that none other thing can 〈◊〉 inferred vpon those words then what thing this is as we saie or what thing this bread doth signifie as the Sacramentaries teache Admit now it were expresly said this bread is the signe of Christes body which sense is salsely ascribed to those words by the Zuinglians yet it wold not follow therevpon that the body of Christ is promised to our soules but only that by this bread we are brought to remember Christ. Now as for eating it is commanded and not promised Caluin had the cheif property of an heretike which was to be singular And therein he delighted so much that albeit he was determined not to tarie in the faith wherein he was Christened yet he wold neither goe to Luther who first withdrew himself from vs nor to Zuinglius whose sect he fauored rather but he wold make a religion of his own And therfore he deuised a new sense of Christes words Affirming This is my body not to be spoken to the bread as both Catholiks Lutherans and Zuinglians after diuers meanings doe confesse but to be words of preaching made vnto the people that stand about the Priest and that these words promise the body of Christ to al that beleue his death and resurrection as verily as that bread is really eaten into their bodies and yet neither be the words conceiâ—…ed in the manner of promising neither do they speake of faith or death or of the resurrection of Christ or of eating bread Is not this a strang sense to pick out of these words This is my body as if it were said Masters beleue that Christ is dead and risen again and then as this bread is eaten of your bodies so certainly shal you fede of his body in faith spirit Did â—…uer any man heare of such a 〈◊〉 Hoc This doth signifie and shew to Caluin the bread which must be eaten at the supper of Christ and pointeth also to a spirituall food which is promised Est Is doth stand both properly for the present time in yâ— it is a signe of Christes body at the tyme of speaking and also vnproperly for the tyme to come in that it is a promise of his body to be eaten spiritually Corpus meum My body doth signifie to him the signe of my body taken by mouth and the streÌ„gth or vertue therâ—…of that shal be taken by faith and spirit Put together This bread which you bodily eate is the signe this thing which I promise that your soules shall eate shall be the streÌ„gth or efficacie of my body and yet he addeth farther of his owne to them that beleue Christes death and resurrection This is the sermon which Caluin saith was made at Christes supper Wherein euery word must signifie at once two or three things and one verb in one tense must signifie two tymes and the same word body must signifie two proprieties and yet neither of them both properly For whether body stand for signe of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of bread it standeth vnproperly or whether iâ—… stand for efficacie of body as he wold haue it taken in respect of the communicants it standeth vnproperly whereas the proper signification thereof is to signifie the substance of Christes body If we presse him out of S. Paul and out of the Fathers that euil men eate the body of Christ then he will answere they eate the signe of his body without promise or efficacie If we saie that good men eate the body of Christ he expoundeth it in such sense that they first haue it promised them â—…ate both a certain pledge bodily and in their soules a spirituall efficacie thereof O crafty deuiser If thou canst thus deceaue a sort of miserable and either vnlerned or vngraciouse men thinkest thou to deceaue God or to escape his terrible iudgement Agree at the last how euery word shal be so taken that thy interpretation maie be like it self Let not the same word be now a signe now a pledge now a promise now an efficacie now again no efficacie no promise no pledge but only a signe We beleue that euery word standeth properly And that both euill and good receaue one and the same substance of Christes body But as one medicine receaued of two diuerse complexions worketh not one effect so the good men haue a good effect by eating worthely the body of Christ the euill haue condemnation by eating it vnworthely Thus we take the word body for the reall substance of the body the verb est is we take properly because it is in dede Christes body when the words are spoken This we saie doth finally point to the substance of Christes body as then prâ—…ently made vnder the foorm of bread In our interpretation there is no inconstancy no impropriety no changing of significations in the same words no bare promising of a thing to come bâ—…t a present perfoormance If any man aske by what scriptures I conuince Caluin I wold first â—…now by what scriptures he proueth his lewed interpretation Shall he speake a thing without scripture beside all truthe and reason and shall not we be credited vnlesse we conuince him by scripture Howbeit let vs forgeue that iniurie and confute his fond â—…pinioÌ„ by the word of God Caluin saith This ys my body be words of promise against which saing thus I reason S. Paule intending to shew that God was not bound to the carnall Iewes because they were the childern of Abraham by flesh but that rather he wold reward them who were the children of Abraham by faith and spirit declareth Isaac to haue ben the child of promise because the Angell said to Abraham Secundum hoc tempus veniam erit Sarae filius I will come according to this tyme and a sonne shal be vnto Sara out of which words S. Paule proueth a promise How so Promissionis enim hoc verbum