haue no spirite in Sanders corporall iudgement when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite life because he neuer giueth his flesh but with effect of his quickening spirite And that is a grosse spirite and a deadly life which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth for then the cuppe should be made bloud and the newe testament in his bloud What is They are spirite and life sayth Augustine in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt they are to be vnderstood spiritually therfore not according to the sounde of wordes but according to the minde of the speaker It is colde deuotion saith Sander that hearing the body of Christ by himselfe affirmed to be present can eate without adoring and denye godly honour to it We eate not without adoring Master Sander although wee adore not that which we eate bodily but that which wee eate spiritually giuing this diuine honour vnto him that wee put our whole trust confidence in his redemption wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance CAP. XXIII The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vs in the mysteries that wee may certeinly knowe we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that Christ continueth in vs and we in him If Christ be giuen vs sayeth Sander in these mysteries he is present in them for a gift is not made of a thing absent Yes Master Sander if the Prince at Westminster giue a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster hath the manor truely giuen vnto him which is in Yorkeshire Therefore a gift by sufficient assurance may be of a thing absent in nature thereof and so is Christes body giuen vs in the mysteries which are the seale of Gods promise truely giuing Christes body vnto vs which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence is in heauen and not on the earth Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones except it be by the reall corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries Yes forsooth wee knowe it by the worde of God which so testifieth Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vs Rom. 8. and last of all we haue assurance therof by the holy sacrament as by a seale confirmation and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vnto vs. But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ the flesh of men cannot be made saith he by faith spirite and vnderstanding As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage except in deede they come bodily togither Yes sir wee holde that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man by his incarnation but this coniunction profiteth not all men but only them to whome he is ioyned by spirite faith vnderstanding and so the incarnation of Christ made all the fathers of the olde testament flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone For otherwise it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing What auaileth it the reprobate that God is become man ioyned in the same substance of fleshe bloud and bones and humane soule Nothing because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith Last of all where he saith that man wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation it is a beastly opinion For he that sayde they shall bee two in one flesh spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage according to Gods institution before carnall copulation by which the acte of generation is sanctified and the bed made to bee vndefiled not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie husband and wife although there were no comming together of their bodies And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament when the coniunction in one flesh which is the effect thereof cannot be wrought by the worde of God but is left in the choise of the man and the woman Last of all where Sander saith there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell howe Christ may be present in flesh or his flesh ioyned to our flesh but by meanes of transubstantiation it will fall out that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell neither was thought vpon sixe hundred yeares in the Church but the contrarie manifestly proued that Christ is not present in flesh at all nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes Such trueth is in his assertions CAP. XXIIII The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the bodie of Christ from the altar First he chargeth vs with great forgetfulnesse Afterwarde to make a shewe of contrarietie he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries c. therefore he is not here but in heauen feeding vs from thence This worde Present hee nowe addeth which because he missed before he would seeme to proue it by reason Shall I saye who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man or rather with so shamelesse an heretike Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries but alwayes that manner of presence which the papists affirme and is now in controuersie betweene vs. That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes is no good argument to proue that Christ is onely in heauen he vseth much foolish babling as though that saying onely were brought for an argument or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument or that saying for any argument But where the Scripture sayth that Christ after his ascension concerning his humanitie hath left the worlde Ioan. 16. which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly and without all parable and that he sitteth in heauen and not on earth Col. 3. the Apologie sayth this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes and not as Sander peruerteth it because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers was to acknowledge the mysteries vpon the table to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse and not to denye the reall presence of Christ saith Sander Doe you not looke for some sound argument to proue this geare especially of him which immediatly before charged the author of the Apologie to vse an argument more like a tinker than a diuine you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom Hom. de Eucharistia Diddest
of Christ by faith As for Sanders cauill that the bread is not one still seeing it is broken is an impudent Sophisme For neither can Christ at one time and in one respect be called whole and broken Do not they all eate of one sheepe which eate of it after it is deuided in partes The lawe commanded one sheep for euery houshold which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect that the one bread and cup is vnto vs. So we all eate of one material bread and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie not so many aâ— eate the materiall bread but so many as eate it worthily by faith Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth as Sander would haue it seeme but in the mightie working of the spirite of God who not onely in this Sacrament but in all Sacraments of all times haue wrought the same spirituall vnion in all the faithful of all ages who al make one Church and one bodie whereof Christ is the head and euery one of the elect is a member CAP. V. Howe we are one mysticall bodie Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in this mysticall bodie faith and the Sacraments but in verie deede the spirite of God is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect sometimes not onely without the Sacraments but also without actuall faith as in infants which perteine to Gods election Faith in men of yeres is an assurance of this coniunction The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith Wherefore the bread which we breake is so a coÌ„municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith by which we are assured of this communication before wee come to the communion and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence vnder the fourme of bread For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ then wee are made one bodie and one bread But wee are made one bread and one bodie spiritually and sacramentally therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually sacramentally Sander asketh Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing I answere if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing and the selfe-same thing that the Sacrament is then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ but his mysticall bodie by â—â—rtaking of this bread Sander replieth that this vnion is in respect of the nanâ—rall bodie of Christ which I doe not deny but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vnto vs by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies which also Augustine in serm ad infantes aâ—â—d Bedam cited by Sander doth plainly testifie Nulli est allquatenus c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cuppe although before he eate the bread drinke that cuppe being placed in the vnity of Christes body he depart out of this world For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament for so much as himselfe hath found that thing which the Sacrament doth signifie whereas Christ said except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud ye shall not haue life in you Out of this place although it be directly against transubstantiation yet Sander is able to prooue it If the body of Christ saith he were not really vnder the forme of bread how could he that is baptised be partaker of the benifit of this SacrameÌ„t was he made partaker of bread and wine No forsooth but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is signified by that bread and cuppe So saith Augustine or who so euer was author of that sermon and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present in the supper then in baptisme But take away that bodie of Christ saith Sander from the forme of breade and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ for euery loafe betokeneth vnitie but not in Christ. Againe let the substance of breade remaine and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ which is absent the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder as heauen is distant from earth I answere this is poore Sophistry yet much vsed by Sander disioyning thinges that ought to be ioyned togither beside that this wise reason would proue likewise that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ because Christ is not really present with the forme of water but the substance of water remaining on earth and â—he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate is in heauen Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries such presence I say as is meete for his glorious maiestie namely by his spirite which ioyneth heauen and earth together and maketh our vnitie to be perfect although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie which if hee haue not like vnto ours in all thinges except sinne and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vnto through sinne in vaine should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him and the conformation of them vnto his glorious bodie The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of wee allowe lib. 8. de Trinit If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie and wee take truelie vnder a mysterie the flesh of his bodie and by this wee shall bee one because the father is in him and hee in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie In this saying Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father was not an vnitie of nature and substance but of will only But seeing the vnitie that wee haue with Christ which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely and by giuing his flesh truelie vnto vs vnder a mysterie in the Sacrament to bee an vnitie in substance and not in will onely it is absurd to say that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will Now let vs see what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower First he noteth that we truely take the flesh of Christ I graunt vnder a mysterie as Hilarie saith so many as receiue the SacrameÌ„t worthily for els wicked men should be vnited to Christ as he is to his father Secondly the mysterie with Sander must be the forme of bread
at the Emperors charges for the encrease of Christian faith among them Bristowe asketh me what Emperor or what faith but Catholike or Popish That which I saide of the Syrian Testament was to shewe that the Churches in Chaldea haue preserued the scriptures which yet are not subiect to the Church of Rome with the Emperors profession I delt not but his purpose I suppose was to encrease Christian faith and I am persuaded the reading of the scriptures in the mother tongue will not encrease Popish faith seeing Papists are so vnwilling that the people should read the worde of God in the natiue language Fourthly that I say the fathers alledging the succession of Bishops against heretikes specially named the Church of Rome because those heretikes for the most part had ben somtimes of the Church of Rome as Valentinus Marciō Nouatus Against this Bristowe telleth me that Allen speaketh also of the Arrians Donatists and al heretikes But I spake of those fathers that alledged the succession of Bishops namely Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian Irenaeus testifieth of Valentinus Cerdon and Marcion that they were at Rome vnder Hyginus Pius and Anicetus and that Cerdon came often into the Church and made his confession and yet taught his heresie priuily and was excommunicated For Nouatus that he was a Prieste of the Church of Rome Eusebius is cleare Lib. 6. Cap. 42. But Cyprian calleth him Nouatianus whereas Nouatus had beene of Carthage but from thence was also gone to Rome I deny not but the similitude of the names might cause the Greeke writers to be deceiued as Bristowe saith and it may be that the name of Nouatianus in Cyprian is corrupted for Nouatus and the other called Nouatus in steade of Nauatus which name was then in vse But seeing the person of the heretike is certaine it is folly to striue for his name I haue shewed mine authour for Nouatus 〈◊〉 Rome and so for the rest wherefore I haue not bewraied any ignorance therein as Bristowe pretendeth The 17. and last point of mine ignorance is where I shewe wherein the communion of Saintes consisteth In that I say one can not merit for an other no not for him selfe but euery man hath his worthinesse of Christe As though saith Bristowe neither Christ could merite for any other no nor for him selfe because he had his worthinesse of God But I say that Christ because he was God had his worthinesse of him selfe and therefore did merite for vs. And see what secret blasphemie is contained in this comparison of Bristowe Where he would make a similitude of meriting betweene vs which please not God but onely through his mercy with Christe who satisfied the iustice of God But Bristowe chargeth me so to define the cōmunion of Saints that I allow no place for the praiers of the members aliue made for others that are aliue A vile slander when I speake of the grace and giftes of God which as euery one hath receiued of God so of charitie he is bound to imploy the same to the profite of his fellowe members here on earth But if we be bound of charitie to pray one for an other saith Bristowe whie are not these members in heauen as well Because there is not a lawe appointed for them that are in heauen and them that be in earth we knowe praier is commaunded vs we knowe not any praier commaunded them neither are we to trust to any such thing But the Scripture saith that Christes friendes doe reioice in heauen with his penitents in earth It saith so in deede of the Angels and I doubt not of the like affection of the blessed spirites but of their knowledge and if their knowledge were certaine yet it followeth not that they pray for the conuersion of sinners and much lesse that the mutuall offices of loue whereby one member hath compassion with an other can by any meanes touch the state of the deade to receiue any benefite thereby But an other quarrell is where I make the communion of the whole body to be the participation of life from Christ the head If this be all saith Bristow then there is no communion For what communion were it betweene the members of your naturall body if they did onely receiue life from your head and could not vse the saide life to profite one an other c. This man hath great leasure to trifle without any matter Who so shall reade my wordes Pur. 199. which he quoteth shall finde me to say That the communion of the whole body is the participation of life and all other offices of life that euery member and the whole body hath of the head as S. Paule teacheth plainely Ephes 4. If it be any office of a Christian life for one member to assist an other in that it may and as it ought I haue comprehended it but that Bristowe doth wilfully holde my saying and then play with it at his pleasure Yet he chargeth me with belying of Allen that he will haue other workes waies of saluation besides the bloud of Christ because he groundeth all works and waies of saluation in the bloud of Christ. But I reporting his words truly by plain distribution do gather that Allen will haue other workes and waies of saluation beside the bloud of Christ except you will say that is no way nor worke of saluation of it selfe without these waies and works of men If the bloud of Christ of it selfe be one way and worke of saluation and there be other waies and workes though grounded in it then are there more waies and workes of saluation than the onely redemption of Christe which I vnderstand by the bloud of Christ so I haue done Allen no iniurie but he hath offered hainous iniurie to the bloud of Christe and so doe al they which mixed it with any to purchase Gods fauour who is reconciled by none other merite or satisfaction but only by the bloud of the crosse of his Sonne our Lorde Iesus Christe to whome be praise for euer more In the thirtienth chapter or conclusion Bristowe doth only shew that there is in my two bookes stuffe ynough to make an other booke as bigge as this to the discredit of my partie I trust this booke of his as bigge as it is hath wrought no discredite to the cause I maintaine because I haue shewed howe it is stuffed with lies slaunders falsifications and cauillations such stuffe he may haue great store in the diuell his maisters schoole to make a booke tenne times as bigge as this was but for so much as he hath not aunswered any one of mine arguments or refelled any one of mine aunsweres to Allen in any right order leauing the defence of him as he pretendeth to defend the Church I confesse he hath left matter sufficient for any man that will vndertake the confutation of my bookes which this his vnorderly and vnsufficient replie notwithstanding I protest to remaine still in their strength and
and in him as it were againe begonne and renewed And cannot this be done except the body of Christ do really conteine all things by your surmised reuolt for I dare not vnderstand you siguratiuely seeing you abhorre figures in this matter of the supper nor Hyberbolically for that you count no better then a rhetoricall lye Wherefore if these things be really conteined as you say I thinke it small for the worship of Christes banket whose excellencie I take to be so great that it conteineth not these grosse meates of the body but an heauenly refreshing of the soule And that will the olde fathers whome you cite for your cookery plainly testifie with me First Cyprian de Coen Dom. Vident haec sacramenta c. The poore in spirite see these sacraments and contenting themselues with this one dish they despise all the delicats of this world and possessing Christ they disdaine to possesse any stuffe of this worlde Beholde Cyprian sayeth nor that this dish conteineth al foules fishes sauces spices c. but that al these are despised of them that are partakers of this dish Againe speaking of the wicked Et a secretis diuinis omnium intra se continentibus summam diffugiunt recedunt c. They fly and depart from the diuine secrets which conteine within them selues the briefe or summe of all mysteries He saith not they containe meates and drinkes syropes and confections but the summe of al mysteries or heauenly diuine treasures But saith Sander when saint Cyprian saith intra se within them he meaneth within the compasse or formes of breade and wine for these onely are the thinges that we can poynt vnto within or without Belike he will teach vs newe Grammar and newe Latine also For in our old Latine and Grammar we learned that sui and suus were reciproca but Sander will teach vs that se signifieth the compasse or formes of breade and wine Or if the worde se signifie themselues as it was wont to doe Sander wil teach vs that the compasse or formes of bread and wine are the diuine secrets themselues For Cyprian saith that the diuine secrets within themselues containe the summe of al mysteries But marke his reason and you wil thinke that an Oxe hath lowed it out rather then a man spoken it The compasse or formes of bread are the onely things that we can poynt vnto within or without for other meat drinke we see not quoth he He will haue nothing but that he can point vnto with his hand and see with his bodily eye Whereas diuine secretes whereof Cyprian speaketh can neither be seene with the eye nor poynted at with the finger but onely be vnderstoode by faith in them to whom God hath reueiled them His next witnesse is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24 Quando corpus Christi c. When the body of Christ is set before thee say with thy selfe For this bodies sake I am no more earth and ashes For this I hope to receiue heauen and the good thinges which are in heauen immortall life the seate of Angels the companie of Christ. The very table is the strength of our soule the bonde of trust the foundation our hope saluation life If wee goe hence pure with this sacrifice with most great confidence we shall ascende to the holy porch or entrie as it were compassed rounde about with golden garments But what rehearse I thinges to come whiles we are in this life this mysterie causeth that the earth is heauen to vs. Whatsoeuer Chrysostome saith here we acknowledge to be true as he did meane it but nothing he saith for Master Sanders reuolution and as little for the carnall manner of presence or eating of Christes body For euen as we are no more earth and asshes as earth is made heauen which is after a spiritual manner by fayth and yet truly and vndoubtedlye so is the body of Christ present eaten at the table According to which meaning he saith in the same homily QuemadmoduÌ„ enim corpus illud vnituÌ„ est Christo ita nos per hunc panem vnione coniungimur For euen as that body is vaited to Christ so we also by this bread are joyned in an vnion Note heere that body this bread to be diuerse thinges in naturall substance againe our coniunction to be by the bread mystically for naturally and substantially wee are not ioyned one to another but in an heauenly kinde of vnion we are made one bodye of Christ and members one of another And this is not an emptye dish of faith as Sander calleth it but a full mysterie of saluation And although faith shall cease when we haue the full fruition of Gods promises in heauen yet doth Sander both absurdly and vnfaithfully gather therof an opposition of faith and trueth wheras faith hath thereof the name in Hebrue because it is grounded vpon truth But what meaneth he by truth that which he preferreth aboue the receiuing by faith Namely the carnall manner of receiuing Christes body which hee holdeth the wicked may doe to their damnation A worthy truth in respect of which saith is counted litle worth as an empty dish which yet by their owne doctrine must make their trueth effectuall to saluation But see I pray you howe cunningly he reasoneth of the finall cause Christ tooke flesh saith he that our bodies might haue a banket made to them as the soules of the faithfull neuer lacked God whom they might feede on by faith and spirit By which reason the godly of the old testament before Christes incarnation were but halfe nourished namely in soules onely and not in bodyes if Christes flesh bee not a meat otherwise then receiued into the body after the Popishe meaning Yet he supposeth that Cyrillus fauoureth this argument In Ioan. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Oporiuiâ— enim certâ— vt non solùm anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet verâ—netiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustâ— tactu cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur For it behoued truely that not onely the soule shoulde ascend by the holie Ghost into the blessed life but also that this rude and earthly bodic shoulde be brought to immortalitie by tasting touching and by meate which were of alliance with vs. Cyrill meaneth of the outwarde element by which our faith being instructed as our bodies are fedde so we are taught that the whole man is nourished to immortalitie Therefore he saith immediatly after in the same place Nâ—â— putet ex tarditate mentis suae Iudaeus inaudita nobis excogitata esse mysteria videbit enim si attentiùs quaerit hoc ipsum à Mosâ— temporibus per figuram semper factitatum suisse Quid enim maiores corum ab ira Aegyptiorum liberauit quando mors in primogenita Aegyptiorum saeâ—iebat nónne palà m est quia diuina institutione perdocti agni carnes manducauerunt postes ac superliminaria sanguine perunxerunt
his life for lacke of good argumentes if he escape hanging drawing and quartering for treason Except he thinke there be any children among vs brought vp in their Catechisme that bee so ignorant to thinke the wordes of Christ intending to worke a particular miracle be signes Sacraments in the same nature that bread wine is being apointed by him to be an ordinary pledg assurance of his grace vnto his whole church Againe we deny that the wordes of Christ are the Sacrament but wee say with Augustine Accedat verbum ad elementum Let the worde come to the element and then it is made a Sacrament Last of all concerning the trueth of Christes wordes This is my bodie This cuppe is the Newe testament c. wee nothing doubt but that grace in Gods elect worketh that which the wordes soundeth according to the true meaning of them But if Sander could haue made his matter good hee should haue reasoned of the water of baptism which is a signe of regeneration and if he could proue that the water in baptisme is not water but regeneration in deede because it is a token of regeneration he should haue reasoned somewhat like for his life But that which he saith of doing or making he would not haue it wrested to the meere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing for therein he vsed parables but Christ saith he did rather then taught in his supper and therefore his wordes must be vnderstood euen as they sound If this rule be true Christ dranke and gaue wine at his supper which is the fruite of the vine according to the sounde of the wordes and therefore no transubstantiation in the cuppe But where he saith that Christ did rather then taught at his supper he would haue vs thinke belike that Christ did celebrate his supper like the Popish Masse in which is much adoe no teaching at all But beside that all the three Euangelists do set forth vnto vs the summe of his doctrine S. Iohn doeth in foure Chapters from the 13. to the 18. describe at large that he was occupied in teaching rather then doing You haue heard how Sander would dispute for his life CAP. XIII The wordes of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kinde of tokens The first part of this title that the wordes of Christes supper arenot figuratiue hee prooueth not by any one word as for the other part that Christes token is not a cōmon kind of tokē which he proueth somwhat at large he needed not to haue proued at al. For it is confessed of vs that the sacrament is a more excellent token then can be ordeined by any man And where he saith that none of the fathers teacheth that these words This is my body c. be words figuratiue it shal suffice to oppose Augustine who in plaine termes saith these words Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. are a figuratiue speach Which wordes notwithstanding among the Papistes haue the same sense that these wordes This is my bo De Doct. Chri. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. the wordes are cited Cap. 11. And what other thing doth Augustine meane when he sayeth Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fideifides est Therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christe is the bloud of Christe so the sacrament of faith meaning baptisme is faith Epist. 23. Bonisacio Is it not manifest that he meaneth the one is a figuratiue speech as well as the other Fie vpon this impudent boasting of the Papistes which care not what lyes they make so they giue not place to the trueth As for the sayings of Cyprian Chrysostome Basil c. or any of the auncient Catholike fathers concerning the wonderfull manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament doe all proue a spirituall and diuine manner of eating and drinking the bodie of Christ as in their proper places shal be seuerally declared CAP. XIIII That the supper of our Lorde is no sacrament at all if these wordes of Christ This is my bodie and this is my bloude be figuratiue Two leaues and an halfe of this Chapiter are spent to shewe the difference betweene figures of Rhetorike and sacramentall figures and that wordes must be ioyned to the elements to make sacramentes all which is needeles for it is commonly knowne and confessed on both parts sauing that he would make ignorant Papistes beleeue that Oecolampadius Caluine or Peter Martyr whē they read in Tertulliā in Augustine these words of Christ This is my body to be so expounded that is to say a figure or signe of my body they shoulde vnderstande a figure of Rhetorike as Metonymia or Synecdoche and not a sacramentall token No master Sander they were not so young Grammarians or Rhetoricians as you woulde beare fooles in hand but they could vnderstand the difference of a rhetoricall and a sacramentall figure although they coulde tell that a rhetoricall figure is vsed when a sacramentall token is spoken off as in so manie examples of the scripture they haue shewed But nowe let vs see what maine argument you haue to prooue that the supper is no sacrament if the wordes This is my body c. be figuratiue The words saie you doe not signifie a figure of his bodie therfore either they worke his bodie or they make nothing at al. I answere with Tertull. August The words do signifie a figure of his body For so do they expound the words This is my body that is to say a figure or signe of my body which their expositiō were false except those wordes This is my body doe signifie a figure or signe of his bodie Therefore Master Sander you may teach boies that bodie signifieth a substance and not a figure Tertullian and Augustine will not not be so aunswered at your handes They tell you that the interpretation of Christes wordes is such as proueth his speach to be figuratiue in spight of your heart And that euery boye that readeth this chapter may laugh at your arrogant impudence I set downe once againe these words of Christ This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which if they be not confessed of you to bee figuratiue you will not confesse that fire is hote nor water moyst If they be figuratiue what Sacrament will be made with them Where you tell vs that the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine is a figure of the same bodie walking on earth suffering on the crosse or sitting in heauen you doe as much as if you woulde teach vs that Abraham sitting close in his tent so that no man coulde see him was father of the same Abraham him selfe as he was the sonne Therah
