God taking pitie that this litle world the worke of his great power was by the deuyll seduced came doune and toke flesh of the virgyn Mary being true God and true man in one person At that tyme were all things briefly brought again to God whence they first were created brought forth Christ aboue is all in one In his Godhed he is all that is aboue the heauens and that fylleth the world In his manhod which is the 〈◊〉 of God he is all that is in or vnder the heauens In this manhod are all creatures most perfectly compiled without all blemmysh of nature of mynd or of body So that seing this body of Christ wherein also the fullnes of Godhed dwelleth is geuen and eaten at a banket there is no doubt but the same is such a banket as can not be made with all the creatures of heauen and earth gathered together In this one dysh is a composition most delicate of angels heauens elements of herbes fysshes byrds beasts of reasonable men and of God hym selfe No kind of salit meate sauce sruyts confection no kynde of wyne aqua vite aqua composita liquors syrops can be found in nature made by arte deuysed by wyt but it is all set vppon this table and that in a small rome where it cloyeth not with the abundance ue annoyeth with the vncleane handling it sylleth without lothsomues it prouoketh the appetite without daunger of surfcating To be shorte were it not a banket prouided by the sonne of God no man wold think it possible to haue any such feast made in the desert of this wycked world Thus good reader doe the Latholyks teache of the supper of our Lord and beleue it agreable to his word and worthy his worship This banket fedeth the whole man there is a reasonable soule to fede our reason a naturall substance of flesh to fede and nourysh our flesh there is the spirite of God which quyckeneth both soule and flesh to lyfe euerlasting This is the true Manna which conteyneth the taste of all swetenes and hath in it selfe all maner of pleasant refection This is the fode of lyfe the which who so eateth worthely he shall lyue for euer This is the feast whereof SalomoÌ„ speaketh Hoc itaque visum est mihi bonuÌ„ vt comedat quis bibat fruatur laetitia ex labore suo This therefore semeth good to me that a man should eate and drinke and enioye myrth of his traualic Which words S. Augustine allegeth and expoundeth after this sorte Vbi ait Non est bonuÌ„ homini nisi quod manducabit bibet quid credibilius dicere intelligitur quà m quod ad participationem mensae huius pertinet quam Sacerdos ipse mediator testamentinoui perhibet secundum ordinem Melchisedech de corpore sanguine sue when Salomon sayeth There is no good thing to a man but that which he shall eate and drinke what is he more credibly thought to meane then the thing which belongeth to the partaking of this table yâ— which table yâ— Priest him selfe who is mediatour of the new testament doth furnish according to yâ— order of Melchisedech with his owne body and blood If then the Prophet haue affirmed the greatest good that man hath in this life to be eating and drinking and that eating and drinking belong to the supper of Christ we maye perceaue right well that the matter and substance of Christes supper consisteth not in bread and wine for then we might be better occupied then in eating and drinking it but in the reall flesh and blood of Jesus Christ wherein all goodnes spirituall and corporall is collected into one heape and geuen to vs vnder the forme of bread and wine For so God hath appoiÌ„ted Instaurare omnia in Christo quae in caelis quae in terra sunt in ipso Briefly to renew all things in Christ which are in heauen and which are in earth in him The Breek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth such a brief gathering to one certain head and somme that not only heauen and earth but all things that are in them are brought into Christ and in him as it were begun again renewed The which cometh to passe by the taking of his flesh and geuing it to death vpon the crosse sor man in whom all things were both briefly collected and pitiously corrupted Now when Christ gaue to vs in his banket that flesh which he toke of his mother and that blood which he did shed on the crosse bidding vs make and eate that thing for the remembrance of him then was the head the floure the cheif composition of all meats drinks and iunkets in the world geuen vs in his last fupper S. Cyprian consydering the great deinties of this feast sayth Vident haec Sacramenta pauperes spiritu hoc vno contenti ferculo omnes mundi huius delicias aspernantur possidentes Chri stum aliquam huius mundi possidere supellectilem dedignantur The poore in spirit see these Sacraments and contenting them selues with this one dishe they despise all the delicates of this world and possessing Christ they disdaine to possesse any stuff of this world Contrariwise the wise men of this world abhorring as the same Cyprian saith the commandement of this religion euen to this day go backward he alludeth to the Capharnaits who through the doctrine this Sacrament forsoke Christ à secretis diuinis omnium intra se mysteriorum continentibus summam diffugiunt recedunt And they flee and depart from the diuine secrets which conteine within them the brief or somme of all mysteries A great deale more is found in S. Cyprian after the same sense in so much he calleth the supper of our Lord Omniâ—… consummationis sinem the end of all perfection All which praises only rise vpon this ground because these mysteries truly really contein within them the body and blood of Christ. when S. Cyprian sayth within them intra se he meaneth within the compasse or soormes of bread and wine For those only are the things that we can point vnto within or without Other meate or drink we see not S. Chrysostom hath so much in the praise of this feast that it wold make a great volume to bring all he saith therof I will con tent myself at this tyme with one place Quando corpus Christi tibi propositum fuerit dic tecum Propter hoc corpus so foorth When the body of Christ is set before thee saiâ—… with thyselfe For this bodies sake I am nomore earth and ashes For this I hope to receaue heauen and the good things which are in heauen immortall life the seat of Angels the cumpanie of Christ. The verie table is the strength of our soule the bond of trust the foundation our hope saluation life If we goe hence pure with this sacrifice with most great confidence we shall ascend to the
and geue him self present in thâ—…e mysteries or no You graunt he doth be these mysteries in heauen or in earth I suppose they be in earth Then say I your words import thâ—…t Christ geueth him self present in the earth How then doe you straight way inferre by a therefore that we are bid lift vp our harts to hâ—…nward because he is there by whom we must be 〈◊〉 fed If you meane he is both there and here you say very wel buâ—… thâ—… you graunt his body to be at once in diuers places at the least by yâ— way of SacrameÌ„tall being Except you will say his body is not in these mysteries and then he geueth not him self present For his body is the chefe thing whereof this Sacrament is named Neither we are flesh of his flesh in those mysteries where his flesh is not present to be ioyned with ours You say that Christ geueth him self present yea so farr present that we know certainly we are flesh of his flesh and yet you bid vs goe to heauen because he is there of whom we must be ful fed As though his mysteries were not in earth in which you graunt he geueth him selâ—… present If any spark of grace remaine in you consyder that God hath geuen you ouer into a lewd vnderstanding into a blind hart in to palpable darknesse Ye wold set God and the deuill together ye wold reconcile your fond hearesie with the healthfull Gospell of Christ you wold seme to confâ—…e with Christ yâ— he geueth him self present in these mysteries with S. Paul that we are flesh oâ—… Christes flesh and yet withall you will ioyne your own repugnant assertion that the body of Christ is only in heauen and consequently not in these mysteries which are in earth The longer you stand in this repugnance the more you shame your selues I haue not spoken this for any other cause but to stirr vp your minds by words of sharp warning which S. Paul biddeth vs vse to heretiks thereby to prouoke some such as haue regard to their soules to repent in tyme and to persuade them selues that they are not able to geue a new exposition of Christes supper which may stand with the old Gospell of Christes Church The body of Christ is the meat of his supper For thereof he sayd Take eate this is my body If then Christ geue him self present in these mysteries he geneth his body present If his body be present how say ye we must lift vp our harts to heauen there to be ful fed Is not Christ him self being present able to feed vs full How is it then that we must goe vp to heauen to be ful fed But let vs farther consyder your discrete discurse It is said in the preface of the Masse Lift vp your harts which words you interprete as though it were sayd your meat is in heauen and not vpon the holy table This argument I maruail if any man be able to answere The people are warned before coÌ„secration to liâ—…t vp their myndes to heauen Therefore the body of Christ is not really present on the alter aftar consecration As much to say as Before the incarnation of Christ the Prophetes and Patriarchs called and cried to God them selues and also exhorted the people to praie for the coming of Christ therefore when he was come he was not true God and true man in earth We crie Lift vp your harts before the body of Christ is made as beseching God we may haue his body made for vs. when it is made we lift the body it self vp to be adored and worshipped of the faithfull people as hauing then obteined our desier and that because it is the true body of true God And yet euen after consecration and after the body is really present it might wel be sayd lift vp your harts to heauen where by lyfting vp we should meane nothing ells but that the faithful men should not geue them selues to wordly thoughts of the earth of mony of flesh but list vp their minds to thinke of euerlasting ioyes Againe by naming heauen we meane not to denye yâ— real presence either of God in the whole earth or of Christ on the altar but only to shew that we should looke for another worlde and yâ— life thereof This argument might haue become a tinkar better then a diuine and least of all it could become a superintendent who ought to haue knowen that yâ— Church is yâ— kingdome of heauen and therefore the kingdome of God is within vs that to consyder what Christ worketh in his Church and for her sake is also after one sort to lift vp our hartes to heauen last of all he ought to consyder that S. Chrysostom writeth Diddest thou not promise yâ— Preist when he cryed lift vp your minds and hartes and saidest thou not we lift them vp vnto our Lord Will you see a wonderfull matter The table is furnished with the mysteries the Lamb of God is offred for thee the Priest is hofull for thee a spirituall fyre floweth from the table See what lifting vp of harts was to the old Fathers It was to acknowlege the mysteries vpon the table to beleue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to deny the real presence of Christ. That is in deed a homely lifting vp of harts to lift the body and blood of Christ cleane from the altar and holy table Such lifting away becometh theues Hitherto these men brought neither any euident authoritie of Scripture thereby to fortifie their opinion nor any sentence of auncient Father coÌ„cerning the question of the reall presence And now I pray you see what worshipful geare they bring We say in the Masse lift vp your harts before yâ— body is sanctified and made present therefore it is not made present at all We say grace before the meate is set vpon the table therefore none at all is set there This is the stuff of them that boast so much of the Gospell This is my body is forgotten which is fower tymes repeted twise of two Apostles and twise of two Euangelists Yet is that forgotten and lifting vp of harts which came of the good inuention of Godly Fathers but yet from men it came that is called in for a witnesse against the truth of the Gospell And yet euery man thinkeththey bring nothing but the pure word of God for their false doctrine ¶ What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. ANd Cyrillus sayth that in the receauing of the mysteries all grosse imaginations must be put away Here is the second authoritie alleged against the reall presence of Christes body and that I warrant you full strong Grosse imaginations must be put awaye in receauing the mysteries therefore Christ spake not properly nor truly when he sayd This is my body Are we not now happy to haue such fine preachers who can shew the beleuing of that which Christ sayth
Sacramentaric doctrine whereof I haue the gladlier writen to thintent S. Augustines doctrine might be opened who alwaies noteth this Sacrament to be the signe of the vnitie which is made by Christ in baptism among the faithfull but he meaneth such a signe as Christ him â—…elf maketh vnder the forme of bread when he affirmeth him to consecrate herein yâ— mystery of vnitie Is it not an extreme madnes to affirme that wheaten bread keping his own earthly nature should be the mystery of vnitie Christ is that mystery first because he is both God who alone made all things to serue him and man in whom all things are a new collected which where before made Secondly because Christ maketh vs one with God reconciling vs to him by the blood of his crosse Thirdly because he maketh vs one among our selues by his one spirit and Baptism Last of all because he sheweth and geueth him self really present vnder the forme of bread wherein he would vs to vnderstand the vnitie which is really made betwene vs and him and God Of this vnitie S. Hilarie writeth If Christ assumpted truly the flesh of our body and we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body and by this thing we shal be one because the Father is in him and he in vs quomodo voluntatisvnitas asseritur cùm naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacracramentum sit vnitatis How is yâ— vnitie of wil affirmed whereas the naturall proprietie through the Sacrament is the holy signe of a perfite vnitie This place good Reader openeth al the hard points of the mystery of vnitie First Christ toke truly flesh Next we take truly the same flesh vnder a mystery By his taking God and man were made one concerning the whole nature of man By our taking we and Christ are made one concerning euery particular man who receaueth worthely his body And that is not only done so but withall it is shewed so for the thing which we receaue is the flesh of Christ vnder the forme of bread The flesh yâ— is there being receaued maketh vs in dede to be one with Christ. The form of bread sheweth not only them to be one that receaue this food but those also who now doe not receaue it if yet they be or shal be baptized to be one in Christ. And sayeth S. Hilarie so much Ye doubtlesse and that he twise repeteth For when he sayth Verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus we take truly vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body then he meaneth that vnder the forme of bread we take Christes flesh Under what other mysterie can it be sayd we take it Or seing he speaketh of the last supper doth he not meane the signe of the same supper which was bread But yet let vs heare more plaine words Naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The natural proprietie through the SacrameÌ„t is the SacrameÌ„t of a perfite vnitie The word proprietas meaneth one particular substance proper to one thing which in men is commonly called a person S. Augustine witnesseth that Christ is called the true vine Per similitudinem non per proprietatem by likenes not by proprietie that is to say Christ is yâ— true vine by like condition and not by the self substance of a true vine S. Hilarie then sayeth The naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a Sacrament of perfite vnitie Here is the word Sacrament twise iterated the proprietie of Christ is a Sacrament and it is a Sacrament by a Sacrament A Sacrament is a holy signe Therefore the proprietie or substance of Christ is a holy signe But how Euery substance is the truth How is it then a sigue It is not barely and absolutely called a signe but a signe by a signe that is to say the true substaÌ„ce of Christ put vnder the form of bread by that signe of bread is seâ—… to signifie a most perfite vnitie made betwene God and vs. The natural proprietie of Christ by the signe of bread maketh and signifieth a perfite vnitie It maketh it whiles we receaue Christ into vs who is one with his Father in nature as we naturally haue him in our bodies and soules It signifieth the same vnitie because the substance of Christ who is one nature with his Father in Godhead one with vs in manhod being now vnder the signe of bread sheweth him self as it were with al his faithfull members about him offering them all to God as if he sayd Ecce ego pueri mei mecum Behold Father I am here and my seruants or children with me This sayeth S. Augustine is the sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ Quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quâ—…od in ea oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur The which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of the altar knowen to the faithful Where it is shewed to the Church that in that sacrifice which she offereth her self is offered It is well knowen that the Priests of yâ— Church taking bread and wine according to the institution of Christ consecrate them saying in Christes name This is my body and this is my blood If by those words the body and blood of Christ be not made pre sent vnder the forme of bread and wine how is the Church offered in the offering which she maketh Who doth make an oblation of her to God Wil ye say that Christ sitting in heauen presenteth to his Father the bread wine which is in earth saying Father looke vppon my faithfull members See what a mysticall body I haue gotten to me in the earth Might not God answer Why sonne is the substance of your mysticall body bread and wine Haue you coupled my seruants your brethren whome I created reasonable to those vnseâ—…sible creatures Or is the handy work of the baker your oblation or the oblation of your mysticall body But if Christ be vnder the forme of bread and thence make an oblation to his Father of all his obedient members which are there signified by the forme of bread then is none other substance of those mysticall members presented besyde the true substance and head of the mysticall body to wit the flesh of Christ which worketh gathereth a body to it self through out the whole world TheÌ„ the Church offereth none other substance besyde the one oblation which dyed for vs. The same reall coniunction of the faithfull to Christes flesh may be declared also by the example of building a howse For as euery howse is in the fundation moste large and afterward it is drawen alwaies so muche the nigher together by how much it approcheth to the top or end thereof euen so the Church being the howse of God must be one so that it may in some partes thereof be
holy porche or entry as it were compassed round about with golden garments But what reherse I things to come Dum in hac vita sumus vt nobis terra caelum sit facit hoc mysterium Whiles we are in this life this mysterie causeth that the earth is heauen to vs. By the iudgement of Chrysostom the fame body of Christ which is our saluation and life is set besore vs vpon the verie table to th' intent whiles we liue the earth should be heauen to vs and when we departed heuce carying that body with vs we should be safe conueied vnto heauen it self When he saith the earth is heauen to vs through this mysterie he meaneth nolesse to be set vpon the table it self or altar then is at the right hand of God the Father And this is the supper of our Lord which the Catholiks beleue and not an emptie dish of faith which although it be much worth when truthe is absent yet as in heauen where clere vision is no faith abydeth euen so when earth is through this mysterie made heauen to vs we receaue and eate the body of Christ not only by faith from heauen but also in truthe from the verie altar and table For as there is a truthe lesse of our bodies then of our soules and as the soules of the faithfull neuer lacked God whom they might feede on by faith spirit so Christ therefore toke flesh that our bodies also might haue a banket made to them and so the whole man might be noâ—…rished to life euerlasting Oportuit enim certe sayth Cyrillus vt non solum anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam alcenderet verum etiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu tactu cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur For it behoued truly that not only yâ— soule should ascend by the holy Ghost into the blessed life but also that this rude and earthly body should be brought to immortality by tasting touching eating the meate which were of alliance or kynred with it that is to say of the same nature and substance whereof our bodies are Thus in the Câ—…tholik banket of Christes supper not only the soule but euen the body eateth tasteth and toucheth such meat as is of the same blood and kynred with it That is to say our flesh eateth Christes flesh our body his body It was flesh that made vs all borne in originall synne it is flesh that maketh vs all regeâ—…erate in Christ. Our soule was spâ—…tted by the entrance into that flesh which was spotted Thereiore our soule is made cleane by the wasshing of that our flesh which was borâ—… in syn The flesh sayth Tâ—…rtullian is washed that the soule maie be cleansed The flesh is oynted that the soule maie be consecrated The â—…esh is sigued that the soule maie be defenced The flesh is shadowed with imposition of hand that the soule also may be defenced The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ that the soule may also be made sat of God Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniung it They cannot therefore be parted in reward whom work ioyâ—…eth Hitherto hath Tertullian commended to vs the great priuileges which God geueth to our flesh The greatest of all which is the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. As therefore we Catholiks beleue most vndoutedly not only that our soules be 〈◊〉 and redemed of Christ but euen that our flesh is the creature of God made with his own hands redemed by Christ and shall 〈◊〉 again at the later daie really and liue for euer with the soule of the iuste man euen so we beleue and professe that not only our soules but euen yâ— same flesh receaueth â—…to it the benefits of Chriâ—…s paâ—…on the Sacraments which he left to vs eating draiâ—…ing really vnder the formes of bread and wine the true substance of Christes body and blood This is the last supper of Christ which we Catholiks beleue and prosesse ¶ whâ—…t the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestants and Sacramentaries with a confutation thereof NOw let vs consyder on the other syde what kinde of banket our new brethern teache They saye Christ geueth to the body bread and wyne but to the soule he geâ—…eth hym selfe by faith spirit and vnderstanding This opinion shall by Gods grace be straight waies proued faulâ—…ye and erroneous In dede before that Christ was made man such a banket as they speake of had bene much worth and was kept of Melchisedech and Abraham of the children of Israell eating Manna of the priests eating the bread and cakes which was offered according to the lawe For then with an earthly banket of bread of flesh and of wyne the ioyning of a spirituall eating by fayth and vnderstanding was the highest banket that could be made For as the spirit and fayth was vertuously occupied in lifting vp it self to God So was the body occupied in making a figure and signe of the true banket of Christ which was to come But when Christ had taken flesh of the virgyn Marye tunc 〈◊〉 Christum facta est then the truth was made by Christ. Truth perfoormed outwardly in fulfilling the corporall figures doth adde much vnto fayth and spirit In the fayth of good men and in the spirit of God Christ was euer man but not euer man in truth of nature Whilâ—…s Christ was only a spirit and only God so long the feast or banket which was geuen for hym had no better thing in it then the fayth and spirit of the eaters and drinckers for that was the highest gyft thâ—…t God as yet had geuen to man But all those eatings and drinkings which were in nature and in the law of Moyses though they had corporall meate with faith and spirit are so farre behind the supper of Christ after his manhod really assâ—…pted as the fayth of Christes incarnation is behind the incarnation it felfâ—… Mark the point good reader and thou shalt not be deceaued by false doctrine As Christ by his incarnation did geue a reall truth to the fayth of the old fathers and not a new spirite so in his last supper he geueth the same spirituall gyft to vs that he gaue to Abel Noe Abraham Moyses Dauid Daniell and such others but he geueth vs an other kind of truth then euer he gaue them The truthe made by Christ is the true flesh and blood which he tooke of his mother and the geuing of that truth to be eaten is the geâ—…ing of that flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wyne Therefore they that now say Christ geueth bread and wyne with spirituall gyfts wherein our soule eateth and drinketh Christes flesh and blood they graunt a good thing one way but an other way they take away the greatest goodnes that euer was geuen to man Their
the supper of our Lord a Sacrament dare you geue these things a name which is not in the word of God What warraÌ„t haue you for that dede you will say Ambrose and Augustine calle them so I replie Peter and Paul doe not call them so At other times and with other men I will stay vpon the authoritie of Ambrose and Augustine ' whom as I ought to do I reuerence for men of excellent vertue and learning But yet they were men as you are wont to saie they might erre they might be deceaued At this time we haue appealed chiefly to yâ— holy scriptures and out of them we must ground all our talke and next vnto them we will heare what the Fathers saye I saie that neither the old testament nor the new calleth the supper of our lord a Sacrament Therefore the Apologie that so calleth it goeth from the assurance of the word of God to the good and â—…audable inuentions and traditions of meÌ„ which them seiues 〈◊〉 when they lilte And yet the said Apologie so calleth it a Sacrament that vpon that only word the auctors thereof grounde all their doctrine Thence it hath to be a signe to be a token to be a badge a seale a paterne a counterpaâ—…e Thence all the figuratiue doctrine ryseth Thence it commeth that the reall body and blood of Christ is denied to be vnder the formes of bread and wine Shall now so much as Christ hath plainely spoken of his body and blood so much as his Apostles and disciples haue preached and writen in that behalfe shall now all this be ouerthrowen by an vnwritten veritie Are these the men oâ—… God who fâ—…ee from S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn S. Paul to Augustine and Ambrose Will the Apologie allowe that dede If it will not why hath it done so it selfe If none but prophetes and Apostles had written where had they found two Sacramentes where had they readen that the supper of our Lord is a signe and token They make much a doe about the word of God till they haue gotten credit among the ignorant and then they quite lead theÌ„ from all the word of God To you I speake good Christen readers that haue the true loue of the word of God 〈◊〉 in your hartes to you I speake geue not ouer S. Maâ—…hew S. Iohn S. Paul for Ambroâ—…e and Augusâ—…ine 〈◊〉 not ouer Christ who is God and man to haue the opinion of what sâ—… euer â—…ottor and Father in causes of belefe Some men in comparison of others be of greate authoritie But in comparison oâ—… God all men be nothing at all God saieth this is my body Now what so euer man or angell from heauen tell you this is not the body of Christ but only a figure of it beleue him not but let him be â—…cursed to you Shal we not be well occupied if we leaue yâ— plain worde of God and come to see whether Ambrose and Augustine teach two Sacramentes or mo then twaine S. Paul teacheth Matrimonie to be a Sacrament And yet shall we goe from him to Ambrose and Augustine to see whether it be one or no Was euer such a vile practise heard of as to brag of scriptures to boast of holy write to crie vpon vs for comyng to the worde of God and nowe that we are come thither to call vs from all Prophetes and Apostles yea froÌ„ Christ him selfe to Ambrose and Augustine Is this the waie to the holy scriptures Can this fault be excused Can this hypocrisie be tolerated To winne to you the itching eares of the inconstant multitude to get you the applause of licencious libertines in yâ— pulpit you call to yâ— word of God and when you haue gotten them within your nettes you teach them out of Ambrose and Augustine Yea would God ye did so at the least And although it be alitle out of mie way if to detect falshod can euer be out of a mans way yet what if now we proue that ye deceaue them also by fathering that vpon Ambrose and Augustine which they neuer wrote 〈◊〉 thought ¶ That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two Sacraments DOe they teache but two Sacramentes only What if they taught two especially yet if they do not deny the other your proof is none But let vs see Doe they approue no more then twaine What if besydes these twaine which you haue named I bring within the compasse of one chapiter two moe out of S. Augustin as plainly named of him as possibly can be Where then will this Apologie reâ—…t Bonum igitur nuptiarum per omnes gentes atque omnes homines in causa generandi est in fide castitatis quòd autem ad populum Dei pertinet etiam in sancti tate Sacramenti caet The good sayeth S. Augustine which riseth of mariage through all nations and all men consisteth in yâ— cause of begetting children and in the faith of chastitie And in so much as appertaineth to yâ— people of God it consisteth also in the holynes of the SacrameÌ„t through which it is vnlawfull yea though diuorse come betwen to marie an other whiles her husband liueth not so much as for the very cause of bringing foorth of children which though alone it be the cause why mariages are made yet the band of mariage is not loosed vnlesse the husband die albeit yâ— thing folow not for which the mariage is made Much like as if to bring the people together some of the clergie should be ordered or consecrated with holy orders for although the meeting of the people do not insewe yet Sacramentum ordinationis the Sacrament of geuing orders abideth in them that be ordered And if for any fault any man be remoued from the office he shall not lacke the Sacrament of our Lord which is once put vpon him although it remaine to his damnation In these words S. Augustine hath shewed that amoÌ„g Christian men there are two other Sacramentes of Priesthod of Matrimonie besides baptisme and the Eucharist And eche of them so greate and so strong that they can not be loosed and taken awaie but only by death of the partie although the chief cause â—…asse why the Sacrament was geuen I could bring if nede were an other notable place out of S. Augustine where he nameth together the water of baptim oile the Eucharist and the imposition of hands S. Ambrose like wise confesseth moe Sacraments then Baptim and the Eucharist Cur baptizatis si per hominem peccata dimitti non licet In baptismo vtique remissio peccatorum omniuÌ„ est Quid interest vtrum per paenitentiam an per lauacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent Vnum in vtroque mysterium est Sed dices quia in lauacro operatur mysteriorum gratia Quid in paenitentia Nonne Dei nomen operatur Why art thou baptized if it be not lawfull synnes to be forgeuen
the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes Here is the Sacramentaries argument I eate bread and drinke wine in token of Christes death resurrection therefore he is dead and risen I pray you Syr how doth this argument hold What affinitie hath bread and wine with the death and with the resurrection of Christ But if bread and wine be turned into the same body blood of Christ which died and rose againe which wrought all the miracles done in this world Then is the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ in dede it selfe set before the eyes of our faith Because as Chrisostom teacheth Hoc idem corpus cruentatum caet This very same body bloudied perced with yâ— speare gaue as it were out of a spring fountaynes of blood healthfull to the whole world And the selfe body God aâ—…anced vnto the highest seate the which body also he gaue to vs both to th' intent we should haue it and to the intent we should eaâ—…e it But what speake I of S. Chrisostom This sayeth Christ is my body which is geuen for you And againe the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world How ofte so euer sayeth S. Paul ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice of our Lord ye shall shew his death vntill he comme So that the hauing of the death and resurrection and all yâ— miracles of Christ before our eyes at Masse tyme riseth chiefly of yâ— thing which is the body of Christ. And secondarily of the things which are done about that his body The consecrating the offering the eating of the selfe same body which wrought these miracles which died and rose againe those facts I say in that thing shew his death and resurrection All other wayes of setting the death and resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence of Christ is painting and shadowing in comparison of this liuely representation O how many sayeth S. Chrisostom say now adayes I wold see the soorm shape of Christ I would see his very garmentes and shoowes Ipsum igitur vides ipsum taÌ„gis ipsum comedis Lo thou seest him selfe thou touchest him selfe thou eatest him selfe Non quòd corpus illud sayeth Damascen è coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the body of Christ came downe from heauen but because the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. See now good Reader whether the Apologie say more truly that the signe or token of Christes body and blood the body it selfe not being made present vnder the soâ—…nes of bread and wine as it teacheth doe more effectuously set before our eyes that death and resurrection and all the miracles of Christ or els whether the incarnation life death and resurrection of him be not better and more according to the word of God set soorth by the Catholikes who teach that the substance of bread and wine is changed into that body and blood of Christ to th' end the death and resurrection of the same body might be effectually remembred So teacheth S. Cyrillus in these words Prebet Christus nobis carnem suam tangendam c. Christ geueth vs his flesh to be tou ched that we might beleue assuredly that he hath in deed reised his temple For that the communion of mystical blessing is a certayn confession of the resurrection of Christ it is proued by his own words For he distributed the bread after it was broken saying This is my body which shal be geuen for you for the remission of synnes Make and doe this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore the participation of that mysterie is a certain true confession and remembrance that for our sakes and for vs our Lord both hath died and is reuiued and through that filleth vs with diuine blessing Let vs therefore flee infidelity after the touching of Christ and let vs be found strong and stedfast being far from all doubtfulnesse Thus far S. Cyrillus Who alludeth in that place to S. Thomas the Apostle And as S. Thomas touching the syde of Christ cried out My Lord and my God euen so S. Cyrillus teacheth that we touche the body of Christ when we come to the holy communion For as vnder the visible flesh of Christ his Godhead lay priuie but yet was truly present and had assumpted his flesh into one person euen so vnder the visible foorm of bread the flesh of Christ is really present in the holy mysteries and therefore we touch that flesh when we touche the foorm of bread as S. Thomas did touche the Godhead when he touched the flesh of Christ. For in eche place we touche not either the Godhead or the flesh visibly but by the meane of that thing wherein it is truly present That thing I say receaued of vs doth make his death and resurrection to be remembred Hath not he all that euer Christ did presently before his eyes who hath Christ him selfe present But take Christ awaye and afterward it is a foolish dreame to talke how his deeds be set before our eyes by bread and wine The apparence of bread is the token that Christes body is here to be eaten And the similitude of wine doth shew that his blood is here to be drunken But the true shewing of his death life and resurrection ariseth of that truth which is vnder those foormes When I eate the body that died I shew the death of it because no sacrificed flesh was euer eaten before the host was offered But we eate really the body of Christ therefore our fact crieth that Christ is dead We eate his body aliue hauing the blood and soule in it therefore our fact crieth he is risen again Thus the Ca tholiks reason Let him that hath coÌ„mon sense iudge who goeth nere the truth of the Gospell the Sacramentarie or the Catholike ¶ Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body TO th' intent we should geue thanks for his death and our deliuerance and that by often resorting to the Sacramentes we should continually renew the remembrance thereof These men presuppose we haue a signe or token left vnto vs in bread and wine to geue thanks withall We haue in deed a token but this token though it were made of bread and wine is not bread and wine For Christ in his last supper tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Behold the token wherein Christ both him selfe gaue thanks and would vs to geue thanks in the same The making of his body for vs is the thanksgeuing for his death and for our deliuerance Ipso genere sacrificij sayeth S.
