cause thereof We are coupled to Christ by eating that flesh of his which he deliuereth to vs. But Christ deliuereth it not only spiritually but also with his hands saying Take eate this is my body As therefore yâ— deliuery is real and not only spirituall so is the eating reall and the coupling reall I haue proued this thing in other places folowing Here it is 〈◊〉 to say this much against the bare words of the Apologie ¶ That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God VVE do acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper to be a Sacrament yâ— is to say an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the body and blood of Christ. Besides the former vaâ—…t of the word of God already brought foorth to the reproche of the Catholikes also the Apologie aâ—…tle before these words witnessed that yâ— auctours abâ—…tours thereof gaue thanks to God for the light of the Gospel raysed to them which they might allwayes haue before theyr eyes as a moste certayne rule to which all doctrine of yâ— Church ought to be called for his triall And within lesse than 〈◊〉 lines after the same Apologie cometh to denie our Lords supper calling it a Sacrament that is to say an 〈◊〉 token of the body and blood of Christ. What mâ—…ers Hauâ—… you in the holy Scriptures that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament or a signe of yâ— body and blood of Christ From the beginning of 〈◊〉 to the later ende of tho â—…ocalips you finde â—…t our Lordes supper so called Christ in S. 〈◊〉 calleth it yâ— mâ—…e which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not but 〈◊〉 into lâ—…e 〈◊〉 He saieth yâ— bread which he will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he will 〈◊〉 â—…or yâ—â—…se of yâ— world He 〈◊〉 it the 〈◊〉 and the blood of the sonne of man meate in dede and drinke in dede his flesh and his blood the eating of him the bread which who so eateth shall liue for euer In S. Mathew and in S. Marke his body and his blood of the new testament In S. Luke his body whiche is geuen for vs and the chalice which is the newe testament in his blood which is shed for vs. In S. Paul the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body the chalice of blessing which we blesse which is the coÌ„municating or partaking of Christes blood the one bread yâ— table of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord the body which is broken for vs the chalice which is the new Testament of his blood the eating of this bread and drinking of this chalice So many names are geuen in so many places of holy scripture to this blessed Sacrament and it being no where called a signe or token yet the Apologie which thanketh God for yâ— holy scriptures aâ—…d will trie all doctrine by them in the chief question of our age goeth quite from all holy scriptures and sayeth the Eucharist or the Lordes supper is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. What is the matter that in wordes you make so much of holy scripture and in dede so litle What Apostle what Euangelist what Prophete or Patriarke taught our Lordes supper to be a signe or token S. Paul threateneth damnation to him who vnworthely eateth it and he calleth vnworthy eating not only the contempte thereof or lacke of faith but euen the omitting to proue or examine him selfe before he eate our Lords body And that because he maketh no difference betwixt it and common meates And come you with a new doctrine affirming that we receaue not our Lords body into our bodies but an euident signe and token thereof you 〈◊〉 no authoritie no rule no triall of matters belonging to faith but only the holy Scriptures and immediatly ye breake your owne rule in so much as the holy scriptures call the supper of our Lord his body and blood and you teach it to be an euident token of his body and blood If you kepe not your owne rule whom can you binde to kepe the â—…aine Ye will aske me perhaps whether the Lordes supper be not a Sacrament if a Sacrament then also a signe and token I aunswere ye that prescribe rules of beleuing to the world ye that wil haue all thinges iudged and proued by that touchestone of Gods worde ye that for pretense of folowing the gospell haue stirred vp so greate strife through all Christendome must not talke with vs with if with and with conditions and peraduentures But ye must bring forth the word of God for that ye say Although the supper of our Lord were neuer so much a Sacrament surely to you it were none because ye cannot proue out of the word of God where it is so named To vs it is both a Sacrament and a sacrifice A Sacrament because we are so taught by tradiction from the Apostles A sacrifice because Malachie the prophet in the person of God expressely saieth In omni loco sacrificatur offertur nomini meo oblatio munda â–ª quia magnum est nomen meum in geÌ„tibus In euery place a cleane oblation is sacrificed and offered to mie name because my name is greate amonge the gentils There is absolutely no pure and cleane oblation besides the sacrifice of Christes body and blood whiche was offered to death not in euery place but without the gate of Hierusalem alone and the same is at this daie vnbloodily offered in the masse in euerie place where so euer among the gentils the name of God is 〈◊〉 called vpon Thus both we and you maie proue the â—…upper of our Lord to be a sacrifice but that it is a 〈◊〉 â–ª we can proue because our forefathers delyuered such a doctrine to vs You can not proue the same seing you will not be bound to folow vnwritten traditions If you flee to the Church for naming it a SacrameÌ„t the church hathe seuen Sacramentes But ye in this present Apologie acknowledge only two properly to be rekoned vnder yâ— name for so many saie you do we find deliuered and sanctified by Christ and allowed of the olde fathers Ambrose and Augustine Concerning the deliuery of Sacraments by Christ ye might haue found in the word of God ConfirmatioÌ„ Actor 8. Penance IoaÌ„ 20. Extreme vnction Iacob 5. Priesthod Luk. 22. Matrimonie Eph. 5. And not only Baptim and the Eucharist But what kind of talk is this to say that S. Ambrose and S. Augustine allow that workes of Christ was not the deliuery and consecration of Christ of sufficâ—…ent autoritie except Ambrose and Augustine had approued it I thoâ—…ght Ambrose and Augustine should haue bene allowed by the scripture and not the scripture by them I stand with you vpon the autoritie of the word of God proue me thence that these two are Sacramentes alone yea proue that thei are so named at all what gospell calleth baptisme a Sacrament What holy write nameth
the supper of our Lord a Sacrament dare you geue these things a name which is not in the word of God What warraÌ„t haue you for that dede you will say Ambrose and Augustine calle them so I replie Peter and Paul doe not call them so At other times and with other men I will stay vpon the authoritie of Ambrose and Augustine ' whom as I ought to do I reuerence for men of excellent vertue and learning But yet they were men as you are wont to saie they might erre they might be deceaued At this time we haue appealed chiefly to yâ— holy scriptures and out of them we must ground all our talke and next vnto them we will heare what the Fathers saye I saie that neither the old testament nor the new calleth the supper of our lord a Sacrament Therefore the Apologie that so calleth it goeth from the assurance of the word of God to the good and â—…audable inuentions and traditions of meÌ„ which them seiues 〈◊〉 when they lilte And yet the said Apologie so calleth it a Sacrament that vpon that only word the auctors thereof grounde all their doctrine Thence it hath to be a signe to be a token to be a badge a seale a paterne a counterpaâ—…e Thence all the figuratiue doctrine ryseth Thence it commeth that the reall body and blood of Christ is denied to be vnder the formes of bread and wine Shall now so much as Christ hath plainely spoken of his body and blood so much as his Apostles and disciples haue preached and writen in that behalfe shall now all this be ouerthrowen by an vnwritten veritie Are these the men oâ—… God who fâ—…ee from S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn S. Paul to Augustine and Ambrose Will the Apologie allowe that dede If it will not why hath it done so it selfe If none but prophetes and Apostles had written where had they found two Sacramentes where had they readen that the supper of our Lord is a signe and token They make much a doe about the word of God till they haue gotten credit among the ignorant and then they quite lead theÌ„ from all the word of God To you I speake good Christen readers that haue the true loue of the word of God 〈◊〉 in your hartes to you I speake geue not ouer S. Maâ—…hew S. Iohn S. Paul for Ambroâ—…e and Augusâ—…ine 〈◊〉 not ouer Christ who is God and man to haue the opinion of what sâ—… euer â—…ottor and Father in causes of belefe Some men in comparison of others be of greate authoritie But in comparison oâ—… God all men be nothing at all God saieth this is my body Now what so euer man or angell from heauen tell you this is not the body of Christ but only a figure of it beleue him not but let him be â—…cursed to you Shal we not be well occupied if we leaue yâ— plain worde of God and come to see whether Ambrose and Augustine teach two Sacramentes or mo then twaine S. Paul teacheth Matrimonie to be a Sacrament And yet shall we goe from him to Ambrose and Augustine to see whether it be one or no Was euer such a vile practise heard of as to brag of scriptures to boast of holy write to crie vpon vs for comyng to the worde of God and nowe that we are come thither to call vs from all Prophetes and Apostles yea froÌ„ Christ him selfe to Ambrose and Augustine Is this the waie to the holy scriptures Can this fault be excused Can this hypocrisie be tolerated To winne to you the itching eares of the inconstant multitude to get you the applause of licencious libertines in yâ— pulpit you call to yâ— word of God and when you haue gotten them within your nettes you teach them out of Ambrose and Augustine Yea would God ye did so at the least And although it be alitle out of mie way if to detect falshod can euer be out of a mans way yet what if now we proue that ye deceaue them also by fathering that vpon Ambrose and Augustine which they neuer wrote 〈◊〉 thought ¶ That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two Sacraments DOe they teache but two Sacramentes only What if they taught two especially yet if they do not deny the other your proof is none But let vs see Doe they approue no more then twaine What if besydes these twaine which you haue named I bring within the compasse of one chapiter two moe out of S. Augustin as plainly named of him as possibly can be Where then will this Apologie reâ—…t Bonum igitur nuptiarum per omnes gentes atque omnes homines in causa generandi est in fide castitatis quòd autem ad populum Dei pertinet etiam in sancti tate Sacramenti caet The good sayeth S. Augustine which riseth of mariage through all nations and all men consisteth in yâ— cause of begetting children and in the faith of chastitie And in so much as appertaineth to yâ— people of God it consisteth also in the holynes of the SacrameÌ„t through which it is vnlawfull yea though diuorse come betwen to marie an other whiles her husband liueth not so much as for the very cause of bringing foorth of children which though alone it be the cause why mariages are made yet the band of mariage is not loosed vnlesse the husband die albeit yâ— thing folow not for which the mariage is made Much like as if to bring the people together some of the clergie should be ordered or consecrated with holy orders for although the meeting of the people do not insewe yet Sacramentum ordinationis the Sacrament of geuing orders abideth in them that be ordered And if for any fault any man be remoued from the office he shall not lacke the Sacrament of our Lord which is once put vpon him although it remaine to his damnation In these words S. Augustine hath shewed that amoÌ„g Christian men there are two other Sacramentes of Priesthod of Matrimonie besides baptisme and the Eucharist And eche of them so greate and so strong that they can not be loosed and taken awaie but only by death of the partie although the chief cause â—…asse why the Sacrament was geuen I could bring if nede were an other notable place out of S. Augustine where he nameth together the water of baptim oile the Eucharist and the imposition of hands S. Ambrose like wise confesseth moe Sacraments then Baptim and the Eucharist Cur baptizatis si per hominem peccata dimitti non licet In baptismo vtique remissio peccatorum omniuÌ„ est Quid interest vtrum per paenitentiam an per lauacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent Vnum in vtroque mysterium est Sed dices quia in lauacro operatur mysteriorum gratia Quid in paenitentia Nonne Dei nomen operatur Why art thou baptized if it be not lawfull synnes to be forgeuen