to our greate shame and reproch receiue this pure and immaculate bodie which is the Lorde of all which is partaker of the diuine nature c. Heere saith Sander Chrysostome sheweth vs to receiue the bodie of Christe from the holy table or Altar as truely concerning the substance thereof as wee may truely touch another mans garment I answere hee speaketh in this place neither of Altar nor Table and seeing hee hath before shewed howe and from whence Christes bodie is in deede receiued if afterwarde he call the externall Sacramentes by the names of that which they signifie and performe to the worthie receiuer What proofe is that for the carnall presence Neither doth he shewe at all how truely Christes bodie is taken but what iniurie it is vnto his bodie to haue his sacraments despised or vnworthily receiued CAP. XXVIII The breade which is the meate of the mindâ— and not of the bellie can be no wheaten breade but onely the breade of life which is the bodie of Christ. This saying of Cyprian saieth Sander prooueth that the substance of breade remaineth not for materiall breade cannot be meant of the minde but of the bellie Yes forsooth as well as materiall water câ—n serue for the washing of the minde And yet Saint Peter saith it is not the washing of the body but the aunswere of a good conscience which is baptisme that saueth vs. Wherefore it may be materiall breade though not prepared to feede the body but consecrated as a sacrament to feede the minde The plaine meaning of Cyprian is that the body of Christ entreth not into the body of man but into the minde being no bodily foode but spirituall foode as the Apostle calleth it 1. Cor. 10. As for that which Tertullian saith The fleshe is fed with the bodie and bloud of Christ that the soule may be made fatte in God I haue shewed before howe it must of necessitie be vnderstoode of the externall sacrament which beareth the name of that whereof it is a sacrament seing he speaketh there altogether of the externall signes receiued in the bodie and vertue thereof applyed to the soule But Cyprian saieth further in the same treatise de coen dom Panis iste c. This breade which our Lorde gaue to his disciples being chaunged not in shape but in nature is made flesh by the almightie power of the worde This place is often alledged by the Papistes for transubstantiation but Cyprian did meane no such matter but onely that common bread by the almightie power of the worde of God is chaunged from the nature of common breade whiche is a bodily foode to bee an heauenly and spirituall foode as I haue declared more at large in answere to doctor Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 17. and shall haue better occasion to speake of the same place repeted afterwarde CAP. XXIX Sacramental eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof onely Saint Augustine speaketh in the place alledged by the Apologie The Apologie to shewe the naturall bodie of Christ not to be sought on the earth but by faith in heauen citeth this place of Aug. Tr. 50 in Ioan. How shall I hold him that is absent How shal I reach forth mine hand inâ—o heaueÌ„ that I might hold him there sitting Reach out saith he faith and thou hast caught him Here Sander scoffeth out of measure saying that Augustine in that place spake not one whit of the Sacrament but of beleeuing in Christ that hee speaketh not to the faithful but to the vnbeleeuing Iewes and therefore it is one thing to receiue Christ by faith alone another thing to receiue him by faith and sacrament together In deede it is true that Christ may bee receiued by faith alone without the sacrament and it is as true that Christ is receiued by faith alone with the sacrament seeing by this place of Augustine it is shewed that Christ is absent from the earth and to be sought in heauen onely by faith No saith Sander although he be absent to infidels that are not baptised yet hee is not absent to the faithfull that are admitted to the Lords table As though Augustine in the same treatise sheweth not at large that the bodie of Christe is not with the Church on earth vpon these words The poore you shal haue alwayes with you but me you shall not haue the place I haue ciâ—ed at large before and in the same treatise sheweth how Christ is present in the holy sacrameÌ„ts namely in one as he is in the other Quid est enim non semper quid est semper Si bonus es si ad corpus Christipertines quod significat Petrus habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In praesenti per fidem in praesenti per signum Christi in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum Habes Christum in praesenti sed habebis semper quia cùm hinc exieris ad illum venies qui dixit latroni Hâ—die meâ—um eris in Paradiso Si autem malè versaris videris habere in praesenti Christum quia intras ecclesiam signas te signo Christi baptizaris baptismo Christi misces te membris Christi accedis ad altare Christi in praesenti habes Christum sedmalè viuendo non semper habebis What is meant by not alwayes and what is alwayes If thou be a good man if thou pertaine vnto the body of Christ which Peter doth signifie thou hast Christ both in this preseÌ„t time and in the world to come In this preseÌ„t world by faith in this preseÌ„t world by the signe of Christ in this present world by the sacrament of baptisme in this present world by the meate and drinke of the Altar Thou hast Christ in this present world and thou shalt alwayes haue him For when thou shalt depart from hence thou shalt come vnto him which saide vnto the theefe This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise But if thou leadest an euill life thou seemest to haue Christ in this present world because thou comest into the Church signest thee with the signe of Christ art baptised with the baptisme of Christ ioynest they selfe with the members of Christ commest vnto the Altar of Christ thou hast Christ in this present worlde but by euill liuing thou shalt not alwayes haue him By these wordes it is euident howe Christ is present in the meate and drinke of the Altar namely as he is present in Baptisme which is not corporally but spirituallie Secondlie that the vngodly so receiue Christ in the sacraments that they onely seeme to haue him when in deede they haue nothing but the signe of him Thirdlie that all the faithfull in Augustines time receiued as well drinke as meate at the Altar Last of all while Sander iesteth at the penneâ— of the Apologie hee sheweth him selfe most ridiculous of all For although Augustine speaketh of the Iewes by Apostrophe which hee wisheth
Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vs with corrupting his wordes with euil pointing or distincting which he doth himselfe most manifestly For vpon these words he writeth Mortem Domini annuntiantes doneâ— venerit Quiâ— morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Because sayth that writer we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vs. But Sander readeth in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud wee signifie those things which were offered for vs. Against this wresting by mispointing first is the relatiue quae which lacketh an antecedent if flesh and bloud which was offered for vs be not signified Secondly the wordes Carnem sanguinem are put absolutely not shewing whose theie are and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered he would haue saide not quae but eadem last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking can be reasonably none other in an expositor but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth that is this breade and this cuppe The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries is that they expound the wordes of Christ Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man that is to say the figure of his flesh which is breade and wine And here he crieth what ignorance what abusing of Gods word what blasphemie where is honestie where is shamefastnes where is common vnderstanding I answere that for honesty and shamefastnes it is in the diuel as soone as in Sander For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it thou aâ—â—ant traitor and stinking heretike to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe thou canst not finde that euer any vsed or said that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud spake of a figure thereof But if no man haue either written or spoken so thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs which say those words belong to the supper so truely that they build falsely vpon them the necessitie of both kindes But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating that none of vs referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter vnto the supper otherwise then as the supper is a sacrament seale or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode to be giuen by him vnto eternall life which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament in baptisme and without either of them by the working of Gods spirite onely in some in men of discretion not without faith As for the necessitie of both kindes is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified the signes and also vpon your owne concession who vnderstanding those wordes onely of sacramentall eating and drinking may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating CAP. XV. Christes flesh being meate in deede must needes be really receiued into our bodies Three things saith Sander must be considered of him that wil knowe why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede The first that the Iewes asked howe he would giue his flesh to be eaten The second that Christ saith the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable both for bodie and soule The thirde that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason For my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede that is it hath truely and in deed those properties that any man would wish for in true meate But the properties of true meate are to be receiued into the bodie and to be a medicine against death If none be true meate but that which is receiued into the body then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift the bread of life which came downe from heauen is not true meate for that he hath often saide may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body yet thereof saith Christ that he is the true bread But Chrysostome vpon these words My flesh is meat in deede c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saueth the soule or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words that they should not thinke him to haue spoken in parables darkely but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie to eate his body in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses saith Sander must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe because hee spake not obscurely in parables Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe that would say true eating of the flesh standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe Against whome then doeth Sander fight but against an idoll of his owne braine but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing I answere Chrysostome speaketh of the meate and not of the manner of eating for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating let Sander speake of his small conscience when he saith the manner of eating to be vnder another kind then it selfe is which is most obscure and imperceptible But if his flesh be called meate because it must bee eaten bodily wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede it must be drunke in deede and not eaten with the bodie But Augustine lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei Cap â—0 sayeth Tanquam caetera c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment the tree of life a Sacrament So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort in the bodily Paradise as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise Of which wisedome it is written It is the tree of life to all that embraece it What can Sander make of this saying As corporall tasting in the tree of life was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede I denie the comparison which shoulde be made of the tree with bread and of life with Christe and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament but also calling Christ the spirituall part of the sacrament the wisedome of God which is a tree of life to all that embrace him signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued then with the mouth for embracing is more aptly said to
he meaneth not a litle of the bodie of Christ nor the bodie of Christ in a litle quantitie but a litle of the consecrated bread and wine which by diuine and spirituall operation is of infinite vertue to conuert vs into an heauenly and spirituall nature aunswerable to our regeneration which is testified vnto vs in baptisme But Sander replyeth that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread it could not be true that a litle therof should drawe the whole man vnto it I answere if it were nothing but wheaten bread it could do no such thing but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally as it is a Sacrament that is a blessing which draweth the whole man to it and filleth him with grace Eâ— hoâ— modo in nobis Christus manet nos in Christo and by this meane doeth Christ dwell in vs and wee in him To the terme of tarying naturally vsed by Hilarie I haue answered before Theophylact I force not of as beeing a late writter although he say nothing in effect more thaÌ„ Chrysostom and Cyrill But Sander still vrgeth what ioyning as of waxe leauen what mingling can bee made of things so far distant as heauen earth If you say by faith spirite either you giue a cause of ioyning saith Sander which may stande with the cause alleaged by Christ or else you correct his cause and put a better I answere we neither ad to nor correct the cause of ioyning alledged by Christ but expresse the verie same which he doth The wordes which I speake are spirite life but there be some among you that beleeue not Nay sayth Sander our tarying in Christ is assigned to eating and not onely to beleeuing But we replie that this eating is not corporall eating but eating by faith spirite which may be without eating the Sacrament and yet eating the fleshe of Christ not leauing the eating thereof as Sander saith and staying vppon feeding by faith alone which is an absurde saying for by faith wee feede vpon Christ through the vertue of his holy spirite CAP. XVII We are made one with Christ by naturall participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his father hath assumpted our nature into his owne person Sander alwaies reasoneth so as he maketh eating by faith and spirite to exclude the fleshe of Christ and the vertue thereof as in this chapter he saith Hee that eateth Christs fleshe receiueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirite onely but also by naturall participation of his flesh as Christ liueth for the father so he that eateth Christ shall liue for him but Christ liueth not for his father in faith nor by meane of spirite alone as we take spirite for deuotion or spirituall giftes and qualities but by his whole substance present in him But wheÌ„ wee say that wee eate Christ by faith spirit we meane not by spirite deuotion or spirituall gifts but the working of the holy spirite as the principall efficient cause and faith as the instrumentall cause by which wee eate Christ present in whole substance The controuersie is not whether wee must bee ioyned to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud for that wee beleue without al controuersie that from the beginning of the world to the end none can be ioyned to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh drinking his bloud but whether Christes flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament that is the question And therfore Sander maketh a large needlesse discourse in this Chapter to shew how Christ liueth for his father and how we must liue for him that is by participation of his flesh and bloud which is that naturall participation whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians which saied we are ioyned to him onely in vnity of will which is not so for he by his incarnation is naturally ioyned to vs and we by participation of his flesh are naturally ioyned to him so that wee are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone of which coniunction the Sacrament is an heauenly pledge and assurance But now commeth Sander and saith that in foure pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary first bâ—couse they prâ—suppose Christes flesh not to be eaten of vs and consequently not to be in vs in his owne nature and substance This is a false supposell for we affirme Christes flesh to be eaten of al the elect of God and whole Christ to be in them Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ if we doe not liue by eating of Christs flesh as he by the father This is the 2. slanderous cauell answered before Thirdly they are against the life of our bodyes because they say that in the Sacrament we eate nothing into our bodies but bread and wine which are not able to giue life to our bodies whereby they may liue for euer This is a peeuish Sophistry we eate into our bodies and we eate in the Sacrament bodilye nothing but bread and wine therefore we eat not at all Yes we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it with our soules which is of force to giue life both to bodies and soules Fourthly they are against the foode of our bodies which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth wee acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be foode to feede the whole man body and soule vnto eternall life but yet so to feede the body as it is not receiued corporally nor feedeth corporally but after a spirituall and diuine manner And heere he maketh the Zwinglians to affirme that the sanctified bread in the supper is the foode of our bodies vnto eternall life as water in baptisme is the instrument and meane as wel to bodies soules of euerlasting life Which is vtterly false for they affirme neither the bread to be food nor the water to be regeneration otherwise then as holy signes seales pledges assurances of spirituall feeding and regeneration But Sander by scripture will destroy this comparison affirming that God in deede may vse what meanes he will to saue vs but by his word he hath testified his wil that baptisme hath his promise of saluatioÌ„ annexed to it but no promise is made to material bread and wine nor to him that eateth and drinketh them I answere neither is any promise made to the water in baptisme but to him that receiueth it worthily and to him that eateth and drinketh materiall bread and wine in the Sacrament the like promise is made of remission of sinnes and of eternall life not in respect of the bread wine but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament and by faith and working of his holye spirite feedeth vs with his flesh and bloud euen when that Sacrament is not receiued But Cyril saith in Ioan lib. 10 Cap. 13. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the body could not
of flesh with naked soule and pure minde looke rounde about vpon those thinges that are in heauen These wordes declare plainelye that Chrysostome dreamed not of transubstantiation but spake of a spirituall handling and receiuing of Christ as of a spirituall dipping and making redde the people with his pretious bloud and of feeding on Christ in heauen by faith And so it is more wonderfull that wee in body remaining on the earth doe feede on Christ sitting in heauen not by bringing him downe vnto vs but by lifting vs vp vnto him The places of scripture that Sander quoteth as perteining to the supper although they all pertaine not vnto it yet when he can make any argument out of any of them for his carnall manner of presence I shall easily answere it CAP. XI Why the Sacrament is called breade after consecration If Master Sander had first prooued that the Sacrament is not bread after consecration wee might easily haue yelded to the reason that might be brought why it is called that which in nature it is not As wee can yeld many reasons why the Sacrament is called the body of Christ although it be not the body of Christ in the nature of it yet it is meete that first wee prooue that it is not his body after that manner that the Papistes defend and then shewe reasons why it is called by the name of that which it doth signifie But let vs heare Sanders reasons First the Hebrue tongue which the Euangelists Apostles writing Greek doth follow vseth the name bread for all maner of food Secondly a thing is called by the name of that which it was and not which it is as Aarons rod is said to haue deuoured the roddes of the coniurers yet was it turned from a rodde to a serpent Exod. 7. Thirdly a thing is called not onely as it is but as it seemeth outwardly to be so the Angell which the woman sawe at the sepulchre is called a yong man Marke 16. And in all these three respectes the Sacrament is called bread when it is not naturall bread For it is a kind of foode it was bread and seemeth to be breade But I will prooue that in none of these respectes it is called bread but because it is naturall bread in deede without conuersion of the substance First whatsoeuer is saide in Saint Iohn Cap 6. is not particular to the Sacrament for bread is there taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode which wee haue without the Sacrament Secondly when S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread after consecration there is no reason why the name of bread should not be taken for materiall bread changed in vse not in substance as the name of breade taken before consecration 1. Cor. 11. and where the Apostle saith the breade which wee breake he sheweth plainlie that he speaketh of material breade for the bodie of Christe nor spiritual foode nor general foode are not broken Secondly in the conuersion of Aarons rodde there was a sensible change there is none such in the Sacrament Thirdly as the Angel had some appearance of a man in externall shape of bodie so he had other manifest tokens in him that declared him to be an Angell and no man but the Sacramentall bread hath in it all tokens of material bread and no sensible token of the bodie of Christ therefore the comparison is nothing like The water turned into wine was iudged by the taste to be wine not water There can be no such iudgement in the Sacramentall bread for as materiall bread it tasteth and partaketh all accidents yea it nourisheth and corrupteth which neither bare accidents nor the bodie of Christ doeth or can doe The authorities that Sander citeth to proue that the Sacramentall bread is called the bodie and flesh of Christ do not denie that it is material bread yea many of the old writers expressely affirme that it is so Yet let vs consider his authorities Ignatius Ep. 2. ad Rom. saith Panem Dei volo quod est caro Christi I desire the bread of God quod which thing is the flesh of Christ. Verily Ignatius saith no more here then Zwinglius saide which was no friend to transubstantiation Secondly Iustinus saith Hic cibus c. this meate is called with vs the Eucharist or thanksgiuing after he saith We take not these things as common bread drink but wee haue learned that the meate which is consecrated by the words of praier taken of him to be the flesh bloud of Christ. He that denieth the Sacrament to be coÌ„mon bread doth not denie it to be naturall bread And Iustinus interlaceth that which Sander omitteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That meat of which our bloud flesh by transmutation are nourished we haue learned to be the flesh bloud of that Iesus that was incarnate That which nourisheth our flesh bloud is material bread although it be not coÌ„mon bread Thirdly Hilarie saith Nos verè c. we truly take the word flesh in our Lordes meate The same Hilarie saith afterward verè sub mysterio truely vnder 2 mysterie we receiue the flesh of his bodie Fourthly Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith Christ offered bread wine that is to say his owne bodie bloud Here Sander cutteth off the beginning of Cyprians words which manifestly proue material bread wine Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchizedech obtulerat id est panem vinu suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedek had offered that is to say bread wine namely his bodie bloud Speake Sander tel vs was it not material bread wine which Melchizedek brought forth the selfsame thing saith Cyprian offered Christ which yet was his bodie bloud after a certeine maner After what maner you may learne In these wordes you haue not onely the spirituall manner after which the breade and wine are called his body and bloud but also the same breade and wine to be made of cornes grapes which I trow caÌ„ be none other but material bread and wine Fifthly Irenaeus saith it is not now common bread but the Eucharisty lib. 4. C. 34. The same Irenaeus in the same place saith that Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constant terrena coelesti the Sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly thing and an heauenly Likewise he saith that of the bread wine being made the Eucharisty augeâ—ur consistit carnis nostrae substantia the substaÌ„ce of our flesh is increased and consisteth lib. 5. that is not of accidents nor of the reall body of Christ. Sixtly Ambrose de Sacr. lib. 5. calleth our daiely bread supersubstantiall breade and yet I weene it be still naturall food of the body But he saith more Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed illa panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit It is not the bread which goeth into the body but that
Christ left vs not the best token of remembrance of his death because he is not seene with the print of his wounds But we must esteeme the best remembrance according to his wisedome that hath ordained it who in all respects no doubt hath appoinâ—ed the best that might be for confirmation of our saith Yet in Sanders example or any that hee can deuise a remembrance will alwayes differ from the thing remeÌ„bred as the scarie and the fighting are not all one so the remembrance of Christ crucified and Christ crucified himselfe are not all one Neither must Sander baffuâ— vs with the remembrance of an action onely for wee are to remember the person with his benifites in or for the remembrance of me saith Christ vntill he come saith Paul That a thing may be present which is not seene as to a blinde man Sander needed not to proue but that a thing may be both absent and present in the same substance visibly or inuisibly that is the matter which would require Sander to shewe his witte in giuing vs either a reason or an experience But the reall presence of Christ saith he causeth the people to come with due preparation and mortification which as Basil affirmeth is a peece of the remembrance whereas in eating and drinking breade and wine Christe is so remembred that sinnes be neither confessed nor amendement minded nor faith exercised nor charitie vsed as nowe a daies in England it is handled by meanes of the newe preachers What fruitfull remembrance of Christes death the popish doctrine doth worke wee lament to see the remanents yet in diuerse places where the people are not taught that spend their time as they were wont to doe in poperie when they had receiued their maker as they were taught to speake Contrariwise where true doctrine and good discipline haue preuailed enuie her selfe may see examples sufficient to confute the shamelesse slaunders of Sander As for the glorious monument of the Masse which Sander describeth to shewe what remembrance of Christ is made therein he doeth well to compare it to a sepulchre which hath outwardly goodly painting carning but inwardly is ful of rotten bones corruptioÌ„ As good a shewing as that and better too may be made vpon a stage with puppets For what doctrine is there in the masse for the comfort of an afflicted conscience but dumbe shewes and idle ceremonies in exposition whereof the popish doctors themselues cannot agree in which if there were any profitable doctrine it were hidde from the people as it were with the grauestone of an vnknowen tongue But that which of all other is worst what remembrance of Christes death and sacrifice call you that which sacrilegiously challengeth vnto it selfe that which is singular and proper to the death of Christ But Sander hauing once entred into the allegorie of a sepulchre cannot so lightlie leaue it but teacheth that Christ hauing ordained the sacrament for a sepulchre woulde not make it an hearse or sepulchre without his bodie lying therein To this I answere that sepulchres are to laye in deade carcases but Christ is risen from death and ascended into heauen hauing left his sacraments as monuments of him that was deade but nowe liueth eternally not as graues wherein his deade bodie still shoulde remaine But Chrysostome is charged to call Christes bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase because it is present after the same rate as it was deade in the sepulchre not without life but without sensible mouing as Epiphanius hath noted I answere hee doth impudently charge Chrysostome to render that reason why hee calleth Christes bodie a carcase in 1. Corint Homil. 24. because hee is present without sensible moouing For there is no such thing in that homily although there bee some excessiue and hyperbolicall speaches as that Christ suffereth to bee broken in the Sacrament which was not broken on the crosse And euen as false it is that hee affirmeth of Epiphanius for hee saith not that Christ is without sensible moouing But speaking of the sacramentall bread Hoc â—st rotundae formae insensibile quantum ad potentiam Et voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc hoc This thing is of rounde shape and insensible as concerning power And yet by grace he woulde say This is mine This and this Epiph. Ancor But there followeth a substantiall reason of the Martyrs which haue left their bodies behinde them for our comfort or else some thing equiualent as Manna â—n the tombe of Saint Iohn as the fable of Abdias sheweth Therefore Christ woulde not bee inferiour to them in leauing his bodie But Christ himselfe telleth vs that it is profitable for vs that hee departe from the worlde in his humanitie to prepare vs a place in heauen and to supplie his bodily presence most comfortablie with the presence of his holy spirite Ioan. 16. It is most comfortable therefore for vs that Christ hath carried his bodie into heauen and placed vs in heauen with him Ephe. 2. sending vnto vs his holy spirite with all profitable graces from heauen Origen is cited Homi. 13 in Leuitic Si respicias c. If thou looke to that remembrance whereof our Lorde saide Doe this in the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely remembrance which may make GOD mercifull to men Marke saith Sander this propitiatorie kinde of remembrance Naye marke the treacherie of Sander that cutting off a sentence by the middle applyeth the conclusion to the latter parte onely which of the author is meant of the whole matter together For Origen shewing the insufficiencie of the shewebreade to make propitiation thus writeth Sed si referantur haec ad mysterii magnitudinem inuenies commemorationem istam habere ingentis repropitiationis effectum Si redeâ—s ad illum panem qui de caelo descendit dat huic mundo vitam illum panem propositionis quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius si respicias ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit dominus Hoc facite in meam commemorationem inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat hominibus deum But if these thinges namely the ceremonie of the shewe breade bee referred to the greatnesse of the mysterie thou shalt finde that this commemoration hath the effect of great reconciliation If thou returne to that breade which came downe from heauen and giueth life to this worlde I say that shewebread which God hath set forth to be propitiation through faith in his bloode and if thou looke vnto that commemoration of which our Lorde saith doe this for the remembrance of mee thou shalt finde that this is the onely commemoration that maketh God mercifull to men Nowe marke this propitiatory kinde of remembrance and you shall finde it to bee neither the masse nor the communion but the ceremonie of shewebreade noâ— barely considered but with faith applied vnto Christe whom it
