguine tali purpuratam factam aureum gladium the tongue dyed purple with such bloude and made a golden sworde Likewise the eyes by whiche thou hast seene the secretes and dreadfull mysteries which sayings doe shewe that hee spake not of a bodily presence or receiuing but of a spirituall receipt and faith by which wee see Christe present and acknowledge our tongue to bee dyed purple with his bloude and to be made a golden sworde which is not done corporally but spiritually The last argument is that the Lordes supper hath beene of olde time called the Sacrament of the Altar by which saieth hee wee are informed that the sacrifice is made vpon a visible Altar or table and so S. Augustines mother confessed that from the altar was dispensed that holy sacrifice wherby the haÌ„dwriting that was contrarie to vs hath bene put out And we doe likewise confesse that from the holy Altar or table is dispensed in the holy communion the sacrifice of Christs death and passion by which onely that handwriting was put out and nayled on the crosse except you thinke S. Augustines mother was of another opinion then S. Paul Col. 2. v. 14. We coÌ„fesse that regeneration by the spirit of God is dispensed out of the holy fonte of Baptisme and yet it followeth not that the holy ghost is conteined in the fonte or water no more doth the dispensation of the sacrifice of Christes death from the table prooue that Christs bodie lyeth vpon the table The argument of the resurrection of our bodies which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyril doe gather of receiuing of the Sacrament is from the signe to the thing signified and therefore Tertullian maketh the same argument from the washing of baptisme and from other ceremonies of annoynting signing and laying on of hands lib. de resurrectione carnis Caro abluitur vt anima emaâ—â—litur c. The flesh is washed that the soule may be clensed The flesh is anointed that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signed that the soule may be defended The flesh is shadowed by laying on of handes that the soule may be lightened of the spirit The flesh eateth the bodie and bloude of Christ that the soule may bee made faâ—t of God What reason is there that there should be a transubstantiation in the last more then in all the rest The flesh is washed with water anointed with oyle shadowed with mens handes signed with mens handes therefore the flesh is fedde with breade and wine which Sander maketh such a daungerous matter yet the same is affirmed both by Irenaeus Cyrill and Iustinus Martyr CAP. XVIII Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to thâ— doctrine of the Sacramentaries We abase not the supper of the Lorde saith the Apologie or teach that it is but a cold ceremonie onely and nothing to be wrought therein as manie doe falselie slander vs. Yes saith Sander you plucke downe Altars c. and call the blessed sacrament of the altar by vile names c I answere we plucke downe none but Idolatrous altars neither giue we any vile names to the blessed sacrament of Christ but to the stinking Idole of the Papists which is no sacrament but a prophane execrament we call not the honour done to Christes bodie worshiping of breade for that which the Papistes worship is not Christes bodie but vile bread although they call it Christes bodie And when wee teach that Christ giueth vs in his supper an assurance of our spiritual nourishment by him and coniunction spirituall with him we teach a worke of Christ in the supper But you teach not saith Sander that any substantiall thing is wrought in the breade and wine In deede we teach no chaunge of the substance of breade and wine but that they remaine in their former nature and substance but we teach a supersubstantiall thing to be wrought by Christs word which being ioyned to breade and wine maketh of earthly and bodilie nourishment heauenly and spiritual foode to feede both bodie and soule vnto euerlasting life And this is sufficient to prooue that something is wrought in the supper of Christ by our doctrine bable Sander what he will to the contrarie although no transubstantiation be wrought except he will saie that nothing is wrought in baptisme because there is no transubstantiation taught either by them or vs in our doctrine of baptisme CAP. XIX The real presence of Christâ— flesh is proued by the expresse naming of fleshe bloude and bodie which are names of his humane nature Sander woulde beare men in hande that there is great fraude hidden in these wordes when the Apologie saieth that wee affirme that Christ doeth truely and presently giue his owne selfe in his Sacraments in baptisme that wee may put him on in his supper that we may eate him by faith and spirite For by these wordes His owne selfe his owne selfe his owne selfe so often repeated they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by faith spirite and vnderstanding whollie robbing vs of that fleshe whiche dyed for vs and of that bloude whiche was shedde for vs. If we did neuer vse the names of giuing his bodie his flesh his bloude wee might perhaps come in suspition of Maniâ—heisme but when wee vse these names and the other of Christe giuing himselfe and vs eating of Christe which the Scripture doeth affirme as well as the other none but a peeuish wrangler woulde take exceptions to our termes Of the two natures in one person Christe there neede to bee no question but that Sander by telling what Scriptures are proper to both the natures woulde by authoritie of one Saint Germanus I cannot tell whence hee came for the Louanistes are greate coyners of antiquities teach vs that these wordes of Christe Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the ende of the worlde may be meant as well by the nature of manhoode which wee haue with his godhead in the Sacrament as by the onely nature of the Godheade and that in this place of Matth. 26. The poore you shall haue alwayes with you mee yee shall not haue alwayes By the worde Mee hee meaneth not his Godheade but the nature of his manhoode as it was when hee spake in a visible forme of a poore man but not as it is in the Sacrament What Master Sander thinke you to playe bopeepe with the nature of manhoode in forme visible and not visible Is not the nature of Christes manhoode the same whether it bee in forme visible or inuisible If it bee the same and the nature of the manhood is simplie denyed to bee present howe can you make the same nature that is absent to bee present vnlesse you will
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that
was by the Sacrament in young children he was deceiued yet Sander saith it was not of necessity but of surety whereas Augustines error is manifest to vrge it of necessity An verò quisquā etiā hoc dicere audebit quòd ad paruulos haec sententia nō pertineat possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us sanguinis in se habere vitā quia non ait Qui non manducauerit sicut de baptismo qui nō renatus fuerit c. Is there any man that dare say this also that this sentence pertaineth not vnto young children and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud haue life in them because he sayeth not he that shall not eate as of baptisme he that shall not be borne againe I will make answere to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians but in discouering of his error Regeneration is vndoubtedly proued necessarie for infants by that place of Iohn 3. as eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ in this 6. of Iohn which is ynough to ouerthrowe the Pelagians but neither in the one place nor in the other the necessitie of the external sacrament is required but as it may possibly and ought to be profitably receaued according to the worde of God Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text vnto the sacrament in arguing from the signe to the thing signified or contrariwise must be vnderstoode according to his deliberate exposition in Ioh. Tr. 26. or else he should bee founde contrary to himselfe And whereas Sander sayeth This text so appertaineth to the supper as it appertaineth not to baptisme and therefore can not be taken of the spirituall vniting with Christ which is in baptisme I deny the argument for although it doth not so properly pertaine to the sacrament of washing as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing yet doeth it also pertaine to baptisme in as much as by baptisme we are not only washed by Christs bloud from our sinnes but wholy regenerate borne a newe to be the children of God which wee cannot be but by participation of flesh bloud with our brother Iesus Christ and therefore we are also in baptisme spiritually fed with his body and bloud To that which is brought out of Basil Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical comming flesh and bloud Sander answereth that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper because he that receiueth worthily is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applyed to the Sacrament which is all the question his owne wordes shall declare Edimus enim ipsius carnem bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes sensibitis vitae verbi sapientiae Carnem enim sanguinem totum suum mysterium aduentum nominauit doctrinam actiua naturali ac theologica constantem indicauit per quam nutritur anima interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur For wee eate his flesh and drinke his bloud being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisedome For hee named his whole mysticall comming flesh and bloud shewed his doctrine consisting of actiue naturall and theologicall by which the soule is nourished and in the meane time prepared vnto the beholding of the trueth Thus by Basils iudgement by faith in Christes incarnation and doctrine wee eate his flesh and bloud whereof wee are assured by the Sacrament therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christes naturall flesh to be after a corporall maner receiued in the Sacrament CAP. V. Their reasons are answered who denye Christ to speake properly of his last supper in S. Iohn The reasons are for the most parte such as Papistes haue made which thinke in their conscience that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt against whome Sander opposeth him selfe not regarding with what conscience but with what shewe of wordes he may maintaine his false position against all men The argumentes as he numbreth them are fiue The first is this There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter ergo it speaketh not of the supper This argument Sander denyeth because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shal be made Good stuffe I warrant you Againe he saith the matter of a sacrament is not more necessarie then the forme of wordes But Christ saying to Nicodemus Except a man be borne againe of water c. although he name the matter sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament yet speaketh he there of baptisme ergo here of the supper I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there otherwise then of the supper here by comprehending the seale of assurance vnder the promise of the thing it selfe But this argument Sander alloweth wel Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine therfore he meaneth not to bind vs to receiue vnder both kindes but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnder what kind soeuer wee receiue it If this be true it were well done to take the bread from the people another while to serue them of the cup consecrated for a whole communion But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege as though Christ doth not name drinking almost as often as eating although he name neither bread nor wine And if his bloud be drinke in deede then is it not receiued with the bread which is not drunke but eaten The second argument is Christ speaketh of eating him by faith therfore saith this is the worke of God that you should beleeue in him whome he hath sent He that beleeueth in me shall not hunger but there be some of you which beleeue not so that the eating is beleeuing the not eating is not beleeuing To this argument grounded vpon the authoritie of Scripture he hath nothing to answere but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ that is of his grace by faith eating Christ that is his whole flesh bloud soule godhead into our bodies by colour of these words Manducare ex hoc pane manducare hunc panem which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth vseth for all one But that you may see his grosse folly madnesse you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper The bread which I wil giue is my flesh c. Now the whol context is this I am that liuing bread which came downe frō heauen if a man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer the bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction To eat of this bread is to be partaker of grace by faith which he confesseth may
twelue which taryed with him at Capernaum for his promise in offer was as large to all that departed and to the world for the life whereof he promised to giue his flesh therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not onely a spirituall gift that was promised but an externall gift deliuered by hand which Iudas might receiue For Christ promiseth such a gift as if it be receiued worketh eternall life in the receiuers Finally it cannot be prooued that Iudas was prseÌ„t at the supper who departed about his treason before the institution of the sacrament as appeareth by saint Iohn immediatly after the soppe receiued wherevnto some of the ancient writers also do consent Furthermore that the gift of Christ doth differ from the gift of his father in person and time and therfore cannot be giuen by faith only it is no good consequent For God gaue his sonne for the worlde and Christ gaue himselfe for vs yet but one gift The difference of time I haue often answered As for the obiection that he faineth the Sacramentaries must say that that flesh heere staÌ„deth for the signe or figure of his flesh is of his owne making for as I said before we vnderstand the flesh of Christ giuen for the life of the world his naturall body crucified for vs and not the sacrament of his body giuen in his last supper CAP. XII A further declaration of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud taken out of the discourse of his owne wordes concerning the different eating of him by faith and the receiuing of his flesh and bloud in the Sacrament of the Altar First he repeteth his three gifts God gaue by Moses naked figures as Manna God giueth presently the flesh of Christ to our eyes and heartes and Christ will giue hereafter the same flesh vnder the forme of breade Of these giftes he maketh three diuerse workes the first by teeth and belly the seconde by faith and spirite and the thirde by both The gift of Christ differing from Manna is expressed in the Chapter But any difference of the gift of the father and of the sonne there is not expressed nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument Yet Sander hath founde out a great number of differences to prooue that although the Father and the Sonne giue one thing that is the flesh of Christ yet not one way to be receiued the Father giueth it to bee receiued by faith onely the Sonne to be receiued corporally The first difference is of the time The Father doeth giue in the Present tense the Sonne will giue in the Future tense This I haue often answered to be no differeÌ„te for Christ saith in the preseÌ„t temps except ye do eat the flesh c. ergo he did presently giue it Againe he that doth eat often is ofteÌ„ times repeted in the present time and my flesh is meate in deede all which prooue that Christs gift was present when he spake to be receiued therefore it differeth not from the Fathers gift and way of receiuing the same The second difference the Father giueth Christ in the forme of man by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithfull may see that sonne of Man vpon whom they beleeue as it is saide This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleeueth in him may haue euerlasting life And againe yee haue seene me and haue not beleeued Of the Sonnes gift it is not saide that his flesh shal be seene but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder the couering of another kinde of foode I answere that Christ in neither of both these sayings speaketh of the corporall sight of his body But in the one which is first placed in S. Iohn Yee 〈◊〉 au seene me and not beleeued he exprobrateth to the Iewes their wilfull blindnesse which had acknowledged him before to be the Messias when he fed their bellyes now refuse to beleeue him when hee offereth to feede their soules In the other place he sheweth that obedieÌ„ce of faith ioyned to a manifest acknowledging of Christ by the wil of God is the way to eternal life For if seing should be taken for bodily seeing of Christes flesh it could not extende to vs which cannot bodilie behold him Againe this difference ouerthroweth Sanders supposed way of the fathers giuing which is by faith and spirit onely not sensibly to the eye of the bodie Last of all it is a weake argument it is not saide in this or that text ergo it is not meant or it is not true at all The 3. difference The Fathers gifte is called the true bread from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not onely true breade but also truely breade and meate in deede Some true meate may chaunce not to bee truely meat becâ—â—se it is not eaten but nothing is meate in deede and truelye meate except it bee in deede eaten If this difference bee woorth a strawe then your consecrated hostes bee not the Sonnes gift before they bee eaten and except they bee eaten as some time yee woâ—â— well they are burned they bee not his gifte at all if not his gift then not flesh and bloude The difference of a true Vine and a Vine truelie is sufficiently discussed in the later ende of the fourth booke answered by master Nowel Sander cannot or will not consider the difference of the opposition betweene truely and falsely and truely and properly The fourth difference The Iewes and disciples went not away from Christe for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gifte thinking that a gifte of eating by faith might stande with the custome of Gods people but in the Sonnes gift they sawe more apparant absurdity not lacking vnderstanding but faith and therefore departed I answere they lacked vnderstanding as much as faith and therefore Augustinâ— saith Sed qui aderant plures non intelligendo sâ—andaliazti sunt non erum cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem quod ipsi erant But manie of them that were present were offended for lacke of vnderstanding For heating these thinges they thought on nothing but fleshe which they themselues were It is a simple difference that is gathered of the Iewes ignorance and incredulitie The 5. difference The gift of the father is called by such names only as belong to the persoÌ„ of Christ or to his diuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God onely is absolutelie the true bread of life or by the Pronoune I The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and bloud of the sonne of men If this differeÌ„ce proue any thing it prooueth not the diuerse wayes of giuing the same thing but that the same thing is not giuen by the Father and the Sonne Where as Sander saide before that the Father giueth Christ in humane nature to the worlde If the humane
nature of Christ bee giuen of the father the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift The 6 difference That Christ endeth his talke of eche gifâ— with repeting the old figure Manna betokening by both the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift This is an agreement rather then a difference except in the last illation which is a meere begging of the matter in question But there is a great difference in that it is said of the one If any man eate ex hoc pane of this breade in the other he that eateth hunc panem this breade and heere is made a great difference betweene eating of Christ and eating Christ himselfe the one is onely by faith the other in the Sacrament of the Altar the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ the other to receiue the substance of Christ. c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue with the preposition for all one I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition but what is this bread of which he that eateth shal liue he answereth The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whereof he saith afterward Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c where he vseth the Accusatiue by which it is plaine that with Christ to eat this breade to eat of this bread is all one Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference shewing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock which was Christ vnworthily where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread But Sand not satisfied asketh if this be the end of our long disputatioÌ„ that Christ came into the world to giue a lesse token then God had giuen before vnder Moses c as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giue the sacrament As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift and his we finde not any one but that they may all agree in one gift which was not his supper but himselfe to death for the life of the world wherof euery one of his elect is made partaker as of spiritual foode by faith his holy spirit But this difference is learned saith he out of Chrysostome vpon Iohn Ho. 45. c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons saying Se non patrem that he not his father dare to giue saith Sander but he falsifieth Chrysostome which saith dedisse to haue giuen which proueth that it is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which then was not instituted 2 That hee saith Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie and about the ende of his bodie prooueth not that he speaketh onely of the Sacrament For Hom. 45. he saith plainely as Sander confesseth that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ and saluation and faith in him or else his body Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation who will not haue the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named But Chrysostome saith vpon these wordes my flesh is meat in deed c. that he so saide to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables but by fleshe to meane the signe of flesh or by eating to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables I answere that wee say neither of both but that Christ is verily eaten by faith and by the spirite of God yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying Aâ—â— quòd is est verus cibus c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule or else c. But he saueth not the soule onely by eating the Sacrament therefore this meate is not eaten onely in the sacrament Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vnto vs not by faith and loue onely but in verie deede Wee confesse but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation in as much as they all were members of his bodie And so confesseth Chrysostome in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ shall bee partaker of the resurrection and therefore Christ saide He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day The testimonies of Theophilact and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison I will not stande vpon CAP. XIII The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chrisâ—â— flesh as was made generally for baptisme sheweth his flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is in baptisme Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme neither the other of the Lordes supper And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ is not â—aide onely vpon men of lawfull age because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men seeing Nicodemus to whome Christe saide Except a man be borne c. was of lawful age For spiritual food which is nothing else but the body bloud of Christ is as necessarie for al ages as for perfect age But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as water in Baptisme to wash vs it is a froward and foolish comparisoÌ„ for water washeth not our soules nor regenerateth vs but the holy ghost whereof water is a signe so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vs as the holy ghost to wash vs and regenerate vs which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vs without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them The right Analogie is betweene water and breade and wine and betweene the spirite of God and the flesh and bloud of Christ not betweene outward water spirituall flesh of Christ which is as preposterous a comparison is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme with the breade and wine in the sacrament But of the error of Cyprian Innocentius and Augustine he will prooue the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper because they gaue the communion to infantes that coulde not receiue it with faith vnderstanding therfore they thought the very body blod of Christ to be really coÌ„tained in the sacrameÌ„t I answere it was not because they thought so but because they thought the one sacrament as necessarie as the other which might and may in deede be ministred to infants that haue not faith nor vnderstanding actually Therfore that
they ministred the communioÌ„ to infants it shewed their error proceeding of ignorance as all error doth but it sheweth not that they thought the one sacrament to be other wise then the other a seale or assurance of iustification wtout any dreame of transubstantiatioÌ„ That Sand would excuse their custom to haue bin vsed more for a security then for necessitie is to no purpose It is manifest that they thought erroniously that the eternall signe or seale was necessary in both as Aug. Innocent B. of Rome hath defined denying eternall life to infants that dyed without the communion and baptisme as though the grace of God had bene necessarily tyed to the outward elements CAP. XIIII That S. Augustine did not teach thâ—se words Except ye eaâ— the flesh c To betoken the eating of Christonely by faith and spirit nor yet the eating of materiall bread with faithfull remembrance of him but the eating of his flesh to the end we may be the better ioyned to the spirit of God There is no better way to be ioyned to the spirit of god theÌ„ by eating the flesh of Christ spiritually which Aug. doth teach not the carnall manner of eating which Sander doth defend S. Aug. de doct Christ lib. 3. ca 16. as Sander doth confesse affirmeth that this speech of Christ Except yee eat that flesh c containeth a figure And what the meaning of this figure is August telleth vs It is a figure saith he commanding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord and that we should sweetely and profitably remeÌ„ber that his flesh was crucisied and wounded for vs. But Sander replyeth first against the Lutherans that August calling this speach a figure meaneth not to deny that it appertaineth to the last supper And which of the Lutherans I pray you denyed that it appertaineth to the last supper although they deny that it is singularly spoken of the last supper Secondly he fathereth vpon the Zwinglians an vntruth that they graunt the place to be vnderstoode of Christs last supper to prooue the necessitie of both kinds which is a fable for they graunt none otherwise then I haue often shewed yet a good argument for necessitie of both kinds may be taken out of that place because Christ giueth vs a perfect nourishmeÌ„t of meat and drinke or as Iustine saith of dâ—ie and moyst nourishment vnto which spirituall trueth the externall seale must be made consormable But nowe will Sander teach vs to vnderstande what S. Augustine meaneth by a figuratiue speach which is al one as if he would teach vs to go to supper as it is in the Greeke prouerbe First a siguratiue speach must not denie any word in the speach to be vsed vnproperly but is measured by faith and good manners Whereas Augustine telleth vs that if in any sentence of the scripture the words sound against faith good manners the words must not be taken in their proper sense but they are a figure and signifie some other thing then the words in their proper taking do sound as diuerse examples which he bringeth in the same place beside his plaine wordes do declare This saying hee affirmeth to be a figuratiue speache Thou shalt heape burning coales on his head which he doeth thus interprete Vt intelligas carbones ignis esse vrentes poenitentiae gemitus quibus superbia sanatur eius qui dolet se inimicum fuisse hominis a quo eius miseriae subvenitur That thou mâ—ist vnderstand coales of fire to be the burning groanings of repentance by which his pride is healed which sorroweth that he hath beene enimie of such a man by whome his miserie is helped Beholde euen as coales of fire in this text are not taken in their proper sense for a bodily substance of woodde incensed so is not eating and drinking in the other sentence taken in the proper sense for receiuing at our mouth chawing and swallowing But as Augustine interpreteth for communicating with the flesh of Christ by faith and spirite c. either in the Sacrament or without it And it is a foolish cauil of Sander to say that charitie is not broken when we eate Christ whole vnder the forme of breade without hurting of him c. For Augustine counteth it slagitium an heynous offence to eate the fleshe of man in proper sense of eating that is corporally Yea faith Sander to eate it in peeces as it is solde in tho shambles As though to eate an whole man after that maner were not more monstrous then to eate a piece of him But Sander to shewe his synceritie rehearseth a large place out of Augustine in Psal. 98. which howe cunningly he can wrest for his purpose you shall see Durum illis visum est c. It seemed an hard thing to the Iewes except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue life euerlasting They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and supposed that our Lord minded to cutte of certeine small peeces of his body and to giue them This is an hard talk say they They were harde not the talke For if they were not hard but gentle they would say to them selues He speaketh not this thing rashly but because ther lieth priuie som sacrament being gentle not hard they wold tati with him shal learn of him that thing which after their departure those learned who taried For when the twelue had taried with him the other beeing departed they as who were sory for the others departing warned Christ that they were offended with his word so were departed But Christ instructed them and saied it is the spirite that quickneth the flesh profiteth not the wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand that which I haue spokeÌ„spiritually Ye shal not eate this body which you see wee shall not drinke that bloud which they shall shedde who will crucifie me I haue commended to you a certeine Sacrament which being spiritually vnderstoode shall make you liue And although that Sacrament must needes be visiblye celebrated yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded Three thinges Sander noteth out of this sayinge First against the Lutherans that Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament I answere that Augustine in other places and namely in his purposed commentary of that place vnderstandeth it not to be singularly spoken of the eating in the Sacrament but otherwise also which is all that wee affirme and denie of referring this place to the Sacrament Secondly he no teth against the Zwinglians that the figuratiue speach which Augustine saieth to be in these wordes is to be meant of the manner of eating in the natural vnderstanding of câ—râ—all men by cutting tearing chawing c. not denying the substance of his flesh whole sound and quicke to be eaten vnder the forme of breade I answere the naturall vnderstanding of carnall men is by eating to receiue in at the mouth that which