vs Secondly we must be like Egles in life and faith In life by forsaking earthly affectioÌ„s In faith by quicknesse of mind whiles we beleue that not withstanding bread and wine appeare to vs yet it is in deed an other 〈◊〉 The Egle hath many proprietes as to flee highe to looke â—…edfastly vpon the sun to see most clerely a farr of and to take his pray most swiftly To the flying high our good life must answer to yâ— quicknesse of sight our faith Not in suche sort to flee a highe as though the matter we seeke were not present but to â—…spie the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine For as S. Chrysostome saith This is the table of Egles He speaketh not now of heauen which is a boâ—…e the sun he speaketh of the table which standeth in the Church before vs wherupon the sonne of righteousnes is situated from which we take the foode of life the ioye of heauen yâ— earcase yâ— hath died for vs. The table is it whereof he speaketh What impudencie is this so to abuse the wordes of that blessed man as if he spake of going into heauen by faith whereas in dede he speaketh of them that liue like the saints of heauen and of theÌ„ that haue a quick sight to witt a faithfull vnderstanding yâ— they be able as it were to loke through the formes of bread and wine there to see vnder those formes the reall body and blood of Christ. For straight vpon the naming of a quick sight he inferreth yâ— this is the table of Egles not of Iaies As who shoâ—…ld say here is a meate that none can see but those who haue a most pure eye of faith Aquila sayth S. Augustine sublimiter volaÌ„s de tanto intervallo sub fluctibus natantem piscem dicitur ê‘â—…idere grauiter aquis illisa extertis pedibus atque vnguibus rapere The Egle flying a high is sayd most perfitly to see a great way of a fishe swiÌ„ming vnder the waues and vehemeÌ„tly beating her self against the water by stretching out her feet and clawes to snatch vp the fishe Behold an Egle seeth one thing vnder an other And so must we repute yâ— table of Christ to haue in it one thing vnder an other To haue vpon it the body of Christ vnder the form of bread And therefore noâ—…e but Egles can espie the said body As for the Sacramentaries Zuinglians they are like Iaies euer pratling of the body of Christ but neuer espying it or seing where it lieth they flee low as the Iaies doe as thinking that good works bring smal aide to â—…ife euerlasting They see weakely and coÌ„tent them selues with a base banket of bread and wine requiriÌ„g to theyr bodies none other food of life And whereas the sonne of reghteousnesse hath couered him self as it were with the cloudes of bread and wine to thintâ—…nt our eye might be able to beare more easily the brightâ—…esse of his shyning yet they are of so dull and of so dimme eye sight that thâ—…y say ther is nothing but 〈◊〉 vpon the table So that our table is the table of Eâ—…les where faithfull Egles may eâ—…pie the sonne of 〈◊〉 present vpon the altar and table and theyr table is the table of Iaies where nothing is 〈◊〉 besydes that which iufidell Iaies may find out by naturall eye sight bare naming without true being It foloweth in S. Chrysostm If noman wil rashly handle an other mans garment how dare we to our great shame and reproche receaue this pure and immaculate body â–ª which is Lord of al which is partaker of the diuine nature through which we haue our being and liuing by which yâ— gates of hel are broken downe and the gates of heauen set wide open Thus S. Chrysostome sheweth vs to receaue this body of Christ from yâ— holy table or altar as truly coÌ„cerning the substance thereof as we may truly touche an other mans garment Heauen is vsed both in holy Scriptures and in the Fathers for the heauenly life And so we must flee in to heauen not to receaue this body so it is not said but when we approche vnto this body The body is in earth with vs coÌ„cerning the nature and substaÌ„ce thereof vnder the formes of bread But as it is a body gloriâ—…ied and thereby made heauenly euen so we must clense and purge our selues from synne when we come to it and so be made heauenly or flee in to the state of them who liue in heauen And that state we professe who are called the kingdome of heaueÌ„ yâ— howse of God ¶ The bread that is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of lyfe which is the body of Christ. ANd Ciprian this bread sayith hee is meate of the mynd not meate of the belly The truth is so strong that yâ— more is brought agaynst it the better it is seene The sayng of S. Ciprian maketh so clearly for the contrarie of that wich the Apologi teacheth as it is possible to deuise If this bread be meate of the mind not meate of the belly out of questioÌ„ it is not material bread it is not the substaÌ„ce of coÌ„mon bread for though such materiall bread be neuer so much hallowed by prayer and thanksgeuing yet it still remayneth in substance bread of the belly But seing yâ— substance of yâ— common bread is changed into yâ— flesh of Christ as we catholikes beleue and teach now it can by no meanes be meate of the bellye for albeit wee receiue it really vnder the formes of bread into our bodyes and that also to feed them as wel as our sowles yet there ar two kinds of feedyng one wich is to liue in this world and in that case meate is for the belly and the belly for meate and God shall destroye both the one the other But an other feeding is to life euerlasting that is called by Christ cibus permanens meate which abideth which perisheth not Such a meate is the blessed body of Christ. It is a meat iÌ„ deed A meate wiche is truly eaten but is not digested into our corruptible flesh and voided as common meates are but a litle and a litle it feedeth and nourisheth vs to life euerlasting These defenders thought if it were â—…aten in deed that it could not be but meate of the belly As well they might blasphemously say that because Christ was man in deed he was born in synne And in that opinion they are like the Capharnaits who could imagine none other kinde of meate besides that which is diuided into peeces and consumed by eating The true Christians haue learned by the mercy of God with holy Cyrillus how the flesh of Christ because it is yâ— flesh of God may be eaten and yet quicken the eaters
and make them liue to God and notbe wasted by eating but rather how it may profite our soules being worthely receaued into our bodies For so Tertullian sayeth The flesh is fedde with the body and blood of Christ to th' ende that the soule may be made fatte in God Perhaps the Apologists will say that S. Cyprian doth call it bread I answere he calleth it bread because it is meate for he sayeth This bread is meate But what kinde of meate Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mu tatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread which ouâ—… Lord gaâ—…e to the Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature is made flesh by the almighty power of the word Behold the kind of bread it is coÌ„mon bread in sha pe but made the flesh of Christ in substance In the olde tyme sayth S. Ciprian the shew loues being cold and hard were changed euery Sabothe daie and hote loaues of the same nomber were wonte to be sette vpon the table I am nulla â—…itpanis panis mutatio vnus est panis caloris continui Now there is no change of bread made there is one loase os coÌ„tâ—…al heate which neuer is cold By this we vnderstand that somtyme S. Ciprian speaketh of common bread which Christ tooke into his handes and that is changed and is at euery tyme a new loafe At other tymes he speaketh of the bread whereunto the change is made And yâ— bread is the flesh of Christ which is neuer changed The first bread if it tarâ—…ed in substance it should sill the belly But because the substance thereof is changed the flesh of Christ which is made by consecration is the meate of the mind and not of the belly For it feedeth vs to that state of immortalitie where the belly shall no more be filled with coruptible meates So that it feedeth vs in such sorte that we leaue to cherishe oâ—…r bellies so much the lesse by how much the more we eate it 〈◊〉 ¶ SacrameÌ„tall eating differreth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in yâ— place alâ—…aged by the Apologie ANd Augustine how sayth he shall I hold him that is absent How shall I reache forth my hand into hâ—…auen that I might hold him there sitting Reach out sayth he faith thou hast caught him To make vp and to conâ—…lnde all these wrested places which haue bene alleaged heretofore out of the Fathers a plaine text is brought forth out of S. Augustine which speaketh neuer a whâ—…t of yâ— present controuersie nor can not be at all applied to it The question betwixt vs is whether Christes body bee present in the Sacrament of the altar or â—…o The Apologie reasoneth thus A Iewe that yet beleued not niay beginne to beleue and so may streche forth his hand to heauen and hold Christ fast by faith although he be bodily absent therefore Christes body after consecration dewly made is not present vnder forme of bread Is not this a mighty argument and worthy to be kept for the last place A Iewe may hold Christ by faith if he wil beleue vpon him therefore he is not to be eaten really of faithful Christians in the Sacrament Nos indicemus modo Iudaeis vbi sit Christus Let vs now shew to the Iewes sayeth S. Augustine where Christ is Occisus est a parentibus eorum he is â—…aine of their Pa rents Venturus est iudex he shall come a iâ—…dge Audiant teneant let them heare and hold Respondet quem tenebo The Iâ—…we maketh answere whom shall I hold Absentem Shall I hold him that is absent Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi sedentem teneam How shall I stretch my hand vnto heauen that I may hold him sitting there Fidem mitte tenuisti strech out faith and thou hast caught him Parentes tui tenuerunt carâ—… tu tene corde Thy Parents haue holden him in flesh hold holdâ—… him in harte Quoniam Christus absens etiam presens est because Christ being absent is also present And againe corpus suum intulit coelo maiestatem n on abstulit mundo Christ hath caried his body into heauen he hath not taken away his maiestie from the world This dialogue S. Augustine made betwen him selfe a Iew not intending any whit to spcake in that place of the Sacrament of the altar wherof Iewes ought to know nothing And yet commeth yâ— Apologie and will proue that we touch not the body of Christ with our teeth and iawes but by faith mind and spirite bycause beside all the former argumentes which be not woreth a strawe S. Augustine telleth a Iewe that he may beleue vpon Christ absent in body but present in maiestie of his Godhead You will say perhaps If Christ be absent in body that his body is not present vnder the form of bread after consecration Syr S. Augustine speaketh not of Christs body as it is in yâ— SacrameÌ„t to be eaten but as it is visible in heauen And to assure you therof it was yâ— custome of yâ— primitiue Church to let no infidel see or be present at yâ— tyme of Masse of yâ— ChristiaÌ„s Therefore S. Augustine might not lawfully talke to a Iewe of yâ— misticall presens of Christ in the Saâ—…ament neither surely any word of his in that alleaged place is to be referred to the Sacramentall eating They are two distinct things to receaue Christ by faith alone and to receaue by faith and SacrameÌ„t together that may be done before baptisme as it appeareth by Cornelius in the Actes of the Apostles But a Sacramentall receauing in the supper of Christ is graunted only to Christians after baptisme as S. Justinus yâ— martyr and the experience it selfe doth witnesse For as he that is not borne can not eate so he yâ— is not regenerated in Christ may not be suffered to eate his body drinke his blood in the Sacrament And truly except a man hath so addicted him selfe to Christ that he wil be contented to beleâ—…e what so euer he shal say vnto him he would neuer be persuaded that vnder the forme of so small a peece of bread the reall body of Christ were conteyned But when he hath learned in the articles of his faith that Christ is God and therefore almighty after that belefe he both can beleue his word to be true when he sayd ouer bread which was taken This is my body and also may eate the same body of Christ to his profit and to the encrease of life euerlasting But what ignorance was this to applie the eating of an infidell Iew to the mysticall eating which only the faithfull make in Christes supper ¶ The preface of the third Booke THe mysterie of Christes supper was so great that not only diuerse figures in the lawe of nature and of Moyses were by the Patriarches Priests
fulfill it â–ª for the fulfilling of the law without the putting away thereof is no lesse to say then to putt the fulnesse of new grace vnder a shadow which shadow may seme to kepe a resemblance with the old law so that of two distincte states there must now be made one new middle state of the which the outward parte resembleth the law and the inward is one with the state of grace Let vs put an example in the precepts of nature to make this thing more plaine The law saith Non occides Thou shalt not kyl This precept was not put away by Christe but the true ground of it which is not to be angry was ioyned therevnto as it appeareth by yâ— sermâ—…n of Christe in S. Mathew It was said to them of the oldelaw Thou shalt not kyl but I say vnto yow that euery one that is angry with his brother shal be gylty in iudgement Here we see two things the one of kylliug the other of being angrie That of kylling is outward That of angre is inwarde they both make but one precept of the new Testament the not kylling dependeth vppon the not being angrie and then is kylling throughly taken away when anger is throughly cured and as it fareth with this precept so staudeth it with the the blessed Sacrament whereof we reason For it keepeth yâ— forme of bread and wyne which vnder yâ— law was emptie and the truth which was be tokened by the olde manna is put by the almyghtic power of God vnder the formes of bread and wyne and so remayneth the law not altogether put away for a kynd of figure taryeth stil and it was euer a siguratiue law but fulfilled because the body of Christ which is the fulfilling of the law is made present vnder a figure The signe of circuncision saith S. Leo the sanctification of gifts the consecracion of priests the purity of sacrisice the veritie of washing the honour of the teÌ„ple is with vs. there is no legal instruction no prophetical figure quod non totum in Christi sacrameÌ„ta transierit which is not wholy transferred into the Sacraments of Christ and again one oblation of thy body and blood fulfilleth the diuersity of the old sacrifices Hitherto S. Leo the great To yâ— same effect serue yâ— words of blessed Dionysius a Counseller of the Senate of Athens scholar to S. Paule who hauing declared the holy kinde of gouernaÌ„ce which is in heauen among the ordres of Angelles and hauing shewed that by them the inferiour degrees of men are brought vnto God according to their capacitie he first sheweth that God gaue vnto the world the goueruement of the law which he gaue as to children in signes and tokens and as to weak eyes in figures clowdes or shadowes But afterward came our holy gouernaunce which is the end and fulfilling of the former law Now saith this holy writer Nostra hierarchia coelestis est legalis quae communiter medietate extremorum comprehenditur cum illa communes habens spiritales contemplationes cum hac autem signa quo sensum mouent quorum varietate distinguitur per ea piè ad deum adducitur Our holy gouernance saieth Dionysius is both heauenly and legal that is to say hauing somewhat like to the law conteyned in coÌ„mon betwene those two extremyties partaking with that of heauen spirituall contemplations and with this of the law sensible signes whereby it is diuersly distincted and by them it is brought after an holy mauer vnto God We haue heard how the scholar of S. Paule ioyneth in our state the heauenly contemplacioÌ„s of Angelles who looke vpon God him selfe with the outward signes of the law For by heauenly contemplacions S. Dionysius meaneth that truth which face to face is sene in heauen But let vs returne again to the words of S. Paule who did yet expresse this matter more plainly keping the same diuision but geuing euery thing his playne name The law had the bare shadow of things to come The truth is the body of Christ it self which he calleth also Rem ipsam the thing it self wherein also dwelleth the nature of God Now the ioyning of a figure with the truthe is called Ipsa imago reruÌ„ the very shape or image of the things Vmbram enim habens lex futurorum bonorum non ipsam imaginem rerum For yâ— law sayth S. Paule hath the shadow of good things to come not the very image of the things The good things to come are the vision of Christ in glory and yâ— clere sight of God who corporally dwelleth in the body of Christ. The shadow hereof was yâ— law whereof Moyses being steward obtayned bread from the ayer for the children of Israel But the image it self of the things that is to say wherein the body of Christ is conteyned and in that body God dwelleth yâ— image is the substance of God man couered vnder the formes of our blessed Sacrament of the altar And therefore that Sacrament is properly the gift of Christ coÌ„ teyning both it whiche we shall see in heauen and suche a figure as we haue sene vnder the lawe couering presently the truth to come with the shadow past to come I say without a shadowe past I say without yâ— real truthe but now hauing the truthe vnder a shadow Maximus and Pachimera do vpon S. Dionysius allege S. Paule for the profe of that which Dionysius said Oecu menius likewise expoundeth the things them selues to be the life to come the shadow to be the old testameÌ„t the image of things to be the state of the Gospel This I take to be the true meaning of the holy Ghost who doth not in vaine cause the gifte of God by Moyses to be named diuersly from the gift of God the father and the gift of Christ to differ from them both Moyses is sayd to haue geuen God the fa ther presently to geue Christ promiseth that he will geue God by Moyses hath geuen bread God the father at the tyme of speaking gaue his sonne in visible fleshe Christ promyseth to geue yâ— bread which is the flesh of the sonne of man which flesh vnder the forme of bread bringeth together in the Sacrament of the altar the good things of heauen such figures as were in the law All which distinctions of geuing and truth of gifts the Sacra mentaries by their figuratiue doctrine make voyd as they doe the reste of the holy Scriptures For they will that Christes outwarde gift should in it conteyne no inuisible truth of fleshe and blood but euen the bare substance of common bread and wyne feeding vs with needy and impotent creatures as though we remayned yet babes as though Christ in fulfylling all figures had destroyed them and not left them full and perfect That which the water and the cloude did signifie is now really performed in baptisme where
because a certain vse or maner of a thing forbidden doth not infer that the substance of the thing it self is forbidden Yea contrariewise the forbidding of one maner semeth to licence the same thing in an other maner As if the law say let noman were a sword in the city it semeth to graunt that men may were a sword in the highe way And yet because S. Augustine sayth we ought to take Christes words figuratiuely in respect of such a foule maner of eating his flesh as the Iewes imagined the Sacramentarie will conclude that Christes flesh it self must not be eaten really and substancially at all See on the other syde why the Catholikes argument is good and laudable Euery maner and qualitie which is graunted coÌ„cerning the vse of any substance doth infer of necessitie the hauing of that substance But we may externally in a Sacrament by our fact and dede as wel as by faith eate Christes flesh Quomodo spiritu vegetatur after such maner as it is quickened with the spirit therefore we must haue it substancially and really present to the end we may so eate it in the sayd Sacrament The not eating it after a grosse maner doth not take away the eating of it in substance but the eating of it in a Sacrament whereof we now speake as it is dwâ—…t in of the 〈◊〉 which is a moâ—… pure maner of eating it doth include the eating of it in substaÌ„ce where dwelleth the Godhead but in the substance of Christes flesh Or how can I eate it as the spirit doth quicken it if I eat not the substance of it which only is quickened and vnited to the Godhead which thing sith it is so S. Augustine meaneth noâ—… by calling Christes words figuratiue to exclude the eating 〈◊〉 his flesh substancially but to exclude the eating of it by peece meale or els for the filling of the belly And therefore vppon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he writeth Quomodo illi intellexerunt carnem non sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam After such maner as they vnderstode flesh I do not so geue my flesh to eate What is this to say but I gâ—…ue my flesh to be eaten after an other sort but not in an other substance then the Iewes thought of The Iewes erred in the maner of eating as thinking they should eate it in that visible quantitie wherein Christ spake and so they erred in the maner but not in the substance of Christes flesh But the Sacramentaries erre in the substance it 〈◊〉 The Iewes thought Christes slesh should haue bene eaten properly and naturally as other meates are eaten which are diuided and perished in the eating The Sacramentaries think that Christes flesh must not be eaten substancially or in truth of his own nature but 〈◊〉 and by faith alone The truth receaued in the whole Catholike Church is that Christes flesh is eaten both substancially and figuratiuâ—… in such sort that the 〈◊〉 eating is referred to an eating by faith we eate Christes flesh substancially because his true substance was both shadowed in the law of nature and of Moyses to be eaten and prophecied of before as meate and drink and promised by Christ vnder those names And deliuered by his own hands with these words This is my body and this is my blood take and eate and beleued in the whole church and adored vnder the formes of bread and wine through all Christendome we beleue that same substance of Christes flesh to be also eaten figuratiuely because it is not remoued thereby from his place in heauen but is made present by wordes which signifie worke the presence of his flesh and blood It is not sene in his own shape not felt nor tasted in his own proprieties not cut into peeces although diuerse take it together it is not perished by eating it â—…deth not the belly or yâ— sensible but the reasonable spiritual life it is not eaten only to be eateÌ„ but to make vs remeÌ„bre effectually and to conforme our selues to the death and life of him whose flesh it is And thereby to make vs to loue him to beleue him to be the bread of life to all the faithsull and no lesse to gather diuerse men into one mysticall body of his church then diuerse bodies of wheat and of grapes are made into one artificiall body of bread and wine the which mysticall body he will no lesse change from mortalitie then he hath changed the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his flesh and blood Seing the flesh of Christ may signifie so many things vnto vs through the maner of the presence it were more then madnesse to say it is not a figure or is not eaten figuratiuely But because it signifieth so many things therefore to deny it to be present is to take away no lesse the figures whiche come by the presence of it then the thing it felfe Christ is the figure of his fathers substance the image of God who can not be sene he is 〈◊〉 in shape as a man But what is he not therefore the same substance with his father 〈◊〉 God with him and true man in dede who reason thus but 〈◊〉 who but ArriaÌ„s but Marcionits but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did S. 〈◊〉 gustine euer meane suche a figure of Christes 〈◊〉 whiche was voide of the truth sigured taught he not that we must adore the body and blood of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 it â–ª but of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 doth not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 or twain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that bread is there to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lose is both bread 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread in 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 so is the 〈◊〉 of Chri. a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vs. It is the flesh it self and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 owne substance without any 〈◊〉 or lacke and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of death whiche the same 〈◊〉 hauing 〈◊〉 once 〈◊〉 not now suffer but would by his own 〈◊〉 make it 〈◊〉 to vs in suche sort that we should 〈◊〉 the death of 〈◊〉 and partake the fruites of the death as oft as we came to receaue that 〈◊〉 worthely what nede more wordes To geue a brief resolution of S. 〈◊〉 mynd it is to be noted that both by his iudgemeÌ„t and by the 〈◊〉 of the Sa cramentaries these words except ye eate the flesh c. belong to the mysterie of Christes supper therefore if they be figuratiue they must shewe some figure in one parte or other of the supper The supper coÌ„sisteth of bread wine as of material parts â—…of it must be made and of pronouncing vpoÌ„ or ouer them as S. Iustinus the martyr speaketh the wordes instituted by Christ this is my body and this is my blood the which words wheÌ„ they come to
meate vnto the body for how saith he can a ' thing whiche lacketh a body be made meat vnto the body as who should say there is no doubt but the flesh of Christ is made meate vnto one body because Christ sayd my flesh is meate in dede and meate is ordinarilie promised to nourish the body although it being the meate of God helpeth the soule also If the bread that came downe from heauen whiche is the flesh of Christ be true meate it is a bodily thing for els how could a thinge that hath no body be made meate for the body if that can not be so truly the flesh geuen at the supper of Christ whiche is meate in dede and drinke in dede can not be only receaued in spirit but it must be so reall that it may fede our bodies also to thinteÌ„t they may be reised in the later day therefore that whiche our body receaueth when Christ saith take and eate is the same flesh of Christ which is meate in dede and seing it is proued to be a body because it is made meate vnto the body it must be meate in dede vnto vs and must be really taken into our bodies by our mouthes or els Nyssenus â—…ayleth in his whole discourse for he proueth it a body because it is meate vnto the body then certainlie it is not meate only to the soule nor it is not only receaued by faith but trulie and in dede And seing al wise men reason vpon a sure ground we may not doubt but all the Catholike Church twelue hundred yeres past and so vpward toke it for an euident truthe that Christes body was meate vnto our bodies ¶ By the maner of our tarying in Christ it is proued that we receaue his reall flesh into our bodies WHereas hitherto the necessitie the profite and the truth of eating Chrisies flesh hath bene shewed and confirmed Now the proper effect of that banket is also declared because he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his blood tarieth in Christ and Christ in him In respect whereof the same thing was before named Cibus permanens the meate which tarieth Whereby we may perceaue that in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper we doe not beginue to liue as in baptism but we maintein kepe nourish increase the sede of life which we toke in our spirituall birth Neither only doe we preserue life during the tyme of our feeding but also when the banket is ended some effect remaineth in vs through the which we are sayd to tary in Christ and he in vs. Let vs then trye out what effect that is for by the maner kind of the effect we may gather somewhat of the cause What meaueth it that Christ tarieth in vs and we in him S. Chryâ—…ostom answereth In me manet dicit vt cum ipso se admisceri ostendat Christ sayth He tarieth in me to shew that him self is mingled with him S. Chrysostom meaneth that whiles we receaue worthely the substance of Christes flesh into our bodies we are so intierly ioyned to him that we may be sayd to be mingled with him And how that is done S. Cyrillus declareth by this similitude As if a man poure wax vppon melted wax he wholy must nedes mingle the one with the other so it must nedes be if any man receaue the flesh and blood of our Lord that he be so ioyned with him that Christ may be found in him and he in Christ. And again Sicut parum fermenti caet As a litle leauen tempereth the whole lump of dow so a litle benedictioÌ„ whereby he meaneth a peece of the consecrated host be it neuer so smal draweth the whole man vnto it and filleth him with his grace and by this meanes Christ tarieth in vs and we in him S. Cyrillus calleth the things which are consecrated at Christes supper Benedictio a blessing because they are consecrated by the words of blessing the which Christ left vnto vs. Now a litle of that blessed food being receaued worthely of vs is not so properly sayd to tary in vs as we to tary in it for that though it be small in forme yet in vertue it is great And therefore it draweth vs vnto it as leauen turneth the dow to his nature It can not be auoided by these interpretations but that the heauenly food which we receaue into our mouthes is the reall substance of Christes flesh For it is here called Benedictio the blessing that word is not meant of an inward vertue coming srom heauen but of that which semeth bread and is visibly receaued at our Lords table For euen in the same Chapiter S. Cyrillus exhorteth men ad recipiendam benedictionem to receaue the Sacrament of Christes supper The which SacrameÌ„t if it were wheaten bread how could it be true that a litle thereof should draw the whole man vnto it Doth wheaten bread make vs like it are we then made vnreasonable vnsensible and a corruptible creature as wheateÌ„ bread is Christ sayth his meat tarieth to life euerlasting so doth not wheateÌ„ bread Christ sayth by eating his flesh we tary in him But we tary in him whiles the gift which at his supper he deliuereth is mingled with vs and conuerteth vs vnto it as S. Chrysostom and S. â—…yrillus teache And yet we be not conuerted or drawen to the nature of materiall bread or wine therefore it appeareth the gift which Christ deliuered not to haue bene bread and wine but his own body and blood vnder those formes S. Hilarie bringeth the very same word of tarying to proue that as Christ is in his Father by the nature of Godhead we in him by his corporall birth so he is in vs by the mysterie of the Sacraments and tarieth in vs naturally The like witnesse Theophilact geueth saying Contemperatio fit noua super rationem ita vt sit Deus in nobis nos in ipso There is made by eating Christes flesh a new mingling together so that God is in vs and we in him Briefly thus Christ meaneth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood receaueth me as meate into his body and soule But because I come not to nourish carnall life but spiritual in him he doth not digest and turn my body into his as it happeneth in other meates but he is turned to be like me For the real ioyning and knitting of my flesh to his maketh a maruelouse mixture as if melted wax were poured to other wax so that a great grace and vertue is left of me in him whereby he may tary still in me and increase the fountain of life which is in him This kind of our tarying in Christ and of his with vs could not be true if we â—…ed spiritually only vpoÌ„ Christ absent in body For how can the body which is only in heauen be so teÌ„pered tâ—… our bodies soules in earth as one melted wax being powred
the masculine gender and the pronowne hoc this of the newter gender and God prouided of purpose that the article this should neither agree with bread nor with wine but only with body and blood or with the chalice wherein the blood is conteined ¶ That the pronoun this can not point to any certain acte which is a doing about the bread and wine LEast any man should thinke that in these wordes this is my body the prononuâ—… this doth stand to signifie neither bread nor body but only this thing which is a doing whereby a certaine taking and breaking and eating of bread in the remembrance of Christ should be meante he must vnderstand that euery thing which is so distinctly shewed is a particular thing and it is but one thing otherwise it should haue bene sayd in the plurall number these things are the tokens of my body of my blood But now sith it is sayd in the singular number this it must nedes be only one singular thing which is spoken of Therefore if you will haue hoc this thing to appointe to a doing name which doing it is For Christ did many thinges in his supper He took bread he blessed he brake he gaue To which doth hoc this thing pointe To all it can not sor they all be not only this one thing in the singular number but many thinges If any one be named I aske which of them If breaking which is one of the most like of all owtward actions to signifie the death of Christ I aske how you are able to proue that breaking is pointed vnto surely S. Paule saith the bread which we break is the communicating of our lords body which could not be so if the words of Christ which make it the signe of his body had not bene first spoken ouer the bread For as Iustinus Martyr Gregorius Nyssenus S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustine and briefly all the Fathers teache the bread is consecrated by these words of Christ This is my body And surely before it be consecrated there vnto bread can not signifie Christes body nor it can not be to vs the communicating of Christes body Therefore seing the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body as S. Paule sayeth the words which were spoken ouer yâ— bread before the breaking of it can not presently point to that which is not yet done And consequently this doth not point vnto the acte of breaking nor vnto the act either of geuing or of eating which folowed after the breaking If any man say that Christ whiles he spake these wordes dyd breake the bread or eate it him felf or make his Apostles eate it the vuiuersall custome of the Churche in all ages doth shewe the contrarie Whiche all euen from the Apoâ—…les tyme haue vsed to consecrate aud to say these wordes this is my body aud this is my blood ouer bread and wine at the holy altar and table a good tyme before the breaking or eating and drinking of them as the auncient Liturgies manifestly declare Besydes if the act of breaking whiles it is adding dyd only betoken to vs his body when that act were past the signe of his body were ended and so we should not eate the signe of Christes body Moreouer seing neither the chalice nor the wine is broken therein should be no signe of Christes blood at all On the other syde if eating or drinking only were the signe pointed vnto it should be no signe before the eating and therevpon it would follow that the bread which we breake is not the coÌ„municating of Christes body sith no signe at all is made therein if the whole signe depend vpoÌ„ the eating alone For if the signe depended of both together it could not be said this iâ—… the singular number as I sayd before but it must haue bene sayd these actes and these doings about these creatures do signifie the body of Christ. But seing it is sayd this is my body whiche this can point but to one thing and seing that one thing can be neither breade wherewith it agreeth not in gender nor any one acte or doing which alone doth not signify the body of Christ doubtlesse this can by no meanes be referred to any other word or deede then to the true substance of Christes body vnder the forme of bread and vnto the true substance of his blood vnder the forme of wine The whiche thing once graunted after that Christ hath taken bread and blessed and sayd this is my body whatsoeuer is done either in breaking or in eating or in geuing and taking doth siguifie the body of Christe because it is done to that thing and about it which is the true substance of his body the breaking of the forme of bread vnder whiche the body is doth signifie the body of Christe once to haue ben broken with scourging and nailing to the Crosse and now also to be impassible The taking and touching signifieth the visible and palpable body which walked vpon the earth preaching visibly to his disciples The eating signifieth it to be the true bread of life whiche who so eateth worthely he shall liue for euer and shal eate it in heauen after a new maner The geuing of it doth signifie how Christ gaue it â—…or vs to death To be short whatsoeuer is done about yâ— which is the body oâ—… Christ doth signify somwhat either past or to come in that same body it doth signifie it so muche the more because the presence of Christes glorious substance is such that nothing done to it can hurt it or bring any detriment thereunto For the breaking taking geuing and eating is done in a figure and mysterie the which figure is grounded in the reall presence of Christes body which if it were not vnder the formes of bread wine the things sayd done about the SacrameÌ„t should not be so mysticall and miraculouse as they are ¶ That the pronoune this pointeth finally to the body and blood and particularly sigâ—…fieth in Christes supper one certein kinde of foâ—…e SEing it is declared that yâ— pronoun this pointeth neither to bread wine nor to any act done about them it remaineth yâ— it pointeth only to the body and blood of Christ and so long as the words of Christ are a speaking which in so few words is not long the pronoune sâ—…pendeth his last determination And when al the words are ended his pointing is also ended Theresore 〈◊〉 expounding what hoc this doth finally meane writeth â—…us Dicens hoc est corpus meum ostendit quod ipsum corpus domini est panis qui sanctificatur in altario non respondens figura Christ saying this is my body sheweth that the bread which is consecrated on the altar is the self body of Christ not a figure which answereth thereunto And again in an other place he saith hoc est corpus meum hoc inquam
partake of the bread which is broken if the bread broken â—…e materiall we partake of the material bread and yet the bread whereof we partake is by S. Paule named one bread Therefore we partake of one materiall bread which can not be so For seing the bread is broken it is not still one These and many like absurdities can neuer be escaped except we say as the truth is that the bread broken is the flesh of Christ vnder the form of bread for our partaking is named of taking part of that which is brokeÌ„ but we al that are one patake only of Christ him selfe and be one in him alone and be not one in any materiall bread Therefore Christ is the bread broken by the reason of the form of bread vnder the which he is and the bread coÌ„municated and the bread which we are for that he is the cause of our mysticall coniunction For albeit the mysticall bread and body which we are be in seuerall persons and diâ—…tinct proprieties of men yet the substancial cause of that bread which we are is only found in the person and substaÌ„ce of Christ who is the beginner mainteyner and the end of that our mysticall body from Christ as from the cause of our vâ—…itie the same vnity procedeth to vs in an effect wrought by him But either to make vs one materiall bread or to make it being stil bread in substance to be notwithstanding the communicating of Christes body to vs or to be the bond which holdeth vs together by partaking thereof it is a doctrine which can not hang together And because the matter is of great importauce I will yet intreat farther of this our vnion ¶ Now we are one mysticall body in Christ. THe Church is one body more then one wâ—… First because it is called and holden together with one sâ—…ite of God Next because it is grounded in one faith 〈◊〉 â—…reaching of one true Gospel maiÌ„teined with one hope perfited â—…th one charitic watered with one baptisme of spiritual regeneâ—…ation redemed by one Mediatour ruled by one head 〈◊〉 to one husband ioyned in mariage to one fâ—…esh of Christ rewarded with one essentiall fruition of one euerlasting God The first foundation of this one cumpany which is the house the tabernacle yâ— teÌ„ple of God is the blessed Trinitie of whome by whome and in whome all things are In his diuine spirite we mete and be one not only with the Patriarches Prophets but also we therein be one with the Aungels Thrones and Seraphins in so muche that he vseth them for our ministery who neuer synned or swarued from the way of truth righteousnes Next after God all mankinde putteth his euerlasting confidence in the flesh of Iesus Christ who is the only Mediatour of all men that fell by synne either actuall or els originall there is no saluation in any other man Christ toke really our flesh to make it an iustrument whereby we might be brought again to God Therefore he both offered the same flesh vnto God euen to death and gaue the same flesh to be partaken of vs for the obteining of euerlasting life The partaking whereof is called in holy scripture by the name of eating drinking because although it be graunted to vs by diuers meanes yet the chiefe meane of all is when we eate his flesh and drinke his blood The first and most necessary meane of all is faith without which it selfe in men of lawfull age or without the Sacrament thereof in children none other 〈◊〉 can serue But faith alone though it worke by charitie doth not always â—…uffise because it is conueaient for a corporall substance such as the flesh of Christ is to be partaken by corporall meanes also For seing the corruption of our fleshe was the thing whiche did most incline vs to synne as the sonne of God toke our true flesh without synne to th end by it he might purge our synnes so he instituted diuerse Sacraments in certeine corporal things and in mystical words whereby the grace of his flesh might â—…e applied to our flesh and by that meane also to come to our soâ—…es Against the corrupâ—…ion of our birth he would vs to be washed in water which element his own fleshe had sanctified in the flud Iordan against the tentation of the deuill he coÌ„firmeth vs with the holy Ghost In stede of the custome of synning he geueth vs heauenly nourishement as well in body as in soule By these meanes I say we are one body in Christ of the which faith and charitic are meanes only spirituall the Sacraments are both spirituall meanes through the inward grace corporal through the visible formes of them The meanes only spirituall be neuer changed sith our faith is all one with that of the Patriarches but our Sacraments differ from theirs as whiche conteine the truth whereof the old Sacraments were only the shadow Hitherto it hath bene said that we can not be of the mysticall body of Christ vnlesse we partake his flesh either by faith or by the Sacraments For as S. Augustine writeth Albeit in some the grace of faith be so great that they are now assigned to the body of Christ and to the holy temple of God yet in some it is such as doth not suffise to obteine the kingdom of heauen as in the Cathecumenis as in Cornelius antequà m SacramentoruÌ„ participatione incorporaretur Ecclesiae before that he was incorporated to the Church â—…y paraking of the Sacraments The SacrameÌ„t wherein we are first incorporated to Christ is wel knowen to be Baptim which seing it consisteth of speaking holy words and of washing with the elemeÌ„t of water it is not to be denied but that God worketh our incorporation by corporall meanes also and not by faith a lone And as it is not enough for hauing the nature of a man to be conceaued only except he be also borne so if when he is borne he be not fed he can not long coÌ„tinew a man Therefore as the Sacrament of baptim beginneth the incorporation specially nowe when we al are baptized in our infancy euen so after the we are come to the yeres of discretion an other SacrameÌ„t is requisite to mainteyne vs in the body of Christ which is called the SacrameÌ„t of his body and blood whereof Christ said he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him Now sâ—…ing the sacrament which maketh vs tary in the body of Christ must â—…edes be a corporal thing as baptism was and yet it hath none other nature then that which Christ geueth it he nameth it his own body and blood we ought to confesse that the Sacrament which nourisheth the state of life euerlasting in vs is the body and blood of Christ corporally present that is to say
the faith of that eater neuer so great did not shew Christes death past but only to come so this eating of common bread in our Lords supper doth not by the eating inferre the death of Christe to be past but rather as being to come For euery shadow belongeth to a truth whereof it is the shadow and is 〈◊〉 vntil the truth it self come but when the truth is ones present the shadow is no more a bare shadow but a shadow fylled with the truth But by the Zwiâ—…glians opinion the Sacrament of Christes supper is common bread without any reall truth made or wrought abowt it therefore it is a figure a shadow and an imperfyt worke whereas if yâ— truth of it were come it should not be only a shadow but should haue a truth vnder the shadow Thus we may perceyue that the eating of common bread for a figure of Christes death with neuer so greate a faith doth not so much by the eating shew his death past as to come hereaâ—…ter Agayne were it graunted that by reason of the faith of the eater it shewed the death past yet because it sheweth it in a simple figure it may seme that it is past in a simple figure whereby this Sacrament aâ—…ter the interpretation of our new preachers is no sufficieÌ„t meane by the dede it selfe to shew that true death which Christe suffred for vs vppon the crosse and yet S. Paule saith that by eating this bread we shew the death of Christe that is to say we shew him to haue died by eating it I say For now we speake not of preaching the Ghospell not of remembring the articles of our crede nor of other vndoubted wytnesses whereby it is proued that Christe hath died for vs. We speake of S Paules argument who â—…aith by eating this bread we shew Christe to haue dyed for vs. which argument is none is vayne is rather agaynst the faith then with it if the bread that we eate be not the reall flesh of Christe But if we once confesse that we eate the subsâ—…aÌ„ce of Christes natural body drinke the substance of his naturall blood then doth it follow inuincibly that Christe is dead for vs. It followeth I say by the order of Gods words for no flesh is eaten whiles the beast liueth whose â—…lesh it is as it is written Carnem cum sanguine non comedetis ye shal not eate the flesh with the blood in it or any member cut from the liue beast whiles the blood yet remayueth in it Agayne the order of religion as wel vnder the Patriarkes as vnder the law of Moyses sheweth that no beast was eaten Sacramentally before it was kylled and offred From the sacrifice of Abâ—…lto to the comming of Christ certeinly Christ is really dead for vs and being his true fleshe that we eate we shew his true death â–ª and we shew it past and not to come Neither let any man say that Christ in his last supper gaue his fleshe before he died for he dyd not that before his death was at the very point to be fulfilled The Iewes began their feastes on the euening tyde couÌ„ting the day from Son set to the next Son set according as it is writen A vespera in vesperam celebrabitis Sabbata vestra from euening to euening ye shall kepe your holy days Christe therefore kept his supper the mauÌ„dy thursday at night after Son set when yâ— goodfryday whereon he dyed was now begon when he was already solde vnto the Iewes and all things prepared for his death so that he came to the geuing of his flesh as men do come in their death bed to dispose what shal be done after their death willing this mystery to be made for the remembrance of him And as it may appere in the actes of the Apostles after the 〈◊〉 of Christ and comming down of the holy Ghost the ChristeÌ„ mâ—…n begaÌ„first to kepe coÌ„tinue this at which time they shâ—…wed him both dead rysen sitting at his Fathers right haÌ„d in heauen And surely as well S. Iames in his liturgie as Damascen expounding these wordes of S. Paule whereof we speke â—…aieth Mortem filii hominis annunciatis resurrectionem eius conâ—…itemini â—…onec veniat ye shew the death of the son of man and coÌ„fâ—…sse his resurrection vntil he come Thus by eating this body we shew Christes true death by eating it being in it self aliue we shew also yâ— which folowed his death which was his resurrection and ascension Bâ—…t by a figuratiue eating we should not shew his true death and much lesse his true resurrectioÌ„ for as the death is shewed by eating the body which died so the resurrection of the said body is shewed by eating the body which died now is a liue the death is shewed whiles the body is vnder the forme of bread and the blood a part vnder the forme of wyne as though they were styll a sunder The resurrection is shewed whiles vnder eche forme whole Christ is conteyned Therefore we eate Christ more then in a figure and more then by faith and spirit we eate him in dede whereby it followeth that he is dead for vs in dede we eate him aliue without impairing or diminishing any part of him whereby it foloweth he is rysen from death and remaineth immortall Now let vs heare how S. Chrisostom alludeth to the same reason who speaking os Christes last supper writeth in this maner Quando id proposituÌ„ videris dic tecum Hoc corpus cae When thow seest that body set before thee say with thy self This body nailed and beaten was not ouercommed with death This body the â—…onne seing crucified turned away his beames Through it also the vele of the temple was torne and the rocks and the whole earth shaken The self same body made bloody wouÌ„ded with a speare gusshed out in founteines of blood water healthsome to the whole world Seest thou after what sorte Chrysostom talketh of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar â–ª Seest thou by what means he there sheweth the death of Christ This body saith he was nailed wounded perced with a spere It is then the reall body that sheweth the reall death of Christe and that sheweth it not only when we remember that Christ dyed when we thinke of his resâ—…rrection and ascension but though no man think of his death yet the very eating of this very reall body sheweth his death to men to Aungels to God The dede I say and fact of eating sheweth him to be dead whose fleshe is eaten euen as the blood of Abel cried to God from the earth where it lay and as the body of Christ in heauen by his only presence maketh continual intercession to God the Father for vs alwaies putting God in minde of his death and of our saluation ¶ The real presence is proued by the illation which S. Paule maketh concerning the