est For this word or saing is a word of promise which word is that Veniam I will com filius â—…rit a sonne shal be as if S. Paule said wil shall be words of promise For when a speache is conceiued for the tyme to come with 〈◊〉 circumstance that it maie appere the speaker meant to warrant the thing spoken it maketh a promise If I will come and 〈◊〉 sonne shal be are words of promise I am come and a sonne is be words of perfoormance and that is also conâ—…irmed out os the word of God Where it is writâ—…n the Lord visited Sara as he had promised and fulfilled the things which he spake and she conceiued and brought foorth a sonne at yâ— tyme wherein god had foreâ—…old 〈◊〉 that which was before in S. Paul named a promise is â—…ow called also a foretelling or prediction For albeit euery prediction be not a promise yet euery promise is a prediction and a telling before hand so that we haue in the word of God that a promise telleth a
written This is 〈◊〉 figure of my bodie Secundarily thei can bring no Church where the bodie of Christ was not confessed worshipped and 〈◊〉 Thirdly they haue no generall 〈◊〉 where it was euer said that the wordes of Christ are 〈◊〉 and worke not his bodie present Thereunto they will straight take exception affirming that all yâ— first six huÌ„dred yeres cooke the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue and nedes they must say so muche for 〈◊〉 they should saie nothyng at all But what 〈◊〉 we to that saying of theirs Uerily we 〈◊〉 that it is a mayn lye an impudent assertion a fond imagination as the which hath no ground at all in the first six hundred yeres Which thing although yt may be proued many wayes yet in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is most inuincibly declared by three 〈◊〉 The former is in so muche as diuers holy Fathers 〈◊〉 vs most instantly to beleue the wordes wherin Christ said This ys my body and This ys my bloode although they seme to be agaynst naturall reason and sense and yet no wise man wil requier vs to beleue figuratiue wordes The second is because the same Fathers teach expresly the adoration of that 〈◊〉 and blood of Christe which is in the holy mysteries which 〈◊〉 on the altar and table which is taken into the handes mouthes and bodies of Christian men The third reason is because the holie Fathers teach that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ in the worthy recenuing of the blessed Sacrament of his supper All these thinges shal be declared God willing in their places We haue therefore iust cause not to graunt our aduersaries the first six hundred yeres And although we had not so iust cause to shewe the first six houdred to stand so playnlie for vs yet how ys yt possible that they or any man aliue can be sure of the opinion of that age The scriptures that should teache them what thei owght to â—…ue sounde an other waie â–ª The practise of the Churche which hath deriued to vs their custome and vse doth informe vs of a contrary meaning By what meanes then come oure aduersaries to assure them selues of the first six hundred yeres It is cleâ—…ely impossible that any man should haue any sufficient ground whereby to know that the first six hundred yeres were of the 〈◊〉 or Sacramentarie iudgement For the wrytinges of the Fathers whiche only they pretend cannot informe them of any suche their minde for so muche as none of them all writeth so fauorably for them that he hathe gone aboute once to proue that the bodie of Christ is not vnder that which the Priest blesseth or hath warned the people to beware of idolatrie or hath vsed suche words in that behalfe as the Sacramentaries of oure tyme do vse And yet suerlie a lyke fayth wolde hauâ—… browght foorthe a lyke doctrine Now where they call the Sacrament a figure and holie signe that doth not withstand the reall presence any whit but rather proueth it to him who considereth the signe we speake of not to be a signe made by men whose tokens do signifie thâ—… truth absent but institued by Christ who maketh reall truth in euerie Sacrament vnder a holy signe therof To be shorte there is nothinge to be sene or readen in the auncient Fathers concerninge the matter of the Sacrament but the same hath bene alwayes acknowleged of the Catholikes for good and sound doctrine euen continually all thies nine hundred yeres when if they had thought otherwise they might withowt reprouffe of any man before BereÌ„garius or after his tyme haue condemned what booke they lysted But no Papist were he neuer so muche addicted to the real presence of Christes body in the Sacrament did find fault with any Catholike Father of the first six hundred 〈◊〉 Undowtedlie because he neuer sawe worde in them against his owne opinion Or tell me doth S. Thomas doth Sâ—…otus doth Nicolaus de Lira doth Dionysius Larthusianus accuse anie Father of the first six hundred yeres as not thynkinge well of the Sacrament No suerlie And that is because they neueâ—… founde in them but the same docteine which them selues beleued and tawght And yet as sone as Berengarius began his newe doctrine euerie lerned man founde fault with yt Likewise with 〈◊〉 with â—…uinglins and with Iohn Caluin It is therfore euident seinge no Catholike nother hathe bene before Luters time nor is nowe offended with the olde Fathers doctrine concerninge the reall presence of Christes body and yet euerie of them is offended with the Sacramentaries doctrine that the Sacramentaries teache not as the olde Fathers did and agayne that the Sacramentaries cannot be suer that their doctrine is found