seede of man but formed and conceaued of the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin in the which manhod of Christ the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth corporally As for those places where Christ sayth Poore men shall ye haue with you always but me ye shall noâ—… haue And he is rysen he is not here And whiles Christ blessed his Disciples he went from them and was caried into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father vntil the end of the world with such like they â–ª are not to be conferred with these words This is my body because they speake of a naturall being of Christ and not of such a being as is peculiar vnto the Sacrament of Christes supper Neither is it possible that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉 should impugne yâ— other sith Christ hath ordâ—…ed both the Church did 〈◊〉 always both together Christ ascended into heauen there sitting at the right hand of his Father and leauing vs the beleefe thereof as a chief article of our faith Christ made his own supper saying This is my body and commaunded his Apostles and their succâ—…s to make the same saying Doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Therefore neither the making of Christes body neither the belefe thereof can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father Agayne sith nothing is impossible to God albeit that which imploietâ—… coÌ„tradiction in it self be therefore impossiple because it repugneth to the truth it self which is in God it is not possible to God yâ— yâ— body of Christ should both be in heauen after one visible sorte and in the Sacrament after a mysticall sorte It were in dede impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heauen and not to be in heauen Or to be in the Sa crament and not to be there in the same respect but to be in heauen and in the Sacrament or to be in many places at once that maketh no 〈◊〉 but onely sheweth an allmighty and infinite power in him who worketh it Of this minde all the Church of God hath bene hitherto and therefore it hath beleued as well the sitting of Christ at his Fathers râ—…ht hand in heauen as the reall presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar Yea it hath beleued the one because of the other For in so much as Christ is so almighty as to sit at the right hand of God he is able to performe his owne word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar And therefore in the sixte of S. Ihon when he spake of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood which he wold geue he also declared that he wold goe vp into heauen in his manhood where he was before in his Godhead And that thing he spake as S. Cyrillus hath noted to declare that he was God and therefore able to worke that which he spake of in so much as his words were spirit and life For this cause Chrysostom cryeth out ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem Qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodnes of God He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same very momenâ—… of tyme is touched with the hands of all men and deliuereth himself to those that wil receaue and imbrace him Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur Seme these things to thee worthy to be despised neglected Sacra nostra non modò mira esse videbis sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia Thou shalt perceaue our holy things not only to be wonderfull but also to excede all wondringe and astonyng of the mynd Yf then we vnderstand that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lords supper and no contradiction at all to any other partes of our belefe we may be sure that none other article of our crede doth driue vs to miscredit the reall presence of Christes body and blood in his owne supper And therefore where we dispute of his last supper we must examine yâ— meaning of yâ— words which were spokeÌ„ there according to other places of yâ— Scriptures which belong vnto yâ— last supper The places apperteyning to Christes last supper according to the interpretation of ancient doctors are these the later part of the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn the supersubstantiall bread in the 6. of S. Mathew and the supper it self in the 62. of S. Mathew in the 14. of S. Marke the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapiter of the first epiâ—…le of S. Paule to the Corinthians in the 5. to the Ephesians in the 2. chapiter of the first epistle to Timotheus in the 13. to the Hebrewes in the 2. 13. and 20. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles In all which places other if there be any like we finde much to conâ—…e the reall presence but nothing to leade vs to a siguratiue meaninge These wordes which be in S. Iohn the flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quickeneth my wordes be spirit and life be declared in the former booke when we disputed of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn ¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament for that it semeth in many places to be called bread euen aâ—…ter consecration and that aswell in S. Iohn as in S. Paule and in the Actes of the Apostles noman I say ought vppon this slender argument to change his belefe otherwise grounded vpoÌ„ so plaine scriptures the faith of yâ— Church so generally receaued but rather he ought to lern the cause why the body of Christ is most iustly called bread in this SacrameÌ„t The custome of speaking in holy scriptures came chefely from the Hebrew tonge wherein the old Testament was writen as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paule to the Hebrewes were The residue of the Apostles and Euangelistes albeit they wrote in Greeke they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their wordes Bread in the Hebrew tonge his called Lehem and commeth of the verbe Laham whyche signifieth to â—…ate so that al which man may eate is meant by the Hebrew worde Lehem as wel bread as flesh or fruytes in so much that sometyme it signifieth only flesh as the Hebrew Doctors haue noted out of the sixte and seuenth chapiter of Iob. Now yâ— Apostles and Euangelistes writing also in Greeke haue put for the Hebrew word Lehem the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that translated the scriptures into latin haue turned it into panis and we in our vulgar tonge name it bread by which meanes it cometh to passe that the Greeke Latine and English worde must be takeÌ„ in holy scriptures
The supper of our Lord SET FOORTH ACCORding to the truth of the Gospell and Catholike faith By Nicolas Saunder Doctor of Diuinitie with a confutation of such false doctrine as the Apologie of the Churche of England M. Nowels chalenge or M. Iuels Replie haue vttered touching the reall presence of Christe in the Sacrament MANHV What is this The figure Exod. 16. This is the bread which our Lord hath geuen you to eate The prophecie Prouerb 9. Come eate my bread drink that wine which Ihaue mixed for you The promise Ioan. 6. The bread which I wil geue is my flesh for the life of the world The performance Matt. 26. Luc. 22. He gaue sayiÌ„g take eate this is my body which is geueÌ„ for you The doctrine of the Apostles 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break is the coÌ„municatiÌ„g of our Lords body The belefe of the Church Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit Both our Lord hath professed we beleue it to be flesh in dede The custome of Heretiks Tertul. de Resur car The contrarie part reiseth vp trouble by presence of figures LOVANII Anno domini 1566. CVm Regiae Maiestatis priuilegio sub 20. mâ—…sis Augusti anni 1565. permissum esset Nicolao Saundero Anglo sacrae Theologiae Doctori vt 〈◊〉 in scriptum The supper of our Lord set forth according to the truth of the Gospel c. imprimere posset posteaquà m prodiisset liber quidaÌ„ a duersus CatholicaÌ„ fideÌ„ quâ—…m D. Nicolaus defendisset anglicè conscriptus quem etiam confutandum sumpsit renouato Priuilegio concessum est eidem Nicolao vt ei vnâ cum confutatione contrariae doctrinae suum librum typis mandare ac impunè distrahere liceat Datum Bruxellis 22. Decembris Anno Christi 1565. S. de la Torre Approbatio sex priorum librorum AVthor ipse huius voluminis Nicolaus SauÌ„der sacrae Theologiae Professor eius est apud nos fidei vt sine aliquo metu tutò posset euulgari estque praeterà à multis Anglici idiomatis sacrae Theologiae peritissimis perlectum qui illud meritò plurimum coÌ„mendarunt Cunerus Petri Pastor Sancti Petri Louanâ—… 7. August Anno. 1565. TO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF ouâ—… Sauiour Iesus Christ vnder the foormes of bread and wyne all honour praisc and thanks be geuen for â—…uer IF he that mainteneth a right good cause yet partly for feare of the deceits and suttiltie of his aduersaries partly for mistrust of his own knowledge and memoric dare not appere in iudgement without his aduocate or proâ—…tour with 〈◊〉 seing yâ— sending foorth of a booke into yâ— light of yâ— world is yâ— dangering to haue it suÌ„moned to so manie courts as it shal be brought into howses yâ— appering before so manie iudges as be readers thereof what aduocat and proctour yea rather what Doctor and Patrone am I constrayned to seek who do not only set foorth mie book to be readen of whatsoeuer English man but also write of suche a matter as being of most weight is most diligently examined in these our dayes and wherein I am sure to find as wel the Lutherans as the Zuinglians though vtterly dissagreing betwene themselues yet against me not only agreing to be seuere iudges in the reading but also to be cruel aduersaries in their iudgement Which seing it is so let noman wonder that I not mistrusting anie whit the vniuersal cause of the Catholiks but misdoubting mine own wit and the shamelesse shifts of our aduersaries haue chosen to dedicate this work to yâ— mysteri of thy glorious body and blood Lord Iesu Christ to 〈◊〉 those that now take vpon them to misiudge yâ— manifest effectuall words of thy blessing and thanksgeuing pronounced by thâ—…o in thy last supper making a figuratiue speache of a proper and whereas thy true body and blood itself worthie of all honour is through thy godhead made really present teaching not withstanding for their parte the substance of bread and wine still to remain and therefore an idol to be falsely â—…et vp and worshipped by the Catholiks to th'inteâ—…t I saie those false teachers maie either through thy grace be conuerted from thâ—…r misbelefe whereof I most humbly beseche the or els if they wil stubbâ—…nly persist in their detestable opinion maie euen presently be confounded with the maiestie of thy name whose glorie they oppâ—…gne For what can be more dishonorable to thy goodnes then if it maie be truly reported that the wisedome of god did institute his chief Sacrament in such words the which either being true and not beleued should bâ—…rden our consciences with infidelitie or being earnestly beleued and yet not conceaâ—…ed in proper speache should bring vs into manifest daâ—…nger of idolatrie sith no faithfull man beleuing this to be thy body as thou hast said it is can abâ—…teine from the singular worshipping of that singular fotestole of God Now soeuer it be with other men I adore thee my God and lord really present vnder the formes of bread and wine after cousecration dewly made Beseeching thee of pardoÌ„ for my synnes by the same propitiatorie sacrifice of thy body and blood which being made once with bloodsheding vpon the crosse causeth the fruits therof to be daily applied in that cleane and vnbloody sacrifice of the masse To this great mysterie of thy real presence I dedicate these my paines as to the most vndoubted fountain cause and supporter of them In this faith I was baptized and made a member of thy mystical body in the hope to mainteine this 〈◊〉 miâ—… parents and frinds did set me to schole in the vehement loue and affection thereof I haue written this rude and simple work And to whom should I refer the praise and thanks for it but vnto the alone Or of whom shuld I craue the protection thereof but of thee seing thou only art a meet patrone for the defence of any booke which only art alwaies present wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shal be examined To the honour therefore of thy body and blood I offer this poore mite of my simple vnderstanding thy mercifull gift whatsoeuer it be trusting thou wilt not suffer neither the truthe of thy gospel to be long vnrestored in the desolate I le of pitifull England nor me thy poore seruant through 〈◊〉 or naughty liuing to perish euerlastinglie AMEN The Contentes of the first Booke 1. The preface to the Reader 2. Notes concerning the translation of holy scripture in this argument 3. The state of the question 4. What the supper of our lords is according to the belefe of the Catholiks 5. What it is according to the doctrine of our aduersaries 6. A speciall errour of Caluin concerning the vvords of Christes supper is confuted The preface to the Christian Reader WHo so will auoyd the danger of pride of schisme and of hearesie he hath no greater helpe therevnto in this world then to mystrust his owne iudgement and to followe the authoritie of greater wisdome