which was receaued at the holy coÌ„munion which dwelleth bodily in vs to be not only yâ— flesh and blood of Christ for those words should be eluded with figures and signes but to be the substance and nature of God which nature is not possible to be eaten of vs corporally otherwise then as it dwelleth 〈◊〉 in the flesh of Christ which we eate corporally in the Sacramenâ—… seing the nature and substance of God must be adored it is not possible to imagine but all yâ— Fathers gaue Godly honour to the mysteries of Christes holy table But yet let vs heare a more full witnesse S. Chrysostome exhorting his people to come to this Sacrament with zeale and most vehement loue writeth thus Hoc corpus in praesepe reueriti sunt Magi c. The wise men commonly called the three kings reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion barbarouse they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iorney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at the least wise follow those barbarous men For when they saw yâ— manger and cottage only and not any of those things which thou now seest they came with most great reuerence quaking But thou seest that thing not in the manger but in the altar not a womaÌ„ which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy Ghost copiously spred vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither thou lookest barely vpoÌ„ the body as they did but thou knowest the power of it and all the order of dispensing things And thou art ignorant of none of those things which were done by him and thou hast bene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs proseâ—…e openly a greater denotion then those barbarous 〈◊〉 if we come barely and coldly we ieopard our head into a more â—…ehement fyre Hitherto S. Chrysostome If there were any other refuge left for our aduersaries they wold neuer admit this place they would say in words yâ— which the masters of them must nedes sometyme think in hart They would say what care we for Chrysostome He was a man he might erre he did erre in this matter But now they may not flee to this miserable refuge for seing they lacke the Gospel and the faith of Christian people for nine hundred yeres together as them selues confesse there is no place for them to hyde their head in but only among the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres For this cause they caÌ„ not reiect S. Chrysostome who is one of the chief lights of the East Church His bookes also they can not deny and least of all his commentaries vppon the blessed Apostle What shift then find they to avoide this place In truth they can finde none but they must nedes preteÌ„d to say somewhat out of their common places of Khetoricall figures yâ— vse whereof they can father vpon whome they list S. Chrysostome in these words expressy teacheth as well the reall presence as the adoration of Christ vpon the altar He compareth the holy mysteries with Christ in the forme and truth of a childe He compareth the altar where vpon the mysteries staÌ„d with the manger wherein Christ lay He compareth our blessed Lady which sometyme held Christ in her armes with the Priest present at the altar who sometyme handleth the holy mysteries He compareth the three wise men who came out of yâ— East with the Christian people who come to heare Masse He compareth the adoratioÌ„ and worshipping which those three wise men vsed with the adoration and worshipping which faithful men ought to vse at the tyme of oâ—…r Lords supper He sayeth the body of Christ to be the same in both places but yâ— cause of worshipping to be greater in them who come to the holy mysteries He sayth by the body Hoc corpus in 〈◊〉 sunt Magi This body the wise men worshipped in the manger which this body surely whereof he sayd before Quando id propositum videris dic tecum propter hoc corpus non amplius terra cinis ego sum When thou seest it set before thee say with thy self for this bodies sake I am no longer earth and ashes Behold he speaketh of the body which is set before vs. Uerily of that which at Masse tyme all men see vpon the altar And againe he sayd of the same Quod etiam nobis exhibuit vt teneremus manducaremus The which also he hath geuen to vs that we should hold it and eate it This body then which is put before vs in yâ— Church which is holden and eaten This body the wise men worshipped in the manger If our figuratiue diuines expound this body for the signe or the representing of this body as they are wont to doe then the wise men adored in the manger the signe of Christes body But if they adored not the signe but the truth then this body is meaÌ„t this true body of Christ. And seing S. Chrysostome sayeth that the wise men adored this body meaning by the pronoun this that which we haue in the holy mysteries it is clere that he putteth it for a most knowen and certeyne veritie that we haue present before the tyme of receauing the reall body of Christ vpâ—… the altar And so haue it present that we are bound to adore it being vpon the altar Tu verò non in praesepe sed in altari vides Thou seest this body not in the manger but on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not only comprehended by faith but by the meane of yâ— forme òf bread it is seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome bringeth fower reasons why Chrystian people should rather worship the body of Christ at Masse then those wise men did worship it in that homely cottage First because they were not Godly men for so S. Chrysostom doth call them because they had not the knowlege of al true deuotion and Godlinesse although in that acte they shewed them selues Godly But we are instructed in all true religion therefore should souer worship this body of Christ then they did Secondly they were Barbarous men but S. Chrysostome spake to 〈◊〉 who were most ciuill leste Barbarous of all people in the world So much the rather they ought to know it to be their duety to worship the body of their maker Thirdly the wise men saw Christe in a manger where such things are not wont to lye as must be reuereÌ„ced worshipped but thou seest this body vpon the altar which is a place made for holy things to stand on And so much the more ought we Christians to adore the body of Christ being set before vs vpon the altar then those wise men did adore it in a manger They saw it also in the mothers armes which was a woman neither is any thing which a woman holdeth bringeth foorth wont
to be worshipped with Godly honour Seing therefore thou seest yâ— priest present who is wont to handle Godly things it were a farre more impiety for thee not to adore Christes body at the time of masse when thou art assured by the worde of God who sayd to his Apostles in them to al priests doe and make this thing that the holy Ghoost faileth not at the consecration to work the body of Christe really present All this consydered it is not possible for any man that lyeth not wittingly and willingly to say but that S. Chrysostome â—…aught and beleued the body of Christe to be really present and that it ought to be really adored vpon the altar it self or in the priests hands And therefore he saith afterward Quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendam I wil shew thee that in the earth which is worthy of the highest honour How can S. Chrysostome shew any thing in earth worthy of the highest honour besyde the body and blood of Christe vnder the formes of bread and wine For by that which is worthy of highest honour he meaâ—…eth expresly Christes body because it is the body of the SoÌ„ne of God And in saying he will shew it thee he can possibly meane none other thing but that shewing which is by the formes of bread and wine For if any man should require him to shew that most high thing which he promised to shew questionlesse he would lead him to yâ— altar there would shew him that which had bene consecrated by the Priest and he would say vnto him pointing to the mysteries this is the body of Christe and this is his blood For by that meanes only were he able to performe his promise of shewing that thing which is worthy of the highest honour It followeth yet more plainly in S. Chrysostome by an other similitude As in the palacies of kings saith he not the walles not the golden roof but the kings body sitting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christe the worthiest thing in heauen quod nunc in terra videÌ„dum tibi proponitur the which body of Christe is now set foorth to thee in earth to be seen Good Lord what can be required more of the greatest papist in Europe then S. Chrysostome saith Againe yet it followeth I shew thee not Angels not Archangels not the heauens not the heauens of the heauens but I shew thee the Lord of all these things S. Chrysostom saith he sheweth yâ— Lord that in earth vpoÌ„ yâ— altar yet is there a figure to escape his most euident words In faith truth by such figures they may defende yâ— I also am of their opinioÌ„ but 〈◊〉 wise men such wily shifts wil not preuaile There is noman aliue but 〈◊〉 he wil coÌ„â—…ue yâ— words of S. Chrysostome as they stand in order he must coâ—…se yâ— both he speaketh of yâ— body of Christ really present in the Sacrament of the altar and also teacheth yâ— vpon yâ— very alâ—…ar it ought to be adored much more iustly of vs Christians then it was once adored in the manger or stable of the three kings Here wil I detect an other shift of our Aduersaries who perceauing S. Dionysius S. Ambrose S. Augustme and S. Chrysostome with diuerse other auncient Fathers to be so plaine in the matter of adoration haue deuised to say that those Fathers attribute that vnto the signes of Christes body which is proper to the body it self and therefore when they speake of adoring that vpon the altar they meane that we should adore yâ— truth of that thing the signe whereof standeth vpon the altar This interpretation is in dede necessarily to be made of them who haue determined not to beleue the word of God where in it is sayd â—…his is my body But I say that interpretation is foolish and should make all the Fathers gilty of idolatry for they preaching to the common peple teache them expresly that which standeth after consecration vpon the altar to be the true body blood of Christ and therefore that it must be adored much more of vs then the visible body was adored of the wise men If the interpretation of the Heretikes should be admitted they might say the very same of Christes incarnation and so expound what so euer is sayd in yâ— Bible or in yâ— Fathers touching his flesh to be meant of a phantasticall appering of flesh but not of true flesh But now let vs bring against these Signifiers an other plaine authoritie which was by the prouidence of God written as it were of purpose to destroy this imagined and figuratiue adoration of the Sacrament whereof they speake Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian who would Christe now to consist of the only nature of his deitie and not any more of the humane nature which he toke of the virgin doth reproue him by the example of the Sacrament of Christes supper in the which Sacrament two things are found one which is seen and that is the signe of bread and wine the other is not seen but vnderstanded and beleued and that is the true body and blood of Christe That which is seen is sayd to remaine in his former substance nature and figure and kind In his substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being nowe by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine The same formes remaine in their former nature because they norish no lesse then the substance of the bread it self would haue done if it had remained They remaine in their former shape and kind as being thinges that may be seen and touched as they might before Theodoretus then hauing sayd thus much for the one parte of the Sacrament cometh also to shew the other parte thereof For his minde is to declare yâ— as there be two kindes of things in one Encharist so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christe Therefore the other nature besyde the formes of bread wine is the reall substance of Christes body blood of which parte thus he speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelliguntur autem esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt pote quae illa sunt quae creduntur The mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be those things which they were made and they are beleued and they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be Note good Reader that the mystical signes which Theodoretus calleth mystica symbola are vnderstanded to be 〈◊〉 that they were made But what are they 〈◊〉 â—…o be that which they are not Nay Syâ—… yâ— were false vnderstanding which falshod caÌ„ not be in the mysteries of Christ. they are then in dede that which they are vnderstanded to be What is that Theodoreâ—…us
heard of that should first commend vnto them this new opinion of nine hundred yeres old Is it credible that so many thousand millions of Christen men as were in the Church at the end of the first six hundred yeres beleuing the one yere those halowed things vpon the altar to be still bread and wine should the next yere after alltogether in all countrâ—…es and languages fall 〈◊〉 prostrate or 〈◊〉 or at the least bow to the very same things as to the true body of their maker and sauiour which before they had ben taught to haue ben vnreasonable and vnsensible creaturesâ—… And did they al this thing without any guide or preacher who might will them so to doe Or did all the Preachers in 〈◊〉 at onâ—… moment change their mind 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Or did som few go through the sower parts of the world and without resistance of any man preache that new 〈◊〉 Were all the pennes of all the writers of histories so tyed that 〈◊〉 of them all was able once to write any one mans name who after the six hundred yeres 〈◊〉 taught first second or third or at any tyme that change of belefe through out Christendom Was that heretiâ—…ke alone so almighty that noman durst write his name neither whiles he liued nor when he was departed out of this life If the man were vnknowen at the least why hath the sect no speciall name Was there not one lerned man in the whole Church of God either willing or able to resist that fury of new doctrin in the matter of Christes supper If none were lerned enough to conquer it by preaching or disputing or writing at the least wise wold none do bis best to sett 〈◊〉 a bare historie of that tragedie Or who euer hath writen that the whole Church chaÌ„ged her saith in this matter So many Councells haue ben kept in all ages and countries so many heâ—… names and opinioÌ„s who were but in priuie corners haue ben of late 〈◊〉 left writen to vs as Bogomili VValdenses Petrobusiani Pseudoapostoli Begardi Beguinae with such like and could this main heresie of Christes reall preseuce ouerrunne the whole Church so far that fifty yeres past and vpwards no small chapell can be named in the wide world where Christes supper was made without adoration of his body and blood as present vnder formes of bread and wine and yet 〈◊〉 noman vpon the earth be found in the space of eight hundred and fiftie yeres to leaue in monumeÌ„ts of histories when that heresy began or by whom it was promulgated or what name was geuen to it Did Satan in those eight hundred yeres so strongly oppresse Christ that his gospell was cleane darkned and his kingdom lost Did hel gates auaile against the whole Churche Did the rock it self 〈◊〉 Did yâ— holy Ghost 〈◊〉 to teache yâ— people of God all 〈◊〉 I think it wil be sayed that the Bishops of Rome did preache commend set foorth and mainteine that 〈◊〉 But they must shew which Bishop first began and who writeth it of him and by what meanes he was so 〈◊〉 obeyed that no resistance in the world is read to haue ben any where made against him And yet surely he neuer lacked eâ—…emies in the cast Church The truth is that all the Bishops of Rome yea all the Catholike Bishops of the whole world lerned of Christ this to be his reall body and this to be his blood And this faith dured from the last supper of Christ in all faithfull men without any denying or direct 〈◊〉 therof vntill Berengarius began to teache otherwise It was in dede 〈◊〉 indirectly by Marcion Valentinus Manichaeus and all those that thought Christ to haue had no true body of his own Again by Arrius and Nestorius who taught the body of Christ to be the body of a man Arrius because Christ was not equal in substance with his father but a creature only Nestorius because he had two persons one of God an other man therfore seing this was his humane body Nestorius wold it not to be the body of yâ— sonne of God But directly yâ— reall presence of Christ in this blessed Sacrament was not impugned vntill Berengarius about fiue hundred yeres past began to sow in the field of the Churche the corrupt sede of false doctrine concerning that question But his owne 〈◊〉 and the three Councels gathered straight against him at Uercelles Tours and Rome do rather shew what and how constant the Catholike 〈◊〉 was of old time in that behalfe then any thing help and 〈◊〉 the opinion of those men who now adayes endeuour to establish a new inuention of their owne The Church therefore as I said beleuing most 〈◊〉 that Christ gaue his owne reall flesh and blood in the mysteries of his last supper taught consequently the meane of making present that blessed body to be not the comming downe of Christ from heauen but the changing of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his 〈◊〉 and blood by the almighty power of 〈◊〉 word spoken by a Priest with such minde and 〈◊〉 as that solemne 〈◊〉 required This â—…hange wherein the whâ—…le subsâ—…ance of brâ—…ad and wine should by the 〈◊〉 of Christ be so mightely conuerted into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 for vs and into that holy bloud which was shed for vs on the â—…rosse must of 〈◊〉 be a dreadfull and propitiatorie sacrifice as well by reason of the body of Christ sacrifiâ—…ed once to death which is now made 〈◊〉 as for the cause and finall end why it is made present For Christ sayd at his 〈◊〉 This is my Lody which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembraunce of me If it be at the tyme of consecration geuen for vs 〈◊〉 by the commaâ—…dement of Christ who can deny but it is a sacrifice and that we take greate profit and aduantage by that gift Upon this ground the Christen people were taught to esteme this holy sacriâ—…ice abouâ—… all other externall â—…inds of worshipping God in this life Thence came so goodly biâ—…ding of so many Churches so riche decking of altars so great foundations of â—…hanteries in 〈◊〉 so much estimation of Masse that some came to the holy order of Priesthod not for 〈◊〉 but for welth And some other went into monasteries rather for case then for 〈◊〉 to serue God All which became thâ—…ough ouer much ease lacke of the feare of God negligent in their office dissolute in their behauiour ignorant in good lerning and which in that vocation is most filthy of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 couâ—…touse And the moe that in such sorte vnworthâ—…ly presumed to those holy prosessions the greater anger of God theâ—… synfull doing prouoked against them selues The people on th' other side seing the vnhonest liâ—…e of certaine religiouse persons and Priestes and how vnreâ—…erently they handled the diuine seruice sell in hatred
a stroÌ„g stout effectual figure ioyned with words of promise stirring vp the hart of him that heareth the promise and worthely râ—…aueth the pledge therof to mounte into heauen and there by faith to fede in spirite vpon Christes owne body and blood as he in earth corporally feedeth vpon bread and wine For Caluin teacheth bread and wine to be the figures and signes of Christes body and those wordes This is my body to be wordes of preaching or of promising Christes body to them that doe beleue O pitifull tossing and tearing of Gods holy mysteries Are those words which make and shew the body of Christ present words of promise But hereof I will speak more hereafter Now concerning that he willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith know ye not that because our nature was not able to 〈◊〉 â—…y to the seat of God in heauen therefore y◠〈◊〉 oâ—… God came 〈◊〉 from heauen to earth to leade and list vs vp to the â—…ition oâ—… his Father Know ye not that because our body more quickly â—…weth our soule dounward then our spirit is able to draw our body vpward therefore Christ 〈◊〉 not only yâ— soule but also the body of man geuing vs in his last supper that body of his to th'inthent our bodies taking hold in the Sacrament of the altar of his body might be caried into heauen to haue the sight of God And because faith without th'incarnation of Christ cannot lift vp our bodies therefore Christ fulfilled â—…aith with truth and hauing taken of the virgin oure nature gaue his body in dede to our bodies and soules yâ— we again might in body soule be lifted vp with it As a man that is cast into a depe pit calleth by the meane of his tonge for help but when a cord is let doune to him for the aide and 〈◊〉 of him it is not then sufficient to vse his tong still and to let his handes alone euen so our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to help vs to let doune the corde of his humanitie of his flesh and blood And shall we now when it is let doune to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottom of our hartes by eating it really shall wee now refuse it and saie wee will goe into heauen by faith ourselues and there take holde of Christ whereby wee maie be saued and deliuered out of the depe vale of misery As though the corde should haue neded to haue ben let doune if wee could haue fastened our bodies to any thing in heauen and yet our bodyes are they which weigh doune our soules châ—…ely But what meane I to reason in this place of that point whereof in all the booke folowing by Gods grace I will fully intreat For as it happeneth they are the scholars of Calnin with whom specially wee must haue to do at this time Of whose lerning and prâ—…ncie â–ª I most crueâ—…y craue this fauour that none of them all thinâ—… me to speak against their persons but only against their opinions and so to speak against them as I am instructed by the holy Scriptures not graunting that either they loue more intierly or study more carefully or reuerence more hartily the word of God then my Fathers brethren and I my selfe doe in the Catholike Church of Jesus Christ. Only about the meaning of it I rather would trust the common iudgeâ—…ent of auncient Doctours and practise of the whole Church theu mine owne priuate election and phantasie or the deuise of a newly planted congregation A Catholike man must kepe the most auncient path and most commonly troden high waie Priuie bypathes carie mâ—…n a side to the 〈◊〉 dennes of 〈◊〉 My purpose is to proue out of the word of God specially against zuinglius and Caluin that Christ geueth in his last supper the true substance of his flesh and blood not only to our soules by words of promise but also to our bodies vnder the formes of bread and wine And for as much as the present Church of England in the Apologie thereof hath set forth to the world an other doctrine contrarie to that wce reâ—…ued of our fore Fathers I will first disproue and confute the wordes and reasons oâ—… the Apologie and afterward will by the grace of God proue the Catholike faith out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers But first of all I must declare what we Catholiks and what the Protestants and Sacramentaries beleue the supper of Christ to be That seing I make the Title of my booke Of the supper of our Lord it maie straight appere whose 〈◊〉 is more worthy to be instituted of Christ that which we through his word beleue or that which they assigne him against y◠〈◊〉 truthe of his own words ¶ what the supper of Christ is according to the belâ—…e of the Catholikes BEcause my purpose is to intreat of the blessed supper of our Lord I thought it best to declare before hand what we take that supper to be shewing withal how the Sacramentaries vnder the pretense of refoorming the abuses thereof haue taken away the whole supper of Christ and geuen vs a bare drinking of their own 〈◊〉 And whence maie that be more truly and soundly proued then chiâ—…fly out of the word of God next out of the monuments of the a aâ—…cient Fathers The word of God is a most faithfull witnesse oâ—… the institution of Christ the monuments and writings of auncient Fathers doe shew the right vnderstanding of the word of God which thing I speake not as though the Catholike Doctours of this later tyire had not the self same holy Ghost which the first had but seing our aduersaries refuse Albereus magnus Thomas of Aquine Bonauenture Alexander of â—…ales Dionyâ—…ns the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra Gabriel Biel and such other men of excelleÌ„t vertue wit and lerning who not withstanding by a rule that S. Auguâ—…stine geueth ought to be of credit in so much as all they liued before this question rose beâ—…wene the Sacramentaries and vs and therfore can not beare nor shew more affection to the one syde then to the other but seing our aduersaries refuse them for 〈◊〉 and yet follow men of later 〈◊〉 as Luther zuinglius 〈◊〉 we are content to put all the matter into the hands of the old Doctours And to beginne as we promised with the word of God thus writeth S. Paul in his first 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians Conuenientibus vobis in vnum iam non est dominicam coenam manducare vnusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit ad manducanduÌ„ when yow come together now there is no eating of our Lords supper For euery man taketh 〈◊〉 his owne supper to eate By the name of supper in the old tyme that one meale was meant wich ordinarily was made after noon and it serued for diner and supper The Corinthians coming together to yâ— holy communion taried not one for the other but
not to geue vs a drinking in stede of a solemne feast In comparyson of this banket all fayth is impeâ—…t For we eate the ende of our belefe All vnderstanding fayleth in so much as more is in our mouth then we are able to comprehend in our wyt or mynde All spirituall gyfts are inâ—…erlour because the flesh is present which triumpheth ouer death and ascending into heauen sytteth at the right hand of God thence distributing gyfts vnto men We haue the cause of all 〈◊〉 present and letting it go shall we chiefly commend the feast for â—…ertayn spirituall effectes In respect of Christes reall substance thy supper O Caluyn is but a mere sauour of swete meates Geue me the flesh of Christ and take thou the sauour of it But alas the sauour hath alredy kâ—…lled thee â–ª so much the lesse I wonder if thou art wery of the flesh it selfe In setting forth our damnation in old Adam thou lackest neither diligence nor eloquence thou hast therin set foorth the lumpe of perdition the seuere doctrine of induration the impotent weakenes of the wounded man to helpe forward his owne destruction But when thou commest to Christ the new Adam he hath a sâ—…ly pore vnknowen and vnsene cumpanie fewe children a cold supper small offering of sufficient grace his baptisme is with thee lyke a marke set vpon shepe that sheweth somewhat and worketh nothing his Church hath no externaâ—… sacrifice no priesthod no one chief shepherd in earth no authoritie to make lawes no communion of Saâ—…ts by the way of praying to them or for yâ— soules departed no reall ioyning vâ—…iting with Christes flesh and blood in the holy mysteries What is this but to preferr euill before good the deuill before God shadowes before truth vice before vertue and the power of darknes before the kingdom of light It is no eating now as S. Paule sayeth of our Lords supper for euery heretyke taketh a supper of his owne before hand making Christes supper to geue place to hym And that I maye speake nothing of so great change of communions as hath bene in England Luther saith that Christes words be proper and that his supper is bread and flesh wyne and blood as though the immortall flesh of Christ must be eaten with materiall bread How do mortal things agree with immortal in one banket Carolstadius supposeth that Christes words be proper but that he touching hym selfe on the brest sayd Take bread and wine this is my body which I touche as though it were a supper mete for Christes making if he only shewed his body to his Apostles which euer was in their sight not suffering them to eate thereof Zuinglius said the bread and wine were only figures of Christes body and blood geueÌ„ to our bodies to represent to our harts tâ—…e death of Christ. And that the words of Christes supper were figuratine only by which reason the supper of the Paschall lambe was better then the supper of Christ because the dead flesh of an vnspotted lambe was more apt then bread and wine to shew the death of Christes innocent flesh wich is the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Calâ—…in added to Zuinglius bare figures an efficacie of feeding by faith and taught the words of Christ not so much to be figuratiue as words of promise which being heard with faith cause that the minde by faith eateth of Christ sitting in heauen a mete supper for such a deuiser who setting the men that should be fed vppon earth kepeth the meate wherof they should be filled in heauen promising them who consist also of bodies mortal and corruptible that they shall fede vpon immortall meat in their soules such an eating were good for Angels I denie not but it is not the supper that Christ made to corporall men for his farewell when he said Take and eate this is my body and Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood Taking with our bodies is more then beleuing in our soules eating yâ— body of Christ is more then signifying the eating of his body The meate is the body of Christ the drinke is the blood of Christ. Beleue and thou hast it in harte before thou commest to the table But come to the blessed Sacrament of the altar and thou hast it in thy mouth and body Bothe is better then one Christ hath 〈◊〉 and fullfilled all maner of iustice he made both body and soule redemeth both fedeth both rayseth both crowneth both He doth not now diuide the hand from the harte the mouth from the minde the figure from the thing the token from the truth That he sayth he doth that thou beleuest in heauen thou receyuest at his table in earth yea earth is heauen to thee saith Chrysostom through this mysterie make his gift no lesse then he nameth it leste for vnthankfullnes thou be giltie of iudgement He that beleueth his plaine wordes is on the surer syde The Corinthians fault concerning the supper of our Lord was partely for that they came to it after they had eaten their own supper and vndoutebly so doe heretyks They first deuise with them seâ—…ues what supper they will allow to Christ and then they come to his supper entending to conforme it to their formeâ—… deuise Partely the 〈◊〉 were reproued of S. Paule for eating and drinking alone without making their meate common to the poore Euen so the heretiks eate and drinke alone teaching that euery man eateth Christ only by the measure of his own faith which hath diuerse degrees in euery man and therefore it maketh euery man eate Christ after his own faith only Whereas the supper of Christ is equall and common to all as S. Cyprian S. Hierome and Theodorite witnessed before wherein he geueth oâ—…e 〈◊〉 one blood one person to all that come without any respecte concerning the meate and substance of the supper although not without discerning the diuerse merites of the geastes It is the honour of him that maketh the feast to haue the meate most bouÌ„tifull and most reall howsoeuer the weak stomaks of euill men are able to beare it Wilt thou yet see more plainly how liberall Christ is in his supper All that he hath he geueth for he geueth his own selfe indifferently to euery man that sitteth at his table be the nian riche or poore good or bad The 〈◊〉 of this feast at his table is the maker of the feast him selfe Who sayeth so Uerily he that caÌ„not lye Who after that he said My flesh is meate in dede douted not to add moreouer He that eateth me shall liue for me doing 〈◊〉 to vnderstand that by eating his flesh we eate himself The same thing teacheth S. Hierom a man worthy to be credi ted as well for his own great learning as for that tyme wherein he liued and the faith wherof in his writing he witnesseth S.
Hierome I saie expounding these wordes of 〈◊〉 the Prophet Declinaui ad eum vt vesceretur I bowed downe or turned in to him that he might eate writeth thus in Christes person Declinaui ad eos deserens regna coelorum vt cum eis vescerer assumpta forma hominis siue dedi eis esum corporis mei ipse cibus 〈◊〉 Forsaking the kingdome of heauen I bowed downe or turned in to them that the shape of maÌ„ being taken I might eate with them or else I gaue them the meate of my body I my selfe being both the meate and the banketer or feaster And yet he speketh in an other place more plainly Nec Moyses c. Neither Moyses hath geuen vs the true bread but our lord Iesus him self the feaster and the feast himself the eater and he that is eaten Behold Christes supper it may worthely be called his 〈◊〉 for neuer any man made any such before him he biddeth geasts and fedeth them with his owne flesh He is at the table as he was at the altar of his crosse For these two things are in most points agreable For this table is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and reall remembrance of that crosse As therefore vpon the crosse Christ was the preist who made the sacrifice Christ the hoste that was killed Christ the God to whom it was offred Christ the head of that body of his Church for whom it was offered Christ alone played all partes non fuit de gentibus vir cum illo and of all nations no man was with him so likewise in the last supper Christ 〈◊〉 the geastes telling them 〈◊〉 yere before of his ban 〈◊〉 at Capharnaum and the hower being come Christ geueth water not only to their hands but euen to their feete Christ is the panter Christ is the butler as S. Cyprian also hath writen Christ is the meate Christ is the drinke and what creature should haue parte with him in his supper Are bread and wine mete ban ketting dishes for his table They are in dede mete by their owtward shew to signifie the supper of Christ but not mete to be a substancial part therof He that is Lord of heauen and earth will he borow the substance of his creatures to make vp his feast As though he lacked bread of his owne or as though his flesh which is the true 〈◊〉 conteining al swetnesse in it lacked the swetnesse of wheaten bread or of materiall wine as though Christ had not better bread and meate of his 〈◊〉 and better drinke of his owne then the grape maketh and who shall haue them if he be without them A great shame it is that either any thing should chalenge part in Christes supper besydes Christe himselfe or that he should 〈◊〉 the table with bare odours of spirituall grace hauiug at commandement the substance of flesh and blood wherein the fullnes of Godhed dwelleth corporally Think of Christes supper according to the worship of him that made it leaue bread and wine for Lutrish tables beleue thou that Christ gaue no lesse to his geasts then he had to geue for verily all that he toke he toke it to geue for vs and to vs for vs vppon the crosse and to vs in his last supper Both which he expressed manifestly when he 〈◊〉 saing Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you that body was geuen bloodily for vs in the forme of man because he died for man the same is vnbloodily geuen to vs in the form of bread because man liueth by bread But earthly bread is to maintein life to earthly men HeaueÌ„ly men eate the bread which came doun from heauen which is the sonne of God assumpting the flesh of man For the bread which Christ promised to geue is his flesh for the life of the world His flesh is meate in dede and his blood is brink in dede Therefore who so teacheth the body blood of Christ to be now receaued by faith spirit only he denieth the supper of our Lord where the body was geuen by the hands of Christ receaued with the hands of the Apostles eaten with their corporal mouthes and the blood drunken out of the chalice of blessing the which Christ deliuered by their hands to their mouths and harts by that meanes feeding the whole man with his whole substance ¶ A speciall 〈◊〉 of Caluin is conâ—…ed who taught this is my body which is geuen for you to be words of promise in the way of preaching at Christes supper whereas they are words of perfoormance in the way of working THe special authoritie that Caluin hath gotten through his scholars in England moueth me specially to coufute I can not tell whether I shall name it his more false or more foolish opinion Who perceauing the Catholiks wholy to stick to the most proper and most effectual words of Christes supper and therevpon to build the belefe of the real presence of his body and blood thought best to inuegle the strength of those words as much as might 〈◊〉 to bring them from doing to saying from making to speaking from perfoorming to promising and therefore among manie other words of the same argument thus he writeth Atqui non panem alloquitur Christus vt corpus suum fiat sed discipulos iubet manducare atque illis corporis sanguinis sui communicationem pollicetur caet But Christ speaketh not to the bread that it might be made his body but he commandeth his disciples to eate and he promiseth them the communicating of his body and 〈◊〉 And afterward Let vs vnderstand those words to be a liuely preaching which may edifie the hearers etc. which in the fulfilling of that it promiseth may bring foorth his efficacie Hytherto Caluin whose worthy scholars haue consecrated that vnsensible deuise of his in the booke of their English homilies Where after an exhortation made that men should come them selues to communion it is sayd To this Christes commandement forceth vs saying do ye thus to this his promise enticeth vs this is my body which is geuen for you this is my blood which is shed for you This fault I find with my countriemen There can not be a foolish saying in al Germanie or â—…uicherland which they must not allow follow preache to their audience and set foorth in print And therefore if euery man might haue his will so many schismatical Churches as they had seâ—…e beyond the seas so many orders of communion they wold haue embraced Men that neuer brought foorth of them selues any thing worthy name and yet neuer saw in other places so apish a toye which they did not wonder at and gredeily practise Wherein they are both most like their master Caluin for so much as they specially follow his peuish inuentions and most vnlike him because he followed none other man in his doctrine but himself inuented a new religion of his own making What
wil stand sound when Caluin and all his scholars be out of memorie This practise did the Apostles leaue to their successours and scholars as Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus and Eusebiâ—…s witnesse Now consyder what an intolerable spirit of arrogancy was in Caluin who dareth oppose him self against the first hundred yeres after Christ. He dareth affirm that all the Priests and Bisshops of Rome before 〈◊〉 committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist to strangers That all Asia and Brece committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist by Deacons to men that were absent who heard not the words of promise If thou looke to be saued good Reader beware of that arrogant spirit Learning thou shalt not find in Caluin and much lesse honesty Only he hath a sort of smothe words which are poy soned with pride and ignorance If any of his scholars wil take vpon him to defend his errour I wil by Gods grace discouer more ignorance of that arrogant Master of theirs In the meane tyme I wil content my self with these reasons which I haue presently brought against him out of the word of God and out of the sayings and doings of the whole primatiue Churche ¶ The preface of the second Booke FOr so muche as contraric things one being set against the other are both made the more clere and plaine it semed best I should not only confirme the Catholike faith but also con fute the contrarie doctrine which is allowed for good and laudable in the Apologie of the Church of England to thâ—… intent the Reader might iudge whether the Catholikes or Protestauts doe more oftallege more syncerely interprete and more throughly beleue the word of God I feare me he shal find nothing beside the name of the gospell to be among the ProtestaÌ„ts But the true meaning and vse thereof only to remain in that Catholike Church of Christ. Let the thing it self speake I aske but an vpright and indifferent iudge Neither let any man be now shamed to heare that his new chosen opinion is a great deale worse then his old faith was For if he blushed not to forsake the faith of the Catholike Church vowed at the fonte of Baptism and to embrace a truthe lately espied as he thought in the gospell Muche lesse ought he to accompt it any reproche to reade further in the same gospell and there to lern his old profession made at the tyme of his Christendom to haue bene not only the receaued belefe of all Christians but also to haue bene grounded in the true word of God and practised of the Apostles and their Successours from the beginning The Chapiters of the second Booke 1. The Catholiks require their cause to be vprightly tried by the holy scriptures which they haue alwayes studied aud reuerenced 2. It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper 3. The auncient Fathers teache that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. 4. What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood 5. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supp of Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the vnion which is consessed to be made in the supper of Christ. 7. That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God 8. That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more then two Sacraments 9. That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknouledged of the Apologie according to the word of God 10. That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament 11. What signe must cheifly be respected in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper what a Sacrament is 12. Which argument is more agreable to the word of God It is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore the true body of Christ. 13. The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of token 14. That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and this is my blood be figuratiue 15. There all presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. 16. Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body 17. The true resurrection of our bodyes cometh by eating that body of Christ which is bothe true and truly in vs. 18. Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries 19. The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature 20. It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper 21. By eating we touche the body of Christ as it maye be touched vnder the form of bread 22. The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Christ withall 23. The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie 24. The contrariety of the apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harts to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar 25. What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 26. What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper 27. That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries the table of Iayes 28. The bread which is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ. 29. Sacramentall eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apologie ¶ The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightlye tried by the holy Scriptures which they haue alwayes studied and reuerenced THe Apologie of the Church of England boasting it self partly of the word of God partly of the primatiue Church requireth that we call the new gospellers no more by the name of heretykes neither accompt our selues hereafter Catholikes except we coâ—…ince them out of the holy Scriptures as the old Catholike Fathers did vse to conuince the old stubburne heretikes If we be heretikes saith the Apologie they as they would gladly be called be Catholikes why do they not as they see the Fathers which were Catholike men haue done alwayes Why do they not conuince and maister vs by the diâ—…e Scriptures Why do they not call vs againe to be tried by them Why do they not lay before vs how we haue gone away from Christ From the Prophets From the Apostles and from the holy Fathers Why sticke they to do it Why are they afrayed of it It is Gods cause why doubt they to commit it to the triall of Gods word To this proude bragge of the Apologie thus I answere To
Chrysostom ad iugem nos pro beneficijs suis inuitans gratiarum actionem Stirring vs to geue thanks perpetually for his benefites by the very kind of the sacrifice And shewing farther in an other place what kind of sacrifice it is God sayth Chrysostom did yerely by certain holydays set the remembrances of his benefites before the Iewes Tibi vero quotidiè ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur But he is set before thee daily him selfe lest thou shouldest bee vnmindfull See now by what meanes the death of Christ is renewed Not by tokens wherein he is doubtfully called to minde him selfe being absent for that were a feble token but by these tokens wherein him selfe is made present lest we should forgett his death The body of Christ must be made to th' intent we maye remember his death If you take from vs the making of his body which causeth the vehement remembrance of the death it is afterward a vaine thing to talke of the remembraunce of his death by eating bread and drinking wine For the necessarie meane of necessarie remembrance of his death consisteth in the reall presence of him that died For who can forget his death whose body is daily made worshipped and eaten to the end the death may be remembred But I may right well eate bread and drinke wine not yet remembring thereby that Christ is dead for me ¶ The true resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating that body of Christ which is both true and is true in vs. TO th' intent we being fed with the body and blood of Christ may be brought into the hope of the resurrection and of euerlasting life and may most assuredly beleue that the body and blood of Christ doth in like manner feed our soules as bread and wine doth feed our bodies I omit to say any thing vpon that ouersight wherein the English translation of a body hath left out the word Vero the true body which the Latine edition hath But here the Apologie presupposeth that Christes supper consisteth as wel of bread wine as of body and blood The first two they will haue geuen to the bodies The later twaine to the soules The bread wine they will haue present on the table whence they be deliuered The body and blood they will haue to be receaued from heauen by faith and vnderstanding Against this dreame thus I reason out of the word of God Christ made his whole supper vpon a visible table accordingly as it was prophecied by king Dauid Parasti in conspectu meo mensam Thou hast prepared a table in my sight And by Salomon Sapientia proposuit mensam suaÌ„ insipientibus locuta est venite comedite panem meum bibite vinum quod miscui vobis Wisedome hath set foorth her table and hath spoken to simple men come ye eate my bread and drinke the wine which I haue mixed for you S. Paul sayth Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse mensae Daemoniorum Ye can not be partakers of our Lords table and of the table of deuils Put these three together and the sense will be the supper and table of our Lord was prepared and set foorth in the sight of the faithfull that they might thence cate and drinke such as the wisedome of God gaue them at his supper Therefore no meate no foode no banket is to be looked for at his supper but such as is prepared by Christ set foorth vpon his table Otherwise Christ had prepared no supper in the sight of that faithfull as Dauid foretold nor had not set foorth his table as Salomon prophecied nor we had not bene partakers of our Lords table as S. Paul writeth For bread and wine is not prepared of Christ But was before hand made ready by the baker and vintner or by the seruants yâ— brought them foorth The preparing which Christ made was by blessing and conseâ—…ng to make of earthly bread the bread of life euerlasting And hauing made it he deliuered the same to the Apostles and bad them both make and doe that thing If he deliuered not his owne body with his owne handes doubtles they did not eate his body For he sayd in respect only of that which he deliuered take and eate Wherevpon S. Chrysostom sayeth to him that cometh to our Lords table Cogita quid manu capias caet Bethink thy selfe what thou takest in thy hand and kepe it free from all couetousnes and violent robbery Consider againe that thou takest it not only in thy hande but also puttest it to the mouth and after thy hand and tonge the harte receaueth that dreadfull mysterie Thus much S. Chrysostom Let any reasonable man iudge whether he sayeth not that the hart receaueth the same which the hande doth and the hande the same which the hart doth For if the hart receaue it after that hand the hand receaued it before the hart It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries falsely teach bread only in hand and body only in harte But body as well in hand as in harte And none other true body in the harte then was first in the hand and mouth For this cause euer sith we receaued the faith we called this blessed supper The Sacrament of the altar As if we sayd the SacrameÌ„t which is made vpon the altar or vpon the table of Christ. for the table of Christ is an altar as in Malachie it may appere and in an other place by the fauour of God I will declare This name of the SacrameÌ„t of the altar was deliuered to vs with our Christianitie and it is found very ofte in the olde writers namely in S. Augustine By which we are enformed that the consecration and oblation thereof is made not in the hartes of men by words of promising and preaching but vpon the visible altar in the sight of Christian people by yâ— visible Priest who as a publike minister ordeined by God consecrateth the body of Christ by the same power which Christ gaue when he sayd Hoc facite doe and make this thing This is 〈◊〉 table prepared in the sight of Dauid set foorth by the wisedome of God whereof we are partakers when we receaue the blessed Sacrament of the altar At this altar S. Augustines mother desired a memorie of her to be made vnde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis From which altar my mother knew sayeth S. Augustine the holy sacrifice to be distributed whereby the handwriting that was contrarie to vs is put out Behold the sacrificed body of Christ was dispeÌ„sed and geuen from the altar as both S. Augustine and his mother and all the faithfull then beleued Thus thou seest the dreame of the Apologie by the word of God to be blowen away like chaf dust dispersed with the wind The Apologie sayeth our bodies are