is eaten c. wherfore Augustine denieth that also Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his booke de doct Christ he called a figure taking the name of a figure for a holy signe of an higher trueth This is a grosle and shameles collection for he calleth the wordes of Christ a figure and a figuratiue and vnproper speache which must not be taken according to the sound of the words Sâ— hoc propri 〈…〉 sonat nulla puteâ—ur figurata locuâ—iâ— If it sound this properly then let it be takeÌ„ for no figuratiue spech By which words you see that a figuratiue spech is an vnproper speach But how can this snake slide away from those wordes of Augustine You shall not eate that body which you see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shedde I commend vnto you a Sacrament Therefore yâ— Sacrament is not his body which then was seen nor his bloud which afterward was shedde But Sander gliding ouer these wordes as though he sawe them not presuming vpon the credulity of Papistes which must beleue that they make nothing against the carnall manner of presence if he say so he passeth to another saying of Augustine in Ioan. Tr. 26. 27. to proue that the error of the lewes was not concerning the substance of the flesh that must be eaten really but concerning the manner of eating of it Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo c. They vnderstoode flesh so as it is torne in a carcase or sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirite of God I answer this was one of their errors but not all For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ denying them his naturall body and bloud ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner in Ioan Tr. 24. he saith Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum vtique integrum Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis errogas corpus suum vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought that he would giue out his body but he said that be would ascende into heauen whole When you shal see the sonne of maÌ„ ascending wher he was before certeinly euen then at lest you shall see that he giueth not out his body after that manner you thinke euen then at lest you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitinges In these wordes the argument of his ascension taketh away all corporal presence as wel of Christ whole as broken in peeces secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed with byting sheweth after what manner he vnderstandeth his body to be present namely by spirituall grace not by corporall substance Therefore all Sanders iangling of signes and figures is to no purpose For when he hath prated what he can a signe shall neuer be the thing which it signifieth nor a figure the same thing that it figureth except opposites may agree to one thing at one time and in one respect For to vse his owne foolish example a loafe of bread which a baker setteth out to signifie that bread is there to bee folde although it be of that kinde of breade which it signifieth to be in the house in greater quantity yet it is not that same bread wherof it is the signe No more is the Sacrament that same thing whereof it is a signe and yet an assured testimonie that the thing signified is giuen to our soules and faith as certeinely as the signe to our bodies But because Augustine saith except ye eate my flesh are wordes figuratiue Sander will reason thus as cunningly I warrant you as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud being reall deades which must be performed in Christes supper and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e wordes must needes be figures of somwhat and the deedes and wordes being referred to the supper must needs betoken somwhat as they are considered But the eating of the flesh in Christs supper can betoken nothing at all except his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof maie be the grounde of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of necessitie that in Christes supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drâ—nken For the fleshe of Christ can not be made the figure of bakerâ— bread c. O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schooles if such an argument came among them which reasoneth ioyntly of things to be deuided Augustine saith the words are figuratiue not the deeds of eating drinking which are signified by the words Except ye eate c. The wordes I saye of eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ are figuratiue betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper vnderstanding and what they signifie he sheweth the communication with the passion of Christ and profitable remembrance of his death which as they are represented in the supper so may we eate and drinke his flesh and bloud without the Sacrament by faith and working of Gods spirite But saith Sander if the eating of Christes flesh be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue Se you not howe this fonde Sophister confoundeth the distinction which he him selfe before had made of figuratiue speeches and figures of thinges themselues betweene rhetoricall figures and sacramentall figures I say the spirituall eating which is the communication with his passion c. is not a figure but that which is vnderstoode by those figuratiue wordes except ye eate the flesh c. And although there may be a reall eating to warne vs of spirituall eating yet that spirituall eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ c. may be without the Sacrament and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry But now he will discouer the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these wordes the first is that they make the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue onely passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely But how I pray you are the wordes figuratiue actiuely He answereth the actuall eating of Christes flesh is not onely said to be figured but also is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating If Sander were as ignorant as his argumentes are absurd he were the most notable Asse that euer wrote in diuinity but I impute it not to ignorance but to malicious deceitfullnes that he confoundeth wordes and deedes and reasoneth thus the wordes be figuratiue actiuely because the deede is figuratiue actiuely which is such a monster as Sophistry neuer bredde a greater And what proofe haue you of this actuall eating of Christes flesh to be a figure actiuely of spirituall eating Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose 〈◊〉 1.
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
Ambrose sayth de ijs qui myster init Cap. 9. Ambrose saith truely that for asmuch as the bodie of Christ is a spiritual bodie it is not a corporal food but a spiritual food Why is it not a corporall food seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our soules Verily because it is not receiued corporally but spiritually which is the difference in which we stande Wee agreefully with Augustine in Ioan. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be vnderstanded spiritually so are spirite life to vs as they be of their owne nature howsoeuer vnfaithful persons esteem of them they worke whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to signifie to be wrought by them as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We beleeue as Chrysostom teacheth Hom. 47. in Ioan. That they conteine no naturall course but are free from all earthly necessitie And therefore when Christ promiseth to giue vs his flesh to be eaten deliuereth the breade calling it his bodie we beleeue his words to be spirite and life that is not to conteine any naturall course but to be free from all earthly necessitie that is we beleeue vnfainedly to be fed with Christes bodie and bloud although we do not eate drinke it corporally with our mouth which is a naturall course of eating we beleeue that by the flesh bloud of Christ both our bodies soules are nourished wonderfully vnto eternall life not thinking it necessarie that the flesh and bloud of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies as the Papistes teache for that is an earthlie necessitie from which the words of Christ are free yet the onlie thing that Sander vrgeth so vehemently without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the fleshe and bloud of Christ. But Sander coÌ„mandeth al heretikes to cease to mocke them for making so many myracles in the Sacrament of the altar because the wordes of Christ This is my body are spirite and life Nay verily this argument will stirre vp all men to mocke the Papistes more then they did before seeing they thinke it lawfull to faine what miracles they will in the Sacrament because Christes words be spirite trueth yet more to laugh at Saâ—ders reason which will prooue these wordes to be most proper least figuratiue because they partake most of the godhead in which there is no change wheras figures or tropes come of the Greeke worde which signifieth changing Notwithstanding this great clerk oftentimes before hath taught vs that whatsoeuer is spoken of bread and meat and eating in Iohn 6. Chapter vntill he come to this saying And the bread which I wil giue is my flesh doth pertaine to the godhead of Christ and the participation therof by faith in which wordes he cannot denie but bread meat eate hunger thirst c. must bee taken figuratiuely But what drunkennesse is it to reason of these words only This is my body when all the wordes of Christ as well figuratiue speeches as proper be spirite and life as well as these Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference betweene the wordes of the Gospel the interpretation of false gospellers betwen the old fathers the new brethren For Christ saith he was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eate his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before The newe brethren bid vs feede vpon him by faith alone as Noe Abraham did I trust it shal be sufficient to proue those new brethren to be the right children heires of those olde fathers when they haue all one matter of saluation the flesh and bloud of Christ all one instrument of eating faith alone And why should the new brethren eate the godhead or manhood of Christ otherwise in substance then the olde fathers did But Sander asketh where is the word of God so giuen me after his incarnation as it could not be giuen before And I aske Sander wherfore it should bee giuen nowe otherwise then it was before and why it could not be giuen before so as it is giuen now but that he will binde the worde of God to a naturall course not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessitie He demandeth further where is any euerlasting meat for his bodie I demaund likewise wher was any euerlasting meat for the bodie of Noe Abraham our fathers But Sander saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirite and hath neede to be fedde his bodie was the meane to poyson his soule therefore his soule must haue a medicine which shall be receiued into his bodie I answere the flesh of our olde fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirite had neede to be fed were a meane to poyson the soule c yet needed they not that the flesh of Christ should be receiued into their bodies that it might bee a medicine vnto their soules no more is it needful for the newe brethren that are their children But let vs see the other differences Irenaeus reprooued them that denyed the resurrection of mens bodyes because Godly men in scripture are called spirituall the newe brethren wrest the name of spirite or spirituall bodie to denie the real substance of flesh in the sacrament Nay they inferre that the maner of the eating must be spiritual in which respect it is called a spirituall bodie and not onely for the power of quickning which it hath of that spirit of Christ. But it is a great mysterie that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. woulde haue Deacons to be chosen of such men as haue the mysterie of faith in a pure conscience Sander thinketh hee meaneth the Sacrament which in their masse at the consecration of the bloud is called mysterium sidei in Iustinus time was deliuered by the Deacons O blockish imagination such be the arguments of poperie But if it be so why is not the breade so called in your Masse as well as the cuppe And if there bee a speciall reason why the cuppe shoulde rather bee so called what conscience haue your Priests and Deacons to spoile the people therof and not to deliuer it as the Deacons did in the time of Iustinus The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeteth come al to this end that we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable that we affirme that spirit to quicken vs wtout eating of Christ in his supper we wrest to the spirit of man that which Christ saith of the spirit of god al which is false slaÌ„derous for as I haue ofteÌ„ shewed We beleue it to be of necessity that we shold eat drink the flesh blod of Christ which by vertue of his spirit hath power to giue eternal life to al them that receiue it we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and lâ—â—e so as no mortall mans words can be neither did we euâ—â— say that flesh and bloude signifieth bread and wine
a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the bodie of Christe that is to saye it signifieth it The author of this glosse durst not haue written thus if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued that the wordes of Christ were not proper but figuratiue Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ shoulde be so made present as it should enter not onely into the mouth of wicked persons as a deade bodie working no life but also into the bellyes of brute beastes which is euen horrible to name Fourthly it is not agreeable to the loue of Christ toward vs in his second comming that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to haue lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie seeing the scripture putteth vs in hope that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies Fiftly it is against the profite of Christes Church which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth but by this imagined presence is mooued to looke downe vnto Christ vpon the earth Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue Another reason Sander hath that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words or for pleasantnesse of speaking and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely onely for his pleasure therefore he spake not figuratiuely If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach then these two noted by Sander then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches for hee neuer wanted wordes to haue spoken properly that other men could speake properly neither can he be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely only for his pleasure and least of all he affected the praise of Eloquence But if it be out of question Sander also coÌ„fesseth that in other places Christ spake figuratiuely then is it out of question that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches then these two by him alledged and especially the profite of the hearers who are more moued and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue then by proper speaches And for this cause yâ— holy ghost speaking of Sacraments doth vsually call theÌ„ figuratiuely by the names of that they signifie seale vnto vs as the Lamb is called the Passeouer baptisme regeneration the bread his bodie the cuppe the newe Testament The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches is great for they admonishâ—s to be as sure of the things as we are of the signes when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches Sander that loueth no repetitions hath written a whole Chapter before lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here onely I note that by quoting the place hee abuseth Augustines rule against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue when Augustine saith expresly those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud The rocke was Christ he sayeth must needes be a figuratiue speach because it can not be proper And for the same cause say we These wordes This is my body are figuratiue for that they can not be proper But Sander replieth that if he had saide this breade is my body it might haue beene so thought for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not to say this bread of that of which before he had said this is my bodie 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander what was that which Christ had in his hand and whereof he said this It coulde not be his bodie before the words of consecration spokeÌ„ as all Catholike papists affirme then it was bread then the word following Is will not suffer the sense to be this shal be my body wherefore in effect it is all one to say hauing bread in his hand This is my body and to say This bread is my body the one is impossible by Sanders confession ergo by necessitie of argument the other CAP. II. That at all other so the wordes of Christes supper ought to bee taken properlie vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer he laboureth to proue that all words must be taken in their proper signification except the contrarie be manifestly showen Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth that all wordes in the Scripture neede not to be taken figuratiuelie and that to know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much All this I confesse but withall I affirme that these wordes This is my bodie both by diligent consideration and ancient tradition are found to bee figuratiue Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie Yes I wis the Pronowne This saith he pointeth not to a thing absent No verilie for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande Neither the Verbe Is can bee saide of that which presently hath no true being ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe which by your owne diuinitie hath no being in the Sacrament before the last syllable of Hoc est corpâ—â— meum bee pronounced then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande whiche had a true being And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before these wordes being as much as This breade is my bodie must needes bee figuratiue because they cannot bee proper for breade and Christes bodie bee two seuerall-natures that cannot stande together CAP. III. The proper signification of these wordes This is my bodie and This is my bloude is that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnder the visible formes of bread and wine If the speech were proper and not figuratiue yet the substance of breade being shewed and the substance of the cuppe and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed it woulde not followe the bodie and bloude to bee vnder these accidentes of breade and wine but either with the substance of breade and wine or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter this is an Elephant that is the substance of an Elephant is contained vnder this visible forme But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance is called by the name of another substance Might not Moses haue said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God pointing to the Rocke This is Christ or the bodie of Christ as well as Saint Paule saith that Rocke was Christ Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of
thou contrarie to the order of all the foure witnesses which thou namest thou I saye defendest the giuing to be after the saying And whereas they all saye he gaue that hee tooke and hee tooke the substance of breade thou denyest that hee gaue the substance of bread Thirdly where Christ sayeth The bread which hee will giue is his flesh which he wil giue for the life of the world which was on the crosse thou affirmest that hee giueth it only at his supper And last of al wheras he gaue presently which then presently was eaten when he said he that eateth me c. thou restrainest his gift onely to his supper wherin although he gaue that before he promised yet he gaue it not only there nor first there nor there with his hands but with his spirite ioyning with his handes that gaue the externall signes For of giuing by hands onely without his spirit it may be truely said The flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. And therfore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christes bodie on the crosse saith he offered himselfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. The fourteenth circumstance of saying Wordes are vsed for profite and for necessitie therefore the wordes of God are greatly to be regarded and especially the wordes concerning the sacrament which is an hidden mysterie and therefore hath neede to be declared by wordes but the Sacramentaries looking to Christes deedes as taking bread c. trust not his words saying This is my bodie testified by foure of his disciples Yes master Sander those whome you call Sacramentaries trust them better more certeinly beleeue them to be true in that sense which Christe did speake them than you popish transubstaÌ„tiators do in your popish error which to make your selues godmakers of arrogancie and couetousnes you defend among the ignorant But deedes except they be expounded by words saith he may haue many interpretations And the deedes of the last supper seeme to him to be vndoubted parables which the words expounde and therefore be no parables for meere figuratiue words expound nothing Who is so madd to grant to Sanders seeâ—ings that the deeds of Christ in taking bread blessing thankesgiuing breaking giuing are parables but adâ—itte they were parables why may not meere figuratiue wordes expound parables Christ himselfe expoundeth the parable of the tares Matth. 13. altogether by wordeâ— as meere figuratiue as these of the supper He that soweth good seede is the sonne of man the feeld is yâ— world The good seede are the children of the kingdome the tares are the children of the wicked The enimie is the diuell The haruest is the ende of the worlde The â—â—â—pers are the Angels And yet it is so strange a matter to Sander that a meere figuratiue speech should expound a parable who thinketh and saith that this reason alone ought to persuade any man But he will bring a greater reason the wordes of the supper giue substance to the deedes for no Sacrament can be made without wordes ordeined of God If I should vrge this rule against fiue of your Sacramentes I might easily prooue them to be no Sacraments because they haue not wordes ordeined of God to giue substance of Sacraments to the externall deedes Well the worde of Sacrament saith hee must be common and knowen therefore not figuratiue I haue shewed often before that Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe were instituted by such figuratiue speeches as these wordes This is my body This is my couenant This is the Passeouer baptisme is regeneration c. The fifteenth circumstance of take Christ bad all the twelue take ergo saith he he had Iudas to take that which he called his body which was either bare bread a figure of Christ or his body vnder the formes of bread For an â—ffâ—ctuall signe no man corporally tooke because Iudas rocke that the rest tooke and a bare signe Christ was not sent to giue nâ—r onely spirituall gifts which were giuen to the olde pâ—triarkeâ— who tooke his manhood to leaue vs corporall meanes and 〈◊〉 of grace which might worke vppon our soules c. I haue proued before that Iudas was not present â—t the supper but 〈…〉 bâ—â—n pâ—esâ—â—â— as somtiâ—â— there are as 〈◊〉 as he yet â—othing is gained by t 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ gaue bread aâ—◠〈…〉 of his bodie and bloud crucified and shedde for remission of our sinnes And what inconuenience is it if one as ill as Iudas receiue this effectuall signe which hath none effect in him because he reiecteth and contemneth it Is not the Queenes broad â—eale an effectuall signe of her pleasure which a traitour may receiue into his handes contemptuously and breake in pieces maliciously But Augustine sayeth Ep. 162. Our Lorde suffereth Iudas to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Against Augustine who sayeth he was present I oppose Hilarius which sayeth he was absent in Math. Can 30. Against Sanders exposition of these wordes our price to be nothing else but the bodie of Christ and not onely a Sacrament thereof I oppose Augustine himselfe to expounde his owne meaning who sayeth of the rest of the Apostles and of Iudas Illi manducabunt panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra Dominum In Fuan Ioan. Tract 59. They did eate the breade which was our Lorde he did eate the breade of our Lorde against our Lorde The sixteenth circumstance of eating Christ sayeth eate ye once onely meaning that they should eat bodily that he gaue them and eat it also spiritually This I allowe for vnder the signe of bodily eating â—e willed them to be assured of spirituall participation of his flesh and bloud and all benefites of his passion But this will not satisfie Sander but seeing hee sayth eate ye but once hee would haue them to eate bodily the same substance which they should eate spiritually which is no good argument And therefore hee is shamefully graueled when he saith the verbe eate by this meane standeth not vnproperly for hee can abide no figures because eating belongeth naturally both to the soule the bodie which would make any Philosopher blush to heare but the reason more because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soule and the meane principally to the body which hath instrumentes to eate for a dead body can not eate nor a soule without a body can eate properly What say you Sander is the soule the principall cause of eating and the body the instrumentall cause By this meanes the soule goeth rideth lieth speaketh leapeth daunceth and all whatsoeuer a dead man can not do Well grant then this speculation what then what other spirituall eating can be meant by this word eate ye then by any other eating for euery man eateth whatsoeuer he eateth by this reason spiritually and bodily Wherefore in spight of your nosâ— if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually as Christians vse to speake and not according to your