a stroÌ„g stout effectual figure ioyned with words of promise stirring vp the hart of him that heareth the promise and worthely râ—…aueth the pledge therof to mounte into heauen and there by faith to fede in spirite vpon Christes owne body and blood as he in earth corporally feedeth vpon bread and wine For Caluin teacheth bread and wine to be the figures and signes of Christes body and those wordes This is my body to be wordes of preaching or of promising Christes body to them that doe beleue O pitifull tossing and tearing of Gods holy mysteries Are those words which make and shew the body of Christ present words of promise But hereof I will speak more hereafter Now concerning that he willeth vs to goe into heauen by faith know ye not that because our nature was not able to 〈◊〉 â—…y to the seat of God in heauen therefore y◠〈◊〉 oâ—… God came 〈◊〉 from heauen to earth to leade and list vs vp to the â—…ition oâ—… his Father Know ye not that because our body more quickly â—…weth our soule dounward then our spirit is able to draw our body vpward therefore Christ 〈◊〉 not only yâ— soule but also the body of man geuing vs in his last supper that body of his to th'inthent our bodies taking hold in the Sacrament of the altar of his body might be caried into heauen to haue the sight of God And because faith without th'incarnation of Christ cannot lift vp our bodies therefore Christ fulfilled â—…aith with truth and hauing taken of the virgin oure nature gaue his body in dede to our bodies and soules yâ— we again might in body soule be lifted vp with it As a man that is cast into a depe pit calleth by the meane of his tonge for help but when a cord is let doune to him for the aide and 〈◊〉 of him it is not then sufficient to vse his tong still and to let his handes alone euen so our faith called for Christ to come from heauen to help vs to let doune the corde of his humanitie of his flesh and blood And shall we now when it is let doune to be fastened in our bodies and in the bottom of our hartes by eating it really shall wee now refuse it and saie wee will goe into heauen by faith ourselues and there take holde of Christ whereby wee maie be saued and deliuered out of the depe vale of misery As though the corde should haue neded to haue ben let doune if wee could haue fastened our bodies to any thing in heauen and yet our bodyes are they which weigh doune our soules châ—…ely But what meane I to reason in this place of that point whereof in all the booke folowing by Gods grace I will fully intreat For as it happeneth they are the scholars of Calnin with whom specially wee must haue to do at this time Of whose lerning and prâ—…ncie â–ª I most crueâ—…y craue this fauour that none of them all thinâ—… me to speak against their persons but only against their opinions and so to speak against them as I am instructed by the holy Scriptures not graunting that either they loue more intierly or study more carefully or reuerence more hartily the word of God then my Fathers brethren and I my selfe doe in the Catholike Church of Jesus Christ. Only about the meaning of it I rather would trust the common iudgeâ—…ent of auncient Doctours and practise of the whole Church theu mine owne priuate election and phantasie or the deuise of a newly planted congregation A Catholike man must kepe the most auncient path and most commonly troden high waie Priuie bypathes carie mâ—…n a side to the 〈◊〉 dennes of 〈◊〉 My purpose is to proue out of the word of God specially against zuinglius and Caluin that Christ geueth in his last supper the true substance of his flesh and blood not only to our soules by words of promise but also to our bodies vnder the formes of bread and wine And for as much as the present Church of England in the Apologie thereof hath set forth to the world an other doctrine contrarie to that wce reâ—…ued of our fore Fathers I will first disproue and confute the wordes and reasons oâ—… the Apologie and afterward will by the grace of God proue the Catholike faith out of the holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers But first of all I must declare what we Catholiks and what the Protestants and Sacramentaries beleue the supper of Christ to be That seing I make the Title of my booke Of the supper of our Lord it maie straight appere whose 〈◊〉 is more worthy to be instituted of Christ that which we through his word beleue or that which they assigne him against y◠〈◊〉 truthe of his own words ¶ what the supper of Christ is according to the belâ—…e of the Catholikes BEcause my purpose is to intreat of the blessed supper of our Lord I thought it best to declare before hand what we take that supper to be shewing withal how the Sacramentaries vnder the pretense of refoorming the abuses thereof haue taken away the whole supper of Christ and geuen vs a bare drinking of their own 〈◊〉 And whence maie that be more truly and soundly proued then chiâ—…fly out of the word of God next out of the monuments of the a aâ—…cient Fathers The word of God is a most faithfull witnesse oâ—… the institution of Christ the monuments and writings of auncient Fathers doe shew the right vnderstanding of the word of God which thing I speake not as though the Catholike Doctours of this later tyire had not the self same holy Ghost which the first had but seing our aduersaries refuse Albereus magnus Thomas of Aquine Bonauenture Alexander of â—…ales Dionyâ—…ns the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra Gabriel Biel and such other men of excelleÌ„t vertue wit and lerning who not withstanding by a rule that S. Auguâ—…stine geueth ought to be of credit in so much as all they liued before this question rose beâ—…wene the Sacramentaries and vs and therfore can not beare nor shew more affection to the one syde then to the other but seing our aduersaries refuse them for 〈◊〉 and yet follow men of later 〈◊〉 as Luther zuinglius 〈◊〉 we are content to put all the matter into the hands of the old Doctours And to beginne as we promised with the word of God thus writeth S. Paul in his first 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians Conuenientibus vobis in vnum iam non est dominicam coenam manducare vnusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit ad manducanduÌ„ when yow come together now there is no eating of our Lords supper For euery man taketh 〈◊〉 his owne supper to eate By the name of supper in the old tyme that one meale was meant wich ordinarily was made after noon and it serued for diner and supper The Corinthians coming together to yâ— holy communion taried not one for the other but
wil stand sound when Caluin and all his scholars be out of memorie This practise did the Apostles leaue to their successours and scholars as Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus and Eusebiâ—…s witnesse Now consyder what an intolerable spirit of arrogancy was in Caluin who dareth oppose him self against the first hundred yeres after Christ. He dareth affirm that all the Priests and Bisshops of Rome before 〈◊〉 committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist to strangers That all Asia and Brece committed an abuse in sending the Eucharist by Deacons to men that were absent who heard not the words of promise If thou looke to be saued good Reader beware of that arrogant spirit Learning thou shalt not find in Caluin and much lesse honesty Only he hath a sort of smothe words which are poy soned with pride and ignorance If any of his scholars wil take vpon him to defend his errour I wil by Gods grace discouer more ignorance of that arrogant Master of theirs In the meane tyme I wil content my self with these reasons which I haue presently brought against him out of the word of God and out of the sayings and doings of the whole primatiue Churche ¶ The preface of the second Booke FOr so muche as contraric things one being set against the other are both made the more clere and plaine it semed best I should not only confirme the Catholike faith but also con fute the contrarie doctrine which is allowed for good and laudable in the Apologie of the Church of England to thâ—… intent the Reader might iudge whether the Catholikes or Protestauts doe more oftallege more syncerely interprete and more throughly beleue the word of God I feare me he shal find nothing beside the name of the gospell to be among the ProtestaÌ„ts But the true meaning and vse thereof only to remain in that Catholike Church of Christ. Let the thing it self speake I aske but an vpright and indifferent iudge Neither let any man be now shamed to heare that his new chosen opinion is a great deale worse then his old faith was For if he blushed not to forsake the faith of the Catholike Church vowed at the fonte of Baptism and to embrace a truthe lately espied as he thought in the gospell Muche lesse ought he to accompt it any reproche to reade further in the same gospell and there to lern his old profession made at the tyme of his Christendom to haue bene not only the receaued belefe of all Christians but also to haue bene grounded in the true word of God and practised of the Apostles and their Successours from the beginning The Chapiters of the second Booke 1. The Catholiks require their cause to be vprightly tried by the holy scriptures which they haue alwayes studied aud reuerenced 2. It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper 3. The auncient Fathers teache that euill men receaue truly the body of Christ. 4. What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood 5. What it is which nourisheth vs in the supp of Christ. 6. The reall presence is proued by the vnion which is consessed to be made in the supper of Christ. 7. That the Apologie speaking of the Lords supper goeth cleane from the word of God 8. That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more then two Sacraments 9. That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknouledged of the Apologie according to the word of God 10. That the supper of our Lord is both the signe of Christes body and also his true body euen as it is a Sacrament 11. What signe must cheifly be respected in the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper what a Sacrament is 12. Which argument is more agreable to the word of God It is a token of the body made by Christ and therefore not the body or els therefore the true body of Christ. 13. The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of token 14. That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all if these words of Christ This is my body and this is my blood be figuratiue 15. There all presence of Christes body is that which setteth his death and life before vs. 16. Our thanksgeuing and remembrance of Christes death is altogether by the reall presence of his body 17. The true resurrection of our bodyes cometh by eating that body of Christ which is bothe true and truly in vs. 18. Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries 19. The reall presence of Christes flesh is proued by the expresse naming of flesh blood and body which are names of his humane nature 20. It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ in comparison of his true supper 21. By eating we touche the body of Christ as it maye be touched vnder the form of bread 22. The Sacramentaries haue neither vnderstanding nor faith nor spirit nor deuotion to receaue Christ withall 23. The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie 24. The contrariety of the apologie is shewed and that the lifting vp of our harts to heauen is no good cause why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar 25. What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 26. What the first Councell of Nice hath taught concerning Christes supper 27. That the Catholiks haue the table of Egles and the Sacramentaries the table of Iayes 28. The bread which is the meate of the mind and not of the belly can be no wheaten bread but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ. 29. Sacramentall eating differeth from eating by faith alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apologie ¶ The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightlye tried by the holy Scriptures which they haue alwayes studied and reuerenced THe Apologie of the Church of England boasting it self partly of the word of God partly of the primatiue Church requireth that we call the new gospellers no more by the name of heretykes neither accompt our selues hereafter Catholikes except we coâ—…ince them out of the holy Scriptures as the old Catholike Fathers did vse to conuince the old stubburne heretikes If we be heretikes saith the Apologie they as they would gladly be called be Catholikes why do they not as they see the Fathers which were Catholike men haue done alwayes Why do they not conuince and maister vs by the diâ—…e Scriptures Why do they not call vs againe to be tried by them Why do they not lay before vs how we haue gone away from Christ From the Prophets From the Apostles and from the holy Fathers Why sticke they to do it Why are they afrayed of it It is Gods cause why doubt they to commit it to the triall of Gods word To this proude bragge of the Apologie thus I answere To
Christ are his members which are incorporated by grace ioyned to him being their head This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptisme in one degrâ—… and finisâ—…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree whereof we shall speake hereafter more at large The naturall body of Christis that which he tooke of the virgine and gaue to death for vs. Now Christ in his last supper gaue yâ— substaÌ„ce of his natural body to be â—…aten of his disciples to th' intent they should be made one mysticall body euen by eating his flesh blood Seing then the naturall body of Christ is geuen to thâ—…end we maie be nerer knitte in the mysticall body according as S. Paul sayeth The bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body because we being many are one bread one body all that partake of one bread Seing I say we communicate the natural body to be made a mystical body in a greater vnitie then we had in baptisme any man of discretion may perceaue that in som sense euill men receaue not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ vnderstanding by the effect of body the vnitie of the mysti call body the obteining whereof is the end of the eating Which vnitie S. Augustine somtime calleth Rem ipsam The thing it selfe that is to say the last effect and benefite which ariseth to vs by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar After which sort S. Augustin saieth euill men are not to be said to eate the body of Christ adding therevnto this reason QuoniaÌ„ nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Because they are not to be rekoned among the membres of Christ. So that euil men eate the substance of the naturall body but not the thing for which that substance was geuen which is the vnite of the body mysticall because they eate not worthely Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obteyne the vnitie of the mysticall body which is to abide in Christ and to haue Christ abiding in them Therefore S. Augustine him selfe sayeth Non quocunque modo quisquà m manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo Not how so euer a man eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh the blood of Christ he abideth in Christ and Christ in him but by a certain kind of way As though S. Augustine sayd Euery waye the flesh and blood of Christ is receaued in the supper of our Lord But not euery way it is so receaued that