but that I denie for the forme of bread is no secrete but a visible and naturall thing Wherefore the mysterie vnder which we truely take the flesh of Christ must be that secrete and wonderfull manner by which Christ doeth communicate his flesh vnto vs. Thirdly he sayeth that worde Proprietie doeth signifie a person because Augustine saith Christ is a vine by similitude non per proprieâ—atem not by propertie where by propertie Augustine meaneth properly and not a person Wherefore Hilarie meaneth that the naturall propertie of incorporating that meate that is eaten in the Sacrament is a Sacramentoâ— holy signe of a perfect vnitie such as is made betweene the meate and the eater and not such an agreement only as is betweene friends that are of one mind Therefore Sander doeth openly and violently falsifie Hilarie where he saith the naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a sacrament interpreting property for person After he hath thus abused Hilarie he commeth to Augustine de ciuitate Dei lib. 10. Cap. 5. This is the Sacrifice of the Christians we being many are one body in Christ the which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of that altar knowne to the faithfull where it is shewed to her that in that sacrifice which he offereth her self is offered Here Sander maketh a foolish Dialogisme betweene Christ and his father reprouing him that he hath gotten such a goodly mysticall bodie of the bakers making c. But Augustine speaketh of an Eucharisticall sacrifice offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper by the Church in which the Church her selfe is offered in a mysterie or holy signe of our coniunction with Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament And so doeth Augustine interpret hemselfe Cap. 5. Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum sigrâ—â—m The visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifice which inuisible sacrifice is by him expounded to be mercie and charitie yelding vp of our selues vnto the obedience â—f God vnto which the reall presence of Christ is nei 〈…〉 er necessarie nor at all required seeing he hath once 〈…〉 fered vp a full sacrifice of perpetuall effect for the reâ—emption of all the elect of God His allegorie of building as it is vaine and no arguâ—ent but of Sanders owne authoritie so I passe it ouer 〈◊〉 vnworthie any answere But I cannot passe ouer that 〈◊〉 the conclusion of his fantastical building he saith Once 〈…〉 enie the flesh of Christ to be really present in the Sa 〈…〉 ament of the altar c and there is no reason why wee â—ould be called his mysticall bodie or flesh of his flesh and bone 〈◊〉 his bone By which saying he denyeth all the Patriarks 〈◊〉 Prophets to be members of Christ flesh of his flesh â—nd bone of his bone But we knowe that by Christs inâ—arnation and communicating of his fleshe and bloud â—nto all his elect by his spirit they with vs and we with â—hem are all members of Christ flesh of his flesh and â—one of his bone without that grosse and fantasticall presence in the Sacrament and this communication is sealed vnto vs as well by baptisme as by the supper Sander citeth Irenaeus Chrysostome Cyrill and Theodoret to prooue that it is the naturall flesh and bones of Christ whereunto we are ioyned and further vrging the similitude of mariage whereunto our spirituall coniunction is resembled not more grossely then filthily compareth our perfect vnitie with Christ vnto the acte of generation in marriage about which matter he spendeth two or three leaues Whereunto I answere shortly that we do acknowledge that we are truely vnited to the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ which he tooke of our nature by such meanes as is common to all the elect of God which can be nothing else but his spirite although the same be assured vnto vs by faith our faith therein effectually confirmed by all the Sacraments of God and especially by the supper of our Lorde but not onely thereby As for the presence of the bodies to be ioyned which Sander requireth is no naturall presence in one proper place more of Christes bodie comming downe from heauen into euery one of our bodies then of al our bodies comming from all partes of the world into one But the bodie of Christ keeping his owne proper placeâ— heauen as Augustine affirmeth by his spirite wee are all brought vp vnto him as the Apostle saith Eph. 2. not â—e brought downe vnto vs. Finally where Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. saith He hath mixed the nature of his fleshe vnto 〈◊〉 vnder asacrament he meaneth not of anie carrâ—ll manner of mixture but such as is sub Sacramento vnder a sacrament â—nd mysterie that is by the visible sacrament taught to bee truely but yet after a spirituall manner Likewise where Chrysostome saith in Ioan. 24. It is brought to passe by the meate which Christ hath giuen vs that we may bee conuerted into that fleshe not onely by loue but in deede No Christian man can vnderstande this conuersion that is made in deede or in the thing it selfe to bee carnall but onely spirituall For what madnesse were it to say that wee are turned into the naturall fleshe of Christ after a corporall manner To conclude Sander cannot prooue his fleshly presence without manifest falsifying of Cyrillus both in words sense For thus he citeth him in Ioan. lib. 10. cap. 15. iu deede it is cap. 13. 〈◊〉 mystica benedictio in noâ—is fiat nonne corporallier quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi For as much as the mys 〈…〉 al blessing is made in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally through the communicating of Christes fleshe Can the mysticall blessing make Christe dwell corporallie in vs if it selfe haue not Christes flesh corporally in it But Cyrill saith not that the mysticall blessing is made in vs but the vertue of the mysticall blessing which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs. For thus he writeth against the Arrians Anfoâ—tesse putat ignotam nobis mys 〈…〉 benedictionis vir 〈…〉 tem esse Quae cùm in nobis fiat nonne â—â—poraliâ—er quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare c. Or else perchance doth he thinke that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknowen vnto vs which when it is wrought in vs doth it not make Christ to dwell in vs also corporally by communicating of the fleshe of Christ It is therefore the vertue of the mysticall blessing and not the reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament that maketh Christe â—o dwell in vs corporallie and by naturall paticipation â—s hee saith afterwarde By which tearmes yet Cyrill doeth not vnderstande any corporall or naturall manner of coniunction but a true and vndoubted vniting of vs to the nature and bodie of Christ which is performed by the vertue of his
haue no figure Wherefore Sander and not Master Iewell reasoneth like a Marcionite confounding the figure with the thing figured Sand. Tertullian speaking most literally of bread as it was an olde figure of Christes body whereof in Ieremie it was saide Let vs put the wood of the crosse into his bread to wit vppon his bodie saith Christ then fulfilling the old figures made bread his bodie if he did so it could not tarie bread any longer Fulk This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense Tertullian asketh But why did he call breade his body and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart not vnderstanding that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremie Against me haue they thought a thought saying Come let vs cast wood on his breade that is the crosse on his bodie Therefore the lightener of antiquities sufficiently declared what he would haue breade then to haue signified when he calleth bread his body These words declare wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie in his supper namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body in somuch that it was called bread But he made bread his body therefore it is not his body still I aunswere Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body Baptisme being made regeneration is still a washing with water The rocke when it was made Christ remained still a rocke c. Iew. After consecration saith Saint Ambrose the bodie of Christ is signified Sand. S. Ambrose de myst cap. 〈◊〉 doth speake of that signification which is made whiles the priest pronounceth Hoc est corpus meum which words he saith do worke in the consecration that which they signifie therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ. Fulk Fie for shame Sander when Ambrose saith Post consecrationem after consecration will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration the words of Christ indeede doe worke as Ambrose saith and what worke they but that which is added to the elementes after cōsecration namely a signification of the bodie of Christ. Iew. It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified Sand. Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified is not at all true according to the letter or else when the thing signified is absent in substance c. Fulk Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches when they are vnderstoode as if they were proper and cap 16. of the same booke giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper hee exemplifieth the eating of the fleshe of Christ and drinking his bloode to be a figuratiue speach Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched for any thing brought in this chapter And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper CAP. II. Sand. That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries Fulk Sander wil acknowledge nothing in the sacrament whatsoeuer we teach protest and beleeue excepte we acknowledge his real presence but a bare figure Sand. S. Hilarie and S. Cyrill teach that the nature of signes or seales is such as setteth forth y◠who le forme of the kinde of thing printed in them and haue no lesse in them then those things whence they are sealed Fulk Such a seale we beleeue the Lords supper to be of Christes death and our redemption Iew. He must mount on high saith Chrysostome whoso will reach to that body San. Accedere is to come to not to reach He spake of comming to the visible table Fulk He spake of cōming to the visible table so as we might attaine to the body of Christ which is in heauen for that cause he said we must be eagles in this life Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24. Sand. He saith Ipsa mensa The very table is our saluation life And again This mysterie maketh that while◠we be in this life earth may be heauen to vs. Fulk As earth is heauen to vs the table saluation so is the sacrament the body of Christ. Iew. Send vp thy faith saith Augu. thou hast taken him Sand. The place is abused See lib. 2. cap. 29. Fulk And see the answere there Iew. The bread that we receiue with our bodily mouthes is an eathly thing and therefore a figure as the water in baptisme Sand. The water in baptisme is no figure but the figure is the word cōming to the water As the water in baptisme is no figure when the words are absent so bread could not be a figure any longer when the words are fully past Fulk Maister Iewel speaketh of the water wherevnto the word is come which as it remaineth no sacrament after the vse of baptisme no more doth the bread out of the vse of receiuing That consecration consisteth in the onely words This is my body it is false For Christes wordes are more Take eate c. Iew. The body of Christ is y◠thing it selfe no figure Sand. The body of Christ vnder the forme of bread is it self both the thing also a figure of y◠mystical vnity of the Church So S. Hilary teacheth The natural propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie See libr. 5. Chap. 5. Fulk The natural propertie is not the personal substance or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as aboue Iew. In respect of the body we haue no regarde to the figure wherevnto S. Bernarde alluding saith The sealing ring is nothing worth it is the inheritance I sought for Sand. What a desperate custome is it for you to alleadge alwaies the fathers of the last 900. yeres whom you haue alreadie condemned Fulk What a diuelish custome is it for you alwaies to lie and slaunder Sand. S. Bernard saith the bodie and blood it selfe to bee the signe Vt securi suis c. That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestiture of our Lordes sacrament his precious bodie and bloode Fulk You falsifie Bernards wordes in translation and peruert his meaning Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis That you may bee without feare you haue the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lorde and of his precious bloode The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring and not the bodie of Christ. If the bodie of Christe were the ring of the inuestiture Bernard woulde not haue saide the ring is nothing worth Yet the sacrament as a seale putteth vs in assurance of the inheritance and not bate bread as Sander bableth CAP. III. Sand. That Christes
figuratiue words Iewel That M. Harding calleth the catholike faith is in deede a catholike error Sand. No error can be catholike because Christ said Hell gates shal not preuaile against the Church and it is a citie built vpon an hill Fulke And yet all nations are made drunke with the furie of the wine of the whore of Babylons fornication Wherefore an error may bee catholike although not simply yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime doe embrace the trueth CAP. XII Sand. Of Christs glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierome expounded Hard. The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile is now spirituall Iewel To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God which heresie is like Master Hardings if it be not the same Sand. The defence of the reall presence is directly against that heresie Fulke To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof is to come as neere to that heresie as can be Sand. The ancient fathers proued that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges the signe or forme of breade and of the bodie of Christ so Christ cōsisteth of two natures the one diuine the other humane Wherefore you denying the presence agree with the Arrians Valentinians c. Fulke The ancient fathers neuer made the forme or accidents of breade but bread it selfe to be the signe or one part of the sacrament representing the bodie of Christ and the thing signified they made like to the godheade whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ but the effect of his death Hard. S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh one spirituall as it is verily meate an other as it was crucified declareth the manner of eating it onely to differ from the manner of it being crucified the substance being all one Iewel He speaketh neither of the Sacrament nor of any reall presence Sand. He meaneth both Fulk He can meane neither of both seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh which is meat in deede vnto eternall life from that flesh which was crucified which if it were meate in the same sense that it was crucified that is in the naturall substance S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which c. and that flesh which c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh Wherefore when he saith the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded he meaneth of this word The flesh of Christ and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament and on the crosse Iewel S. Hierom saith of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ it is lawful to eate but of that oblatiō which Christ offered vpon the altar of the crosse according to it selfe it is lawful for no man to eate that is to say in grosse and fleshly manner These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ and the very sacrifice in deede c. Sand. The difference is so great that the thing offered is all one and that which is crucified and eaten is the same in substance but not in manner of presence Fulke The difference is so great as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted and the memoriall of the same The same substance that was crucified is eaten but not by meanes of any bodily presence but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith Sand. What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ Fulke It is a merueilous thing that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen Iewell If a man take it fleshly saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47 he gaineth nothing Sand. It followeth immediatly What say we then is not flesh flesh He vnderstandeth fleshly that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating but not he that saith the flesh must be eaten if the manner be diuine and spirituall as in our sacrament Fulke The manner you teach is grosse and carnall for spiritual eating we confesse which is not onely in the sacrament Iewell It is a figure or forme of speach saith S. Augustine willing vs to be partakers of Christs passion Sand. You are taken M. Iewel For seeing you say we eate Christ in the supper only by faith and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest how saith S. Hierome we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe may we not be leeue in him c. Fulke In the sacrament wee eate bread which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ we eate not that which was sacrificed on the crosse in the reall substance thereof but by faith applying vnto vs the fruites and effects of his passion Iewell S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine spiritual flesh of Christ the remēbring that hee died for vs. Sander Then the oblation it self is eaten of vs which he offered on the crosse according to it selfe Fulke What mad man would saye the oblation it selfe the remembrance therof to be all one Iewel Clemens Alexandrinus saith there is a fleshly bloud wherwith we are redeemed a spiritual wherwith we are annointed And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ to be partaker of his immortalitie As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vs so it is not really present to nourish vs. Sander Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe Fulke A monstrous shift when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes the spirituall and diuine bloude by which wee are nourished from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare by which wee are redeemed Wherefore he speaketh of the effect fruite as well as Clemens Sander That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament it is proued because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn as all the fathers reasons scriptures prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper as I haue prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke Fulke His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn prooue no more then drinking of the bloude of Christ c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee Iewel Saint Augustine saith Iudas betrayed Christ carnall thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall For in thy furie thou betrayest the holy gospell to be burned with wicked fire These wordes of Clement and Augustine agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same Sander Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way cleane diuerse from Clement or Saint Hierome
true but with Cyril in these speaches it is nothing but true as he expoundeth himselfe Sander That which you saide of Saint Augustine Corporaliter non vmbraliter sed verè solidè I could not finde it vpon the 67. Psalm Fulke Then you sought it verie negligently for there it is written vpon the 16. verse of that Psalme in these words In ipso quippe inhabitat omnis plâ—nitudo diuinitatis non vmbraliter tanquam in templo a rege Salomone facto sed corporaliter id est solidè atque veraciter For in him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the diuinitie not shadowedly as in the temple made by king Salomon but corporally that is to say soundly and truely This exposition of the worde corporally pleased you not and therefore you coulde not finde it for if you had red ouer little more then halfe the discourse vpon the Psalm you must needs haue found it Sander Saith not Cyrill that the mysticall blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in vs Fulke He saith the vertue of the mysticall blessing when it is wrought in vs maketh him to dwell also corporally in vs. Iewel Saint Paul saith The heathens are become concorporall and partakers of the promise in Iesu Christ. Sander The word corporall signifieth no more but that the Iewes and Gentils are of one fellowship but the meanes of making them one remaine notwithstanding to be declared Fulke They are declared by S. Paul to be In Christ by the Gospell Iewell By the wordes corporally naturally a full perfect spirituall coniunction is meant excluding all manner of fantasies Sander Is not that coniunction which is by faith syncere loue wherof Cyrill saith we are not onely ioyned thereby but quoque also corporally a full perfect spirituall coniunction Fulke It is not full perfect by faith and loue except we be spiritually fed with the bodie blod of Christ. Sander If corporally be nothing else to say but truly without imagination How construe you these words of S. Paul All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ Fulke I construe them as S. Augustine doth in Psa. 67. before said which place you list not to find And I pray you do you coÌ„strue corporally so that you vnderstand the godhead to be a bodie as in your next argument a coniugatis Sander How can you auoid the yoke the dependance the mutual respect that is betweene bodie bodily if bodily be truely then corpus with M. Iewel is latine for trueth Fulke The yoke is auoided when the aduerb signifieth only a similitude vnto that which is meant by the Nowne as spiritualiter enforceth not the presence of a spirite but after the similitude or maner of a spirite So angelicè viuere ventoâ—èiactare regaliter epulari To liue like an Angel To boast vainly like the winde To feast like a king c. As for corpus although it be not Latine for trueth yet to signifie trueth sometime it is not harde to finde in the scripture S. Paul saith The Iewish feastes are vmbra futurorum corpus autem Christi the shadowe of things to come but the bodie is of Christ what is the sense of bodie here but trueth As for Sanders feare least Christes naturall bodie might so be transformed into a trueth of faith or charitie or bones without fleshe or skinne without flesh or bones is vaine and foolish yea spiteful and malicious for if bodie and bodily be somtimes taken for trueth and truely according to the circumstance of the place it will not followe that those wordes should always be so taken where the text openly reclaimeth Iewel Otherwise there must needs follow this great inconuenience that our bodie must be in like maner cor porally naturally and fleshly in Christs bodie For Hilarius saith We also are naturally in him And Cyrillus We are corporally in Christ. Sander It is most true during the time of the coniunction Fulke The time of the coniunction is perpetual for Hilarie saith We are inseparably vnited in him lib. 〈◊〉 Teach your Papistes that the bodie of Christ is none owise in their mouth bodie then they are in the body of Christ you may whistle for your Popish real presence Iewel That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporall being Sander That were a fine being M. Iewel that Christs bodie should be in vs corporally yet the being shoulde not be corporall Fulke This is a fine wit M. Sander being demanded of an horsmill to answere of a milhorse M. Iewell would knowe whether any corporall being is required that we I say we should be in Christ corporally You answere of Christes being in vs because you cannot auoide the absurditie of our beeing in Christe corporally after your corporall and carnall vnderstanding Iewell It requireth not any locall being Sander It is a locall being in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place vnder the forme of bread which the substance of bread did occupie before Fulke That is a fine place for a man of perfect stature But why answere you of Christes being in the Sacrament when M. Iewel speaketh of our being in Christ corporally I perceiue your infirmitie you cannot heare on that side Iewel Christ fitting in heauen is here in vs not by a naturall but by a spirituall meane of being Sander The being of Christ in vs by his spirite is also natural concerning the nature of his godhed which is euery where Fulke Still you take chalke for cheese Wee enquire of the beeing of his humanitie whether it may be naturally sitting in heauen and here with vs. Iewell Saint Augustine sayth After that Christ is ascended he is in vs by his spirite And S. Basil and againe S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places And Christ spake in S. Paul c. Sander Shall one trueth alwayes displace another with you These be sowters arguments Christ is God therefore he is not man he is in heauen ergo he is not in earth c. Fulke Saint Augustine by his ascension and presence by his spirite concludeth the absence of his humanitie from the earth Ascendit in Coelum non est hîc he hath ascended into heauen and he is not here In Ioan. Tr. 50. This is no sowters argument except Saint Augustine be a sowter in fine Master Sanders deintie iudgement Iewell This coniunction is spirituall therefore needeth not neither the circumstance of place nor corporall presence Sander The coniunction is spirituall but the maner of working it is brought to passe by the corporall substance of Christ. Fulke The corporal substance needeth not to come vnto vs that a spirituall coniunction may be made betweene Christ and vs the spirite of God is the onely necessarie meane to make a spirituall coniunction Iewel The coniunction that is betweene Christ vs neither doth mingle persons nor vnite substances but it doeth knit our affects togither and ioyne our willes saith S. Cyprian Sander S. Cyprian
not onely minister the communion to in 〈…〉 ntes contrary to the doctrin of the Apostle Let a man â—xamine himselfe c but also that they thought it ne 〈…〉 ssarie for them in paine of damnation to receiue the â—ommunion which error I supposed the papistes them â—â—lues woulde not defend Heere first Bristowe accuâ—eth my boldnesse in that I affirme the Papistes will not â—efende this error and secondly my wilfull ignorance â—hat I neuer redde the councell of Trent wherein it is â—eclared that they doe defend it with an admonition to his couÌ„trie men what blind guids they haue of me and such as I am c. Concerning the boldenesse I desire â—ardon of the Papistes if I thought not so euell of theÌ„â—s they deserue And touching my wilfull ignorance â—nd blindnesse I must needes vse the prouerbe Who â—s so bolde as blinde Bayarde Bristowe which so conâ—tantly affirmeth that it was not possible for him to â—nowe Fulke neuer redde the councell of Trent and that iâ—â—tterly false for as I knowe I haue redde it so suppose 〈◊〉 haue redd it before Bristowe But admitte I had neâ—er seene the report of that 5. session vnder Pius the 4. which was helde the 16. day of Iuly 1562 are all blinde guides that neuer sawe that session O waightie censure of a proude papist whiche by a fault called of the Greekes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinketh that to bee the highest point of learning which he hath learned latest But what if the councell of Trent doe not onely acknowledge it to bee an error but also doe anathematise all them that holde the contrarie Then haue I not slaundered the Papistes but Bristowe hath slaundered mee The verie wordes cited by Bristowe out of the 4. Cap. shewe that the Papistes helde it for an error that it is necessarie for infantes to receiue the communion That infantes lacking the vse of reason are by no necessitie bound to the sacramentall receiuing of the Eucharist Also the fourth Canon of the same session thundereth out anathema against them that say otherwise Si quis dixerit parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem Anathema sit If any man shall say that the communion of the Eucharist is necessarie for infants before they come to the yeares of discretion let him be accursed But the same councel in the Chapter by Bristow cited affirmeth that Antiquitie is not to be condemned if it practised that maner sometime in some places and that without controuersie it must be beleeued that they did it not for anie necessitie of saluation And this declaration saith Bristow may suffice not onely all Catholikes to whoÌ„ it is the declaration of the holy Ghost himself but also any other reasonable man Indeede if any resonable man wil be satisfied with such a grosse ledging of the whole matter in controuersie it is a good satisfaction The councel of Trent saith so therefore although Augustine Pope Innocentius other witnesses of antiquitie say the coÌ„trary of themselues yet we must not beleue them That Kemnitius a Lutheran toucheth not this error of the couÌ„cell of Trent it is a great argument such as Bristowe often vseth that it is no error Kemnitius if he had beene as quicke eyed as Bernard yet saw not all things neither was he bound to confute all errors that he sawe But for further satisfaction of all men Bristow will open the case particularly which is this in effect The Pelagians affirmed that children without baptisme should haue euerlasting life although not in the kingdome of God Wherevnto the Catholikes replied they could not haue eternall life except they did eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud in the coÌ„munion but the communion they could not receiue before they were baptised therefore without baptisme they could not haue eternal life Now Bristowe putting the case that a childe were baptised and then immediately dyed before he receyued sacramentally the Eucharist demandeth whether the father granting to such a childe by force of baptisme remission of sinnes do not also allowe him eternall life and the kingdome of God And let any man saith he bring me one place of those Doctors speaking to this case holding the contrarie I aunswere seeing they vsed immediately after â—aptisme to communicat the infant the case that Bristow â—utteth is too rare to happen in 500 yeres that any queâ—â—ion might grow vpon it But what their opinion was â—f the necessitie of the one sacrament as much as the oâ—her it is easie to proue both by their argument which Bristow confesseth they vsed also by their own words whatsoeuer the blind guides of the Tridentine councel â—ay in their defence They brought in the Eucharist saith Bristow onely to proue that baptisme is necessary to the euerlasting life of children Verie well but what force â—n the worlde hath that argument of the Euchariste for the necessitie of baptisme if the Eucharist also bee not necessarie for children For the Pelagians might reply that if the Euchariste be not necessarie no more is baptisme for the atteyning of eternal life But those fathers labored to prooue the necessitie of baptisme for infants by the necessitie of the Euchariste for infantes And this appeareth by many places of S. Augustine As cont Iul. â—ib 1. cap. 2. Where he speaketh of Innocentius Bishosh of Rome Qui parvulos c. which hath defined that infantes except they eate the flesh of the son of man can haue no life at all in theÌ„ And there he meaneth of eating sacrameÌ„tally as his owne words cited by Augustine declare Cont. duas Epist. Pelag lib. 2. cap. 4. speaking of the rescript of Innocentius to the Bishops of Numidia Nónne apertissimè de parvulis loquitur Haec enim ejus verba sunt c. Doth he not most manifestly speake of infantes For these are his owne wordes Illud verò quòd eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare c. But concerning that your brotherhood affirmeth them to preach that infants may be rewarded with the rewards of eternal life euen without the grace of baptisme it is a verie foolish thing For excepte they shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud they shall haue no life in themselues But they which defend theÌ„ to haue this life without regeneratioÌ„ seeme to me that they would make frustrate baptisme it selfe when they preach them to haue that which we beleue is not to be conferred vpon them but by baptisme c. And within fewe lines after Augustine saith Ecce beatae memoriae c. Beholde Pope Innocentius of blessed memorie saith that infantes haue not life without the baptisme of Christ and without participation of the body and bloud of Christ. Agayne lib. 1. Cap. 2. hee speaketh against the Pelagians which granted that baptisme was necessarie for infantes to attaine to the kingdome of heauen but not for remission of sinnes Nec illud cogitatis c.