For what sense can these wordes haue This bloud is the newe Testament and this bloud is in my bloud And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper I denie the maior or proposition This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vs and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew The fruite of the viâ—e was not shedd for vs the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket was the fruite of the vine therefore the liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vs. That Euthymius a late gatherer referreth these wordes of shedding for vs to the cuppe I force not and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really but Sacramentally euen as his bloud is not there shedde really except the Papistes will now giue ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie and the next daye shedde naturally What misty speech is this The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery if we speake after that manner the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye eaten and drunken in a mysterye c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying which is shedd forth and simply shedd and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie which shedding forth of his bodye if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice so much prated of among the Papistes for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any feast but this and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and spirite at the supper time to some of his disciples before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide was dewe to this externall worke of God wherein with his owne handes he gaue his owne body and bloud c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence I will take his confession It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times although it be expressed but this once And if it were certeine that this was the first and last that he song with them yet there might be greate and sufficient cause of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing was euen the same night to beginne his passion which was the principall caufe of his coÌ„ming into the world for the redemption of mankinde As for these circumstances which hee confesseth doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it I wil take in hand to answer it In the meane time as he hath set them down seuerally I haue answered that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them CAP. X. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud and the proper meaning of his words is proued by the coÌ„fereÌ„ce of holie scriptures taken out of the newe testament and speaking of our Lords supper The places that he will conferre are three first Iohn 6. The breade which I will giue is my fleshe and my fleshe is meate indeede The second Math. 26. Take eate this is my bodie and this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude The thirde 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communicating of Christs bloud And the breade which wee breake is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper some are figuratiue but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together which either are both manifest in their seueral senses or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places But to folowe Sanders conference In the first sentence he saith The bread which I will giue is described in the supper by these wordes Take eate this and in S. Paul is called The breade which wee breake But I vtterly denie that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn are all one with those of the supper And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode c is not shewed by that conference But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter namely by the sacrament Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting but the sacramentall meate doth not so for according to the earthly parte of it as Origen affirmeth it goeth the same way that all other meates doe Ille cibus qui sanctificatur c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to that which it hath material goeth into the bellie and is cast out into the dunghill Origen in Matth cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ by the Papists confession it tarieth not in the wicked nor in the godly in substance but in effect as Sander tolde before therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate Secondly the breaking of the bread which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onely wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this to signifie no materiall substance but breade although Sander affirme the breaking to be after because it is so vsed in the popish Masse Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually but so is not the body of Christ as for Sanders shift of that foode and that eatable thing which we breake is but a cloake of words for if that foode be the natural bodie of Christ and that foode is naturally broken then the naturall bodie of Christ is naturally and really broken Last of all the conference of this and this cuppe to prooue that this meaneth generally the substance vnder this is not worth a chippe for these wordes this cuppe do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine and therfore This in the other saying signifieth that substance only which was in his hand which was bread and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread before hoc est corpus meum were saide
of flesh with naked soule and pure minde looke rounde about vpon those thinges that are in heauen These wordes declare plainelye that Chrysostome dreamed not of transubstantiation but spake of a spirituall handling and receiuing of Christ as of a spirituall dipping and making redde the people with his pretious bloud and of feeding on Christ in heauen by faith And so it is more wonderfull that wee in body remaining on the earth doe feede on Christ sitting in heauen not by bringing him downe vnto vs but by lifting vs vp vnto him The places of scripture that Sander quoteth as perteining to the supper although they all pertaine not vnto it yet when he can make any argument out of any of them for his carnall manner of presence I shall easily answere it CAP. XI Why the Sacrament is called breade after consecration If Master Sander had first prooued that the Sacrament is not bread after consecration wee might easily haue yelded to the reason that might be brought why it is called that which in nature it is not As wee can yeld many reasons why the Sacrament is called the body of Christ although it be not the body of Christ in the nature of it yet it is meete that first wee prooue that it is not his body after that manner that the Papistes defend and then shewe reasons why it is called by the name of that which it doth signifie But let vs heare Sanders reasons First the Hebrue tongue which the Euangelists Apostles writing Greek doth follow vseth the name bread for all maner of food Secondly a thing is called by the name of that which it was and not which it is as Aarons rod is said to haue deuoured the roddes of the coniurers yet was it turned from a rodde to a serpent Exod. 7. Thirdly a thing is called not onely as it is but as it seemeth outwardly to be so the Angell which the woman sawe at the sepulchre is called a yong man Marke 16. And in all these three respectes the Sacrament is called bread when it is not naturall bread For it is a kind of foode it was bread and seemeth to be breade But I will prooue that in none of these respectes it is called bread but because it is naturall bread in deede without conuersion of the substance First whatsoeuer is saide in Saint Iohn Cap 6. is not particular to the Sacrament for bread is there taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode which wee haue without the Sacrament Secondly when S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread after consecration there is no reason why the name of bread should not be taken for materiall bread changed in vse not in substance as the name of breade taken before consecration 1. Cor. 11. and where the Apostle saith the breade which wee breake he sheweth plainlie that he speaketh of material breade for the bodie of Christe nor spiritual foode nor general foode are not broken Secondly in the conuersion of Aarons rodde there was a sensible change there is none such in the Sacrament Thirdly as the Angel had some appearance of a man in externall shape of bodie so he had other manifest tokens in him that declared him to be an Angell and no man but the Sacramentall bread hath in it all tokens of material bread and no sensible token of the bodie of Christ therefore the comparison is nothing like The water turned into wine was iudged by the taste to be wine not water There can be no such iudgement in the Sacramentall bread for as materiall bread it tasteth and partaketh all accidents yea it nourisheth and corrupteth which neither bare accidents nor the bodie of Christ doeth or can doe The authorities that Sander citeth to proue that the Sacramentall bread is called the bodie and flesh of Christ do not denie that it is material bread yea many of the old writers expressely affirme that it is so Yet let vs consider his authorities Ignatius Ep. 2. ad Rom. saith Panem Dei volo quod est caro Christi I desire the bread of God quod which thing is the flesh of Christ. Verily Ignatius saith no more here then Zwinglius saide which was no friend to transubstantiation Secondly Iustinus saith Hic cibus c. this meate is called with vs the Eucharist or thanksgiuing after he saith We take not these things as common bread drink but wee haue learned that the meate which is consecrated by the words of praier taken of him to be the flesh bloud of Christ. He that denieth the Sacrament to be coÌ„mon bread doth not denie it to be naturall bread And Iustinus interlaceth that which Sander omitteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That meat of which our bloud flesh by transmutation are nourished we haue learned to be the flesh bloud of that Iesus that was incarnate That which nourisheth our flesh bloud is material bread although it be not coÌ„mon bread Thirdly Hilarie saith Nos verè c. we truly take the word flesh in our Lordes meate The same Hilarie saith afterward verè sub mysterio truely vnder 2 mysterie we receiue the flesh of his bodie Fourthly Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith Christ offered bread wine that is to say his owne bodie bloud Here Sander cutteth off the beginning of Cyprians words which manifestly proue material bread wine Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchizedech obtulerat id est panem vinu suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedek had offered that is to say bread wine namely his bodie bloud Speake Sander tel vs was it not material bread wine which Melchizedek brought forth the selfsame thing saith Cyprian offered Christ which yet was his bodie bloud after a certeine maner After what maner you may learne In these wordes you haue not onely the spirituall manner after which the breade and wine are called his body and bloud but also the same breade and wine to be made of cornes grapes which I trow caÌ„ be none other but material bread and wine Fifthly Irenaeus saith it is not now common bread but the Eucharisty lib. 4. C. 34. The same Irenaeus in the same place saith that Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constant terrena coelesti the Sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly thing and an heauenly Likewise he saith that of the bread wine being made the Eucharisty augeâ—ur consistit carnis nostrae substantia the substaÌ„ce of our flesh is increased and consisteth lib. 5. that is not of accidents nor of the reall body of Christ. Sixtly Ambrose de Sacr. lib. 5. calleth our daiely bread supersubstantiall breade and yet I weene it be still naturall food of the body But he saith more Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed illa panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit It is not the bread which goeth into the body but that
of Christ by faith As for Sanders cauill that the bread is not one still seeing it is broken is an impudent Sophisme For neither can Christ at one time and in one respect be called whole and broken Do not they all eate of one sheepe which eate of it after it is deuided in partes The lawe commanded one sheep for euery houshold which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect that the one bread and cup is vnto vs. So we all eate of one material bread and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie not so many aâ— eate the materiall bread but so many as eate it worthily by faith Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth as Sander would haue it seeme but in the mightie working of the spirite of God who not onely in this Sacrament but in all Sacraments of all times haue wrought the same spirituall vnion in all the faithful of all ages who al make one Church and one bodie whereof Christ is the head and euery one of the elect is a member CAP. V. Howe we are one mysticall bodie Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in this mysticall bodie faith and the Sacraments but in verie deede the spirite of God is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect sometimes not onely without the Sacraments but also without actuall faith as in infants which perteine to Gods election Faith in men of yeres is an assurance of this coniunction The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith Wherefore the bread which we breake is so a coÌ„municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith by which we are assured of this communication before wee come to the communion and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence vnder the fourme of bread For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ then wee are made one bodie and one bread But wee are made one bread and one bodie spiritually and sacramentally therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually sacramentally Sander asketh Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing I answere if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing and the selfe-same thing that the Sacrament is then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ but his mysticall bodie by â—â—rtaking of this bread Sander replieth that this vnion is in respect of the nanâ—rall bodie of Christ which I doe not deny but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vnto vs by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies which also Augustine in serm ad infantes aâ—â—d Bedam cited by Sander doth plainly testifie Nulli est allquatenus c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cuppe although before he eate the bread drinke that cuppe being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament for so much as himselfe hath found that thing which the Sacrament doth signifie whereas Christ said except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud ye shall not haue life in you Out of this place although it be directly against transubstantiation yet Sander is able to prooue it If the body of Christ saith he were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptised be partaker of the benifit of this SacrameÌ„t was he made partaker of bread and wine No forsooth but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is signified by that bread and cuppe So saith Augustine or who so euer was author of that sermon and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present in the supper then in baptisme But take away that bodie of Christ saith Sander from the forme of breade and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ for euery loafe betokeneth vnitie but not in Christ. Againe let the substance of breade remaine and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ which is absent the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder as heauen is distant from earth I answere this is poore Sophistry yet much vsed by Sander disioyning thinges that ought to be ioyned togither beside that this wise reason would proue likewise that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ because Christ is not really present with the forme of water but the substance of water remaining on earth and â—he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate is in heauen Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries such presence I say as is meete for his glorious maiestie namely by his spirite which ioyneth heauen and earth together and maketh our vnitie to be perfect although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie which if hee haue not like vnto ours in all thinges except sinne and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vnto through sinne in vaine should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him and the conformation of them vnto his glorious bodie The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of wee allowe lib. 8. de Trinit If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie and wee take truelie vnder a mysterie the flesh of his bodie and by this wee shall bee one because the father is in him and hee in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie In this saying Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father was not an vnitie of nature and substance but of will only But seeing the vnitie that wee haue with Christ which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely and by giuing his flesh truelie vnto vs vnder a mysterie in the Sacrament to bee an vnitie in substance and not in will onely it is absurd to say that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will Now let vs see what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower First he noteth that we truely take the flesh of Christ I graunt vnder a mysterie as Hilarie saith so many as receiue the SacrameÌ„t worthily for els wicked men should be vnited to Christ as he is to his father Secondly the mysterie with Sander must be the forme of bread
holy spirite after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner But it is a daintie matter that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde and of the table of Diuels saith Our â—ewe brethren granting the diuels a reall table will â—ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table wheron the visible sacrament is ministred If he meane that Christ is really present at his table as the diuells are at their table let him aduise himselfe whether they that are partakers of the diuels table are incorporate to the diuell by eating the diuell actually into their bodies or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies if onely by the latter what neede haue we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table and to bee incorporated vnto him When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient for a true incorporation the spirit of God onely bringeth it to passe both with the sacramentes and without them in euery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ. CPAP. VI. The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles First he would prooue that the Christians haue a sacrifice because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles but he seeth not the analogie S. Paul coÌ„pareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles but yâ— feast of the sacrifice of the Christians with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes Gentiles Nowe the Lordes supper is the feast of the onely sacrifice of Christ once offered by him which maketh vs to communicate with his sacrifice if we receiue it worthily as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices made the partakers coÌ„municate with their sacrifices them to whom thei are offered And whereas the Apostle saith we haue an altar wherof they haue no power to eat that serue in the tabernacle he meaneth that the ceremoniall Iewes can haue no participation of the sacrifice of Christ except they renounce their Iewish obseruations Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh or of the Lords supper which is a remembrance of Christs onely sacrifice as some haue done the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen Yes saith Sander This then being the meat of our altar it followeth that this meat is no lesse present vpon his holy table then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate was present aâ— their sacrifices but that which they did partake was really preseÌ„t and receiued into their mouthes Therfore likewise Christes fleshe is really present and receiued into our mouthes I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme For the diuels wherof the Gentiles did partake were not really present in the meate which they did eate nor receiued into their mouthes The like I say of the altar of the Iewes wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck The diuels and the altar whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers were not really present in the meate nor receiued into their mouthes therefore the flesh of Christ whereof the Christrians are partakers is not really present in the bread nor receiued into their mouthes CAP. VII The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes â—eath The shewing of Christes death wherof S. Paul speaketh saith â—ander is both by deede and worde The eating of Christes bo 〈…〉 e and drinking his bloud proueth that he was dead really for a â—hing is not eaten while it liueth whereaâ— the figure of Christes â—odie eaten doth shewe a figuratiue death past I answere the â—nely eating proueth not his death past for the Sacraâ—ent was eaten before he died which that Theophylact might salue he saith that Christ sacrificed himself from â—hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples which is all one as if he said that Christ died more then once directly contrary to the scripture Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God and in respect of the effect of his death he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died as wel as after But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body before his passion otherwise then in a Sacrament or mysterie let Sander tell if he can And where he saith a figure eaten can shewe but a figuratiue death past it is vtterly false for the figures of the lawe shewed not a figuratiue but a reall death to come And doeth not baptisme where is no reall presence shewe the Lordes death buriall and resurrection truely past But Sander will helpe the matter by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs. Which Sander thus englisheth Because we are made free through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof wee in eating drinking flesh and bloud shewe the things that were offered to death for vs. The example he bringeth out of Damascen of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones because they put them in remembrance of death is friuolous maketh nothing to the purpose for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue if it be aliue as I am sure he wil say what similitude hath it with the dead bones and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine which haue no life If the death be represented only in outward shewes seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike that the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death As for the argument a consequentibus holdeth aswell of the Sacrament as of the matter therof ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified ergo Christ is crucified But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament and knowe howe we should shew him to haue died by onely eating it I aunswere by onely eating of a liuing bodie we could not knowe that he had died therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action And further where he would knowe whether Christ did institute this Sacrament to shewe his death past in deede or
past 〈…〉 a bare shadowe I answere he instituted it before his death and therefore not so much to shewe the historie of his death to come or past as to shewe the vertue of his death by which his bodie was broken and his bloud shed that it might be meate and drinke vnto vs. And when the Apostle saith wee shewe the Lordes death he meaneth not onely the bare storie thereof but the fruit and effect thereof wherefore Sander playeth the foole egregiously to bable so much of Christs death past in deede or in shadowes to come For the olde Sacraments did not only prophecie of an action to bee done but also did confirme the faith of the godly in the fruits effects of the passiō of Christ. Finally Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratiuely where he saith when thou feest this bodie set before thee say with thy selfe This bodie nailed and beaten was not ouercome of death This bodie the sunne seeing crucified turned away his beames c. but he expoundeth himselfe sufficiently in the same Homily where he saith we must be Eagles flie into heauen where the bodie of Christ that died for vs remaineth In the same sense that it is called the bodie of Christ he applyeth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the bodie of Christ. But as for transubstantiation which the Papists woulde gather out of this place in many places he sheweth that he acknowledgeth not and ad Caesarium monachum he doth expressely denie it CAP. VIII The reall presence is proued by the illation which S. Paul maketh concerning the vnworthie eating dr 〈…〉 ing of euill men The illation proueth no real pr 〈…〉 ce by any consequence in the worlde Hee that dispitefully abuseth or negligently cōtemneth the princes seale offered vnto him offendeth against the maiestie person of the prince yet the maiestie and person of the prince is not really present vnder the formes of parchement and waxe But Sander saith the vnworthie shewing of Christs death is the vnworthie eating Who will graunt him that shewing of Christes death is nothing but eating of the Sacrament Neither doth S. Paul confesse as Sander impudently affirmeth that euil men may haue the bodie bloud of Christ in their mouthes He saith who so eateth this bread drinketh this cup of the Lord vnworthily for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the bodie bloud of Christ is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ which he despiseth in these mysteries But it is not bread wine whereof S. Paul speaketh because he doeth name it This bread saith Sander For seeing the Pronown This doth shewe a thing present to some sense or other S. Paul being absent could not shew◠any thing by any corporall action then it remaineth that the thing whereunto This doeth point is the bodie of Christ whereof he spake before This Grammaticall Logike is meete for Papisticall diuinity I thinke there was neuer man that set his penne to the paper that wrot more impudently What say you Master doctor Sander Doth the Pronowne This alway shewe a thing present to some sense or other To what sense is the body of Christ present in that thing whereof it is saide This is my body And doth the absence of Saint Paule hinder him to speake of breade in saying This bread and further him to speake of Christes naturall body in saying this is my body This learning Master Sander passeth my vnderstanding What saied I this learning I knowe not how to speake seing the pronowne This doth shew a thing present to some sense or other but the learning shewed in this Tush I must say in such kind of reasoning is an higher matter then can be conceiued by any sense witt reason or vnderstanding Neither is his sharpnes lesse in answering obiections then in making of argumentes For if you obiect that Christ meant the signe of his body he answereth that seing Saint Paule named no signe as This can not point to that which was not named so it must point onely to the thing named before which was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance I blame not Master Sander if he will not haue This to point to a signe which was not named seeing he will not haue it point to bread which with the Pronown This is named but to the body of Christ which in another sentence was named So that by this bread he doth not mean this bread but that body But seing he can allowe but one substance present and that body in the same truth is named this bread what reason is there that the thing which the word of God calleth bread and al reason and euery sense confirmeth to be bread should not be naturall breade but taken figuratiuely and that which is by the word of God onely called the body of Christ all sense and reason reclaiming that it should be his naturall body must neuerthelesse be his naturall body and by no meanes must be thought to be taken figuratiuely CAP. IX The reall presence is prooued because vnworthy receiuers are guilty of Christes body and bloud A man is guilty saith Sander either for doing an euill deede or leauing a good deede vndone or doing a good deede after an euill manner and after the last manner is he guilty that receiueth vnworthily I will not deale with his diuision nor inquire whether euery one that receiueth vnworthily doth a good deede after an euill manner But to the purpose of the reall presence his deede saith Sander is eating which thing he so really doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drinke damnation to him selfe Why so Sander is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation if it be then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and bloud of Christ which are in an other predicament then damnation But if to eate and drinke damnation be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating to deserue damnation why may not eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating and drinking to be assured of saluation wrought by the body and bloud of Christ But no man is guilty saith Sander for doing more then he actually doth therefore the vnworthye receiuer actually doth eate the bodye and bloud of Christ whereof he is guilty I deny the argument which is a balde petition of the principle for the vnworthye receiuer is guilty of the bodye and bloud of Christ not for eating and drinking it but for eatig this bread vnworthily so contemning the body of Christ or not discerning the Lordes body as the Apostle saith The antecedent is also false for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God for his euill mind purpose affection which often are more then actually he doth As in the similitude of abusing the Princes seale which