the flesh blood of Christ they haue inuented such kind of speaking as may both seme to agree with the Scriptures and yet withall mayntein their false doctrine The which thing that thou mayest the better vnderstand this is to be consydered The Catholike faith is that Christ in one person hath two natures The nature of God and the nature of man which two natures are ioyned and vnited together into one person after such sorte that what so euer is said of the one nature may be sayd of the other if we speake by that worde which signifieth the person For example we may say that man was in heauen before the ascension of Christ and that God died not because the nature of God could be borne of a woman or dye or the nature of man could be in heauen before the ascension of Christ but because that which was borne and dyed was also God and that which was in heauen was also man albeit his byrth and death was by the nature of man and his being in heauen by the nature of God The natures then tary distinct but yâ— pâ—…rson of God man is but one Now shall you see the meane whereby these new prechers go about to deceaue you They say Christ geueth him selfe in his SacrameÌ„ts The word Christ doth signifie his person wherein he is both God man Likewise the word him self is a word belonging to his person wherein both natures of God man are conteyned Now when they say Christ geueth him self they meane that he being God man geueth by some spiritual way the vertue of his flesh blood which they call him self for that he as God being euery where may dwell in vs more excellently by charitie as the Father and the holy Ghost doe But they meane not by geuing of him selfe the reall gifte of his person and of both natures which are ioyned therein after such sort that our whole nature might receaue his nature For then they should teache that which we doe But howsoeuer they bable of our soules they will graunt our bodies no touching nor tasting of him no not so much as vnder yâ—â—…oormes of bread and wine You haue heard what they say Now heare what Christ sayeth Christ speaketh of him self in diuerse places diuersely Due where he sayeth I will not leaue you Orphans I will come vnto you There he speaketh of his person and concerning the nature of Godhead as it appereth afterward where it is written If any man loue me he will kepe my word and my Father will loue him and we will come vnto him and make a mansion or dwelling with him or at his howse Here he speaketh first in such sort of his own coming that his Father as it appered afterward might come after the same sort Then was it the coming of God and not of man At his departure when he ascended from the world into heauen he sayd Behold I am with you all dayes euen vntill the consummation of the world These words may be meant as well by the nature of manhod which we haue with his Godhead in the Sacrament of the altar and so some holy Doctors haue taken them as also by the only nature of the Godhead which is euery where by maiestie and in good men by grace In an other place he sayd Poore men ye shall haue allwayes with you me ye shall not haue allwayes Where by the word me he meaneth not his Godhead which is allways euery where but the nature of his manhod and that not as it is in the Sacrament but as it was when he spake in a visible forme of a poore man who had not any howse of his own where he might reste his head Last of all let vs marke after what sorte he sayd that he wold be in his blessed supper Dyd he say I will geue my self to be eaten and to be drâ—…nken If he had sayd so yet seing he had mentioned eating and drinking which according to the letter rather belongeth to his manhod then to his Godhead we should rather haue thought that the words must haue bene taken properly then improperly To eate the substance of a man may be sayd properly for in deed it may be eaten with mouth and teeth but to eate the substance of God it is sayd vnproperly For it can not be eaten with teethe and mouth as also S. Cyrillus hath noted but only with vnderstanding and faith If then Christ had sayd before supper I will geue my self to be eaten and had sayd at his supper I do geue my self to be eaten These words with a circumstance of a supper had made so stroÌ„gly for the bodily geuing of him selfe that their part had bene more probable who had vnderstanded it of his manhod With whom if the tradition of the Apostles had stood there were no doubt but he should haue bene a wicked heretik who when Christ had sayd I geue my self to be eaten wold haue denyed that we had eaten the humane nature of Christ. But now attend what words Christ vsed He forcseing this hearesie made 〈◊〉 agaynst it and therefore he sayd not I will geue or do geue my self to be eaten as heretiks now delight to speake but I geue my flesh my body my blood These are not wordes of personage which may be applyed two wayes but they are the words of nature and only of mans nature For God by yâ— nature of his Godhead hath neither flesh ne blood ne soule ne body ne bone Christ as man hath all these things Now do the heretiks and false preachers of our age maruclously deceaue the people of God who alwayes say that they diminish not Christes benefite nor do not abuse the Lords supper 〈◊〉 say they we teache that Christ geueth his owne self and they repete agayne and agayn his owne self his owne self And thereby they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules by fayth spirit and vnderstanding Wholy robbing vs of that flesh which dyed for vs and of that blood whiche was shed for vs. For although God was able to haue saued man otherwyse yet he swetely disposed our saluacioÌ„ by sending his dere soÌ„ne to take of the virgyn our flesh and blood This flesh and this blood worketh our saluacion Which he yâ— taketh away from the Sacrament of the altar depriueth vs of the meane whereby to come to life euerlasting For as by this flesh and blood we are redemed So that redemption is applyed to all that be of lawful age by worthy eating and drinking thereof Now when these preachers cry vnto you of God of fayth of spirit of vnderstanding of vertue they seme perhaps to say goodly things but they craftily put you from that only meane of fleshe and blood whereby God hath ordeyned our saluacion Abraham was the sather of al beleuers because neuer any mans belefe was so
when it is sayd ouer the bread of Christ him self This is my body This grosse imagination maketh Christ a lyer as Cyrillus hath witnessed And now came our Apologists and bring those wordes against the Catholikes as though they had a grosse imagination who thinke and teach the wordes of Christ to be true to worke that they speake when soeuer they belong to any Sacrament And therefore the substance of bread and wine to be turned into that substance of the body and blood of Christ the formes of the same bread and wine remaining as veyles and cortaines to couer the sayd flesh as well because our faith should haue merit as because our eyes be not able to see that gloriouse mysticall kind of presence The which consecrating of Christes body is an vnblody sacrifice wherein God is put in mind of the death which redemed the world Euery part of that Sacrament hath in it whole Christ euery kind alone is sufficiēt to norish him to saluatiō who worthely eateth it And yet both kinds together must be cōsecrated to shew the death of Christ. This belefe hath no grosse imagination in it as shall appeare in all the worke folowing ¶ What the first Councel of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper ANd the Councell of Nice as it is cited in Greek of some doth expresly forbid vs that we should not basely occupy our minds about the bread and wine set before vs. The words of the Nicen Councell whereof the Apologie spea keth are these Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa caet Again here also in the holy table let vs not basely attend the bread and cup set before vs but lifting vp our mind let vs vnderstand by faith That Lamb of God which taketh away the synnes of the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sitū esse to be put and laid on that holy table incruente a sacerdotibus immolatum to be vnbloodely sacrificed of the Priests and that we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verè Truly and in deed taking his own precious body and blood doe beleue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption For this cause we take not much but litle that we might know we take not to fill vs but for holynesse In these words many things are affirmed of the blessed Sacrament of the altar euery of the which doth proue or helpe to proue the real presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread and wine First the Councell sayeth the bread and the cup to be set before vs vpon the holy table bidding vs not basely attend or consyder them What other thing can these words meane then to warne vs ▪ that we should not looke to the natural appearing or shew of the bread and of the cup but to a greater vertue which lieth priuie vnder their formes Therefore begin we to collect that the bread and the wine which stand vpon y◠holy table kepe not any more their old nature substance but contein vnder their old formes the new substance of Christ. For if they remained as before consecration they were materiall bread and wine then we nede no warning to put away base considerations of them sith by that opinion we are bound to beleue earthly bread and wine to be still bread and wine and to be nothing bettered in substance Then as concerning the vse of them so long as y◠blessed word of God which is the form of the Secrament is ioyned with any element which remaineth still in his old nature so long y◠word and the element make a mysterie But when the word or form is ended the Sacrament is ended as the which only worketh and hath grace annexed to it whiles it is in the vse whereunto Christ hath appointed it So long as the Priest whiles he washeth is saying I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost so long y◠baptim is a doing and working when the wordes be ended the Sacrament is ended For seing y◠promesse of forgeuenesse of synnes is geuen to the washing in y◠name of the Trinite when that is done the promesse is sinished for that course The councell of Nice speaketh of the bread and of the cup after consecration after that it was sayd ouer thē This is my body and this is my blood which wordes are the form of that Sacrament For the councell speaketh of the being and standing and of cōsyderig these things vpon the holy table not only whiles y◠wordes are spoken but still afterward vntill they be receaued If then both the wordes of the Sacrament be past and yet y◠councell say we must not basely attend the bread and the cup that are vpon the holy table It geueth vs to vnderstand that the wordes did not only come to the elements of bread and wine to make them a Sacrament after the commen sort of making which is in baptim in confirmation in holy orders and in penance but also that the wordes did worke some reall thing vnder y◠formes of bread wine which remaineth still as long as y◠sayd formes signes remain For this cause the councell sayd we ought not basely consyder the bread and cup for that more was vnder the shew and colour of them then our eyes could tell vs. What must we then doe We must resort to a higher master then our eyes are we must lift vp our mind we must vnderstand not by loking seing but by faith Whether must we lift our mind To heauen That is not euill but the councell sayth an other thing We lifting vp our mindes must vnderstand by faith Then the lifting vp of our mind is the renouncing of our senses the cleauing to our faith We must beleue that which we can not see What must we beliue That the Lamb of God is vpon the holy table Which Lamb He that taketh away the sinnes of the world On which table On the holy table whereon that standeth which semeth bread and wine How is y◠Lamb there He is put layed situate there as a thing may be situate which is vnder the formes of an other thing For of such a situation the councell speaketh so we must beleue of it Now put this geare together and thus the councell sayth Consyder not basely that bread and cup which standeth before you For although it seme that which nature made yet we must lift vp our mind and vnderstand by faith that thing or substance which is standing on the holy table how so euer it appere bread and wine to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world Now we see what is base and what is high Bread and wine is base Body and blood is highe That must not be consydered because the substance thereof now hath ceased to be This must be beleued because it is made present in
substance And it is so truly made and the Lamb so truly prosenâ—… that he is offered not in hart alone but euen outwardly of the Priests not by shedding of blood as vpon the crosse but vnblodely as it becommeth the cleane oblation of the new Testament whereof Malachie did prophecie That sacrifice which Priests offer can not be but present for they offer with their hands moâ—…thes and other externall members of their body After that the sacrifice is made the faithfull people who stand by doe partake with the altar which could not be except a perma neâ—…t substance were made by consecration The Lamb is vpon the table He is offered there by yâ— Priests It foloweth in the Councell We take truly the precious body and blood We take it and truly take it That is to say in deed really and bodily For the truth of Christes body and blood is not an imaginarie or fained truth it is not a thing conceaued only as a man might conceaue in his mind men flying in the aier it is not only beleued or hoped but he in naturall existence and among external things hath as true a body and blood as any creature hath a substance of his owne The true taking of the which precious body and blood is the taking of it in suche a truth of subsâ—…ce as it self hath And because it is true in yâ— thing it selfe the taking of it is in the thing it self The taking of that which sâ—…andeth before vs on the table is by instrument of our bodyes therefore it is deliuered according to the same external truth by the corporall ministerie of yâ— Priests So that all is truly and externally done by the iudgement of this auncient councell Wel we truly taking them beleue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some bookes read of our resurrection For as our redemption was by the â—…ame body and the same blood really wrought vpon the crosse so hauing them selues present vpon yâ— holy table and truly taking them we take the sure witnesses and euident tokens of our redemption But if the things which stand vpon the holy table were in substance bread and wine how could they be the tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeme vs Or did they rise from death for vs It is the body and blood of Christ which redemed vs and which arose from death and the self same body and blood are now made present to vs offered vnbloodely for vs to shew in fact and dede our redemption already wrought by them and to distribute the fruits of yâ— Crosse by none other thing so much as by the same body and blood that redemed vs. For least we should assigne any part of our saluation to any other creature besydes to the only body and blood of Christ he made the selfsame body both the price wherewith he redemed vs and the token and dispensour of the redemption It was proued before that if these things be the tokens of our redemption instituted by the expresse words of Christ then they are the things them selues which they betoken because they are mysticall tokens of the new Testament But they are here not as redeming vs new and therefore as tokens of yâ— old redemption that no man should thinke Christ to die again or should doubt as S. Chrysostom hath noted of his death already past or of any maner prices of our redemptioÌ„ to be payed then one or that it hath any other token left thereof in the holy mysteries besydes it selfe For it was so worthy a truth and raâ—…som payed for vs vpon the Crosse which was able to be painted worthely or set foorth to the remembrances of the faithfull by none other image then such wherein yâ— truth might be set foorth after an other sort more mystical concerning the manner But no lesse true then the thing which died was concerning the substance Who so is faithfull and humble is now able to vnderstaÌ„d how the shew of bread and wine standeth with the truth of body and blood present on the holy table How the vnbloody sacrifice is made of the Priests whiles by pronouncing the words of God they turne the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of Christes body and blood how we both truly take the precious body and blood of Christ coÌ„cerning the substance of them vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet beleue them to be tokens instituted of Christ of our redemptioÌ„ betokening the price paid by making present the body and blood which payed it Was not this a worthy place for the Apologie to allege But I warrant you it alleged the weakest part therof leauing out the situatioÌ„ of the Lamb of God on the holy table The vnbloody sacrifice made of Priests the true taking and receauing of the pre cious body and blood Only bread and wine which are named to shew the formes within the which the body and blood are them they name as a great matter to further this new broched heresie But he is a faithfull trier and examiner of auncient Fathers who faithfully citeth the whole place neither adding nor diminishing which honest dealing we may not looke for at these defenders hands ¶ That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iaies ANd as Chrisostome writeth wel we say that the body of Christ is the carcas and we must be the Egles that we may know that we ought to flye highe if we will come to the body of Christ. For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes It is a weake stake that these meÌ„ wold not take hold of being now plunging for life vnder the water S. Chrysostome so plainly expoundeth his owne meaning immediatly where he speaketh of the carcas and of the Egles that I can not sufficiently wonder at the impudeÌ„cie of him who allegeth this place For the alleger wold haue the wordes taken as though the body of Christ were not vpon the altar But we only shold by faith ascend into heauen whereas S. Chrysostome speaketh of going in to heauen by good life also and not by faith only His words are these The body of our Lord is through death become the carcase for vnlesse he had fallen we had not risen Christ vseth the name of Egles to declare that it behoueth him who shall approchevnto his body to seeke for high things and not to medle with the earth nor to be draweÌ„ down or crepe vnto earthly matters which are a low but to flee allways vp to higher matters And to behold the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eye and the mind quick of sight for this is the table of Egles and not of Iaies Hetherto S. Chrysostome Who first sheweth why the body of Christ is called the carcase Not because it is without life but because it once hath died for
be coÌ„fessed no lesse to perteine to the promise of Christes supper then those doe towardes th ende of the chapter when he sayth the bread which I wil geâ—…e is my flesh So doth Theophilact expoâ—…d this place Cibum manentem mysticam dicit sumptionem carnis domini quam nobis ipse dat filius hominis factus He calleth the meate which tarieth the mycall receauing of our Lords â—…esh which him selfe being made the Sonne of man geueth vs. What name I Theophilact All the Fathers yea all Christians agree that Christe in his supper is the meate whereof it is sayd it perisheth not Now Christ perisheth not whether he be geuen to vs by faith as his Father is sayd to geue him or in the Sacrament of his supper as yâ— Sonne of man is afterward sayd to be of the will to geue his flesh which is meate in dede As therefore we can not denie Christ when he is geuen by faith to be the not perishing meate so it were woâ—…derfull impiety to say the substance of Christes flesh geuen at his supper not to be the same not perishing meate or seing it is also a not perishing meate at his supper why should not these words be vnderstaÌ„ded of the same supper And seing Christ would it to be wrought not only as his Father geueth it presently but also as the Sonne of man wil geue it hereafter to wit vnder the form of bread at his last supper it must nedes be graâ—…ted yâ— Christ speaking of working the gift of the SoÌ„ne of man meant no lesse of working his own gift which he nameth afterward eating then the working of his Fathers gift which is straghtways called beleuing How beit concerning equalitie of substance in Godhead all is common betwixt them In fine the not perishing meate which the Sonne of man wil geue to yâ— Iewes is his flesh which he wil geue to be eateÌ„ Which flesh 〈◊〉 not perish as well because it is wholly 〈◊〉 in by the na ture substance of almightie God as also because it is not chaÌ„ged into our flesh when it is â—…aten as other meats are but spiritually changeth vs into it Now that fleshe not perishing but tarying in our soules bodies maketh them also kepe and preserue 〈◊〉 life whereby we come to the ioyâ—…s of heauen For that Christ meant of suche a not perishiÌ„g meat as might be receaued not only into our soules but into our bodies Also S. Cyrillus hath witnessed vpoÌ„ this place Operemur igitur vt saluator ait non eum â—…ibum caet Let vs work therefore â—…s our sauiour saith not that meat which â—…iding into the belly and geuing vs a short pleasure at the leugth goâ—…th forth in excrements and perisheth but let vs work the spiritâ—…all meat which strengtheneth the hartes leadeth to life â—…uerlasting the which meate he promiseth that he wil geue saying the Sonne of man will geue you this meate Thus he hath ioyned the things oâ—… man to the things of God and touched the whole mysterie of the incarnation For he sheweth sum what priuily the spirituall meate whereby we liue in Christe being sanctified both in soule and body But he wil say this thing more openly anon wherefore we also wil write there more at large an interpretation that shall agree to this place 〈◊〉 dured the words of S. Cyrillus who as he was a most excellent man of wit and lerning so hath he most exactly declared the meaning of these wordes which I now expound Christ meaÌ„t to persuade the Iewes his diuine nature and that he was himself according to his flesh the true maâ—…a which came down from heauen and that he would geue the self same flesh as truely to be â—…aten into the bodies of the faithfull for a spirituall nourishement of them as euer the Iewes dyd corporally feede vpon manna To persuade this he wrought a miracle in bread he traiâ—…ed them to talk of bread and of manna withal exhorting theÌ„ to sede vpon the â—…corruptible meate which he would geue This meate was his owne fleshe but he as yet would not vtter so muche vntill their myndes were somwhat prepared therunto by true faith For this cause S. Cyrillus wryteth that Christ as yet describeth the spirituall meate occultius somwhat secrâ—…tly Buâ—… that afterward hâ—… will shew it apertius more openly Agame S. Cyrillus saith Christ hath ioyned humana diuinis the things of man to the things of God The things of man are that flesh assumpted by Christ and the sanctifying of our bodies by receauing his fleshe into them through the gift of Christ whiche he gaue as man The thinges of God are the feeding of our soules by right belefe vpon God Thirdly by the iudgement of S. Cyrillus this place apperteineth to that which foloweth concerning the sanctification as wel of our bodies as of our soules but that whiche foloweth is most properly meant of the sanctification which our bodies receaue by the food of Christes supper of which supper S. Cyrillus exponndeth those words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. What nede more words this place is like to the othâ—…r following in the end of the same chapiter The bread which I wil geue is my flesh whiche wordes al the auncient fathers without any contradiction teache to belong to the supper Therefore doubtlesse they are of the same mynd concerning this place also but because this place is not so plaine as the other no man nede to maruaile why they rather allege the other then this And yet euen to this place of S. Iohn the holy martyr Ignatius alluded when he sayd in that epistle which both Eusebius S. Hierom acknowledged to be his Non mihi placet cibus corruptionis nequè voluptates vitae huius panem Dei volo panem coelestem panem vitae quod est caro Christi filij Dei poculum volo sanguineÌ„ eius quod est charitas incorruptibilis perennis vita The perishing meaâ—…e and pleasures of this life plâ—…ase me not I long for Gods bread the heaneÌ„ly bread the bread of liâ—… whiche thing is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God and for the cup his blood which thing is â—…haritie not perishing and life euerlasting Thus as wel the coÌ„ference of holy scriptures as the witnesses of S. Ignatius of S. Cyrillus of Theophilact of S. Augustine and of Tertullian do shew this place to belong to the SacrameÌ„t of the Altar therefore therein we muste eate not bread and wine which perishe but only the permanent fleshe of Christ and so we must eate it by mouth as we beleue on it in hart For eating and beleuing is referred in this Chapiter to the selfe same fleshe of Christe therefore as really it must be eaten by mouth as it is beleued in hart to be most râ—…all in it selfe ¶ The equalitie of substance with his father which Christ allegeth
it was expedient for vs the flesh assumpted of Christe to tary flesh still in dede seing God is by all meanes immutable neither could the word be changed into flesh neither flesh into the word but sith the substance of common bread doth not helpe vs to life enerlasting and may be chaunged into the flesh of Christ it is by the power of Christ chaunged into his flesh when he taking bread and blessing saith this is my body Hereby we may see how the name of brâ—…ad and the figure of Manna is ioyned with the flesh of Christ as the processe of this chapiter teacheth Hereby we may vnderstand how the blessed seed of Abraham which is the body of Christ is ioyned with the apparent shewe that Melchisedech made of bread and wine how the vnleauened bread eaten with the old lambe is the couer of the trew paschall lambe Iesus Christ and to be short how the substance of the old figure is gone into the substance of Christes flesh and how the outwarde forme of the figure remayneth vntill we come to heauen where we shall see face to face without any vayle or shadow put betwene vs and the gloriouse flesh of Christ. Hence it cometh that as S. Ireneus doth witnes the Eucharist consisteth of two things of one earthly which is the forme of bread and of wine of the other heauenly which is the substance of Christes body and blood But if Christes gift consisted of the substance of bread being only sanctified in quality and made a signe of Christes body as yâ— Sacramentaries teache it should neither be that true bread which his Father gaue him nor be in substance better then manna but rather worse for that Manna was miraculously wrought by angels whereas at Christes supper common bread is taken nor it should not be disâ—…ncted from the gift made in the law for as much as there also while Manna was eaten the iust men had grace frome God geuen them because it was a Sacrament of the law It is not therefore grace and commoÌ„ bread which Christ geueth but the substance of his flesh made vnder the forme of common bread by his almighty word ¶ By the shadow of the law past and by the 〈◊〉 truthe to come in heaueÌ„ it is perceaued that yâ— midle state of the new Testament requireth the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of breaâ—… THe occasion of the thre tymes the past the present and the future and of the gifts made in them which are named in S. Iohn doth prouoke me to eÌ„tre into a farther discourse whereby it may appeare to those that delight in conferring the holy scriptures what wonderfull witnesse euery part of them doth beare to that truthe which our forefathers beleued and we that are not bastarde children doe kepe and mayntaine The law saieth S. Paule hath the shadow of good things to come not the very image of things whereby he meaneth that as the lawe had but a shadow so the ghospell hath the thing it self but yet not clere and playne for as the same Apostle sayeth we in this world walke by fayth and not by vision and clere sight If Christ gaue not vnto vs his reall and substanciall flesh vnder the forme of bread how gaue he vs the thing it self How were he by that gyfte proued greater then Moyses and equall with his Father If on the other side he gaue vs his flesh naked how were our state an image of the things them selues Christ is our mediatoure A mediatour is in the myddle to ioyne two partes that otherwise do not agree then if he will make man agree with God he must haue â—…oth the nature of God and of man ioyned in one person likewise if he wil make the state of the ghospell present agree with the law past and with the state of glorye to come he must take the similitude of the law and the nature of the glorye of heauen and ioyne these two into one mystery and so he hath done For as he is in one person very God and very man so he hath perfectly expressed the old state of the lawe and the state of heauen in oâ—… Sacrament The nature of the law of Moyses was to shew Christ and to be a guyde vnto the schole of Christ which thing it did by diuerse figures The nature of glory is to see face to face to haue all truth with 〈◊〉 any figure Now the state of the new Testament being the middle state betwixt the law and the glory of heaueÌ„ must haue the very truth that is in heauen which is the true flesh of Christ whereon Angelles desyer to looke and the true Godhead which is the full blessednes of all sainctes and this thing it must haue vnder a figure Therefore the theâ—…e Sacrament thát Christ left vnto his Church which also he called the new Testament in his blood must by the same reason haue yâ— true flesh of Christ wherein the Godhead dwelleth corporally and yâ— vnder a very figure which is the forme of bread Aâ—…d truly this forme of bread and of wyne is only a true figure because there is in it none other substance but the bare figure Other figures of the olde lawe were set to signify being them selues 〈◊〉 other substance in nature as the arke the tabernacle the vayle the â—…hewebread and all the sacrifices but the bare figure of bread without the substance of bread set to signifie the bread of life really present vnder it that is the only true figure as the whiche hathe none other truthe in his own substance but only the truth of a figure because the substance thereof is turned into that flesh of Christ who vnder the figure of yâ— ordre of Melchisedech whereof he is priest fullfilleth all figures that euer haue bene of him in his real and substanciall flesh which real flesh yf we had not in our SacrameÌ„t of the altar Christ gaue no more in his outward mysteries then was geuen by Moyses he were not equal with his Father by his gyfte he were not yâ— corner stone ioyning the state of Moyses law which was only 〈◊〉 aâ—…d the veritie of glory together But if these are great â—…rrours let vs stedfastly beleue that Christ left vs his very crue rcall flesh in the blessed Sactament of the altar vnder the forme of bread and wyne For as in other precepts we may vnderstand the old law not to be taken away concerâ—…ing the spirit which laie hid in it but only to be fulfilled and made more perfect so notwithstanding the old figures be dead and changed yet the state of fulfilling them is suche that the new Testament is not it self without all figures but rather conteineth the truth couered with a conuenient figure Uerily Christ sayd so much in effect when he taught that he came not to putt away the law but to
we are saued by the washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the holy ghoste Likewyse that which Manna dyd then shadow hauing the swetenesse of all deyntie and pleasant tastes as now really geuen because yâ— flesh of Christ is meate in dede We differ not in substance of our manna from the Angels of heauen but only they are out of all feare we lyuc in good hope they see and eate we eate see not but beâ—…ue They are in theyr and oure countrey we are in the way to them Whyles we are goyng the truth of heauen is couered to vs but sith Christ came downe to be our guyde he hath left the kingdome of heauen in the blood of the newe testament among vs as really as him self â—… really for that purpose tooke fleshe and dyed in the same flesh to thintent he being exalted vpon the crosse should draw al things vnto him selfe ¶ The bread that Christ promiseth to geue which is his flesh must nedes be meant of the substance of his flesh HAuing already touched the three seuerall tymes of geuing â–ª which are spoken of in S. Ihon order wold yâ— I should shew the three seuerall kinds of working those three gifts But for as much as the last gift of the three is the gift of Christ whereof we doe principally intreat I thought good to say somewhat of it alone Christ hauing sayd before work the euerlasting meat which the Sonne of man will geue you cometh now to namè what kind of meat it is and the bread sayth he which I will geue is my flesh I haue proued already that these two sentences belong to one maner of gift which also is promised to be geuen to vs and not only to be geuen for vs as some doe aâ—… To be geuen to vs I say in the Sacrament of Christes supper and not only for vs vpon yâ— Crosse the which thing because I haue by diuerse reasoÌ„s proued in two places of this present booke it shal be now suâ—… to warn the reader that S. Cyprâ—… writing vpoÌ„ our Lords prayier hath alleged these words The bread which I will geue is my â—…esh as spoken of the Eucharist The like hath S. Chrysostom done in his comments vpon the same place affirming that Christ spake of the mysteries beside that which he speaketh hereof vpon the sixt of S. Ihon doth also allege it again for the Sacrament of Christes supper naming benedictionem mysticaâ—… the mysticall blessing S. Augustine often tymes allegeth this text for the gift made in Christes supper as I haue declared before also Theodoritus was of the same mind and as for Theophilact and Euthymius be so clere in this matter that they neuer doubted thereof Which sith it is so let it staÌ„d for a truth most vniuersally receaued yâ— Christ saying The bread which I wil geue is my flesh meant the bread which I wil geue you at my last supper is my flesh Moreouer the word bread must be noted which standeth not presently for wheaten breade but only for food and meat For as Christ sayd before work the meat which the sonne of man wil geue you so now he sayth and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh declaring yâ— bread in this place is all one with meat The which truthe is also expressed of S. Cyrillus where he sayth Saluator cuÌ„ ad Iudaeos multa de carne sua dissereret ac viuisicum verè panem â—…am appellaret panis enim inquit quem ego dabo caro mea est When our Sauiour disputed manie things among the Iewes of his flesh and caâ—…ed it the bread truly geuing life he sayd for the bread which I will geue is my flesh Thus it is clere that Christ in effect sayth I will geue you a kind of meat or food in my last supper yâ— which is my flesh euen the same flesh which I wil geue for the life of the world This promise Christ made at Caphâ—… to al the â—…tude but 〈◊〉 submitted theÌ„ selues to receaue that doctrine beside the twelue Apostles among whom Iudas being one had this promise made to him also For although Christ knew him to be a deuil and traitour as him self sayd euen at Caphâ—…um yet seing he taried with the twelue euen at the last supper and other men knewe not so muche of his maliciouse intent Christ dissembled it and as he promysed his fleshe to all so he gaue it to the twelue in the night wherein he was betrayd The whiche thing I speake to thend the reader might perceane what Christ promised presently Suche a gift it was the whiche was performed â—…o lesse to Iudas then to the other Apostles It was not therefore a spiritual gift only which was promised for such a one Iudas neither did nor could take but it was a reall â–ª and externall gift which was deliuered with the hands of Christ and receaued into the mouthes of the Apostles After which sort Iudas tooke it Which could not be so except the fleshe of Christ were vnder the forme of bread which Christ gaue Again Christ spake not now of geuing his flesh by faith only for that gift his Father presently gaue as he sayd Pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum my Father doth geue you the true bread from heauen That gift Christ him self was being geuen in flesh to th end we should beleue in him and 〈◊〉 vpon him by spirituall deuotion But Christes gift both hath an other person an other tyme. The person is Christ the tyme is to come Wherevpon S. Chrysostom here noteth Se non patrem dare dicit He saith him self to geue and not his Father It is therefore a reall gift to be made externally whereof Christ speaketh WherupoÌ„ it foloweth that Christes flesh was promised vnder the form of bread which suin his â—…pper was taken blessed and deliuered Under that form Christes flesh is promised not in faith only but in truth of nature and in the same substance which was geuen 〈◊〉 the life of the world The Sacramentaries must nowe say that flesh here standeth for the signe and figure of Christes flesh and so by that meanes they will say both Iudas had the figure of Christes flesh geuen â–ª and the other Apostles had the flesh it self by faith and spirit It hath bâ—…e â—…wed before that the bread whereof Christ now speaketh and which he affirmeth to be his flesh is Christ him self as he is true God and man Therefore to say the bread which Christ will geue is the signe of his flesh is to say that Christ him self through his own gift is the signe of his own flesh for of any other bread Christ spake not in this place then of such bread as him self is And of that he spake not in that only respecte as he is God but as he is man And so either the manâ—…hood of Christ is yâ— signe of his flesh
to that heauenly instrument of Christes flesh So that sometyme we say the Fathers gift is reall and externall but then we meane the visible flesh of Christ in his owne person Somtyme we say the Fathers gift is only spiritual and then we vnderstand the faith charitie and grace which the Father worketh in vs whom he bringeth to Christ by faith and spirit This distinction well remembred I trust to make the matter playne enough The state of our nature is suche that sith we consist of body and soule our soule being the chief part of vs and our body the inseriour parte God the Father in his gift intendeth to feed our soules which being fed our body shal be fed by reason it dependeth vppon the soule But Christ considering that our heauy bodies most commonly weigh down our soules to the pit of hell wold also inuent a way that our very bodies might not only not hindre but rather helpe our soules and not only through our soules but also through a meate that them selues should receaue be made lyght and meet to rise vpward and to obey the spirit gladly So that the meate which God the Father geueth to the soule Christ bringeth to the body And because the body hath no faith to apprehend the flesh of Christ withall neither vnderstanding nor spirite whereby to folowe the flesh of Christ into heauen it hath pleased his infinite mercy to leaue his flesh in so maruelouse a manner vnder the forme of bread that it might be geuen into our handes mouthes and breastes by which meanes we are able to receaue it corporally and naturally The Sonne therefore and the Father geue one thing on Christes behalfe but not one way on our behalfe For the Father geueth Christ vnto the world in dede but to vs in faith and spirit The sonne geueth him self to vs in faith and spirit with the Father and moreouer he is here sayd to geue him self in truth of body and blood to oursoules and bodies Because therefore the thing it self is one which the Father and the Soune geue one effect doth folowe in vs of both gifts For as it is sayd of the Fathers gifte He that beleueth in me hath euerlasting life So it is sayd of the Sounes gifte He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life But for so much as the Father and the Sonne geue not theire gifts after one sorte Therefore their two giftes are in this chapiter of S Ihon diuersly described First as I sayd before of the Fathers gift it is sayd He doth geue the true bread in the present tense Of that Sonne I wil geue in the future tense The Father geueth Christ in the forme of man and therefore it is sayd This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleueth on him may haue euerlasting life and again ye haue sene me and haue not beleued Behold by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithful may see that Sonne of man vppon whom they beleue But of the Sonnes gifte it is only sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh where it is not sayd that his flesh shal be seen but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder a couering of an other kinde of food which the naming of bread signifieth And in the supper where this prophecie was fulfilled it is most clere The Fathers gift is called Verus panis de coelo the true bread or meate from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not only true bread but also truly bread and meate in dede Caro mea verè est cibus my flesh is truly meate some true meate may chaunce not to be truly meate because it is not eaten but nothing is meat in dede and truly meate except it be in dede eaten There is difference betwene being the true vyne and a vyne truly Christ sayd him self was the true vyne but he sayd not that he was truly any certeyn vyne The Iewes and Disciples went not away from Christ for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gyfte For albeit they beleued not Christ to be yâ— sonne of God yet they well perceaued that suche a gifte of eating by faith myght stand with the custome of Gods people but when the sonnes gifte came to be declared they could abyde no longer Seing then it is playne that they lacked faith but yet lacked not vnderstanding we may be sure they sawe more apparaÌ„t absurditie in the sonnes gifte as they toke it then in the Fathers because it semeth straunger for mans flesh to be eaten as the sonne semed to saye then God to be made man which is the Fathers gift who sent his sonne to take our flesh The gifte of the Father is called by suche names only as belong to the persone of Christ or to his dyuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God only is absolutely the true bread of life or by the pronownâ—… ego which is to say I. but yâ— gifte of Christ is called also by yâ— names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and blood oâ—… the sonne of man An other difference may be to coÌ„sider that Christ endeth his talke of eche gifte with repeating the old figure Manna betokening yâ— as wel by the giste of the Father as of the sonne the shadow of manna was fulfilled But as it shall hereafter appeare Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doynges by the sonnes gift As therefore when he had longe reasoned of the belefe which they ought to haue in him whom God the Father had sent he last of al concludeth I am the bread of lyfe Your Fathers did eate manna in the desert and be dead yf any man eate of this bread he shall lyue for euer ryght so hauing at large reasoned of eating his owne flesh and of yâ— effect which ryseth thereof he at the last endeth This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your Fathers haue eaten manna and be dead he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer The like peroration vsed in both places with wordes somwhat vnlike doth declare that one substance is gyuen of the Father to be eateÌ„ of vs by faith and of the sonne to be really eaten so that the maner differeth because we eate only ex Christo that is to say of Christ by faith but we eate and receaue Christum Christ him self in the Sacrament of the altar For it pleased the whole Trinitie yâ— the fulnesse of our saluation should be in the manhood of Christ whose food it is to end his Fathers worke The Fathers gift is to beleue in Christ the soÌ„nes gifte is to eate and drink in very dede his flesh and blood In working the Fathers gifte a working faith is sufficient in working the sonnes gifte â—…aith is required with taking and eating that wherein we
Nyssa reasoneth our nature is not at any certain state but continueth in his substance by perpetuall motion drawing to it that which it lacketh and expelling superfluoâ—…se things As therefore our baptim is made by real washing with water real renewing of yâ— holy Ghost so nowe in the supper of Christ it behoueth we be really fed with the fruit of the 〈◊〉 of life which is â—…one other thing besyde the flesh of Christ. That flesh thâ—…n 〈◊〉 be really eaten of vs and not only eaten by spirit 〈◊〉 is conuenient for Angels but satisfieth not the necessitieâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature but eaten by mouth and body For of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ at this tyme neither is it worth while to say that the body shall eate bread while the soul feedeth vpon the flesh of Christ. For the bread and wine haue no promise made in this place of them For albeit bread and wine be necessarie to the consecrating of the Sacrament yet the substance of theÌ„ is not necessarie at yâ— tyme of receauing the Sacrament it is only the flesh which died for vs that Christ promiseth to geue to be eaten it is the flesh of the sonne of man which if we eate not we shall not haue life in vs. It is Christes flesh which if we eate he will reise vs vp at the last day That flesh of his must be eaten his only blood must be drunken This threatning which is made if we receaue not worthely the flesh of Christ must be vnderstanded in his kind like the other threatning precept made before concerninge baptism where it was sayd except a man be borne again of water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen bothe are Sacraments both necessarie to faithful men and both profitable to life euerlasting that whiche water doth in wasshing vs the fleshe of Christ must do in feeding vs. for this cause the ancient Fathers haue alwais both ioyned these two Sacraments together and haue alleged these two places for them the one out of the third the other out of the sixth of S. Iohn and they haue named the one baptism of wasshing and the other is called Christes body and blood of that substance whiche is geuen in it What should I name here S. Cyprian S. Basil S. Ambrose S. Augustine all the rest who reckon euery where the same truth of flesh to be in the 〈◊〉 which is concerning water in baptisme Therefore as the water which washeth vs is present really so must the fleshe of Christ which feedeth vs be made really present As baptisme can not be truely kept without naturall water so can not the supper of Christ be truely kept without his naturall flesh As if an euil maÌ„ come to baptism he is truly washed though not profitably to him self so if an euill man come to the supper of Christ he truly though not worthely receaueth his flesh As it is not enough for the Sracrament of baptism to haue water present in faith only and in spirite or vnderstanding so the presence of Christes flesh by faith spirite or vnderstanding only suffiseth not to make the Sacrament of his supper I pray you what vnderstanding had children wherewith they might receaue the body and blood of Christe and yet seing it is 〈◊〉 by the witnesse of S. Cyprian of S. â—…unocentius and of S. Augustin that children although without euident 〈◊〉 receaued the 〈◊〉 in many places of christendoÌ„ euen while the Churche was yet in his cheife floure it can not be denied but in that age all those Bishops Doctors and preachers which vsed to do so dyd well vnderstand that the receauing of the Eucharist consisted not in receauing Christ by actuall faith and meditation of his death and resurrection but in the vertue of those visible giftes which were sanctified by the Priestes vpon the holy altar of God and thence distributed to the faithfull people Tâ—…at custome of so auncient time vsed more for a securitie theÌ„ for necessitie yet was approued of God thus farre that we thereby might haue an 〈◊〉 witnesse of the learned farthers aucthority against them who doubt not to affirme all the writers and preachers of the first six hundred yeres after Christ to haue beleued of our Lords supper as the new preachers do now proâ—… in England But the new preachers make the substance of Christes supper to 〈◊〉 in faith in spirite and in vnderstanding And that not in 〈◊〉 saith whiche another man 〈◊〉 for me as it is dâ—…ne for 〈◊〉 antes at the 〈◊〉 bâ—…t teache tâ—…e â—…upper â—…o conâ—…ist in 〈◊〉 faith as euery man for him self bringeth and 〈◊〉 So that if a man thinke not of Christes death and lifting vp his hart doe not swetely feede vppon Christ sitting at the right hand of his Fa ther they say he doth not receaue our Lords body And they teach that he eateth nothing but breade and wine and toucheth nor the body and blood of Christ at all Of whoÌ„ I aske what S. 〈◊〉 what all the other Bishops of Aâ—…rica thought If they had thought so as these men doe they would not haue geueÌ„ the Eucharist to children and infants who could not â—…uminate Christes passion nor thinke vpon him sitting in heauen They doutlesse beleued farre otherwise of the Sacrament then so They beleued the body and blood of Christ to be really conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine and therefore that children might haue profite by receauing it into their verie bodies soules albeit they could not lift vp their mindes actually to heauen The matter in those daâ—…es dyd not stand vppon the faith of men but vpon the word of God who said this is my body This I say which I bid you take this whiche I geue this whiche I bid you eate What a toy is it nowe for our Sacramentaries to imagin an eating aboue the sky whereas the body is geuen to the Apostles hands mouthes by Christ himself and to the haÌ„ds or mouthes of other faithfull men by his ministers in earth ¶ That S. Augustine did not teach these words except ye eate the flesh c. to betoken the eating oâ—… Christ onâ—…y by faith and spirit nor yet the eating oâ—… materiall bread with 〈◊〉 remembrance of him but the eating of his flesh to theâ—…d we may be the better wyned to the spirit of God IF any speache sayth S. Augustin seme to command a dishonorable acte or vncharitable deed or to forbyd a profitable or benesiciall thing that speache conteineth some figure Fxcept ye eate sayth our Lord the slesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you He semeth to command a dishonorable act or an euyll deed It is therefore a figure coÌ„manding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord and yâ— we should swetely and profitably remember that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. This place of S. Augustine