we maye dwell in Christ and Christ in vs. S. Bregorse saith by euell men Salutis fructuÌ„ non percipiunt in comestione salutaris hostiae They receaue not yâ— fruit of saluation in yâ— eating of yâ— healthful sacrifice They eate yâ— healthfull sacrifice which surely is nothing els but the naturall body of Christ but the fruit they receaue not as many men take an healthfull medicine but because their bodies be euil affected it proueth not healthfull to them S. Bede coÌ„pareth him to Iudas who with his sinfull members presumeth to violate Illud inestimabile inuiolabile Domini corpus That inestimable and inuiolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members if with no part of his body he touched it I omit Arnobius vpon that Psalm 74. S. Ambrose Theodorite Decumenius Haimo Theophilact Anselme vpon S. Paule who agree with the rest of the Fathers that there is in euery mysterie the substance of the SacrameÌ„t and the effect thereof As well the euill as the good receaue the substance which in our Lords supper is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receaue th' effect Which is the grace of spirituall nourishment to life euerlasting and the vnion with Christ. Now as we haue shewed by the holy Scriptures euen so haue we proued out of the holy Fathers that euell men recâ—…aue the body and blood of Christ as really as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cutt as really as one meate is eaten of some to their hurte of others to their helth as really as good and euill Iewes had all one measure of Manna but not all one swetenes in yeâ—…ast thereof as really as Iudas did kisse trayterously the same body of Christ which him self as all euill men trayterously receaued at Christes supper If nowe the Apologie hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers it maie leaue those boasting vpbraidinges as though the Catholikes fled the triaâ—… of bâ—…th Scriptures and Fathers It is Gods cause we haue committed it to Gods word The Fathers when they agree in anie one article are knowen to haue yâ— spirite of Christ and they beare witnesse that we haue rightly expouÌ„ded the holy scriptures He that listeth to see more of the same argument 〈◊〉 read that which I haue writen vpon that saying of S. Paule He that eateth this bread vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliuerance of Christes body and blood IN the supper there is truly deliuered the body and blood of the Lord the flesh of the soÌ„ne of God quickening our soules The food of immortalitie grace truth life In these words no euil doctrine is conteined but all sound and Catholike In so much a man wold woÌ„der to what purpose these things are now brought being extreme contrary to yâ— which the Caluinists defend saing they wold seme to speake as the holy scriptures and primitiue Churche hath spoken Seing therefore these words conteine true doctrine I wil reason briefly out of them against their opinion that wrote them You say The body and blood of the Lord is truly deliuered in the suâ—…per If it be so it is truly present And seing none other thing can be warrauted to haue bene deliuered in the supper besyde that which Christ gaue with his own hands which semed bread whereof he sayd This is my body and besyde that which semed wine where of he sayd This is my blood by the doctrine of the Apologie it will folow that Chrisâ—…es body was deliuered truly vnder that which semed bread and his blood was deliuered truly vnder that which semed wine Or tell me Can 〈◊〉 any man proue out of the word of God that any other thing was deliuered in the supper of Christ besyde two kinds the one being bread vntill Christ had sayd This is my body The other being the cup of wine vntill Christ had sayd This is my blood Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited offered or deliuered to the Apostles Or doth the supper of Christ consist of fower kinds of bread body of wine and blood In what gospell reade we of bread and wine deliuered Bread and wine were takeÌ„ but body and blood were only deliuered For Christ sayd Take this is my body Drinke this is my
by man Truly in Baptim there is forgeuenesse of all synnes What skilleth it whether Priests challenge this right of forgeuing synnes to be geuen them by penance or by baptim The mysterie or Sacrament is one in both But thou wilt say that in Baptim the grace oâ—… yâ— mysteries worketh What in Penance doth not the name of God work Here is the same vertue and name of a mysterie or Sacra ment geuen to Penance which is geueÌ„ to Baptim Whereby S. Ambrose taught as wel that there was a SacrameÌ„t of Penance as the Apologie graunteth one of Baptim But to stand about the proof of all the seuen Sacraments it nedeth not sith in that most notable generall Councell gathered both of Grekes and Latines at Florence all the seuen Sacramentes were according to the word of God confessed proued declared and expounded as in the ende thereof it may appere But neither S. Ambrose nor S. Augustine had the charge committed to them to rekon vp how many Sacraments there are I brought these few places out of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose to shewe as it were to the eyes of all them that will not wilfully blind them selues how these defenders crie out vpon the word of God vntill they haue with swete words wonne â—…anour amoÌ„g the miserable nomber â—…f those vnstable meâ—… that allwayes harken for newes But when they haue them fast then is the word of God cleane forgotten and in siede of it Ambrose and Augustiâ—…e are captiously and falsely alleged For the truth is they that set nought by the word of God can not long esâ—…me Ambrose and Augustine who with all their hartes embraced the word of God and expounded the same according to the auncient tradition of holy Church To what end then doth this Apologie runne Truly to sette vp an Idoll of their owne making in place of the word of God To set vp I say a fantasticall religion of their owne deuising But if they should crie to the people Come come bowe down to the Idoll that we haue deuised for you the people would not come as being feared with yâ— infamouse name of an Idoll Therefore they say come to the word of God come to the holy Scriptures come to the true gospell of Iesus Christ. well Syr you say herein exceding well we are come Teach vs the word of God the Scriptures the gospell Say on a Gods name ¶ That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all but not acknowledged of the Apologie according to the word of God WE saye that Eucharistia the supper of the Lord is a Sacrament that is to wit an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is most true that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament yea it is the chief Sacrament of all Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Est enim secunduÌ„ clarissimi praeceptoris nostri sententiam SacramentoruÌ„ Sacramentum The most holy Eucharist which Dyonisius named so a litle before according to the mind of our renowmed maister is the Sacrament of Sacramentes Although Dionysius had S. Paul to his master yet he meaneth at this tyme as vpon him Maximus hath noted by other places of his worke it may well appere to be true Hierotheus an holy Father and Disciple of Christ who in his talke whiche he was wonte to haue with Dyonisius did vse to call the holy Eâ—…charist of all the Sacramentes the chief Sacrament Surely iâ—… there had bene but two Sacramentes both Hierotheus Dyonisius had abused their words For where two things only are of one degree there one may be worthier then the other but neither of the twaiue may iustly be called the chief of the others If in all there be only two Sacramentes baptisme the Eucharist how is the Eucharist the Sacrament of Sacramentes sith when one is taken away there doth remaine but one moe to which relation may be made The opinion therefore of this Apologie standing the Eucharist may be yâ— more chief Sacrament of tâ—…e twaine but not the Sacrament of moe Sacramentes But what nede we stand herevpon seing Dionysius hath at large prosecuted moe Sacramentes then baptisme and the Eucharist as it is easye to see in his workes Seing then the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament and yet not found so to be named in holy Scripture the Apologie is constrained to beleue it selfe and to teach others somewhat which is not readen in holy Scripture Againe that euery Sacrament is a signe and token it is also true but not readen in holy Scripture Thirdly the Sacrament of the altar is an euident token of yâ— body and blood of Christ. But so much is not expressed in holy Scripture Last of all the supper of our Lord is the reall body blood of Christ him selfe And that truth is very plainly very ofte very earnestly sayd taught repeted in holy Scripture Foure thinges are now verified of the supper of our Lord. It is a Sacrament it is consequently a holy signe It is an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is the truth and substance of the body and blood of Christ. Of the foure truthes the last only is expressed in holy scriptures because it is the ground of all the other The three first are taught by the Church not coÌ„trary to the scripture but ouer and besides it Now mark well whether these defenders lead vs to the word of God or no. In describing the supper of our Lord they put the three first verities of which neuer a one is named in the scripture And the last veritie which is expresly named in all the foure Euangelistes and in S. Paul as before I haue declared that they vtterly 〈◊〉 aâ—…d leaue out As if they shuld saie we make much aâ—… to pretend yâ— holy scriptures but we will be sure to bring any thiâ—…g soner then the holy scriptures Marke this Apologie who shal he neuer lightly saw any book writen in so many matters of diuinitie wherein so litle scripture hath bene alleged It is full of gloses but the texte it hath very seldome And why They loue not in dede the scriptures they know not the scriptures according to the mind of the holy Ghost but only make a shew of them to entangle the sunple in their snares The supper of our Lord is a sacrament a holy signe an euident token of the body and blood of Christ. hitherto they teache without scriptures It is the body and blood it selfe of Iesus Christ. Hereof speake they at this time neuer a word because it is in the Gospell which they loue not If this last truth can not stand with the first what doubt is there but the worde of God must ouercome and the doctrine of men gâ—…ue place If therefore the supper of our Lord maâ—…e both be the signe of the body and the body it selfe it is well we are throughly
outwardly celebrated thereof and not only diuerse predictioÌ„s were made by the Prophetes concerning the same but also when Christ him selfe was come into the world he did both make an introduction to the promise of his supper by a miraculouse blessing and breaking of fiue and seueÌ„ loaues to the Iewes and more ouer in expresse words foretold that he wold geue his flesh to be eaten euen the same flesh which he wold geue for the life of the world But for so muche as some men thinke that Christ in the sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon speaketh not properly at all no not so muche as by the way of promise of his last supper I must as well proue against them who thinke so that Christ spake in that place of the gift which he afterward made in his parting banket As also that the reall presence of his flesh and blood is euidently proued by such words of promise as he there vttered For it can not be doubted but the truthe it self performed all that in deed it self whiche his words had before promised for the tyme to come Neither ought it to be a grief to any man if in handling these matters I seeme to intreat of hard questions which are aboue the capacitie of the vulgar people For the nature of all holy mysteries is such that as S. Augustine sayeth it may soner be impugned popularly and plausibly then be so defended Which notwithstanding I haue done what I can to vtter all things plainly And yet who is there that now can iustly find fault with me for handling deepe and obscure matters Is not euery man sufficiently instructed by this tyme to iudge of all points in diuinitie Is not that man who in parlement scared not to sit iudge of this high mysterie and without the consent of any one Prelate in that howse to condemne the vnbloody sacrifice of the blessed Masse is not that man able to vnderstand suche writings as are set foorth in that behalf He that must if a parlement be called prescribe a faith vnto me what say I vnto me he that will take vpon him to prescribe it to all the realme to generall Councels yea to the whole Churche he that will accuse his Fathers and graundfathers euen to the tenth generation of ignorance of superstition and of idolatry he that accompteth him self spirituall and therefore sufficient to discerne doctrines spirits will he say that a poore scholar of Oxforde doth write to high for his vnderstanding If it be so let him vnderstand that the sayd scholar is a very base member in Christes Church and a very ignorant man in re pect of those notable Bisshops other diuines whom he heard and sawe at the Councell of Trent with suche admiration that 〈◊〉 deed he was neither able nor worthy to speake among them Let him vnderstand that those Fathers did so exactly serche out the truth of the present controuersies as well by conferring together the holy Scriptures as by vewing the bookes of the aun cient Doctors ánd Councels that they spent in some one matter fower moneths coÌ„tinual To be short let him vnderstand yâ— seing the tenth part of the learned men 〈◊〉 Christendome came not to yâ— Councell and yet there were in it aboue two hundred persons of suche excellencie for wit learning vertue that it passed much more the wisedom of any one realme then the graue Senate of a whole realm doth excede that particular