I vsed in the Chapter last before But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes which imagine that S. Paul said he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs â—â—â—per refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen 〈◊〉 guiltie of not eating Christs bodie Who euer heard of such a 〈◊〉 Nay rather who euer heard of such a lie For which of yâ— Sacramentaries as you call them doeth so interprete S. Paul Although we say that he is guiltie of Christs bodie which contemneth the same in his Sacrament and either receiueth it negligently or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously For not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily but sometimes also the elect of whome the Apostle especially speaketh disswading them from receiuing vnworthily wherby as by other sinnes they pro uoke God to punish them deserue eternal damnation if god should deale with them according to their deserts But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ who did eat only the figure of it semeth great vniustice to Sander And yet the scripture neuer saith that any maÌ„ is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily he is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ wherof that is a Sacrament Tush saith Sander if it were so meant the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment is guiltie of murthering his person I answer first the Sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ is a thing that more neere coÌ„cerneth Christ then the kings garment doth concerne the king therfore the similitude is nought but yet he that with contempt toucheth the kings garment is guilty of coÌ„tempt of the kings person And he that of malice thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person euen so and much rather as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more so much is the guiltines against the Lords person although his bodie bloud be no more touched by the contemners then the kings person by the abusers of his garment image crown scepter seal or instrument Sander after this professeth that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers coÌ„cerning that euil men eat Christs body whose words he hath partly touched before li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loth to repete that I haue so often answered vn â—o him others therfore I wil only note the places wher 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Sander are both rehersed more at larg fully answered Namely Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—llud autem c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3 Ca. 52. Priâ—osius li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—i 3. Ca. 54 Chrysost in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin de baptismo cont Donatist li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo Theophylact late writers I wil noâ— staâ—d vpon their authorities There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vpon these wordâ— Exiuit conti 〈…〉 Iudas went out by by after the supper c. which Sander citeth thus Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem nâ— sâ—intillam in animo cius accenderit The aâ—uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kindled a sparke of grace or of repentance in his minde But the words of Cyrill howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them are thus Timet vt credo diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat hac de causa festinat impellit Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit ac inde illuminauerit ad meliora retraxerit magna praecipitem agit ecleritate The diuel as I think feareth lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance the man thinking better might deliuer his minde as it were from dronkennes For this cause he maketh haste driueth forward For with great celeritie he driueth euen Iudas hedlong when after the bread he had altogither prepared himself fearing both the delaie and the vertue of the blessing least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde and thereof hath lightened him and drawen him to better thinges This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him then it doth in forme context of wordes from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued Again it was the vertue of the blessing and not the presence of the body of Christ which the diuel feared What is this for the reall presence ACP. X. The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning 〈◊〉 Lordes body First he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians was not malicious contempt of Christ but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion TheÌ„ he reasoneth thus because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie not onely of Christes worship and name but also of his owne bodie and bloude with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpoÌ„ Christ at his death it must needes be that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie I answere not onely they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude which receiue the communion vnworthily and which laide violent handes on Christes person but euen they also that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe of whom the Apostle speaketh Heb. 6. verse 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament by which they are sanctified wholy Heb. 10. vers 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault then they committe which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence are saide to offend against Christ himselfe But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world it is euident that none other meaâ—e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument which followeth as this He that despiseth circumcision hath broken the couenant of God as God saith Gen. 17 ergo circumcision is nothing but the couenant of God and not an outward seale and signe thereof He that despiseth Baptisme despiseth the bloude of Christ and the spirit of God by which baptisme is sanctified therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament which is called and to the worthy receiuer is in 〈…〉 ede the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma 〈…〉 r from common meate is guiltie of the bodie and
〈…〉 oud of Christ and yet no necessitie of reall presence 〈…〉 ereby enforced Last of all Chrysostome is cited in 1. Cor. Hom. 28. 〈…〉 at the receiuer neede to consider nothing else but 〈…〉 ho is set foorth and the greatnes of the thinges sette 〈…〉 rth Therefore saith Sander it is not breade and 〈…〉 ine that is set forth but the body and bloud of Christ. 〈◊〉 answere the body and bloud of Christ is set forth by 〈…〉 e visible creatures of breade and wine Neither did 〈…〉 hrysostome otherwise teach in all his writinges alâ—hough intreating of so high a mysterie hee speaketh many times figuratiuely and hyperbollically as Hom. 6. he saith The Church in which the sacramentes are ministred is the place of Angels the place of Archangels the palace of heauen heauen it selfe Nam hîc 〈…〉 oelum dubitas Mensam istam vide cuius gratia constituta sit quapropter For doest thou doubt that heauen is here behold this table for whose cause and wherefore it is set CAP. XI No figure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently guiltie of Christes naturall bodie Sander confesseth that when a man by willfull contempt doth breake or defile the kings image it is reputed all one as if he had striken the prince himselfe not because the deede is one but because his will is vttered no lesse in abusing the signe then if he had iniuriously touched the prince himselfe But he saith this similitude is not like because saint Paul maketh his argument rather vpon the reall fact it selfe then vpon the will or minde of the dooer I answere there is no worde in saint Paul to prooue that he maketh his argument vpon the reall fact which is eating and drinking but vpon eating and drinking vnworthily which is with a will and mind not discerning the Lords bodie Secondly Sander obiecteth that the Apostle speaketh not of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing I answere the argument holdeth as well or neglecting as of contemning that which Ch 〈…〉 commaunded to be regarded although it be a greater fault to contemne then to neglect Secondarily saith Sander they that say the signe image or figure of Christs bodie is abused must shewe wherein that figure doth consist and then he maketh a metaphysical discourse of figures and images external internal c. But I wil plainly shew him wherin the figure doth consist not that breade and wine in any thing that the eye discerneth in forme or shape are like to Christs bodie and bloude but in the vse and ende of them which is to nourish bodily as the body and bloud of Christ broken and shedde for vs is made spirituall meate and drinke to feede and nourish vs spiritually of which spirituall feeding and nourishing the bread and wine being sanctified to that vse are not a bare naked or emptie signe Image or figure but a fuil perfect and effectuall seale confirmation and assurance to as many as receive yâ— same bread and wine being nowe made so high a sacrament worthily Neither is there any other presence or Christs natural body required therin theÌ„ in baptisme of his body and bloud where vnto we are incorporated thereby then in any of the sacraments of the old Testament namelie then in Manna or the shewbread of which Sander speaketh But it is a thing neuer heard of saith Sander that either Manna or the shew breade vnworthily eaten or baptisme vnworthily taken made any man guiltie of Christs owne bodie and bloud therefore there is some other substante vnder the formes of bread and wine then was in Manna c Although the scripture saith not in so many words that he that did eate Manna vnworthily was guiltie of yâ— body of Christ yet in effect it saith the same and the same by necessarie consequence may be inferred He that did eate the same spirituall meate that we do vnworthily was so guiltie the fathers did eate the same spiritual meat vnworthily for God was not pleased â—ith them as the Apostole saith therfore they were guil 〈…〉 e of the bodie and bloud of Christ. If Sander will reply â—nd say it was not the same that we eate and drink First 〈◊〉 Paul saith expresly the rocke was Christ of whom wee 〈…〉 te and drinke S. Augustine de vtilitate poenitentioe cap. 2 â—aith expressely they did eate the same spiritual meate that 〈…〉 ve doe for Manna was Christ vnto them Cyrill in Ioan. 〈…〉 b 3. cap. 34. saith that Christ by the figure of Manna was giuen vnto those old fathers The like by Analogie is prooued of all other sacraments But Sander replyeth the â—ewes must then haue prepared examined themselues â—uerie day which is not reade of who doubteth but the Godly Iewes so did that receiued Christ by the figure of Manna and the Rocke and it is reade that they which did not receiue those sacraments worthily were therefore ouerthrowne in the wildernes Why then saith Sander if it were so it had required more perfection in the law then nowe is vsed forsomuch as we receiue our maker perhaps but once a yeare and surely at the most but once a day wheras they did eate Manna as often as hunger prouoked for 40. yeares The Law which is spirituall requireth more perfection then any man can performe but to argue what perfection is required of vs by that we vse corruptly is as grosse a fault in reasoning as theirs was in vnworthy receiuing The scripture requireth oftner communicating then once a yeare In the primitiue Church they receiued euerie day so often they were to prepare and examine themselues And what if I say that euerie day although a man doe not receiue hee ought to vse as great preparation and examination of himselfe as when he doth receiue But wee receiue but once a day at the most saith hee verily they receiued oftner because it was not onelie a spirituall meate but a bodily meate also necessarie for the maintenance of their liues as our Sacrament is not wee may eate breade which is not the Sacrament so coulde not they at that time Howe be it when so euer wee come into the presence of God to pray which wee ought to doe more then once a day I would know what preparation or examination is necessarie for them that receiue the Sacrament excepting the onely relation of receiuing but a Christian man is bounde to vse the same as precisely when he offereth his prayers vnto God I speak not as Sander doth howe vnreuerently men vse to pray but how they ought to behaue themselues in the sight of God CAP. XII The reall presence of Christs bodie is confirmed by the oft repeating of the name of flesh bodie bloud eating drinking and such like wordes And why is not the reall presence of breade and wine prooued by the oft repeating the names of breade and cuppe and the fruite of the vine as for
inwarde and outward which we must vse when we come to worship Christ himselfe CAP. II. The adoration of Christs bodie is proued againe out of the Prophet Dauid Psal. 98. The Latine text is Exaltate DominuÌ„ DeuÌ„ nostrum 〈◊〉 scabellum peduÌ„ eius quoniam sanctuÌ„ est Exalt the Lord our God worship his footstoole because it is holy Sander coÌ„fesseth the Hebrew readeth because he is holy So might he haue confessed that the Hebrew readeth worship at the stoole of his feete which is at the arke tabernacle or teÌ„ple which is called by Dauid 1. Chr. Ca 28. the footstoole of Gods feete And that the sense of this verse is all one with yâ— last verse of the same Psalm which euen the vulgar Latine interpreter readeth thus Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate in monte sancto eius quoniam sanctus Dominus Deus noster Exalt ye the Lord our God worship in his holy mountaine because the Lord our God is holy In both verses is one word of worshipping the same preposition before the word that signifieth his footstoole and that word which signifieth his hil or mountaine Therfore the Latine interpreter should not haue said worship his foot stoole but worship in or at his footstoole as he saith in or at his holy hill Wherefore the Prophet Dauid in this place speaketh nothing for worshipping of the bodie of Christ any way if his own words rather then the words of the translator be considered Wherfore the foundatioÌ„ of this worship of the Sacrament is vtterly ouerthrowen But Sander saith that the Arke the temple being the footestoole of God toward which the Iewes did pray did signifie that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heauen but also in the Sacrament which is the arke temple vessel conteining the self same substance of Manna which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Did I not tell you in the preface that he would not proue the presence by the adoration but the adoration by the presence which is all in question who shall grant that the SacrameÌ„t is such an arke temple vessel as he affirmeth But many of the old fathers vnderstood the footestoose for the bodie or flesh of Christ affirming that it was to be worshipped To this I answer first they were all deceiued in their ground of scripture that so tooke the footestoole Secondly some of theÌ„ affirming the flesh of Christ is to be worshipped had no relation vnto the sacrament Thirdly they that said it was to be worshiped in the sacrament vnderstood worshipping otherwise then the Pa pists teach practise namely for reuerencing of Christs flesh in the mysteries without any imagination of carnall presence Hierom the first author cited by Sander for this purpose in Psa. 98. saith There be many opinions of the â—ootstole what it should be But heere the Prophet meaneth our Lordes body wherein the maiesty of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a footstoole This is spoken of the humanity of Christ without any respect vnto the Sacrament therfore it followeth Quid autem adorari debeat c. And that he ought to be adored the Apostles taught at his ascension when they returned vnto Ierusalem worshipping But also these thinges are to bee referred to our Lordes crosse and to his holy soule The next is Ambrose de Spir. Sanct. lib. 3. Cap. 13. Per scabellum c. By the footstoole the earth is vnderstanded by the earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the mysteries which the Apostles as we haue said before did adore in our Lord Iesus for Christ is not deuided but one Here saith Ambrose the flesh of Christ is adored in the mysteries he saith not that the mysteries are adored as the flesh of Christ. Christ is honored or contemned in the poore in his Ministers in Magistrates in his word in al his creatures It followeth not that Christ is really present in the poore in his Ministers in Magistrats in his word in all his creatures Neither can it be prooued that by mysteries Ambrose meaneth only the Sacrament of Christes supper Againe when he saieth wee worshippe the flesh of Christ in the mysteries which the Apostles worshiped in Iesus Christ it followeth that the mysteries and Iesus Christ are diuerse thinges and not all one But when the same Christ is worshipped in the mysteries that was worshipped in his proper person it followeth as Ambrose saieth that Christ is one and not deuided Thirdly is cited Augustine in Psa. 98. who interpreting the footstoole to bee the flesh of Christ which he hath giuen vs to be eaten to saluation saith Nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit c. And no man eateth that flesh except he haue first adored it it is found out how such a footstoole of our Lordes may be adored and that we should not only offend in adoring but we should sinne in not adoring Here Augustine saith the flesh of Christ must be adored before it be eaten and who doubteth of that For hee that honoureth not Christe come in the fleshe shall neuer be nourished by his flesh and bloud But Augustine is so farre of to teach vs that Christs flesh is to be adored as really present in the Sacrament that he doth expresly denie his naturall body and bloud to be eaten and drunken for thus hee saith to the Capharnaites in the person of Christ as euen Sander reporteth ye shall not eate this body which you see nor drink that bloud which they shall shedde who shall crucifie mee I haue commended a certeine Sacrament to you being vnderstoode spiritually it will make you liue Although it must needes be celebrated visibly it must be vnderstanded inuisibly Howe thinke you Sander auoydeth the force of this place First he saith the last words must agree with the first and then both are true Very well he spake before of a spirituall manner of presence and eating of Christ in the Sacrament because he now denieth the corporall presence Secondly he answereth that Augustine speaketh of the visible forme and not of the substance of the body of Christ which is inuisible O abhominable impudence Augustine saith you shal not eate this bodye nor drinke that bloud Sander saieth These wordes body and bloud are taken for visible formes and not for the substance â—â—r Christ tooke not that greatnesse and quantity of flesh of his mother wherein he walked for his greatnesse increased from the state of an infant to the state of a perfect man But I pray thee Sander if with shamefastnesse thou hast not lost all thy wit tell me whether Christ was crucified in the state of an infant or in the state of a perfect man Augustine denieth the eating and drinking of that body which was crucified and that bloud which was shedde when he was crucified which body also he demeth that the Church hath present vpon
body is receaued by mouth not by faith onely Iew. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only and none otherwise Sand. You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresie and affirme the same which the Arrians did Fulk Master Iewel is more free from Arrianisme then you from Eutychianisme Sand. Christ saide after bread taken c. Take eate this is my body but he spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and the thing eaten to bee his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also Fulke That which was to be eaten with mouth was breade in nature and his body in mystery which body was to be eaten by faith and not by mouth as the bread was to bee eaten by mouth and not by faith Sander All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christes supper came from Christ but all that he is writen to haue giuen came from his handes therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all or his bodye came then from his owne handes Answere the Gospell master Iewel or els blaspheme no more Fulke I denie your minor For it is writen The spirite it is that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing Ioh. 6. Life remission or sinnes participation of his death c. were giuen but not all nor at all by his handes but by his diuine spirit Sander The fathers teach that we eate Christes body by our mouthes and not dy faith onely Fulke They teach we eate the Sacrament which is so called and which after a certaine manner is the body of Christ but not absolutely Sander S. Cyprian saith of euill men Ser. de lap 5. Plus modo they sinne now more against our Lord with their handes and mouth then when they denied our Lord. Fulke They sinne against our Lord in receiuing the Sacrament vnworthily more then in denying because denying was of weakenes this other of hypocrisie Sander Cyprian saith the sinne is inuading and doing violence to our Lordes body and bloud Fulke That is to the Sacrament thereof for our Lords body is impassible Sander Chrysostom witnesseth vs to take in our handes in our mouthes to touch to eate to receiue into vs Christes flesh is all this done by faith onely Fulke Chrysostom witnesseth we see All the people to be made red with the bloud of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith Desacerd lib. 3. Hee saieth Christ iâ— broken in the SacrameÌ„t which he was not on the crosse Is that done really in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Sander Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter ye ought so to communicate that ye doubt nothing c. Fulke Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sander Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. sheweth vs to eate Christ corporally Fulke You slander Cyril he saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwel in vs corporally by participation of the flesh of Christ not by faith and loue onely Iewel Christes body is meat of the mind not of the belly saith S. Cyprian Sander I find no such wordes in Cyprian but whosoeuer spake them it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not materiall bread Fulke If you finde not the wordes in Cyprian you may finde them in Gregory who by error of the printer is called Cyprian and you may finde the sense in Cyprian wee sharpen not our teeth nor prepare our belly but with syncere faith we breake the holy bread You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread we agree with you and euer did Iewel Beleeue and thou hast eaten saith S. Augustine of Christes blessed body Sander These words are not offacramental eating but of spirituall eating Fulke He saith vt quid paras dentes ventrem to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Therefore he sheweth that Christ is not receiued by mouth and belly but by faith onely Iewel It is better to vse the worde figure than the wordes really corporally Sander It is better to vse the wordes body bloud flesh which are the wordes of scripture than the worde Figure which is vsed of the fathers only Fulk Master Iewel compareth not the worde figure with the wordes of scripture but with the wordes really corporally vsed neither in scripture nor in the fathers CAP. IIII. Sander Master Iewel hath not replied well touching the sixt Chapiter of Saint Iohn but hath abused as well the Gospell as diuerse authorities of the fathers Harding The promise of giuing the flesh which Christ would giue for life of the worlde beeing onely perfourmed in the supper prooueth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper which was offered vpon the crosse for the life of the world Iewel Master Harding supposeth no man to eate the flesh of Christ but onely in the Sacrament Sander He denieth not but that Christes flesh may be eaten spiritually both by faith and by baptisme but not really saue onely in the supper Fulke If Christ speak there onely of his gift in the supper then all are void of life eternall that receiue not the supper Except ye eate c. Iewel The wordes bee plaine and generall vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man yee shall haue no life in you Sander He saith ye shall not haue life in you Fulke A diuersity without a difference Sander He meaneth of him who hauing discretion to prooue himselfe refuseth to receiue the Sacrament of Christes supper Fulke This is a glosse of your owne discretion and not the meaning of Christes wordes who denieth life to all them that are not fedde with his flesh and bloud Iewel Seeing Christian children receiue not the Sacrament by Master Hading it will followe they haue no life Sander It will followe they haue not in themselues the flesh of life as Cyrillus â—aith in their bodies but it is an vntrue sequel to say they haue no life at all for they haue spirituall life in baptisme Fulke They could haue no life in baptisme if they were not fedde with the flesh and bloud of Christ without which there is no life at all whatsoeuer it please Sander to glosse Iewel S. Ambrose saith Christ giueth this bread to all men daily and at all times Sander He may meane of the gift which is in spirite or which is daily ready in the Sacrament Fulke He doth meane that the breade is not giuen onely in the Sacrament which is not giuen to all men nor at all times Iewel S. Augustine saith They eate Christes body not onely in the Sacrament but also in very deede Behold not onely in the Sacrament Sander S. Augustine speaketh of the mysticall body which is the company of the elect and the holy Church of God not of the naturall bodye which sitteth at the right hand of God Fulke Augustine saith qui ergo est c. He then that is