out of her secret place in the wildernes into the open sight of the world againe Ar. 16. 27. 79. 36. Contra Diuers times it was bold to chalenge preaching ministring of the sacrameÌ„tes yea and so boldly that it cost many of the chalengers their liues As Berengarius Brumo Marsilius de Padua Ioannes de Gaudano Ioannes Wickleue Waldo Ioannes Hus Ieronymus de Praga c. Ar. 77. The onely shew of contradiction is a falsification of of Bristow reporting my wordes Where all this while c. As though the Church hath alwaies bin so hidden the no members thereof might appeare But those wordes be of his own cauillous coÌ„positioÌ„ not of my writing But here beside the contradiction he noteth two thinges against me One that it cost not all these yea verie fewe of these there liues Neither did I say it cost al but many to iustifie this multitude Iohn Hus and Hierom are expressed beside many hundrethes that are conteined vnder c. The other matter is that neither these before appearing were secret protestans but open papistes Belike he would beare vs in hand that their open appearing conuersioÌ„ from popery was both in a moment of time But what if some of them were first papistes and afterward returned from popery to the catholike Church as Hus Hierom being conuerted by certaine Englishmen yet weere they not al such for Waldo was neuer any papist but a christian Catholike who seeing the horrible enormities of the Romish synagogue openly with many thowsands I renouÌ„ced her communion when she would not be reformed at his godly preaching 20 To bring her againe into open light Which is now brought to passe in our dayes Ar 16. 9â— Contra from the yere of our Lord 1414. being the time of the Councell of Constance the bright beames of the Gospell haue shined in the world Ar. 36. I see no signe of coÌ„tradictioÌ„ in these words except these propositioÌ„s be coÌ„tradictorie The bright beames of the sun do shine in the morning before the sun be ful risen the same is seene in opeÌ„ light after he is fully riseÌ„ aboue the earth The 21 The reuelation of Antichrist with the Churches flight into the wildernes was An. 607. when Bonifacius the 3. c. For vntill then the mysterie of iniquitie was preparing for his reuelation coÌ„ming for the generall defection Ar. 38. 36 16. Contra She hath not decaied there in the wildernes but beene alwayes preserued vntill God should reueile Antichrist which is now brought to passe in our dayes Ar. 16. The reuelation of the mystery of iniquitie was when Antichrist himselfe did opeÌ„ly shew that iniquitie which before was not throughly discouered God reueileth Antichrist when he openeth vnto men his horrible wickednes which to them were vnknowne A wonderfull contradiction of Antichrist reueiling himselfe and God reueiling Antichrist The 22 The Churches being in the wildernes was to be out of the sight knowledg of the wicked Ar. 27. 95. Contra speaking of the same space She was narrowly persecuted of the Romish Antichrist for a long seasoÌ„ Againe Although it were knowne to the papists yet it was in Italie when Marsilius of Padua preached in Fraunce when Waldo in England when Wickleue in Bohemia when Hus and Ierom of Prage did florish Why all these were well knowne to the papistes As though the Church could not be persecuted in her meÌ„bers except she were al knowneÌ„ or knowne to be the Church by her persecutors 23 A rule of the LogiciaÌ„s No man knoweth a relatiue except he know the correlatiue thereof Therefore though Christ had a body in earth yet could it be known of none but such as knew Christ the head of that body of whom the papistes were ignorant A 1. 80. Contra Our Church is now againe brought to light and knowledge of the world Ar. 96. So that now belike the papistes know Christ or the Logicians rule is verified onely for the time of the Churches being in the wildernes according as in other places he moderateth the matter saying We beleeue that the Church is not alwayes knowne to the wicked vpon earth Pur. 150. Ar. 77. 79 80. Whether the papistes know Christ or no certaine it is they will not acknowledg him who came into the world which was made by him and yet the world knew him not whom they would not acknowledge The papists cannot say they know not our Church although they will not acknowledge her to be the true Church and so my saying is true that our Church is brought into knowledg euen of the world of papistes The rules of LogiciaÌ„s are alway true but they are often ill kept by popish sophisters as the rules of coÌ„tradictioÌ„ here by Bristow 24 We beleeue that the vniuersal Church is not seene at all of men because it is in heauen Pur. 405. Ar. 95. 82. 74 80. Contra Our Church when it was most hidden might rightly be called Catholike that is vniuersall c. Here Cap. 10. Dem. 6 And whereas you say that no man aliue could name the place where it was you make an impudâ—nt lye For although it were vnknowen to the Papistes and enimies thereof yet was it knowen to the true members thereof I see no opposition except you will say there is no knowledge but by bodilie sight or that some members of the Church may not be seene in earth because Ierusalem the mother of vs all is aboue 25 And as for our Mother Church is no certaine place or coÌ„panie of men in any one place vpon earth but Ierusalem which is aboue is mother of vs all Pur. 377 Contra That no man aliue could name the place where it was is an impudent lie It was in Italie when Marsilius preached c. Vt suprà in contrad 22. Christe hath neuer wanted his spouse in earth though the blinde worlde when they see her will not acknowledge her to bee his spouse but persecute her as if she were an adultresse She was knowne to them that were her children The church of Christ is the nurse of Christians Ierusalem that is from aboue is mother of vs all Ar. 95 79 82. 106. Those are as great contradictions as these Bristowe is at Louane Bristowes foote is in his shooe The whole Church and mysticall body of Christ is in heauen therfore some members and parts therof can not be on earth 26 It is not called Catholike because it should be euery where For that it neuer was nor neuer shall be Ar. 95. Contra It should ouerflowe and fill all the world with righteousnesse Esai 10. That God hath an holie vniuersall congregation it is necessarie to beleeue It is dispersed in many places ouer all the world Ar. 73. 83. 80. It is not euery where and it is in many places be not contradictorie And the remnant may ouerflowe and fill the world with righteousnesse as Esai saith although it fill not euery place and person thereof nor
the holie Ghost or else he acknowledgeth him present vnder the formes of breade and wine without distinction of persons and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case seeing he wil admit no figure but a most proper speach in these wordes This is my bodie Whereas it is euident to all men that are not obstinately blinde that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is and would haue declared the same in proper speach he would not haue saide This is my bodie and this is my bloud which is but a part of him and the lowest part of him but he would haue saide take eate this is Iesus Christ or this is al that I am But when he saith this is my body this is my bloud which if it be not a figuratiue speach should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud he sheweth manifestly that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud but an heauenly and diuine mysterie teaching vs and assuring vs that God the sonne being ioined with vs in the nature of his humanitie which he hath taken vnto him by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vs on the crosse doth wonderfully feede vs and nourish vs as it were with meate and drinke vnto eternall saluation both of body and soule If any man think that I referre the words of Sander to the Sacrament which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally let him reade the whole Epistle and comparing it with the title of salutation which I haue set downe in his owne wordes consider whether Sander professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnder the formes of breade and wine can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ after any other sorte then vnder the formes of breade and wine Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication tending to so grosse heresie were a declaration of his proude stomake nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onely Sauiour and Redeemer whome we adore and worship as our King and God not vnder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine but aboue all principalities and powers sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen to whom with thee and the holie Ghost we giue al honor praise for euer vouchsafe if it be thy holy wil to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie vnto the true vnderstanding of thy blessed word or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit so require shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion that we thy humble seruantes beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes may laude and magnifie thy holy name as well in the saluation of thine elect as in the destruction of thine enemies to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer Amen The preface to the Christian reader THe proposition of this painted preface is that the scriptures must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde which Sander assumeth to be the vse custome and practise of the Catholike Church This assumption is false although if it were true it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times for any error which they maintaine against vs. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures is of the holy Ghost whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde but in the scriptures them selues wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God is of greater auctority then the practise of men The scriptures inspired of God are able to make vs wise vnto saluation they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people must be examined by the scriptures and not the scriptures expounded after it Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith Rom. 12. But faith is builded vpon the worde of God and not vpon the custome of men therefore exposition of the scriptures must be according to the word of God and not after the vsage of men The example which Sander vseth to confirme his false assumption is of baptising of infants of Christians before they be taught which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations To this I aunswere that the vse and consent of all nations were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places As is manifest in the institution of circumcision According to the couenant whereof the Apostle saith that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy therefore to be admitted to baptisme 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant according to which scriptures they are baptized the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused and not onely vpon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin as Sander affirmeth which custome is good because it is grounded vpon the Scriptures but the scripture is not authorized by that custome Wherefore popish confirmation and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament although he falsely affirmeth that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures but are proued contrarie to the same But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ to be against transubstantiation and adoration Sander replyeth that things vncertein must be iudged by things certeine and not contrariwise This principle is true but it is false that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine as also that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth be either all certeinties or certeinly on his side The first is the wordes of the scripture This is my body about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation The breade which we breake c. so often as ye eate of this bread c. The second is false that in the Catholike church all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnder the formes of bread c. for it is the practise onely of the Popish Church and that but of late yeres neuer admitted by the Orientall churches beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West that euer did abhorre it Thirdly the Councell of Laterane
passion which was afterwarde who is so madde as D. S. to referre the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is giuen to a present giuing or sacrifising But proceeding in his vaine purpose he sheweth that the faultes of the popish clergy aduanced by transubstantiation caused them to bee contemned of the people which contempt by Gods iustice stirred vp Martin Luther like a proude king of Babylon to come out of the North to fight against Ierusalē Can you forbeare laugh ing They that were carnal in the Popish Church priests bishops to holde their liuings Abats and Monkes for good pensions receiued this doctrine and gaue vp their abbies to the Prince But this good hath Luther done that he separated the good from the badde especially from the Popish votary the maried Monke and vowed Preist which sayeth No man ought to vowe chastity condemning therby not only an infinit number of virgins but also the blessed mother of God To this I answer that first of all he slaundereth them which denye the vow of chastity or rather celebrate for euery man is bound to liue chastly to be lawfull for they denye it to be lawfull only to those which are not certeine that they haue the gift of continency to continue with them long as they liue And as for the vow of the virgin Mary I pray you how proueth he that she made any Because saith he she wondered how she might haue a child seing she knew not any man Wherunto her own reason might haue replyed that hereafter shee might knowe a man except shee had vowed her selfe not to knowe at all any man I answere that though her reason might haue so replied for hauing a child yet for hauing such a child as should be the sonne of the highest reason could not satisfie her and therfore shee desired to be instructed by the angel by what meanes it should be without that any vow of virginity can be concluded in any lawfull forme of argument out of this place by any Logician in the world But contrariwise that she was betrothed vnto a man it is an vndoubted argument that she vowed not virginitie For if she should haue made any vow before her mariage she would not haue deluded her husband to promise her body to him when she had determined the contrarie If they say she vowed after mariage it is plaine by the Gospel she did it without her husbandes knowledge and therefore her vowe could not be lawfull For before Ioseph was instructed by the Angel of her case his purpose was to haue taken her home to him and vsed her as his wife vntill she was perceiued to be with child and then he would haue priuily forsaken her After this he sheweth what were the opinions of Luther Zwinglius and Caluine which he maketh to be three in number when by the consent of the Churches of Heluetia Sabandia it is manifest that the iudgement of Zwinglius and Caluine concerninge the manner of eating and drinking of Christes bodye and bloud in the sacrament of his supper was all one Now concerning that Caluine willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith there to feede of Christ spiritually Sander liketh it not because our nature not beeing able to climme vp to the seate of God in heauen the sonne of God came downe to vs to life vs vp into heauen in taking vpon him our humaine nature So when our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to helpe vs he let downe the corde of his humanitie and of his flesh and bloud And shall wee nowe when it is let downe to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottome of our heartes by eating it really shall wee nowe refuse it and say wee will goe into heauen by faith our selues and there take holde of Christ whereby we may be deliuered out of the deepe vale of miserie As though the corde shoulde haue needed to haue beene let downe if wee coulde haue fastened our bodyes to anything in heauen and ye◠our bodies are they which weigh downe our soules chiefely In deede if the sonne of God had not come downe vnto vs and ioyned our nature vnto his the anchor of our faith could haue had no hould in heauen But seing the sonne of God did not only come downe vnto vs but also is ascended from the earth and hath caried vs vp into heauen with him Eph. 2. ver 6. he letteth no more downe vnto vs the corde of his humanitye but we cast vp the sure anchor of our soules which is fayth entring into the inward parte of that spirituall tabernacle which is heauen whither our forerunner Iesus is entred being an high preist for euer after the order of Melchizedek Heb. 6. ver 19. And vnto this ascension by fayth the Apostle exhorteth vs Coll. 3. 1. If you be risen againe with Christ seeke those things that are aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God set your minde vpon things that are aboue not vpō things that are vpon the earth These authorities proue sufficiently that we must goe into heauen by fayth our selues for the sonne of God after his dispensation fully accomplished in this world cōmeth no more downe to vs in his humaine nature vntil he come againe to receiue vs actually into the participation of his glory according to his promise Iohn 14. 3. But now let vs see what wholesome doctrine Sander teacheth in those his wordes euen nowe set downe First that fayth perteineth onely to the fathers before Christ and in them called for Christ to come downe vnto vs which when he is come dayly letteth down the cord of his humanity we haue no neede of faith to fasten it in our bodyes and hartes but of our hands For fayth he compareth to the tongue by meanes whereof helpe is called for but when a corde is lett downe the vse of the tonge is needeles and the handes must be occupied Therfore he saith It is not sufficient for a man to vse his tongue still and to let his handes alone So that by this kind of reasoning eating it really being let downe is the hand that without the tongue of faith fasteneth it to our bodies hearts Thirdly he holdeth that Christ neded not to haue ben incarnat if men could haue fastened their bodies to any thing in heauen Whereby he denieth that the fathers of the olde Testament by fayth were fastened in heauen before the incarnatiō of Christ restreining the vertue thereof not onely vnto the time since the same was actually perfourmed but also to the actuall and carnall manner of coniunction of the body of Christ with our bodies which they imagine to be in eating the flesh of Christ really To conclude professing that hee intendeth not to speake against the persons but against the opinions of the Sacramentaries specially against Zwinglius Caluine his purpose is to proue out of the worde of God That Christ giueth in his last supper the true
substance of his flesh and bloud not onely to our soules by wordes of promise but also to our bodyes vnder the formes of bread and wine Note here that the giuing wherein is the controuersie perteineth to our bodies and not to our soules Also that the giuing of Christes fleshe and bloud to our soules if I vnderstand this saying is not really but by wordes of promise whereof it ensueth that they which haue not eaten the flesh and bloud of Christ with their bodies from the beginning of the worlde are all perished because none can haue life in them but they that haue eaten his flesh and bloud which Sander holdeth cannot be eaten really and in deede but vnder the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament CAP. IIII. What the supper of Christ is according to the beliefe of the Catholikes He promiseth to shewe first out of the worde of god and next out of the monuments of the auncient fathers what the beliefe of the Papistes is concerning this sacrament Although he esteemeth euen Albertus Thomas Bonauenture Alexander c. worthie of credit by a rule of S. Aug. cont â—u li. 2. because they liued before this question rose betweene the Sacramentaries theÌ„ by which rule so vnderstoode we may esteme Berengarius Bruno Henricus de Gauduno Waldo Bertrame c. worthie of credite because they liued long before this question rose betweene the Papistes vs. Wherfore in this rule of Augustine is to be considered not betweene what persons but what time the question first arose betweene any persons and so the fathers of the first 600. yeares are the best and lest partiall witnesses Furthermore he sheweth that the supper of the Corinthians was not the supper of Christ but he had a supper of his owne And so rehearsing the wordes of the institution out of the Eua 〈…〉 listes S. Paul hee affirmethâ— that we are informed by these words the supper of Christ to be his owne body bloud giuen vnder the signes of the bread wine whereupon he gaue thankes turning by his almightie power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body bloud That Christ giueth his body to them that receiue the bread and wine worthily it shal be no controuersie betweene vs. But that he giueth it vnder the signes of bread and wine vnderstanding as he doeth signes for accidents he should haue prooued out of Gods worde if either he would or could haue kept promise likewise that Christ gaue thankes vpon the bread and wine and thirdly that he turned the substance therof into the substaÌ„ce of his body bloud But leauing other arguments for other places not being able to proue these things in any place he wil enquire whether the name nature of a supper be more agreable to their beliefe or to our meaning that is saith he whether Christ made his last supper of the substance of coÌ„mon bread wine or of his owne reall body and bloud As though we affirmed that the only substance of Christes supper were common bread wine not the body bloud of Christ. But to proceed let him goe with that lye his first argument to prooue how deintie costly a banket Christ made taking his leaue of his friends is taken of the great preparatioÌ„ promise made of it so long before which promise preparatioÌ„ how euil fauouredly he prooueth out of Melchizedeks bread wine Manna the table of Dauid Salomon the bread flesh of Elias c I omitt His conclusion is we must not suppose that Christ at his farewell gaue any other deinties beside common bread wine sanctified in vse onely and not consecrated in substance You may see howe absurdly he speaketh common bread sanctified which is as good as if he would say Christ gaue white blacke bread or whot colde wine We affirme that the bread wine were consecrated not in accidents but in substance to the vse of an holy sacrament that they might be the body bloud of Christ to as many as receiued the same worthily not by conuersion of the natural substance of one thing into another but by a wonderfull diuine vnspeakable change of that which is ordinatily a weake element of the world to be a mightie foode vnto eternall life The second argument he vseth to proue the excellencie of the banket is of the fine cookerie I vse his owne terme which also he doth exemplifie by making 16. or 20. dishes of egges alone which cannot be without many spices mixture great labour c. But Christ like a most cunning workman of simple litle stuffe and that without help of his disciples to prepare it made the gretest finest feast that euer was heard of vsing no shifts but only blessing or thanksgiuing The sinesse of this cookerie he setteth forth by a fine speculation of the furniture of the world by the Angels heauens elements froÌ„ whence it pleased God to make a reuolt of al things from the bottome of the earth vpward againe towardes him self And so made out of the earth vegitatiue thinges then sensible creatures last man with a reasonable soule as a briefe summe of all creatures a litle worlde who being seduced by the diuel was by the incarnation of the sonne of God restored then al thinges were briefely brought againe to God So that in this banket where Christ is giuen there is serued in one dish a composition most delicate of angels heauens elements of herbes fishes birds beasts of reasonable men and of God himselfe No kind of salet meates sauce fruits consectioÌ„ no kind of wine aqua vitae aqua composita liquors syrops can be found in nature made by art dâ—uised by wiâ—â—e but it is all set vpon this table and that in a small roâ—â—e c. Thus doe the Catholikes teach of the supper of our Lorde and beleeue it agreeable to his worde and worthie his worship What say you M. S. is this the doctrin of the Catholiks that the breade and wine being turned into the body and bloud of Christ are also turned into Angels heauens elements herbes fishes birdes beastes men God him selfe yea into all salets meates sauces fruits confections all kindes of wine aqua vitae aqua composita all liquors and syrops beside porredge puddings pyes pancakes and a great many other thinges which you haue not named but comprehended in generall wordes Is there a reall conuersion in deede by reason of your heraphicall reuolution And is this doctrine agreable to the word of God In what place is it written I pray you I suppose it to be this Eph. 1. It hath pleased God to restore in Christ all things which are in heauen which are in earth in him Where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth a briefe gathering into one certeine head and summe that all thinges in heauen and earth are brought vnto Christ
