that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Againe Ille absens est praesentia corporis August in Psal 127. sed presens vigore maiestatis .i. he is absent in respect of the presens of his bodie but present by the power of his maiesty And again Sursum est dominus c. i. the Lord is aboue August in Ioan. tract 30. but also here is the Lord the truth For the body of the Lord wherin he did rise can be but in one place but his truth is dispersed euery where Againe let good men also take this August in Ioan. tract 50. and not bée carefull for he spake of the presence of his bodie for as touching his maiesty his prouidence his ineffable and inestimable grace that is fulfilled which hée said behold I am with you alwaies to the end of the world But touching the flesh which the word took to it touching that by which he was borne of the virgine apprehended of the Iewes crucified vpon wood taken from the crosse wrapped in clothes laid in the sepulchre reueiled in the resurrection ye shall not alwayes haue him with you Why because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. dayes in respect of his bodely presence they waiting on him seing him but not following him he ascended into heauen and is not here for he is there sitting at the right hand of the father and he is here for he hath not left vs by the presence of his maiestie c. Contr. faustum lib. 20. cap. 11. Againe Augustine saith Christ according to his corporall presence could not be at once in the sonne in the moone Lib. 1. coâ—â— Euticâ—eâ— vpon the crosse Vigilius a godly Bishoppe of Tridente and Martyr giueth most plaine witnesse to this truth saying Nam vide myraculum vide vtriusque proprietatis mysterium c. for sée a myracle sée the mysterie of the property of both the natures The sonne of God according to his humanitie is gone from vs according to his diuinitie he said vnto vs. Behold I am with you alwayes to the end of the world if he be with you how doth he say The day shal come when ye shall desire to sée one day of the sonne of man you shall not sée it But both he is with vs he is not with you for whom he hath left and from whom he is departed in his humanitie he hath not left nor forsaken by his deitie for by the forme of a seruant which he hath taken from vs into heauen he is absent from vs but by the forme of God which doth not depart from vs he is present in earth with vs so he being one and the same is both present with vs and absent from vs. And againe the same Vigilius saith Lib. 4. contr Eutichen Deinde si verbi carnis c. Moreouer if there be one nature of the word and flesh how commeth it to passe that the word being euerie where the flesh is not also founde to be euerie where for when it was in the earth it was not in heauen and for that now it is in heauen it is not in earth and in so much it is not that according to it wée looke for Christ to come from heauen whom according to the word we beléeue to be with vs in the earth Therefore according to your doctrine either the word is conteined in place with the flesh or the flesh is euery where with the word seeing that one nature receiueth not in it selfe any thing contrary and diuers Hitherto Vigilius whereby we may sée how néere the papists ioine with that old heretical Abbot Eutiches condemned in the counsell of Calcidone in confounding the properties of both natures and holding that Christs flesh and body is at one instant both in heauen and earth and in infinit places of the earth Therfore we are not to séeke our sauiour Christ in earth but we must be Eagles to soare vp by faith into heauen and there to eat his flesh drinke his blood S. Paul exhorteth vs to seeke the things that be aboue Colloss 3. â— where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God in which words he moueth vs to seeke the things that be there where Christ is but Christ is aboue in heauen therefore wée must seeke the thinges that bée aboue in heauen and not the thinges that be vppon earth But if Christ bée vpon earth as the Papists teach then either Paules reason is not good or we may seeke the things that he vppon earth which he doth in expresse words forbid vs. But I will prosecute this matter no further onely I will lay forth certaine absurdities that follow of this grosse doctrine of Transubstantiation First If Christs real and natural body be there vnder those formes of bread and wine as they teach then we do with our mouthes receiue and eate the verie bodie of Christ and drinke his blood but this is not onely an absurditie but also wickednesse and impietie as S. Augustine saith August lib. 3. de doct christ cap. 16. whose words are worthy wel to be marked and considered He giuing rules how to vnderstand the scriptures amoÌ„gst others giueth this for one That if the scripture seeme either to command any thing that is euill and nought or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable then it is not a proper speach but a figuratiue The example that he bringeth is this Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall haue no life in you He seemeth to commaund saith he a horrible and wicked thing Therefore it is a figure commaunding vs to communicate vpon the Lords passion and sweetly and profitably to hide vp in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. In which words S. Augustine not onely condemneth that grosse and Capernaicall eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood which the Papists imagine but also sheweth what it is to eat his flesh and drinke his blood euen faithfully to beleeue and acknowledge in our hearts that his bodie was crucified and his blood shed vpon the crosse for vs. But Pope Nicolas with the Romane counsell enforcing that excellent learned maÌ„ Berengarius to recant and denie the true doctrine which he had mainteyned caused him to confesse as appeareth in the Popes owne decrees the very body of Christ in truth to be handled by the priests hands De consec dist 2. Ego Beringarius manibus sacerd frangi fidelium dentibus atteri and to be broken torne by the téeth of the faithful The which is so absurd and grosse that the very barbarous writer of the glosse vppon that place giueth warning warely and wisely to vnderstaÌ„d Beringarius words or else we may fal into greater heresie then he held An other absurditie is this that if Christ naturall bodie be in the sacrament then our sauiour Christ did eat his owne body
by words and externall signes If it be by words committed to writing for continuance we vse to those writings wherein be contained graunts couenants to put seales which serue for the further ratifying confirming of them If a man take possession of a peece of ground he doth it not only by vttering certaine words but for further confirmation thereof he diggeth vp and taketh a clod or péece of earth in his hand If a man make a promise to do this or that he doth it not onely by words and spéech but for ratifying thereof giueth his hand When a King or Quéene take vpon them the gouernement of a kingdome they do it not onely by certaine words but also they haue a crowne set vpon their head and a septer put in their hand which be outward signes and tokens of that dignitie dominion which they receiue And thus commonly wée deale in all other matters Whereby we sée and plainely perceiue that our gratious God hauing in mercy respect to our infirmitie as it were humbling himself to our capacity doth vse the like meanes in offring to vs our saluation in Iesus Christ that we vse in these earthly matters and affaires that is to wit his word wherin be contained his swéet promises of mercy 2. Cor. 6.16 that he will be our God and we his people that he will bée mercifull to our iniquities Heb. 8 â—0 12. neuer remember our sins any more sacrameÌ„ts which being outward signes elements he doth annex vnto his word to seale those promises the more effectuallie to confirme them vnto our consciences Hereby as I said we may learn the true nature and vse of Sacraments which is to seale confirme gods promises vnto vs thereby to strengthen our faith in them and to be gages and pledges to vs of our saluation in Christ Iesus For this cause it is said that Iesus tooke bread It now followeth And when he had blessed c. The papists by blessing vnderstand consecrating and by coÌ„secration they meane a conuerting by the speaking of certeine wordes of one thing into another But this is not true consecration but rather a magicall incantation neyther can they shewe any good Latine writer that euer vsed this Latine word Consecrare in such sense but it signifieth to dedicate a thing to a holy vse And so we do consecrate the sacrament when by preaching gods word rehearsing the institutioÌ„ of Iesus Christ and calling vpon God by prayer we do take the bread wine from a common vse to be a sacrament of Christs bodie and blood giuen for vs to be a seale of Gods promises and a pledge of our saluation in Christ Iesus This is our consecration which is true consecration as for their secreat whispering of certain words to turne one thing into another we will none of it we are content they vse it which is more méete for wicked coniurers then godly Christians But in this place by blessing is ment nothing els but thanksgiuing as most plainelie appeareth in the next verse for wheras it is said that Christ taking the bread did blesse in the verse following it is said that he taking the cuppe gaue thankes And whereas S. Matthew S. Marke say that he taking the bread blessed Matth. 26 2â— Mark 12.22 Luk. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.24 S. Luke and S. Paul say that he gaue thanks Wherby it most plainly appeareth that blessing and thanksgiuing is al one the which also is euident by that saying of S. Paul 1. Cor. 14.16 when thou blessest in the spirit how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at thy giuing of thanks séeing he knoweth not what thou saiest heere it is most plaine that which S. Paul in the former part calleth blessing in the latter he calleth thansgiuing So that our sauiour Christ when he blessed gaue thanks to his heauenly father And as our Sauiour did neuer tast any of Gods creatures but always as the Gospel sheweth he gaue thanks to God his father to teach vs that we should walke in his steps and whensoeuer we receiue or inioy any of Gods benefites alwaies to giue God thanks for them from whose hand gratious goodnes we do receiue them so here at this time no doubt but our sauiour Christ had a further respect giueth thaÌ„ks to his father for his great infinite mercy to mankind for that great wonderful work of our redemption which he was then ready to accomplish Whereby we haue in like manner to learne that as we ought to giue God most hearty thankes for all good giftes which he giueth vs al benefits that he bestoweth vpon vs so when we