verily meat For he sayd not only my flesh is true meat but it is truly meat It hath not only yâ— true nature of meat but also yâ— true maner of it for as verus cibus is true meat so is verè cibus truly meat As true meat is sayd in respect of the essentiall proprietie and effect of meat which is to nourish so is the flesh of Christ truly meat in respect of the maner of it because it is receaued in at the mouth goeth into the body after such sort as other meates doc although it nourish spiritually I haue sayd often tymes that Christ in this chapiter speaketh both of spirituall eating alone and besydes that of Sacramental eating together with spirituall He speaketh of spirtuall alone about the middest of the chapiter â—…raight after those words work the euerlasting meat which the sonne of man will geue you Which words are the generall theme to the whole Sermon folowing But of Sacramental eating as being the sâ—…cond part of his Sermon Christ speaketh specially and expresly from these words forward and the bread which I will geue is my flesh Whiles Christ was yet about the first part of his Sermon which beloÌ„geth to spiritual eating alone he sayd Patermeus daâ—… vobis panem de coelo verum My Father geueth you the true bread from heauen Qui credit in me non sitiet vnquam He that beleueth in me shall not thirâ—…t at any tyme. As Christ is only beleued on and only receaued by faith so he is panis verus the true bread or meate But when he was come to the second part of his Sermon where he spake of Sacramentall eating as well as of spirituall there he sayd for Pater meus dat ego dabo For verus verè In stede of my Father he sayth I in stede of doth geue he sayth I will geue In stede of him self to be true food he sayth His flesh is truly food There is in the second parte none other substance then was in the first to th' end we should vnderstand that Christ geueth in his Sacrament the same reall flesh which his Father gaue him when he came down from heauen by taking flesh But there is an other tyme of Christes gift at his last supper and an other sorte or maner of his geuing For that which God the Father gaue vnto the soules of the faithfull God the Sonne geueth to their bodies also And by that meanes he is not only true meate but also truly meate And that without all dark speaches or parables S. Hilarie well vnderstanding the strength of the same word Verè truly or verily or in dede presseth the old Arrians and new Sacramentaries therewith in this maner De naturali in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus nisi ab eo discimus stultè atque impiè dicimus ipse enim ait caro mea vere est esca caet Thus they are in English That we say concerning the naturall truth of Christ being in vs except we learue it of him we say it foolishly and vngodly For him self sayth My flesh is meate in dede and my blood is drink in dede he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him There is no place of doubting left concerning the truth of flesh and blood for now both by the profession of our Lord and by our own faith it is truly flesh and truly blood And these things taken and swallowed are the cause that we tary in Christ and Christ in vs. Is not this thing the truth It may well chaunce not to be true to them who denye Iesus Christ not to be true God S. Hilarie disputing in those words against the Arrians who wolde Christ to be one with his Father in will only doth proue that we also are one with Christ naturally by some â—…anes that is to say by naturall partaking of Christes flesh in his last supper And to proue that thinge albeit he might hauc brought many places out of the Ghospell or out of S. Paule yet 〈◊〉 to bring this place out of S. Ihon as the which he thought no lesse plaine then any other was And twise he repeteth that the flesh of Christ is truly meate Dâ—…ce as being spoken of God an other tyme as being also beleued of vs. and farther he affirmeth vppon this place that the flesh and blood of Christ being taken and swallowed bringe to passe that we are in Christ and Christ in vs. The taking of Christ by faith doth not proue S. Hilaries purpose for he must shew that we take Christ in body and nature euen as he defendeth Christ to be one nature and substance with his Father The being of Christes flesh in our bodies and the reall ioyning of the one to the other is that which S. Hilarie forceth vppon And therefore he sayth afterward that Christ naturaliter in nobis permanet tarieth naturally in vs. By that word naturally S. Hilarie expoundeth how he taketh the word Verè truly For he taketh it as if it were writen my flesh is to be naturally receaued of my Disciples as meate The which thing he had twise expressed before saying nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus We take yâ— word made flesh truly in our Lords meate And again Verè sub mysterio â—…arnem corporis sui sumimus We take the flesh of his body truly vnder a mysterie Lo by thies meanes the naturall veritie of Christ is in vs according as we learned of him saying My flesh is meate in dede All men knowe what we receaue into oure mouthes and bodies in Christes supper That very thing is affirmed of Christ to be his flesh And by that receauing of ours his flesh is truly meate S. Gregorie of Nyssa brother to S. Basile the greate warneth vs puro defaecatoque animo coelestem cibuÌ„ sumere To take the heauenly meat â–ª with a pure â–ª and cleane mind The which meat sayth he no sowing brought forth vnto vs by the arte of tilling the ground But it is bread prouided for vs without seed without sowing without any other worke of man It flowing from aboue is found in the earth for the bread which came downe from heauen which is the true meate which is obscurely meant by this historie of Manna is nor a thing without a body For by what meanes caÌ„ a thing without a body be made meate vnto the body The thing which is not without a body is by all meanes a body This blessed man alludeth euidently to the wordes of Christ in S. Iohn where he saith my flesh is meate in dede for the bread whiche came downe from heauen whiche is the trew meate is none other thing then the flesh of Christ. this kind of thing is not a spiritual thing that lacketh a body but it is a trew body how doth S. Gregorie proue it to be a trew body because it is made
to an other wax doth make one thing of twain which is the similitude made here by S. Tyrillus What like ioyning to that other similitude of the leauen can be if no leaueÌ„ that is to say no benediction or no flesh of Christ be receaued into vs which may draw vs to it What mingling together is made of things that be so far distant as heauen and earth If you say faith and spirit doth ioyne mingle knitte Christ to vs and vs to Christ and make vs to tarie in him and him to tarie in vs either you geue a cause of yâ— ioyning which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ or els you correct his cause and put a better If the faith spirit whereof you speake shal stand with Christes cause it must be such faith as doth concurre with the eating of his flesh For he now sayd not he that beleueth in me tarieth in me but he yâ— eateth my flesh tarieth in me Therefore though ye beleue neuer so wel yet your present tarying in Christ is not assigned to faith but vnto eating Faith is necessarie to worthy eating and coÌ„sequently to our tarying in Christ. But not euery ground which is necessarie to a thing is by and by yâ— cause thâ—…reof Or though it be one cause it is not the only cause In the former part of this chapiter saith had his due commendation But now Christ speaketh of eating his flesh and saith it maketh vs tary that is to say to be ioyned to him wholy and to be mingled with him as well in body as in soule which thing can not be otherwise then through that we eate his flesh substantially He that leauing that eating of Christes flesh staieth vpon feeding by faith alone correcteth the cause assigned by Christ and also depriueth vs of that naturall tarying in him whereof he now intreateth ¶ We are made one with Christ by natural participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his Father hath assumpted our nature into his own person HE that eateth Christes flesh tarieth in Christ and receaueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirit only but also by natural participation of his flesh which thing Christ declareth by this example As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue for the Father also he that eateth me shal him self liue for me But Christ liueth not for his Father by faith at all because he seeth his glorie face to face nor yet by the meane of spirit alone as we take spirit for deuotion or els for spiritual gifts and qualities but he liueth for his Father hauing his Fathers whole substance really present in him self therefore we that eating Christ liue in like maner for him must haue his whole substance really present in vs and so must we receaue life not by faith or spirit alone but by taking the flesh of life it self into our bodies and soules Thus veriâ—…ic Christ doth meane That we may reache to the true ground of this comparison it behoueth we lerne first how Christ liueth for his Father and then we may vnderstand how we receauing his flesh worthelie shall liue also for him Christ hauing two natures in one person may be sayd to liue for his Father according to either of bothe natures As God he liueth for his Father for that he is eternally begotten of him to whom the Father geâ—…eth his whole nature substance life glorie so that uo diâ—…ference is betwene the Father and the sonne but that the sonne is begotten of the Father and the Father is altogether vnbegotten and without any relation to a farther beginning This order wherein the sonne otherwise equall God 〈◊〉 his Father doth yet alwaies refer his generation and life to an euerlasting beginning is the cause why Christ as God liueth for his Father the which interpretation S. Hilarie S. Basile S. Chry sostom and S. Augustine doe confesse may well agree to this place Christ as man liâ—…eth for his Father because his Father sent him to take flesh whose flesh being of it self neither able to geue life euerlasting nor to haue it in his own nature yet for the word wherevnto it is vnited in one person both hath life and geueth life now the word is naturally one God and one life with the Father this second sense doth better please S. Basile S. Augustine and S. Cyril although they allow the former also but this second sense doth more agree with those words sicut misit me pater as my Father sent me For the sending of Christ was the taking of flesh at his incarnation bothe senses agree herein that both life is really and corporally dwelling in Christes flesh through the Godhead and the Godhead is naturally with Christ through that he is the sonne of God the Father Two things are to be noted in this comparison the one is the real presence of life the other is the hauing of it by gift and by relation to a farther cause or beginning For as Christes flesh liueth for the word of God to whom it is really vnited and the word of God liueth for the Father whose whole substaÌ„ce it hath really receaued by generation without beginning of tyme so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ hauing the substance of his flesh really present with him and thereby partaketh life euerlasting This verie sense Christes words haue both by the conference of the text it self and also by the interpretation of S. Hilarie who by this scripture confuteth the Arrians that sayd Christ to be inferiour to his Father not to be equall God with him To mainteine the which heresie they brought foorth a similitude of vnitie which is made in holy scripture betwene God the Father Christ and vs affirming Christ to be one with his Father as we are one with him but sayd they we are one with Christ only by will and consent therefore Christ is one with his Father only after the same sort to which argument S. Hilarie answering turneth it vpon their own heads in this wise Viuit ergo per patrem quomodo per patrem viuit eodem modo nos per carnem eius viuemus omnis enim comparatio c. Christ then liueth by his Father and as he liueth by his Father after the same maner we shal liue by his flesh for euery comparison is presumed to be made according to the forme and concept of our vnderstanding to thintent the matter whereof we intreat may be so perceaued as the example geueth which is proponed This truly is the cause of our life in so much as we haue Christ abyding by flesh in vs who consist of flesh and he shall liue through him by such condition as he liueth through his Father Yf we then liue through him naturally according to flesh that is to wit hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can he but haue naturally the Father
him self to be almyghty God He said also that it was profytable because he that dyd eate his flesh and drinke his blood should be raised againe to life euerlasting If they had beleued him in these pointes they might haue asked yea without asking they had knowen at or not long after his last supper the maner how it should haue bene coÌ„ueniently done as those Apostles did know who continued in their belefe And the way of knowledge was at his last supper where taking breade with speaking of these wordes this is my body he changed the substance of the breade into his body and wylled his disciples to take and eate his body This much those could not fre because thei would not beleue but to say that Christ hyndred their belefe by words more hard then neded that is more cruelly sayd thê it neded Oportebat c. they ought saith S. Cyril first of al to cast the rootes of faith in their mind and then to aske the thinges that were to be asked but the Iewes asked importunely before they beleued for this cause our Lord shewed them not how it might be brought to passe aâ—…terward S. Cyrill declareth how Christ in his last supper shewed yâ— maner also to theÌ„ who dyd beleue although they asked not for it ¶ The right vnderstanding of those words It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing I May be the shorter in this point because none of those who are meanely conuersant in the bookes of auncient writers though otherwyse they beleue not well haue applied these words against the reall presence of Christes body in his last supper for how can it be that Christes fleshe which is geuen for the life of the world should profite nothing Therefore S. Basil S. Chrysostom and S. Augustin do expound the name of flesh after one sort for the fleshly and carnall vnderstanding of the Iewes who thought they should haue eaten Christ as men eat mutton and beefe whereas Christ meant to geue his flesh in a secret maner as the faithful know which notwithstaÌ„ding the Luciferian spirit of Caluin reproueth this first vnderstanding in his comments vppon this place But it is sufficient to say that he difsented from those three notable pillers of Gods Church before named The second vnderstanding is on Christes behalf whose flesh should not profit any thing if the spirit that is to say the Godhead did not make it able to geue vs euerlasting life The which sense is chiefly followed by S. Augustin also and by S. Cyrillus Now seing the flesh of Christ is geuen so to vs vnder the foorm of bread that the Godhead is present with it we are sure to haue much profit by it What nede moe words If this saying appertem not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our belefe If it doe appertein to it the words are Propheticall because they speake before hand of a thing which most certeinly shall come to passe in the last supper and then the fulfilling of them will make them plaine For as Procopius saith A prophecie at the first sight is not clere but when it is come to the euent which was forespoken and is coÌ„ferred with the thing it self then draweth it to a perfit clerenes If now the sayd words were fulsilled at the supper and take a clere vnderstaÌ„ding thereof what meaning can they haue but that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spiritual sort not after a fleshely maner He gaue not a shoulder to one Apostle and a legg to an other a brest to the third and a ribbe to the fourth but the whole body to euery 〈◊〉 not visible in the forme of flesh but inuisible in the forme of bread so making plaine why he had so often called him selfe bread and said that the bread which he would geue is his flesh He gaue not his body without his soule and Godhead neither his blood without his bones and flesh but the spirite quickened al things eche kinde had whole Christ. He lost not his visible body by geuing of it but by his words which are spirit and life turned bread and wine into his body and blood shewing yâ— as he was at the table in his whole body notwithstanding they did eate the same body so he might be in heauen although the sub stance of his true body and blood were geuen in his Sacrament in earth What shall I say more If the vnderstanding of these words depend vpon the last supper they must not geue vs a rule how to vnderstand the last supper but they must take their vnderstanding of it Who dare say that bread was crucified for vs because Ieremie sayd Mittamus lignum in panem eius let vs put wood into his bread Do we not rather say that because we are sure that the true flesh of Christ was crucified therefore in Ieremie bread is taken for flesh Who dare say that Christ had hornes in his hands because Habacuk said Cornua in manibus eius Do we not rather say that by hornes he meante the corners of the crosse because we are sure that Christ had vpon the crosse no materiall hornes in his hands If then these words the spirit quickeneth be referred to the supper and there we finde bread wine taken and after blessing body and blood geuen we may be well assured that one truth doth not take away the other Spirit doth not take away flesh but spirit must be taken for the Godhead which maketh the flesh both to be present and profitable to all such as receaue it worthely ¶ The words of Christ being spirit and life shew that his reall flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of nature and reason VErba quae ego locutus sum vobis spiritus vita sunt The words which I haue spoken or as the greke text readeth which I doe speake to you are spirit and life The Capharnaits hearing Christ say he wold geue his flesh to be eaten partly thought it not possible for him to geue partly not semely for them selues to take They imagined a diuisioÌ„ of yâ— flesh which should be deliuered and consequently the person whose flesh were cut in such peeces must die but how could a dead man geue his own flesh to be eaten Again though he could doe it what a cruel thing were it for them to eate mans flesh Christ knowing this theyr grosse concept sayth that the sonne of man wil ascend into heauen where he was before Thereby declaring first his almighty power and Godhead Next that the gift of his flesh doth not import the lacke of life either in yâ— geuer or in the thing geueÌ„ For theÌ„ in dede the gift should be litle worth because it is the spirit life which quickeneth dead flesh profiteth nothing to euerlasting life My words sayth Christ be spirit and life that is to say they
nourishments because the only spirit shall suffise to nourish it qua causa etiam spiritale erit for which cause also the body shal be spiritual now as after resurrection the spiritual being which our bodies shal haue doth not diminish the truthe of their nature but declareth a wonderful abettering of them in that they be made in maner equal to spiritual substances euen so the body of Christ in his supper is spiritual not for any lack of his true substance vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine but because it is wholy possessed and replenished with the Godhead and is present after the maner of a spirit as being neither sene nor felt nor tasted but only beleued And therefore this blessed Sacrament is worthely called of the Churche at the consecration of the blood yea as I think it is called of S. Paule also mysterium fidei the mysâ—…erie of faith because it secretly coÌ„teineth vnder the formes of bread ond wine the flesh the blood the soule and the spirit or Godhead of Iesus Christ. The which mysterie of faith the Deacons vsed to deliuer to the faithful after consecration as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse and therefore S. Paule willed the Deacons to vse that mysterie of faith with a pure and cleane conscience To be short The Sacramentaries abuse yâ— word of God miserablie when they talk of the spirit and of the flesh of Christ in such sort as they do For Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing meaning only the corruptible flesh of a bare man who is no God The Sacramentaries expound it as if it were sayd it is nothing worth to eate Christes own flesh really but only it is profitable to fede on it by faith Christ sayd it is the spirit that quickeneth meaning the Godhead to make his flesh profitable vnto vs. They take it so as though the spirit alone did qâ—…icken vs at his last supper without eating his fleshe really Christ by naming the spirit reuoketh â—…ot the real gift of his flesh the eating whereof he auouched to be necessarie for vs. They vse it contrarily to proue his flesh to be geuen vs really in his last supper as though he had corrected his former words Christ meant to adde more dignitie and worthinesse to the eating of his flesh then is in other mens flesh because the spirit made it alone quick aliue and profitable They endeuour by the precense of the word spirit to say he wold not geue his flesh to be eaten in dede and so abuse that name to the diminishing of his inestimable gift Christ sayd my words are spirit that is to say of diuine power proceding from God They imagin he sayd my words be vnproper and cropicall or parabolicall as being only true by an allegory Christ meant his words to procede from his own spirit and maiesty and thereâ—…ore to be true aboue the course of nature They expoâ—…nd theÌ„ as if he had sayd you must care my flesh in your spirit only not in very dede Thus they wreast that to the spirit of maÌ„ which Christ said of the spirit of God and vnder this ambiguitie of words they couer theyr poisoued doctrine Christ would vs to vnderstand spiritually the reall â—…ating of his reall flesh because he would geue it vs without losse of his own body without lothsomnes of our stomacks and without remouing from his own place in heauen They apply the spirituall vnderstanding of eating his flesh to take away the real â—…ating of it as though he that vnderstandeth a thing spiritually should not therefore eate that really which he vnderstandeth to be mysticall The substance of Christes flesh eaten is the ground of that mystery figure Sacrament or spiritual vnderstanding which Christ spake of Because he would them to eate his flesh not to fil theyr bellies but to signifie and partake yâ— merits otherwise done in that flesh They taking away the ground of the figure which is Christes fleshe adde of theyr own iâ—…ention bread wine to be the grouÌ„d of this figure and of the spirituall vnderstanding They making Christes spiritual words tropicall and gramatically â—…iguratiue abase theÌ„ beneth yâ— condition of coÌ„mon words For a proper word iâ—… of more dignitie then an improper and meÌ„ for the most part speake properly Christ sayd my words are life meaning theÌ„ to be so proper that they performe whatsoeuer they promise or speake as hauing the propriety of the Godhead which is most far from all figures shadowes and changes They make them dead words For seing the mind of the speaker vttered in plain words is yâ— life of the words the same words vttering the speakers mind obscurely are as dead and without life vntil they be expouÌ„ded What shal I say more they take these words to be figuratiue in such sort that they make theÌ„ inferiour to the common words of mortall men who neuer ligthtly vse yâ— words flesh and blood for the signes of flesh and blood but for the substances of them and muche lesse doe they vse flesh and blood so to signifie bread and wine that the same bread and wine must again signifie Christes fleshe and blood as I haue noted before that the Sacramentaries are constrained to say if they will defend theyr false and 〈◊〉 doctrine the which I praie God they may haue grace to see and to amend The preface of the fourth booke VUe haue shewed what proufes may be brought out of Christes promise at Capharnaum for his reall and corporal presence in the Eucharist it remaineth we nowe declare the same truth by that whiche he performed in his last supper And because the chefe controuersie is whether the words of Christ do meane as they sound or els must be taken otherwise I wil first make it plaine that they ought to be taken properly as they sound to men of common vnderstanding vntill an euident reason be brought why they must be meant vnproperly therewithal I shew that no reason is now to be heard for the vnproper interpretation of them because the tyme of all such allegatioÌ„s is expired more then fiften hundred yeres past for so much as the whole Church is in possession of the proper meaning Afterward I wil proue the proper literall meaning of those words by the circumstances of the supper by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old and newe testament and last of all by the commandement whiche was geuen the Apostles to continue the Sacrament of Christes supper vntill he come to iudge the worlde If in conferring the promise with the performance or by any other occasion I chance to say somwhat whiche was before touched I must aske pardon thereof as who endeuore partly to make al things playne partly to confirme the present matter whereof I speake by such conuenient allegations as for the tyme come to my remembrance Once I am sure it is not a thing affected of me to say the same thing oft albeit either the affinitie
〈◊〉 of Godhed dwellech corporally in Christes flesh so his flesh râ—…ally eaten of vs with due faith charitie is a maruelouse instrument to geue vs the euerlasting meate and to ioyne vs most 〈◊〉 to the spirit of God Marke well that concerninge the eating God by saith and minde we approue it as a speciall good thinge but we say farther that God came in flesh to be eaten in flesh of them that consist of flesh And therefore hauing sayd my Father geueth you the true bread from heauen and I am the bread of life which hitherto is meant to be eaten by faith he also goeth forward promising an eating to come herafter that is to say in his last supper and thereof saith the bread which I will geue is my flesh and he that eateth me tarieth in me The same Christ commeth in his owne person to performe yâ— former promise not saying only beleue ye in God and in me as I teache you but saying and doing that is to wit taking blessing geuing and saying take eate this is my body which is geuen for you 〈◊〉 this only pointe were depelie pondered it semeth to me that the almightie speaker so sent so promising and so doing ought to be of suche aucthoritie that nothing should staye vs to beleue that externall thing to be his body whereof he sayd this is my body Let vs now adde hereunto the wisedome the prouidence the truthe and the goodues of yâ— speaker who wold not of purpose blind his owne spouse with siguratiue wordes both of promise and of performance and yet the one ioyned with the other and the person who both speaketh and doth well considered make to men of reason suche persuasion of a proper speache that no sufficient cause is lefte why to presume those wordes to be figuratiue Of this first circumstance Eusebius Emissenus writeth Ad cognoscendum percipiendum sacrificium veri corporis ipsa te roboret potentia consecrantis Let the very power of him that consecrateth it strengthen thee to know to perceaue the sacrifice of the true body Again recedat omne 〈◊〉 ambiguum qui auctor est muneris ipse etiam testis est veritatis Let al doutfulnes of insidelity depart he that is the authour of the gift is him self also the witnes of the truthe ¶ The second circumstance may be to consyder the tyme when the supper was made THe tyme of speaking was the nyght before Christ departed out of this world at what tyme men are wonte to speake most plainly And S. Paule himself noted that circumstance saying our lord in the night that he was betrayed toke bread c. For when the howre of death draweth nere men vse manifestly to shew their last wil without al figures tropes as nighe as the matter will suffer And how much more wold the wisedom of God vse wordes warily in this case specially seing S. Augustin witnesseth that he gaue this Sacrament after supper when his passion was at hand to thintent the highnes of the mysterie might the better sticke in the hartes and memorie of the disciples whereas otherwise the Churche is taught by the holy ghost to receaue this Sacrament fasting for the honour saith S. Augustine of so great a Sacrament Let vs now a litle weigh with our selues whether any good and discrete man knowing his parting hower out of this world to be at hand will speake of purpose such words of ordeining matters to be done after his death the which words he foreseeth wil cause his heyres either to synne greuously if they obserue theÌ„ plainly as they should or els to haue an inward dissensioÌ„ if some affirme them to be plaine others denying and 〈◊〉 them â—…o be figuratiue for if Christes words be in dedt figuratiue the Catholiks synne both in teaching the contrarie and in adoring Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and 〈◊〉 which thing they are constrained to doe by the force of the words and then they are giltie of 〈◊〉 who possiblie can find no cause why they should not beleue their master so speakig and doing as he spake and did and thus lieth the â—…ander vpon Christ himself but if the words be in dede plain then Christ is purged and the only sault is in them who will not beleue I think it far the better to beleue the wonderfull discretioÌ„ of Christ â—… so 〈◊〉 him to mistrust the infidelite of wicked men ¶ The third circumstance concerning the persons who were at the last supper THe hearers were his twelue Apostles who should instructe yâ— who le world of that which they lerned of Christ in this very busines whereof we talke and so they did neuer leauing in any peece of all their writinges or preachinges that Christ leste a figure of his body without the very truthe thereof conteined in the Sacrament of the altar To the same Apostles it was geuen to know and vnderstand the mysteries of the kingdom of heauen whereâ—…ore it is very iueredible that the greatest mysterie of the whole Church was either hidden from them by Christ or by them hidden from vs. Yet it can not be denied but it is in some part hidden if that words which report it be figuratiue and parabolicall for parables are spoken as Christ himself witnesseth out of Esaias the Prophet so that men hearing doe not vnderstaÌ„d in hart the things which are spoken Thyrdly the Apostles were those who taried with Christ at Capharnaum where he promised his flesh and blood therefore if Christ had then spoken figuratiuely to the people yet now at the least he should and wold haue declared the matter more plainly and so he did in dede not verilie adding any word which might shew his former talke to haue beue figuratiue conceruing the substance of flesh to be eaten the substance of wine to be drunken but only teaching the maner of geuing them his flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to be figuratiue and mystical because they are not geuen to fill the bellie but to fede the soule not so much for the fleshes sake which we 〈◊〉 as for yâ— spirit Godhead which replenisheth that flesh of Christ. ¶ The fourth circumstance concerning the ending of the old passouer and the making of a new THe occasion mouing Christ at his last supper rather then at any other tyme to say ouer bread This is my body and ouer wine This is my blood was the setting and placing of the new Paschal Lamb in stede of yâ— old For least his Churche should be without a mysticall sacrifice called according to the law of Moyses a passouer that is to say a sacrifice betokening our passing ouer the sea of synne and our 〈◊〉 to the Land of grace and life which we looke for as sone as the old Lamb was eateÌ„ and the tyme come that shadowes and figures should be fultilled by
the death of Christ the true passouer and the true Lamb of God Straight way he began to make this new Sacrament in stede of the old Paschall Lamb that the Churche of Christ might haue a new oblation which should conteine really the true Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world For as Leo the great sayeth Vetus Testamentum consummabat nouum Pascha condebat he ended the old Testament and made a new passouer As therefore the old Paschall Lamb was really present and really eaten so much more the true passouer Iesus Christ in yâ— banket which him self instituted is really present to be really eateÌ„ except we shal say yâ— his â—…ew banket is lesse true and really then the old was or that the old being an vndoubted figure of the new did not by the eating thereof declare that the new Paschall Lamb Iesus Christ should be also eaten not only by saith which kind of eating Christ both Moyses and Phinees had but euen externally vnder the forme of bread the which kind of eating Christes flesh the old Fathers had not because the law brought nothing to perfection but we haue it because the truth is made by Iesus Christ who deliuered vs his own flesh to be eaten really and in dede ¶ The fyfth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper AS the ending of the old ceremonie moued Christ to institute a new so the ioye which he tooke of that change was so great yâ— he could not forbeare but sayd to his Apostles Desy derio desyderaui hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum antéquaÌ„ patiar I haue desired with desire to eate this passouer with you before I suffer And as S. Chrysostom witnesseth he did really receaue the mysteries at his supper to incourage his Disciples to receaue them without all scruple or feare Neither doth it skill to my purpose whether the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb or to the nâ—…w If they be referred to the new alone Christ desireth only to eate his own body with his Apostles But Christ could not eate it by faith deuotion sith he had it present in a better maner then so therefore by shewing him self desirouse of eating it and by his owne eating it we learn that it is his own reall substance not only an effectuall sigâ—…e thereof And it is not to be wondered that he will gladly eate his own flesh namely in such an vnspeakable mysterie as him self hath prepared because thereby as S. Chry sostom writeth he encouraged his Apostles not to be afeard therâ—…of And why should not Christ doe that thing for our great profite seing that other men haue often tymes eaten their own flesh euen in a grosse manâ—…r either for hunger or for anger or phansie without doing so great good to them selues or to any other as Christ in this fact hath done to all his Churche Or is it more straunge to eate his own flesh in so miraculouse a maner as it is present in then voluntarily to geue the same flesh to shamful death for our sakes Marke that I say Christ did eate his own flesh not as butchers and cookes dresse it but in so pure a sort as Angels feede on it by hauing it really present with them and yet in so true a sort as men receaue meat into their bodies For herein man eateth Angels foode in that he eateth the same spirit of God in Christes flesh the which feedeth the Angels really in heauen Now for Christ to eate his own body in truth of substance after that Angelicall maner it is no absurditie at all But for him to eate it by faith it were a thing cleane impossible And to eate it in abare figure without saith it were to lack the chief point that is requisite to the worthy receauing of the Sacrament If the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb the 〈◊〉 yet is all one because it is certein he desired not to eate the old Lamb for the Lambs sake but only for that it was the last eating of the Lamb as the which was out of hand to be taken away and to haue the flesh of the true Lamb of God geuen to the faithfull in stede thereof In either of â—…oth ways the desire and ioye of Christ was not finally for eating the Paschall Lamb wherein according to the Prophets words he had no delight but for the eating of his own passouer which can be none other thing besyde his own flesh Therefore Tertullian expounding this matter noteth well Indignum esse vt quid alienum concupisceret Deus How it were vnsemely that God should desier any thing which were other then his own With whom S. Chrysostom agreing writeth Non solummodo Pascha sed hoe in quo cum praeterijsset figura peracta erat veritas Christ desired not simply a passouer but this passoner wherein the figure being passed ouer the truth was celebrated And as he sayeth in an other place Wherein he wold deliuâ—…r the mysteries and new things vnto vs. Lo that which Christ desired was the truth it self to wit his own substance because it being vnited to yâ— Godhead was the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure and that substance is the meate of Christes supper and not only the eating thereof by faith ¶ The sixth circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament WHereas Christ through all his life had loued his Church he both continued that his loue euen to the last end of his life and spent his own life for the same loue and most euidently shewed that his loue the night before his passion first by wasshing most humbly his Apostles seete and then by geuing his own body and blood vnto them in so much that the said Sacrament is thereof called Signum vnitatis vinculum charitatis The signe of vnitie and the bond of charitie Whereof S. Chrystom writeth thus Christ hath mingled him self together with vs hath tempered his body into vs to th end we may be made one â—…rtein thing as it were a body ioyned to the head ArdeÌ„ter enim amantium hoc est For that is a point of them who loue feruently the like he saith also vpon S. Paul Seing now loue was one of the causes which moued Christ to institute this holie Sacrament let vs coniecture by that circumstance whether it be more like yâ— he leaft a peece of wheaten bread for a signe of his loue or els left the best greatest iewel he had to wit his own substance vnder the form of bread to witnesse yâ— same excessiue loue towards vs. I thinke it more then probable that sithens he was able to geue the substaÌ„ce of his own body to vs by turning bread into it and hauing taking bread said after thanks geueÌ„ this is my body I think it more then probable that his great loue
the bread of Christes supper to wit the subsâ—… of his own body is one to all But the eating by faith is not one to all It is the body which is one Therefore 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople writeth Post eleuationem statim partitio diuini corporis fit Verum enim vero tametsi in partes diuiditur indiuiduus insectus in singulis partibus sectorum totus agnoscitur inuenitur Aster the eleuation which among the Breakes was done immediatly before the communion by by a partition of the diuine body is made But truly although he be diuided into parts yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided 〈◊〉 and whole in euery part of the things which are cut what is this to say but that the forme of bread is only broken and the substance of Christes body 〈◊〉 whole vnder euery peece of the sayd 〈◊〉 But what speake I of the Fathers S. Paule sayeth The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body Because we being many are one bread one body For so much as we all partake of the one bread If the bread be broken how partake we all of one bread That which is broken is not according to the course of nature one in number And surely the Corinthians had more then one loaf which was broken among them And yet S. Paule hauing shewed that we breake a kind of bread sayeth Be we neuer so many we partake all of the one bread How is that but because the bread which we breake is no materiall bread but how many loaues so euer there were before after it is once sayd 〈◊〉 them This is my body euery one of them is turned into that one bread which is Iesus Christ. And that bread is distributed vnder the formes of commoÌ„ bread and so is the scripture instified which sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body And therefore that body being one bread it self maketh all vs one bread which partake of that one bread ¶ The xiij circumstance of geuing It is not to be thought that Christ deliuered first the fragmeÌ„ts of bread vnto his Apostles and then sayd the words of consecration for then he had not deliuered them a Sacrament but only had geuen them the matter and element whereof the Sacrament should be made but seing S. Paule saith yâ— bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body we must rather iudge that he had consecrated his body before he brake as who intended by breaking to distribute the Sacrament which was already made And consequentlie as the Sacrament was made being yet in Christes own handes or lying vppon the table before him so it was deliuered with his own hands and by none other way that euer I can reade of vnto his Apostles but Christ had willed them before not to work the perishing but the euerlasting meate which the sonne of man should geue them which he shewed afterward to be his flesh and now fulfilling his promise he geueth the same euerlasting meate with his own hands which could not be so except the sayd euerlasting meate were vnder the form of bread or in the chalice which only the Apostles doe see in Christes hands therefore it is inuincibly proued by the word of God that Christes body which is the euerlasting meate was and is geuen to them that communicate vnder the formes of bread and wine What soeuer is sayd of spirituall meate comming down from heauen as to be a part of Christes supper it is vtterly voyd and without all ground of Christes institution wherein that Apostles are bound to rest vppon that onlye which Christ doth corporally geue and when he is readen to geue the which was done with his hands for vs at the same tyme to looke beyond him as if an other way more might be had then at his own hands it is a horrible blasphemie and a reprouing of his gift as insufficient He sayd I will geue you the euerlasting meate the Ghospell saith he gaue at his supper saying this is my body the Catholikes beleue that he theÌ„ gaue the same euerlasting meate which he had promised to wit his own flesh and blood the Sacramentaries say he gaue it not with his own hands I say there is none other way of geuing mentioned in the supper and yet there only was the flesh of Christ to be geuen as the Sacrament it self declareth being called the body and blood of Christ. I allege S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke S. Paule where it is writen that Christ brake and gaue I think our 〈◊〉 will not deuie that gift of his to haue bene made with Christes corporal handes â–ª therein I beleue his promisse to haue bene fulfilled therein the spirituall and euerlasting meate to haue bene deliuered S. Iohn witnesseth that Christ said dabo I wil geue the which is not meant only of a geuing by faith for so Christ had alreadie geuen his flesh to diuerse men but it was meant of geuing by hands after which sort he had not yet geuen now the other fower 〈◊〉 before witnesse that our lord in his supper dedit gaue I say this later word fulfilled the former promise I aske our Sacramentaries what other Ghospell they can bring forth wherein Christ fulfilled at any tyme his promise of geuing the bread which was his flesh and the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting pardon me good reader if in so weightie a matter zeale force to 〈◊〉 out vpoÌ„ these false preachers of Gods word You cruell murderers of Christian soules where is that euerlasting meate geuen by your false glosing which Christ promised and called it his flesh is it not geuen at his own supper where then is it geuen at Christes table by which word shew you that gift if not by the word dedit he gaue if that word shew it that word signifieth a gift of that which was broken mystically deliuered with Christes hands appearing still bread therefore vnder the forme of that bread Christes flesh was geuen which is the meate that tariâ—…th to life euerlasting I speake so earnestly to th' end I might prouoke you to come to the trial of these effectual points in Gods word ¶ The xiiii Circumstance of saying WOrds be somtyme applied to the decking and garnishing of á matter the which without theÌ„ might doe right wel albeit it doth the better through their help But when the thing standeth so that either nothing at al can be vnderstanded without words or the cheife part of the businesse wil be hindered for lack of theÌ„ in that case they are by al meanes as most necessarie so most diligently to be obserued as for example we could know nothing that belongeth to 〈◊〉 matters if God reueled it not vnto vs by his only soÌ„ne by Angels Apostles prophets or other his seruants For this reason those words are moste carefully to be weighed which
seede of man but formed and conceaued of the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin in the which manhod of Christ the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth corporally As for those places where Christ sayth Poore men shall ye haue with you always but me ye shall noâ—… haue And he is rysen he is not here And whiles Christ blessed his Disciples he went from them and was caried into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father vntil the end of the world with such like they â–ª are not to be conferred with these words This is my body because they speake of a naturall being of Christ and not of such a being as is peculiar vnto the Sacrament of Christes supper Neither is it possible that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉 should impugne yâ— other sith Christ hath ordâ—…ed both the Church did 〈◊〉 always both together Christ ascended into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father and leauing vs the beleefe thereof as a chief article of our faith Christ made his own supper saying This is my body and commaunded his Apostles and their succâ—…s to make the same saying Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore neither the making of Christes body neither the belefe thereof can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father Agayne sith nothing is impossible to God albeit that which imploietâ—… coÌ„tradiction in it self be therefore impossiple because it repugneth to the truth it self which is in God it is not possible to God yâ— yâ— body of Christ should both be in heauen after one visible sorte and in the Sacrament after a mysticall sorte It were in dede impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heauen and not to be in heauen Or to be in the Sa crament and not to be there in the same respect but to be in heauen and in the Sacrament or to be in many places at once that maketh no 〈◊〉 but onely sheweth an allmighty and infinite power in him who worketh it Of this minde all the Church of God hath bene hitherto and therefore it hath beleued as well the sitting of Christ at his Fathers râ—…ht hand in heauen as the reall presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar Yea it hath beleued the one because of the other For in so much as Christ is so almighty as to sit at the right hand of God he is able to performe his owne word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar And therefore in the sixte of S. Ihon when he spake of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood which he wold geue he also declared that he wold goe vp into heauen in his manhood where he was before in his Godhead And that thing he spake as S. Cyrillus hath noted to declare that he was God and therefore able to worke that which he spake of in so much as his words were spirit and life For this cause Chrysostom cryeth out ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem Qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodnes of God He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same very momenâ—… of tyme is touched with the hands of all men and deliuereth himself to those that wil receaue and imbrace him Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur Seme these things to thee worthy to be despised neglected Sacra nostra non modò mira esse videbis sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia Thou shalt perceaue our holy things not only to be wonderfull but also to excede all wondringe and astonyng of the mynd Yf then we vnderstand that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lords supper and no contradiction at all to any other partes of our belefe we may be sure that none other article of our crede doth driue vs to miscredit the reall presence of Christes body and blood in his owne supper And therefore where we dispute of his last supper we must examine yâ— meaning of yâ— words which were spokeÌ„ there according to other places of yâ— Scriptures which belong vnto yâ— last supper The places apperteyning to Christes last supper according to the interpretation of ancient doctors are these the later part of the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn the supersubstantiall bread in the 6. of S. Mathew and the supper it self in the 62. of S. Mathew in the 14. of S. Marke the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapiter of the first epiâ—…le of S. Paule to the Corinthians in the 5. to the Ephesians in the 2. chapiter of the first epistle to Timotheus in the 13. to the Hebrewes in the 2. 13. and 20. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles In all which places other if there be any like we finde much to conâ—…e the reall presence but nothing to leade vs to a siguratiue meaninge These wordes which be in S. Iohn the flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quickeneth my wordes be spirit and life be declared in the former booke when we disputed of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn ¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament for that it semeth in many places to be called bread euen aâ—…ter consecration and that aswell in S. Iohn as in S. Paule and in the Actes of the Apostles noman I say ought vppon this slender argument to change his belefe otherwise grounded vpoÌ„ so plaine scriptures the faith of yâ— Church so generally receaued but rather he ought to lern the cause why the body of Christ is most iustly called bread in this SacrameÌ„t The custome of speaking in holy scriptures came chefely from the Hebrew tonge wherein the old Testament was writen as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paule to the Hebrewes were The residue of the Apostles and Euangelistes albeit they wrote in Greeke they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their wordes Bread in the Hebrew tonge his called Lehem and commeth of the verbe Laham whyche signifieth to â—…ate so that al which man may eate is meant by the Hebrew worde Lehem as wel bread as flesh or fruytes in so much that sometyme it signifieth only flesh as the Hebrew Doctors haue noted out of the sixte and seuenth chapiter of Iob. Now yâ— Apostles and Euangelistes writing also in Greeke haue put for the Hebrew word Lehem the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that translated the scriptures into latin haue turned it into panis and we in our vulgar tonge name it bread by which meanes it cometh to passe that the Greeke Latine and English worde must be takeÌ„ in holy scriptures