came with him out of Vr of the Chaldees and as hee begate Isaac in the lande of Canaan and as hee is nowe at rest with God in heauen When you can perswade vs I saye that one man can be father and sonne of himselfe then wil we beleeue you that a figure and the thing figured be all one CAP. XV. The reall preseÌ„ce of Christs bodie is that which setteth his death and life before vs. The eating of common breade saith Sander in answere to the Apologie and drinking of common wine is but a homely manner of setting the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes But if the breade and wine be turned into the same bodie and bloude of Christ which dyed rose againe and wrought all the myracles in the worlde then is the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ in deede set before the eyes of our faith Is not this an absolute answere to tell vs of the eating and drinking of common breade and wine when the Apologie speaketh of the Eucharistie which as Iustinus saith wee haue learned to bee common breade and wine but the bodie and bloude of Christ that was incarnated for vs. Confessing thus much what neede hath our faith of transubstantiation of breade and wine into his bodie and bloude more then of water into the holy ghost in baptisme Tush saith Sander all other wayes of setting the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes without the reall presence is painting and shadowing in comparing of this liuely representation If this be true preaching of the death of Christ by which he is euen crucified among vs as S. Paul saith Gal. 3. is painting and shadowing the ministration of baptisme by which we are ingaffed into the death buriall and resurrection of Christ Rom. 6. is but painting and shadowing with Sander and no liuely representation But what affinitie saith he hath breade and wine with the death and resurrection of Christ I will aske him like wise what affinitie hath water with the death buriall and resurrection of Christ which is not nakedly represented but so as we are ingraffed into them by baptisme Rom. 6. By this prophane question you may see what faith he meaneth when he speaketh of setting the death and life of Christ before our eyes namely an hystoricall faith which because it is common to true Christians with diuels is not the faith that we come to feede vpon in these diuine mysteries But such a faith as applyeth to our owne comfort the effecte and fruite of the death resurrection and conuersation of Christ with the which the eating and drinking of bread and wine hath as great affinitie as things corporal can haue with thinges spiritual teaching that the most necessarie and onely sufficient nourishment of our soules is receiued by faith euen as the outward signes therof are taken with the bodie Yet Chrysostome saieth Hom. 83. in Math. Ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himself thou eatest himself See saith Sander whether the Apologie do more truely teach that the signe or token wtout the real presence or the body it selfe present doth set forth the death and life of Christ. Then heare Chrysostome in the same homely speaking of the Eucharistye Si mortuuâ— Iesus non est Cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Vides quantum ei studium fuerit vt semper memoria teneamus prâ— nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse If the Iesus hath not dyed as some heretikes affirme whose token and signe is this sacrifice Thou seest how great desire he had that we should alwayes keepe in remeÌ„brance that he hath died for vs. But I know he wil presse the former words thou seest himself c. therfore not a signe without the reall presence But seeing the reall presence whereof he speaketh by his owne iudgement and confession cannot stand without transubstantiatioÌ„ if transubstantiatioÌ„ be not that real presence which he holdeth is not And that there was no transubstantiation in the supper of Christ Chrysostome telleth vs plainly Quando hoc mysteriuÌ„ tradidit vinum tradidit when he delyuered this mysterie or sacrament he deliuered wine And this saith Chrysostome against theÌ„ that vsed to celebrate with water But to helpe out transuâ—stantiation he bringeth in Damascen a writer out of the compasse of the challeng which saith De ortho fid lib. 4 cap. 14. Non quòd corpus illud 〈◊〉 coelo descendat sed quia panis vinum in Christi corpus sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the bodie of Christ camâ— downe from heauen but because the breade and wine is chaunged into the bodie and bloude of Christ. Damascene helpeth not so much with the worde of chaunging as he hindreth you with denying the comming down of the bodie of Christ except you say it is euerie where And therefore aduise your self what presence and maner of change Damascene speaketh of when the bodie of Christ commeth not out of heauen into the priestes hands But Cyrillus saith he teacheth That we touch the bodie of Christ when wee come to the holy communion euen as Saint Thomas touched the side of Christ when he cryed out My Lorde and my God So wee touch that flesh when we touch the forme of breade as saint Thomas did touch the Godhead when hee touched the fleshe of Christ. For in each place we touch not either the Godhead or the fleshe visiblie These are high poyntes of Metaphysike Master Sander to touch the godhead which is insensible and to touch visiblie or inuisiblie except you meane by touching not visibly to touch that which wee see not as we may handle a thing in the darke which wee see not But howsoeuer you would cloake the matter by leauing out the wordes of Cyril hee saith that Christ in the sacrament appeareth visiblie Where is then your distinction of visible and inuisible presence nay where is your carnall presence become which you grounde vppon touching when he is none otherwise present to be touched then he is present to be seene and so saieth Chrysostome also in the place by you cited Thou seest himselfe thou touchest himselfe thou â—atest himselft If Christ be none otherwise eaten then hee is seene and is not seene but by faith it will follow that he is not eaten but by faith And nowe let vs heare Cyrillus beginning one sentence before SaÌ„d was disposed to heare him speak I n Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 58 Iâ— reigitur sanctae congregationes die octaâ—o in ecclesâ—â—s fiunt foribus sublimiore modo clausis visibiliter simul atque inuisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet inuisibiliter quidem vt Deus visibiliter autem in corpore Prâ—bet enim nobis carneÌ„ suaÌ„ tangendam vâ— firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit Quòd autem mysticae benedictionis Communio resurrectionis Christi quaedam confessio est verbis ipsius probatur
saye this worde Mee signifieth neither his Godhead nor the nature of his manhood nor both together but the visible forme of a poore man Fy on these beggerly shiftes too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundum maiestatem suam secundum prouidentiam secundum ineffabiiem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi Secundum carnem verò quam vâ—rbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutuâ— quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hîc est non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundum praesentiaÌ„ carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modo fide tenet oculis non videt Hee spake of the presence of his bodye For according to his maiestye according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled which was saide of him Behold I am with you alwaies euen to the ende of the worlde But according to that fleshe which the worde tooke vppon him according to that hee was borne of a virgine according to that hee was taken of the Iewes that hee was crucified on the tree that hee was taken downe from the crosse that he was wrapped in linen clothes that he was laide in the sepulchre that he was manifested in his resurrection you shal not alwaies haue him with you Wherefore Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies according to the presence of his body and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he went vp into heauen is not here For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father and he is here for he departed not in presence of his maiestie Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes according to the presence of his flesh it is rightly said vnto the disciples but me you shall not alwaies haue For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eies In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50. But to returne to Sander it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation saith he and wee saye no lesse if the materiall cause may be called a working He that taketh this from the Sacrament depriueth vs of the meane to come to eternall saluation saith Sander This I deny for he that should take away the San crament cannot depriue vs of the meane to come by eternall life Yes saith Sander for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age by worthye eating and drinking therof But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age or that eate it worthily Christ speaketh generally and absolutely of both And why should we thinke there is any other meane to apply the redemptioÌ„ purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vs then was for the fathers as before Christ came in the flesh Faith was the onely meane vnto them and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation He saith when the flesh of Christ was crucified the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison But where findeth he that Abraham and the fathers were in prison vntill that time We find before that time that AbrahaÌ„ was in so happy estate that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children Luc. 16. But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne Sander saieth that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode for that cause named not his person but his flesh his body his bloud and Saint Paul nameth his bones And therefore marke this againe and againe beleeue thou â—he presence of body bloud of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh Marke you Papistes marke againe and againe Sander saith he named his flesh body bloud because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood ergo it is true S. Paul saith that euery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world is a member of Christes body and of his flesh and of his bones ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body flesh and bones in the Sacrament Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this coÌ„munication vnion with Christ to be giuen vs in the Sacrament but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ who were likewise members of Christes body of his flesh and of his bones but such a monstrous presence as the Papistes do imagine as we knowe it to be needles so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture as teach vs the trueth of Christs humaine nature to be like vnto vs in all thinges except sinne Heb. 2. CHAP. XX. It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper The eating of Christ by faith and spirite which wee affirme Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge but to say that no more is done in his supper that is sleightly and coldely saide Why so Master Sander Partly he saith because it may be done without the supper And is it therefore a colde supper Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper may not his supper be as warme as his dinner Alas this is a cold reason partly it is a cold thing to call men who consist of bodies to a supper of Christes making and to giue their bodyes none other meate then corruptible bread and wine whereas Christ did forbid vs to worke the perishing meat at his banket You might likewise say it is a cold bath to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration and to giue their bodies nothing but cold water whereas the holy ghoste saith the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vs not 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold wreched reason we call men to that
faith which is not of externall things but of things inuisible The tenth we truely taking them beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption or as some read resurrection for bread wine be not tokens of our redemption Did bread and wine redeeme vs or did they rise from death quoth Sander No verily But the Councell saith for all that that these things which are set on the table namely bread and the cupp are beleeued of vs to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption which the wordes following do declare For this cause wee take not much but litle that we might knowe we take not to fill vs but for holinesse What can that be whereof not much but a litle is taken but the breade and wine for the body bloud of Christ is not taken in quantitie more or lesse Secondly what neede wee by taking litle be admonished that it is not to fill vs if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there which could fill vs Finally why take we a little for holines if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe and of his owne nature whether we take little or much You see therefore the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe which is a monstrous saying and as monstrous an opinion but the bread and wine in the sacrament to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing hath left out no wordes of the Councell that make against it but whatsoeuer it hath omitted it hath left of that aduantage it might iustly haue taken if it had throughly and at large discussed them CAP. XXVII That the Catholikes haue the table of Eagles and the Sacramentaries haue the table of Iayes The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie for alleaging the place of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles vnto the bodie of Christ as though the bodie of Christ were not vpon the altar but we onely should by faith ascend into heauen whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also and not by faith onely Afterward he rehearseth his words but without the heade or former part of them which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vs howe we should come vnto Christe and where wee shoulde finde him Likewise he translateth corruptly to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum admirabile quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamus aquilae in hat vita facti ad ipsum coelum euolemus vel potius supra coelum Vbi enim cadauer inquit illie aquilae All this hath Sander left out Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos non resurrexissemus Aquilas autem appellat ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere qui ad hoc corpus accedit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora semper volare in solem iust 〈…〉 tae iniuâ—ri mentisque oculum acutissimum habere Aquilarum enim non graculorum haec mensa est For vnto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vs which commandeth vs that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it and being made Egles in this life we flie vp vnto heauen it selfe or rather aboue heauen For where the carcase is saith he there also be the Egles The Lordes body is the carcase through his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he nameth eagles to shewe that he must get vp on high which commeth to this body and that he ought to haue nothing to doe with the earth nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places but alwayes to flie vp vnto the high places and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes and to haue the eie of the minde most cleare For this is the table of Egles not of Iayes Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vs that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar or in heauen For wee must bee made Egles not to hoouer vppon the table but to flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen because Christ is there Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vnto the highest place and to haue nothing to doe with the earth or lower places if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table But wee must haue a moste cleare eye of the minde sayeth Sander to see the bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as an Egle flying on high will fee a fish vnder the water and catch it as Augustine writeth But Chrysostome teacheth vs not to flye vpon high to looke downe from on high and see the bodie of Christ vnder the water or clowdes of accidentes but alwayes to flye vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse which is in heauen and not belowe on earth for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table what neede wee flye from it to beholde it from so great a distance And whereas hee sayeth that wee are Iayes because wee see weakely and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine I woulde hee knewe wee haue a moste cleare eye of the minde which through that base banket of breade and wine can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe sitting aboue all heauens and flye so high with the winges of faith that wee not onely see it but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting it is because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause the onely mercy of GOD in Iesus Christ and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen But saith Sander hee speaketh of the table whiche standeth in the Church before vs hee speaketh not nowe of heauen which is aboue the sunne This saith Sander without all proofe and against all reason For Chrysostome saith it is the table of Egles therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church where vnto we must flie vpwarde alwayes euen into heauen where that bodie which once was deade is nowe sitting in glorie yea aboue all visible heauens and therefore aboue the sunne So that the table in Chrysostome signifieth metonymically the spirituall meat and drinke which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie whereof the table on earth with that which is on it is onely a Sacrament pledge assuraÌ„ce But Chrysostome in the same homily saith If no man will rashly handle an other mans garmente howe dare wee
twelue which taryed with him at Capernaum for his promise in offer was as large to all that departed and to the world for the life whereof he promised to giue his flesh therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not onely a spirituall gift that was promised but an externall gift deliuered by hand which Iudas might receiue For Christ promiseth such a gift as if it be receiued worketh eternall life in the receiuers Finally it cannot be prooued that Iudas was prseÌ„t at the supper who departed about his treason before the institution of the sacrament as appeareth by saint Iohn immediatly after the soppe receiued wherevnto some of the ancient writers also do consent Furthermore that the gift of Christ doth differ from the gift of his father in person and time and therfore cannot be giuen by faith only it is no good consequent For God gaue his sonne for the worlde and Christ gaue himselfe for vs yet but one gift The difference of time I haue often answered As for the obiection that he faineth the Sacramentaries must say that that flesh heere staÌ„deth for the signe or figure of his flesh is of his owne making for as I said before we vnderstand the flesh of Christ giuen for the life of the world his naturall body crucified for vs and not the sacrament of his body giuen in his last supper CAP. XII A further declaration of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud taken out of the discourse of his owne wordes concerning the different eating of him by faith and the receiuing of his flesh and bloud in the Sacrament of the Altar First he repeteth his three gifts God gaue by Moses naked figures as Manna God giueth presently the flesh of Christ to our eyes and heartes and Christ will giue hereafter the same flesh vnder the forme of breade Of these giftes he maketh three diuerse workes the first by teeth and belly the seconde by faith and spirite and the thirde by both The gift of Christ differing from Manna is expressed in the Chapter But any difference of the gift of the father and of the sonne there is not expressed nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument Yet Sander hath founde out a great number of differences to prooue that although the Father and the Sonne giue one thing that is the flesh of Christ yet not one way to be receiued the Father giueth it to bee receiued by faith onely the Sonne to be receiued corporally The first difference is of the time The Father doeth giue in the Present tense the Sonne will giue in the Future tense This I haue often answered to be no differeÌ„te for Christ saith in the preseÌ„t temps except ye do eat the flesh c. ergo he did presently giue it Againe he that doth eat often is ofteÌ„ times repeted in the present time and my flesh is meate in deede all which prooue that Christs gift was present when he spake to be receiued therefore it differeth not from the Fathers gift and way of receiuing the same The second difference the Father giueth Christ in the forme of man by the manner of the Fathers gift the faithfull may see that sonne of Man vpon whom they beleeue as it is saide This is the will of my Father which sent me that euery one who seeth the Sonne and beleeueth in him may haue euerlasting life And againe yee haue seene me and haue not beleeued Of the Sonnes gift it is not saide that his flesh shal be seene but rather insinuated that it shal be vnder the couering of another kinde of foode I answere that Christ in neither of both these sayings speaketh of the corporall sight of his body But in the one which is first placed in S. Iohn Yee 〈◊〉 au seene me and not beleeued he exprobrateth to the Iewes their wilfull blindnesse which had acknowledged him before to be the Messias when he fed their bellyes now refuse to beleeue him when hee offereth to feede their soules In the other place he sheweth that obedieÌ„ce of faith ioyned to a manifest acknowledging of Christ by the wil of God is the way to eternal life For if seing should be taken for bodily seeing of Christes flesh it could not extende to vs which cannot bodilie behold him Againe this difference ouerthroweth Sanders supposed way of the fathers giuing which is by faith and spirit onely not sensibly to the eye of the bodie Last of all it is a weake argument it is not saide in this or that text ergo it is not meant or it is not true at all The 3. difference The Fathers gifte is called the true bread from heauen The Sonnes gift is called not onely true breade but also truely breade and meate in deede Some true meate may chaunce not to bee truely meat becâ—â—se it is not eaten but nothing is meate in deede and truelye meate except it bee in deede eaten If this difference bee woorth a strawe then your consecrated hostes bee not the Sonnes gift before they bee eaten and except they bee eaten as some time yee woâ—â— well they are burned they bee not his gifte at all if not his gift then not flesh and bloude The difference of a true Vine and a Vine truelie is sufficiently discussed in the later ende of the fourth booke answered by master Nowel Sander cannot or will not consider the difference of the opposition betweene truely and falsely and truely and properly The fourth difference The Iewes and disciples went not away from Christe for any thing that was spoken about the Fathers gifte thinking that a gifte of eating by faith might stande with the custome of Gods people but in the Sonnes gift they sawe more apparant absurdity not lacking vnderstanding but faith and therefore departed I answere they lacked vnderstanding as much as faith and therefore Augustinâ— saith Sed qui aderant plures non intelligendo sâ—andaliazti sunt non erum cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem quod ipsi erant But manie of them that were present were offended for lacke of vnderstanding For heating these thinges they thought on nothing but fleshe which they themselues were It is a simple difference that is gathered of the Iewes ignorance and incredulitie The 5. difference The gift of the father is called by such names only as belong to the persoÌ„ of Christ or to his diuine nature to say the bread of life the liuely bread the true bread for God onely is absolutelie the true bread of life or by the Pronoune I The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his humane nature to wit the flesh and bloud of the sonne of men If this differeÌ„ce proue any thing it prooueth not the diuerse wayes of giuing the same thing but that the same thing is not giuen by the Father and the Sonne Where as Sander saide before that the Father giueth Christ in humane nature to the worlde If the humane
is eaten c. wherfore Augustine denieth that also Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his booke de doct Christ he called a figure taking the name of a figure for a holy signe of an higher trueth This is a grosle and shameles collection for he calleth the wordes of Christ a figure and a figuratiue and vnproper speache which must not be taken according to the sound of the words Sâ— hoc propri 〈…〉 sonat nulla puteâ—ur figurata locuâ—iâ— If it sound this properly then let it be takeÌ„ for no figuratiue spech By which words you see that a figuratiue spech is an vnproper speach But how can this snake slide away from those wordes of Augustine You shall not eate that body which you see nor drinke that bloud which they shall shedde I commend vnto you a Sacrament Therefore yâ— Sacrament is not his body which then was seen nor his bloud which afterward was shedde But Sander gliding ouer these wordes as though he sawe them not presuming vpon the credulity of Papistes which must beleue that they make nothing against the carnall manner of presence if he say so he passeth to another saying of Augustine in Ioan. Tr. 26. 27. to proue that the error of the lewes was not concerning the substance of the flesh that must be eaten really but concerning the manner of eating of it Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo c. They vnderstoode flesh so as it is torne in a carcase or sold in the shambles and not as it is quickned with the spirite of God I answer this was one of their errors but not all For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ denying them his naturall body and bloud ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner in Ioan Tr. 24. he saith Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum vtique integrum Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis errogas corpus suum vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus They thought that he would giue out his body but he said that be would ascende into heauen whole When you shal see the sonne of maÌ„ ascending wher he was before certeinly euen then at lest you shall see that he giueth not out his body after that manner you thinke euen then at lest you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitinges In these wordes the argument of his ascension taketh away all corporal presence as wel of Christ whole as broken in peeces secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed with byting sheweth after what manner he vnderstandeth his body to be present namely by spirituall grace not by corporall substance Therefore all Sanders iangling of signes and figures is to no purpose For when he hath prated what he can a signe shall neuer be the thing which it signifieth nor a figure the same thing that it figureth except opposites may agree to one thing at one time and in one respect For to vse his owne foolish example a loafe of bread which a baker setteth out to signifie that bread is there to bee folde although it be of that kinde of breade which it signifieth to be in the house in greater quantity yet it is not that same bread wherof it is the signe No more is the Sacrament that same thing whereof it is a signe and yet an assured testimonie that the thing signified is giuen to our soules and faith as certeinely as the signe to our bodies But because Augustine saith except ye eate my flesh are wordes figuratiue Sander will reason thus as cunningly I warrant you as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud being reall deades which must be performed in Christes supper and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e wordes must needes be figures of somwhat and the deedes and wordes being referred to the supper must needs betoken somwhat as they are considered But the eating of the flesh in Christs supper can betoken nothing at all except his flesh be there eaten the eating whereof maie be the grounde of this betokening Therefore these wordes import of necessitie that in Christes supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten and his blood is really drâ—nken For the fleshe of Christ can not be made the figure of bakerâ— bread c. O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schooles if such an argument came among them which reasoneth ioyntly of things to be deuided Augustine saith the words are figuratiue not the deeds of eating drinking which are signified by the words Except ye eate c. The wordes I saye of eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ are figuratiue betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper vnderstanding and what they signifie he sheweth the communication with the passion of Christ and profitable remembrance of his death which as they are represented in the supper so may we eate and drinke his flesh and bloud without the Sacrament by faith and working of Gods spirite But saith Sander if the eating of Christes flesh be not the figure the wordes Except ye eate my flesh be not figuratiue Se you not howe this fonde Sophister confoundeth the distinction which he him selfe before had made of figuratiue speeches and figures of thinges themselues betweene rhetoricall figures and sacramentall figures I say the spirituall eating which is the communication with his passion c. is not a figure but that which is vnderstoode by those figuratiue wordes except ye eate the flesh c. And although there may be a reall eating to warne vs of spirituall eating yet that spirituall eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ c. may be without the Sacrament and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry But now he will discouer the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these wordes the first is that they make the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue onely passiuely whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely But how I pray you are the wordes figuratiue actiuely He answereth the actuall eating of Christes flesh is not onely said to be figured but also is taught to be a figure it selfe of another spirituall eating If Sander were as ignorant as his argumentes are absurd he were the most notable Asse that euer wrote in diuinity but I impute it not to ignorance but to malicious deceitfullnes that he confoundeth wordes and deedes and reasoneth thus the wordes be figuratiue actiuely because the deede is figuratiue actiuely which is such a monster as Sophistry neuer bredde a greater And what proofe haue you of this actuall eating of Christes flesh to be a figure actiuely of spirituall eating Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose 〈◊〉 1.