Councell of neuer so meane a Litie Let him I say vnderstand what wisedom what knowlege what iudgement is and hath bene in the whole Church of God by the space of fiftene hundred yeres together The preaching practise and gouernement of which long tyme a few such feared not of late by their open voices to coÌ„demne as to whom if a maÌ„ should at their own howse propose a very meane probleme or doubt in diuinitie they wold not only refuse to answer therevnto but they wold also confesse plainly that they neuer studied the science of Diuinitie They wold swere if nede were that they neuer attended principally to any other thing then to serue God and their Prince and to hauke or hunt Whereof I put them in mind to the end they should depely coÌ„syder with what temeritie they attempted to determine the high and secret points of Christian faith and that knowing their fault they should bewaile amend the same I beseche God to geue vs al grace to know our selues and tâ—… beware that whiles we couet to be as Gods in vnderstanding the Scriptures we tast not of the tree which is named the knowlege of good and euill and afterward be cast out of Paradise because we contented not our selues with the order and condition which our Lord had appointed for vs. I trust although the matters which I intreat of be very hard to make them yet plain by such help as the auncieÌ„t Fathers haue left vnto vs in their most learned works and commentaries According to whose wisedome I wil expound those places of S. Ihon which specially appertein to my purpose The Chapiters of the third booke 1. The Argument of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn is declared 2. It is proued by circumstances and by the confereÌ„ce of holy Scriptures that Christ speaketh in S. Iohn of his last supper 3. The same is proued out of the Fathers and Councels 4. Answer is made to them that teache the coÌ„trary out of the Fathers 5. Item to them that teache the contrary out of the Scriptuâ—…es 6. The gift of the euerlasting meate is shewed to be the gift of Christes flesh at his supper 7. The equalitie of substance alleged betwene Christ and his Father proueth one substance to be geueÌ„ both of God the Father to Christ and of Christ to vs. 8. Christ is not the bread of life to vs by the gift of his flesh except we eate really his own flesh 9. Whereas three giftes are named in S. Iohn Christes gift partaketh of both the other therefore conteineth his reall flesh vnder a figure 10. The midle state of the new Testament betwene the law and glory requireth the same truth which is in heauen to be geueÌ„ vnder a figure 11. The bread that Christ will geue which is his flesh must nedes be meant of the substance of his flesh 12. Christ himself sheweth that the eating of him by faith or in a figure only differeth far from the real eating of his flesh in his last supper 13. Christes flesh to be as really present in his supper as water is at baptism In so much that childern were somtyme communicated 14. That S. Augustin did not teache these wordes except ye eate the flesh caet to betoken only eating by faith and spirit or by figure alone 15. Christes flesh being meate in dede must needes be really present to be eaten 16. By the maner of Christes tarying in vs it is ê“ued that we eate his
not fame vpoÌ„ him what should please them but should be controlled by his word For as vniuersal tradition suffiseth to Catholiks who beleue it so the heretik who estemeth no tradition must haue his ouerthrow by the holy Scriptures In them we read that who so beleueth and is baptized shal be saued Whereby is most clere that baptism hath his promse of saluation annexed to it But when we come to our Lords supper no promise at al is made to him that eateth material bread or driketh wine Therefore no man may be so bold to say that by eatig bakers bread we shal be saued Eating verily hath his promyse of saluatioÌ„ annexed thereunto but it is the flesh of Christ whiche must be eaten it is the blood of the sonne of man which must be drunken it is the food of life Christ him felf whiche must be Sacramentallie receaued In all S. Iohn there is promyse of life made to none other thing At the last supper it is said this is my body take eate and this is my blood drinke ye all of this Where no mention of eating bread or of drinkâ—…g wine is made much lesse anie promise of life is thereunto annexed S. Paul speaketh of none other breade then of that which is the communicating of his flesh and which being one is receaued and partaken of al faithful and yet neither in him nor in the actes of the Apostles nor in anieplace place els is any promise made by Christ that who so eateth material bread in his remembrance though he eate it neuer so deuoutly shall by that eating liue foreuer Nowe whereas Caluin pretendeth yâ— words of Christes supper to be words of promise it is already confuted and albeit they were words of promise yet they neither promise bread to be eateÌ„ nor life to them that deuoutly eate bread In coÌ„sideration whereof we may conclude that water is the instrument to giue life because baptism is expresly named andd hath the promyse of saluation in Gods word But seing bread hath not suche promise they speake beside all scriptures who think it sufficient for our bodies to eate bread and to drinke wine at Christes supper And lest any man should think that I may be deceaued in the word of God and that some promise there made to bread wine may escape me I answer that euen here Christ sheweth vs not only to liue for him but also to line for him by eating him so that we haue the word of God that Christ him self is our food not only by faith but by eating We haue then two aduaÌ„tages one that no promise of life is made to bread and wine The other that expresse promise of life is made to him who eateth Christ. whereupon thus I reason Either this promise of life which is made to him that eateth Christ suâ—…iseth in the kind of eating or no. If this suffise not the word of God is reproued which sayth He that eateth me shall liue for me And by eating Christ he vnderstandeth as I haue often tymes declared beleuing vpoÌ„ him doing his wil and besydes al that the receauing of him corporally in the Sacrament of his supper If now his promise of life be alone sufficient what place is left for the Sacramentaries to chalenge life to their bodies by the eating of wheaten bread and by drinking wine Their bodies verily can not liue without the food of life for as Christ said before except ye eate my flesh ye shall not haue life in you and I am sure he spake to men that had bodies But material bread is not Christes fleshe neither hath it any promise to geue life to our bodies therefore either our bodies die for euer or els they liue through yâ— that they receaue Christ into them corporally the which saying of myne is confirmed by this place of S. Cyrillus Non poterat aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem vitam traduci nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur This corruptible 〈◊〉 of the body could not otherwise be brought to incorruption and life 〈◊〉 the body of the naturall life were ioyned vnto it which if it be true 〈◊〉 not they who take the body of Christe who is the naturall life from 〈◊〉 corruptible bodies depriue vs of all hope of life in our bodies How theÌ„ do we lyue for Christ through him as he liued for his father Doth not he liue for his father as well in body as in soule because his manhood is vnited to the word which word is the sonne of yâ— father Therefore as we liue for him by eating him as he liueth for his father who sent him so must we be naturally ioyned to his flesh in the SacrameÌ„t of his supper by receauing yâ— same worthely into our bodies liue in body and soule for euer ¶ The eating of Christes flesh was so true that it was taught with the losse of many disciples IT is not to be thought that Christ who forbiddeth all occasioÌ„s of geuing offence to other men wold him self cast a stumbling block in his disciples way by pressing them to eate his fleshe and to drinke his blood if in dede they were not really to be eaten and drunken But if Christ spake that which was true in dede and spake it as it was true then was it their fault who had sene him the day before working so great a miracle not to beleue such a Prophet as their own experieÌ„ce and expresse words witnessed him to be If then they were bound to beleue him and yâ— they could do no otherwise then if they beleued that he would geue them his flesh to eate in dede their fault was in that they did not beleue that he was both able and in dede would by a conuâ—…nient meane geue them his true flesh in the way oâ—… meate and his true blood in the way of drinke If that were their fault then is it their â—…ault likewise who in our daies thinke teach that Christ hath not geuen vs in his last supper his 〈◊〉 flesh to be really eaten true blood to be really drunken 〈◊〉 the maner of eating flesh and drinking blood 〈◊〉 should in time conuenient haue learned that also Al men do know that when a thing is to be done the first question is to demand whether it may be done or no. wherein it is also conteined how easily a thing may be done The second is whether it be worthy yâ— taking in hand The third how it may be brought to passe As loÌ„g as the thig is thought either vnpossible or very hard or vnproâ—…itable so long it is in vaine to talke of the maner of the doing it Christ did talke with the Iewes of the two first points shewing that he was able to do it Quia hâ—…nc pater signauit Deus because God the father hath signed him whereby he declared
we hope to see that agreement of minds that consent of wils that vniformitie of life and belefe which our grandfathers and great grandfathers had The Trinitaries of Polonia vnder their Capitain 〈◊〉 who is a false preacher in 〈◊〉 that chief citie of yâ— Kingdom said that the name of the blessed Trinitie is a monsterouse thing not because they openly deny the father yâ— sonne yâ— holy ghost or the equality of them nor because they defend any more then one God But they affirm yâ— albeit there are three vnius naturae of one nature of one Godhead yet there are not three say they yâ— are vna natura vel Deitas one nature or Godhead And for proufe hereof they appeale to the new Testament and old and to the Churche which they call priuatiue which was of the first two hundred yeres or thereabout bidding vs looke whether we find Trinum vnum deuÌ„ or Trinitatem in vnitate or vnum deum in tribus personis in any scripture or in any Father of that age As for S. Athanasius S. Hilarie S. Basil S. Augustin so forth they esteme no more then our new brethren esteme S. Bede or S. Thomas of Aquine The booke intituled of the Trinitie which is in S. Iustinus works they affirm not to be his vsing presently the same shamles shifts against the blessed name and nature of that Trinitie which the Sacramentaries vse against the nature name of the Masse Not long after these Trinitaries an other cumpany began to think circumcision so necessarie that in Lituania many 〈◊〉 them selues who to defend that heresy must nedes deny S. Pan les epistles as Luther hath denied S. Iames his epistle for that it is against his iustification of only faith And what forbiddeth an other sect to doe the like in an other matter Thus alwaies are we seeking as Tertullian sayth but we neuer find any thing if once we goe from that which we all beleued If then a stay be to be made at any tyme in questions of belefe if we may be sure of any article of all our faith it behoueth we vndoe not that which our forfathers haue so long before concluded to be true No reason of induciÌ„g a new faith can be so weighty as the peace and preseruation of vnitie in Christes Churche ought to be singularly weighed of euery man There was but one vniuersall chang to be loked for in religioÌ„ from the beginning of Christes Church to the last end thereof And that was at the coming of Christ into the world The which chang that it might not be sodein it was prophecied of before in all ages both by yâ— dedes and words of Patriarchs of Prophets and of Priests And when the fulnesse of tyme was come it was proued to become by miracles of so great vertue and name that the very stones that is to say the infidels were turned by them so great a matter it was with God to haue the order of his religioÌ„ altered And now shal we after Christes faith preached beleued fiften huÌ„dred yeres together shall we now take a new faith of Luther of Zumglius and of Caluin If they be Christ I graÌ„t we must admit theyr doctrine but if they be not so it is not possible they should come of God though they came with neuer so many miracles but they must be the forerunners of 〈◊〉 To come again nere 〈◊〉 own matter if we shall geue any eare to them who affirm the words of Christes supper to be figuratiue that must be with some dout of our former faith and in douting thereof we are become men that lacke faith which if it be not sure it is not good for so much as it hath not the foundation of the things which the Apostle sayd were to be hoped for Or tell me he that first gaue eare to BereÌ„garius or Zuinglius against the bessed Sacrament of yâ— altar may the same man geue care now to another that should wickedly say the Apostles had no authoritie geuen them to write holy scriptures If he may theÌ„ he may dout of the sayd â—…utoritie and yet surely it were very hard to proue to a wrangler that such autoritie of writing Gospels or epistles could be iustified out of the expresse words of the holy Bible But if it be vnlawfull to heare any such seditiouse man how could it be lawful when eare was first geuen to Berengarius or Zuinglius for then it was no lesse generally receaued through all Christendom and much more expresly to be proued by the holy scripture that the things set foorth and consecrated vpon the holy table and altar were the reall body and blood of Christ then it is sayd that whatsoeuer the Apostles did write should be confirmed and established as the words of the holy gooâ—… Where yet I will enter farther into the 〈◊〉 of the cause â–ª And before we heare what reasoÌ„s he can bring who wil reproue the faith of the church in the blessed Eucharist I say he is not to be heard because it is not possible that his reason can haue any sufficient ground why we should geue ouer our old faith and that whether we respect the writen word of God or yâ— faith of all Christians or the glorie of God or the loue of Christ toward vs or the profite of his churche For â—…either can he shew where it is writen or when it was beleued This is not my body nor can proue that it is more honorable to God or more agreable to Christes coming or more profitable to vs that we should lack his body present vnder the forme of bread rather then haue it For if the death of Christ did procede from excessiue charitie of him toward vs and of God and our profite that his Sonne should take flesh and dye for vs I can not deuise how the most honorable remembrance of the same death should not be most according to th' intent of Christ and to our soules health And doubtles it is a more honorable and a more louing remembraÌ„ce where the true substaÌ„ce of Christ is made really present for the keping of his death in memorie we take more benefite by such a commemoration of his bloody sacrifice then if in stede of Christes reall body a peece of bread and wine be left vnto vs with neuer so great a feding by faith For imagine ye the faith to be neuer so great I am sure it will not be the lesse because Christ is taken into our hands mouthes and brests The touching of his garment neuer hindred any good hart much lesse can the taking of his whole body hurt our faith or deuotion And yet if corporal touching did not also help the faithfull womaÌ„ troubled so long with a bloody fluxe had not bene so miraculously cured by touching the hemme of Christes garment Her faith touched his Godhead and her soule