which words all the Fathers haue called the words of consecration The reall blood of Abel was taken into yâ— mouth of yâ— sensible earth They deny the Church which is the earth of God to take the blood of Christ into her sensible mouth whereas S. Augustine sayth Terra quae ore accepit sanguinem Ecclesia est The Church is the earth which hath taken the blood in her mouth The blood of Abel cried from the bowels of the earth to God They deny the blood of Christ to cric to God out of our bowels Abel figured both the supper and passion of Christ They deny Christ to haue fulfilled the figure concerning his supper Abel offered him selfe two ways once vnder a signe and again in the visible truth of nature They deny Christ to haue offered him self vnder any signe but only in yâ— visible truth of his nature The deuil had the more power vppon â—…ain because he came to the high office of sa crificing vnworthely They graunting that Satan entred into Iudas at the banket of Christ yet deny Christ to haue made a sarifice there And so coÌ„fessing that Iudas did eate vnworthely they will not confesse the worthines of the thing eaten To be â—…hort the Sacramentaries who teach bread and wine which are fruites of the earth to remaine in theyr owne earthly nature not hauing the body and blood of Christ offered vnder the formes of them and accepted make the supper of Christ to be like the earthly fruites of Cain who neither him selfe went about to change them neither obteined to haue yâ— earthly grossenes of theÌ„ pâ—…rged with fieâ—… from heaueÌ„ neither offered his owne body and blood vnder the outward signes of them but keping backe that which was of most price he offered only a few base fruites of the earth geuing an example for his part what a base and â—…arthly communion heretikes would set vp directly against the blessed sacrifice of Abel which in all pointes Christ fulfilled the Catholikes doe kepe and folowe If I should haue handled euery member of this comparison at large thou maiest iudge good Reader how great a booke it would haue made In matters of the old Tâ—…stament I had rather be short then tediouse which excuse I desire thee to accept throughout euery part of all this whole chapiter ¶ The figure of Melchisedech THe Sacramentaries deny yâ— Christ exercised any Priestly office after the order of Melchisedech in his last supper As though â—…elchisedech did not bring forth bread and wine and Christ like wise did not take at his last supper bread wine Melchisedech did blesse and Christ blessed Melchisedech gaue thankes to God and Christ gaue thankes The thing blessed by Melchisedech was Abraham And the thing made by Christes blessing was his owne body the seede of Abraham Melchisedech gaue thankes to God for the victory of Abraham by coÌ„secrating the person him self who was the conquerour saying Blessed be Abraham to the high God So did Christ make his â—…charist yâ— is to say he gaue his thankes to God for the victory obteined at his death by consecrating the selfe same body which died and wherein he wan the field saying This is my body which is geueâ—… for you And yet did not Christ at his supper sulfill the whole order of Mâ—…lchisedech The weakest and basest thing that Melchisedech had in all his Priesthod was the bringing forth of bread and wine At yâ— which he staied not but went forward to blesse Abraham the end of his sacrifice And now the Sacramentaries make Christ to staie vpoÌ„ the substance of bread and wine without going forward by blessing to make there of his blessed body the seede of Abraham Melchisedech gaue his bread to Abraham to the ende it being eaten of him might be made a better substance in his flesh then it was in it selfe But Christ geueth not vs the naturall substance of common bread for coÌ„mon bread profiteth nothing but Christ changeth it into a better substancâ—… verily into the substance of his owne flesh to the ende we eating his flesh might be made a better and more holy substance whiles we abide in Christ whom we eate and to whom we are vnited The Sacramentaries who confesse Melchisedech to haue had Abraham really present as it were in his handes at the tune of blessing and consecrating him to God denie Christ to haue had his owne body and blood present in his handes at the time of his blessing and consecrating which he made in his last supper As though Melchisedech were the figure of Christ because Christ who is the truth should haue lesse then he had Melchisedech in the shew of bread and wine shewed an image of the supper of Christ. But vnder his image he had not present the reall truthe because an image of a liuely thing made in a dead kind of stuff or matter differeth from the chief paterne in substance But Christ acknowleging his owne image in the sacrifice of Melchisedech kept the formes of bread and wine because they were images and formes of the priesthod which he excersiced in his supper but he changed the inward substance of them for so much as the substance of bread and wine were not the substance of his priesthod And in dede an artificiall image of a liucly thing made by man neuer can haue the truth it selfe vnder it whose image it beareth but when Christ had put the substance of his owne flesh vnder the formes of bread and wine then was the image and shadow of Melchisedech fulfilled with the truthe which it signified And so is the whole Tatholike faith perfitly shadowed by conferring the figure of Melchisedech with the supper of Christ. ¶ The figure of the 〈◊〉 Lambe THe paschall Lambe was taken vp that tenth daie of yâ— first moone that fourtenth daie at night it was after y◠〈◊〉 thereof wholy offered and 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 bread the blood being sprinkled ouer and vpon both postes of the dore Christ is the Lambe of God who in his owne person came to 〈◊〉 the tenth daie of yâ— first moneth being receiued with great triumph in somuch that daie tooke thereof the name of Palme sondaie The fourtenth daie at night which was 〈◊〉 Thursdaie he offered him selfe to God by consecrating his owne body and blood turning the substance of common bread wine by the fier of his diuine word into the pure substance of his heauenly flesh which him selfe tooke of his mother and he gaue the same selfe body of his to be eaten vnder the forme of vnleauened bread sprinkeling with it as well the post of our mouth as of our harte in token that we receiue the same selfe blood into our mouth which our harte beleueth In which supper Christ must be vnderstanded to be as truly offered rosted eaten and his blood as really sprinkled after a mysticall sorte as all this was visibly done
Christes supper hoc facite do not only signifie doe this but much rather make this thing whereof it foloweth that yâ— body of Christ is commaunded to be made FAcere doth more properly stand to make then to doe specially when it hath an accusatiue case ioyned with it wherevppon somewhat is to be wrought as facere librum nauem domum is to make a booke a ship a howse But when it hath a generall word ioyned with it as hoc this thing is then it may stand either to make or to doe according as the matter spoken of doth require For if I doe a thing first and afterward say to an other hoc fac doe this thing if my dede were also the making of a thing as the making of a chayer or of a sword then my word importeth that he must by doing make this thing But if my dede were only doing not making as if I did only play vppon a harp in that case hoc fac doth not import make this but only doe as I haue done Christ in his supper both did and made His doing was to take bread to breake to geue His making was to say with the intent of blessing and of thanksgeuing This is my body For yâ— word so spoken made his body Therefore when he sayeth afterward to his Apostles hoc facite he meaneth doe and make this thing Or by doing the like to that which I haue done make this thing which I haue made That is to say by taking bread and by blessing and saying This is my body make my body Thus doth facere stand most properly and truly For making doth first signifie such a work as presupposeth a matter to worke vppon Which is the difference betwene creare and facere in that creare is to make a thing of nothing Facere is to make one thing of an other according to which sense Christ made bread his body as Tertullian sayth And when one thing is made of an other that whereof it was made may either kepe his old substance as it chaunceth in artificiall things which are made and it is called facere quippiam ex aliquo to make one thing of an other as a chayer is made of wood or els the substance may be changed and it is more properly called facere aliquid de aliquo to make one thing from an other thing that is to wit so to make it that the thing whence it was made remaineth not in his former nature And so S. Ambrose sayth De pane fit caro Christi from of bread the flesh of Christ is made Moreouer facere which is in Greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ as S. Basile noteth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speculari and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agere Speculari is an action of the mind exercised by thinking or studying without any outward working at all Agere is to worke with the body not leauing any work behind as he that daunceth can not shew what part of his dauncing remayneth after that it is past But facere doth signifie the doing of a work which remayneth to be seen or vnderstanded after the working of it As God made heauen and earth not only to tariâ—… for the tyme of working them but also to remaine still as a witnesse of his handy work The Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof S. Basile writeth is the same which S. Luke and S. Paule haue vsed to expresse the commaundement geuen in Christes supper by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite If the body of Christ were not meant to be made by this commaundement what thing is it that Christ will haue made Wil he haue bread and wine to be taken eaten and drunken for his remembrance No surely For he had sayd before Take and eate and drink ye all of this which notwithstanding he sayd hoc facite clerely certifying vs that he now coÌ„maundeth an other thing besyde eating and drinking And that is verily the making of his own body and blood from of bread and wine by blessing speaking the words of consecration Let vs now consider also the persons to whome this commaundement was geuen They were those twelue Apostles whome Christ at his last supper taught the new oblation of the new Testament as S. Ireneus writeth geuing them authoritie by this precept to consecrate to make present and to offer to God his body and blood As for bringing of bread and wine to the table it is a kind of doing which may be performed by other as well as by the Apostles eating and drinking belongeth not necessarily to them alone but to all that coÌ„municate with them But when it is sayd namely to them Make this thing such a thig is commaunded which none other man may doe besyde them and their successors And that is not only to eate and to drink but to make the body of Christ. That body is the only thing which is so precisely appointed vnto in Christes supper For whatsoeuer els is done at the supper which may consist in any action whether it be taking blessing breaking eating or drinking it is rather the doing of a like thing to that which Christ did then the making of this thing When Christ had washed his Apostles feete he sayd not hoe facite make this thing But I haue geuen you an example that as I haue done Ita vos faciatis euen so you also may doe In which place the word facere doth signifie to doe not to make And therefore Christ doth not say doe you that thing which I haue done but ita faciatis doe ye so as I haue done But straight after that he had sayd This is my body he then sayd not ita facite doe so as I haue done But hoc facite make this thing to wit my body Moreouer as it is here sayd Hoc facite in meam commerationem so in an other place Dauid in the spirit of prophecie did say concerning this very facte of Christ Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors miserator dominns escam dedit timentibus se. Our mercifull Lord and taker of pity hath made a memory of his marueilouse workes he hath geuen meate to them that feare him Behold as it is sayd in the Gospell Make this thing for the remembrance of me so it is said in yâ— Psalme He hath made a memory of his miracles And euen as he hath made a memory so hath he willed this thing to be made for his memory Making then can not 〈◊〉 excluded from these words hoc facite which hitherto being proued by the proper nature of the word facere by yâ— circumstance of the words this is my body make this thing ioyned together by the word hoc this thing which is ioyned with facere by the conference of a like place in holy scripture and by the condition of the persons
they are deceaued in teaâ—…hing that we partake it only by faith for so much as we drink really yâ— which is in the chalice ¶ The reall presence is proued by the name of breaking and communicating CHrist taking bread and blessing sayd This is my body S. Paule sheweth those words to haue bene spoken not as â—…arolostadius sayd of his body sitting visiblie at the table not as â—…aluin sayd of the body feeding vs by faith from heauen but of that very body which was made vnder the forme of bread And how sheweth S. Paule thus much By the word breaking for when he sayth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body he determineth the presence and the distribution of the body to that which is broken As though he sayd there we must beleue the body of Christ to be and thence to be distributed where we see breaking vsed at the Masse tyme. For not euery bread that is broken is the communicating of Christes body but the bread which we breake after blessing and thanksgeuing The two Disciples knew Christ in the breaking of the bread Nouerunt fideles sayeth S. Augustine 〈◊〉 quid dicam nouerunt Christum in fractione panis Non enim omnis panis sed accipiens benedictioneÌ„ Christi fit corpus Christi The faithfull haue knowen they can tell what I meane they haue knowen our Lord in breaking of the bread For not euery bread but the bread which taketh yâ— blessing is made the body of Christ. If the bread which once was common be made the body of Christ by blessing and in breaking of that bread the faithfull do know our Lord that bread can not be still the substance of common bread for then it were not made the body of Christ as S. Augustin sayth it is Again if Christ were not vnder the forme of that bread the faithfull knew not our Lord in the breaking of that bread for if the substance of Christ be absent no signe or token is sufficient to make vs know our Lord more at the breaking of bread in the Church then at our own howses If one substance be in both places and it be broken in both what oddes is it whether it be broken here or there in this place or in that But to say that the bread broken at our common tables is the body of Christ because it may signifie his body it were to say that who soeuer eateth common bread in mortal synne should be damned for eating it when S. Paul sayth The bread which we breake is doe not al men perceaue that he goeth about to shâ—…w what the bread is which we breake If it be common bread it is a fondnes to shew what it is for he hath already named it and who knoweth not what common bread is But he meaneth not so He goeth not about to teache what bread is but what that bread is which we breake whereof it followeth that we haue a â—…eculiar kind of bread which we breake What bread is that He answereth It is the communicating of Christes body Why doth he not say it is Christes body Forsoth because the holy 〈◊〉 foresaw that 〈◊〉 should rise who wold say the verb est is to meane significat it doth signifie or els the noune corpâ—…s body to meane the signe of Christes body Therefore S. Paule being the instrument and Secretarie of God was made to put in such a word betwene the verb est is and the noune corpus body that euery man might know no figuratiue being of Christes body but his reall and substantiall being to be meant For S. Paule speaketh as though Christ had sayd this is the communicating of my body For of that which Christ brake and sayd thereof This is my body of the very same S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body Now say I that which is the communicating of Christes body can not be a figure of his body still remaining in the former substance of bread For a communicating which the 〈◊〉 name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a geuing that the whole is made common Otherwise as S. Chrysostom sayeth it should haue bene called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a participation but now as wel in speaking of the chalice as of the body S. Paule vsed the Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is communicatio in Latin communicating in English or hauing and making common albâ—…it the common Latin translation readeth participatio partaking in respect that euery man for his owne parte receaueth that bread which in substance is the body of Christ. But when the one word or the other standeth properly therein we must be iudged by wise men among whom S. Chrysostom is worthy of a special place who hauing rehersed these words of the Apostle the bread which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body asketh Quare non dixit participatio Quia amplius quiddam significare voluit multaÌ„ inter haec conuenientiam ostendere Non enim participatione tantâ—…m acceptione sed vnitate communicamus Quemadmodum enim corpus illud vnitum est Christo ita nos per hunc panem vnione coniungimur Why sayd not S. Paule The bread which we breake is the partaking of our Lords body Because he wold signifie a greater thing and shew the great affinitie which is betwene these things that is to say betwene them that receaue and the thing that is receaued For we communicate not only by participation and partaking but in vnitie for as that body is vnited to Christ so we also are ioyned in vnioÌ„ with him by this bread S. Paule then by the iudgement of S. Chrysostom chose that word which might expresse a most inward communicating and ioyning betwene vs in this Sacrament But if this SacrameÌ„t were a figure of Christ without the substance of his body S. Paule hath not done wel to vse the word of communicating for partaking were to good a word to expresse so slender a gift as the SacrameÌ„taries talk of But S. Paul sayd The bread which we breake that is to say the mysticall bread of our Lords supper is not only a partaking but a communicating and yet no figure can make vs one with Christ in vnitie of nature Therefore this mysterie which geueth more then a figuratiue vnion is the very true body of our Sauiour for it maketh common with vs all that is in Christ. The bread I say which we breake maketh the body of Christ and all things in it common with vs. No bare figure can doe so Therefore the bread which we breake is the true body and not only a figure Tell me good Reader he that receaueth a figure of a thing doth he not rather take a part then the whole Yea doth he not take a very slender part Or can there be any lesse part of a thing
that it so feedeth vs as the water in baptism doth wash vs and that as water toucheth our body so it entreth into our body Which thing is so true that Christ hauing taken bread blessed stretching forth his hand said Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you Where not without a great mysterie Christe gaue his body vnder the forme of bread not only to feede vs presently through yâ— grace which procedeth froÌ„ his flesh by touching eating yâ— same but also to shew vs that this is the same bodie which before had incorporated vs into it self For as of manie graines of wheate one loaf of manie persons one Mysticall body of Christe was made so when Christ turneâ—…h the substance of bread into his own substaÌ„ce and so maketh him self present vnder yâ— form of bread he both feedeth many persons who partake of that one bread and by the form of bread sheweth how they being neuer so many are yet one in him because they are all incorporated into him Of this Sacrament S. Paule intreating sayd The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body because through it we both partake of the one bread which is Christ and are our selues shewed to be one bread and one body What are we in mystery but only members of Christ And for as much as Christ is him self present vnder the forme of this bread and is the very substaÌ„ce which is receaued there we are no lesse named one mystical bread of this one bread then we are named one mystical body of Christes true body out of which discourse it is vndoutedly proued that the bread which we breake is the body of Christ. How could we otherwise be called thereof one bread How could one bread and one body be put to signifie one thing but that in dede bread and body are here in substance the same selfe thing we are named the mysticall body in respect of yâ— vnion which we haue with the natural body of Christ and amoÌ„g our selues But we are also called one bread in S. Paule Therefore out of dout S. Paul meaneth that one bread which is Christ in respect whereof we are named to be yâ— mystical body of Christ. The Church taketh her names froÌ„ Christ that which Christ is in truth the Church is in mystery so that nothing can be verified of the Church which was not true before in Christ for the members folow the state of theyr head But the meÌ„bers are called one bread one body for mysteries sake therefore the head is in truth one bodie he is the one bread whereof we partake and we partake of that which is broken by meanâ—… of yâ— forme of bread therefore Christ is really present vnder that forme of bread whiche at his supper we breake and partake We are members of this bread before we take it in the Sacrament of the altar because this bread is that substance of Christe vnder the form of bread to whose mystical body we were ioyned in baptisâ—…e whereof S. Augustine writeth thus Nulli est aliquâ—…tenus ambigendâ—… cae No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body blood of our Lord when he is made a member of Christ in baptim neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cup although before he eate that bread and drinke that cup being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benefite of that Sacrament for so much as him self hath found that thing which that Sacrament doth signify Whereas Christ sayd Except ye eate my flesh and drink my blood ye shal not haue life in you a man wold haue thought that euery person were bound to receaue actually the Sacrament of Christes body and blood but S. Augustine sheweth that thing not to be after that sorce necessarie to all men For he that is made a member of Christ in Baptism is therein made partaker of yâ— body blood of Christ. How so Because he receaueth that thing which the Sacrament of Christes body and blood signifieth What doth it signifie The mysticall body of Christ. By what meanes S. Augustine expounded yâ— meane a litle before saying Bread is not made of one grayne but of many likewise one liquour is made of many grapes Thus our Lord Iesus signified vs. he wold vs to apperteine to himself Mysterium panis vnitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecrauit he hath consecrated the mysterie of our peace and vnitie in his table Note that our mysterie was not made by the baker but consecrated by Christ the consecration was to turne the substance of the bread into his owne flesh keping still the olde forme of the same bread But if the body of Christ were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptized be partaker of the benefite of this Sacrament Was he made partaker of bread and wine No verily but of the mysticall body What hath the mystical body to doe in this Sacrament For â—…oth so much that here is both the thing which maketh vs all one which is Christ and he is so present that he sheweth him self to haue ioyned all vs to him as he hath ioyned the graines of wheat vnto his flesh For as the bread which we breake hath none other substance besyde the substance of Christ and yet it hath an outward appareuce of an other thing so the mysticall body of Christ hath none other substance through which it is one body besydes yâ— body of Christ although it haue an oâ—…tward appareÌ„ce of an other thing For be we neuer so many in number persons we are one body in Christ. How so euer we appere mortal men as we once were yet in truth we are ioyned to the body of Christ and are members of him our only head Take away that body of Christ from the forme of bread and here is no signe of vnitie in Christ. A signe of vnitie here is but not in Christ. Euery loaf 〈◊〉 vnitie but none other betokeneth our vnitie in Christ but that bread the substance whereof is Christ yâ— forme whereof is the forme of common bread If the naturall substance of Christ be absent from the bread which we consecrate and so be signified without the reall presence thereof if again the natural substance of bread remaine and signific the mysticall body of Christ who is absent him self in substance no signe is by that meane more effectually made then that Christ and his members are as far a sunder as heauen is distant from the earth and that as Christ is signified present being in dede not present so his members be signified to be ioyned to him and in truth be not ioyned to him These are the mystical signes which do folow necessarily vpon the
voice and commandâ—…meÌ„t of Christ and to be subiect to him as the wife is to her husband As therefore the parties maried come to the third vnitie of being made both one fleshe is no lawfull impâ—…diment stay them so doth Christ present him self in the Sacrament of his body and blood to make perfite and to coÌ„sâ—…ate his mariage in the last degree And as in adultery S. Paul graunteth a place of reconciliation beâ—…wene the man and wife so if any maÌ„ after he is maried to Christ folow the world the fleshe or the deuill he may be absolued by the Priests and so come to be ioyned with the body and blood of Christ in vnion of true flesh If now the naturall and the whole mysticall body of Christe haue so great affinitie with the state of mariage that in all degrees they be described by like termes in the worde of God seing the last and chefe coniunction whiche is in mariage can not be made without the real presence of the two bodies which are ioyned no more can the last vnion of Christ and of his Churche be made in his last supper vnlesse both his and our bodies come really together If Christ sit only in heauen not hauing his body made present at his holy table and our bodies be yet still in the earth what coniunction of bodies is made betwene Christ vs If the vnitie which is betwene two persons in mariage be a signe of the vnitie whiche is betwene Christ and the Church as S. Paul proâ—…eth it is not possible that the vnity can be lesse real in the truth then it is in the signe But in mariage whiche is the signe the persons maried are one flesh during the tymâ—… of their being together and they are both present bodily Thersore Christ is present in his own substance to be ioyned in that most chaâ—…e and vnspotted bed of matrimony with his own spouse whiche ioyuing is made in a Sacrament the which SacrameÌ„t is ministred in those knoweÌ„ forms of bread wine Therfore vnderthose forms the substance of Christes body and blood is really present This is that which S. Hilarie saith Verè verbum carneÌ„ cibo dominico sumimus We take truly the word made flesh in the meat of our â—…ord â–ª we take yâ— word made flesh yâ— is to say yâ— who le substance of Christ we take it truly that in the meate whiche our Lord geueth It is writen that he gaue saying Take eate Therefore in that meate we take truly the word made flesh but seing that meat semeth bread vnder that which semeth bread we take the whole substance of Christ. Again he saith Naturam carnis suae sub sactamento nobis admiscuit he hath mixed the nature of his flesh to vs vnder a sacrament That same word sub vnder sheweth what he meaneth for the form of bread is called a signe or sacrament alone as the body vnder it is called a sacrament or signe and also the thing or substance of the Sacrament S. Chriostom saith vt non solum per dilectionem sed reipsa in illam carnem conuertamur per cibum id efficitur quem nobis largitus est It is brought to passe by yâ— meate which Christ hath geuen vs that we may be coÌ„uerted into that flesh not only by loue but in the thing it self If bread and wine be not the thing it selfe but only Christes owne flesh and yet we are connerted in very dede into yâ—â—…lesh of Christ through the meat which he gaue seing he gaue al that he gaue vnder the form of bread and wine vnder those formes we receaue in dede and truth that flesh according to which we are reformed Which place of many shall I bring out of S. Cyrill He sayth one where Cûm mystica benedictio in nobis fiat nónne corporaliter quoque facit coÌ„municatione carnis Christi For as much as the mysticall blessing is made in vs doth it not make Christe to â—…wel in vs corporally also through the coÌ„municating of Christes flesh Can the mysticall blessing make Christ dwell corporally in vs if it self haue not Christes flesh corporally in it Cur membra fidelium membra Christi sunt Nescitis inquit quia membra vestra membra sunt Christi Membra igitur Christi meretricis faciam membra Absit Why are the meÌ„bers of yâ— faithfull the members of Christ Know ye not saith S. Paule that your members are the members of Christ Shall I then make yâ— members of Christ the members of a harlot God forbid Here S. Cyril doth manifestly allude to the kind of vnitie which is betwen man and wife in lawfull mariage and betwene foruicatours in vnlawful coniunction In eâ—…he place two are made one but in mariage lawfully in whoredom vnlawfully The SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper is like to lawful mariage And therefore S. Cyrill concludeth Non habitudine solum quae per charitateÌ„ intelligitur Christum in nobis habâ—…are sed participatione naturali That Christ dwelleth in vs not only by affection or deuotion or efficacy which is vnderstanded by charitie but by natural partaking It is therefore an heresy to defend as the Sacramentaries do that we are ioyned to Christes flesh in his supper by faith and spirite only as though Christ being so long maried neuer came bodily to make vp that most chast knot of vnion betwene him and his Church But if the Sacramentarie doctrine were true it should haue lesse for asmuch as it should not be present really with vs it should not be offered externally vnto God by the Priâ—…ts of the new lawe it should not be vppon the table it should not be in the mouthes of them who receaue yâ— same it should not be made naturally one with our bodies nor we one with it S. Paule by the reall vnitie which is made betwene the meat of Christ and of his faithfull people doth proue an vnitie in lesse degree but yet an vnitie betwene those who did eate together of meates offered to ydoles But yâ— meat of Christes supper whereby we should be ioyned as well to it as among our selues our new brethern take cleane away from the visible table and altar S. Paule sayeth Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord and of the deuils table Our new brethern graunting the deuils a reall table will not allow any such to Christ. They must conâ—…esse a table as well inuisible as corporall of the Iewes and Gentils for eche of them had their faith and their God albeit not good and true but to Christes body and blood which is the altar and table of the new Testament they will not allow any externall or visible altar or table I neede not insult at them for it â—…â—…ithens the day will come when Christ will not allow them any table to eate or drink with him in the kingdom of heauen They that haue brought all
his mysteries to naked names shall enioye his glorie no more really then they allow him a reall truth in his blessed Sacraments ¶ The reall presence is proued by the example which S. Paule vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentils SAint Paule intending to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking with the Gentils at their false and vaine sacrifices vseth in that behalf this kind of argument Whosoeuer doth eate or drink that which is offered vp in sacrifice he is made one with the oblation it self and with it to whome the things eaten and drunken are offered This proposition he proueth by example of the ChristiaÌ„s who by partaking of the bread which we breake and of the chalice which we blesse which are the communicating of Christes body and blood are made one bread one body because they partake all of the one bread The like is sene also in the carnall Iewes among whom they that eate the oblations or things offered thereby were partakers of the altar to wit of the sacrifice and of the worshipping of God to whom it was offered Therefore if the Corinthians wold also partake of the meate offered to ydols it must follow that they should be partakers of the ydolatrie For although the dead ydoll be no true God nor any thing at all wherewith they may communicate yet a societie is ioyned thereby with the deuils who reigne in those ydols Therefore as ydolatry it self so the eating of the meates offered to ydols is to be auoided Out of this discourse it is proued that the Christians Iewes Gentils eche of them haue a God true or false eche of them offereth an externall sacrifice to him eche of them vse to partake of the things offered and eche of them communicated among them selues The meat offered and eaten of the Iewes was the flesh of such cleane beasts or such other oblations as were allowed by yâ— lawe of Moyses The meate offered and eaten of the Gentils was such as their superstition had receaued To one ydol a shepe was offered to another an oxe The meate offered and eaten of the Christians is described of S. Paule to be the bread which we breake which is the communicating of Christes body and the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the communicating â—…f Christes blood The vnitie rising thereof is to be one bread one body because all partake of the one bread Uppon which ground it may be wel built that the meate partaken at Christes supper is the body and blood of Christ wherein we passe and ouercome the Iewes Gentils who had other earthly oblations but none of them had this foode which came down from heauen For as S. Paul sayeth We haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle But surely they might eate bread and wine who serued the tabernacle therefore the meate of Christes supper is not bread and wine but the bread of life and the blood of Christ. And whereas the Iewes had certeyn obseruancies of eating this and of leauing that meate or that the Leuits should eate this and the Priest that and the laye people an other meate S. Paule counselleth them to stablish their hart with grace and not so carefully to obserue the old law which commaunded so many differences of meate How beit if it be a good thing to haue some meates reserued for the Priests which the common people may not eate as the Iewes think then sayeth S. Paule we Christians also haue an altar to wit a thing offered vnto God and that so preciouse that the very Priests and Bisshops who serue in the tabernacle may not eate thereof That meate is as Theodorite sayth Hostia rationalis diuina A reasonable and diuine sacrifice as Sedulius writeth yâ— altar whence we partake the body and blood of Christ as Theophtlact witnesseth the vnbloody sacrifice of the body which quickeneth This then being the meate of our altar it foloweth that this meate is no lesse present vppon his holy table then that which the Iewes or ydolatours did eate was present at their sacrifices But that which they did partake was really present anâ—… receaued into their mouthes therefore likewise 〈◊〉 flesh is really present and is receaued into our mouthes The meate of the Iewes and of the Gentils was made one natural flesh with the partakers thereof therefore we likewise are made one naturall flesh with the meate of Christes tabâ—…e But herein is the oddes that their meat was turned into their flesh because it was weaker then their own nature but our flesh is turned without losse of his owne substance or proprietie into the nature of Christes flesh because it being the flesh which is dwelt in by the Godhead is stronger then our nature Again as the Iewes and Gentils by eating meates offered vp are made one body among them selues by coÌ„formitie of wil and mind alone because the meate was not able to tary in his own nature and to draw them vnto it so contrariwise we that eate Christes body are made really one flesh with Christ amoÌ„g our selues because as S. Cyrill declareth Christ suffereth him self to be no more diuided but kâ—…ping his owne flesh whole he gathereth all vs into it And seing we all that eate Christ are made naturally one with Christ we are also one among our selues For they who are one in any third are withall one among them selues Thus the meate of Christes table hath more truth in it then the meate of the Iewes or Gentils had according to the Catholike doctrine ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kind of shewing Christes death QVotiescunque manducabitis paneÌ„ hunc calicem hunc bibetis mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat How often so euer ye shall eate this bread and shall drinke this chalice ye shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come Shewing may be either in word alone or in dede alone or in both together S. Paul speaketh in this place of that shewing which is by dede alone for eating and drinking is a kind of doing But not the eating of euery bread and the drinking of tuery chalice doth shew Christes death except it be this bread eaten that chalice drunken whereof S. Paule had sayd in Christes person a litle before This is my body which is broken for you and this cup is the new Testament in my blood The eating and drinking of â—… sacriâ—…iced body and blood doth euidently shew the death thereof as the which should not be eaten and drunken if it were not already consecrated by death vnto God For who doth eate the flâ—…sh of any creature whiles it yet liueth and hath blood in it Or how can blood be drunken in a cup if it be yet in the veines of the body The nature of the fact is such that it presupposeth the immolation and sacrifice and
vnworthy eating and drinking of euill men WHen S. Paule had said As oft as ye shall eate this bread and drink the cup of our Lord ye shall shewe our Lordes death vntill he come he goeth forward saying Therefore who so eateth this bread drinketh the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our Lordes body and blood How doth this senteÌ„ce hang vpoÌ„ yâ— former how coÌ„meth it in with â—… Therefore but because in the former sentence S. Paul said by eating this bread we shew Christes death And for as much as we shew it in that self thing which dyed for vs therefore he that eateth vnworthely such a meate wherein by the substance which died he sheweth Christes death he is gilty of our Lordes body none otherwyse then if he had betraied it as Iudas did For the same body that Iudas did by a false kisse geue to death we eate vnder the forme of bread to shew the same death If then Iudas were gilty of Christes natural body for geuing it vnworthely to death we are gilty of the same naturall body when by eating it we shew vnworthely the same death But if we had not present the same real flesh which Iudas hetraied our vnworthy shewing could not be like his vnworthy doing al the strength of S. Paules reasoning is only grounded vpon the real presence of Christes body the vnworthy shewing whereof he now speaketh is the vnworthy â—…ating And for so much as eating is a corporall action which is done by the instruments of teeth and mouth S. Paule doth vs to vnderstand that euil men might touch and haue in their mouthes yâ— bread and drink of our Lord. But his bread and his drink is of him â—…elfe affirmed to be his body and blood therefore S. Paule confesseth that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ in theyr mouthes But that they could not doe except the body and blood were vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore he teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine Saith not S. Paule whosoeuer eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of our Lord vnworthely Then this bread and the cup of our Lord may be eaten and drunken vnworthely But what Speaketh he of eating by faith or of drinking by spirit No verily for such eating and drinking can not be vnworthely made You wil say it is bread and wine whereof he speaketh If it were so why doth S. Paule name it this bread â–ª For 〈◊〉 the pronoune this doth shew a thing present to some sense or other and seing when S. Paule wrote these wordes he being absent in body from the Corinthians could not shew them any thing by any corporal actioÌ„ of his it remaineth that yâ— thing whereunto this doth point was named in the epistle of S. Paule which he worte to those faithfull men and also that it went not long before as the which otherwese might be of vncertaine vnderstaÌ„ding What is it then which went before Christ toke bread and after thanks geuen said Take eate this is my body whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of the body of our Lord. If this bread point vnto that whereof Christ said This is my body S. Paule meaneth to shew his faut whosoeuer eateth the body of our Lord vnworthely and thereby he grauÌ„teth euil men to eate Christes body which they can doe by no meanes except that be Christes body which they take into theyr â—…outhes The Sacramentaries will obiect againste me that Christ ment the signe of his body which truly can not be so For seing S. Paule named no signe as this can not point to that which was not named so it must point only to the thing named before But the thing before named was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance ¶ The reall presence is proued because vnworthy receauers are gilty of Christes body and blood WHo soeâ—…er eateth this bread or drinketh the cup of our Lord vnwortehly he shal be gily of yâ— body blood of our Lord. A man may be gilty either for doing an euil deede or for leauing a good deede cleane vndon or els for doing a good dede in an euil manner Here S. Paule maketh the vnworthy receauer gilty for eating this bread and drinking the cup of our Lord vnworthely which is to say for doing a good deede after an euil manner his dede is eating which thing he so reaâ—…ly doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drink damnation to himself But no man is gilty of doing more theÌ„ he actually doth therefore the vnworthy receauer who for eating and drinking is gilty of the body and blood of Christ doth eate and drink in deede the same body and blood of Christ whereof he is gilty The Sacramentaries imagine S. Paule to haue said He that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christes supper refuseth to eate by faith the body of Christ sitting in heauen is gilty of not eating Christes body Who euer heard of such a toy what iote of all the scriptures which appertein to Christes supper haue they left vnwrested vntorne or vndefiled what sentence clause or word haue they left in his naturall meaning If S. Paule and the foure Euangelists were not theÌ„ selues men of sufficient discretion who might consider how nedefull it were to vnderstand wel the mysteries of Christ yet surely in repeting one matter oft it would at the least chance vnto them that they should haue told vs some one syllable which might haue made for the Sacramentary doctâ—…ine if it had bene true But now whatsoeuer they speake doth destroie vtterly and ouerthrow theyr fond assertion And that I may for this tyme go no farther what caÌ„ be answered to this place of S. Paul he that eateth a very good thing vnworthely is pronounced gilty therefore his present fault consisteth in the euill manner of his eating For to eate vnworthely is to eate in deede but not to eate after a good manner No man by eating in an euill manner can be gilty of that which he doth not eate in that euill manner and yet the vnworthy receauer of this bread is pronounced gilty of Christes body and it is ment of his naturall body Therefore this bread which he doth eate vnworthely is the reall and naturall body of Christ. If a man had done neuer so heinouse a robbery yet thereby to condemne him of adulterie it were an euideÌ„t 〈◊〉 although the paine due to adultery be lesse then that which is due to robberie But now to condemne a man for eating the body of Christ who did eate only the figure of it that were much more vniust for that his paine increased aboue the measure of his fault Let it be neuer so great a fault to eate the holy bread vnworthely yet if that holy bread be
for which it is geuen abuse maliciously the words which S. Augustine speaketh of the effect of Christes body against the reall substance thereof But what speake I of the iniury done to S. Augustine sith they haue done so great and manifold iniuries to the word of God it self ¶ The reall presence is proued by the kynde of discerning our Lords body LEt a man examine him self and so eate of that bread and drink of the chalice for he that eateth and â—…nketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self not discerning our Lords body That is to say not putting a difference betwene it and other meates The not making of this difference may rise vpon mysbeleâ—…e as when a man thinketh that Christ was not able to make the bread his body or that his flesh is vnder yâ— forme of bread apart from his blood An other sorte of men may so contenme Christes body that he will not worship it although he beleue it to be present But S. Paule speakâ—…th not of those desperate men who through their special malice be gilty of Christes body before they come vnto it 〈◊〉 they are the more gilty for touching it really He speaketh of them who oâ—…it to examine them selues in so much that S. Augustine writeth thus of this very mater De his erat sermo caet â–ª when the Apostle sayd this thing the talk was of them who did receaue the body of our Lord indiscretely and negligeÌ„tly as if it were any other meate And againe If the negligeÌ„ce of the guest be touched with reprofe with what punishment is he vexed who sold the maker of the feast Here S. Augustine doth witnes that S. Paul speaking of vnworthy receauers did meane them who for negligence omitted to proue and examine them selues comming to the supper of our Lord as if they came to a prophane supper S. Chrysostom and after him Decumenius accompt the fault of the Corinthians to haue beue the dispising of the poore men because S. Paul sayd in the same Chapiter Ye put those to shame who haue not goodes of their own Theodoretus sayeth besydes that some of them were ambitious others also did eate the things offered vp to Ydols one had maried his own mother in law these were the faultes of the Corinthians and not any speciall contempt of hart namely against these holy mysteries According to which sense the Prophet Malachie doth say that the offering of polluted bread vppon the altar of God was the despising of him and S. Hiâ—…rome there sayeth Opera peccatorum despiciunt mensam Dei the workes of synners despise the table of God Seing then S. Paule speaketh of such fault and contempt of the Corinthians as riseth of their negligence and for the lacke of discretion this kind of giltines can not come only of the mind it self whose iudgement is rather vpright but it cometh for so much as the fault is committed about that thing wherein the body and blood of Christ is really conteyned For whereas an iniury done may either touch our body or estimation and when we will persecute the same reason and law wold we should specially describe the kind of iniury least we doe wrong to him whome we burden falsly with a more greuouse kind of fault then he hath done seing S. Paule doth by name burden the vnworthy recâ—…auer of this Sacrament with being gilty not only of Christes worship or name wherewith in other places he burdeneth other great synners but with being gilty of his own body and blood with which fault he neuer 〈◊〉 any other then the vnworthy receauers of this blessed Sacrament or yâ— Iewes who layed 〈◊〉 hands vppon Christ at his death it must nedes be yâ— such a coÌ„municant receaâ—…eth Christes owne naturall body so offendeth Christ not only in his name or in his estimation but also in his naturall flesh blood Moreouer seing when he warneth him to beware of doing this euil dede he biddeth him only put a 〈◊〉 betwene Christes body and all other meates it is euident that none other meate is here present besyde the body of Christ. Otherwise he should haue sayd Non dijudicans panem vinum figuram corporis Domini Not discerning bread and wine the signe of Christes body But now he only sayeth not discerning the body of our Lord. And yet it is much more to be noted that S. Paule nameth not any other meates but only he nameth the body of our Lord shewing thereby yâ— we must discerne it not only from other meates but from al other creatures in the world As if he sayd he that eateth vnworthely considereth not whose body he cometh vnto For as S. Chrysostome sayeth The receauer nedeth to consider nothing els but only qui sit propositus who is set foorth Et magnitudinem propositorum and the greatnes of the things set â—…oorth If the body were not present we ought rather to consider who is in heauen and where the truth of this image is then who and what is set before vs. Which as the Sacramentaries falsely teache is bread and wine but as the holy Scriptures and Fathers affirme it is the substance of Christes body ¶ No â—…igure which is not in substance Christes body can make any man by eating it negligently gilty of Christes naturall body IN all this question of vnworthy receaâ—…ing the holy mysteries the chief refuge of the Sacramentaries is to say that seing the bread eaten and the wine drunken are the figures of Christes body and blood who so taketh them vnworthely he is gilty of the body and blood them selues which those figures doe signifie This pretensed excuse of theirs I will now consâ—…te God willing When a man by wilful contempt doth breake or defile yâ— image of a great Prince it is reputed all one as if he had stryken the Prince himself not because the dede is one but for that his will is thought to be no lesse vttered against the Prince by his demeanure toward the signe then if he had 〈◊〉 touched the Prince him self But S. Paule speaketh not of any such matter in this place as who maketh his argument rather vppon yâ— reall fact it self â—…hen vppon the wil or mind of the doer Neither doth he reason vppon presumption surmise or any like far fet interpretation but absolutely pronounceth him to be gilty of Christes body who eateth this bread vnworthely Therefore he ment not that the image or figure of Christes body was eaten but the true substance thereof He spake not now only of wilfull contempt but of negligent doing of not examining a mans self â–ª and of despising the poore Secondarily they that say the signe image or figure of Christes body is abused must shew wherein that figure doth consist Figures and images be either externall or internall Those be iudged by the eye these by the vnderstanding Those are