in the vnitie of his body that is in the couiunction of Christian members the Sacrament of which body the faithful communicating are accustomed to receiue from the altar he is to be said truely to eate the body of Christ and to drinke the bloud of Christ. De ciui Dei li. 21. Cap. 25. In the same Chapiter he apposeth Sacramento tenus reuera manducare corpus Christi to eate the body of Christ as far as the Sacrament and to eate the body of Christ in very deede Ergo they that eate the Sacrament onely eate not the body of Christ in very deede Therefore Christs gift is not onely in the Sacrament Iewel The fathers of the old law receiued the selfe same body that is now receiued of the faithfull Aug. de vtil pâ—n Cap. 1. Sander Augustine saieth the selfe same spirituall meate that is Christ by faith but not the same corporall meate which is the body of Christ Tract 11. in Ioan. Fulke Augustine saith not that the body of Christ is our corporall meat but that which answereth in proportion to Manna as a corporal meat namely bread and wine Tract 26. Sander But Tract 11. he saith Quid est Manna what it Manna I am saith Christ the liuing breade that came downe from heauen Fulke It followeth immediately Manna accipiunt fideles the faithfull receiue Manna therefore hee meaneth not Manna in this place for the corporall meate but for the bodye of Christe whiche is spirituall meate Sander But he sayeth further It is knowen what God had rained from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what Christians take Let them blush because they knowe not Let them passe ouer by the redde sea Let them eate Manna that euen as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit him selfe to them Therefore Iesus is eaten bodily of vs after baptisme Fulke I denye the argument except Manna be Iesus bodily If Manna be spiritually taken then Iesus is eaten in the Sacrament as he was in Manna which Sander confesseth to be onely spiritually Sander But Catechumeni might so eate Christ that is spiritually Fulke They might not eate Christ in the Sacrament before they were baptized and therfore they were ignorant of that mysterie Iewell Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and bloud of Christ in baptisme whiles he findeth that vnitie which is signified by the Sacrament Therefore the faithfull eate Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament Apud Bedam 1. Cor. 10. Sander They are not partakers really but onely in the Sacrament of the supper in which if the body were not really present hee that is baptized shoulde not at all be partaker of the Sacrament of Christes supper because hee is not partaker of bread and wine but onely is made a member of that mysticall bodie which in the Sacrament is signified Fulke Beda knewe no such distinction of really spiritually Neither doeth he saye they are partakers of the Sacrament of the supper but of the bodie and bloud of Christ in baptisme wherefore I knowe not whereof Sander dreameth Sander Augustine saith of heretikes and schismatikes de ciuit Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. They are not in that bonde of peace which is expressed in that sacrament The bond of peace expressed is not the wheaten cornes molded in one loaf but the bodie of Christ present really vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulke Alack poore sophistrie Christ is the bonde of peace but the bonde of peace is expressed in the externall Sacrament of breade and wine Although the wheaten cornes are not the bonde of peace expressed yet the bonde of peace is expressed by the wheaten cornes c. Sander Looke in my 5. booke Cap 5. Fulke Looke there for an answere CAP. V. Sander Master Iewell hath not replyed well touching the Capernaites Harding If Christ in S. Iohn had spoken tropically the Iewes and disciples who were vsed to figures would not haue said This is an hard saying Iewell His reason hangeth thus The Capernaites vnderstoode not Christ ergo his bodie is really in the Sacrament Sander No sir They vnderstoode Christ to speake without parables Christs wordes pertaine to the sacrament therefore his bodie is really in the Sacrament They vnderstood what Christ promised but they beleeued it to be either not possible or not conuenient Fulke The maior minor of your mishapen syllogisme are both false Augustin in Ps. 33. Exhorruerunt sermonem c. They were afraide of his speache not vnderstanding they thought our Lord Iesus Christ had spoken some hard thing c. Sander S. Augustine saith they vnderstoode not because they beleeued not in Ioan. Tr. 27. Fulke What though infidelitie were the cause of their not vnderstanding yet he saith Non intelligeÌ„do scandalizati sunt By not vnderstanding they were offended ergo you saide falsely they vnderstoode what he promised And much lesse vnderstoode they the meane howe it should be perfourmed Iewel He said The bread which I will giue c. of spirituall eating It is the spirite that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith Augustine Sander See in my third booke Cap. 19. 20. Fulke See the answere in the same places Iewel Ye shal not eat saith S Augustine with your bodily mouth this bodie that you see c. I giue you a certeine Sacrament Sander Of this place I haue spoken at large lib. 6. Cap. 2. lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulk And I haue sufficiently answered in the same places Sander Beside this great dissimulation of S. Augustines meaning Master Iewel hath false translations Fulke Sander heth foolish quarels master Iewell giueth the sense faithfully Iewel We haue a spirituall mouth taste eyes eares as Basil Leo Origen Tertullian say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the minde not of the bellie to beleeue in him that is to eat the liuing bread therefore Christs meaning is spirituall not reall Sander The fondest kind of reasoning in the world Christ is eaten both spiritually bodily Fulke Al these fathers meane only spiritual eating excluding all other carnal grosser maners of eatings Sander Doth not Tertullian say The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ to the ende the scule may be made fatt of God Fulke Tertullian speaketh manifestly of the externall Sacraments which haue the name of the things signified as of the signes of baptisme impositioÌ„ of haÌ„ds c. Iewel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who saith to vnderstand carnally is to vnderstand plainly as the thinges be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing else Sander We vnderstand not so For wee seeing the forme of breade thinke vpon the bodie of Christ. Fulke But what did the Capernaites see whose vnderstanding you defende And what other thing do you vnderstand then is vttered in the wordes Iewel S. Augustine saith The saying of Christ is a figure or manner of speach commanding vs to be partakers
The name of spirituall may be taken as many wayes at spiritus which is for God the holy ghost Christ Angels winde gifts spiritual the soule the imagination breath anger or punishment and many other waies Fulke So many waies of taking as you knowe yet you cannot tell any other then as Clemens and Hierom take it for that which hath not the substance but the grace and effect of Christ. Sander That which you bring out of Athanasius apperteineth to the Capernaits and to no man else Fulke Yes to as many as erre grossely like the Capernaites as you Papistes doc Harding The fathers vsed the wordes really substantially c. to put away al doubt of the being of Christs verie bodie in the holy mysteries Iewel He diuineth what they meane before they speake Sander Nay because he is sure of their words he expoundeth their minde Fulke He is so sure of their wordes that he knoweth not where they are written nor you neither Being so often called for and so much bragged of bring them out for shame CAP. XIII Sander A place of Chrysostome expounded Iewel Chrysostom saith in the same homilie If Christ died not whose signe and token is this sacrifice therefore he may be also charged with the sacramentarie quarel Sander You proue a signe here but not that the trueth is absent from the signe Fulke The Sacrament is a signe ergo not the thing signified a relatis Sander The sacrifice of the new testament is the bodie of Christ this is the sacrifice of the newe testament therefore it is the bodie of Christ. Fulke The Sacrament is not the sacrifice propitiatorie of the newe Testament but the passion of Christ. The Sacrament is a spirituall Sacrifice of thanksgiuing as prayer almes preaching vnto which is no reall presence required Your syllogisme is all of particulars make the maior vniuersall and the error is soone espied Euery Sacrifice of the newe Testament is the bodie of Christ. Sander Chrysostome there saith that Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus who denied Christes reall flesh and death are confounded by these mysteries How can that be if the true flesh of Christ be not conteined in them Fulke Verie well as Tertullian frameth his argument from the figure to the thing figured The SacrameÌ„t could not be a figure of Christs body except Christ had a bodie in deede For a voide thing that is a phantasme can haue no figure Sander Chrysostom saith it is euident by these mysteries that Christ is alreadie sacrificed which cannot be true if his reall flesh be not present of which point I haue spoken in my fift booke Cap. 1. Fulke And in the same place I haue aunswered the vanitie of your argument Iewell Master Harding knoweth that Chrysostome speaketh generally of all other mysteries for it followeth Euen so in baptisme the water is a thing sensible the regeneration is a thing spirituall wherefore if M. Harding will force his reall presence in the one Sacrament hee must likewise force the same in the other Sander D. Harding brought that place onely to shewe that the bodie of Christ is not visibly present Fulke The place prooueth that the body of Christ is none otherwise present then regeneration in baptisme Sander In baptisme the grace of regeneration which is giuen is conteined and giuen when the worde commeth to the water Fulke The water is no subiect for the grace of God yet Chrysost saith not the grace but regeneratioÌ„ it self Nothing is borne againe but the partie baptized therefore regeneration is not conteined in the element or action of baptisme CAP. XIIII Sander The difference betweene baptisme and our Lords supper Iewel Forasmuch as these two Sacraments be both of like force I wil touch what the fathers think of gods working in baptisme The fathers in the Councell of Nice bid vs thinke that the water is full of heauenly fire c. Basil the kingdome of heauen is set open Chrysostome God himself in baptisme 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 bloud c. By force of which wordes M. Hard. may proue that the power of God the heauenly fire the grace bloud of Christ is really present in baptisme Sander Nothing is really present that is affirmed of a Sacrament except it be signified present in the wordes instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament or of necessitie be inferred vpon them Fulke Neither is all that really present which is affirmed of a Sacrament that is signified present in the words instituted by Christ which make the Sacrament As Christ saide This is my bodie so hee sayde This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud yet it followeth not that the newe Testament is really present in the cuppe no nor in the bloud of Christ which he shedd for vs but is confirmed by it and signified by the other Sander Baptisme the Eucharist hath many differences the one from the other Fulke If they had no differences they should be all one yet haue they not so many as you make But in the matter in question they haue like force to vnite vs to Christ and assure vs of eternall life which none can haue but they that eate the flesh and drinke the bloude of Christ or else what becoÌ„meth of them that are baptized and not admitted to the communion CAP. XV. Sander M. Iewel replyeth not wel touching the authoritie alleaged out of the Nicen Councell Harding We behold saith the Councel of Nice the lambe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put or laide on that holy table we receiue his precious bodie and bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily in deede which is to say really Iewell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greek nor in Tunstall but deuised by M. Harding Sander It is founde in the actes of the Councell that are not all printed but they are extant in diuerse Libraries Fulke You name none where we should find them to trye your trueth and the antiquitie of those coppies Sander In many Latine printed bookes it is translated sâ—â—m situated or put Fulke The question is not what some Latine coppies haue but what is the originall Greeke Iewel Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be set or placed needes sounde a reall presence Sander Can you haue a capon set and placed vppon your table which is not really present Fulke A fit comparison betweene a capon and the lambe of God Iewel Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith and yet not really Sander The lambe of God is not saide to be on the holy table by faith but to be set or laide there Fulke How can the Councell saye We behold it set there but by faith Iewel S. Hierom saith as often as we enter into the sepulchre we see our Sauiour lying in his shroode yet he lay not there really Sander But he lay
meaneth we are not made consubstantiall to the Trinitie Fulke He denyeth the corporall manner of vniting of substances namely of the substance of our bodies with the substance of the bodie of Christ. Iewell The coniunction because it is spiritual true full and perfect is expressed by this terme corporall Sander As though God because he is spiritual true full and perfect he might therefore be called corporall Fulke As though that which is in somethings is necessarie to bee in all thinges and yet the Godhead which is spiritually truly fully and perfectly in Christ is said to be in him corporally Col. 2. Sander Who euer heard of such vanitie because it is spirituall it is termed corporall Fulke Who euer heard vainer sophistrie then that which diuideth things to be ioyned together Master Iewel addeth true full perfect Iewel Corporall coniunction remoueth all maneâ— light and accidentall ioyning Sander If all accidentall ioyning be remoued only substantiall ioyning remaineth A substantiall ioyning requireth the substances to be present that are ioyned together Fulke The substances that are ioyned together after a spirituall manner neede no locall presence of the substances to be ioyned whome the spirite of Christe can couple though they be in place distant with an inseparable vnion Iewell It is vtterly vntrue that we haue Christ corporally within vs onely by receiuing the Sacrament Sander Neuer a father by you named saith as you doe and therefore you speake of your owne head Fulke All the fathers that saye Christ dwelleth in vs corporally speake generally of all the members of the Church of which many haue not receiued the Sacrament therefore it is not by the Sacrament onely Sander Seeing wee cannot haue him corporally in vs without his bodie be within vs and yet none other thing is his bodie beside that which is deliuered at his supper by that meane onely hee may bee corporally in vs. Fulke Neuer a father by you named either sayeth or meaneth that any of your two propositions are true therefore your conclusion is of your owne heade Iewel By Master Hardings construction the childe is damned who dyeth without receiuing the Sacrament of Christes bodie Sander No Catholike doeth teache so Baptisme sussiceth vntill a man come to yeres of discretion Fulke Ergo Baptisme maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally Iewell Without naturall participation of Christes flesh there is no saluation Sander If it be so it is you that teach the damnation of all those that receiue not the Eucharistie Fulk It is so because Christ saith Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud c. and because it is so and yet all are not damned that receiue not the Eucharist This naturall participation eating of the flesh of Christ is not onely in the Eucharist Iewell S. Chrysostome saith In the Sacrament of baptisme we are made flesh of Christes flesh and bone of his bones Sander These wordes you haue not in Chrysostome Fulke You cauill at the forme of wordes whereupon M. Iewell standeth not when you cannot auoide the matter Sander He saith they that are partakers of the mysteries can tell how they are formed properly and lawfully out of him Fulke That they are alike formed out of Christ in both the Sacraments it ouerthroweth your corporall presence in the one only Sander Moreouer he giueth another sense expounding ex ipso for secundum ipsum Fulke That taketh not away the force of his authoritie in the former sense Sander He sheweth that we are taken out of Christs side as Eua out of Adam Fulke If that be by baptisme it proueth M. Iewels proposition that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones Sander Although it were in him yet is it to no purpose for it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ which may be meant of his mysticall flesh another thing to partake his flesh naturally We are made of his flesh by spirituall meanes Fulke What can it bee to partake naturally his flesh if it be not to become flesh of his flesh bone of his bones you saye we may be made of his flesh by spirituall meanes what may wee be made of the matter of his flesh Chrysostome telleth you flesh and bones yea of his mysticall flesh What are we made mysticall flesh then verily wee must bee made mysticall bones also This is a mistie exposition of so cleare a matter Sander The reason why certeine places of Scripture are interpreted sometime of baptisme sometime of Christes supper is because in the olde time in manye countries the Sacrament of Christes bodie was giuen straight after baptisme Fulke A wise reason why they shoulde make that common to both the Sacraments which was proper to one They were not ministred so neete in time but they could discerne what was common what was peculiar to either of them Iewel Master Harding is not yet able to find that Christes bodie is either corporally receiued into our bodies or corporally present in the Sacrament Sander It is you that are not able to finde it for D. Harding hath founde it and I haue shewed it in Chrysostome S. Hilarie Gregorie Nyssen Fulke Let the readers iudge what you haue founde but vaine cauillations for neither the words nor the matters you haue shewed Sander So would I shewe it at large out of Cyrillus but that partely the booke is growne alreadie too great partly a marueilous number of places doe proue both Christes bodie to be corporally receiued into our bodies and to bee corporally present in the Sacrament Fulk So would I answere you sufficiently for any thing you can bring out of Cyrillus but that I haue answered alreadie in many places throughout this booke to all that euer you can gather and scrape to make a shewe of any such matter which were meere tediousnesse here to repeate Harding The Catholike fathers sithens Berengarius time haue vsed the termes really substantially c. to exclude metaphors and figures and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion with Christ by meane of his naturall flesh really though not locally present Iewell These doctors liued with in these 300. yeres and are such as Master Harding thought not worth the naming Sander Hee named none because your impudent proclamation bound him to the time Fulke He was not so bound to the time but he might haue named if any had beene of greater antiquitie then 300. yeares Sander Damascen saith the bread wine water is supernaturally changed into the body bloud of Christ. Theophilact saith the bread is with secret wordes changed into our Lordes flesh and these are aboue 700. yeres old speaking of transubstantiation Fulke Neither of both vseth the termes really substantially c. which is the matter in question And although they vse the termes of changing and transformation yet neither of both acknowledged transubstantiation nor the Church of the Grecians whereof they were members vnto this day doth acknowledge
of the doctrine of diuels and spirite of errour whose fruite is forbidding of marrying eating of meates 1. Tim. 4. which is hereticall and abhominable for what cause of religion so euer it be And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisie it is more probable that he speaketh against the Papists than against those open blasphemers But howe proueth Bristowe that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites Forsooth because Augustine sayeth Quidam perhibent istos sicut Eucratitas vel Apotastitas non admittere ad communionem suam nisi continentes eos qui seculo ita renuntiaverint vt propria nulla possideant ab esâ—a tamen carnium non eos abstinere dicit Epiphanius Philaster verò hanc eis tribuit abstinentiam Some say that these men as the Eucratites or Apotastites do not admit into their societie but onely such as conteine from marriage and haue so renounced the world that they possesse no proper goods yet Epiphanius sayeth not that they abstain from eating of flesh but Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence The similitude which Bristowe by falsifying S. Augustine and displacing his wordes would haue to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites is onely in the abstinence from marriage and meates and possessions not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained For seeing Aerius was an Arrian he could not hold the pluralitie of Gods For the Arrians so held the vnitie of the godhead that they denyed the Trinitie of the persons in equall substance And although he were the scholer of Eustachius yet it followeth not that he held all pointes as his maister did Augustine chargeth him to haue added these matters of his owne Beside that diuerse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists concerning the marriage of priestes and the abstinence from meates howsoeuer the papistes will not seeme to be so boysterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdome of heauen to them that marry and hope to them that eate fleshe yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write that they which be marryed be in the flesh and cannot please God Ep. ad Him Tarrat And what a daungerous matter the Papistes count it to eate flesh in tymes by them prohibited all the world doth know 4 Of Ceremonies and Liturgies The church is S. Augustines times approued vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages because Augustine complaineth of them Ep. ad Ianuar. 118. and wisheth that they might be abrogated so soone as occasion serued Bristowe quarreling that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission answereth that Augustine in the same epistle sayeth Tamen ecclesia c. Yet the church of God approueth not any thing that is against the faith or against good life And I reply notwithstanding that they may be vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages For so the same Augustine writeth in thesame Epistle Quamuis enim c. For although neither this can be founde howe they are against the faith yet they oppresse the religion it selfe with seruile burdens which the mercie of God would haue to be free with moste fewe and manifest sacraments of celebrations so that the condition of the Iewes is more tollerable which although they haue not knowen the time of libertie yet they are subiect to lawfull burthens not to humaine presumptions But Bristowe proceedeth and vrgeth an other saying of Augustine that if the whole church vse any thing it is a point of most insolent madnesse to call in question whether that should be so vsed I answere wee speake of approuing of vsages not of any thing that is generally vsed The church is S. Augustines time approued diuerse vnprofitable vsages by secrete consent without open abrogation which yet were diuerse in diuerse places Where I proue they were vnprofitable by this reason that many of them are abrogated he answereth that is no good argument for there might be good cause to abrogate them although they came of the tradition of the Apostles as the decree of not eating blood nor strangled Act. 15. and the custome of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to praye and prophesie bareheaded To the former decree I reply that it was temporall and not meant by the makers to be eternall but to beare with the infirmitie of the Iewes for a time To the other custome of praying or preaching bareheaded whatsoeuer the pompous doctors of the popish church obserue I saye it is perpetually to be obserued for the distinction of the man and woman in couering and vncouering of the head and the obseruing of naturall comlinesse in both although for necessitie of health a nightcap kercheffe or such like couering according to the custome of the country be not absolutely prohibited As for the forbidding of solemne fastes and genuflections on sundayes which Bristowe sayeth was ordeined by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection and more straitly obserued of the church against the Manichees which might be abrogated nowe that article is receiued and the heresie extinct is but a dreame of his owne head without proofe so 〈…〉 et it passe although I knowe not what he meaneth to say that forbidding of solemne kneeling is still obserued for the papistes kneele as solemnely on sundayes as on other dayes As for the libertie the church hath in altering of ceremonies is neuer denied of me but fondly alledged of him which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be obserued as commaundements of the scripture referring euery blynde ceremonie whereof he knoweth none author to tradition of the Apostles Nowe concerning the Liturgies he sayth Proclus answereth why Basil Chrysostome changed the auncient Liturgies that were before them he sayth forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgie of S. Iames which was too loÌ„g for the peoples cold deuotion But his reason will soone proue all the three Liturgies that nowe are called by the names of S. Iames Basil and Chrysostome to be counterfeits for ther is small difference in the length of them and in a manner none at all As for the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo doth in deede name the Lyturgies of S. Iames Basil Chrysostome but that proueth not these which we haue at this day to be the same seeing there are manifest arguments to the contrary as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth vnder the name of Iames and of Alexius the Emperour Nicholas the bishop in Chrysostome which were not borne many hundreth yeares after his death But that prayers for the dead were vsed in the ancient Liturgies that were before Chrysostomes tyme Bristowe sayeth he hath proued by plaine demonstration Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostome cited by me in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 3 Non frustra c. It hath not been in vaine decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy mysteries memorie should be made
of them that are hence departed c. This saying proueth a remembrance but not a prayer neuerthelesse of this remembrance vsed in the elder times they gathered prayers to be profitable But more clearely that it was a remembrance without prayers it appeareth by Epiphanius which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ cont Aer ser. 75. 5 Of sacrifice and for the deade The name of sacrifice which the fathers vsed commoÌ„ly for the celebration of the Lords supper they tooke of the Gentiles you might adde and of the Iewes also for that somewhere I doe affirme But howe proue you they had it of the scriptures Because Christ saide not this is I that was borne of the virgin but this is my body this is my bloude The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely that he is guiltie of Christ but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe doest thou dreame we speake of the name of sacrifice whether it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper But if I knewe saith he what is the sacrifice of a liue thing I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner as he was properly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth when hee exhorteth vs to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice Rom 12. yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie vnder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade Also as blinde as you make me I see the Altar Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate so long as they remaine in Iudaisme but that sacrifice is the death of Christ whereof none that continue in obseruation of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers As for the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels in one forme of speach 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes table opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils but the feast of the Lordes table contrarie to the feast of the idoll offerings whereof the controuersie was and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentils For if hee had ment of the sacrifices of both he woulde haue na 〈…〉 ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels For 〈◊〉 alter is proper for a sacrifice as a table for a feast or â—past So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion I canâ—ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture of â—ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper But â—ontrariwise I finde in the scripture that he offered onâ—y one sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once vpon the â—rosse Heb. 9. 10. Purgatorie Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima cap. de recepâ—u that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did seing all philosophers that graunted the immortalitie of the soule as Pythagoras Empedocles and Plato assigned three places for the soules departed Heauen hell and a thirde place of purifying This argument saith Bristowe proueth as wel that heauen hel â—he immortalitie of the soule had their originall of the â—hilosophers He is a perillous Logician that can so coÌ„â—ude For heauen hel and the immortalitie of the soule â—re founde in the scriptures which are before all philosophers but of the thirde place of purifying we may say as Augustine doth contra Pelag. hypognost lib. 5. Tertium peâ—itus ignoramus The thirde place we know not at al neither doe we finde it in the holy scriptures But if I would reporte the trueth Bristowe saith there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying but that those philosophers made onely two sorts of receptacles But if I find three and the third a place of purifying what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth First hee graunteth supernas mansiones the high mansions for the soules of the Philosophers and wise men onely secondly Inferos hell or the lowe places whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell 3. What say you Bristowe al the soules except Philosophers soules Could you not see betweene them imprudentes animas the foolish soules remayning according to the Stoikes about the earth which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules What was this but a third place and a place of purifying But if you woulde haue your purgatorie more plainely described you may resort to Virgil Aeneid 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged Quin supremo cum lumine vita reliquit c. After this life hath left them saith he yet is not all euill nor all the infections of the bodie departed froÌ„ them and it is necessarie that such things as haue beene long gathered together shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away Therefore they are exercised with paines and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills some soules are hanged vp against the voyde windes to some their sinne remayning is washed away vnder great raging waters or burned vp with fire Euery one of vs suffer our punishments and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes c. Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing as the papists doe theirs Bristow saith by this argument I wil winne much honestie bicause the purgatorie that Carpocrates inuented was a wallowing in all sinfull operation c. What is that to mine honestie I saide he inuented a kinde of purgatorie and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie I said he proued his purgatorie as the papists doe theirs but to that Bristowe aunswereth neuer a worde But this is small honestie for Bristow that such things as are ioyned together by me to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection they are seuered by him as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes to confute their purgatorie Purgatorie fire I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules then the papistes doe 〈…〉 r some soules and the name of purgatorie fire began 〈…〉 bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origens error which was of purging all soules 〈…〉 i th the erronius practise of praying for the deade out â—f which they gathered the purging of some soules That I say of Origen although Bristowe confesse it to 〈…〉 e true in effect yet he saith I speake it without proofe My proofe is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contemâ—imus c. But if in this life we contemne the words