which I wil geue is my flesh WheÌ„ Christ made that promise there was nothing in yâ— who le world whereof the verbe is might be verified in the present tense but only that substance of Christes flesh which he had in his natural body The outward gift of the supper was then to come yet Christ sayd of the substance of his gift The bread which I will geue is my flesh I say not only that it shal be my flesh but I say it is my flesh at this tyme because the substance that I will geue is now present with you although the manner of deliuerance be to come Let vs therefore so expound the verbè is in the supper that it may agree with the verbe is in S. Ihon where it cannot be taken for a bare significatiue being because then there was no signe of his body made Moreouer S. Paule writing after the supper was past doth interprete the verbe is as plainly as can be deuised to signifie a substancial and not an accidentall being for he sayth The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes flesh it is yâ— communicating as though he sayd it is so truely Christes flesh that no differeÌ„ce is betwene it and the being or substance of Christes flesh All thing is common betwene it and Christes flesh no diuision no separation no distinction coÌ„meth betwene these two All this the word communicating doth signifie and more to For the bread which we breake is so farre Christes body that it maketh vs also the body of Christ. The bread which 〈◊〉 breake is so 〈◊〉 distant from being a bare signe that it hath Christes body made common to it by consecration and it maketh Christes body common to vs by communion so that for est is S. Paule putteth communicatio est it is the communicating or the hauing or making common Christes body and blood S. Chrysostom so vehemently presseth the word coÌ„municating vnion whereof the Apostle speaketh yâ— he sayth S. Paule would not leaue so muche as a little difference betwene the men which doe communicate and that which is communicated and yet if that which is communicated were materiall bread it would so much differ from Christ our head and the mysticall body which we are in Christ that it should be an other nature and substance cleane diuerse from it not only not communicating in one and the same meÌ„ber of a mystical body but neither in the whole kind of things which the Logicians call speciem or genus proximum Let vs adde hereunto that if we take est for significat in these words hic significat sanguinem meum the verb shal lacâ—… a noune substantiue to be his nominatiue case And that S. Luke by leauing est to be vnderstanded by common reason doth shew it signifieth properly as men commonly are wonte to vse that verbe Thus much being said for this and is the worde body remayneth to be declared by the conference of holy scripture In S. Matthew it is called supersubstantiall breade In S. Iohn it is called my flesh whiche I will geue for the lite of the world In S. Matthew and Marke my body in S. Luke my body whiche is geuen for you in S. Paule my body which is broken for you or shal be betraied for you the body of our Lord this bread the one bread Likewise concerning the blood it is called the blood of the sonne of man my blood the blood of the new Testament the new testament in my blood The chalice of blessing whiche we â–ª blesse the blood of Christ the blood of our Lord and the chalice of our Lord. Of the body it is said take eate of the blood take diuide among you and drinke ye all of this Of both together it is said to the Apostles make and do ye this thing Of euill men it is said that they eate this breade and drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely not iudging rightly our Lordes body And last of all he that eateth me shall liue for me If now we will expouÌ„d body for the signe of body it will folow that the signe of Christes body was gâ—…n for vs. And when it is sayd He that eateth me shall liue for me it must be expounded He that eateth the signe of me shal liue for the signe of me To conclude as this belongeth not to the substance either of bread or of wine wherewith it can not agree in 〈◊〉 as the verb est is can not stand for significat to signifie least it lack his nominatiue case as the cup shed for vs can not stande for wine shed in sacrifice or els for the signe of blood shed but only for the substance of blood shed on the crosse so corpus body can not stand for a figure or a signe of the body because hoc est corpuâ—… meum datum pro vobis accordingly as the Greeke hath can not be interpreted this is yâ— figure of my body which is geueÌ„ for you â–ª except with Ualentinus Marcion Manicheus it shal be sayd yâ— figure of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. Wherefore I may boldly coÌ„clude that stubburnly to defend that the words of Christes supper are Grammatically or Rhetorically figuratiue coÌ„cerning the substantial parts of the chefe propositions is extreme ignorance in the rules of Grammar and of Logicke palpable blindnes in the studie of diuinitie and a malice inexcusable at the day of iudgement if the party repent not Now on the other syde conferre Scriptures whether Ihon Baptist be Elias it is euident that it is not so There was betwene them in tyme aboue fiue hundred yeres Ihon Baptist was killed Elias liueth yet The Angel sayd by Ihon Baptist He shall goe before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Elias He sayd not in truth and person And Ihon Baptist being asked whether he were Elias or no answered plainly Non sum I am not It is plaine enough that Ihon Baptist is not Elias in person but only in like office and function Thus you may see good Reader what oddes is betwene those places which our aduersaâ—…s wold haue like and wold make you beleue that these words This is my body be no more properly spoken then these He is Elias The like may be sayd of the rock which meaneth two diuerse natures â—…se geuing water as it is described in the bookes of Moyses and well knowen to be neither Christ by nature neither by coÌ„neâ—…on of any rok into Christ. For neither Christ euer sayd of the rock This is my body neither did he commaund vs to say so What shall I say of that vnsensible obiection that God dwelleth not in Temples made with mans hand For we now speaking of the body of Christ speake not of the dwelling which belongeth to God but of that which belongeth to his humane nature which it self also is not a Temple made with the hand of man or begotten by the
not in dede a man it shall neuer be the fault of eating mans flesh to eate that bread vnworthely S. Paule saith not only he is gilty who eateth this bread but he is gilty of the body of Christe Howe can that be except this bread which he eateth be the body of Christ â–ª If this bread be his body seing it stâ—…ll appereth bread we must confesse that the body of Christ is really present vnder the forme of bread And truly that is the cause why S. Paule nameth it this bread for yâ— word sheweth him to meane the bread coÌ„secrated at yâ— altar that bread which that Priest froÌ„ thence deliuereth yâ— bread which that people receaueth at the Priests haÌ„d Whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of Christes body because that substance of this bread is that substaÌ„ce of Christes natural body made geueÌ„ vnder that forme of bread If it were not so the eater of this bread could not by his eating be gilty of Christe s body Otherwise the talke of S. Paule would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthely the kings garment is gilty of murdering his person I am loth to heape vp in this place yâ— manifold witnesses of the auncient Fathers whose wordes I haue partly touched also before concerning that euill men eate Christes body Now it shall suffise to shew that they make the same sequele of S. Paules wordes whiche I do for they shew the vnworthy receauer to be gilty of Christes body because he inuadeth the body of Christ and not because he eateth wheaten bread Theodoritus expoundeth these words whereuppon we dispute after this sort Illud autem caeâ—… These words he shal be gilty of the body and blood of our Lord signifie this much That as Iudas betrayd him and the Iewes theÌ„ selfes insulted and rayled shamfully and sclanderously at him so these shame defile him who take his most holy body with vncleane hands put it into a polluted and vnchaste mouth Lo the taking touching and eating vnworthely Christes body maketh them gilty as Iudas and the Iewes were gilty of Christes death Yea Haymo saieth It were better for him who cometh with mortall sinnes to this Sacramente neuer to haue knowen the way of truth then to goe backward and to do worse then an infidell Primasius faith He despiseth Christ and his body as the Iewes dyd who cometâ—… to it without trying of his own conscience Sedulius besides that common similitude of Iudas and the Iewes vseth another saying If no man dare put it into a filthy cloth or vessel how much more ought he not to put it into an vncleane harte Note good Reader that the self same Sacrament is put in the cloth or vessel which is put in the harte It is not therefore as the Sacramentaries blaspheme breade and wine that is put into a cloth and vessell after consecration and body and blood that whiles the body eateth breade and wine is in hart receaued The same thing is in the harte which is put in the vessell wherein the Sacra ment is kept S. Hierome vsing the same similitude of a cloth or vncleane vessell declareth farther that as Ioseph did folde the body oâ—… our Lord in a cleane sheete so must we receaue him with a cleane coÌ„science Dâ—…u menius declareth the fault of the euill men to be in that they touche the body of Christ with vncleane mouth and impure hands saying that as Iudas betrayed Christ and the Iewes did violently runne vppon him euen so they do shame to him Quòd sanctissimum ipsius corpus manibus impuris suscipiunt veluti tunc eum Iudaei tenuerunt execrando admouent ori Who doe take with impure hands his most holy body none otherwise then the Iewes at that tyme helde him and doe put it to theyr cursed mouth Theophylact sayth of the blood of Christ Qui indignè hunc hauserit nulluÌ„ ex eo fructuÌ„ adeptus frustra ac temerè Christi sanguinem fudit He that drinketh the blood vnworthely he hath shed in vayne rashly the blood of Christ. taking thereof no fruit And again The cause why euil men take no fruit saith Theophylact is not through the nature of that mysteries as the which both haue life in them and geue life but it chauÌ„ceth through the vnworthines of them that come to them who take hurte by them nonc other wise theÌ„ as the sonne is wont to hurte them who haue sore eyes Theophylacte meaneth that as it is oue sonne which shineth to whole aud to sore eyes but yet the sore eyes through their owne defecte take hurt thereof and the whole eyes take good so the mysteries are one to the good and to the bad concerning their owne nature being as he saith always of that nature both to conteyne life and to gene life But the fault why life is not takeÌ„ cometh of the vnworthy receauer We haue now harde that euill men receaue the same true body of Christ which the good men do receaue but not to yâ— same profit because they haue not wel prepared them selues We must not then thinke that euer any auncient Father was of this mind to say that euill men haue in their mouthes only bread and wine and the good men eate only the true body of Christ. That heresiâ—… is as farre from the opinion of the Fathers as it is farre from the truth of the Scriptures S. Chrysostom saith he will suffer his own blood to be shed rather then he will graunt the moste holy blood of our Lord to an vnworthy man Doth not he meane that he hath our Lords blood in his own hand at the tyme of celebrating the mysteries and that he will not deliuer the same to a knowen euill man S. Cyrill noteth that it is not sayd in vaine of Iudas Exiuit continuò he went foorth by and by Timet diabolus benedictionis virtutem ne sintillam in animo eius accenderit The deuill feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kendled a spark of grace or of repentance in his minde S. Augustine hauing spoken of Iudas who gaue him self to the deuill Non malum accipiendo sed male accipiendo not by taking an euill thing but by taking it in an euill maner concludeth generally of all euill men Corpus enim sanguis domini erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit for it was the body and blood of our Lord euen to those to whom S. Paule sayd â–ª he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drinketh damnation to him self It were easy after this sorte to allege a very greate number of yâ— olde Fathers but our aduersaries well knowing that we our selues beleue that the euill men albeit they receaue the substance of Christes body yet they doe not receaue the grace and vnitie