come to this holy Supper of Iesus Christ wée ought to consider on the one side our owne mysery by sinne how that we be of our selues childreÌ„ of wrath enimies of gods grace vnprofitable seruants yea prodigall children which are not worthie to be called or counted Gods children on the other side gods great and infinite mercy who spared not his owne deare sonne but gaue him for vs to redéeme vs and reconcile vs to his mercy and to be a spiritual foode to norish vs to eternall life Of these inestimable mercies wée ought most specially when we come to this holy table to bée mindfull and to giue God most harty thanks for them Not onely in sounding forth the praises of God with our tongues but also in indeuoring carefully to yéeld holy obedience to God in our liues And for this cause the godly fathers called this sacrament Eucharistia which doth signifie thanks giuing for that it being a pledge of our redemption saluation by Iesus Christ we should when we receiue it giue thanks vnto god for the same The which I beséech you as at all times so specially when yée come to this holy mistery diligeÌ„tly for to do Xenoph. lib. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old Persians condemned no sin more greatly nor punished none more seuerely then vnthankfulnes If therefore we be not sincerely thaÌ„kful to God for his great mercies powred vpoÌ„ vs by Iesus Christ we shal not escape his fearefull and terrible plagues It followeth He brake it and gaue it to his disciples c. The breaking of the bread doth set forth vnto vs the breaking of Christs body the powring of the wine the shedding of his blood vpon the crosse for vs for this sacrament is as it were a glasse for vs to beholde Christ crucified in hereunto we must apply all the holy actions vsed in the administration thereof So the giuing of the bread and wine representeth vnto vs the giuing of Iesus Christ for vs once vpon the crosse for our redemption and dayly to be a spiritual food to nourish vs to eternall life The receiuing also of the bread and wine into our bodies doth signifie shew vnto vs our inward receiuing of Iesus Christ into our hearts
my body And by this reason prooueth our Sauiour Christs bodie to be not spectrum or phantasma a ghost or phantasticall body as Marcion that monster blasphemed but a true body like vnto ours because the Sacrament is a figure of it which it could not be except it were a true body But the Papists doctrin in this point sauoreth strongly of Martions blasphemie for to say that Christs body is in heauen and earth yea and in infinite places of the earth at one instant and that the natural real body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wine without any forme quality or quantity of a body without breadth length or thicknes what is this but to make it no true body as Martion did And euen so S. Augustine intreating of Christs bodie saith Epist 57. ad Dardanum NaÌ„ spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusqueÌ„ erunt quia nusquam erunt non erunt Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum non erit vbi sint ideo necesse est vt non sint i. for take from bodies the spaces of place they shal be no where and because they be no no where they be not at al. Take the bodies from the qualities of bodies there can be no place where they may be and therfore it must of necessitie be that they be not But the Papists attribute neither place nor qualitie to Christs bodie in the sacrament therefore by S. Augustines iudgement they make it no body and so as I said agrée in one with that monster Martian But to returne to my purpose and to shew that the fathers haue expounded those words of our sauiour Christ in that sense which I haue before declared Augustine saith I may expound that commaundement to be put in the signe Lib. cont Adunantum Maneche dist cap. 12. for our Lord did not doubt to say This is my body when he gaue a signe of his bodie In Psal 3. in 1. â—or 11. Again he admitted him Iudas to the feast wherein he commended and deliuered to his disciples a figure of his bodie and blood Ambrose saith De iis qui initiantur cap. 9. In eating and drinking we do signifie the bodie and blood of Christ which were offered for vs. Againe De Conseâ—ra dist 2. cap. Reuera before Consecration it is named an other kind after Consecration the bodie of Christ is signified The gréeke Fathers in like maner call the sacrament a signe figure or token of Christs body Gegory NazianzeÌ„ Apâ—lâ—g pâ—g 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how dare he which first hath not offred himselfe a liuely sacrifice offer to God that outward sacrifice which is a signe or example of those great mysteries and the like he hath in his oration vpon his sister Gorgonia Basile saith Pag. 56. In Canâ—â—â—â—â—turgia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath left vnto vs memorials or remembrances of his passion by which commeth saluation which according to his commaundement we propound vnto you So Theodoritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tell me therfore Dialog 2. those mysticall signes which of the priests bee offered to God of what things be they signes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Lords bodie and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his true bodie or not of his true bodie or not of his true bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his true bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verie wel for an image must haue a patterne whereof it is an Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen as Painters also do imitate nature and paint the images of those things that be séene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if then the diuine mysteries be signes or figures of a true bodie the bodie of our Lord is yet a bodie not changed into the nature of the godhead but replenished with diuine glory Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So saith Macarius In the Church is offered bread and wine examples of his flesh and blood These places that I alledge no moe sufficiently shew that it was not straunge to the godlie fathers to call this sacrament a signe token figure and example of Christs bodie and that they vnderstood these words This is my bodie in that sense the bread to be called Christs bodie because it is an holie signe example and pledge of Christs bodie offred vpon the crosse for vs. Now although I may seeme to haue sufficientlie spoken of the true sense and meaning of these words This is my bodie withall to haue opened the true doctrine of this sacrament yet because many men be not as yet satisfied in this point but the popish doctrine of Transubstantiation and carnall presence of Christs bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine sticketh still in their stomaks I haue thought it very néedfull further to prosecute this matter and more particularly and largely to confute the said errors and to lay open the nakednesse and weaknesse of them The false doctrine of the Papists concerning their Transubstantiation which they corruptly gather of those words of our Sauiour Christ consisteth in two speciall points the one in that they say that after the words of Consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine but onely the outward accidences thereof as whitenes roundnes c. The other that the very naturall bodie of Christ which was borne of the blessed virgin is there vnder the said formes of bread and wine As touching the first that there remaneth no substance of bread wine I say that this is contrary to the holy scriptures contrary to the writings of the auncient godly fathers contrarie to the iudgement of all our senses contrarie to the nature of a Sacrament lastly such a doctrin as bringeth with it many absurdities Matth. 26.29 That it is contrary to the scriptures I proue it thus Christ saith I wil drinke no more of the fruit of this vine vntill that day that I shall drinke it with you new in the kingdome of my father Our Sauiour Christ heere speaking of his supper and after his supper calleth it the fruit of the vine which is wine and not blood S. Paul saieth the bread which we break is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ 2. Cor. 10.16 S. Paul here not onely saith that bread is the Communion of Christs body but also saith Which we breake Now what do we breake onely accidences without a substance that is an absurd follie or doe we breake Christs body as Pope Nicolas with his counsell compelled that learned man Berengarius to affirme Dâ— Consec dist 2. cap. Ego Berengarius but that is wicked blasphemie Therefore it is manifest that that which is broken is bread and that bread broken is the communion of the bodie of Christ that is as I before declared a Sacrament and pledge vnto vs of our spirituall and yet
with them and be effectual instruments to conuey neuer so great a thing to vs yea euen to bring vs pardon for our life being condemned to die euen so the promises of God and the sacraments annexed as seales thereunto be meanes to conueigh Iesus Christ vnto vs and with him forgiuenes of all our sinnes and a free pardon from eternal death which we haue deserued And therefore although bread and wine doe there remaine as the substance of water doth in Baptisme the other sacrament and seal of Gods promise continue yet it is very reuerently to be receiued as a SacrameÌ„t of Iesus Christ and a pledge of our saluation in him Now lastly that this doctrine of theirs draweth with it diuerse absurdities hath partly alredie appeared As for to say that they breake not the substance of breade but either onely accidences or Christs bodie is an absurditie to say that the accidences do hang in the aire without any subiect is an absurditie or to say that they bee in Christes bodie is an other absurdetie To say that there is a conuersion and chaunge of the substance and none of the external qualities and properties is an absurdity and contrarie to all other myracles in the Scriptures as before is declared But of other absurdities which followe this absurd doctrine of transubstantiation I will hereafter by Gods grace intreate Now I come to the second error of the Papists concerning the presence of the verie reall and naturall bodie of Iesus Christ vnder those accideÌ„ces and formes of bread and wine which I affirme to be contrarie to the Articles of our faith to the holy scriptures to the sayings of the ancient fathers and that it bringeth with it sundrie absurdities First we beleeue and confesse in the Articles of our faith that Christ is ascended into heaueÌ„ sitteth at the right hand of God from thence shall come againe to iudge the quicke and the dead Matth. 