speaketh in an other place of the same matter Suprà dictum est edent pauperes saturabuÌ„tur hîc verò manducauerunt adorauerunt caet It was sayd before the poore shal eate and shal be filled But here it is sayd all the riche of the earth haue eaten haue adored For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his body and blood But they adore only and be not filled also because they folow not For although they eate Christ the poore man yet they disdaine to be poore And againe quia Deus excitauit eum a mortuis c. Because God hath raised him from the dead and hath geuen him a name the which is aboue euery name that in the name of Iesus euery knee should be bowed of heauenly earthly and of things vnder the earth They also moued with the fame of his highnes and with the glorie of his name which glorie is spred round about in the Church they come them selues to the table they eate and adore but yet they are not filled because they doe not hunger and thyrst righteousnes Hitherto S. Augustine who speaketh of eating the body of Christ from the table The riche men come to the table of Christ thence to eate his body There also they adore that which they take from the table and that which they eate And how is it possible but that this worshipping and adoring whereof S. Augustine speaketh must belong to the table of Christ that is to say to his body aud blood which is eaten from his table when the Priest geueth it to vs And yet it might not there be rightly adored if it were not reaâ—…ly present vppon the table And there it can not be present vnlesse it ve vnder the formes of bread and wine which only stand vppon the table Therefore this prophecie as wel proueth the adoration as the real presence of Christes body and blood Is it not a great blindnes in our new preachers that whereas the word of God sayeth euen the riche of the earth haue eaten and haue adored or shal eate and shall adore for so one tense doth stand for an other in the holy Scripture yet they wil haue ye eate and not adore to th' intent ye should be more vnkind thâ—…n those earthly riche men were ¶ The adoration of Christes body is proued again out of the Prophet Dauid THe Prophet Dauid speaking of the Kingdome of Christ which he exercised vpon the crosse by conquering the deuil and synne requireth vs to gene praise to him for it and not only to him but euen to his footestole writing thus Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum adorate scabellum pedum eius quoniam sanctum est Exalte the Lord our God and worship his footestole because it is holy The Hebrew readeth because he is holy It is to be vnderstanded that Christ in one person hath two natures to wit the nature of God and yâ— nature of man Dauid willeth both to be adored and first he speaketh of the Godhead saying Exalte the Lord our God Next after of his humane nature in those words Adorate scabellum pedum eius worship his footestole for Godly honour is due to his flesh also because he is holy That is to say because his person is the second person in the Trinitie where vnto the manhod is vnited And through that vnion the nature of man is worthy of Godly honour The Iewes accompted the footestole of God to be the Arke and temple of Hierusalem toward which they bowed and adored God in their tyme of prayers But aswell the Arke as the Temple were the shadowes of Christes flesh and that not only as he was in the visible forme of man but euen as he is mystically vnder the forme of bread For the Arke did foreshadow the Sacrament of Christes body blood as Angelomus hath noted Sacerdos qui Arcam caet The Priest Oza who touched that Arke with vnaduised rashnes purged the fault of his bolde enterprise with death before his tyme wherein we must nedes consider how much he synneth who cometh gilty to the body of our Lord seing that deuout Priest is punished with death who with lesse reuerence then he ought hastely handled that Arke which was the figure of our Lords body Againe the Arke coÌ„teined Manna in it which was an expresse figure of the flesh of Christ in that respect as it is to be eaten of vs as both Christ him self hath declared in S. Ihon and S. Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians Likewise the Temple was a figure of Christes body according as him self sayd Dissolue ye this Temple of my body and and in three days I wil raise it vp againe The Arke therefore and the Temple being the footestole of God toward which yâ— Iewes prayed did signifie that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heauen whether Christ is entred as into the euerlasting 〈◊〉 and most holy of holies but also in the Sacrament of the altar which is the Arke Temple and â—…essell conteining the self same substance of Manna which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father The holy Prophet Dauid requiring vs to adore the footestole of God requireth vs to adore the flesh of Christ as well in the Arke of the new Testament which is the Sacrament of Christes body as in heauen it self because he that hath ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his Father sayd also in his last supper Take and eate this is my body Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Neither doe I make or first inuent such interpretation but the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres left it vnto me sauing that they expound yâ— footestole to be not only the Arke and Temple of â—…ierusalem but also the whole â—…arth in respect of the Godhead because Esate sayeth Heauen is my seate the â—…arth is the settle of my feete But herein wee may rest in S. Hieromes aucthoritie who vpon this place writeth thus Multae de scabello opiniones sunt caet There are many opinions concerning the â—…orestole what it should be But here the Prophete meaneth our Lords body wherein the maiestie of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a 〈◊〉 How so euer then wee interpret the fotestole concerning the literall and firsâ—… meaning yet the naturall flesh of Christe which he assumpted of the virgin is the spiritual truth wherevnto the Prophete directed his wordes That flesh where so euer it be is the fotestole of God and therefore it is euery where to be adored But as the Arcke deserued a speciall reuerence amonge the Iewes although it was the bare figure of Christes flesh in so much that Oza who touched it rashly died for it euen so the Sacrament of the altar which
of Christ made vnder the forme of bread and wine that is called any earth not because Christ hath any moe then only one body and one blood and one earth which is to be adored but because that one earth is in many places after the sorte I said before to wit vnder many formes of bread That is it which S. Augustine saith when thou bowest thee or doest cast thy selfe prostrate before any flesh of Christ in what soeuer Church house or place in what soeuer altar pix or table where soeuer thou fallest doune prostrate before the Sacrament of the altar adore it so that thou remember the flesh is to be adored for the persons sake whose flesh it is By this place it is inuincibly proued that it was the custome of all Catholike people in S. Augustines tyme to be prostrate to bow doune and to adore the blessed Sacrament of the altar But that should neuer haue bene suffered in Afrike no more then now it is suffered in England except the real substaÌ„ce of Christes flesh had bene certainly beleued of all men to be present vnder the formes of bread and wine Therefore be thou assured as those yâ— now sorbid thee to adore the Sacrament of Christes supper doe not beleue the flesh of Christ to be really present vnder the form of bread wine so they who willed all Christians vnder paine of syn to adore the earth flesh whiche they receaued before that they recâ—…aued it did vndoubtedly beleue the reall presence of Christes â—…lesh vnder the visible formes of bread and wine This was the faith of the first six hundred yeres which dured from the Apostles tyme till this our daies and yet dureth in all Catholike countries ¶ It is proued out of the Prophetes that it can be no idolatrie to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar MAny things are to be abhorred which are in these our daies taught againste the truth of the Gospell yet neuer was any thing so maliciously inuented so blasphemously vttered so foolishly mainteined as to say that it is idolatrie to worship with godly honour the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar For that saying presupposeth externall idols not to haue bene taken away by the comming of Christ whiche is against the expresse word of God It presupposeth also that idolatry should be mainteined among Christians them selues not only in groâ—…es hilles and corners but euen openly in the middest of the whole Church by publike doctrine and vniuersall practise which neuer chaunced no not among the Iewes And which is most abominable of all it presupposeth that Christ who came to end and ouerthrow all idols and specially those which were made by hand of man now him selfe should geue occasion why his own people should worship bakers bread and wine of the grape and that this idolatry should be committed by pretense of his owne word yea that it should be done vnto him selfe in his owne mysteries falsely and wickedly if by any meanes Christ may be falsely adored Can there yet a more lewd and foolish pointe be added to this opinion Yea verily They that teache the worshipping of the Sacrament of the altar to be idolatry say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping they teach also the Bishop of Rome to be Antichrist whiche Antichrist is well knowen to impugne by al meanes the honour of Christ. And yet they confesse that both only Christe made and instituted the same Sacrament and that the Bishop of Rome him selfe worshippeth the same Thus at the length it commeth about that Antichrist finding this great mystery made by Christ setteth it vp to be worshipped of others and him selfe worshippeth the same all together pretending the honour of Christ and yet intending thereby as they say to debate his honour Who euer saw a doctrine so euill hanging together Antichrist as S. Paul saieth aduersatur is an aduersarie that is to say he is one that setteth him selfe against Christ and aduaÌ„ceth him selfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he doth sitte in the temple of God shewing or boasting him selfe as if he were God Behold Antichrist setteth him selfe against Christ and much lesse would he be content as the Pope is to call him self the vicar of Christ or seruant of his sernants Againe Antichrist is aduanced aboue all that eyther by nature or by deceite of the Deuill is worshipped His pride is so great that he wil not only disoaine to bow to any externall ydoll for that coÌ„meth of a superstitious feare and pusillanimity but also he will not yeld to God him selfe When S. Paul saieth he is aduanced aboue all that is called God He meaneth aboue all false Gods who are Gods by name and not in truth As Iuppiter Mars Uenns Minerua were So that we are assured by the expresse worde of God that Antichrist shall set vp no ydoll besydes his own selfe He shall say him selfe to be God and shall shew false signes miracles able to deceiue those wicked meâ—… who disdayning the felowship of the knowen Church and the saith of their fathers thinke them selues able to plant a new faith according to the vnderstanding whiche they conceaue of Gods worde That is the chefe way for Antichrist to preuaâ—…le if the preaching of nine hundred yeres and the saith of so many Christian countries may be dispised and consequently a new religion sought out at the deuising whereof ye may be sure yâ— deuil is president of the couÌ„sel To come to our purpose Antichrist is aduanced by him selfe aboue all idols therefore he shall set vp no idoll besides him self And consequently if the Pope be Antichrist he setteth not vp any idoll besides him selfe But our aduersaries confesse the Pope to set vp the body and blood of Christe to be adored of all men and him selfe to adore the same herefore the Pope is not Antichrist You will say he may be a limme of Antichrist although he be not Antichrist him selfe I answere euery lymme of Antichrist is like his head and the rest of the body whereof he is a lymme Antichrist is he that professeth him selfe an aduersary to Christ and goeth about to diminish his honour But the Pope professeth him selfe to haue all his whole honour of Christ and geueth all the whole honour he can deuise to Christ. He worshippeth the Sacrament of the altar because it is the body of Christ. He reuerenceth the signe of the Crosse because it is signe of Christ. He praieth to the Saints which are now in heauen because they are members of Christ being assined they heare his praier in Christ theyr head with whome they make one body Those are the lymmes of Antichrist who can abyde neither the godly worshipping of Christes body nor the reuerent vsing of his holy Crosse nor
shewed a litle before that they were after consecration the body and blood of Christ. Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the body and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his body blood and so they are beleued to be and are adored or â—…neled bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the body and blood of Christ No Syr. but as being in dede the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstaÌ„ded and beleued to be They are adored because they are the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were verè existeÌ„tia quae creduntur being in dede things whiche they are beleued to be So speaketh S. Ihon saying of Christ vidimus gloriam eius gloriaÌ„ quasi vnigeniti à patre we saw his glory a glory as of the only begotten of the Father to wit we saw the glory of him being in dede the only begotten of his Father Uppon which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that coÌ„firmeth and betokeneth an vndouted determination as when we see a king comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a king that is to say he came forth as being in dede a king So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Thedorite vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speak The holy mysteries are adored as being those things in dede which they are beleued to be This place is such as can not be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or geuing godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is in dede the body of Christ as it is beleued to be But it is beleued to be the body of Christe after consecration therefore it is adored as being yâ— true body of Christ. For Theodorete before hauing confessed the mysteries to be called after consecration the body and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther doest thou beleue that thou receauest the body and blood of Christ he answered to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I doe beleue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mystical signes to be in deede after consecration the body and bâ—…ood of Christ which they are beleued to be and so beleued that they are receaued of vs. Euery word must be weighed because we haue to do with Heretikes who must find shifts or els theyr deceite will appere to al the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the body and blood Secondly that the mysteries are vnderstanded to be the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleued to be so Fiâ—…tly they are adored for that they are in dede those things which they are beleued to be And last of all they are receaued The first saying the second and the last the Sacramentaries can beare â—…ithall to wit that they are called the body and blood and are vnderstanded to be the body and blood and that the body and blood are receaned For they would haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a myssecaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name SecoÌ„dly they would haue them vnderstanded to be the body and blood and yet not to be so thereby shewing that they delight in false vnderstandings for no good men would haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which in deede it is not Againe they would the body blood to be receaued How trow you In the faith of the man but not in the truth of the body thereby declaring that they diuide faith from truth as men that haue a presuasion of things that in dede be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receauing Theodoret ioyneth also beleuing adoring and being And the beleâ—…e which he speaketh of is not referred to heaueÌ„ but vnto the holy mysteries They are beleued they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be The thing that is called or named Christes body blood is in dede that thing whiche it is called Christ can missename nothing at al. For if he should call that which were before aier water or earth by the names of fier stones or bread aier earth and water would soner cease to be fyre bread stones would come in theyr place theÌ„ God should cal any creature by a wroÌ„g name He called bread his body therefore bread is vnderstaÌ„ded to be made the body of Christ. You say the vnderstaÌ„ding of man taketh his beginning of senses which tel me it is bread I say in matters belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth me it is the body of Christ and Theodorete saith it is beleued so to be and it is worshipped for that it is so And he geueth the same very word of worshipping to the holy mysteries the which in the same sentence he geueth to the immortall body of Christ sitting at the right hande of his Father And no wonder For seing it is one body whether it be worshipped in heauen or vpon the altar one worship is always due to it Thus we haue witnessed by Theodoretus that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his body aad blood but as being in dede his body and blood Therefore worship is not geuen to them as to images whiche represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really conteine the truth represented by them ¶ The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is proued by the custom of the Priests and people of the first six hundred yeres FRom the Apostles tyme to this day the very same holy mysteries which were consecrated by the Priest vppon the altar were adored of the saithful people which thing is euidently proued out of the Massebooke of the primitiue Church For the Liturgies or Massesbookes of S. Iames the Apostle of S Clement Bishop of Rome of S. Basill Bishop of Cesarea of S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and the exposition which both S. Dionysius Bishop of Athens of Paris Cyrillus Bishop of Hierusalem Germanus Bishop of Constantinoplâ—… Maximus the munk and diuers others haue made vpon the holy mysteries do al with one accord teache and confirme that first the Deacon said Let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence And straight therevppon euen before the tyme of receauing the body and blood of Christ the Bishop or Priest who said Masse
them Therefore in this behalfe we are clere as who neuer departed from the Apostles nor froÌ„ their 〈◊〉 â–ª But your departing is knowen I 〈◊〉 that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berengarius about the yere of our Lord. 1000. I can tell when 〈◊〉 renewed the same heresy when Luther when Zwinglius began Who knoweth not where the Churches are whence they depâ—…rted To wit in Italy in France in Spaine in Germany so forth I can tell the CouÌ„cels wherin it hath bene condemned At 〈◊〉 at Uercels at Tours in the great Councel of Lateran at â—…iemia in Feance at Basill at Constance at Florence at Trent All things are knowen so manifestly concerning the begiuning and proceding of the Sacramentaries that they can not be denied To couclude our faith is 〈◊〉 by the testimonie of yâ— Church which in al ages hath beleued yâ— real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in so much that S. Hilary saith there is no place left of douting of the veritie of Christes fleshe blood why so nunâ—… enim ipsius Domini professione fide nostra verè 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 verè sanguis est â–ª for now both by the profession of our Lord him self by our faith it is fleshe in dede and blood in dede Lo By our Lordes profession and by our faith S. Hilary confesseth that all Christians beleued that the SacrameÌ„t of Cjroâ—…tes body and blood whereof he there spake was his fleshe in dede and his blood in dede for he had spoken before of the Sacrament which be called also a mystcrie and our Lords meate and the Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to vs which Sacrament is Christes fleshe in dede and being receaued maketh the same fleshe naturally and corporally to dwell in vs. This was not only the minde of S. Hilary but he saith it was the profession of our Lord and the faith of the Churche whiche two groâ—…ids are so sure that no place of douting is left For the faith of the â—…hurch doth expound declare witnesse how Christ our Lord ment when he said my flesh is meate in dede This faith can not be vayne or voide for by it we ouercomme the world the deuyl and hel gates By it we know the difference betwene these words This is my body and these I am the dore the vine the way the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias and such like For no man taught in any age neither ChristiaÌ„ people did at tyme beleue that Christ was a material dore vine or way neither that any rock was turned into Christ neither that Ihon Baptist was Elias in person Faith always did vnderstand these propositioÌ„s and such like to be a phrase of speaking without any effect of working any farther thing But when a lawfull Priest saith vppon bread at the altar This is my body then no faithâ—…ul man euer douted but there was wrought the body and blood of Christ. and so our fathers and great grandfathers deliuered to vs that belefe Certainly a surer rule to vnderstand the word of God then faith is neuer was heard of for it is the life and graâ—… of the new testament which the holy Ghost hath geuen into the whole Church of God It is the gift of knowlege to euery good beleuer which directeth him to al truth S. Augustine shewing that the Manichees thought the visible sonne to be Christ although he might by many meanes haue impugned that errour yet he specially chose to say Catholicae Ecclesiae recta fides improbat tale commentum diabolicam doctrinam esse cognoscit credendo The right faith of the Catholike Church disproued that fable and knoweth it by beleuing to be a deâ—…ylish doctrine Euen so by beleuing the Sacrament of the altar to be Christes true flesh we know the doctrine of the Sacramentaries to be a fable aud an heresy Epiphanius writing of purpose against figuratiue and allegoricall interpretatious geueth likewise a most clere witnesse of the belefe of all the Church in his tyme and before him For disputing what it is for man to be made according to the image of God He shewith at the last whatsoeuer it be once it is true because God through grace hath geuen man that image Though we can not tell wherein it standeth And for example he bringeth how Christe tooke at his last supper bread and wine and when he had geuen thanks he sayd This is my body and this is my blood 〈◊〉 Epiphanius nameth not these things because the 〈◊〉 should not by his bookes vnderstaÌ„d our mysteries coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he sheweth that the thing coÌ„secrated is not like neither to the manhod of Christ nor to his Godhead For it is of a shape and to looke vnto a dead or vnsensible thing yet Christ by grace hath said This is my body and This is my blood Et nemo non fidem habet sermoni Qui â—…nim non credit esse ipsum verum sicut ipse dixit is excidit à gratia salute and euery man beleueth the saying For who so doth not beleue the saying as him selfe said it he is fallen from grace and saluation If the word saying be this is my body this is my blood If euery man beleue the saying if he that beleueth not the saying to be true and so to be true euen as Christ spake it as he sounded it as he vttered it if he that beleueth not these things be fallen from grace and saluation who wil now beleue that this is the signe of my body and not the truth thereof and then he must say likewise that in dede we are not made according to the image of God Euery man in the tyme of Epiphanius did beleue not only yâ— truth of Christes body blood in heauen nor only the dwelling thereof in vs by faith but euery man did beleâ—…e this selfe saying this speache and this proposition This is my body If this saying must be beleued it must be true if the speache it selfe be true the thing thereby signified is true But the wordes doe signifie the substance of Christes body for his body is a substance therefore it is true yâ— this is the substaÌ„ce of Christes body But if it be still bread it is not so for material bread is not the body of Christ therefore it is so the substance of his body that it is not bread or wine which is the signe of his body as the Sacramentaries teach In this saying This is my body no bread is named no signe no figure â—…ut only the selfe body of Christe which is one certaine substance Therefore all the Church in the tyme of Epiphanius and alwaies before did beleue the thing pointed vnto in those words to be the substaÌ„ce of Christes body For how so euer it semed vnsensible as also it is not sene how we are made according to yâ— image of God yet yâ— saying was beleued euen
them make that thing as it is written in the Gospel I shewed at 〈◊〉 that I was signed of my Father and equall with him in power they them selues beleue that I made al creatures places times of nothing and now is it doubted how I am able to make my body present vnder the â—…orm of bread in diuerse places Yea to maintaine the better that argument against my allmighty power they say I entred not into my disciples the dores being shut But eyther preuented the shutting of them contrary to the wordes of my Gospell or came in by the window as theues do or by some hole as crepers doe yea any thing is soner beleued then my diuine strength and working Thou hypocrite seing the word of God hath it written foure tymes in the new testament This is my body how comest thou to talke with me of my 〈◊〉 in heauen as though one of my workes were contrary to the other If in dede thou haddest bene humbly perswaded that I were God thou wouldest not measure my allmightie power by thy simple wit Thou art twise condemned first for deniall of a truth and againe for denying it against my expresse word which thou pretendest to esâ—…e and yet pronouÌ„cest it false If the pore mâ—…n say he knew not so much nor saw not the falsehod of that argumeÌ„t and beginne to accuse the salse preachers who deceiuâ—…d him Christ maie well say that he was not deceaued for before those false preachers began their false doctrine he had said This is my body and this is my blood and all the world beleued and taught the râ—…all presence of Christes body blood fiften hundred yeres together What cause nowe haddest thou to beleue a new Gospell and new preachers thereof Forsoth Sir they said the Bishop of Rome had deceaued vs and we heare say he is a very euil maÌ„ therefore we thought he had deceaued vs. If in this case Christ tell him that the Bishop of Rome were yâ— successour of S. Peter and so his vicar hauing promise by him not to erre in faith and yet that he alone taught not that doctrine but that all the Bishops doctors pâ—…ers of the whole Church taught the same from the beginning and that Christ him selfe had sayâ—… the same that all the 〈◊〉 and the Apostle S. Paule had written the same that al faithful 〈◊〉 beleued the same what excuse can he haue who 〈◊〉 Christ the Apostles the Bisshops the Fathers the preachers and the whole Church to followe an vpâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who began his doctriue so amhitiously and proudly who â—…ed so euil died so terribly that his very â—…ominable dealing with great Princes his shamfull 〈◊〉 and horrible death might make any good man wearie to think vpon him much lesse should so many haue folowed him To 〈◊〉 shor â—…wer the pore maÌ„ for him selfe â–ª what he may yet he can not denie but that both Christ said this is my body the Church taught the same and yet he beleued not this to be the body of Christe and therefore is one of them who beleue not without faith which is but one there is no saluatioÌ„ no pleasing of God no part in the kingdoÌ„ of heauen Which thing if they that be aliue will consider they maie returne againe to the Catholike Churche and so be made liuely members of that body whereof Christe is the Sauiour Herevnto is added the seuenth booke conteining a con â–ª â—…utation of the fifth article of M. Iuels Reply against D. Harding concerning the reall presence of Christes body in the supper of our Lorde The preface of the seuenth booke Iâ—…d thought to haue ended my treatise of our Lords supper with such matter as had bâ—…ne set foorth in my former six boks But when I had seen M. Iuels â—…eply against D. Harding and had 〈◊〉 not only contrarie doctrine to that which the Catholike Chruch beleueth vttered therin but also the same vttered with such enormouse misconstruing of the worde of God and with suche abusing of auncieÌ„t writers that it semed expedient to detect the falshod thereof I toke vpoÌ„ me to answere specially to that article whiche did unpugne the reall presence of Christes body â–ª whereof I had intreated And because I could neither well confute M. Iuels â—…ply without some respect had to D. Hardings answere nor conueniently put both D. Hardings and M. Iuels whole wordes in â—…ny booke which alredie was greate enough I was constrained to take such order that neither al their wordes might be at large laied foorth nor the pith of them in any part dissembled Wherein I haue so behaued my selfe that M. Iuel shall haue no 〈◊〉 cause to coÌ„plaine of me For I haue to my knowledge omitted no scripture no authoritie no argument of any force whereunto I haue not aunswered As for yâ— bookes of D. Harding of M. Iuel they being extaÌ„t in most mens handes nede not to be printed again by me How fully M. Iuel is answered the discrete Reader shall iudge when he commeth to the matter This much I will say it was more pain to staie my penne in suche abundance of stuffe as the goodâ—…es of the cause and euill dealing of M. Iuel gaue me then to 〈◊〉 at any tyme what might be 〈◊〉 answered One thing I beâ—…che the Reader to note most diligeÌ„tly that in all this treatise M. Iuel vseth none other meane so coâ—…on to proue his intent as to set one truth against an other As though Christes body could not both be in heauen visibly and in the Sacrament miraculously or as though because the Saâ—…rament is a figure it could not also contein the truth which it sigureth Or because Christ is eaten by faith his body might not be eaten also realy in the Sacrament But this thing is common to M. Iuel with other of his faction Marie to leaue on t the true nominatiue caâ—…e and to put in a false to leaue out the 〈◊〉 word which is the keie of all disputation to conueye wordes of his own which the authour neuer thought of to mispoint mis-english the testimonies of the fathers to 〈◊〉 their meaning that I can not tel whether any man hath vsed so much in so litle a treatise as in this one article of the reall â—…sence â—…e is â—…ound to haue done Neither is it vnknoweÌ„ to yâ— lerned who hath seen his booke yâ— hâ—… hath vsed the like falshod in yâ— other articles also 〈◊〉 by Gods grace the world shal see or it be long In the meane tyme iudg the rest by this which I shall set before thiâ—…e eyes And praie vn â–ª to God yâ— either M. Iuel may see his vnhonest dealing 〈◊〉 him selfe or els that his folly maie be 〈◊〉 to al men to thintent none may perish beside those who will not â—…denour by all meanes to lerne 〈◊〉 folow and to embrace the true doctrine of Christes Gospel and of the 〈◊〉 â–ª tholike Church The
affirmed him to rule Angels and al that euer was made by God and his scholars called him a Prophet and the sonne of God whiche notwithstanding for so much as they beleued 〈◊〉 not to be God by nature the Catholiks neuer douted to say that they taught him to be nudum hominem a naked and bare man Right so whatsoeuer holynesse be annexed to bread and wine be it the signe of neuer so great a vertue and efficacie be it called neuer so much the body and blood of Christ yet if it remain stil in the former substance if the truth whiche it is appointed to signify be absent it is bare bread and bare wine a bare token of Christes body and blood Amend your belefe M. Iuell if you will haue vs to amend our termes Iuel We fede not the people with bare figures San. The question is not how ye fede the people by your doctrine but what signe you teache the Sacrament it self 〈◊〉 be whether it be suche a signe as hath present in a secrete manner the truth signified thereby or els whether it be the signe of a truth absent in substance For two kind of signes there are one which by the truth of his own substance considered and well vnderstaÌ„ded doth signifie an other manner of truth belonging to it selfe as when a loaf of bread beinge true bread in substance is set to signifie true bread also but yet in that respect as bread is there to be bought sold An other signe there is where the truthe signified is absent in substance As when an iuy bush doth signifie wine to be sold. This later kind of signes or figures is vtterly naked bare and without the truth which is signified The question is whether of these two kinds of signes is in the Sacrament of Christes supper The Catholikes say the best and richest kind of signes is there because there is Christes body realy present to signifie and as it were by seale to witnesse his owne death and passion You teache the substance of the Sacrament to be still bread and wine but our signe is more worthy of Christes Godhead and more properly a signe or a seale in truth of nature then yours For as S. Hilary and S. Cyrill teache Signaculorum ea natura est caet Such is the nature of signes or of seales that they set foorth the whole forme of the kind of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them selues then those things haue whence they are sealed After this sorte God the Father signed Christ and Christe thereby was the forme the print the signe the figure the image of his Father But as S. Hilarie sheweth Imago authoris veritas He was the image of him whom he represented also the truthe I warrant you M. Iuel you fede the people with no doctrine of any such signe or seale present in Christes supper For you say afterward that the bread is an erathly thing therefore a figure I pray you can bread be other then a bare figure if it â—…il remain earthly and corruptible I say further to you M. Juel and yeâ—… beare no false witnesse at all that your 〈◊〉 be more bare then euerwere any euen in the old testameÌ„t For they at the least wise did in apparence of true fleshe and in true blood shedding foreshewe the fleshe and blood of Christ which should die for vs. Melchisedech likewise had beside his bread and wine the reall body of Abraham present whome he offered to God and in him Jesus Christ his sede But you hauing bare bread and bare wine without any reall flesh at all either present or offered must nedes haue a naked signe and a bare figure such as only Cain had and his brood Iu. We teache that in the ministration of the Sacraments Christ is set before vs euen as he was crucified vpon the crosse and that therein we may behold remission of synnes San. Admit ye â—…ache so then is your sermon better then your Sacrament For a man may looke long inowgh vppon the substaÌ„ce of bread wine before he can picke out of their earthly nature Christ crucified But if that blessed belefe were mainteined according to the truthe of the Gospell which after consecracion worshipped the reall body of Christ vnder the forme of bread theÌ„ the token which conteineth the true body that diâ—…d for vs in it is no bare token but the truth it selfe in substance and a token of the visible manner thereof Iu. We teache that Christes body is verily geuen to vs and that we verily eate it and liue by it and are flesh of his flesh San. How wel you teache it the thing it selfe will trie â–ª but all this proueth not that your Sacrament hath euer the more in it vnlesse you say that you receaue all this vnder yâ— formes of bread and wine A goodly matter your wordes in preaching to heare the which infidels may be admitted shal be better then the Sacraments instituted by Christ. How we are flesh of Christes flesh I haue shewed in the fifth booke the fifth chapiter Iu. Yet we â—…av not the substance of bread and wine is done â—…way or that Christes body is let downe from hâ—…uen or made really present San. That is the cause why your Sacraments are still bare naked For all the rest which you talke oâ—… is told to mens eares but nothing is wrought in the Sâ—…ents As for your nicke naming of things as of doing away bread in steede of changing of letting doune Christes body from heaâ—…en we must pardon you therein It is your grace to raile or rather the lacke of grace in you We teach bread to be changed into Christes body through his power Iu. He must mount on highe saith Chrysostome who so wil reache to that body San. You ouerreached your selfe when you turned accedere to reache â–ª it is to come vnto not to reache For S. Chrysostom spake of coÌ„ming to the holy visible table whiche stoode in the visible Church and meant that who so commeth to receaue thenâ—… the holy meate he must in good faith life climme vp to heauen and not that he should goe thither to receaue the mysteries Ipsa namque mensa For the very table that is to say the meate vpon the table is our saluation and life And againe This 〈◊〉 maketh that whiles we be in this life earth may vs heaueÌ„ to vs. Iu. Send vp thy faith saith Augustine and thou hast taken him San. The place is by you abused and drawen from a misbeleuing Iew to whome it was spoken to the Christian 〈◊〉 See good Reader my second booke xxix chapiter Iu. In deede the bread thaâ—… we receaue with our bodily mouthes is an earthly thing therefore a figure as the water in 〈◊〉 San. The water in baptisme is no figure
but the 〈◊〉 is the word comming to the 〈◊〉 Those â—…wo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figure and 〈◊〉 no words 〈◊〉 spoken whereby the 〈◊〉 should câ—…ase to be that it was yea because it is saied I baptise or washe thee whiche is not done without water we are forced to beleue that the substance of water remaineth But it is saied ouer the bread This is my body And after that words spoken fully past that which semeth bread is yet stil a mystical figure as it may wel appere in that a good tyme after consecration yâ— holy figure of Christes body being reserued vpon the altar hath bene receaued of the Christian people alwaies in the Church of God at yâ— end of the seruice Therefore the figure which is made in the supper must be so made that it must remaine when the wordes are past Nowe that remanent substance is the body of Christe vnder the form of 〈◊〉 But if the earthly substance of bread did â—…ill remaine as M. Iuel saâ—…eth there is nothing at all whiche maie be a figure For as the water is no figure when the wordes are absent so the breade could not be a figure any longer when the words were fully past Iu. The body of Christ is the thing it selfe and no figure San. You know not what you say The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it selfe both the thing and also a figure of the mystical vnitie of the Church SoS. Hilarie teacheth saying Naturalis per SacramentuÌ„ proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est vnitatis The naturall proprietie or which is al one the personal substance or the proper nature of Christ by the Sacrament or signe of bread is the Sacrament of a perfite vnitie The body of Christ it selfe is a signe as well as the truth but yet a signe not only by it self but by yâ— signe vnder which it is Hereof I beseche thee good Reader to see my fiâ—…t booke the fift chapter The thing it selfe which is no figure is the grace of corporall vnion whiche is wrought in this Sacrament with Christ him selfe Iu. In respect of the body we haue no regard to the figure â–ª wherâ—…nto S. Bernard alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for San. What a desperate custome is it for you to 〈◊〉 alwaies the Fathers of these last nine hundred yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned If they be idolatours or false preachers why bring you their witnesses as to build any thing vpon theÌ„ either you wil â—…and to S. Bernard or els you in vaine allege him If you stand to him euen in those words which you take out of him you are vtterly ouerthrowen He saith Manie things be done for them selues only as if I geue a ring to a maÌ„ only to geue it without any farther meaning other things be done to signifie those are called signes and be so As when a ring is geuen to put a man in possessioÌ„ of an heritage in this case the ring is not respected for it 〈◊〉 but for the heritages sake So saieth S. Bernard our Lord drawing nere to his passioÌ„ prouided to adorne his disciples with grace Thus by him grace is the end or effect of the signe but what is the signe it selfe M. Iuel saieth bread But I praie you saith S. Beruard so No verily what saith he theÌ„ Vt securi sitis SacrameÌ„ti dominici corporis sanguinis pretiosi inuestituraÌ„ habetis That ye may be without feare ye haue the inuestiture of our Lords Sacrament his preciouse body and blood Behold the body and blood of Christ is the signe it self wherewith we are inuested or put in possession of grace As therefore the ring or the booke is present whereby we are put in possession of the heritage or of the prebâ—…ed so the body of Christ is really present wherwith we are put in possession of grace It is not bread that is the signe of grace it is the substance of Chistes body aud blood whiche is the holy signe whereof S. Bernard speaketh and therefore he maketh not the body of Christ the thing it selfe as M. Iuel corruptly allegeth The thing is the grace of God the substance of Christ vnder yâ— form of bread is yâ— signe For Christ coÌ„meth in his own corporall presence to sease to indue vs with grace Hence it commeth M. Iuel that S. Augustine so oft calleth this Sacrament a figure because the body it selfe is here not for it selfe but to put vs in possession of so great a grace as the vnion with God is ¶ That Christes body is receaued by mouth and not by faith only IVel. We put a difference betwene the signe and the thing it self that is signified Sander In the consideration of a resonable vnderstanding there is alwaies a differnce betwen the signe and the thing but not alwaies in substance For Christ is the figure of his Fathers substaÌ„ce and withal the same substance but not called a figure in the same respect or consideration For as he is the figure so he differeth in person from his Father but in truthe of nature he is also one substance with him Euen so the body of Christ as it is vnder the forme of bread differeth in the manner of being from the body of Christ which died for vs in form of man But in substance it is all one Euen as Christ being transfigurated had an other manner of being then he had before his owne substance tarying still one and the same Iu. We seeke Christ in heauen San. So doe we to and yet beleue him also to be with vs vntil the worlds end Iuel And imagine not him to be present bodily vppon the earthe San. Neither doe we imagine him present in his bodily shape but wee beleue and by assured faith knowe him to be present in bodily substance whent the bread and wine are consecrated Our affirmatiue beleefe is grounded vpon the expresse word of God and vppon the continuall practise of the Church Your negatiue â—…gination is an â—…ool â—…ormed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 idolatours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caluin 〈◊〉 Martyr 〈◊〉 Iu. The body of Christe is to be eaten by faith only and none other wise San. In so saying if you will also defeâ—…d it you are the mainteiner of a blasphemouse heresie and 〈◊〉 otherwise and that I wil proue because your words are directly against the Gospell the auncient fathers and affirme the same which the Arrians did affirme beinge condemned for it of old tyme. Christe after bread taken and thankes geuen said take eate this is my body But Christe spake of eating by mouth and not by faith alone and he saith the thing eaten to be his owne body therefore his body is not eaten by faith only but by mouth also I goe farther with you Al that was eateÌ„ by mouth or by
M. Iuel left out two genitiue cases vnitatis and huius rei which being repeated in S. Augustine maketh all the matter exceding clere S. Augustine affirmeth the felowship of the sainctes to be the body of Christ whereof S. Paule saith we being many are one bread one body The SacrameÌ„t saith he of this body which body is the cumpanie of the elect is receaued frome our Lordes table Huius rei Sacramentum The Sacrament of this thing Of whiche 〈◊〉 M. Iuel saieth of the body of Christ and meaneth the naturall body which sitteth in heauen for M. Iuel said before in the same verie paragraph Christes body is the thing it selfe Christes body is in heaueÌ„ gloriouse subiect to no corruptioÌ„ And he made the bread which is in earth a figure of that body But saith S. Augustin so No douttesse His words be Sacramentum huius rei 〈◊〉 est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi c. The SacrameÌ„t of this thing that is to say of the vnitie of Christes body and blood is prepared in our Lordes table and thence receaued The vnitie of Christes body is not his naturall body but his 〈◊〉 body the Churche whiche before S. Augustine called Societatem Sanctorum the feloship of the holy men Now the Sacrament of this feloship and of this vnion is receaued from our Lords table Therefore we see two things noted of S. Aâ—…gustine the one is the Sacrament it self The other is that thing whereof it is the Sacrament The Sacrament is such a substance which may be either life or destruction to vs because it is the naturall and true body of Christ which being vnited to God can make vs liâ—…e if it be worthely receaued and that by his own vertue which thing manna the Sacrament of the Iewes could not doe and the same being vnworthely receaued destroieth vs for that we touche and violate the reall substance of our maker But the thing whereof that Sacrament is the sigâ—…e is hurtful to no man Why so Because it is the â—…nioying or fruition of that feloship which being not entred into but by vertue and grace can not possibly make any man to be destroied For we can not abuse the vertues them selues All substances we may abuse and God we may offend â–ª but we can not take hurt by faith being faithfull chast humble charitable temperate modest by which vertues we are incorporated to the mystical body of Christ. This thing therefore which is the â—…ffect of the Sacrament being wrought in faithfull men is called in S. Augustine res ipsa the thing it selfe And was called before societas Sanctorum the feloship of the sainctes and straight after haec res this thing and again vnitas corporis sanguinis Christi the vnitie of Christes body and blood This thing is destruction to no man whosoeuer be partaker of it M. Iuel doth most ignorantly I can not tel with what greater malice leaue out huius rei and vnitatis and saith Sacramentum de mensa dominica sumitur The SacrameÌ„t is receaued from our Lords table But S. Augustine said the SacrameÌ„t of this thing that is to say of vnitie is receaued All those wordes huius rei id est vnitatis were left out of M. Iuel The which thing doth clene alter the whole sense of S. Augustine Againe whereas S. Augustine saide the Sacrament of this 〈◊〉 is prepared in our Lordes â—…able 〈◊〉 Iuel left it 〈◊〉 But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much for me to shew to the reader that Christes Sacra ment is not only receaued from his table but also prepared in his table and first prepared before it be receaued Prepared by consecration receaued by coÌ„munion It is not common bread as â—… Iâ—…el wickedly preacheth For that was prepared before we came to our lordes table but Christes Sacrament is prepared in his table it is there first made thence it is receaued Wel if the Sacrament be one thing and the thing of the Sacrament wherof S. Augustine speaketh be the cumpanie of good men what will follow hereof Surely that the Sacrament is the substance of Christes bodie vnder the foorme of bread How so It is not possible that the body of Christ should be excluded 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his holy table but al yâ— is there prepared or els receaued eyther it is the SacrameÌ„t it self or the thing of the Sacrament but Christs body is not now called of S. Augustin the thing of yâ— SacrameÌ„t as it hath ben proued therefore it is called the SacrameÌ„t it selfe But yâ— Sacrament is prepared in Christes table receaued thence therefore Chrâ—…stes body is prepared there receaued thence That which is receaued theÌ„ce appeareth bread that only is prepared by consecration and receaued by communion Therefore vnder that visible foorme the bodie is made present by consecration and receaued into our mouthes by communion Was there not cause trow you why M â–ª Iuel should leaue out the genitine case iâ—…yned with Sacramentum and take it absolutely for a sacrament that is to say for bread And so to make the thing of the Sacrament to be the body of Christ in heauen By such falshods mainteined must be mainteined otherwise it wold fal to the ground ¶ M. Iuel hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh HArding Christ by shevving his diuine povver vvhereby he vvill ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbelefe of the Capharnaits touching the promised substance of his body Iuel Christ maketh mention of his ascension into heauen ergo sayeth M. Harding his body is really in the Sacrament San. You leaue out the omnipotencie of Christ where vppon D. Harding grounded his whole reason and so you play with him the pelting Sophist Iuel If he conclude not thus he concludeth nothing San. He concludeth that the Capharnaites be confounded for their vnbelefe as you also be For seing Christ sayed of his flesh I will geue And the whole stay why the Capharnaites beleued him not was because they knew not his Godhead which was able to doe it by so excellent a meanes as now we Catholikes know that he hath done it and ye will not know when both they and you here that Chrisâ—… is God and will asceÌ„d where he was before you are both confounded as who measure his workes by your own 〈◊〉 reason and not by his almighty word For his words are spirit and life and therefore do work really whatsoeuer they speake Iuel When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shal see that he geueth not his body in suche â—…ort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels sayeth S. Augustine vsing Christes ascension to proue that there is no such grosse presence in the Sacrament San. True it is that Christ is not present to be wasted by eating but yet he is really eaten And that is clerely mea nt of S.