Gardener others challenge Theodoret Gelasius Againe he sayth The fathers are against the Protestants because they excuse Hilarie Chrysost. Cyrill by the figure of Hyperbole which is a Rhetoricall lye but in deede this argument is a lewde lye of one which knoweth neither Logike nor Rhetorike but like a young smatterer or a sophisticall cauiller For the figure of Hyperbole is not a lye more then any other figure of Rhetorike in the true vnderstanding thereof whereas after wrong vnderstanding euen that which is spoken without all figure is false and vntrue Finally whereas he chargeth vs to denye the workes of the auncient writers Dionysius Ignatius Polycarpus Abdias c. that is a lowde lye shadowed neither with Rhetorike nor reason for we denye not the workes of those fathers but we refuse counterfeit workes falsely ascribed to them which thing if we proue not by manifest demonstration we require no credit As for that which he cauilleth against master Nowel I omitte as being confuted by master Nowel him selfe But where he sayeth the scriptures woulde neuer abide him that should saye This is not my body I answere we neuer say This is not Christes body after any manner but this is not his body after a grosse carnall or naturall maner and that saying the scripture will abide euen as well as this The rocke was not Christ naturally substantially or essentially although the scripture saye The rocke was Christ. Or this Christ was not a vine properly naturally or substantially notwithstanding that he sayeth I am a verie or true vine The prowde bragge which Sander maketh that popish Catholikes lacke no scripture for any of their assertions how true it is let all men iudge seing that for many things they confesse they haue nothing to shewe but tradition vnwritten Likewise how aptly in this controuersie of the supper he hath examined the wordes of Christes supper noted the circumstances of thinges done and saide there conferred the scriptures of both the testaments and ioyned the fathers of the first sixe hundred yeres And yet he fauoureth him selfe so much in his doing that hee boldly affirmeth vs to haue no helpe of those things For scriptures we cannot conferre to make the wordes of the supper plaine because Doing and the words therof are more playne then any other place of scripture concerning it as the passion of Christ is more playne then the lawe and Prophets c. If this were true the Apostles labored in vayne to proue the passion of Christ out of the lawe and the Prophets and the rest of the writings of the Apostles are needlesse and vncertayne instruction if the historye of the passion doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be knowen concerning it But it is a clarkly conclusion of Sander That if the words of the supper be figuratiue none other can be playne as though figuratiue speaches cannot be playne when they are vsed for playnesse sake of them that knowe how to vse them And because Sander chargeth vs Tell me masters c I say likewise Tell me masters Are these wordes recorded to be spoken in the institution action of the supper This is the new Testament in my bloud Tell me I say are these the verie words which Christ then spake or the interpretation of them If they be the very words which of you wil say they are not figaratiue If they be the interpretation then are they more cleere plaine then those words which he vttered This is my bloude Now whether the iudgement of the primitiue Church for the first 600. yeares maketh for vs as it hath in many treatises so in this that followeth it shal be shewed sufficiently Last of all it wil appeare both by the scriptures and testimonie of the fathers that the iudgemēt of the externall senses or naturall reason was not the first argument that might moue thē that first departed from antichristianitie to the ancient true vnderstāding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper Of the almightie power of Christ we doubt no more then of his will reueiled in scriptures in which seeing we learne that Christ concerning his humanitie was made like vs in all things except sin and that our bodies after the resurrection shal be made like to his glorious body Heb. 2 ver 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation wee may not reasō of his power so that we should ouerthrow his wil. For he is almightie to do whatsoeuer he will not willing to do whatsoeuer he can But of the whole matter we shal intreate more at large as occasiō is giuen in the bookes following CAP. II. Certaine notes about the vse and translation of holy scripture to be remembred of him that shall read this booke Sander prosessing that he followeth most the vulgar Latine translation and lest the English Bible because it almost neuer translateth any text well whereof any cōtrouersie is in these our dayes taketh in hand to proue many falsifications and wrong translations in the onely matter of the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloud The first is Iohn the 6. ver 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem The true English were worke the meate which carieth The English bible turneth Operamini labor for We labor saith he for that which we seeke and 〈◊〉 not we worke that stuffe which is present with vs. This corruption the Sacramentaries haue vsed because they doe not beleeue the meate which taryeth to be made really present so that we may worke it by faith and bodie This finall cause is falsely alledged for we beleeue the meate that tarieth vnto eternall life to be made really present by faith to them that receiue the sacrament worthily Contrariewise the papistes holde that the same meate is receiued where it taryeth not vnto etetnall life namely in the wicked And concerning the corruption pretended it is false which Sander saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth alwayes to worke that which is present and not to labour or seeke for that which is absent for saint Paul writeth 2. Thessa. 3. ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis non vult operar◠If any man will not labour neither let him eate Euery man cannot worke that stuffe which is present as in Sanders example of a Carpenter working a peece of tymber therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to labour generally either in seeking that which is absent or in working that which is present Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Sander and a manifest corruption of the text by leauing out such words as shewe the vanitie of this cauill and ouerthrowe the difference of this distinction For the wordes of Christ are these speaking to the Iewes which sought him being absent not because they sawe his miracles but because they had beene filled with his breade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labor ye not for the meate which perisheth but for the
might say if he would this were a regeneration or birth good for Angels that haue no bodies For hee will not vnderstand that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode as well as both body soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians saith he had two faultes both which the heretikes doe followe The first fault they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ and then they come to it conforming it to their deuise In deede so doe the Papistes The second fault was they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore so the heretikes eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ onely by measure of his owne faith Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times not tarying for other to communicate with them and alwaies they drinke all alone giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them which is worse then the Corinthians did for they eate not their supper alone which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together requiring faith in euery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily But Sander maketh Christ so liberall that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table riche or poore good or badde In deede he offereth himselfe to al but he giueth himself to none but to such as receiue him thankefully and which take profite by him wherefore he saith He that eateth mee shal liue for me whereupon it followeth inuincibly that hee which liueth not for him eateth him not Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this where he sayeth that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest True it is that Christ alone in his death was the priest the Sacrifice and the temple or altar not playing all partes as Sander lewdly speaketh but perfourming throughly in his owne person whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption the seale and assurance whereof with al benefites thereto belonging he giueth vs in his holy supper and not bare odours of spirituall grace but a true communicating of his body and bloud vnto euerlasting life of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace but are verily borne a newe and ingraffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water Wherefore that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith is no denying of the Lordes supper but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same according to the holy scriptures and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe CAP. VI. A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted who taught This is my body which is giuen for you to be wordes of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working The long babling quarelling and wrangling that he vseth in this large Chapter is grounded vpon one poore sophistication of Sander in disioyning those thinges that are to be conioyned matched together Namely where Caluine saith the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise Sander presseth him to say they be words of promise onely where he sayeth expressely that they are also wordes of perfourmance as Sander himselfe translateth his words They are a liuely preaching which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth Is not efficacie in accomplishment which is al one with perfourmance here ioyned with promise To omit therefore his railing against Caluine for singularitie against the preachers of England for following his fansie c. let vs see what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying that those words are words of promise First he cōfesseth that they are words of promise fulfilling a promise made before at Capernaū Also they are words of promise in respect of the death of Christ which is promised in these words which is giuē for you or shal be giuē for you c. but this saying This is my body is no more words of promise then the saying This is my welbeloued sonne which are wordes of witnesse of a thing present Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance a promise sayth he beginneth the bargaine the perfourmance endeth it Let it be so that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise whereof the perfourmance followeth vpon the conditions required In the institution of the supper there is mention of a newe couenant In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least Christ is one partie but who is the other partie will Master Sander saye Euery man or euery faithfull man onely The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men but onely of them that beleeue therefore not all men but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant Wherefore though the promise of eating of Christes body euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes is offered by Christ generally to all men yet the perfourmance is onely vnto the faithfull which are the other partie of the couenant Whereof it followeth that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully that which he offred But the wordes of Christ saith he speake not of the time to come but of the present time ergo no promise A sorie reason by which he might proue a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures to be no wordes of promise because they are spoken not onely in the present time but also in the time past And yet the wordes of Christe must haue relation vnto the time to come For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud but with purpose that they should be eaten and drunken And therefore hee biddeth them first eate drinke and then sayeth This is my body this is my bloud that is to saye In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud Therefore in these wordes This is my bodie the couenant is not ended as Sander sayeth vntill that which is offred on the one partie be accepted on the other partie Where he affirmeth that wordes of promise consist in bare talke he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God which are effectuall in worke although they bee vttered in wordes And when hee sayeth they haue no condition or delaye annexed it is vntrue although it bee not necessarie that
things present weight in reasoning eloquence in vttering power in reprouing or whatsoeuer was in olde time accounted for learning I trust al indifferent men will confesse that great steppes therof may be found in Caluins writing But if learning be nothing else with Papists but that which they fantasie theÌ„selues to knowe there is none learned but Papistes Whereas Sander threatneth vpon the defence of Caluins supposed error taken in hand by any of his scholers to discouer more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master if hee can haue so much leisure from his traiterous practises in Ireland which he hath lately taken in hand vnder the seruice of his diuelish blasphemous antichristian master the Pope I wish him not to spare not doubting but as I haue so discouered his proude and yet blockish ignorance in this Chapter in such sort as his friendes will blush to read it although he be past shame himselfe so in any matter wherein the Church of England doth coÌ„sent with Caluins writing I shal be able by Gods helpe so to defende the trueth that all his much babling trifling quarrelling controlling lying railing shal turne to his owne confusion and the reproche of the Baby lonicall strompet which he laboureth both with penne and sworde tongue and hand both like an heretike a traitor to protest and maintaine against the church of God The second booke CAP. 1. The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightly tryed by the holy scriptures which they haue alwaies studied reuerenced THis request is reasonable if it were faithfully meant but it is nothing but an heretical bragge because you seeme to haue colour in the holy scriptures for your carnall and as you call it real presence otherwise what studie soeuer you haue followed in your closets your open writings declare small reuerence vnto the holy Scriptures For Pigghius one of them whome you name to haue conuinced these heresies in our dayes by holy scripture calleth the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe Iudge These I weene be wordes of small reuerence Eckius another of them calleth the Scripture a blacke Gospell and an inkish diuinitie And Hosius a thirde man sayeth these wordes of our Sauiour Christ Drinke ye all of this if they be vnderstoode generally aswell of lay men as of Priestes to bee the expresse wordes of the diuell and that there is no worde in all the Scripture of power to saue but one onely worde Dilige And generally all Papistes which before our time and in our dayes haue taken vpon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures submitting the vnderstanding of them to the Popes determination declare that they reuerence them not as the holye worde of God but esteeme them as a leaden rule which they maye drawe to any thing that shall please them The absuide and lewde interpretations of many of the Popes and other their applesquires whereof the subtiler Papists in these dayes are ashamed woulde fill a large volume if I shoulde goe about to rehearse them The best excuse that Harding can finde for many of them is that they are spirituall daliance in the diuels name by which you may see what reuerence they beare to the holy scriptures that make them an argument of daliance CAP. II. It is proued by the worde of God that euill men receiue the bothe of Christ in his supper The Apologie against which Sander fighteth professeth That in the supper vnto such as beleeue there is truely giu en the body and bloud of the Lorde Sander replyeth that Iudas receiued the body of Christ ergo not onely they that beleeue Concerning Iudas it is a question whether he receiued the Sacrament or no. Not only because as Sander confesseth that some ancient fathers thought that hee went out before the supper namely Hilarius in Math Can. 30. Post que Iudas prâ—ditâ—y iudicaur sine quo Pascha accepto calice fracto pane conficitur After which thinges Iudas is declared to be a traitour without whome the Passeouer is made the cuppe being taken and the bread being broken But also by consequence of Sanders owne confession in lib. 1 Cap. 4. fol. 18. where hee affirmeth that Christe did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the Paschall Lamb washed his disciples feete and then sate downe againe to supper But S. Iohn testifieth that Iudas departed immediatly after the soppe receiued which was before supper was ended For this soppe could not be the sacrament as Augustine thinketh seeing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a soppe dipped in brothe and so was this soppe dipped in the platter and not in the cuppe But to admitte that Iudas was present and did receiue the Sacrament howe proueth hee that hee receiued the bodie of Christe That which Christe deliuered Iudas receiued Christ deliuered his body ergo Iudas receiued his bodie Neither the maior nor the minor of this argument is out of controuersie For Iudas receiued not whatsoeuer Christ deliuered for Christ deliuered a spirituall communication of his body as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that woulde receiue it which Iudas receiued not therefore the maior is false The minor taketh as graunted that whereof is all the controuersie namely that Christ deliuered his bodie vnder the formes of bread which we deny affirming that hee gaue bread into their handes and his bodie after a spirituall manner to them which receiued it by faith The Apologie further affirmeth the Papists to teach the verie body of Christ to be eaten substantially not onely of wicked men but also which is horrible to speake of mise and dogges Sander answereth that it is not worthe the while to discusse whether mise dogs in some sense eate the body of Christ because the Catholiks kepe it so warily that neither mouse nor dog may com nigh it wherin he controlleth the scholemen who haue long disputations doctorall determinations of that question In the end he thinketh it worse that wicked men shoulde eate then if dogges or mise should eate it But in deede they are both blasphemous absurdities As for the fathers whome he quoteth for wicked mens eating of the body of Christ we shal consider in the next Chapter which is proper for that title His next argument is out of S. Paul whosoeuer shall eat this breade and drinke this cupp of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus vnworthie eating supposeth an eating It is verie true but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread and not eating of this bodie Yea saith Sander Saint Paul doeth warily describe that kind of bread both with an article and a Pronoune ergo that breade is the bodie of Christ. I denie that argument The article and the Pronoune shewe that it is not common breade but the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. But howe can hee which eateth this bread vnworthily bee guiltie of the bodie
of Christ which he eateth not Verie well For he which abuseth the Kings seale is guiltie of the kings Maiestie which he acknowledgeth not But this argument out of Saint Paul hee referreth vnto another time returning againe to Iudas That thinge whereof Christ saide to the twelue Take eate and drinke was taken eaten and dronken of all the twelue and was but one thing onely concerning eating and drinking that is his body and bloud therefore Iudas did eat the same that Peter Iames and Iohn did Wee heard in the last Chapiter of the first booke that it consisted of two things by the iudgement of Irenaeus an earthly sub stance and an heauenly the one all receiued the other onely the faithfull therefore the antecedent of this argument is false But if that argument be not plaine ynough wee must take another Iudas and Iohn did eate one thing Eche of them that foode whereof Christe sayde this is my body but Iohn did truely eate Christes bodie ergo Iudas did truely eate Christes body I aunswere the maior is ambiguous for if one foode bee taken for one breade it is true but if one thing bee taken for the bodye of Christ it is the matter in controuersie and denyed of vs. Likewise the Minor is ambiguous For if ye vnderstande eating of Christs bodie truly eating by faith spiritually it is true and as the Apologie meaneth if you vnderstande eating Christes bodie carnallie it is false and denyed of the Apologie that Iohn did so eate the bodie of Christ. The argument is no better then this Iudas and Iohn did heare one Gospel each of them that whereof it is saide that it is the power of God to saluation But Iohn did heare the Gospel to his saluation ergo Iudas did heare the Gospel to his saluation But Sander cauelleth of deliuering of bakers breade and nothing else but Bakers breade Christ offereth two thinges earthly breade and his diuine bodie Nowe if Iudas receiue the one and refuse the other what folly is it to reason of Christes deliuering which is like as if a man will deliuer an obligation as his deede and the partie that shoulde receiue it will not receiue it but as a scrolle and so renteth it in peeces In deede therefore Christ offereth his bodie to all men but they onely receiue it which beleeue But eating by faith saith Sander is a preparation to worthie eating but the meate is all one euen as the baptisme is all one to the wicked and to the godly I will aske no better example then of the Sacrament of Baptisme where indeede the water which is the outwarde element is common to all that are sprinkeled or washed as the breade is to all that eate but regeneration the thing signified by the water is proper onely to the electe of GOD Euen so the bodie of Christ which is the thing signified by the breade is not receiued but of them which beleeue vnto eternall life CAP. III. The ancient fathers teach that euill men receiue truely the bodie of Christ. The first father cited is Origen in Psalme 37. who â—aith that those which come to the Eucharistie without examining and clensing themselues are like to men sicke of an ague who presuming to eate sanorum cibos the meats of whole men do hurt themselues Whereupon Sander gathereth that the meat of the supper which is prouided for whole men is truly but not profitably eaten of the wicked But that Origen was of no such iudgment it is manifest by his expresse wordes spoken of the eating of the sacrament of the eating of the thing signified by the sacrament In Math. Chap. 15. Et haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore Multa porrò de ipso veróo dici possunt quod factum est caro verusque cibus quem qui comederit omninò viuet in aeternuâ— quem nullus mallus potest edere Etenim si fieri possit vt qui malus adâ—â—c perseueret edat verbum factum carnem cum sit verbum panis viâ—â—s nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederit panem hunc vinet in aeternum And these things truly are spoken of the figuratiue or symbolical body Many thinges also may be spoken of the worde himselfe which was made fleshe and very meate which whosoeuer shall eate vndoutedly he shall liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it were possible that he which continueth still euill should eate the worde which is made flesh seing he is the word and the bread of life it had not beene written Whosoeuer shal eate this bread shall liue for euer The second father is Basil de baptismo lib. 1. Cap. vlt. Asking what shall a man say of him who dareth in vaine and vnprofitably eate the body and drinke the bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ To this I answere that Basil speaketh not of wicked men but of the faithfull in whome the spirit of God was and yet a great worke of mortification therefore it followeth after the wordes cited by Sander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and therefore much more giuing the holye spirite They are not wicked in whome the holy spirit is Therefore the Aduerbes Idely and vnprofitably are not spoken simplie but comparatiuely for not so diligently as they ought not so profitably as they might The thirde father is Cypriane de Coen Domini The sacraments for their part cannot bee without their proper vertue neither doth Gods maiesty by any meanes absent it selfe from the mysteries But albeit the sacraments permit themselues to be taken or touched of vnworthie men yet those men cannot bee partakers of the spirite whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse withstandeth such holinesse This authoritie is flatte against Sander the wicked may receiue the Sacramentes but not the spirite of Christ if not the spirite then not the bodie for Christ his bodie is neuer disseuered from his spirite The fourth father is Hierome but where hee sheweth not Opponis mihi c. Thou layest vnto mee the one measure of Manna called Gomor and wee take the bodie of Christe equallie According to the merites of them that receiue that which is one is made diuerse c. The Sacrament is one in it selfe c. There is no question but that the wicked are partakers of the Sacrament which is called the bodie of Christe but of the bodie of Christ in deede they are not partakers For it cannot bee truely saide of the naturall bodie of Christ that it is made diuerse but the Sacrament which is called his bodie is made diuerse according to the faith or infidelitie of him that receiueth it Augustine is the fifte witnesse In Epist. 162. Tolerat c. Our Lorde him selfe beareth with Iudas hee suffereth a deuill a thieefe and the seller of himselfe to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull knowe our price Nothing is our price saieth Sander but the bodie of Christ. Yet may the Sacrament bee called