is made S. Mathew then proueth it not neither S. Marke And whereas S. Luke and S. Paule witnesse that Christ said make this thing for the remembrance of me albeit that was spoken to the Apostles yet it is not thereby proued that the successors of the Apostles maie doe it Then cometh he to the later words which M. Iuel citeth Non potest igitur per vllam scripturam probari quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus sanguinem atque Christus ipse conficit cum nec istud in scripturis contineatur It can not therefore be proued by any scripture what can not be proued M. Iuel gâ—…ue me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest it can not What can not Iuel D. Fisher saieth the carnall presence can not be proued neither by these wordes this is my body nor by any other San. Then you make carnal presence the nomninatiue case to the verbe Potest but D. Fysher spake not thereof The whole speache which foloweth is that whereof he speaketh to wit that either a lay man or a priest shall when he attempteth it make the body and blood of Christ of bread and wine as well as Christ did that thing can not be proued for asmuch as it is not conteined in the scriptures But it followeth after that by yâ— interpretation and practise of so long time the holy gost hath expounded to vs these words Hoc facite make this thing in such wise that the successours of the Apostles may consecrate Christes body and blood How manie enormouse faultes haue you committed here in M. Iuel first D. Harding affirmed these words This is my bodie to teache a reall presence But B. Fisher spake of these wordes Make this thing and not of the words This is my bodie 2. D. Harding spake of the real presence whiche wyll manifestlie be proued if any sacrament at all be commaunded to be made by Christ. D. Fisher spake of this point whether any man had authoritie by the scripture to make any sacrament at al or no. 3. D. Harding spake of Christes wordes B. Fisher of our doinges 4. B. Fisher neuer doubted but that these wordes This is my body when thei were spoken by christ or his Apostles made and proued the re al presence of his bodie and blood But he asketh of heretiks how thei can proue by only scriptures that any man after the Apostles is able to make the supper of Christ not that he douted of the thing it selfe but he asketh for the prouf thereof out of the new testament Now for M. Iuel to cite B. Fishers words leauing out the nominatiue case which immediatly folowed and to supply a false nominatiue case neuer thought of by B. Fysher it is a figure of a man that hath repelled al good coÌ„science and therefore it is no woÌ„der if he haue erred in faith not caring what he writeth so he maie be counted lerned in their eies that know neither greeke nor latin neither verb nor nominatiue case Iuel M. Hardings frendes D. Smith D. Stephen Gardener c. can not agree vppon the termes naturally or sensually c. San. Where is the word of god M. Iuel whereof you boast so much are B. Fysher and D. Smith and D. Gardener your Euangelistes to them now you flie to answere S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paule you haue forbidden vs all the fathers of these nine hundred yeres and shall it be lawfull for you to answere the words of the blessed Euangelists by a cauil moued vppon men of our age al who are wel knowen to haue condemned your opinon for heresie and al thes beleue that naturall presence which you impugne And that which you bring concerning the sense of the termes naturallie sensually or so foorth is 〈◊〉 ke moued only concerning the maner of signifying Christes reall presence which is no weighty mater when the real presence it selfe is once agreed vppon Iuel This article cannot be proued by the old doctours as M. Harding graunteth by his silence Sander If it be proued by Christ whome D. Hardinge citeth what nede a better doctour and yet he briugeth also moe doctours then you haue answered to as it shal appere afterward Iuel The question is not of Christes words but of his meaning which must be coÌ„sidered chefely as the Lawiers and S. Augustine saie Christ meant not this to be his bodie reallie Sander S. Hilarie disputing against the Arrians whome he intended to confute by the natural presence of Christes bodie taken by vs really in the sacrament made this preface to his talke coÌ„cerning yâ— words wherein Christ praied that the faithful might be one as God the Father is in Christ and Christe in hym Aut fortè qui verbuÌ„ est significationeÌ„ verbi ignorauit et qui veritas est loqui vera nesciuit et qui sapientia est in stultiloquio errauit et qui virtus est in ea fuit infirmitate ne posset eloqui quae vellet intelligi loquutus planè ille est vera syncera fidei Euangelicae Sacramenta neque soluÌ„ loquutus est ad significationem sed etiaÌ„ ad fidem docuit ita dlcens vt omnes vnum sint sicut tu pater in me et ego in te vt et ipsi vnum sint in nobis Either perhaps doth he which is the word not know the signification of the word and doth not he which is the truthe know to speake true things hath he which is the wisdom erred in folish speaking and is he which is the power of such 〈◊〉 that he can not vtter those things which he wold haue vnderstanded he hath spokeu plainlie the true and syncere mysâ—…eries of the faith of the gospel Nâ—…ither hath he spoken only for significations sake but also he hath taught for faiths sake saying thus that all may be one as thou O Father art in me and I in thee they also may be one in vs. If then Christ much more in his last supper spake in such sort that he did not only signifie his minde but also taught vs the faith of the Sacrament what a folly is it to pretend that he spak otherwise then he meant Specially sith in this place we are so farre from any circumstance which may hinder the proper meaning of Christs speach yâ— these words which is geuen for you doe put yâ— matter out of al dout as D. Harding hath told you before and that is further proued inuincibly after this sorte This is my bodie which is geuen for you but my body geuen for you is real substantiall natural therefore this is so This argument can not be answered except ye say the signe of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. For yâ— participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in english geue
Matth. 9. The calâ—… of Goâ—… Ozee 2. Roma 9. Ozee 1. Roma 9. De ijs qui init myster Capit. 9. Tertull. aduers. Marcioâ—… lib. 4. 1. Cor. 11 Hebr. 1. Psal. 14â—… Lucae 2â—… 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 Leuiti â–ª 1. Math. 21. Ireneus Libro 5. aduersus haereses Ireneus aâ—…uersus haeres li. 3 Cap. 34. Iustinus Martyr â–ª In apolog 2. Math. 21. Caluin is shewed to be an idolatour Acto 14. Hierony mus ad 〈◊〉 to 2. Augustinus in Psal. 39. Iustinus in apol 2 Augustiâ—…us â—…pist 59 â—… Tim. 2. The obla tion of the 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Epist. 59 S. Augu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reth 〈◊〉 words this is â—…y body to â—… vpon yâ— table not vnto the audience Gen. 14. Psal. 109. Marci 14 Lucae 22. Lib. 4. cap. 32. Malac. 1. In Orat. 〈◊〉 Chryso hom de prodâ—…io ne Iudâ—… to 3. Ambros. de Sacra lib. 4 c. 5 The custom of yâ— East Churche at consecration De iis qui init cap. 9. The cnstom of the west â—…hurch in consecrating Hebr. 9. De Sacra lib. 3. cap. 1. â—…useb li. 5. c. 24 The Eucharist was sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the priâ—… Churche The custom of y◠〈◊〉 Church is against yâ— doctriâ—…e of Caluin Luc. 22. Christ â—…ad not his Apostles make a promise of a thing but make the thing it self The 〈◊〉 charist was caried by 〈◊〉 to y◠〈◊〉 perâ—… without wordes of prâ—… mising Hieron Euagri to 2. Iustinuâ—… Martyâ—… in apolog 2. The words of Caluin De Coen Domini Caluin re proueth the 〈◊〉 Church Caluin bringeth no reason for his 〈◊〉 reâ—… of the Apoâ—…â—…lers Matt. 26. Nothing knoweÌ„ to be coÌ„secra ted maye be 〈◊〉 teo again Hebr. 5. A DeacoÌ„ cannot coÌ„ secrate the holy myâ—… The intolerable pride of 〈◊〉 The first Chapiter The wor des of the Apologie Fol. 14. b vi pag 1. The answere S. Bernard Petrus Lombarbus Tho. de Aquino Lyranus Dionysius Bur gensis Caietanus The 〈◊〉 question of our age The secoÌ„d Chapiter The Apo logie Fol. 24. c. 8. pa. 1. The answere Euill men 〈◊〉 yâ— body of Christ. Tit. 1. Ioan. 6. Leo. de passione Domini Sermo 1 The body of Christ was deliuered to Iudas Belief is takeÌ„â—…tune for yeâ—…hole state of the gospell Ioan. 3. Galat. 5. Hilarius in Matt. Matt. 26. Marc. 14 Matt. 10. Marc. 3. Luc. 6. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Marc. 14 Iudas drank yâ— which the other Apostles did Matt. 26. Iudas did not be leue well The 〈◊〉 logie Fol. 90. m. ij pagin 2. 〈◊〉 answâ—…re Victor persecutionis vand li. 1. cap. 3. Optatus lib. 6. de schisma Donat. 〈◊〉 men are worse theÌ„ dogs Heb. 10. The Fathers teach that Iudas did eate the body of Christ. 1. Cypri de coena Domini 2. Hiero. Li. 2. ad uers Io. 3. Theodorit in 3. Cor. 11 4. Chrysost Ho. deprodit 5. Augustinus in Ioà . tractat 50. 6. Leo in Ser. 1. de passione 7. Sedul in Carm. Paschali 8. Beda in Ioà . 6. 9. Theophil in Matt. 26. 10. Euthi mius 64 in Matt. Lucae 22. S. Augustin de verb. do serm 22. so expoundeth it 1. Cor. 1â—… Unworthy eating presupposeth 〈◊〉 eating Machab. li. 2. ca. 5. â—…andling 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 handling Gene. 3. An vnworthy ea â—…ng is an 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 11 Bread is takâ—… in holy scripture for all yâ— which is eaten The grek article yâ— pronoun make plam the words of S. Paule Matt. 26. This can not be spoken of two things August in loan tracta 50 Peter and Iudas to ke of one bread Lucae 22. This can meane but one thing which all the â—…postles did take a â—…ke Christ made but one gift of his â—…ody If Iudas did not eate the body neither any o ther coâ—…ld eate it The eating in Christes supper was bodily Mat. 26 â–ª Mar. 14. drink 〈◊〉 all of this and they all drank muste nedes be said of one thing Iudas dranke yâ— samethig but not to the same merite 1. Cor. 10 Sap. 16. Augusti tractat 50. in Io. Peter toke to life Iudas to death Faith was nessa ry not to yâ— drinking but to the worthy drinking Ioan. 13. 1. Cor. 11 Eating bi fayth is a 〈◊〉 to worthy 〈◊〉 of yâ— sacramtÌ„ It is one bapâ—…e to good euill Acto 2. Simon Magus was bapti â—…ed as wel as Cornelius but not so meritoriously Ephes. 4. Tit. 3. Acto 2 â–ª C. Si Sacerd de off Iudi. ordinar Chryso hom 83. in Mat. The third chapiter The Apo logie The ansâ—…e Origines in Psal. 37. Hom. 2. Basil. de Bapt. 〈◊〉 â–ª 〈◊〉 ca. vlt. Chrysost. in Ioan. Ho. 45. Cyprianus de Coena Domini Euill meÌ„ receaue yâ— SacrameÌ„ts but not the holines of them in Epist. 162. Iudas did eate our price which is yâ— reall body of Christ. Contra Crescor li. 〈◊〉 ca. 25 Christ hath both a natural and a mystical body 1. Cor 10 Euil men receaue not the vnioÌ„ which is in the mystical body August â—… Ioan. tra ctat 26. August de ciuita te Dei li. 21. c. 25 Ioan. 6. De verb. Domini Serm. 22. Grego in prim reg li. 2. Cap. 1. Beda in Lucae ca. 22. Arnobius 1. Cor. 11 Euery SacrameÌ„t hath a substaÌ„ce and an â—…ffect Euil men receaue the substance of Christs body but â—… not yâ— effect What com parisons yâ— Fathers vse in shewing yâ— good euil 〈◊〉 re ceaue one 〈◊〉 in the Sacraments The fourth Chapiter The Apo logie Fol. 24. The answere The Apo logie by his own confession defendeth the reall presence Matt. 26. A work belonging 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of Christ must haue a truth ac cording to the manhod The 〈◊〉 heresic The deliâ—… of a corporall tâ—…ing must haue some â—…t of the body The fifth Chapiter The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fol. 24. The â—…swere 〈◊〉 is by 〈◊〉 râ—…y preâ—… Christ gaue with 〈◊〉 hâ—…s yâ— which nourâ—…sheth The sixth 〈◊〉 The Apo 〈◊〉 The aunâ—… Ioan. 1. The deâ—…s oâ—… re â—…ing Christ in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supper Hilarius de trinit li. 8. Ioan. 6 Math 26 The seueÌ„ th chapter The Apo logâ—… The aunswere The â—…or des of the Aplogie The scrip 〈◊〉 call not yâ— supper of 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 Ioan. 6. The naâ—… of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt 26. Marc. 14 Lucae 22. 1. Cor 10 1. Cor. 11 The Apo logie goeth quite from the scriptures 1. Cor. 11. What vnworthy ea ting to in S. Paule The Apo logie breakâ—…th 〈◊〉 own rule The sâ—…pper of our Lorde to â—…res is no â—…acramet Malac. 1. The supper of Christ is a â—…acrifice Heb. 13. It is a tradition vnwriten that our Lords suâ—…per is a Sacrament The Apo logie Fol. 24. â—…a 8. pa. 1 Nor baptim nor yâ— supper is called a sacrament in yâ— scriptures The wor de SacrameÌ„t is yâ— ground oâ—… 〈◊〉 yâ—â—…ro testars â—…o 〈◊〉 in our Lordes supper The Apo logie fleeth from yâ— writen worâ—… to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man is to be heard who saieth This is not the body of Christ.