in the olde Fathers For if yt were there to he found why should not Catholikes find yt there as well as they Or what one word can be brought sorthe of them so plainly denyinge the reall presence of Christes body vnder the forme of bread as we are able to bringe forth certayne hundred places wherin the said reall presence is earnestly affirmed Admitte the Fathers doctrine were vncertayne were dowtfull obscure yet cowld oure aduersaries neuer be sure therby that the fyrst six hundred yeres were with them Admitte some of them semed rather to fauoure theire side then owrs whiche is vtterly false yet the plaine word of God the plaine generall Councelles the faith of all nations by the space of nine hundred yeres owght to preuaile before the probable and apparant sayenges of a fewe men But nowe seinge the Fathers of the first six hundred yeres are so clerelie for vs that oure aduersaries are forced to excuse the expresse witnesses of S. 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome S. 〈◊〉 alleged for the reall presence of Christes bodie as spoken by plaine hyperbole which in them that professe to teach the Catholike faith is no lesse to say then that these Fathers make rhetoricall lyes in wryting of the blessed â—…ucharist seing they are constrayned to deuie certaine workes of the verie most auncient as of Dionysius Areopagita of S. Ignatius of S. Polycarpus of Abdias of S. Clement of Anacletus of 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 yea of S. Ambrose and of suche like because their sayings are to 〈◊〉 agaynst them seing all that dispute now a dayes with the 〈◊〉 presse them with nothing more customably then with the autoritie of the auncient Fathers Now to saie they leaâ—…e to the first six hundred yeres when the holie scriptures and auncient Fathers generall Counceils and 〈◊〉 tradition maketh agaynst them he that listeth to consyder how 〈◊〉 how vilely how impudently it is pretended may in all other assertions mistrust them as men for great synnes geuen ouer vnto their owne lewd phantasie withowt they repent and call agayne to the holie Ghost for more grace and better vnderstanding M. Nowel in the preface prefixed before the reprouf of M. Dormans prouf semeth to haue
shewed a litle before that they were after consecration the body and blood of Christ. Therefore the mysticall signes are vnderstanded to be the body and blood not because they be not so but because they are so for that they were made his body blood and so they are beleued to be and are adored or â—…neled bowed vnto But how percase as bearing the image and signes of the body and blood of Christ No Syr. but as being in dede the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being those things which they are vnderstaÌ„ded and beleued to be They are adored because they are the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being and the word as meaneth in that place a truth of being as if it were verè existeÌ„tia quae creduntur being in dede things whiche they are beleued to be So speaketh S. Ihon saying of Christ vidimus gloriam eius gloriaÌ„ quasi vnigeniti à patre we saw his glory a glory as of the only begotten of the Father to wit we saw the glory of him being in dede the only begotten of his Father Uppon which place Theophylact saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English as is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likenesse but that coÌ„firmeth and betokeneth an vndouted determination as when we see a king comming forth with great glory we say that he came forth as a king that is to say he came forth as being in dede a king So that by the iudgement of Theophylact that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Thedorite vseth doth betoken an vndoubted being and determinate truth of that thing whereof we speak The holy mysteries are adored as being those things in dede which they are beleued to be This place is such as can not be reasonably answered vnto For the reason of adoring or geuing godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is because it is in dede the body of Christ as it is beleued to be But it is beleued to be the body of Christe after consecration therefore it is adored as being yâ— true body of Christ. For Theodorete before hauing confessed the mysteries to be called after consecration the body and blood of Christ when it was demanded farther doest thou beleue that thou receauest the body and blood of Christ he answered to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita credo I doe beleue so Now therefore he affirmeth those mystical signes to be in deede after consecration the body and bâ—…ood of Christ which they are beleued to be and so beleued that they are receaued of vs. Euery word must be weighed because we haue to do with Heretikes who must find shifts or els theyr deceite will appere to al the world First therefore let it be marked that after consecration the mysteries are called the body and blood Secondly that the mysteries are vnderstanded to be the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly that they are made so Fourthly they are beleued to be so Fiâ—…tly they are adored for that they are in dede those things which they are beleued to be And last of all they are receaued The first saying the second and the last the Sacramentaries can beare â—…ithall to wit that they are called the body and blood and are vnderstanded to be the body and blood and that the body and blood are receaned For they would haue them called so and not be so thereby making the