otherwise be brought to incorruption and life vnlesse the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it This is true but the manner of the coniunction is all the matter we stand vpoÌ„ which we affirme must be such as may ioyne euery body of Gods elect that hath bene shall be to the body of the naturall life which cannot be the SacrameÌ„tal coniunctioÌ„ or corporal receiuing of Christs naturall body into our bodies which was denied to al the fathers before Christes incarnation And yet except euery one of their bodies had bene ioyned to the body of Christ which is the body of naturall life they could not be partakers of incorruptioÌ„ life as Cyril saith Therefore the manner of our coniunction is not the receiuing of Christes body in at our mouthes but an heauenlie diuine manner wrought by the spirit of God apprehended by faith in all that haue heard the word of God â—â—d are partakers of it CAP. XVIII The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was 〈…〉 ght with the losse of many disciples If Christ had not meant to giue his flesh in deed saith Sander he would not haue cast a stumbling blocke in his disciples way nor hindered their faith by wordes more hard then needed I answere he ment to giue them his flesh in deede to be eaten not only in his supper but euen then presently if they had bene faithfull to haue receiued it And therefore he saith to them he that eateth me shall liue for me or by me my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Sander must remember what he hath taught vs before that Christes fleshe cannot bee meate in deede except it bee eaten but Christ saith it is meat in deede before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirite and he speaketh not there of Sacramentall eating onely Neither doth Cyrill say that only in the Sacrament Christes flesh is eaten although he shew that Christ instructed his Apostles when he gaue them fragmenta panis pecces of bread how his flesh might be eaten in Ioan lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally CAP. XIX The right vnderstanding of these wordes It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Basil Chrysostome and Augustine saith Sander expounde the name flesh for carnall and fleshlye vnderstanding of the Iewes which Caluine of Luciferian pride reprocueth And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l doe chiefely followe another vnderstanding which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth that Christes flesh should not profit any thing but that by the spirite of his Godhead it is made able to giue euerlasting life See the ranâ—or of Sander which condemneth Caluine of diuellish pride for refusing one interpretation of some fathers taking the exposition of others and that which one of the same fathers doth cheefely followe as Sander doth confesse But now saith he what neede more adoe If this saying apperteine not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our beleefe If it doe apperteine they are wordes propheticall fulfilled in the supper I haue often shewed how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ perteineth to the supper and howe it perteineth not And this I prooue out of this saying against your Popish opinion wherein you holde that wicked men eate Christes flesh Our sauiour Christe shewing whence his fleshe hath power to giue life namely not of it selfe but of the spirite doth also shewe the necessary effect of his spirit which is neuer separated from his flesh The spirit saith he quickneth or giueth life seeing therefore that no man can receiue the fleshe of Christe separated from his spirite no man can receiue his flesh but he that receiueth it quickning or giuing life But where Sander saith that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spirituall sorte and noâ— after a fleshly manner It might seeme that he fully agreed with vs in minde as he doth in wordes but when he coÌ„meth to expounde spiritually and fleshly he declareth that he meaneth not to exclude all fleshly manners but only one maner of eating his body by pieces as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner but when he coÌ„meth to spirituall sort he expoundeth it only by inuisible sort as though he which giueth a piece of golde closed in a paper so that it could not be seene did giue it after a spirituall manner As for the conuersion of bread and wine into his body and bloud his presence at the table and in their mouthes and in heauen c. shew not a spirituall manner of giuing his body but a monstrous alteration of bodily thinges which are affirmed to be so really and corporally and yet contrary to the nature of all thinges and bodies spoken of I omitt his ridiculous interpretations of Ieremies saying Let vs put wood into his bread which he applyeth to the crucifying of Christs flesh where yet wodde was not put into his flesh but his flesh put vpon wodde But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his aduersaries which threatened to giue him wood in steede of bread that is to famish him in the stockes Likewise of Abacuks saying Hornes are in his hands which he meanein of the almightie power of God often called figuratiue hornes Sander referreth it to the corners of the crosse which yet were not in the hands of Christ but his hands stretched out toward them CAP. XX. The words of Christ being spirite and life shewe that his 〈◊〉 flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of 〈…〉 reason Sander as his manner is can rest in no certeine 〈…〉 sition but wil haue euery interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place if it affirme any thing that 〈…〉 first because the flesh of Christ is vnprofitable 〈…〉 the spirite which giueth it power of quickening 〈…〉 haue this saying all one in effecte with the wo 〈…〉 ing before it is the spirite that quickeneth 〈…〉 vpon occasion of a phraâ—e vsed by Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈…〉 wordes are of the spirite he wil haue the meaning to â—e that the wordes of Christ haue in them some of his spirite diuine power therfore the naming of flesh bloud before was not figuratiue but proper I graunt the conclusion but I denie the argument for he vttered other words before which weâ— figuratiue vnproper as I am the bread that came c. yet were these wordes spirite life and so are all the words of the Gospel that is giue hâ—â— if they be spiritually vnderstood I say not alwayes figuratiuely but always beleued to be true in that sense they are vttered ment by him whether they be figuratiue or proper as concerning the prhase Thirdly the wordes of Christ are spirite and life because they make the spiritual bodie of Christ which is a spirituall food as
a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the bodie of Christe that is to saye it signifieth it The author of this glosse durst not haue written thus if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued that the wordes of Christ were not proper but figuratiue Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ shoulde be so made present as it should enter not onely into the mouth of wicked persons as a deade bodie working no life but also into the bellyes of brute beastes which is euen horrible to name Fourthly it is not agreeable to the loue of Christ toward vs in his second comming that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to haue lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie seeing the scripture putteth vs in hope that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies Fiftly it is against the profite of Christes Church which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth but by this imagined presence is mooued to looke downe vnto Christ vpon the earth Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue Another reason Sander hath that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words or for pleasantnesse of speaking and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely onely for his pleasure therefore he spake not figuratiuely If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach then these two noted by Sander then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches for hee neuer wanted wordes to haue spoken properly that other men could speake properly neither can he be prooued to haue spoken figuratiuely only for his pleasure and least of all he affected the praise of Eloquence But if it be out of question Sander also coÌ„fesseth that in other places Christ spake figuratiuely then is it out of question that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches then these two by him alledged and especially the profite of the hearers who are more moued and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue then by proper speaches And for this cause yâ— holy ghost speaking of Sacraments doth vsually call theÌ„ figuratiuely by the names of that they signifie seale vnto vs as the Lamb is called the Passeouer baptisme regeneration the bread his bodie the cuppe the newe Testament The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches is great for they admonishâ—s to be as sure of the things as we are of the signes when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches Sander that loueth no repetitions hath written a whole Chapter before lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here onely I note that by quoting the place hee abuseth Augustines rule against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue when Augustine saith expresly those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud The rocke was Christ he sayeth must needes be a figuratiue speach because it can not be proper And for the same cause say we These wordes This is my body are figuratiue for that they can not be proper But Sander replieth that if he had saide this breade is my body it might haue beene so thought for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not to say this bread of that of which before he had said this is my bodie 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander what was that which Christ had in his hand and whereof he said this It coulde not be his bodie before the words of consecration spokeÌ„ as all Catholike papists affirme then it was bread then the word following Is will not suffer the sense to be this shal be my body wherefore in effect it is all one to say hauing bread in his hand This is my body and to say This bread is my body the one is impossible by Sanders confession ergo by necessitie of argument the other CAP. II. That at all other so the wordes of Christes supper ought to bee taken properlie vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer he laboureth to proue that all words must be taken in their proper signification except the contrarie be manifestly showen Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth that all wordes in the Scripture neede not to be taken figuratiuelie and that to know which is figuratiue and which is not diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much All this I confesse but withall I affirme that these wordes This is my bodie both by diligent consideration and ancient tradition are found to bee figuratiue Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie Yes I wis the Pronowne This saith he pointeth not to a thing absent No verilie for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande Neither the Verbe Is can bee saide of that which presently hath no true being ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe which by your owne diuinitie hath no being in the Sacrament before the last syllable of Hoc est corpâ—â— meum bee pronounced then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande whiche had a true being And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before these wordes being as much as This breade is my bodie must needes bee figuratiue because they cannot bee proper for breade and Christes bodie bee two seuerall-natures that cannot stande together CAP. III. The proper signification of these wordes This is my bodie and This is my bloude is that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnder the visible formes of bread and wine If the speech were proper and not figuratiue yet the substance of breade being shewed and the substance of the cuppe and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed it woulde not followe the bodie and bloude to bee vnder these accidentes of breade and wine but either with the substance of breade and wine or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter this is an Elephant that is the substance of an Elephant is contained vnder this visible forme But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance is called by the name of another substance Might not Moses haue said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God pointing to the Rocke This is Christ or the bodie of Christ as well as Saint Paule saith that Rocke was Christ Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of
the bodie and bloude of Christ to be the onely image of his passion that is left for Christian men to imbrace The last Chapter of this booke being entituled by name against that reuerende father Master Nowels challenge is so plentifully and substantially confuted by himselfe against whom it was written that I neede not once to meddle with it Onely I note that Sander vrging Master Nowel to replie promiseth a speedie reioynder yet Master Nowels booke hauing beene so manie yeares abroade Sanders reioynder is not yet come to light The fift Booke To the Preface IN this fift Booke he laboureth to peruert what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament to drawe it to his reall presence And that he might be more bolde without all shame to reiect the scripture he would haue it to be considered that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute according to the apostolike manner more plainelie and rather to speake properly then figuratiuely In deede Augustine affirmeth as Sander saieth that the Apostle in these wordes He that will not labour let him not eate speaketh rather properly then figuratiuely but that all his wordes of the sacrament be proper and none figuratiue he neither saide not thought And yet he saith that manie thinges and almost al things in the Aposto like writings are after that manner de Oper. Monac cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant left out those wordes because he woulde haue men thinke that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly then figuratiuely yet it followeth not that speaking of the sacrament which is afigure in his owne nature he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly and yet God be thanked he hath spoken so plainely that all the transubstantiators in the world shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie CAP. I. The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud is proued by the blessing and communicating of Christs bloude whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh The cup is blessed that it might be the bloud of Christ vnto all the worthy receiuers of it vnto whom only it is yâ— coÌ„municating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence Yes saith Sander a blessing made by words worketh that which the words do signifie and therefore bring mee no more saith he those paltrie examples I am a 〈…〉 ore I am a vine the rocke was Christ c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing Heare you not howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples but let that goe When blessing words are ioyned saith he we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens bare signes but working making that which is said c. This is the maine poste of Sanders building which if it be prooued rotten then his house standeth vpon a false ground In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue Iacob in the name of God and by his holy spirite blessing his sonne Iuda saith Iuda is a lyons whelpe Likewise Isachar is a strong asse Nephtali is an hynde let goeâ— Ioseph is a fruitfull branche Beniamin is a rauening wolfe The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence nor excludeth figuratiue speaches As for only tokens bare signes we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily But Ambrose is cited to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament is able to change the nature of things which we confesse but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation for in the same place Dâ— ijs qui myst Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepuâ—ia est Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamaâ— Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified that was buried therefore this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out This is my body before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified He himselfe calleth it his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud But now concerning the worde of communicating Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing which is the presence of the bloud of Christ and the finall cause why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes If the chalis after blessing had no bloud in it how did it communicate to vs the bloud of Christ This is Sanders deepe diuinity As though the bloud of Christ is not communicated to vs in baptisme for the remission of sinnes by the merites of Christes death where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present But seing the Apostle saith that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse is the communicating of the bloud of Christ it followeth that the wicked which haue no fellowship with Christ receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe and consequently that the bloud of Christ is not really present Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense saith Sander of those wordes writeth thus Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit illius sumus parâ—icipeâ— Of these wordes this is the meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side and thereof we are partakers I answere Chrysostom doth so giue the literal sense that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth that Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament which he suffered not on the crosse That wee are the selfesame body that we receiue Finally to shew where we are partakers of Christes body he saieth that by this Sacrament we are made eagles and flye vp to heauen or rather aboue heauen for where the dead body is thither will the eagles be gathered CAP. II. The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating He brabbleth much of breaking forgetting that it is bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken but common bread saith he cannot haue such vertue that Christ might be knowne thereby as he was of the two disciples in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion I answere the Sacrament although it be very bread yet is it not common bread but consecrated to be a seale
of our spirituall feeding by the body of Christ and therefore as sufficient to testifie our communication with Christ as water in baptisme the cleansing of our soules with his bloud In handling the word of communicating he bringeth in a distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Chrysostom which is vaine and to no purpose seeing the Apostle vseth both the wordes for one For when he had said we are one bread and one body being many he giueth a reason thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we all are partakers of one bread Now concerning the matter of communicating of Christ Sander saith it can not be by a bare signe and token And wee say euen the same but by a Sacrament wherein Christes body and bloud is not really present it may be For els how are they that are baptised only made members of Christ and haue a true communicating of his body and bloud yea how had all the fathers before Christes incarnation this communicating of Christes body and bloud without which they were no members of Christ the like I say of raysing of our bodies not by a figure of Christes body but by the vertue of his body it selfe which vertue if it could not be communicated to our bodies otherwise then by reall presence in the Sacrament as Sander falsly dreameth that Irenaeus shoulde meane by what meanes should the resurrection of all them be wrought which haue not receiued the Sacrament O shameles and yet most blockheaded kinde of reasoning As for Irenaeus hee prooueth the resurrection of our bodies against the heretiks by that they are fed with the body bloud of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne confession But he doth not hold it necessary that who so euer iâ— partaker of the resurrection of the righteous must receiue the Sacrament or the naturall body of Christ really present in the Sacrament For we haue communication with God the father with Iesus Christ by faith as S. Ioan teacheth 1. Ioh. 1. in the Gospell preached and receiued And whereas Sander saith that S. Irenaeus neuer dreamed of bloud that should be receiued from heauen I demande what is the heauenly part of the Sacrament When Irenaeus affirmeth that it consisteth of two thinges an earthly thing and an heauenly thing lib. 4. Cap. 34. I suppose that the heauenly thing can be nothing but the body and bloud of Christ which seing he affirmeth it to be a heauenly thing verily it can not be conteined in an heauenly vessell nor be receiued but from heauen CAP. III. The presence of Christ in his supper is prooued by the one bread which being receiued of vs maketh all one body Nay this vnion which is spiritual of vs and Christ and of vs one with another inuincibly prooueth the presence of Christ to be spirituall and not carnal for it is the spirit of God which maketh this vnion and not the flesh of Christ which is one of the termes to be vnited and not the meane of the vnion For by the spirite of God wee are as verily vnited vnto the body of Christ in baptisme as in the supper therefore the reall presence is not necessary for this vniting I passe ouer how ignorantly Sander abuseth the example of fire conuerting all things into it selfe to shewe how Christ which is a consuming fire turneth vs into his body whereas God in respect of his Iustice and not of his mercy is in scripture called a consuming fire Where he saith the vnion can not be made by wheaten bread I agree with him but wheaten bread and the fruit of the vine receiued according to Christes institution may testifie that vnion vnto vs as well as elementall water in baptisme which is made by the spirit of God So saith Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 6. ad Magnum that QuaÌ„do c. when Christ calleth bread which is made of many graines his bodi he signifieth our people which he bare to be vnited vnto him and when he calleth wine which is pressed out of many grapes and bunches and brought into one his bloud he signifieth likewise our flock coupled togither by commixion of the multitude that is ioyned in one Cyprian saith bread and wine made of graines and grapes and not the forme of bread which was made of graines is now no bread as Sander saith doth represent this vnion Neither did any auncient writer say or thinke that by the accidentes and not by the substance of bread and wine our coniunction is represented CAP. IIII. The reall presence is prooued by ioyning together all the former wordes Now must we haue a further tast of Sander his tedious Sophistrie in ioining the wordes together The bread which we break is the communicating of Christs bodie because we being many are one breade and one bodie for we all partake of the one breade Here bread being thrise named saith hee is put to expresse one and the same mysterie But that is false for in the first and last place breade is put for the earthly matter of the mysterie or sacrament Against this Sander replyeth and saith that if we once take the substance of common bread to be the thing which is broken neither is that substance the communicating of Christes bodie nor wee are all one materiall breade I might likewise reason thus if the bread that is broken be the substance of the bodie of Christ neither is 〈◊〉 the communicating of the bodie of Christ neither aâ—â— we the substance of the bodie of Christ for the bodie of Christ and the communicating thereof differ as much as the substance of a thing and the accidents of the same S. Paul affirmeth it to be the accident ergo it is not the â—â—bstance Wherefore to auoide all cauilling the bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes toâ—ie spiritually sacramentally not really corporally substantially Against this Sandâ—r riseth vp and saith that if to bee is interpreted to signifie then in the next verse where it is saide we that are manie are one bread and one bodie we are said to be the figure of one bread because it is one verbe and one nowne in both places A simple cause as though one verbe and one nowne in diuerse places may not be diuersly taken And yet we can not be called one bread but figuratiuely that is like vnto one loafe of bread made one of many graines one bodie that is like vnto one bodie consisting of diuerse members spiritually vnited together But Sander vrgeth vs further by the wordes of breaking and partaking if the bread broken be materiall bread saith he wee partake of the materiall bread and yet the bread whereof we partake is by Saint Paul named one for seeing it is broken it is not still one I answere wee partake all of one materiall breade which is either one in lumpe or kinde to signifie that wee doe spiritually communicate with the onely bodie
past 〈…〉 a bare shadowe I answere he instituted it before his death and therefore not so much to shewe the historie of his death to come or past as to shewe the vertue of his death by which his bodie was broken and his bloud shed that it might be meate and drinke vnto vs. And when the Apostle saith wee shewe the Lordes death he meaneth not onely the bare storie thereof but the fruit and effect thereof wherefore Sander playeth the foole egregiously to bable so much of Christs death past in deede or in shadowes to come For the olde Sacraments did not only prophecie of an action to bee done but also did confirme the faith of the godly in the fruits effects of the passiō of Christ. Finally Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratiuely where he saith when thou feest this bodie set before thee say with thy selfe This bodie nailed and beaten was not ouercome of death This bodie the sunne seeing crucified turned away his beames c. but he expoundeth himselfe sufficiently in the same Homily where he saith we must be Eagles flie into heauen where the bodie of Christ that died for vs remaineth In the same sense that it is called the bodie of Christ he applyeth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the bodie of Christ. But as for transubstantiation which the Papists woulde gather out of this place in many places he sheweth that he acknowledgeth not and ad Caesarium monachum he doth expressely denie it CAP. VIII The reall presence is proued by the illation which S. Paul maketh concerning the vnworthie eating dr 〈…〉 ing of euill men The illation proueth no real pr 〈…〉 ce by any consequence in the worlde Hee that dispitefully abuseth or negligently cōtemneth the princes seale offered vnto him offendeth against the maiestie person of the prince yet the maiestie and person of the prince is not really present vnder the formes of parchement and waxe But Sander saith the vnworthie shewing of Christs death is the vnworthie eating Who will graunt him that shewing of Christes death is nothing but eating of the Sacrament Neither doth S. Paul confesse as Sander impudently affirmeth that euil men may haue the bodie bloud of Christ in their mouthes He saith who so eateth this bread drinketh this cup of the Lord vnworthily for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the bodie bloud of Christ is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ which he despiseth in these mysteries But it is not bread wine whereof S. Paul speaketh because he doeth name it This bread saith Sander For seeing the Pronown This doth shewe a thing present to some sense or other S. Paul being absent could not shew◠any thing by any corporall action then it remaineth that the thing whereunto This doeth point is the bodie of Christ whereof he spake before This Grammaticall Logike is meete for Papisticall diuinity I thinke there was neuer man that set his penne to the paper that wrot more impudently What say you Master doctor Sander Doth the Pronowne This alway shewe a thing present to some sense or other To what sense is the body of Christ present in that thing whereof it is saide This is my body And doth the absence of Saint Paule hinder him to speake of breade in saying This bread and further him to speake of Christes naturall body in saying this is my body This learning Master Sander passeth my vnderstanding What saied I this learning I knowe not how to speake seing the pronowne This doth shew a thing present to some sense or other but the learning shewed in this Tush I must say in such kind of reasoning is an higher matter then can be conceiued by any sense witt reason or vnderstanding Neither is his sharpnes lesse in answering obiections then in making of argumentes For if you obiect that Christ meant the signe of his body he answereth that seing Saint Paule named no signe as This can not point to that which was not named so it must point onely to the thing named before which was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance I blame not Master Sander if he will not haue This to point to a signe which was not named seeing he will not haue it point to bread which with the Pronown This is named but to the body of Christ which in another sentence was named So that by this bread he doth not mean this bread but that body But seing he can allowe but one substance present and that body in the same truth is named this bread what reason is there that the thing which the word of God calleth bread and al reason and euery sense confirmeth to be bread should not be naturall breade but taken figuratiuely and that which is by the word of God onely called the body of Christ all sense and reason reclaiming that it should be his naturall body must neuerthelesse be his naturall body and by no meanes must be thought to be taken figuratiuely CAP. IX The reall presence is prooued because vnworthy receiuers are guilty of Christes body and bloud A man is guilty saith Sander either for doing an euill deede or leauing a good deede vndone or doing a good deede after an euill manner and after the last manner is he guilty that receiueth vnworthily I will not deale with his diuision nor inquire whether euery one that receiueth vnworthily doth a good deede after an euill manner But to the purpose of the reall presence his deede saith Sander is eating which thing he so really doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drinke damnation to him selfe Why so Sander is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation if it be then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and bloud of Christ which are in an other predicament then damnation But if to eate and drinke damnation be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating to deserue damnation why may not eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ be spoken figuratiuely where the sense is by eating and drinking to be assured of saluation wrought by the body and bloud of Christ But no man is guilty saith Sander for doing more then he actually doth therefore the vnworthye receiuer actually doth eate the bodye and bloud of Christ whereof he is guilty I deny the argument which is a balde petition of the principle for the vnworthye receiuer is guilty of the bodye and bloud of Christ not for eating and drinking it but for eatig this bread vnworthily so contemning the body of Christ or not discerning the Lordes body as the Apostle saith The antecedent is also false for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God for his euill mind purpose affection which often are more then actually he doth As in the similitude of abusing the Princes seale which