Gal. 5. Ephe 5. The Apo logiâ—… brin gâ—…th vâ—… from yâ— holy Scripture to the Fathers The eigth chapiter Aug. dâ—… bono coÌ„ iugal ca. 24. Mariage among ChristiaÌ„s is a Sacrament Priesthâ—… is a Sacrament The substance of yâ— Sacrament tarieth in an eâ—…ill priest remoued from his office Augu. eoÌ„ tra Don. li. 5. c. 20 Ambros. lib. 1. de Paenit cap. 7. SeueÌ„ Sa cramâ—…ts were proâ—… 〈◊〉 yâ— Greeks Latins in yâ— CouÌ„cell of Fâ—…oreÌ„ce Heretikes eâ—…eme nei ther scriptures nor Fatheâ—…s The Apo logie pretendeth scriptures til it may set vp an idol of his own The nynthe chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere The supper of our Lord is a sacrament Dion de Ec. Hier. cap. 3. Maxim in schol Graecis â—…sius acknowledgeth moe SacrameÌ„ts then twaine Ca. 4. 5. 6. de Ecclesiast Hierarâ—…hia The Apo logie is coÌ„ strained to beleue many veri ties vnwriten Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Mark 14 Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 10. 11. The apologie skippeth the writen veâ—… The Apo logie is full oâ—… gloses but not of scriptures Math. 26 Heretikes loue not the gospel Matt. 26. Actor 5. Euery way the SacrameÌ„ 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 The figâ—…re and yâ— truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The. x. Chapiter Ioan. 1. Christ hath two natures in one persoÌ„ Galat. 3. 1. Tim. 2. 1. IoaÌ„ 5. 10. Man consisteth of two parts The Sacraments consist of 〈◊〉 parts Ioan. 3. Mat. 28. Tit. 3. In ep 23. ad Bonifacium The signe and thing signified stand toge ther. Mat. 28. Mat. 26 â–ª Marc 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Homil. de Iudae proditio ne Christ câ—… not instiâ—… a false signe The. xi chapiter Diuerse signâ—…s are in yâ— Euâ—… †1. †2. †3. †4. †1. The Words of â—…tion arâ—… yâ— first signe †2. Christes toke hath in it the truth 〈◊〉 Ioan. 11. 1. IoaÌ„ 5. What a Saâ—…rament is De coÌ„secratione 〈◊〉 2. cap â–ª Saâ—… Luc. 22. If the bo dy be not made the wordes make a fal se token Psal. 58. Facere is to doe and make When the order of Priesthoâ—… was geuè to the Apostles Lucae 22. Matt. 16. A figuratiue speach doth not signifie till it be vnderstaÌ„ded August de doctr Christ. li. 2. ca. 1. This is my body either doth signi fie nothing or it signifieth the body of Christ. Simple men can not vnder stand how the sigâ—…e may â—…e called â—…y yâ— name oâ—… the thinâ—… The Apo stles were simple men Actor 4. If Christes words haue not their first meaning they must sound to diuerâ—…e meÌ„ diuersly The Apo logie is coÌ„ futed by his own sayingâ—… Ioan. 20. words must be taken as they commonly sound The Apo logie falsifieth the words of Christ. The chief words of a SacrameÌ„t must not be vnproper An obscure saying is no sensible signe It is against the nature of an holy signe or sacrament not to signific plain â—…y Antichrist could not take away the whole faith if some part 〈◊〉 not called in â—…oubt beâ—…ore The. xij Chapiter The â—…rgu ment of he â—…es The supper of our Lord is his body â–ª because it is a signe thereof instituted by him self Ioan. 1. August Psal. 73. 1. Tim. 3. 1. Pet. 2. The true conception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 with the signe thereof Lucae 1. Matth. 8. Cleansing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in deed 〈◊〉 the word is 〈◊〉 Matth. 9. 〈◊〉 be forgeueÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sâ—…d 〈◊〉 Christ. Math. 11. Those mi racies were don in deed which were beâ—… Marci 7. The eares were opened 〈◊〉 deed when it was sayd be yâ— opened Math. 13. Parables wâ—… vsed in teachig but not in doing Ioan. 20. Christ rather did theÌ„ taught in his supper 1. Pet. 1. The. xiii Chapiter The wordes of the Sacrament be not figuratiue The Fathers calling yâ— supper of Christ a figure meane not a figure of Rhetoâ—… Epiphanius li. 1. To. 2. Her 30. Esaiae 7. The signes of Christ are miraculouse The Sacraments of Christ are secret tokens The 〈◊〉 of Christes Chur che be geâ—… to the 〈◊〉 therâ—…ore are â—…ble Luc. 22. Psal. 110. Ciprian de coena Domini August in manuali cap. 11. Chrysos de sacerdot lib. 3. Damasc. de orthod fid li. 4. c. 14. Euseb. li. 5. demoÌ„ cap. 3. Beda in hom vidit Iesus c. Basilius in Litur Gregor Nyssen in orat de paschate Hieron in Leui. Nicepho rus lib. 1. cap. 28. The. xiiij Chapiter The â—…rence betwen â—…res of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The figures of Christ are mysticall Matt. 28. Matt. 26. â—…oyes iudge the figures of God to be figures of grammer Heretikes name what figure of grammer it is 〈◊〉 things Mysticall words Ephes. 5. Math. 28. Ioan. 15. In Ioan. tract 80. Elementum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August in â—…oan tract 80. â—…n things in a Sacrament August coÌ„t Donat li. 5. cap. 19. 20. August coÌ„t Ep. Parmen li. 2. c. 12. Chrysost in Epist. ad Roma Hom. 16 August in Ioan. tracta 5. Ambros. de Sacra li. 4. c. 4. 5. Chryso hom de prodiâ—…i Iudae August de dâ—…ct Christi li. 2 ca. 3. August de Magistro The wordes of Christes supper doe not sig nifie a figure of his body If Christes wordes be siguratiue they make nothing at all Words doe all 〈◊〉 they doe by signifying Lucae 22. Math. 28 The word of God hath geuen hoâ—…ur to words Body doth sigâ—…i sie yâ— substance but not the sigure of a body How Christes body is a figure The. xv Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere It is the body of Christ which setteth his death before vs not bread and wine Lucae 22. 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 11 Hom. 83. in Maâ—…h Damascenus de orthod side li. 4. cap. 14. Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 28. Ioan. 20. 1. Cor. 11 The. xvi Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere Lucae 22. Chrysost in Hom. 26 in Math. Chrysostom Hom. 51. in Math. Lucae 22. The. xvii Chapiter The Apo logie The aunswere Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 Bread wine was not yâ— table that Christ pre pared Lucae 22. Hom. 82 in Math. The hand toÌ„ ge receaue â—…he same body yâ— the hart doth Why the supper of Christ is called the SacrameÌ„t of the altar Malach. 1 De ciuit Dei li. 10 cap. 6. Lucae 22. Psal. 22. Prou. 9. 1. Cor. 10 August li. 9. confes ca. 13. Math. 26 Ioan. 6. Cyrillus li. 10. c. 13 in Ioan. Tertul. in lib. de resurrec carnis Ireneus aduersus haereses li. 4. c. 34. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apo logie The aunswere By what meanes yâ— Lords sup per is aba sed now in EnglaÌ„â—… The Apo logie nameth yâ— ho nouring of Christes body the worshipping of bread No substanciall thing is wrought in Christes supper by the Sacramentaries doctrine What the Catholikes beleue to be wrought The. xix Chapiter The Apo logie The 〈◊〉 The Apo logie â—…peaketh 〈◊〉 meanerâ—… euill
the holy scriptures and to the holy Fathers ye haue appealed By the holy Scriptures and Fathers your doctrine shal be tried â–ª The Catholikes neuer feared to be tried by the holy Scriptures but they alwayes feared to abuse them For we yâ— know in dede what holy Scripture is are so carefull how to behaue ourselues reuerently and semely about the same that we lightly vse not to allege any part thereof to proue any rare and harde matter vnlesse we shew some auncient Fathers or Councell to haue expounded that peece of Scripture before vs in suche sorte sense as we by the witnes thereof desyre to persuade and confirme But otherwise the Catholikes neuer refused the triall of the â—…oly Scriptures as yâ— which they alwayes both studied loued Do not the writings of S. Beruard in manner wholy consist of continuall testimonies taken out of holy Scripture Did not Petâ—…â—…ombardus lernedly comment the Psalmes the Episâ—…s of S. Paule and other parcels of Gods word â–ª Did not S. Thomas of Aquin write so vpoÌ„ Iob Esaias Ieremias S. Mathew S. Iohn S. Paule the Canonicall epistles and the Apocalips that he vseth to expound one hard place by an other as nighe as thâ—… thing will suffer Did not Nicolaus de Lyra Dionysius the Carthusian Paulus Burgensis Caietanus the Cardinall with diuerse other expound the whole Bible or make notes vpon it wold they haue don so except they had ben specially delighted with the word of God More ouer when heresies arose in our dayes Did not Contarenus Sadoletus Polus â—…osius 〈◊〉 Gropper Tapper Eckius Pighius Petrus and Dominicus of Soto Miranda Uillegagnon Ioannes a Louanio with diuerse other coâ—…ince those heresies by the holy Scriptures and Fathers And yet as though we brought nothing at all for defence of the Catholike faith out of the word of God or primitiue Churche so dothe the penner of this Apologie more to his discredite then to ours falsely and vnhonestly reporte But now to shew the better his falsehood and dishonestie I thought good for my part to set soorth such holy Scriptures and suche witnesses of the primitiue Churche as plainly confirme the Catholike belefe concerning the chefe matter which at this day is in controuerâ—…e betwixt vs and them The chefe question is about the blessed Sacrament of the altar Our belefe is that after consecration duely made the body blood of Christ is really present vnder the formes of bread and wine The Apologie teacheth other wise as now it shall appeare But whereas there are many questions in this behalfe as of the reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of the masse of communion vnder one kind of receauing alone of râ—…tion of the Sacrament and of suche other I will beginne 〈◊〉 with the matter of reall presence which iâ—… the grounde of all the rest not despayring to haue at other tymes more leasure to handle also the other questions So much therefore as in the Apologie belongeth to the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar I will faithfully set foorth and trie the truth of that doctrine by Gods word and by the holy Fathers Neither let any man be offended yf I seme to kepe no good order in so much as I make no new methode of myne owne but follow the order of the Apologie which sodenly and abruptly thus intreth in to yâ— question ¶ It is proued by the word of God that euill men receaue the body of Christ in his supper WE do expresly pronounce that in the supper vnto suche as beleue there is truly geuen the body and blood of the Lord. This doctrine being called to yâ— word of God to yâ— iudgement of holy Fathers for his triall will appere false forged Because the holy scripture teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be truly delyuered not only to such as do beleue but euen to wicked men who in their workes haue deuied their faith howsoeuer they kepe it or geue it ouer in hart Iudas one whole yere before the last supper was called a deâ—…ll for so much as Christ knew that he wold betray and sell him vnto yâ— Iewes Which it is not to be thought that Iudas wold haue don if he had bene of the true belefe that Christ was the Sonne of God God him self And yet the body and blood of Christ was truly deliuered vnto him Who although he had beleued the diuine power of Christ yet he had not beleued as we now take beleuing for the fulfilling and perfoorming of all that which belongeth to the state and lawe of the new Testament According as it is written Vt omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam That euery man which beleueth in him may not perish but haue euerlasting life Such a belefe workiâ—…g by charitie Iudas had not And yet he receaued the body and blood of Christ. For albeit some auncient Fathers thought that Iudas went out before the supper of Christ yet farre the greater part teache otherwise And it is much more agreable to the word of God How proue I that S. Mark writeth that Christ came with the twelue S. Mathew sayeth Christ sate down with the twelue and whiles they were eating he gaue his body and blood S. Luke agreeth vpon the very same number and vpon the same gift Among the twelue Iudas is rekoned in S. Mathew S. Mark S. Luke and S. Iohn And whiles they were at supper which they besyde the twelue Iesus tooke bread and blessed and gaue thanks and brake and gaue to them To which them I pray you but vnto the twelue that came with him and sate with him to yâ— twelue therefore he gaue and said Take eate this is my body And taking the chalice he gaue thanks and gaue them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament Which is or shal be shed â—…or the remission of synnes Et biberunt ex illo omnes And all drank of it Which all if not the twelue Iudas therefore being one of the twelue had the body blood of Christ deliuered to him For Christ said Take eate and drinke ye all of this And as they dranke all so is there no doubt but they all did take and eate therefore Iudas tooke that which Christ deliuered But Christ witnessed himselfe to deliuer his owne body saying Take and eate this is my body And drink ye all of this for this is my blood Therefore the body and blood of Christ was deliuered vnto Iudas And sith Iudas did not beleue the body and blood of Christ was truely delyuered to some such as did not beleue We nowe call these defenders to be tried by the holy Scriptures We make it appere yâ— they haue seuered them selues from Christ from the Prophetes from the Apostles we stagger not we flee not it is Gods