his life for lacke of good argumentes if he escape hanging drawing and quartering for treason Except he thinke there be any children among vs brought vp in their Catechisme that bee so ignorant to thinke the wordes of Christ intending to worke a particular miracle be signes Sacraments in the same nature that bread wine is being apointed by him to be an ordinary pledg assurance of his grace vnto his whole church Againe we deny that the wordes of Christ are the Sacrament but wee say with Augustine Accedat verbum ad elementum Let the worde come to the element and then it is made a Sacrament Last of all concerning the trueth of Christes wordes This is my bodie This cuppe is the Newe testament c. wee nothing doubt but that grace in Gods elect worketh that which the wordes soundeth according to the true meaning of them But if Sander could haue made his matter good hee should haue reasoned of the water of baptism which is a signe of regeneration and if he could proue that the water in baptisme is not water but regeneration in deede because it is a token of regeneration he should haue reasoned somewhat like for his life But that which he saith of doing or making he would not haue it wrested to the meere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing for therein he vsed parables but Christ saith he did rather then taught in his supper and therefore his wordes must be vnderstood euen as they sound If this rule be true Christ dranke and gaue wine at his supper which is the fruite of the vine according to the sounde of the wordes and therefore no transubstantiation in the cuppe But where he saith that Christ did rather then taught at his supper he would haue vs thinke belike that Christ did celebrate his supper like the Popish Masse in which is much adoe no teaching at all But beside that all the three Euangelists do set forth vnto vs the summe of his doctrine S. Iohn doeth in foure Chapters from the 13. to the 18. describe at large that he was occupied in teaching rather then doing You haue heard how Sander would dispute for his life CAP. XIII The wordes of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kinde of tokens The first part of this title that the wordes of Christes supper arenot figuratiue hee prooueth not by any one word as for the other part that Christes token is not a cōmon kind of tokē which he proueth somwhat at large he needed not to haue proued at al. For it is confessed of vs that the sacrament is a more excellent token then can be ordeined by any man And where he saith that none of the fathers teacheth that these words This is my body c. be words figuratiue it shal suffice to oppose Augustine who in plaine termes saith these words Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. are a figuratiue speach Which wordes notwithstanding among the Papistes haue the same sense that these wordes This is my bo De Doct. Chri. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. the wordes are cited Cap. 11. And what other thing doth Augustine meane when he sayeth Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fideifides est Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christe is the bloud of Christe so the sacrament of faith meaning baptisme is faith Epist. 23. Bonisacio Is it not manifest that he meaneth the one is a figuratiue speech as well as the other Fie vpon this impudent boasting of the Papistes which care not what lyes they make so they giue not place to the trueth As for the sayings of Cyprian Chrysostome Basil c. or any of the auncient Catholike fathers concerning the wonderfull manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament doe all proue a spirituall and diuine manner of eating and drinking the bodie of Christ as in their proper places shal be seuerally declared CAP. XIIII That the supper of our Lorde is no sacrament at all if these wordes of Christ This is my bodie and this is my bloude be figuratiue Two leaues and an halfe of this Chapiter are spent to shewe the difference betweene figures of Rhetorike and sacramentall figures and that wordes must be ioyned to the elements to make sacramentes all which is needeles for it is commonly knowne and confessed on both parts sauing that he would make ignorant Papistes beleeue that Oecolampadius Caluine or Peter Martyr whē they read in Tertulliā in Augustine these words of Christ This is my body to be so expounded that is to say a figure or signe of my body they shoulde vnderstande a figure of Rhetorike as Metonymia or Synecdoche and not a sacramentall token No master Sander they were not so young Grammarians or Rhetoricians as you woulde beare fooles in hand but they could vnderstand the difference of a rhetoricall and a sacramentall figure although they coulde tell that a rhetoricall figure is vsed when a sacramentall token is spoken off as in so manie examples of the scripture they haue shewed But nowe let vs see what maine argument you haue to prooue that the supper is no sacrament if the wordes This is my body c. be figuratiue The words saie you doe not signifie a figure of his bodie therfore either they worke his bodie or they make nothing at al. I answere with Tertull. August The words do signifie a figure of his body For so do they expound the words This is my body that is to say a figure or signe of my body which their expositiō were false except those wordes This is my body doe signifie a figure or signe of his bodie Therefore Master Sander you may teach boies that bodie signifieth a substance and not a figure Tertullian and Augustine will not not be so aunswered at your handes They tell you that the interpretation of Christes wordes is such as proueth his speach to be figuratiue in spight of your heart And that euery boye that readeth this chapter may laugh at your arrogant impudence I set downe once againe these words of Christ This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which if they be not confessed of you to bee figuratiue you will not confesse that fire is hote nor water moyst If they be figuratiue what Sacrament will be made with them Where you tell vs that the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine is a figure of the same bodie walking on earth suffering on the crosse or sitting in heauen you doe as much as if you woulde teach vs that Abraham sitting close in his tent so that no man coulde see him was father of the same Abraham him selfe as he was the sonne Therah
Fractum enim panem distribuebat dicens hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur in remissionem peccatorum hoc facite in meam commemorationem Participatio igitur mysterii vera quaedam confessio commemoratio est quod propter nos pro nobis dominus mortuus sit reuixerit diuina nos benedictionem propter hoc replet Fugiamus igitur infidelitatem post tactum Christi firmi atque stabiles ab omni longè ambiguitate inueniamur Worthelie therefore the holy congregations are made in the Churches on the eight day and the doores being shut after an highe manner Christ appeareth to vs all both visiblie and inuisiblie Inuisiblie truely as God but visibly in his bodie For he giueth vs his flesh to bee touched that we might beleeue assuredly that hee hath truely raised vp his temple For that the communion of the mysticall blessing is a certaine confession of the resurrection of Christ it is prooued by his owne words For he distributed the bread after it was broken saying This is my bodie which shal be deliuered for you for the remission of sinnes Doe this for the remembrance of me Therefore the participation of the mysterie is a certaine true confession and commemoration that for our sakes and for vs our Lord both hath dyed and is reuiued and through that filleth vs with diuine blessings Let vs therefore flee infidelitie after the touching of Christ and let vs bee found stedfast and strong being farre from al doubtfulnesse You see both Chrysostome and Cyrill agree that Christ is visiblie present in the sacrament as they agree that he is touched And as Chrysostome affirmed that Christ gaue wine so Cyrill affirmeth that he distributed breade By both which confessions it appeareth that breade and wine and not the shapes of breade and wine are giuen in the sacrament and that the bodie and bloud of Christ is visiblie present which cannot be vndestoode of the Popish presence and therfore of necessitie must be ment of a spirituall manner of presence which is seene onely by faith CAP. XVI Our thankesgiuing and remembrance of Christes death is alsogether by the reall presence of his body I haue often shewed what maner of presence we allowe agreable to the scriptures and the iudgement of the ancient fathers But that will not satisfie Sander except he haue a making of Christs body which making he saith is the thankesgiuing for his death Whereupon it followeth that seeing making by his iudgement pertaineth onely to the priestes that thanksgiuing also pertaineth only to the Priestes But Chrysostome whom hee citeth maketh thanksgiuing common to all the faithfull Ipso genere sacrificii c. By the verie kinde of sacrifice inuiting vs to thankesgiuing for his benefites And by the way Chrysostome teacheth what kinde of sacrifice the celebration of the communion is accounted of him Namely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of reconciliation And therefore he writeth in the same Hom. 26. in Matth. Propterea reuerenda salutaria illa mysteria quâ— omni certè ecclesiae congregatione celebramus Eucharistia id est gratiarum actio nuncupantur Sunt enim beneficiorum recordatio plurimorum capútque ipsum diuine erga nos charitatis ostendunt nosque faciunt debitas Deo gratias semper exoluere Therefore euen those reuerend and healthfull mysteries which truly we celebrate in euerie congregation of the Church are called Eucharistia that is a thankesgiuing For they are a calling to minde of many benefites and shew vnto vs the verie heade of the loue of God towarde vs and make vs to yeelde dewe thankes to God alwayes But to a Christian saith Chrysostome Hee himselfe is set before thee dayly lest thou shoulde be vnmindefull Beholde saith Sander not by a feeble token doubtfully but by his owne presence he is called to minde Note heere that he calleth it a feeble token where Christ is bodilie absent by which it shoulde followe that baptisme is but a feeble token where Christ is not bodily present But Christ is present in both his sacramentes although he bee absent bodily and so meaneth Chrysostome that he is present spiritually For in the same Hom. 51. in Mat. he saith Ipsum enim si volumus non vestis solùm sed corpus ipsius nobis propositum est non vt tangamus solummodò sed vt comedamus saturemur For not onely his garment but his bodie is set before vs not onely that wee may touch him if wee will but also that wee may eate him and be satisfied Marke in these words after what manner the bodie of Christe is set before vs to be touched and eaten verilie euen as his garment is set before vs to bee touched But no man will saye that the garment of Christe is otherwise set before vs then after a spirituall manner no more verily is the bodie of Christ. CAP. XVII The true resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating that bodie of Christe whiche is both true and is true in vs. This is confessed by the Apologie that the resurrection of our bodies to glorie commeth by the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloude of Christe but that this eating and drinking may be without the Sacrament it is manifest by this that manie shall bee partakers of the glorious resurrection which did neuer eate this Sacrament But nowe let vs see what vaine reasons Sander bringeth to prooue that the resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating of Christ in the Sacrament onely First Christ prepared a supper and set it forth vpon his table but the breade and wine was prepared by the baker and the vintener therefore Christs preparing was to make of earthly bread the bread of euerlasting life which was his body that he deliuered and they receiued All this we confesse Yea saith Sander but he delyuered it with his owne handes or else doubtlesse they did not eate his bodie But where is the necessitie of this consequence For hee saide in respect onely of that which hee delyuered Take and eate Yea syr but howe prooue you that hee deliuered onely with his handes that hee deliuered and whereof hee saide take and eate Is there nothing delyuered in baptisme but the water which is in the hande of the minister or in the fonte The onely proofe hee bringeth is Chrysostome Hom. 82. in Math. where there is no such wordes at all to bee founde yet thus he citeth them Cogita quid manu capias Bethinke thy selfe what thou takesâ— in thy hande and keepe it from all couetousnesse and violent robberie consider againe that thou takâ—st it not onely in thy hande but also puttest it to thy mouth and after thy hande and tongue thy heart receiueth that dreadefull mysterie Here saieth Sander the hande and tongue receiue the same bodie that the heart doeth And yet Chrysostome if euer hee haue such a context nameth not the bodie but the mysteries It is one thing
those wordes the same will bee the sense of these wordes taking the speaches either as proper or figuratiue But Christ saith he hath forced vs to seeke out this interpretation in causing Saint Luke and S. Paul to write This Chalice is the newe Testament in my bloud For of necessitie wee must interpret these wordes This Chalice that is to say the thing contained in this Chalice is my bloud I pray you sir what necessitie except the speach be figuratiue You will say it is figuratiuely onely for the cuppe to signifie that which is contained therein If you so say then tell mee once againe whether these wordes The newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in proper speach with these wordes my bloude If the newe Testament in my bloude bee all one in sense with these wordes my bloude they are figuratiue for no man properlie vseth so to speake that hee nameth the newe Testament in his bloude when hee nameth nothing but his bloude naturally If these wordes bee figuratiue not onelie in the name of cuppe but in the wordes following whiche are is the newe Testament in my bloude then the wordes of the supper are founde to bee figuratiue and all the babling about This and Is and bodie and bloude and mine c. are vaine and foolish for This and Is are in this figuratiue speech and that in one manner of speaking is called My bloude in an other is called the newe Testament in my bloude and by necessarie analogie that whiche in one manner of speech is vttered by these wordes My bodie may and ought truely to bee vnderstoode and vttered in these wordes The new Testament in my bodie crucified That the Pronowne hoc is the Neuter gender and hic the Masculine gender it prooueth not the alteration of substance for the genders followe the names and note no substantiall propertie where the thinges differ not in the sexe But where you saide first the Pronowne pointeth to the visible formes nowe you say it pertaineth rather to the Substantiue bodie where it endeth then to the formes you are not onely contrarie to your selfe but also to the schoolemen which say it pointeth to neither of both but vnto indiuiduum vagum a singular vncertaine or wandering thing But point it as you will it can haue no true literall sense if you will holde your owne principles for if the bodie bee not present before the wordes of consecration vttered as all papists I thinke except Sander will affirme That which hee had in his hande was breade at that instant when hee saide This. And Sander himselfe saith This which appeared to them breade to bee in substance at the ending of the wordes His owne bodie Ergo it was not so before the wordes ended and howe can is a Verbe of the present tense signifie that which shall bee after although it bee neuer so soone after But of the Pronowne This wee shall haue occasion to speake in three Chapters following and diuerse times it is repeted in this booke although hee protest in the Preface that he delighted not to speake one thing twise CAP. IIII. That the pronowne this in Christes wordes can point neither to bread nor to wine I haue prooued before that if it can point to nothing else if it point to anie thing that was there present but vnto breade and wine because bodie and bloude by your owne principle was not there present before the last syllable of the sentence vttered But Sander saith this signifieth a substance because Christ saith not This is in my body but this is my bodie which is a blockish reason for Christ saith This is the new Testament which is an Accident in my bloud as well as This is my bloude Well the Protestants opinion is saith he that This pointeth to the bread and the wine which signifie his bodie bloud But that cannot be because this cannot agree with breade and wine neither in Greeke nor Latine and then telleth vs the genders of the nownes c. But good Sir the pronowne This is the newter gender put absolutely comprehending in signification that thing which was shewed which needed not to bee called breade and wine because it was so to bee iudged by the bodilie senses But then saith Sander you correct the wordes of Christ as though he had said This which is breade is my bodie and then euerie substance of bread shoulde signifie his bodie He that giueth the true meaning of Christes wordes doeth not correct them neither doe wee referre the Pronowne This to the generall substance of breade but affirme that it demonstrateth that breade onely which he at that time tooke for to make thereof a Sacrament And whereas it is translated in Latine Hic est sanguis the Greeke retaineth the Newter gender And an Adiectiue betweene two Substantiues of diuerse genders maie agree with either of them but that the Pronowne This is to bee referred to the wine the other Euangelistes doe shewe which vtter it thus this cuppe that is the wine in this cuppe And whereas Cyprian sayeth haec est caro mea hee might aswell haue said pointing to bread hoc est caro mea or hic panis est caro mea and yet his words as he vttereth them haue none other meaning euen as Moses speaking of the rainbowe in the person of GOD saith Hoc est signum foederis c. This is the signe of the couenaunt where hoc agreeing in gender with signum doeth yet demonstrate the rainebowe which is there a Nowne of the Masculine gender Moses speaking to the Israelites of Manna Exodus 16. saieth Iste est panis quem dominus c. This is the breade whiche the Lorde hath giuen you to eate In the Latine the pronowne This agreeth with panis which is the Masculine gender yet doth it demonstrate Man which is the Newter Therefore this grammaticall discourse of genders of nownes Adiectiues and their Substantiues serueth to no purpose to prooue that bread and wine were not poynted in the wordes of Christ by the Pronowne This. CAP. V. That the Pronowne This cannot point to any certaine acts which is a doing about the breade and wine The Pronowne saieth hee is of the singular number and therefore it cannot signifie many thinges done about the breade as taking breaking blessing c. and seeing it can point but one thing it can point no one acte certainely To this ridiculous argument I answere that the Pronowne this doeth demonstrate that breade with all actions and accidents belonging to it so that the sense is This breade thus taken blessed broken giuen eaten is my bodie that is as Tertullian and Augustine saye a figure or signe of my bodie euen as the Lambe is saide to bee the Passeouer but not a Lambe nakedly considered but with all circumstances and actions to it belonging such a Lambe so taken killed the bloude so sprinckled the bodie â—osted eaten standing with staues in their
consideration of the time which was the night before he suffered forbad him not to vse figuratiue spech sufficiently to be vnderstoode by the vsuall phrase of the scripture speaking of Sacramentes And therefore hee said This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud neither is he to be burthened with the misunderstanding of heretikes which vpon colour of his words imagine a presence that can not stand with the trueth of his bodie like vnto our bodies contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3. The thirde circumstance concerning the persons who were aâ— the last supper The Apostles that were present haue sufficiently in their writinges testified those wordes to be figuratiue although they haue not expressedly saied they are figuratiue S. Mathew calling that which Christ dranke and gaue to be drunk the fruit of that vine which is not bloud but wine S. Paul calling it bread which is broken c. and the cuppe the newe Testament in his bloud beside many other argumentes of the nature of Christs humanitie like vnto ours in all substantiall pointes which must of necessity inforce a figuratiue speech And whereas Sander saith that parables are spoken so that men hearing doe not vnderstande ergo Christ spake not in parables to his Apostles to whom the mysteries of the kingdome were knowen The argument is naught For although parables are to blind the reprobat yet are they to giue vnderstanding to the elect and therefore Christ spake many thinges in parables which are for better edifiyng of the Churche then if they had beene spoken plainely without all parable Thirdly the Apostles which taried at CaparnauÌ„ by his doctrine there deliuered had learned how to eate the body of Christ to drink his bloud not as Sander saith really vnder the formes of bread and wine but spiritually by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric The 4. circumstance concerning the ending of the olde Passeouer and the making of a newe The ending of the olde Passeouer which was a signe doeth no more hinder the institution of a new signe which is not corporally that which it signifieth no more then the ending of circumcision hindreth the ordeining of baptisme which is not actually that which it representeth That Sander denieth Moyses Phinees to haue eaten the flesh of Christ because the law brought nothing to perfection it is a slender reason for Moses and Phinees did not eate the flesh of Christ by vertue of the lawe but by promise of the Gospel by force whereof Christ was the same matter of saluation to them that he is to vs. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuerse in signes equall in the thing that is signified In Ioan Tr. 26. The fifth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper The preface he speaketh of are these words of Christ I haue desired with desire to eate this Passeouer with you before I die Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lambe or to the new If they be referred to the newe Christ desireth onely to eate his owne bodie with his Apostles as Chrysostome sayeth to encourage them not to bee afraide thereof which he could not doe by faith onely therefore he did it really wherein is none absurditie to eate it Angels feede of it seeing other men haue eaten their own flesh in a grosse manner either for hunger or for anger or phansie c. To this I answere first if a lyar could alwayes remember himselfe it shoulde skill to Sanders purpose that these wordes should not be referred to the newe Sacrament for then Christ in calling it this pascall lambe or Passeouer should begin to speake figuratiuely Secondly I marueile why he saith it is a thing cleane impossible that Christ should eate it by faith How did he at other times eate the Paschal lambe did he not eate it with faith how was he baptized did he not also beleeue Although Christ partaking the Sacramentes instituted for sinful men had a singular manner of partaking which no man else had that is for the profite of other not himselfe who needed them not yet there is no doubt but bearing our person he did partake them with faith For of whome is it saide he trusted in God c. Psa. 22. And to that which Sander sayeth he did eate of it as Angels feede of it which cannot be corporally but spiritually I agree with him that it is no absurditie so he will graunt mee two things the one that he did none otherwise eate his bodie in the supper then he was borne againe in baptisme The other that it will suffise him that we so eate the bodie of Christ as Angels feede of it which are thereby nourished and established in eternall life and yet cannot receiue his body corporally into their spirites As for the argument taken of other men eating their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie to prooue that it is no absurditie for Christ to eate his owne flesh corporally is verie absurd For aâ—â—eit some men haue eaten their flesh for hunger angeâ— or phansie yet was it an absurditie for them so to doe Then of an argument which is Consentaneum to coÌ„clude negatiuely it may be called absurdum absurdorum Againe if it had beene none absurditie for men to eate their owne flesh for hunger anger or phansie yet no maÌ„ did euer eate his whole bodie and therefore the absurditie of Christ eating his owne bodie after that manner is not by their example auoided But if the desire of Christ saith he be referred to the old Paschal Lambe yet was it in respect that at the ending thereof the newe might be instituted which Chrysostome calleth the trueth that was perfourmed when the figure was past in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth the trueth which is his owne substance which is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure To this I answere a desire is of that which is absent Christes substance of his flesh was neuer absent since his incarnation therefore it was not that which he desired but another trueth of the olde figures namely the sacrifice of his death of which the Apostle sayeth Christ our Passeouer is slaine offered vp 1. Cor. 5. Againe where he saieth his owne substance vnited to his godhead is the onely meate wherein God taketh pleasure he speaketh contrarie to Christ which saith My meate is to doe the will of my father and finish his worke which was brought to passe in his suffering which also he nameth expressely in the wordes of the preface It was the last Passeouer that hee did eate before his suffering so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence The sixt circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament Euen the same loue moued him which moued him to institute the Sacrament of regeneration neither in promising