namer of them a myssecaller as one that calleth them by a wrong name SecoÌ„dly they would haue them vnderstanded to be the body and blood and yet not to be so thereby shewing that they delight in false vnderstandings for no good men would haue a thing vnderstanded to be that which in deede it is not Againe they would the body blood to be receaued How trow you In the faith of the man but not in the truth of the body thereby declaring that they diuide faith from truth as men that haue a presuasion of things that in dede be not so But to calling vnderstanding and receauing Theodoret ioyneth also beleuing adoring and being And the beleâ—…e which he speaketh of is not referred to heaueÌ„ but vnto the holy mysteries They are beleued they are adored as being those things which they are beleued to be The thing that is called or named Christes body blood is in dede that thing whiche it is called Christ can missename nothing at al. For if he should call that which were before aier water or earth by the names of fier stones or bread aier earth and water would soner cease to be fyre bread stones would come in theyr place theÌ„ God should cal any creature by a wroÌ„g name He called bread his body therefore bread is vnderstaÌ„ded to be made the body of Christ. You say the vnderstaÌ„ding of man taketh his beginning of senses which tel me it is bread I say in matters belonging to faith my vnderstanding is informed by Gods word which telleth me it is the body of Christ and Theodorete saith it is beleued so to be and it is worshipped for that it is so And he geueth the same very word of worshipping to the holy mysteries the which in the same sentence he geueth to the immortall body of Christ sitting at the right hande of his Father And no wonder For seing it is one body whether it be worshipped in heauen or vpon the altar one worship is always due to it Thus we haue witnessed by Theodoretus that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored not as the signes of his body aad blood but as being in dede his body and blood Therefore worship is not geuen to them as to images whiche represent a thing absent but as to mysticall signes which really conteine the truth represented by them ¶ The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is proued by the custom of the Priests and people of the first six hundred yeres FRom the Apostles tyme to this day the very same holy mysteries which were consecrated by the Priest vppon the altar were adored of the saithful people which thing is euidently proued out of the Massebooke of the primitiue Church For the Liturgies or Massesbookes of S. Iames the Apostle of S Clement Bishop of Rome of S. Basill Bishop of Cesarea of S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and the exposition which both S. Dionysius Bishop of Athens of Paris Cyrillus Bishop of Hierusalem Germanus Bishop of Constantinoplâ—… Maximus the munk and diuers others haue made vpon the holy mysteries do al with one accord teache and confirme that first the Deacon said Let vs be attent with the feare of God and with reuerence And straight therevppon euen before the tyme of receauing the body and blood of Christ the Bishop or Priest who said Masse
say we then This is my body which is geuen for you are they words of promise or no I answere Words of promise may be taken for suche as make a promise or els for suche as haue a promise made cōcerning them Those who beleue in God as Isaac did are named in holy scripture the children of promise not of that promise which themselues make to God but because through the grace of God which he promised before to Abraham in his blessed sede Iesus Christ they are made his chil dren And in that sense This is my body which is geuen for you may be called words of promise in so much as they fulfil at Christes supper the promise made before at Capharnaū When Christ sayd work the meate which the sonne of man will geue you and the bread which I wil geue is my flesh Again these words which is geuen for you at the tyme of Chri stes supper might stand to signifie which shal be geuen for you and so the old Fathers did reade them and the Latin copies of S. Paule haue so at this daye But the◅ the promise was to be consydered concerning the death of Christ which was to come and not concerning his supper which was present Caluin speaking of Christes supper as it is a supper saith this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise and that not because they are iustified concerning a former promise made at Capharnaum neither concerning the death which is now past but because they make a promise of Christes body to be spiritually eaten at his supper For he saith those words were not spoken to the bread wine but vnto the disciples to whom Christ pollicetur promiseth the communicating of his body and blood Also he saith the promises are offered to the faithfull together with bread and wine Moreouer let vs vnderstand saith he these words to be a liuely preaching which maie shew his efficacie in the accomplishement of that it promiseth First these words be a breif collation or sermon Secondly they promise the cōmunicating of Christes ◅ody Thirdly they being receaued of the faithfull bring forth in them that effectual eating of Christ which they promise Last of al he saith Take eate is the commandement like vnto Inuoca me call vpon me This is my body is the promise like vnto Exaudiam te I will heare the. I am the longer in shewing his mind because I feared it might be thought of wise men a great slaunder to faine so folish