is no lesse required to the substance of Baptism then of the Eucharist But when some things be like and some things be different in two SacrameÌ„ts it is great ignorance to reason from the similitude which one way is betwene them to destroye an other way those points wherein they differ After which sort M. Iuel doth reason ¶ M. Iuel replieth not well touching the authoritie alléged out of the Nicene Councell HArding We behold saith the Councell of Nice the Lamb of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put or layd on that holy table and vve receaue his preciouse body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily and in dede Which is to say really Iuel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greke nor in Tunstal But deuised by M. Harding San. It will not folow that because the common Greke edition or B. â—…unstall hath it not that therefore D. Harding faineth that Greke word It is found in the actes of the Councell of Nice which are not yet all printed but they are extant in diuerse libraries And this place is in many print bookes where commonly they haue the Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated into situm situate or put Your self also in the Apologie did allege certein words out of the same acts of the Councell of Nice Yea you haue done the like euen in this very article therefore you ought not to be angry with D. Harding for doing the same Iuel Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be set or placed nedes sounde a reall presence San. It must nedes proue a real presence of that thing which if it were not present it could not be set vppon the table Or can you haue a capon set and placed vppon your table which is not really present Iuel Christ dwelleth in our hart by faith and yet not really San. No wonder sith a thing may dwel somewhere by faith where yet it is not in dede As Christ was killed in the saith of inst men from the beginning of the world yet not in dede vntill he was nailed to the crosse A being by faith is a lâ—…sse pâ—…ite being then a being really And therefore the fewer and the lesse doth not infer the more and the greater But the Lamb of God is not said to be vppon the holy table by faith but to be sâ—…t or layed there Iuel S. Hierom sayth as often as we enter into the sepulcher we see our Sauiour lying in his shrowd Yet he lay not there really San. Not then truly when S. Hierom entred but he spake in respect of that true place which Christes body had sometyme occupied But if the things vpon the holy table neither be now nor at any time were the body of Christ how sayd the Councell we behold the Lamb placed vppon the holy table Iuel In the Councell of Chalcedon it is demaunded in what Scripture lye these two natures of Christ. it is the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures San. The heretike Eutiches who asked for those two natures in the Scripture asked for very material and reall words which being seen and readen might lead him to these two natures For the words which signifie two natures haue a reall place in holy Scripture and they haue bene at large declared by S. Cyrillus But I pray you syr If a maÌ„ should aske you where you find that Greke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could you shew a sufficient discharge thereof I think scaut so good as D. Harding can bring for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Once it is not extant in the common booke of the Councels Iuel That word signifieth a naturall situation of place and order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christes body hath not in the Sacrament San. Although Christes body in it self hath not any such extensiue 〈◊〉 locally in the Sacrament yet it hath such a situation as the foorm of bread requireth which suffiseth to declare a reall presence For as his Godhead might be shewed in his manhod he that seeth me seeth my Father so his body is placed vnder the foorm of bread and there may be shewed to a faithfull man Iuel The Councell is plaine that we consyder not basely the bread and the wine that are set before vs. San. He considereth them basely who sayth they remain still in their earthly substance notwithstaÌ„ding that Christ after blessing hath called theÌ„ by greater names whose calling is the making the thing to be that which it is called Iuel It is sayd lift vp your hartes so that there is nothing in the action to be consydered but only Christ. San. It is meant not only to lift them vp to God but also to lift them from earthly thoughts of infidelitie and to beleue that which Christ sayeth and doth in his holy mysteries as S. Chrysostom noteth I haue spoken of this matter at large in my second booke the. xxviâ—… Chapiter Of Egles I haue spoken the second booke the. xxvij Chapiter Uerily the thing made whereof Christ sayd make this thing is to be coÌ„sydered in the myâ—…ries and not only Christ in heauen Iuel S. Ambrose saith it is better sene that is not sene San. Therefore yâ— body of Christ which Christ pointeth vnto saiyng this is my body is better seue to a faithâ—…ull Catholik theÌ„ bread and wine which the vnfaithfull Sacramentarie saith he sâ—…th Iuel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent sor they are tokens of things being one thing and signifiyng an other as S. Augustine saith San. As they be tokens they be one thing signifie an other and therefore the substance of Christes body is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Churche which things vnder the foorm of bread it doth signifie but it is an other maner of thing to wit a body immortal impassible and out of al daunger of corruption how be it S. Augustine disputeth not there of those which are the peculiar SacrameÌ„ts of the Church as your words for the same cause wold seme to signific but generallie of all sigues which commonly differ in substance from the things signified by them But as S. Chrysostom well noteth we must beleue God in al things yet speciallie in the mysteries As therefore wheÌ„ God maketh a signe by water or oile or any other creature we ought to mark not what substance that thing is but what it is set to signifie so when Christ toke bread and after blessing sayd this is my body which is geuen for you make this thing for the remembrance of me we must note that he did not appoint any creature to signifie his body but made a new signe he made I say a signe which might signifie
his death he sayd to his Apostles hoc facite make this thing Thus we see good cause why this signe should differ from all other signes because a naturall thing was not appointed at the supper to signify Christ but a supernaturall thing was prepared and made there a new to signify his wonderfull death and resurrection Iuel Touching our beholding Christ in the Sacrament S. Augustine saith it woâ—…keth such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord him self present vppon the crosse San. You care not what you heape vp together so it may make a shew S. Augustine there speaking properly of the solemnity of Easter which now in England is wholy takeÌ„ away saith although death shall nomore beare rule ouer Christ yet Anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est the yerely remembrance doth represent that which was done in old time and it worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord present vppon the crosse those signes were externall and as it may appere were made to the senses by preaching and shewing some image of Christ and by creping to the crosse and by such like godly ceremonies as the Church of God hath alwaies vsed at Easter but in our Sacraments as S. Chrysostom saith Omnia quae tradidit insensibilia sunt al things which Christ hatâ—… deliuered are without yâ— cumpasse of yâ— seÌ„ses S. Augustine therefore spake not of yâ— SacrameÌ„t but of other external ceremonies Iuel This is it that Eusebius writeth that the body might be worshipped by a mystery and that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spiritual sort and not fleshly Christ is layed present vpon the table San. Beside that you omitt the beginning of this senteÌ„ce you haue also left out foure lines euen in the middest thereof which doe shew that because a daily redemption such as neuer fainteth did still run on for the saluation of men the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting By which words Eusebius declareth what kind of mystery the Sacrament of Christes body is verily such as offereth vp that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. For as Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father in heauen by his reall presence there maketh continuall intercession in his manhod for vs and causeth the redemption of mankind to be alwaies in his force and strength before God so the mystery which is consecrated according to his institution in earth doth from hence offer and present vnto God the same selfe redemption by the very same substance of flesh which is in heauen To this end Eusebius sayth the Sacrament of Christes body and blood is consecrated and in what sort consecrated The inuisible priest saith Eusebius by secret power turneth the visible creatures with his word into the substance of his body blood and again before yâ— creatures be consecrated by the inuocation of the highest name or power the substance of bread and wine is there but after the words of Christ it is the body and blood of Christ. This was the homily which M. Iuel thought good to alleage that all men might think that there was nothing writen that made not for his purpose Is that no reall presence where consecration is so made that the creatures be changed into the substance of Christes body blood was not the wine really present at Cana into which the water was changed Well consecratioÌ„ is made the creatures of bread and wine are thanged into the substance of Christes body and blood and in that body blood the redemption of mankind is offered to God and is preserued in the remembrance of men and yet all this while that body and blood by M. Iuels verdit is not present The change is made by the word of God yet that word is figuratiue if we may beleue M. Iuel yea but he hath a phrase in store I warrant you to plaiâ—…er this wound Iuel S. Augustine saith you are vppon the table you are in the cup. as the people is layd vppon the table so and none otherwise the Councel of Nice saith the Lamb of God is layd vppon the table Sand. What M. Iuel is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christes body and blood I haue shewed an other where in my v. booke the v. chapiter that euen that our being on the table and in the cup doth proue Christes reall presence For we should not be there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder that forme of bread and of wine wherein we are signified Iuel The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really but these two words truly and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the one doth vtterly exclude the other San. If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh it is all one in speaking of flesh to say truly and fleshly but as concerning the corruplible qualities of flesh so it is not al one If it had pleased your malice to haue denied Christes presence in heauen as you deny it in the Sacrament you might as wel haue mocked all the places brought against you for his reall presence there with this word fleshly as now thereby you mock at his presence in the Sacrament This licenciouse wantonnesse in taking aduantage by a fleshly terme when soeuer you be pressed with a good argument shal get you neuer the more credit among wise men The real presence which we defend in the SacrameÌ„t is not carnall and fleshly but cleane and pure in so much that Angels wonder at yâ— marueâ—…lous vnspekable mystery of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament Yea S. Chrysostom saith Quod angeli videÌ„tes c. That thing at the sight wherof Angels quake because of the brigthnes which shineth out of it therewith we are fed therevnto we are vnited and we are made one body of Christ and one flesh And yet is this a â—…eshly kind of presence M. Iuel Iuel He that eateth most spiritually eareth most truly as Christ is the true vine the true manna and we are veâ—…ily one bread and the Apostles verily the heauens and these are the paschall feast wherein verily the Lamb is slaine San. In comparison of bodilie eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort But a thing both eaten in bodie in spirit as the Sacrament is eaten is farre more trulie eaten both waies then by one waâ—…e alone Again when the name of anie thing affirmed of Christ apperteineth to the true nature of his manhad which he hath assumpted it is to he verified of him not onlie by a metaphor but in verie dede Christ is no naturall â—…ine because he assumpted not that substaÌ„ce to him Likewise he is not Manna
and specially of al Christ hath appointed baptism to be after his coming so necessary a meane for our incorporatioÌ„ to his mystical body whereof he is the Sauior yâ— except a man be born again of the water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kyngdome of heauen Again some Sacraments are appointed to reconcile vs to god if we synne after baptism For except we doe penance we shall perish all together Iuel Thei that are baptized are planted into Christ. San. You should shew that Christes body is plaÌ„ted into their bodies and that really and substantially 〈◊〉 Haue you forgotten your promise Iuel Thei haue put Christ vpon them San. You should shew that Christes body is put within their bodies euen fleshely Iuel By one spirite thei are baptized into one body San. You should shew that the naturall body of Christe is by baptising really in their bodies For the body whereof S. Paule speaketh is the mysticall body Iu. S. Augustine saith This is the vse of baptising that thei that be baptised may be incorporate into Christ. San. It would haue bene englished hereunto baptising is available that is to say this is the strength and the force of baptism But you beleue baptisme to be only a seale of an incorporation alredie made and not in dede to incorporate vs into Christ and therfore you falsified S. Augustine according to your shamâ—…ul custome Well we are incorporated by baptisme yet the body of Christ is not thereby shewed to dwell really in our bodies A man may be incorporated to the cumpanie of Marchants in the citie of London yet the cuÌ„panie of Marchantes shall not dwell really in his body All this doth not proue your principall proposition that by baptism the body of Christ dwelleth really in our bodies Iuel Being baptised we are turned into God saith Dionysius Sander The word that he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which importeth a participatioÌ„ of diuine nature howsoeuer it be brought to passe insomuch that the Angels may so be made as it were gods or be made like to his nature Therfore it is not proued by yâ— words of Dionysius that Christs body dwelleth in our bodies really or substancially by baptism nor he nameth not turning but rather a deification or a comming to be like vnto god Iu. Pachimeres saith we are graft into Christ and made one nature with him by holy baptism Sander You haue turned him falsely For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie one nature but diuerse men of one nature kinsmen as it were and men of the same stock or of the same route or graffinge It is not al one to be made one flesh of one flesh In baptism we are al made of one flesh and we al are graft into one mystical flesh of Christ but by yâ— Sacrament of the altar we are during yâ— time of the coÌ„iunction one self flesh with Christes natural flesh There we are two in one fleshe as I haue shewed in my 〈◊〉 boke yâ— v. Chapter But seing you crane ayde of Pachimeres you shal heare his mind coÌ„cernig yâ— blessed sacrameÌ„t of the altar theÌ„ iudge you whether he say or meane the like of baptism The bishop saith he beleueth that euen the things which are set forth he meaneth the bread and wine were changed into the preciouse body blood of Christ by the holy goost who worketh all If then the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ yea and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the first paterns sor so he called them before the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh relation to al that went before if then the bread and wine be chaÌ„ged into those first examples of flesh and blood which were taken by Christ of his mother seing we partake those holy mysteries aster the chaÌ„ge it is easy io iudge that Pachymeres taught otherwise of one vnion to god concerning the meane of Christes supper then euer he taught concerning baptism ¶ Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar or no. IVel. Thus much may sufsice to discry M. Hardings slender argument San. Not so M. Iuell you must expound the fourth member of your diuision You haue told that Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies by his natiuitie our faith and by baptisme come now and shew how it dwelleth in our bodies really by the Sacrament of the altar Was not al the other talke made for that end why flie you when you are come to the very point but who would not laugh to see this mans doing He saith Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies and that four waies And when he hath endeuored to shew that it is so in three of the first in the whiche in dede it is not so then cometh he to declare in the fourth way by which only Christes body dwelleth really in vs when we receauâ—… the Sacrament of his body there he spendeth al his strength to declare that Christes body is not really dwelling in our bodies Why Sir Did you so forget your selfe that you haue â—…mitted your principal part You wil say perhaps that D. Harding hath done that for you and that the places whiche he bringeth do shew so much be it so At the lest then you should not impugne D. Harding as you doe If his places proue not yâ— Christes body dwelleth really in our bodies as you say thei doe not proue it then it is your part to proue so much for you aâ—…cmed it before Iuel Notwithstanding by the Sacrament of baptisme Christ be naturally in vs yet M. Harding may not therefore conclude that Christ is naturally in the Sacrament of baptisme San. It is false that Christ by the Sacrament of baptisme is naturally in vs. For as the father who begetteth a childe is not thereby naturally dwelling in the childe albeit an effect of his nature was one of the causes of the childes nature so Christe by regenerating vs in baptisme by his worde whiche is in place of the seede and by water whiche is as it were the wombe of the mother doth not thereby dwell naturally in vs albeit we haâ—…e an effect of spiritual grace whiche came to vs by meanes of his fleshe Iuel Bonauentuâ—…a saith wel we maie not in any wise saie that the grace of god is conteined in the Sacraments as water in a vessel For so to say it were an errour But thâ—… are said to 〈◊〉 gods grace because thei signifie gods grace SaÌ„ BonaueÌ„tnâ—…a was a Cardinal of Rome a scholastical writer a man lesse then three hundred yeres old one that said masse and yet with M. Iuel now he is a good author saith well But yet what 〈◊〉 you in englishing his words to leaue yâ— aduerb essentialiter essentiallie vnenglished
Patrone of his own sonne Shal not M. Iuel be swetely rewarded for this geare if he die in this excessiue opinioÌ„ Heare I pray you what S. Hilary saith of his own doctrine in this very booke Cura est nobis vt primum It is our care first to teache those things which are holy and perfite and sound and that our talke not wandering by certain by turnings windings and sodenly appering out of not haunted and creping holes shuld rather shew then seeke the truth Thus did he professe to teache perfite and sound things and vndouted truthes which M. Iuell calleth excessiue beause they excede the cumpasse of his heresy contein yâ— Catholike truth And wheÌ„ S. Hilarie cometh to yâ— very matter whereof we speake at this tyme he doth not only say it is sound perfice holy and true doctrine but he saith he lerned it of Christ him self Euen concerning this very point that the naturall verity of Christe is in vs for that he sayd My fleshe is verily meate But all the Fathers all the scriptures which resist M. Iuels phansie are hot violent excesâ—…iue as S. Augustine moste truly faith If the opinion of any errour hath first possessed the minde whatsoeuer the scripture affirmeth otherwise figuratum homines arbitrantur men thinke it figuratiue ¶ That the place of 〈◊〉 â—…erteineth to the Sacrament of Christes supper HArding Gregorie Nyssene speaking of the bread vvhich came dovvne from heauen saith by vvhat meane shall a bodiles thing be made meate to a body Iuel Gregorie Nyssene is newly set abroade with sundry corruptions San. If this vaine fable may be admitted euery man shal be corrupted when it pleaseth you If he be corrupted he is corrupted by your faction for his works haue ben no where so fully printed as at Bale called in Latine Basilea which is a citie of your profession 3. Moreouer you very oft bring his authority and how are you sure that he was not corrupted at all in those places which you allege 4. Yea farther you allege for your purpose this very treatise and this very side of the leaf whence D. Harding toke this authority and that as well before the words brought by D. Harding as after Iuel He speaketh not one word neither of Christes naturall dwelling in vs. 2. Nor of the Sacrament San. Out vppon this impudency M. Iuel you haue taken vpon you the forhead of a harlot are without all feare shame or hoâ—…estie Doth not Gregorie Nyssene speake in that place one word of the Sacrament he speaking of Moyses life by occasion thereof cometh to shew the wandering of the children of Israel in the desert where he saith â—…fter that thei had drunck of yâ— stone all nourishment which thei had brought out of Aegipt failed theÌ„ and a simple meate to looke vnto but diâ—…erse iâ—… tast was rained down to them which thing did signifie saith he that we must cleanse our minds by saith by Baptism by traâ—…aile by all vertue by doctrine of the Ghospell so that al Aegiptiaâ—…al kind of liâ—…ing to wit all the multitude of sinnes failing vs we must receaue â—…oelestem cibum quem nulla nobis satio agriculturae artibus produxit the heauenly meate which no sowing hath by the art of plowing brought foorth vnto vs. but it is bread prepared for vs without sede without plowing without any other work of man that bread flowing from aboue is found in the earth Hitherto he hath said that we haue a true manna which we must receaue and how I praie you but as the children of Israel did receaue their manna and then we must receaue it by mouth as thei did receaue their maÌ„na by mouth But what is our manna Forsoth a meate which came down from heauen as the old manna did a meate not gotten out of the ground but rainig froÌ„ heaueÌ„ What raining is that The Incarnation of Iesus Christ who taking flesh of the virgin without the meane of the sede of man came down from heauen and was in the earth man amoÌ„g men No saith the heritike UaleÌ„tinus for exaÌ„ple or Manicheus Christ toke no true flesh of yâ— virgin Yes saith Gregorius NisseÌ„ Panis enim et caet for the bread which came down from heauen which is the true meate which is obscurely signified by this historie of Manna is not a thing bodilesse Thus much he said against the heretikes who denied the truth of Christes body well goe foorth syr I praie you For the heretikes will not admit your bare word proue that which you say Quo enim pacto res incorporea corpori cibus fiet For by what meane shal a thing which lacketh a body be made meate vnto the body Here Gregorie Nyssen presuppoâ—…eth that Christ incarnated is made meate vnto our bodies because he is our true Manna But saith he yâ— could not be so if Christ had no true flesh for a thing without a body can not be made meate vnto the bodie but Christ is so reallie made meate vnto oâ—…r bodies that thereby Nyssâ—…s proueth he had a true and reall body so that al the principal mater in that place is of this Sacrament and of Christes naturall dwelling in our bodies Therein Manna is fulfilled Which Manna rained from heauen into the earth as Christ came from his Fathers bosome into the Uirgins womb The same Manna was afterward eaten by the Iewes corporally as Christ after his incarnation was corporally eaten at his supper of the Apostles Before yâ— Iewes did eate Manna they were prepared with passing ouer the red sea with labour and with water of the rocke And before we come to Christes supper we are prepared by Baptism and good life and preaching S. Gregorie Nyssene doth make eating by faith a preparatioÌ„ to eate the last supper worthely Oportet fide Baptismate caet We must cleanse our soules by faith and Baptism demum and so at the length with a purified mind receaue the heaueÌ„ly meate It is not eating by faith M. Iuel that he speaketh of Faith goeth before it and the receauing of this heauenly meate is a farther kind of eating This meat being yâ— bread brought foorth of the virgin without tylling is made meat vnto the body Doe you heare M. Iuel It is made meate vnto the body Not only to the vnderstanding but to the body It is so really made meat vnto the body that of necessitie thence it is deduced that it self is a bodily and corporal thing Which argument were none if it were not corporally receaued into our bodies For by faith God the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost dwell in vs and make their mansion in our harts as it were in houses and our bodies are the temple of the holy Ghost But such dwelling as it proueth not God the Father or the holy Ghost to haue bodies so doth it
naturally doth signifie nothing els but not fainedly How say ye then when we are knit to God by right faith and syncere charitie is it a fained coninnction or no If it be a true not a fantasticall coniunction then the words whiche affirme Christe to be ioyned also vnto vs corporally and naturally being added ouer and aboue the ioyuing by right faith and syncere loue must not only â—…ane a true ioyning whiche was already made but also an other manner of ioynig which is both true in effect as yâ— ioyning by faith was also true in the corporall mingling of Christes flesh to our fleshe Otherwise what meant the aduerbe quoque also We be ioyned by faith and also corporally Is that also nothing Furthermore if corporally be nothing els to say but truly and without imagination how coÌ„strue you these words of S. Paul All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ is it only to say it dwelleth truly in Christ well but it may dwell truly in Christ though Christ be not man therefore by your exposition a phrase is found whereby yâ— truth of Christes body may be wiped away whensoeuer it pleaseth the Protestants Consyder M. Iuell that you are not Capitaine generall of the whole army Satan him selfe had taken that cure vpon him before you were borne It is he that directeth all yâ— soldiours of his campe What place in his army doe you occupie I doe not know This I am sure of your Capitaine intendeth fully to displace Christe as much as lieth in him not only froÌ„ dwelling corporally in our bodies by the blessed communion but also from taking real flesh of the blessed virgin Satan him selfe would haue an other Messias to be prepared for Iudge you whether you helpe towards his comming or â—…o He coueteth to persuade that corporally doth meane truly and nothiâ—…g els wherâ—…ore it foloweth that corpus is latin for the truth and for nothing els and seing Christ toke of our lady corpus a bodie by you it is meant he toke tâ—… truthe of our lady nothing els Or can you avoid the yoke the â—…dance the mutuall respecte that is betwene bodie bodily corpus and corporally Whatsoeuer one of those names whiche are in one yoke doth signifie the other doth signifie after the same rate If bonitas be goodnes bonus is good bene is well â–ª corporally is of the same yoke with corpus body If bodily doth meane truly corpus doth meane truth so Christ toke truth of our Ladie and what is that forsouth it is whatsoeuer it pleaseth M. Iuel So that it be no phantasie it maie be then faith or charitie or els bones without flesh or skinne without flesh and bone To this point M. Iuels diuinity leadethvs O miserable time O cor rupted maners The noun corpus bodie and the aduerb corporaliter corporallie do not onlie signifie a truthe but a truthe of bodie and in Christ it signifieth a truthe of flesh and of blood Iuel Otherwise there must nedes follow this great inconuenience that our bodies must be in like maner corporally naturally and sâ—…eshly in Christes body For Hilarius saith we also are naturally in him and Cyrillus we are corporally in Christ. San. It is most true that both we are in Christ corporally and he in vs during the time of the coniunction For when a ioyning of twain is made it must nedes be that yâ— one is ioyned to yâ— other whiche is no absurditie at al because that twaine to wit Christ and his Church should be in one flesh it is the doctrine of S. Paule And as flesh is made one with him who really eateth and digesteth it so is Christ ioyned most really to him that worthely receaueth his body Iuel That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporall being San. That were a fine kind of being M. 〈◊〉 that Christes body should be in vs corporally and yet the being should not be corporal In dede the maner is not corporall But if you exclude the truth also of corporall being you speake coÌ„trarie to the word it self For the word corporally can signifie no lesse then a corporall truth Iuel It requireth not any locall being San. It is a local being in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place vnder the form of bread which the substance of bread did occupie before And when we haue that kind of bread in vs euen so Christes being is locall in vs. Iuel Christ sitting in heauen is here in vs not by a natural but by a spirituall meane of being San. The being of Christ in vs by spirit is also naturall concerning the nature of his Godhead which is euery where But coÌ„câ—…rning the grace which is created in vs it is a spiritual being after the rate as euery cause is in his effect Iuel S. Augustine saith After that Christ is ascended he is in vs by his spirit And S. Basil and again S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places And Christ spake in S. Paule caet San. You are now in a common place M. Iuel Who denieth but Christ being in heauen is here in spirit Wil that take away his being here in body when bread is turned into his body Shall one truth always displace an other with you These be sowters arguments to say Christ is God therefore he is not man He is in heauen ergo he is not in earth c. Iuel This coniunction is spirituall and therefore nedeth not neither the circumstance of place nor corporall presence San. The coniunction is spirituall but the 〈◊〉 of working it is brought to passe by the corporall substance of Christ. M. Iuel hath forgotten that we now 〈◊〉 whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally for thâ—…nd to make a spirituall coniâ—…ction by this meane of his own flesh or no as if a man to coÌ„â—…t an heretike do not only write vnto him but also doe come him self and by disputation of mouth do persuade him the conuersion is spirituall but the meane of working it is by corporall prâ—…sence Iuel The coniunction that is betwene Christ and vs neither doâ—…h mingle persons nor vnite substances But it doth knit our affects together and ioyne our willes saith S. Cyprian San. S. Cyprian in the same place expoundeth himselfe to meanâ—…e that we are not made by this vnion the second person in 〈◊〉 for saith he the only Sâ—…e is consubstanciall or of the same substance with hiâ—… Father But we by eating his reall flesh in this Sacrament are made 〈◊〉 vnto the Sonne of God Atteyning throâ—… the flâ—…sh vsque ad participationem spiritus euen to the 〈◊〉 of the â—…pirit of Christ. Again whereas our vnion with Christ is 〈◊〉 in the holy Scriptures to yâ— vnion wâ—…ich is in 〈◊〉 as in matrimonie the wife husband tarie â—…oth 〈◊〉 persons and eche of them kepe their seuerall substances notwithstanding
that â—…or a tyme they are vnited in flesh right so is it in this blessed mysterie where Christes flesh is ioyned to our flesh for a tyme only 〈◊〉 ' â—…nd yâ— spirit of Christ by so excellent a meane as his own flesh is may be more fully partaken Thus it is clere that S. Cyprian saith the same thing with vs who likewise deâ—…nd our vnion with God to be made in will and hart and not that we be at any tyme made consubstanciall with the blessed Trinitie But the meanes of vniting vs to God are not our 〈◊〉 only but the nature of faith the regeneration of Baptism and the reall flesh of Christ receaued vnder yâ— forme of bread The whiâ—…h reall presence of Christes fâ—…esh S. Cyprian so plainly teacheth that I can not suâ—…iclently mâ—…e at the â—…dencie of M. Iuel â–ª Who knoweth him to teache 1. That the bread is changed in nature and not in forme 2. That vnder â—… Sacrament we eate the bread of Angels in earth the which selfe same we shall eate more manifestly in heauen without a Sacrament 3. That this doctrine came newly from Christ alone that Christian men should drinke blood which thing was forbidden to the Iewes and seing it was not forbidden them to drink Christes blood in faith but only to drinke common blood in their mouthes it foloweth euidently that the Christians by this new order of Christ drink blood into their mouthes also not by faith alone Al these argumeÌ„ts besyde many other which are in the same sermon declare euidently that S. Cyprian vtterly abhorred from this blasphemouse heresie of the Sacramentaries Iuel The coÌ„iunction because it is spiritual true full and perfit is expressed by this terme corporall San. As though God because he is spiritual true ful perfit he might therefore be called corporall Who euer heard of such diuinitie Because it is spiritual it is termed corporal Because it is red it is called grene because it is chalke it is named chese Nede these words any confutation Were not the writer of them worthy to be rebuked rather then to be refelled Iuel Corporall coniunction remoueth all maner light and accidentall ioyning San. If all accidentall ioyning be remoued only substancial ioyning remaineth A substancial ioyning requireth the substances to be present which are ioyned together If then we are substancially ioyned to Christes body our bodies and his must be present For the substance of our soules is not without the cumpasse of our bodies Neither can they be substancially ioyned to Christes body as long as they are absent from the real body of Christ. As for the ioyning which is made by faith or charitie it is made by an accident and not by substance Iuel It is vtterly vntrue that we haue Christ corporally within vs only by receauing the Sacrament San. Neuer a Father by you named saith as you doe and therefore you speake of your own head whom no man that wise is wil beleue For seing we can not haue him corporally within vs without his body be within vs and yet none other thing is his body beside yâ— which is deliuered at his supper by that meane only he may be corporally in vs. Iuel By M Hardings construction the child is damned who dieth without receauing the Sacrament of Christes body San. Neither he nor no Catholike teacheth so Baptism suffiseth as we beleue vntill a man come to the yeres of discretion Iuel Without natural participation of Christes flesh there is no saluation San. If it be so it is you that teache the damnation of al those who receaue not the Eucharist for only in the Eucharist we partake the nature and substance of Christes flesh in it self But we partake the grace thereof by faith and Baptism Iuel S. Chrysostom saith In the Sacrament of Baptism we are made flesh of Christes flesh and boan of his boanes San. Those words you haue not in S. Chrisostom Who in â—…hat place confesseth plainly that those who are partakers of the holy mysteries can tel how thei are foormed Germanè ac legitimè ex ipso properly and lawfullie out of him Moreouer he geueth an other sense expounding ex ipso for secundum ipsum according to him saying as Christ was born without the sede of man so we are made the same thing in baptism Thirdly he sheweth that we were taken out of Christes side as Eue out of Adam But the proposition that you haue framed in his name is not in him but although it were in him yet it is not to the purpose For it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ whiche maie be meant of his mystical flesh and an other thing to partake his fleshe naturally We are made of his flesh by spiritual meanes For to be of his flesh it is to belong to his flesh that is to say to be members therof by any meane at al. But when we speake of natural or cor poral partaking of flesh we exclude al mystical flesh and restrain the talke onlie to Christes own real fleshe whiche he toke of the virgin Marie Last of al yâ— reason why certain places of holy scripture are interpreted somtime of baptisme somtime of Christes supper is because in the old time in manie couÌ„tries yâ— SacrameÌ„t of Chrites body was geuen straight after baptism as it maie appere in S Dionysius Areopagita and in S. Ambrose in so much that somtime these two SacrameÌ„ts are so intreated of in S. Cyprian Eusebius Emissenus and S Augustine as if thei were one Sacrament for that thei were ministred together But in so weightie a matter as we now intreate of it was not vprightlie done of M. Iuel to make a proposition of his owne and to set it out in the name of S. Chrysostom Iuel M. Harding is not yet able to find that Christes bodie is either corporally receaued into our bodies or corporally present in the Sacrament San. It is you that are not able to find it for D. Harding hath found it and shewed it many wayes and as I haue shewed it in S. Chrysostom in S. Hilarie in S. Gregorie Nyssen so wold I shew it at large out of Cyrillus but that partly this booke is growen alredie to great partly a marueilouse number of places in S. Cyrillus doe proue both Christes body to be corporally receaued into our bodies and to be corporally 〈◊〉 in the Sacrament 1. CoÌ„cerning vs he saith It behoued this earthly body should be brought to immortality cognato cibo by meate of his owne substance for so himself expoundeth the word afterward saying that Christes body is cognatum nostris corporibus hoc est consubstantiale It is of kin with our bodies that is to say of the same substance 2. As two waxes being melted are mingled together so he that receaueth Christes flesh and blood is mingled with Christ. It
spiritually forsoth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say either yâ— apparitioÌ„ which was made to the fathers of yâ— old testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to be dâ—…nied in these oure daies For to them who faithfullie consider the matter â–ª it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the flesh it selfe is present now also to vs no dout verilie but that it is so in the sacrameÌ„t Here is M. Iuel the true substance of Christes own flesh affirmed to be no lesse present in a spiritual maner but not in a carnal manner of being as it was present to the Apostles who saw Christ in flesh I omit Nicholaus Methonensis and 〈◊〉 and Photâ—…s Grecians Albertus Magnus Alexander de Haâ—…s Iâ—…nocentius the third with diuerse moe aboue three huÌ„dred yeres old Iu. Their doctrine is without coÌ„fort thei hold that the bodie of Christe remaineth no longer in our bodies but only vntill the formes of the bread and wine begin to alter San. That doctrine M. Iuel is not without coÌ„fort in so much as the Sacrament serueth as a meane to bring to vs the body of Christ which when it hath deliuered vnto our bodies a coniunction is made by touching and eating Christ out of whiche coniunction made by flesh â–ª riseth a marueilouse commoditie to our spirite and soule So that albeit when the formes of breade and of 〈◊〉 be altered the body of Christe can not be affirmed to be corporally in our bodies any loÌ„ger yet a grace vertue strength is left stil with vs of inestimable operatioÌ„ toward life euerlastiÌ„g If this do seme absurd to M. Iuell how thinketh he of al those whome Christ healed by touching them with his fleshe was it not a corporall and real touching because Christ ceased to touche any more when the helth was once procured was not all Christes comming and walking in fleshe true real and corporall because when the tyme of his humble dispensation â—…as 〈◊〉 he departed bodily out of our sight and taried with vs in his godhead and power Moreouer I haue said often times our coÌ„â—…ton with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnal copulation betwen the wife and husbaÌ„d where twain are in one flesh A great mysterie saith S. Paule in Christ his Church As therefore the man and wife being corporally ioyned tarie not alwayes together but after a tyme departe a sunder and yet for all that of their coniunction iâ—…ue commeth and they kepe yet alwaies the bonde of wedlock and of loue in eche of them so after that Christe hath vnited him to vs vnder the foorme of bread he departeth in bodily presence when those foormes cease to be vnder whiche it pleased him to comme to vs but the vertue of that coniunction tarieth still Iuel Some others say that as sone as our teeth touch the bread straight wayes Christes body is taken vp into heauen The words be these Certum est quod quà m cito species dentibus teruntur tam cito in coelum rapitur corpus Christi San. Haue you not yet done with gloses M. Iuel I marueil not For the greatest flour of your gardeÌ„ lieth in gloses and phrases But yet if the gloses â—…e of them selues not at al tymes moste wary because they were made in greaâ—… security of yâ— faith the authors of theÌ„ neuer thinking yâ— such a desperat generatioÌ„ of â—…leuers should haue sprong vp surely you ought not to make theÌ„ more odiouse then they deserue by false and corrupt translation You haue englished nowe teruntur touched and species bread for you say as sone as our teeth touch the bread the body is takeÌ„ into heauen But species doe signifie the formes of bread wine teruntur doth signifie are wasted or consumed The which word in Berengarius coÌ„fession you could turne by the word grynded thus at one tyme terere is to grynd with you at an other tyme it is to touch Why M. gloser of gloses is terere latine to touch to grind But you haue a new kind of malice in your hart which can make new latine new english new Gospell new faith and a new Church at your pleasure Iu. Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike San. You can not so speake to D. Harding as he spake to the Arrian heretike to whome he spake not by his owne authoritie but by the authoritie of S. Cyrillus who disputing against an Arrian heretike saied vnto him as D. Harding may right well say vnto you An fortassis putas caet What troweth this Arrian heretike parhaps that we knowe not the vertue of the mysticall blessing Whiche when it is become to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwel in vs corporally also by receauing of Christes body in the communion Thus farre S. Cyril whose words touched M. Iuel a thowsand yeres before he was borne because his heresie is one in this behalf with the Arrian heresie who taught vs not be corporally ioyned by naturall participation to Christe as braunches are ioyned to the vine but â—…aughte euen as M. Iuel doth that we depend of Christ by faith and none otherwise And troweth M. Iuel now that he may talke to D. Harding by his own contemptible authoritie as D. Harding talked to him out of S. Cyrillus Bring if you can M. Iuel a saying of aboue a thowsand yeres old where D. Hardinges doctrine may be accused of heresie Iuel Commeth Christ to vs from heauen and by and by forsaketh vs San. As Christe at his incarnation came not frome heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assupting flesh of the virgin so nowe at the time of the consecration his body commeth not doune froÌ„ heaueÌ„ but the bread is changed into his body and by that meane his body is present with vs. and as after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread and wine being consumed Christe caeaseth to be corporally with vs to th end we should again desier his presence and well know these two chefe pointes of our belefe the one that the end of the ioyning consisteth in spirit rather thâ—…n in flesh the other that the flesh of Christ really eaten is the meane whereby we haue accesse to the spirit of God with trust and confidence Iuel Or that we eate Christe and yet receaue him not or hauâ—… him not or that he entreth not caet San. We eate him and receaue him and haue him he entreth into vs. Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadow troubleth you Iuel He saith this presence is knowen to God only then it foloweth M. Harding knoweth it not San. He sayd not this presence but the maner of the presence is knowen to God only and so is it in dede But why