26.11 So in the scriptures our Sauiour Christ saith the poore ye shal haue alwaies with you but me ye shall not haue alwaies Againe I came out from the father and came into the world Ioh. 16.28 Againe I leaue the world and go to the father Also he saith Ioh. 17.11 and now I am no more in the world but these are in the world Peter also saith Actes 3.21 that the heauen must containe him vntill that all things be restored But here the Papists haue an other shift the Christ is not here now vpon earth in that visible maner that he was then This is as much as if a maÌ„ should say I wil leaue this house I wil abide no more in this house and yet he hideth himselfe vnder some hangings that he is not seene doth that man say truely or is he not therefore in the house yea but they replie say that our Sauiour himselfe said Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the end of the world I answere that our sauiour Christ by his diuine nature and godhead is with vs to preserue direct and comfort vs but in respect of his bodie and humane nature which he took of the blessed virgin he is not nowe vppon earth And therefore our Sauiour himself warneth vs to beware and take héed of such false Prophets as say heere is Christ or there is Christ Matth. 24.23 he is in the desert or in secreat places 26. and biddeth vs beleeue them not for saith he as the lightning commeth out of the East and appeareth in the West â—7 so shall also the comming of the sonne of man be As though he should say my comming shal not be secreat and inuisible vnder the formes of bread and wine but euen as the lightning is visible and terrible to the world so shall my comming bée which then shal be when I shall come in maiestie power and glory to iudge the quicke and the dead vpon which words S. Hierome writeth thus Hierom. in Matth. 24. Stultum est itaque eum in paruo loco vel abscondito quaerâ—re qui totius muÌ„di lumen sit .i. It is therefore a foolish thing to séek him in a small secreat place such as is a pix who is the light of the whole world Christ therefore in respect of his humanitie and bodie is not to be sought or found vpon earth But they replie that in as much as our sauiour Christ is not onely man but also god being Immanuel god with vs and that these two natures being vnited in one person make one Christ therefore wheresoeuer is the one nature that is the deitie there is the other viz. the humanitie I answere that this followeth not for although I confesse that to be most true of the vniting of the two natures in one person yet we must not with the heritike Eutiches confound those two natures but acknowledge the seueral properties apperteining to them to remaine distinct and that they are to be distinguished of vs. Iohn 14.28 In this sense Christ said The father is greater then I the which is to be vnderstood in respect of his humanitie for in respect of his deitie he saith the father and I are one and as S. Paul saith Philip. 2.6 he thought it no robbery to be equal with God Mark 13.32 So in respect of his humanitie he confesseth himself to be ignorant of the day of iudgement but in respect of his godhead he knoweth all things In respect of his manhood hée was subiect to infirmities as hunger Matth. 4. â— Iohn 4. â—6 wearinesse yea and vnto death but in respect of his deitie he was subiect to none of these but was impassible immortall So in respect of his manhood he was contained in place and when hée was risen the Angel said he is risen and is not here but in respect of his godhead he is in all places 1. King 8. â—7 the heauens of heaueÌ„s do not contein him So I conclude that in respect of his humaine nature bodie as when he was in earth he was not in heauen so now being in heauen he is not vpon earth and therefore in respect of his humain nature he said me ye shal not haue alwayes I leaue the world I am no more in the world and in respect of his deitie he said behold I am with you to the end of the world And yet I confesse that we may truely say that whole Iesus Christ God and man is with vs to the end of the world In vnitate personae non proprietate naturae as S. Augustin saith i. in vnitie of person not in propriety of nature for if we consider perticulerly his humaine nature that is not with vs. This doctrine the ancient Fathers most plainely set forth as Augustine August Epist 57 ad Dardanum Vna enim persona deus homo c. i. for he being God and man is one person and booth is one Christ Iesus who is euery where in
for that our sauiour Christ did eate the sacrament doth appeare by these his words after supper Verely I say vnto you Matth. â—6 I will not henceforth drinke anie more of the fruit of the vine c. And as our Sauiour vouchsafed to be baptized that he might sanctifie Baptisme vnto vs euen so he did receiue this sacrament also to sanctifie it vnto vs and thereby to assure vs the more of our communion fellowship with him Chrisost in Mat. Homil. 