I vsed in the Chapter last before But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes which imagine that S. Paul said he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs â—â—â—per refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen 〈◊〉 guiltie of not eating Christs bodie Who euer heard of such a 〈◊〉 Nay rather who euer heard of such a lie For which of yâ— Sacramentaries as you call them doeth so interprete S. Paul Although we say that he is guiltie of Christs bodie which contemneth the same in his Sacrament and either receiueth it negligently or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously For not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily but sometimes also the elect of whome the Apostle especially speaketh disswading them from receiuing vnworthily wherby as by other sinnes they pro uoke God to punish them deserue eternal damnation if god should deale with them according to their deserts But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ who did eat only the figure of it semeth great vniustice to Sander And yet the scripture neuer saith that any maÌ„ is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily he is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ wherof that is a Sacrament Tush saith Sander if it were so meant the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment is guiltie of murthering his person I answer first the Sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ is a thing that more neere coÌ„cerneth Christ then the kings garment doth concerne the king therfore the similitude is nought but yet he that with contempt toucheth the kings garment is guilty of coÌ„tempt of the kings person And he that of malice thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person euen so and much rather as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more so much is the guiltines against the Lords person although his bodie bloud be no more touched by the contemners then the kings person by the abusers of his garment image crown scepter seal or instrument Sander after this professeth that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers coÌ„cerning that euil men eat Christs body whose words he hath partly touched before li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loth to repete that I haue so often answered vn â—o him others therfore I wil only note the places wher 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Sander are both rehersed more at larg fully answered Namely Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—llud autem c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3 Ca. 52. Priâ—osius li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—i 3. Ca. 54 Chrysost in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin de baptismo cont Donatist li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo Theophylact late writers I wil noâ— staâ—d vpon their authorities There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vpon these wordâ— Exiuit conti 〈…〉 Iudas went out by by after the supper c. which Sander citeth thus Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem nâ— sâ—intillam in animo cius accenderit The aâ—uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kindled a sparke of grace or of repentance in his minde But the words of Cyrill howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them are thus Timet vt credo diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat hac de causa festinat impellit Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit ac inde illuminauerit ad meliora retraxerit magna praecipitem agit ecleritate The diuel as I think feareth lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance the man thinking better might deliuer his minde as it were from dronkennes For this cause he maketh haste driueth forward For with great celeritie he driueth euen Iudas hedlong when after the bread he had altogither prepared himself fearing both the delaie and the vertue of the blessing least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde and thereof hath lightened him and drawen him to better thinges This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him then it doth in forme context of wordes from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued Again it was the vertue of the blessing and not the presence of the body of Christ which the diuel feared What is this for the reall presence ACP. X. The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning 〈◊〉 Lordes body First he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians was not malicious contempt of Christ but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion TheÌ„ he reasoneth thus because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie not onely of Christes worship and name but also of his owne bodie and bloude with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpoÌ„ Christ at his death it must needes be that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie I answere not onely they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude which receiue the communion vnworthily and which laide violent handes on Christes person but euen they also that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe of whom the Apostle speaketh Heb. 6. verse 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament by which they are sanctified wholy Heb. 10. vers 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault then they committe which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence are saide to offend against Christ himselfe But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world it is euident that none other meaâ—e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument which followeth as this He that despiseth circumcision hath broken the couenant of God as God saith Gen. 17 ergo circumcision is nothing but the couenant of God and not an outward seale and signe thereof He that despiseth Baptisme despiseth the bloude of Christ and the spirit of God by which baptisme is sanctified therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament which is called and to the worthy receiuer is in 〈…〉 ede the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma 〈…〉 r from common meate is guiltie of the bodie and
supper more then God did by his commaundement in the wildernes CAP. III. The adoration of Christes bodie in the sacramen 〈…〉 proued out of the new Testament The Apostle saith the vnworthie receiuer eateth and drinketh damnation not putting a difference betweene our Lordes bodie and other meates saith Sander And this difference is in two pointes the first in due preparation of our selues which is required in other sacramentes to receiue the grace of God the seconde is in respect of the substance of the meate that is receaued which is to be honored and adored I answere the earthly substance is not to be adored the heauenly substance is to be adored in heauen where it is really present and not vppon the earth and as well in Baptisme as in the supper But Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. â—8 saith hee eateth vnworthily who considereth not as it behooueth the greatnes of the things set forth not weighing diligently the greatnes of the gift Hee speaketh not of the effect saith Sander but of the substance of the Sacrament because he saith afterwarde If thou doest learne diligently who is s 〈…〉 foorth thou needest to account nothing else I aunswere that admitte he speaketh of the heauenly substance of the Sacrament that is Christ yet he aduocheth no reall presence of him vnder the formes of bread and wine for Christ is set foorth in all his Sacramentes both of the olde Testament and the newe Christ washeth vs in baptisme euen as hee feedeth vs in his supper and hee purgeth vs with his bloode as verily as hee feedeth vs with his bodie and bloode Neither doth Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. meane any other thing when he saith Wee must iudge that he is the Lorde whose blood we drinke in a mysterie For to drinke the bloode of Christ in a mysterie is to drinke it spiritually by meane of a Sacrament euen as to bee washed with the blood of Christ in a mysterie is to bee purged by the bloode of Christ by meane of the Sacrament of Baptisme Wherefore the conclusion that Sander inferreth is false and hath â—o ground nor consequence wee must iudge the subâ—â—ance of this Sacrament as the substance of him that â—s Gâ—d therefore wee must adore the substance of this â—acrament as God For admit that I must adore the boâ—ie of Christ which is God yet it followeth not that I â—ust adore it vnder the visible formes of the breade and â—ine For the body of Christ which as Irenae us saith â—s the heauenly part of this sacrament is in heauen and â—ot vnited to the bread and wine or to the shapes of theÌ„â—n personall vnion more then the bloode of Christ or â—he holy Ghost vnto the water in Baptisme yet I must â—dore the heauenly substance of the sacrament of Bapâ—isme as that which is God or in personall vnion vnited â—o God as is the humanitie of Iesus Christ our Sauiour But Chrysostome saith further in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. The verie table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of the mind the bond of confidence our foundation hope health light life I answere this is nothing else but the effect of our redemption whereof we are assured by participation of that table As for the heauenly substance that it is in heauen Chrysostome sufficiently declareth when hee affirmeth in the same Homily that we must become eagles and flee into heauen for where the dead bodie is thither wil the eagles be gathered Wherefore the adoration that is defended cannot be prooued by the true substance of the sacrament considered but by the reall presence and personall vnion thereof vnto the outward elementes which if Sander cannot shewe hee laboureth in vaine to tell vs of the true substance of the sacrament which wee confesse to bee the bodie and bloode of Christ vnto the worthie receiuer but not personally vnited to that breade and wine or the shapes of them But nowe let vs heare what he hath to say out of Saint Augustine Epi. 118. ad Ianuarium who answereth the question Whether they doe better that receaue the communion euerie day or they which at certaine times onely Neuter eorum exhonorat c. Neither of them depriueth the bodie and bloode of our Lorde of honour if each of them striue who may honor best the most healthfull sacrament For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honor our Sauiour in manner by contrarie meanes the one by receiuing him with ioie into his house the other by saying Lorde I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe And as among the Iewes Manna tasted to euerie man according to his owne will in the mouth of the faithfull euen so it is to bee iudged concerning the receiuing of that sacrament into euery Christians mouth For both one man for honor sake doeth not take it euery day an other for honors sake dareth not to omitte to take it in any daie As Manna would no loothsomenes so this meate will no contempt For the Apostle for that cause saith it to haue beene vnworthily receiued of them Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita which did not discerne this thing from other meates by a veneration singularly due For streight when he had said he eateth drinketh damnatioÌ„ to himself be said moreouer Not discerning our Lordes bodie the which appeareth sufficiently in all that place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians if it be diligently marked This place to Sander seemeth merueilous notable for honor due to the sacrament And who is he that thinketh the sacrament not to bee honorable Verily hee that honoreth not the sacrament of baptisme is an heretike and yet hee that adoreth the water of baptisme as the holy Ghost or as the bloode of Christ is an idolater But Sander hath no lesse then ten obseruations of this place which for tediousnesse I will not rehearse all but onely such as in which I dissent from him In the fourth obseruation he noteth that we must striue to honor the sacrament whether by this meane or that it skilleth not so it be honored If he vnderstand of those two meanes of which Augustine speaketh I agree with him if he meane that it skilleth not by what meanes so euer we honor the sacrament I say he hath no such grounde in Saint Augustine In the fifth obseruation he saith If it were in deede the substance of bread and wine hee would neuer exhort vs to bee so carefull howe to honor a meere creature were it neuer so great a signe I answere we honour not a meere creature when we honour the sacrament for his sake that instituted the same for we honour God and yet the earthly substance of the sacrament is indeed the substance of bread and wine We honor not a meere creature when we honor a magistrat and yet the magistrate in substance is a man In the ninth obseruation he asketh what is a veneration or worshipping
is not to be adored Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples receiueth Christ but hee shal be an Idolater if he giue diuine honour to him which is due onely to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith de ijs qui myst cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament To Ignatius Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God the heauenly breade the breade of life To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table To Cyrillus lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus nor Hilarius lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally and by a naturall participation for they say not so simplie but vnder a Sacrament vnder a mysterie c. that is the Sacrament doth assure vs that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe after an heauenly and diuine manner and not onely are ioyned to him in loue and faith and will but are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone by his incarnation and holy spirite vniting vs vnto him in a mystical bodie not in a personal vnion for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ must be adored with diuine honour the Church of God should bee so adored which is the bodie of Christ and so called in the Scripture Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life and the mysticall loaues which quicken vs c. gaue no diuine honour vnto it as personally vnited vnto Christ but as to an holy mysterie and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings buildeth that the Fathers affirmed that which was on the table to bee the diuine substance yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored and cannot be eaten corporally but in the Sacrament And yet no one father that hee hath cited saieth any such thing If Cyrill say we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance And to saye the Godheade can be corporally eaten in the Sacrament it is monstrous heresie When Cyrillus saith Christ dwelleth in vs corporally hee saith not by eating the Sacrament wee eate GOD or Christ corporally but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporallie by participation of the fleshe of Christ. But let vs yet heare a more full witnesse which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vpon it I will set it downe againe Hoc corpus c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger and being men without good religion and barbarous they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney taken Let vs therefore who are the citizens of heauen at lest follow those barbarous men For when they sawe the manger and cottage and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest they came with most great reuerence and quaking But thou seest that thing not in the Manger but in the Altar not a woman which might hold it in her armes but the Priest present and the holy ghost copiously spredde vpon the sacrifice which is set foorth Neither lookest thou barely vpon the bodie as they did but thou knowest the power of it and al the order of dispensing thinges And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges which were done by him and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things Let vs be stirred vp therefore let vs quake and let vs professe openly a greater deuotion then those barbarous men lest if we come barely and coldly we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire Out of this place Sander would haue the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued But this place prooueth neither of both For he speaketh figuratiuely of seeing the bodie of Christ of seeing the holy ghost spredde vpon the Sacrifice c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie but must needes haue a spirituall vnderstanding The bodie of Christ is so present as it may be seene but it cannot bee seene but spiritually therefore it is not present but spiritually This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence therefore not of their manner of adoration Nowe let vs see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place First we must note these comparisons The Altar the Manger the Virgin the Priest the Wisemen the Christians the adoration of the one and the other but this last comparison is forged for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling with earnest desire and affection not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures but to him that is seene by faith Further Sander chargeth him to say it is the same bodie in both places which Chrysost. saith not although it be the same body which is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament with that which the wise men did worship yet it followeth not that the same real body is present vpon the altar before it be receiued to bee there worshipped Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words vides in altari thou seest it on the altar Lo it is vpon the altar and not onely comprehended by faith but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen What say you Sander is the body of Christ seene then is hee present visibly It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread You were wont to tell vs that a substance is said to be seen where the proper accidents thereof are seene And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ O newe Philosophy and Theology but I pray you sir if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith but also seen by meane of the forme of bread by what meane is the holy ghost seen whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes in wresting the holy scriptures and sayinges of the ancient fathers As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament then the wise men did Christ in the cottage be in vaine For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament or the elementes thereof but of comming with reuerence vnto the bodye of Christ which is really in heauen whereof we are made partakers
after an heauenly and spirituall manner in the Sacraments not by bringing the body of Christ downe vnto vs but by our ascending vp vnto him as Chrysostome sheweth plainly by that long allegory of the Eagles which he vseth in the 24. Homily Neither doth Chrysostome say that as those vngodly barbarous men did worshippe his body in the manger and handes of a woman so we being godly and ciuil must worshippe it lying on the altar or in the priestes hands in the forme of bread But he exhorteth by this exaÌ„ple his auditors to come often decently with dew reuerence preparation to the participation of the holy mysteries in which the same body of Christ though after an other manner is seene and dispensed But Chrysostom saith more plainely Hom. 28. I will shewe thee that in the earth which is worthy of highest honor Where can he shewe it saieth Sander but on the altar pointing to the host Yes forsooth he can shew it to the eies of faith for to the bodily eies he can shew nothing but breade and wine which is worthy of small honour But yet it followeth more plainely As in the pallaces of Kinges not the walles not the golden roofe but the Kinges body fâ—tting in the seate of maiestie is the worthiest thing of all so is the body of Christ the worthiest thing in heauen which is now sett forth to the earth to be seene What could the greatest Papist in Europ say more quoth Sander Verily no Papist that is aduised what hee saith will say the body of Christ is set forth on earth to be seene but onely by the eies of faith and so the Lord of all thinges is shewed by preaching by ministring of the Sacramentes but not to bee seene with eies of the body but with the eies of the mind Wherfore seing Christ is set forth to be seene on earth which sight cannot be but by faith Chrysostome meaneth of a spiritual sight shewing manner of presence and not of a bodily sight shewing or manner of presence Neither doe we inuent any shiftes as Sander saith to auoide the adoration in question for it shall neuer be prooued that the Sacrament was adored in the primitiue Church in such sort as it is worshipped and commanded by the Papistes But beside Chrysostome wee must haue a plaine authority of Theodoret who disputing against an Eutychian that denieth the humanity of Christ reproueth him by the example of the Sacrament wherein two thinges are found saith Sander but Theodoret saieth there are two natures and substances breade and wine and the body and bloud of Christ. Neque enim signa mystica for the mysticall signes after sanctification depart not out of their nature For they remaine in the former substance figure and forme But now heare the shameles glosse of Sander In substance because the formes of bread and wine subsist by the power of God and haue their being now by them selues as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine So that in substances is not in substance but in accidentes wherevpon it will followe in Theodorets argument that Christ hath not now the substance of his humanity but the substance of accidents thereof Secondly hee saieth The formes remaine in their former nature because they nourish no lesse then the substance of bread it selfe would haue done if it had remained And is it the shapes or formes of bread and wine that nourished before while the substance remained was it the former nature of the formes to nourish O monster of impudency If the substance and not the shapes did nourish the shapes now nourishing as this new Philosopher affirmeth remaine not in their former nature but haue taken vpon them a newe nature which no formes or shapes beeing accidents euer had before But hitherto Sander hath done nothing but by intollerable impudence sought to shift of the authority of Theodoret which is so plaine and direct against transubstantiation Now followeth the place for adoration which he citeth in Greeke for more credit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The mystical signes are vnderstoode to bee those thinges which they are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are beleeued reuerenced Sander had rather say adored as being those thinges which they are beleeued to be Heere can be no lesse then reall presence and adoration And yet Theodoret meaneth neither of both in such sorte as Sander would haue him The mysticall signes are spiritually the bodye and bloud of Christ so to be beleeued and so to be esteemed reuerenced honored and adored not by any actuall conuersion of the elementes into the bodye and bloud of Christ but by the grace of God making the same spiritually which the signes represent outwardly And so shal Theodoret expound himselfe Dialogo primo Qui enim c. He which called his naturall body wheat and bread and nameth himselfe againe a vine euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto the nature And whereas Sander concludeth vpon the place by him cited Therefore worshippe is not giuen to them as to images which represent a thing absent It followeth immediatly after the wordes by him cited Dial. 2 Cenfer ergo imagineÌ„ cum exemplari videbis similitudineÌ„ Oportet enim figuraÌ„ esse veritati simileÌ„ Compare therefore the image with the paterne or sampler and thou shalt see the similitude For the figure must be like the trueth Theodoret calleth the same mysticall signes which are reuerenced the image and the figure which represent the body of Christ which is the principal sampler whereof the Sacrament is an image and the trueth whereof the Sacrament is a figure Se you not what reall presence he maintaineth Who so will more at larg see Theodoret cited and obserued he may reade the 52. and 56. Chapiters of mine answere to the third booke of Doct. Heskins CAP. VI. The adoration of the body and bloud of Christ is prooued by the custome of the Priestes and people of the first 600 yeares First he citeth the liturgies of Iames Clement Basil Chrysostom all which beare conterfeit names and yet say nothing to the purpose They report that the deacon said let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence What is this for adoration we also charge men to come with feare reuerence to the coÌ„munion Again the Priest said before the receiuing of the coÌ„munion Sancta sanctis Holy things are for holie men Sander laboreth to prooue that they spoke of the Sacrament as though we denied that the Sacramental bread and wine were holy things when they are consecrated to be the body and bleud of Christ to the worthie receiuers But Chrysostome ad pop Antioch Hom. 61. vppon the same saith Considera c. Marke I pray you the kingly table is set before the Angels ministring at the table the king himselfe is present
things that were set foorth and to make that bread the bodie of Christ and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced that must needes be sanctified and changed You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vnto Where it is saide in the Actes the Apostles returned adorantes worshipping wee may safely vnderstande that they returned worshipping of Christe as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost but here is no like assurance that the Sacrament is to be worshipped therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vnto it CAP. VII Thereall presence of Christes bodie bloud vnder the forms of bread and wine is proued by the testimonies of the auncient The sayings of the doctors because he hath alreadie alleaged in euery article Chapter he professeth nowe briefely to shewe by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe doctrin And first because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes I answere that allegation prooueth no real presence For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vs with the bodie and bloud of Christ which is in heauen then in Popish transubstantiation Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord the cup of his bloud if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ which the heretikes granted but they denied him to be the sonne of that God which made the world therfore by the institutioÌ„ of the Sacrament in bread wine which are creatures of the world Irenaeus proueth that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ was the maker of the world not another iust God as the heretikes affirmed Cyprian in deede in serm de coen Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread to be made the flesh of Christ but he meaneth not transubstantiation but an alteration of the vse of the creature to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare Hilarie li. 8. de Trin. alleageth the diuinitie of Christ to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud which wee grant as he affirmeth vnder a mysterie and after a spirituall manner Finally Basil in Reg. bre q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init Cap 9. c. Chrysost. de sacerdot lib. 3. Emissenus hom 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. 14 places often cited answered do all vse the argument of omnipotencie but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence but to proué that Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding feede vs truely with his flesh bloud and as Damascene saith by an inscrutable meane for he had not learned transubstantiatioÌ„ though otherwise he were a corrupt writer in diuerse things as he doth regenerate vs in baptisme The second general Chapter is that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach but the fathers require credit to be giuen vnto it therfore it is not figuratiue I denie the major for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in the scripture to be credited in their true meaning is an heretike If these wordes had beene figuratiue saith Sander we should haue bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them Nay to beware of misunderstanding them so wee are directly by Augustine De dâ—ct Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. by others And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup to be figuratiue This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud Againe there is neither Basil Epiphanius Cyrillus Ambrosius Chrysostome Eusebius or any other that requireth these words to be credited but they also shewe that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded The thirde generall Chapter is that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh and his flesh to be eaâ—en truely in the Sacrament therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament I denye the argument for it is the true flâ—sh of Christ whereof wee are truely made partakers yet it followeth not that the same should be bodily present but wee are fedd therewith vnited thereto after a spirituall manner the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen and no where else aâ— both the Scripture our creede and the ancient fathers do teaâ—h vs. The fourth Chapter general is that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure a Sacrament or remeÌ„brance a â—â—â—ne symbole token image type for so many terms thâ—y haue although Sander list to rehearâ—e but the three first do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh but shewe that it is present vnder the signe of another thing after a mysâ—icall secrete manner I answere although they exclude not â—he substance of Christes flesh from his supper yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes tokens remembrantes they exclude the Popish reall presence vnder the accidents of bread and wine For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse yea opposite as relatiues As when Cyprian saith the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe nor of his godhead but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament Dâ— Coen Dom. And when Hilarie saith Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnder a mysterie he meaneth not that the accidents of bread is a mysterie but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament Likewise when Cyril of Ierusalem saith vnder the figure of bread the bodie is giuen hee meaneth that breade is so a figure of the bodie that as the figure is giuen outwardly so the bodie is receiued inwardly Augustine de verb. Apost serm 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually c. Behold saith Sander there is a thing in the sacrament so really it is there that it is visibly receiued What a miracle Sander hath founde but what thing is that which is visibly receiued breade and wine or the bodie of Christ It must needes be the body of Christ saith he vnder the forme of breade for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually And is the body of Christe present inuisibly as all Papistes affirme and yet receiued visibly This is strange Logike But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the
trueth of that bodie whereof the visible sacrament was a signe token and argument and so vsed by Tertullian againste the Marcionites that likewise denyed the veritie of Christes body Wherefore in this Chapter Sander prooueth nothing lesse then in the title he promiseth CAP. IX That no man possibly can bee condemned for beleeuing the bodie of Christ to bee really present in the sacrament of the 〈…〉 ltar His title is of no man possibly but his demonstration is a simple poore man persuaded chanceably so by his teachers vpon coulour of Christes almightie power and will pretended in promising that he will giue his fleshe and wordes in saying this is my body As for them that are simplie deceaued they stand or fal to God I will neither iudge of their condemnation nor absolution But such as obstinately defende that error contrarie to their owne conscience as a great number of the Papistes which pretende faith and seeke nothing else but the ouerthrowe of faith and the glorie of God for as much as that error employeth a deniall of the trueth of Christes humanitie and consequentlie the trueth of the resurrection of our bodies which must be made like vnto the glorious bodie of Christ and inferreth manifest Idolatrie in worshipping that for GOD which is a meere creature I see not howe they can escape eternall damnation As for their defence which Sander maketh is friuolous First of the almightie power of God which is to doe whatsoeuer he will and is agreable to his glorie and not whatsoeuer we will imagine He can not therfore make his body to be in many places at once or to bee without dimension of quantitie or to bee inuisible and intangible because hee hath determined of his will to the contrarie in fiue hundreth places of scripture which testifie of the trueth of his humanitie like vnto his bretheren in all poyntes without sinne Neither doeth it derogate from his omnipotencie that hee can not doe contrarie to his will which were against his owne glorie It is no infirmitie in God that he cannot lye that hee cannot sinne that he cannot denie himselfe nor doe contrarie to his will glory but an argument of his power wisedome and goodnesse And whereas Sander saith that Christ hath determined his will in saying The bread which I wil giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world I answere hee hath determined no such will of giuing his flesh in the Sacrament by these wordes but of giuing his flesh to suffer death for the redemption of the worlde which is the bread whereof he speaketh so often in that Chapiter to be eaten spiritually by faith not onely in the supper but in baptisme without both the sacraments by faith onely which was eaten of all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ without the eating of which breade of life no mortall creature can bee partaker of eternall life Further where Sander saith that Christ saide This is my bodie and gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragments or peeces whereby he shewed that hee made the substance of his body present vnder the formes of bread in diuers places c I answere he declared no will of multiplying his bodie in diuers places at one time by such words or fact For seeing he had so often before testified the truth of his humanity in somuch that he termed himselfe vsually the sonne of man and afterward offered his body to be touched and handled for triall of the truth of his resurrection these wordes were not sufficient to teach his disciples that his natural bodie could at one time be visible and inuisible tangible and intangible in locall situation and not in locall situation to be whole in one place and whole in manie places to haue quantitie actually of length bredth and thickenes to haue no quantitie actually of length breadth thicknes these contradictions I say being against nature reasoÌ„ sense his former doctrine and the scriptures touching the trueth of his naturall bodie and his argument taken of the senses after his resuâ—rection coulde not bee perswaded with onely saying This is my bodie for as much as they had hearde him saye manie thinges in like phrase where no like vnderstanding could be imagined and the scripture speaking of the sacraments vseth ordinarily to call them by the names of these things whereof they are sacramentes Wherefore there is no doubt but the disciples vnderstood these words figuratiuely sacramentally and spiritually And concerning the fragments and peeces whereof Sander speaketh he is a shamed to call them fragments or peeces of bread as Cyrillus doth of whom he borowed the phrase lest he should acknowledge breade to be any part of the Sacrament But what declaration can he make of the will of Christ concerning transubstantiation of the breade into his bodie which euen the schoolemen affirme cannot be prooued out of the scriptures And seeing Sander in his fond Dialogisme induceth Christ saying that one of his works cannot be contrarie to another seeing his ascension abiding in heauen and comming from thence to iudgement are contrarie to this imagined presence and those articles are plainely and manifestly set forth to be beleeued howe can these onely foure wordes This is my bodie which may haue another interpretation agreeable to all the sayings and workes of God make such a declaration of the will of Christ as thereby the trueth of his humanitie remaining after it was assumed of the deitie and the resurrection of our bodies depending thereupon the ascension abyding of Christ in heauen and his comming from thence to iudgement although in words they be not denyed yet are and must be brought in doubt question and vncerteintie The other false bragges of this interpretation vniuersally receiued and alwayes taught and beleeued I omitte with his shameles slaunders of Luthers life and death wherof the one hath beene sufficiently and many times confuted the other is so well knowen and to so manie wise and godly with whom he liued and among whom he dyed that next vnto the autoritie of the scriptures no one thing more discouereth the falshood of the Papists then their impudeÌ„t slanders and lyes maliciously deuised against the true professors of the Gospel The seuenth Booke To the Preface SAnder hauing finished the sixt booke supposed to haue ended his labour but then came forth the B. of Salisburies replie vnto Doctor Hardings booke wherevpon he was moued to answere that article which concerned the reall presence But because the words of both their bookes were too large to bee inserted in this his volume hee hath chosen the pyth of either as hee affirmeth with such fidelitie as Master Iewell should finde no fault with him For my part I was likewise purposed to haue omitted the answere of this appendix partly because Master Iewels defense of the Apologie being set foorth after this booke of Sander the chiefe matters are therein by Master Iewel himselfe wayed and