to giue his bodie did he speake more then he did perfourme For he gaue his bodie in deede and daily giueth it to be receiued spiritually vnder the sacrament of breade and wine But that hee shoulde giue it by conuersion of the elements into his bodie and bloud loue could not moue him to giue it otherwise than as it might be most profitable for vs and most honourable for him that was to giue it spiritually to be receiued The seuenth circumstance of washing the Apostles feete Because Christ washed his Apostles feete the custome of the Church saith he hath bene that all catholike Bishops and priâ—siâ— haue vsed before they came to consecrate to wash the verie tops of their fingers not to handle breade and wine for then Christ might haue washed his disciples handes before they had eaten the Paschall Lambe at the eating whereof was bread and wine but cleane consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread wine but the other must haue also the bodies purified for the more worthie receiuing therof This is newe diuinitiea nd newe Logike also Christ washed his Apostles feete therefore Bishops Priests vse to wash the toppes of their fingers before they consecrate when it were more reason they should wash the peoples feete who by his saying must haue their bodies also purified for the more worthie receiuing This is a poore circumstance to proue that Christs words are not figuratiue The eight circumstance concerning the place of the last supper If the house in which Christ kept his Passeouer had been material some of the Euangelists would haue noted that it stood in Zion as well as Nicephorus Damascen who could hardly know the place seeing Ierusalem was vtterly destroyed long before their time another city built not standing in place of the old Ierusalem That a great vnacustomed matter was done in the house so found by miracle we confesse but that proueth not that Christs speech was proper because it was not abroad in the temple or synagogue but in a close parlour But where Sander saith Christ gaue to euery one of his Apostles a loafe vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteined it is against yâ— scripture which saieth he brake the bread he gaue them against Cyrillus which saith he gaue them pieces of bread against reason that euery one should eate a loaf of bread although they wer but smal when they had supped twise before in that euening at the Paschall Lamb at an ordinarie supper But if the table be real saith Sander much more the meat is reall Wee denie not but the meat is real that is real bread wine to the bodie and the bodie and bloud of Christ to be receiued of the soule for if al things be reall why should not the bread and wine be reall The ninth circumstance of the taking bread wine Christ tooke bread wine who neuer touched the thing which he did not sanctifie Yes he touched Iudas lippes with his lippes yet did he not sanctifie them But he sanctified the bread wine to the vse of his supper Neither went the vertue from him as Sander saieth by touching of his garments but by faith for many at the same time did not only touch him but thrust throng him yet they all receiued not vertue from him Secondly he tooke vnleauened bread which was alreadie figuratiue bread therfore he goeth not about to doe that was done alreadie to make it figuratiue bread I answer the Paschall Lamb was eaten and therefore the bread was common bread although vnleauened which was to be eaten seuen dayes after But what letteth if it once figured one thing but that he might take it to make it a figure of an other thing for Saint Paul sheweth that it figured sinceritie and trueth nowe it is a seale of the remission of finnes by the death of Christ. Thirdly Christ taking bread and wine pointeth not to his Apostles as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts as Caluine dreameth but in breade and wine wee must seeke the first worke of his supper And therefore Sander dreameth that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles brestes He begon with taking bread and wine ergo he did worke nothing in the Apostles breastes A sounde reason I promise you Last of all this putteth vs in minde of that great Priest Melchisedek as Cyprian teacheth But the Apostle writing to the Hebrues could haue taught vs more certeinly if he could haue seene any such comparison betweene Christ and Melchizedeck Heb. 7. And euery sacrifice saith he is changed in substance from the former nature it had sometime killed sometime burned sometime eaten therefore Christ must change the breade wine into his bodie and bloud If we should admitte a sacrifice as most of the olde writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thankesgiuing verily the change by eating and drinking were sufficient to make it answere to the change required in a sacrifice without transubstantiation which was not vsed in any sacrifice The tenth circumstance of blessing First when Christ blesseth it is not necessarie that hee should make any outward token of lifting vp his eyes or handes and least of all with making the signe of the crosse as Sander dreameth waking And although when he blesse he speake by the way of doing or bestâ—â—ing some reall benefite it followeth not but that his speach may be figuratiue which is not alwayes imperfect as Sander saith but being well vsed is better then comon speech Although what blessing meaneth in this place the other Euangelistes do declare which call his blessing thanksgiuing And yet I denie not but Christ blessed the bread and wine which he sanctified to be a diuine sacrament of his bodie and bloud for the assurance of remission of sinnes by the newe testament which is established in his bloud The eleuenth circumstance of giuing thankes The best thankes saith he are those that are giuen in worde and deede therefore Christ gaue not thankes figuratiuely neither be the wordes of thankesgiuing figuratiue as the Sacramentaries saye The wordes in which Christ gaue thankes are not expressed therefore the Sacramentaries saie not that they are either figuratiue or proper But Sander would haue these wordes This is my bodie to be the wordes of thankesgiuing because Irenaeus saith Panem in quo gratiae actâ—e sunt corpus esse domini that the breade in which thankes is giuen is the bodie of our Lorde as though thankes could not be giuen but by those wordes onlie which are not wordes of thankesgiuing to God but of declaring to men how to esteeme that which Christe giueth namely as a true pledge of his bodie and bloud as if one deliuering the broad seale to a condemned man saie this is a pardon for you That Christ gaue thankes to God both in worde and deede not onlie at this
physicall argument either he commanded it by an other worde or els this worde is vnproper For to eate by faith is to eate vnproperly and not to eate physically as all other meats are eaten The seuenteenth circumstance of these wordes This is my body He will speake of these wordes but as of a circumstance if the â—â—â—be Is import no more but a bare signe Christ is greatly promoted to giue thankes for leauing a bare signe I answere Christ gaue not a bare signe but his body to be spiritually receiued with a seale and an effectâ—â—ll signe but euery figure and token saith he which d 〈…〉 th in substance from his trueth is alwayes bare and naked in respect of the trueth it representeth M 〈…〉 â—â—we the dâ—gge barketh against the dignity of baptisme and all the Sacrament of the old time and caâ—â—lleth foolishly by disioyning of thinges to be conioy 〈…〉 d. But Chriâ—â— saith he hauing a body presented not bread and wiâ—e as figurâ—s of his body and bloud in 〈…〉 e to 〈◊〉 â—â—ther and gaue thankes for them This is a pâ—lting 〈…〉 ion of that in question for we denie the Sacrifice pretended yet Christ at other times gaue thankes for bodily meate much more nowe for spirituall food of the soule as the Sacrament is beeing worthily receiued As for Melchisedek his Sacrifice in breade and wine we finde none that he offered to God but a refreshing to Abraham whome in deede he blessed as the Priest of God and so hath Christ blessed vs with eternall happines Therefore all this babling of Sander that Christ offered bread and wine to his father which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fatte Oxe and giue him in a paper writen this is a fat Oxe c. is not worth one Goates heare Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatorie and that but once shedding his bloud the great mystery of which redemption he deliuered to his Apostles in the outwarde creatures of breade and wine But let vs see howe he prooueth that these wordes are not figuratiue First Ambrose saith In the diuine consecration the selfe wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke and Chrysostome saith that by this word This is my body the thinges set forth are consecrated but figuratiue wordes worke nothing therefore they are not figuratiue This minor is a starke lye often times confuted These wordes in the very institution of the supper are figuratiue This is the new Testament in my bloud and yet worke as much as these This is my body Likewise the wordes of Christ are spirite and life therefore not figuratiue is a beastly argument vnworthy answering which wold denie al figuratiue speches to be the words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum we leaue neuer a one in his own signification plucking them from their gender and case when we expound it thus This doth signifie my body which is a toy to mocke with an Ape For who can expound a sentence in other wordes to keepe the same case and gender and kinde of wordes alwaies But it is a weighty matter that Sander hath obserued in Saint Paules order of wordes placing the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 next to the Pronowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vttering the wordes after this manner This of me is the bodie whereas the other Euangelistes say This is the bodie of me Verily there is not here so much oddes as betweene a milhorse and an horsemill But what is the great mysterie that lyeth in this obseruation forsooth it giueth coniecture such as in the order of words may be had that the Pronowne This onely resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Bodie and cannot be referred vnto Bread For it were an hard speech to say this bread of me is the signe of bodie But if I say this bread doeth signifie of me the bodie what other sense hath it then if I saye this bread doeth signifie the bodie of mee I blame not Sander for scanning narrowly whatsoeuer is vttered in the scripture but in vrging the composition of the Greeke speech which is not like the English tongue where there is no difference in sense seeing the Latine composition wâ—l wel admitt that which soundeth hardly in the English speeche Hic panis mei signum est corporis The eighteenth circumstance of these wordes which is giuen for you Sander playeth the foole out of measure to vrge the accidents of grammar in a figuratiue speech Saint Luke sayeth Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur If you take corpus figuratiuely saith he then the sense must be Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my bodie which figure is giuen for you and so not his true bodie but a figure thereof was giuen for vs. Sander thinketh he hath to do with young laddes that learne their accidentes of grammar which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections But what if wee expound it thus Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei as Tertullian doeth and reteining the gender of the Relatiue say quod pro vobis datur This is a figure of my bodie which bodie is giuen for you Sander hath his answere readie that the relatiue must repete his whole antecedent which cannot haue at once both a proper and vnproper meaning What coulde Priscian or Aristarchus haue vttered more learnedlie But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me vos c. This is my couenant which you shall obserue betweene me and you c. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti the signe or seale of the couenant as it must needes be for circumcision whereof he speaketh was not the couenant how doth the relatiue repete the whole antecedent howe hath one word a proper and vnproper vnderstanding Againe Exodus 12 Haec est religio phase Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo This is the religion of the Passeouer No straunger shal eate of it Heere co is a relatiue agreeing in the newter gender with phase his antecedent and yet phase the passeouer signifieth a Lambe which was the signe of the passeouer Againe when it is saide Hoc est postrâ—mum pascha quod comedit Iesus cum discipulis This is the last passeouer that Iesus did eate with his disciples hath not quod the same relation which it hath in these wordes quod pro vobis datur But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar what if the figure bee laide in the verbe est after this manner Hoc est id est significat corpus â—â—um quod pro uobis datur this signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents and relatiues But hee hath founde another mystery in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉
saieth hee for all men that by my selfe I may giue life to all and my flesh may bee made a ransome of all For death shall dye by my death and the nature of men shall rise againe together with me You may nowe iudge in what sense Cyrillus writeth and howe farre the sense of Sander is from the meaning of Cyrillus The sixt Booke To the Preface BEcause the adoration of the Sacrament doeth most of all conuince the reall presence Sander pretendeth that he hath appointed this booke seuerally to proue that poynt whereas in deede hee laboureth for the most part to prooue the adoration by the presence which is a beggerlie crauing of the principle or that which is in question CAP. I. The adoration of Christes bodie is prooued out of the Pâ—phâ— Da 〈…〉 id in the 21. Psalme The adoration of Christes bodie is no question betweene vs but whether the sacrament is to be adored that thereby the reall presence might be proued The place of the Psalme 22. after the Hebrewes is this verse 26. I will paye my vowes before them that feare him The poore or meeke shall eate and be satisfied they shall praise the Lord seeking him your soule shall liue for euer All the ends of the earth shall remember and be conuerted vnto the Lord. And all the families of the Gentiles shall bow themselues before thee Because the kingdome is the Lordes and he hath dominion among the Gentiles All that be fat on the earth shal eate and bow downe themselues before him they shall all fal downe which descend into the duste In this prophetical Psalme Christ proseth three things that the faithfull shall bee sedde and nourished by him that they shall praise God and that they shall haue eternall life But for as much as Christ nourisheth the faithfull otherwise then by the sacramâ—t it is great violence to draw this prophecie only or chiefly to the sacrament as Sander doth As for adoration of the sacrament heere is no colour for it Christ promiseth plainely that such as he hath redeemed shall praise Iehoua shall worship him fall downe before him but of worshipping the meate whereof they eate and are satisfied there is no mention in the worlde I passe ouer his fantasticall application of the words of the Psalme and meddle onely with that which is pertinent to the question But the kingdome of God requireth an inuisible presence saieth Sander concerning the person of the king But yet visible concerning the formes of bread wine to the end his mebers may know where to worship him And must wee haue the visible formes of bread and wine that we may know where to worship him Why doe wee not knowe that he is ascended into heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the father shall wee not worship him sitting at the right hande of god in heauen S. Paul willeth vs to seek those things that are aboue where Christ is and not those things that are on earth because Christ is in heauen Col. 3. But that this interpretation of the Psalme to be meant of the sacrament is not of Sanders inuention we must heare the iudgement of the elder writers And first he beginneth with Hierome in Psal. 21. Vota Christi The vowes of Christ are his natiuitie and passion the vowes of the church are good workes or els I will offer the mysterie of my bodie and bloud with them who celebrate those things in his feare Although this writer referre the text partlie to the mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament yet hath he no worde of adoration of the Sacrament but reserreth it altogether to God and Christ beside that his exposition farre differeth from Sanders explication The like sayings he alleageth out of Augustine Cassiodorus Beda Euthymius all which affirm this prophesie of eating to perteine to eating the body of Christ in the Sacrament although not onely to it But what say they to adoration of the Sacrament Forsooth saith Sander manducauerunt adorauerunt are both referred to one thing they haue eaten the Sacrament therfore they haue adored the Sacrament I deny the maior the text is plaine that they haue adored bowed and fallen downe to God not to that which they haue eaten If I say Sander hath eaten giuen thanks do I mean that he hath giuen thanks to his meate or to him that gaue him meate This is a miserable argument But S. Augustine doth fortifie it For he saith vpon that Psalm Euen the rich of the earth haue eaten the body of the lowlines of their Lord neither are they so filled as yâ— poore euen vnto imitation sed tamen adorauerunt but yet they haue adored I heare that they haue worshipped but I heare not that they haue worshipped or adored the SacrameÌ„t And if you say they haue worshipped or adored the bodie of their Lords humilitie how proue you that they worshipped the same really present in the SacrameÌ„t Or that the Sacrament may be called the bodie of the lords humilitie If this wil not serue Augustine is more plaine in Ep. 120. ad Honoraâ—â—m ca. 27. Suprà dictum est c. It was 〈◊〉 before the poore shal eat be filled But here it is said all the rich of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his bodie bloud But they adore only be not filled also because they follow not For although they eat Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe because God hath raised him from the dead hath giuen him a name which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euerie knee shold be bowed of things heauenly earthly vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come themselues to the table they eate adore but yet they are not filled because they do not huÌ„ger thirst af ter righteousnes Al this while I heare adoring of Christ but not of the Sacrament nor of the bodie of Christ really present in the Sacrament I would haue al men that eat the Sacrament not only to eat but also adore giue thanks not to the Sacrament but to him that spiritually feedeth vs by the Sacrament But â—eda expoundeth the adoring thus Adorabunt quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent They shall adore because they shall come with a certein outward reuerence or worshiping Although Beda liued in a corrupt time yet the Sacrament in his time was not worshipped Therfore he speaketh of a certeine outward reuerence that men vsed in comming to the lords table which is vsed of all them that worship not the Sacrament For if Beda had meant as Sander woulde haue him he should not haue said a certeine externall worshipping but with all honor worship both
significat in the consecration of the bloud hic remaineth without a substantiue Fulke A bable answered lib. 4. circumst 23. Sand. 18 In these words this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud Fulke Ye fable we take it properly and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes This is my bloude Sand. 19 If you take bloud properly in these words it must also be proper in these This is my bloud Fulke That followeth not Sand. 20 The construction of these words This cup is shed for you prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed which you say is wine Fulke This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst 26. 27. Sand. 21 In Christs words The breade which I will giue is my flesh you expounde I haue giuen and I doe giue Fulke Yea I will giue as I haue done and doe Sand. 22 In Saint Paul The breade which wee breake is the communicating c. you expounde signifieth the communicating As though the Iewes figures did not the same and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs Fulke And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments haue like with theirs the ceremonies of the Gentiles also not what difference there is You are wel studied in Saint Paul Sand. 23. The cuppe of blessing you wil haue to be a cuppe of wine as though the blessing wrought nothing in it Fulke As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation Sand. 24. You make Christ giue thankes to his father in beginning the state of the new testament in better words then deede for his words are This is my body yet you will haue him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing Fulke Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament was at the institution of the supper Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament Secondly howe prooue you that This is my bodie are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god Sand. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes and to giue to our mouthes lesse then Moses for Manna was better then common breade Fulke Sacraments be no shadows Neither did Moses giue Manna but God for ought that I knowe And it is most conuenient that the signes of the new testament should be lesse glorious then of the old because the doctrine is more cleare Sand. 26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating that is to say for not eating or refusing to eate For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ. Fulke For wee expounde guiltie for eating to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily that is in some vnreuerently or negligently in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby Sand. 27. You will not haue Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables who both did sacrifice and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs Fulk We will haue no more sacrifices but the onely and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption The repetition of sacrifice sheweth an imperfection in it and not a betternes Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar table of diuels not in sacrifice but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars tables which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is and ouerthroweth your carnall presence Sand. 28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure whereby you shew him not to be truly deade Fulk You shewe it by eating him aliue whereby there is no argument of his death We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element without which it is lame dead and vnperfect Sand. 29 Ye expounde the not making difference c. in such sort that hee will not haue the bodie present wherein difference is to be made Fulk As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence Sand. 30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe by corporall participation which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh Fulk Our corporall participation is by his incarnation which is applied vnto vs by faith through his spirite vniting vs vnto him and testifyed in the supper Sand. 31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels by howe much he hath a more excellent name you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries but affirme them to bee as they were before c. Fulk The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name but because he hath it by inheritance for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God and princes are called Gods You haue not sought Christ in the scriptures but the confirmation of your heresie Againe we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries that wee beleeue them to bee the same that they are called after a spirituall manner although they haue not that name by inheritance but by grace affirming in the elementes a greate alteration from that they were before not in substance but in vse and effecte Sand. 32 No promise in the scriptures can be found made to him that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper beside the worde of God Fulk The promise is made in scripture to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution although not for eating bread and drinking wine onely This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme because no promise is made to him that is washed in water but to him that is washed according to Christes institution Sand. 33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored Fulk Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament Sand. 34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament Fulk The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall shall be taken away by the comming of Christ but among true Christians which do renounce all worshipping of idols Sand. 35 Christ came to saue feed the whole man◠why deny you the foode of life to our bodies Fulk We affirme that Christ feedeth bodie soule vnto eternall life without the sacrament and with it although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates nor swallowed and disgested as they are Sand. 36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone why is it called a supper more then baptisme
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
body and bloud of Christ to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme The fift generall head He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries presupposeth although an inuisible yet a most reall presence thereof I answere the allegation of that cause presupposeth no Popish reall presence but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleaged by Sander who taketh onely the taile thereof De sacra lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis c. But perhapâ— thou saiest I see not the shewe of bloude But yet it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precioâ—s bloud That there may be no horror of raw bloud and yet that the price of our redemption may worke What argument can bee more plaine then this that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud ergo it is not his reall bloud As for Theophylact a late writer I will not stand vpon his authority The sixt generall head They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body must needes meane a reall presence of that body I answere none of the ancient fathers acknowledged transubstantiation but a change of vse and not of substance in the bread and wine The places which he citeth of Iustinus Cyprian I haue satisfied before often times namely Iustine against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth and be of antiquitye in mine answere to Heskins Gregory Nyssen in or Cathechet in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss or 5. in Pasch. ibidem also Euthymius ibidem Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst init lib. 2. Cap. 51. The seuenth generall Chapiter All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude must needes teach the reall presence thereof I answere none of the ancient fathers teach the externall Sacrifice but of thanksgiuing and remeÌ„brance for the redemption by Christes death The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili which he noteth are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied in this booke lib. 2. Cap. 26. The eight head is the adoration lately confuted The ninth that they affirme wicked men to receiue the Sacrament for which he sendeth vs to his authorities cited lib. 2. Ca. 7. li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde the confutation as of the rest so quoted by him The tenth that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh bloud li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. 16. The 11. that they teache vs to be naturally vnited to Christ lib. 5. Cap. 5. The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar in the handes in the mouthes and the bloud to be in the cuppe lib. 2. Cap. 5. The 13. that they giue it such names as onely may agree to the substance of Christ c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini answered by mee against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke The 14. that they teache euery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper lib. 4. Cap. 12. The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified the verbs of creating making working consecrating representing c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen Do. answered by mee against Heskins lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 18. The 16. that they spake of it couertly saying norunâ— fideles least the infidels should mocke at it for which hee citeth Augustine Chrysostome is a feeble argument to proue the reall presence for other spake openly euen to Infidels as Iustinus Tertullian The 17. that they haue applyed it to the helping of the soules departed as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell is false not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian li. 1. Ep. 9. as I haue shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. Cap. 7. The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices deliuered to the coÌ„municants by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof to proue that Christ had flesh bloud for which he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. Ca. â—4 answered by me often times namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. 56. The 20. that they haue farre preferred it before baptisme that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe for which he quoteth Cyrill Catech. Myste 4. answered in the Chapter next before The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching might not sec the Eucharistie that no man might eat it except he were baptized and kept the commandement and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later August lib. 2. de peccat merit remiss Cap. 26. To this I aunswere that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous partely superstitious are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers wee haue little beside quotations and vaine collections CAP. VIII The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God in all times and all ages To omit that curious question what shall become of all our fathers that so long haue beleeued th'e reall presence c. it is a great vntrueth that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to haue bene the first that preached taught against the reall presence For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place nor immediately after commonly receiued but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere as superstition idolatrie and false doctrine began to increase both in the East and West it began to take strength but yet not to be fully confirmed as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene the seconde Councell of Nice and other writers since that time Neither was the errour then vnreprooued for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images gaue a true vnderstanding of the