83. de Consecr dist 2. cap. nec Moses Et glos in cap. in Christo This both Chrisostom doth flatly affirm and the papists themselues do not deny but plainly confesse in these rude rimes without reason Rex sedet in Coena turba cinctus dnodena Se tenet in manibus se cibat ipse cibo i. The king sitting at his supper with his xii Apostles helde himselfe in his hands and fedde himselfe with the meat of himselfe Now whether this be not an absurditie that our sauiour Christ sitting with his disciples did with his natural body eate his naturall body I will commit it to the conscience and iudgement of the godly to consider And whether it must not hereof follow that he had too bodies one an Actiue that did eate and another a passiue that was eaten An other absurditie hereof ensueth that whereas the papists teach the Christs body is in the sacrament being impassible mortall and glorified contradictories must néeds be affirmed at one instaÌ„t vpon Christs bodie for his body wherein he sate at the table with his disciples was visible but the body in the sacrament inuisible that bodie was passible this impassible that subiect to death which shortly after died vpon the crosse this not subiect to death Now it can no more be that Christs body at one instant should be visible and inuisible passible and impassible subiect to death and not subiect to death then it can be a bodie and no body And therefore this is a foule absurditie Moreouer for Christs body to be at one instant in heauen and earth and infinite places of the earth is as I haue shewed and proued before an absurdity And that Christs bodie should bée in the Sacrament without any accidences of a body as form figure leÌ„gth breadth thicknesse is as I touched before an absurditie This doctrine bringeth an other absurdity which they maintain that wicked men do eat the very body of Christ Whereas Christ himselfe saith Iohn â— 54 whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 56. hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And againe he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 57. dwelleth in me and I in him hée that eateth me shal liue by me But the wicked haue not eternall life neither do they liue by Christ being deade in their sinnes Therefore the wicked do not eat Christs flesh nor drink his blood Augustine saith August in Ioh. tract 26. Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis c. The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of Christs bodie and blood is prepared in the Lords table and receiued of the Lords table in some places euery day in some at certaine times of some men to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacrament is destruction to none but life to euery one that is partaker of it Again the same Augustine saith August lib. 21. de imitat Dei cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore non est Christi i. we must not say that he doth eate the body of Christ who is not in the body of Christ And againe in the same place Idem ibid. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi c. Therefore they are not to be said to eat the bodie of Christ because they are not to be counted among the members of Christ for not to speake of other things they cannot at one time be the members of Christ and the members of a harlot Origene saith Est verus cibus i. Orig. in Matth. 15. that is the true meate which no wicked man can eate for if a wicked man could eat the body of Christ it would not be writen He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer These places I do alledge to confute not onely this absurd assertion but also that grosse doctrine of transubstantiation for if the bread be so transubstantiated into Christs body then the wicked do eate Christs body if the wicked do not eat Christs body as by the proofes before alledged doth plainely appeare then is there no such transubstantiation nor carnall presence as they vainely imagine and falsely affirme for to be But heere also they want not a shift which is that the wicked doe eate Christs flesh and drink his blood but not worthily But I would haue them to proue that a man may eate Christs bodie vnworthely In déede I confesse that the wicked may vnworthely eat of this bread drink of this cuppe of the Lords 1. Cor. 11.27 and be guilty of the bodie and blood of Christ as S. Paul saith because that through infidelitie they do reiect Iesus Christ offred therby But that the wicked and reprobate be either worthely or vnworthely partakers of Iesus Christ that I do deny Yet to proue this shamelesse assertion see how they be not ashamed wilfully to corrupt the holy Scriptures Titul 21. Arti. 1. de sumpt Euch. Bunderius a lying and false Frier is not abashed thus to alledge S. Paules place which euen now I brought forth Multi enim indigne accipiunt de quibus ait Apostolus Qui manducat carnem bibit calicem domini indigne iuditium sibi manducat bibit i. For many do vnworthely receiue of whom the Apostle speaketh He that eateth the flesh and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely eateth drinketh his owne damnation Heere this deceitfull Frier for panem the bread putteth carnem the flesh that whereas the Apostle saith he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cup c. He maketh him to say he that eateth the flesh and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely wherein you sée how he altereth S. Pauls words and corrupteth the place But no maruell for such shamelesse assertions and corrupt doctrin cannot be defended without shame lesse corrupting of the holy Scriptures But they will say the sense and meaning is all one for he that eateth that bread eateth Christs body But that is the question and therefore they vse a deceitfull Argument called petitio principii taking that for graunted which is in question and is denied for the bread is one thing Christs bodie an other And although we are not to seperate Christ from the sacrament yet we ought not to confound them but to distinguish betwéene them for euen as the godly