in the vnitie of his body that is in the couiunction of Christian members the Sacrament of which body the faithful communicating are accustomed to receiue from the altar he is to be said truely to eate the body of Christ and to drinke the bloud of Christ. De ciui Dei li. 21. Cap. 25. In the same Chapiter he apposeth Sacramento tenus reuera manducare corpus Christi to eate the body of Christ as far as the Sacrament and to eate the body of Christ in very deede Ergo they that eate the Sacrament onely eate not the body of Christ in very deede Therefore Christs gift is not onely in the Sacrament Iewel The fathers of the old law receiued the selfe same body that is now receiued of the faithfull Aug. de vtil pâ—n Cap. 1. Sander Augustine saieth the selfe same spirituall meate that is Christ by faith but not the same corporall meate which is the body of Christ Tract 11. in Ioan. Fulke Augustine saith not that the body of Christ is our corporall meat but that which answereth in proportion to Manna as a corporal meat namely bread and wine Tract 26. Sander But Tract 11. he saith Quid est Manna what it Manna I am saith Christ the liuing breade that came downe from heauen Fulke It followeth immediately Manna accipiunt fideles the faithfull receiue Manna therefore hee meaneth not Manna in this place for the corporall meate but for the bodye of Christe whiche is spirituall meate Sander But he sayeth further It is knowen what God had rained from heauen And knowe not the Catechumeni what Christians take Let them blush because they knowe not Let them passe ouer by the redde sea Let them eate Manna that euen as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit him selfe to them Therefore Iesus is eaten bodily of vs after baptisme Fulke I denye the argument except Manna be Iesus bodily If Manna be spiritually taken then Iesus is eaten in the Sacrament as he was in Manna which Sander confesseth to be onely spiritually Sander But Catechumeni might so eate Christ that is spiritually Fulke They might not eate Christ in the Sacrament before they were baptized and therfore they were ignorant of that mysterie Iewell Euery faithfull man is made partaker of the body and bloud of Christ in baptisme whiles he findeth that vnitie which is signified by the Sacrament Therefore the faithfull eate Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament Apud Bedam 1. Cor. 10. Sander They are not partakers really but onely in the Sacrament of the supper in which if the body were not really present hee that is baptized shoulde not at all be partaker of the Sacrament of Christes supper because hee is not partaker of bread and wine but onely is made a member of that mysticall bodie which in the Sacrament is signified Fulke Beda knewe no such distinction of really spiritually Neither doeth he saye they are partakers of the Sacrament of the supper but of the bodie and bloud of Christ in baptisme wherefore I knowe not whereof Sander dreameth Sander Augustine saith of heretikes and schismatikes de ciuit Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. They are not in that bonde of peace which is expressed in that sacrament The bond of peace expressed is not the wheaten cornes molded in one loaf but the bodie of Christ present really vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulke Alack poore sophistrie Christ is the bonde of peace but the bonde of peace is expressed in the externall Sacrament of breade and wine Although the wheaten cornes are not the bonde of peace expressed yet the bonde of peace is expressed by the wheaten cornes c. Sander Looke in my 5. booke Cap 5. Fulke Looke there for an answere CAP. V. Sander Master Iewell hath not replyed well touching the Capernaites Harding If Christ in S. Iohn had spoken tropically the Iewes and disciples who were vsed to figures would not haue said This is an hard saying Iewell His reason hangeth thus The Capernaites vnderstoode not Christ ergo his bodie is really in the Sacrament Sander No sir They vnderstoode Christ to speake without parables Christs wordes pertaine to the sacrament therefore his bodie is really in the Sacrament They vnderstood what Christ promised but they beleeued it to be either not possible or not conuenient Fulke The maior minor of your mishapen syllogisme are both false Augustin in Ps. 33. Exhorruerunt sermonem c. They were afraide of his speache not vnderstanding they thought our Lord Iesus Christ had spoken some hard thing c. Sander S. Augustine saith they vnderstoode not because they beleeued not in Ioan. Tr. 27. Fulke What though infidelitie were the cause of their not vnderstanding yet he saith Non intelligeÌ„do scandalizati sunt By not vnderstanding they were offended ergo you saide falsely they vnderstoode what he promised And much lesse vnderstoode they the meane howe it should be perfourmed Iewel He said The bread which I will giue c. of spirituall eating It is the spirite that quickeneth Vnderstand ye my words spiritually saith Augustine Sander See in my third booke Cap. 19. 20. Fulke See the answere in the same places Iewel Ye shal not eat saith S Augustine with your bodily mouth this bodie that you see c. I giue you a certeine Sacrament Sander Of this place I haue spoken at large lib. 6. Cap. 2. lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulk And I haue sufficiently answered in the same places Sander Beside this great dissimulation of S. Augustines meaning Master Iewel hath false translations Fulke Sander heth foolish quarels master Iewell giueth the sense faithfully Iewel We haue a spirituall mouth taste eyes eares as Basil Leo Origen Tertullian say Christ is to be digested by faith he is the bread of the minde not of the bellie to beleeue in him that is to eat the liuing bread therefore Christs meaning is spirituall not reall Sander The fondest kind of reasoning in the world Christ is eaten both spiritually bodily Fulke Al these fathers meane only spiritual eating excluding all other carnal grosser maners of eatings Sander Doth not Tertullian say The flesh is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ to the ende the scule may be made fatt of God Fulke Tertullian speaketh manifestly of the externall Sacraments which haue the name of the things signified as of the signes of baptisme impositioÌ„ of haÌ„ds c. Iewel Chrysostom will not suffer this euasion who saith to vnderstand carnally is to vnderstand plainly as the thinges be vttered and to thinke vppon nothing else Sander We vnderstand not so For wee seeing the forme of breade thinke vpon the bodie of Christ. Fulke But what did the Capernaites see whose vnderstanding you defende And what other thing do you vnderstand then is vttered in the wordes Iewel S. Augustine saith The saying of Christ is a figure or manner of speach commanding vs to be partakers
of Christes passion Sander The speach is figuratiue not in the substance to be eaten but in the manner of eating therfore when Christ had consecrated bread into his bodie that speache was not figuratiue because the maner of eating was determined vnder the formes of bread and wine Fulk Saint Augustine hath stopped that starting hole expounding the meaning of that figuratiue speach not of eating Christ vnder the forme of bread but of communicating with the passion of Christ which is represented by the Sacrament and is perfourmed without the Sacrament So you faile both in your substance and manner of eating Sander Of the whole saying of Augustine I haue entreated more fully lib. 3. Cap. 14. Fulke And I haue answered more fully Iewel Tertullian saith The Capernaits thought his speach was harde and intollerable as though he had determined to giue them his flesh verily and in deede to be eaten with their mouthes therein saith Tertullian stoode their error Sander The worde ve 〈…〉 doeth not shewe that they tooke it to be eaten in substance but that they thought they should eate it carnally they thought not of eating vnder the forme of bread Fulke Not onely the worde verè must needes shewe they thought the substance of his fleshe shoulde be eaten verily but also the argument of Tertullian doeth plainly proue it For he answereth the obiection of them that denyed the resurrection of the fleshe because of the Angelike perfection whereunto the children of the resurrection shal be changed shewing that the perfection shall not bee through vertue of the fleshe but through the incorruption which the flesh shall put on Vsing a similitude of the flesh of Christ which of it self doeth profite nothing but by vertue of the spirit which maketh it able to giue life Wherefore the error of the Capernaits was in that they imagined the substance of Christes flesh should be eaten bodily which Tertullian affirmed should be eaten spiritually and by faith of his worde onely As for the authoritie of Lyra which followeth is not worth the contention CAP. VI. Sander Master Iewell hath not conferred the supper with the sixt of S. Iohn as it ought to be Iewell Christ in S. Iohn speaking of spirituall eating faith made no mention of any figure But in his supper he added an outward Sacrament to the same spirituall eating which the fathers oft call a figure Sander If spirituall eating by faith be only spoken of why saith he dabo I will giue when spirituall eating was alreadie giuen Fulke Because he would continue his giuing as he had done before and accomplish his passion by which his flesh was made meate Sander The perfourmance doeth expound the promise especially when he saith this is c. Fulke Here is no newe promise but a continuance of the olde of spirituall eating by faith Sander The fathers who call Christs supper a figure must needes meane such a figure as was promised Fulke There was no figure promised in the sixth of Iohn therfore they meane another thing then was there promised or spoken of Iewell Master Harding putteth no difference betweene things perteining seuerally to the body and the spirite Origen in Cantic Sander Origen doth speak of them who reading that book would perhaps apply the names of loue there vsed carnally Fulke Prolog in Cantic he speaketh of diuers meate of the inward man and of the outwarde man The meat of the outward man is agreable to his nature bodily and earthly The meat of the inward man is the bread which came downe from heauen c. Sander You haue set forth the booke of canticles in the vulgar tongue contrary to Origens iudgemēt to be reade of euery wanton boy or girle Fulke As though that booke was not in the vulgar tongue in his time when it was in the Greeke tongue Beside that he saith the litle ones can take no great hurt if they reade it although it bee meate for perfect men Iewell The bread is a figure Sander Before consecration S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure but not after the wordes are said ouer it Fulke He confesseth it to be bread before and to be called the bodye of Christ after consecration and that the body of Christ is signified thereby De myst Cap. 9. Yea he calleth it a figure of the body bloud of Christ De Sacram lib. 4 Cap. 5. For it can be no figure of Christ before consecration Touching Damascen and Rabanus Maurus I will not striue because they are both later wnters then 600. yeres although the later be cleare against this peece of Popery the other not clearly for it Iewell The Sacrament saith Augustine is receiued from the Lords table Of some vnto life of some vnto destruction The thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament that is the body of Christ is receiued of euery man to life of no man vnto destructiō whosoeuer be partakers of it Sander Here is a heape of falshood and lies Fulke Here is an impudent cauillation Sander The thing of the Sacrament is not the body of Christ sitting in heauen but the company of Saints and the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ not his natural bodie but his mysticall bodie the church Therfore he saith not simply The Sacrament but the Sacrament of this thing that is to say of the body and bloud of Christ which fiue words M. Iewel hath left out Fulke These fiue words help you as much as fiue egges whereof foure be rotten For Augustine by them vnderstandeth the flesh bloud which Christ promised to giue which if it be not the same bodie which sitteth in heauen that bodie which sitteth in heauen is not giuen by his iudgement in the Sacrament For thus he writeth vpon these words of Christ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting Therefore he hath not this life which eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For temporall life men may haue without it but eternall they cannot haue at all Therefore he that eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath not life in himselfe and he that eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud hath life eternall And that he saith euerlasting life answereth to both it is not so in this meate which we take for sustentation of the life of this bodie for he which taketh it not shall not liue and yet he shall not liue which shall take it For it may be that by olde age or sickenesse or some chance many which shal take it may die but in-this meat drink that is in the bodie and bloud of our Lorde it is not so for both he which taketh it not hath not life he which taketh it hath life that verily eternal Therefore he will haue this meat drink vnderstood to be the fellowship of his body his members which is the holy church in his saints and faithful ones predestinated called iustified glorified Wherof
the first is alreadie done that is predestination the second third is both done is a doing shal be done the is calling iustification but the fourth is now in hope shal be in deede that is glorification The Sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the body bloud of Christ in some places daily in some places by certeine distance of dayes is prepared in the Lords table to some vnto life to some vnto destruction But the thing it self wherof also it is a Sacrament is to euery man vnto life to no man vnto destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker of it You haue therefore gained thus much by your cauilling that neither the flesh and bloud of Christ promised in the sixt of Iohn nor the thing of the Sacrament is the bodie of Christ which sitteth in heauen but the participation of his mysticall bodie and the fellowship or communion of his bodie and the members therof which is the assurance of eternall life But where you saye the Sacrament is that naturall body of Christ which sitteth in heauen you saye beside your booke for neither Augustine nor any ancient father did euer say that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ was the body of Christ otherwise then after a certeine manner of speaking as Augustine saith Sander The materiall bread was prepared by the Baker ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table is the bodie of Christ. Fulke I denie the argument The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament although he prepare some parte of the earthly matter that is required vnto it more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptisme by powring of water into the font CAP VII Sander Master Iewell hath not disputed well touching the omnipotencie of Christ in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh Harding Christ by shewing his diuine power wherby he will ascend into heauen confoundeth the vnbeliefe of the Capernaites touching the promised substance of his bodie Iewell When ye see Christ ascend whole ye shall see that he giueth not his bodie in such sort as you imagine His grace is not wasted by morsels saith S. Augustine vsâ—â—g Christs ascension to proue that there is no suâ—â— grosse presence in the Sacrament Sander He is not present to be wasted but yet he is really eaten Fulke S. Augustines place sheweth that Christe reasoned not of his omnipotencie or diuine power but of the absence of his humanitie by his ascension and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten is not his naturall flesh to be bitten in their mouthes but his grace to be receiued by faith in their hearts Iewell This table is the table for Eagles not for Iayes saith Chrysostome Sander I haue answered your iangling of Iayes in my 2. booke Cap. 27. Fulke And I haue confuted your babling of Eagles in the same place Iewell Saint Hierome saith Let vs goe vp with the Lorde into heauen into that great parlour and receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the newe testament Sander He saith not into heauen but into the great parlour which is the kingdome of the Church Fulke But by the greate parlour into which Christ is ascended he meaneth heauen where the kingdome of the Church is and not the earth where the Church is a stranger the worde heauen is added in Master Iewel for explication and not as parte of Ieromes wordes Sander Chrysostome interpreteth the parlour for the Church in Matth. Hom. 38. Fulke Chrysostome was no interpreter of Ierome In allegories euery man hath his owne inuention Sander Christ giueth his bodie and bloude hee is the feastmaker and the feast he gaue that Moses coulde not giue Fulke All is perfourmed in the great parlour which is heauen Wee must receiue of him aboue the cuppe of the new testament Iewell Cyrillus saith Our Sacrament auoucheth not the eating of a man leauing the mindes of the faithfull in vngodly manner to grosse or fleshly cogitations Sander Cyrillus against Nestorius denyeth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man not assumpted into God I haue spoken more lib. 2. Cap. 25. Fulke Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man and not onely the eating of such a man as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be See lib. 2. Cap. 25. Sander Cyril saith that Christ setteth before vs the assumpted flesh of the sonne man Fulke Yea but not in the Sacrament only but as it was eaten of the fathers Ad Theod. de rect fide Sander He saith moreouer the worde is not able to be eaten What M. Iewel not by faith yes verily but not by mouth but according to the dispeÌ„satioÌ„ of the vnioÌ„ Fulke God the word is not able to be eaten by faith but in respect of the dispensatiue vnion Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth for the properties of both natures remaine to be seen of vs by innumerable reasons as it followeth immediatly Graunt eating of his fleshe by mouth and the propertie of the humane nature is cleane ouerthrowen Your charging of master Iewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserueth none aunswere Iewell The olde fathers Chrysostome Augustine Leo acknowledge Gods omnipotencie in baptisme yet is not Christ really there Therfore it was vaine labour to alleage his omnipotencie for the reall presence Sander Baptisme hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ therfore you haue lost your labour Fulke Baptisme hath promise to wash vs in the bloud of Christ to incorporate vs into Christ to make vs partakers of his death buriall resurrection Rom. 6. and yet no reall presence required no not of the holy ghost otherwise than by effectuall grace working our regeneration and newe birth Yea Christ doth wash vs in baptisme Ep. 5. CAP. VIII Sander Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently the wordes belonging to Christes supper Harding Because these places report that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie the fathers saye it is really in the Sacrament Iewell A thing is taken to make proofe which is doubtfll and the antecedent is vnproued Sander Said not Christ take eate this is my bodie Fulke This prooueth not that he gaue it in your sense But where do the fathers say it is really present in the Sacrament Iewell The fathers call the Sacrament a figure a token a signe an image c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor trope or figure Sander It standeth wel togither to be a signe the trueth As Christ is the image of God yet God also Fulke It is impossible to be a signe the thing signified Neither is Christ God the Father of whome hee is the image although he be God Iewell Euen Duns sawe that following the bare letter we must needs say that the bread it self is Christs bodie Sander The place is not quoted therfore it is doubtful for no man beleeueth you Fulke Looke in the fourth booke vpon the sentences The same
there once really Howe coulde the Councell say wee beholde the lambe of God placed vpon the holy table which neither nowe nor at any time was really there Fulke By faith as we behold him in his ministers and in baptisme washing our sinnes with his bloude where he is not really present nor euer was after that manner Iewell In the Councel of Chalcedon it is demanded in what scripture lye these two natures of Christ it is the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they lye not really in the scriptures Sander The heretike asked for very materiall and reall wordes Fulke If the natures may be said figuratiuely to lye where the wordes are found why may not the lamb of God be saide to lye where the bread and wine which are signes of him do lye Iewell That word signifieth a naturall situation of place order of parts such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christs bodie hath not in the sacrament Sander It hath such situation as the forme of bread requireth Fulke Then the forme of bread is situated not the bodie of Christ or the lambe of God which you might as well vrge to be taken in his proper sense for a natural lambe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laide Iewell The Councell is plaine that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before vs. Sander He considereth them basely who saith they remaine still in earthly substance Fulke He considereth them not at all who saith they are no part of the Sacrament Iewel It is said lift vp your heartes so that there is nothing in the action to be considered but only Christ. Sander I haue spoken of this matter at large lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles Cap. 27. Fulke And there I haue briefely answered Iewell S. Ambrose saith it is better seene that is not seene Sander Therfore the bodie of Christ is better sene then bread and wine Fulke Who doubteth of that Iewel For the same cause S. Augustine saith In Sacraments we must consider not what they be but what they represent For they are tokens of things being one thing and signifying another Sander As they be tokens they be one thing signifie another and therefore the substance of Christes bodie is not his death or passion or the vnitie of his Church which thing vnder the forme of bread it doeth signifie but it is another manner of thing to wit a bodie immortal impassible c. Fulke If S. Augustine had beleeued the Sacrament to be the immortall bodie of Christ he would neuer haue said In Sacraments we must not consider what they be but alway what they signifie Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22. Iewell Touching our beholding of Christ in the Sacrament S. Aug. saith It worketh such motions in vs as if we saw our Lord himself present vpon the crosse Sander S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnitie of Easter which was kept by preaching shewing some image of Christ by creeping to the crosse Fulke Hee speaketh generally of signes as for images and creeping to the crosse is a moste impudent lye Iewel This is that Eusebius writeth that the bodie might be worshipped by a mysterie that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance and be present in grace for euer in this spirituall sort not fleshly Christ is laide present vpon the altar Sander You leaue out that he saith the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting by which wordes Eusebius declareth that the Sacrament is such a mysterie as offereth vs that continuall redemption which Christ hath purchased for vs. Fulke Eusebius declareth no such matter but a memoriall of the euerlasting and one onely sacrifice quod semel offerebatur in pretium which was but once offered for a price or redemption Sander The same Eusebius saith the inuisible preist turneth the visible creatures with his worde into the substance of his body and bloud Fulke So he saith that man is by the workmanship of the heauenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptisme wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation but of a spirituall mutation such as is in baptisme Iewell S. Augustine saith you are vpon the table you are in the cup. As the people is laid vpon the table so and none otherwise the councell of Nice saieth the lambe of God is laid vpon the table Sander What Master Iewell is the table turned into vs as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned c Fulke Euen such a conuersion is of the bread into his body as is of the table and cuppe into vs namely spirituall For without some kinde of conuersion it were not possible that wee should be on the table and in the cuppe Sander Wee should not bee there if our head Iesus Christ were not vnder the forme of bread wine where in we are signified but of this more lib. 5. Cap 5. Fulke As we are there so is our head Iesus Christ and none otherwise Iewell The Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really But these two wordes truely and fleshly haue sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vnto the Iewes the one doth vtterly exclude the other Sander If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh is is all one in speaking to say truely and fleshly but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh it is not all one Fulke The spirituall sense of eating Christes flesh truely in which he spake to the Iewes doth vtterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh Iewell He that eateth most spiritually eateth most truely as Christ is the true vine the true Manna and we are verily one breade and the Apostles verily the heauens And these are the Paschall feastes wherein verily the lambe is slaine Sander In comparison of bodily eating alone spirituall eating is more true and of a better sort but a thing both eaten in body and spirit is farre more truely eaten both waies then by one way alone Fulke Master Iewel hath well prooued that the word Truly may wel exclude fleshly bodily really As for the bodily eating is the matter in question therefore not to be brought in argument Sander When the name of any thing affirmed of Christe apperteineth to the true nature of his manhod which he hath assumpted it is to be verified of him not onely by a metaphore but in very deede therfore he is man in deede offred in deede killed in deede buried in deede eaten in deede Fulke For a man to bee eaten in the shape of bread apperteineth not to the true nature of his manhood which he hath assumpted therefore it is not to bee verified of him but onely by a metaphor or figuratiue speech by your owne rule Iewel S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the naturall office of the body what preparest thou thy teeth beleue and thou hast eaten Beleeuing in him is the eating of the bread of life
it Sander Haymo Remigius Pascasius Lanfrancus Iuo Guimundus Anselmus Rupertus Algerus were all learned men and all aboue 300. yeres old Fulke Yet you shewe not where any of them although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius did vse the termes really substantially c. Sander Bernard whome you haue often alleaged writeth in ser. de sanct Martyr Euen to this day the same flesh is exhibited to vs which the Apostles had seene in his manhood but yet spiritually forsouth not carnally For there is no cause why we should say the apparition which was made to the fathers of the olde Testament either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles to bee denied in these our daies For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shal be clere that neither of both lacketh For the true substance of the fleshe it selfe is present nowe also to vs no doubt verily but that it is so in the Sacrament Fulke This testimony affirmeth the presence of Christs flesh spiritually which we grant and denieth the terme carnâ—lly which is one of the termes in question Iewel Their doctrine is without comfort They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies but onely vntill the formes of bread and wine begin to alter Sander It is not without comfort seing a merueilous commoditie by this touching riseth to our spirite and soule as to those whom Christ healed by touching Fulke They were as well healed whome he touched not but onely cured by his word But what is become of that mingling of Christes flesh with ours and his inseparable dwelling corporally in vs out of Chrysostom Hilarius and Cyrillus Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this booke if Christs body tary no longer with vs where is the hope of resurrection if the quickning flesh of Christ bee not still in vs Sander Moreouer I haue often said our coniunction with Christ in this Sacrament is like the carnall copulation betwene the wife and husband where twaine are in one flesh yet tary not alwaies corporally ioyned togither Fulke You haue often made a shamelesse beastly and filthy comparison betwene so high a mystery and so grosse and carnall copulation Iewell Some others saye that so soone as our teeth touch the bread streightwaies Christes body is taken vp into heauen The wordes be these Certum est quòd quà m citò species dentibus teruntur tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi Sander The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases Fulke The best grace you haue is in railing and slâ—ndering Sander You haue falsely translated the glosse you haue englished teruntur touched and species bread In Berengarius confession you could terme it by the worde grinded Fulke So he could do nowe if he had purposed rather to translate then to shewe that writers opinioÌ„ which according to the custome of Papistes nowe which grind not but swallowe down there what yee call species for shapes I cannot name it because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it must be vnderstoode of touching with teeth and not of grinding where no grinding is and yet if it were grinded with teeth that grinding followeth so neere the touching that there is small difference of time betweene them Iewell Here a man may say vnto M. Harding as he did before to the Arrian heretike Sander He spake against the heretike by the authoritie of Cyrillus which taught vs to be corporally ioyned by naturall participasion to Christ as branches are ioyned to the vine and not by faith onely Fulke And euen so may he speake against Master Harding by the authoritie of Hilarius which saith against the Arrians that we are corporally inseparably vnited in Christ which is contrarie to this popish doctrine of Christes departing from vs. Sander Bring if you can M. Iewel a saying of aboue a thousand yeares olde by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresie Fulke He hath brought in his two bookes written against D. Harding more them fiue hundred such sayings Iewell Commeth Christ to vs from heauen by by forsaketh vs Sander His bodie commeth not downe from heauen but the bread is changed into his bodie as at his incarnation he came not from heauen by forsaking his glorie but by assumpting flesh of the virgin Fulke His godhead which filleth all places needed no locall ascending or descending Therefore it is ill compared with his body which is circumscriptible except you will become an Eutychian and vbiquist Sander As after his resurrection he ascended into heauen so after the communion the formes of bread wine being consumed Christ ceasseth to be corporally with vs. Fulke A wise similitude The consuming of the formes of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection the ceassing of his being corporally with vs to his ascension But how commeth this ceassing by a newe transubstantiation of the body and bloud of Christ into bread and wine or Christ forsaking the formes by a newe 〈◊〉 of substance vnto them or else are the formes left emptie both of their owne substance and of the substance of Christ Against this ceassing of Christ to be corporally with vs Hilarie saith in eo nobis corporaliâ—er inseparabiliter vnitis We are vnited to him not only corporally but also inseparably Iewel Or that wee eate Christ and yet receiue him not or haue him not or that he entreth not c. Sander Who teacheth the contrarie but that your owne shadowe troubleth you Fulk Those popish doctors that teach that the body of Christ is rauished into heauen as soone as the species are grinded with the teeth Iewel He saith this presence is knowen to God onely then it followeth Master Harding knoweth it not Sand. He saith not this presence but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why doe you falsifie his words Fulke Woulde any man thinke the manner of the presence shoulde be vnknowne to him which affirmeth it is reallie substantially corporally carnally sensiblie c. Iewel So this article is concluded with an ignoramus Sand. Not so because the question is not of the maner of Christs presence but of his reall presence though the manner be vnknowen Fulke Nay the question is not of the reall presence which we alwayes confesse but of the maner of presence whether it be spiritually or corporally Sand. A non credimus is a worse fault then an ignoramus Fulke It is no fault not to beleeue that which scripture doth not teach Iewel The old fathers neuer left vs in such doubts Sand. S. Cyrillus willeth vs to giue strong faith to the mysteries but to leaue the way knowledge of his worke vnto God The first part ye haue broken Fulke The first part we haue not broken for we beleeue the mysteries to bee the same that Christ saieth they are but you haue broken the laste part because you adde really substaÌ„tially corporally c. which you haue not learned