an opinion vpon a man taken for wise and lerned For it semeth an extreme madnesse to affirm that those words which shew a thing really present and bid vs take the same are notwithstanding words of promise At the transfiguration of Christ it was said this is my derebeloued sonne in whom I haue delighted heare him But who was euer so mad as to think that Christ was promised in those words and not rather shewed present Likewise when Christ said to him that had the palsey take a good hart sonne thy sinnes are forgeuen thee we beleue his sinnes were presently forgeuen him and not only a promise made that hereafter they should be forgeuen A promise lacketh many conditions which the performance hath A promise beginneth the bargain the perfoormance endeth at the least some part of it A promise consisteth in bare words the perfoormance besyde words hath dedes also ioyned A pr◅ mise belongeth to the time to come the performance to the tyme present A promise maie be differred to a certain daie or suspended with conditions the perfoormance must ◅edes be altogether without delay And how can these words Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you be words of promise which neither speake of the time to come but of the present neither begyn but end the couenant nor consist in bare talk but also in reall dedes nor haue any condition or delay annexed but haue all things presently said signified made and deliuered If this is my body make to y◠hearers a promise of a spirituall communicating then seing those words were spoken to Iudas one of the twelue and are daily spoken to euil men without any condition or exception it maie seme that a spirituall communicating is promised to them which possibly can not be so For how can light and darknesse agree But if Caluin saie these words promise the body of Christ only to the faithfull I aske whether those words be writen in the supper of Christ or no If they be not writen how dareth Caluin supply them It is not said this is my body to you only that be faithfull as Caluin vseth falsely to interprete those words But it is absolutely said This is my body whosoeuer take it and eate it whether he take it by faith to his comfort and to euerlasting life or in deadely sinne to his iudgement and death For as God the Father said This is my derebeloued sonne and as thereof it foloweth that the person then shewed and pointed vnto by y◠voice was y◠sonne of God in dede whether euill men had to doe with him to whom he was y◠sauour of death or good men to whom he was the sauour of life right so this is my body was said of one certain thing then blessed be the man y◠cometh to eate it good or bad And as this is my derebeloued ◅ne are no words of promise but of a diuine witnes ◅oward Christ euen so this is my body promise not but witnesse and make presently the thing shewed to be in dede Christes body If this is my body doe promise the body of Christ yet this must nedes shew where the thing is whereunto it pointeth the body of Christ which is promised is also pointed vnto and the sense is I will geue you this thing to eate which is my body and by that meanes the eating is promised and the body is pointed to but the pointing can be directed to none other sensible thing but vnto that which semeth bread therfore that is affirmed to be Christes body and is promised to be geuen vs as meat bu◅ bread is not naturally the body of Christ therfore it is made his body And consequently Caluin who will haue these words to promise the ◅ing of Christes body by faith must nedes confesse that they make the same body in dede to th'◅nd the promise of eating that body which is so directly pointed vnto maie be fulfilled Howbeit Christ said not I will geue you my body but presently geuing said take eate this is my body But seing Caluin teacheth this that is pointed vnto still to remain bread I see not how those words which as he saith point vnto bread can withall promise the body of Christ. For the proposition is simple and affirmeth but one thing and that thing doth concerne the substāce as we beleue of Christes body as he saith of bread so
thing before hand yea that a promise is conceiued for the time to come For it could not be told before hand if it were not to come in respect of him to whom it is told But these words This is my bâ—…dy do not tell a thing before hand they doe not belong to the time to come but vnto the time present therefore they be not words of promise they do not saie this shal be my body but this is my body Who knoweth not that there are three differences of tyme one paâ—… an other present the third to come out of question a promise iâ—… self is of a thiÌ„g to come therfore the words of promising must nedes be words that may beloÌ„g to the time to come For the nature of the time is applied to the nature of the thig except they be suche words as being inuented principally to signifie yâ— present bond of that thing to come do contein at once eche strength in them as when we say polliceor spondeo ê“mitto I promise then it is all one to say â–ª I promise to geâ—…e or I will geue which thig is proued by yâ— custom of all nations which speak so and by the autoritie of the auncient ciuilians who when they bound men most strâ—…ightly to words and termes yet they gaue them leaue to say any of these following as being all of equall power Spondes spondeo Promittis promitto Fideiubes 〈◊〉 Dabis dabo Facies faciam Where these words are put for words of like meaning aâ—…d sense doest thou promise or wilt thou geue or wilt thou doe al which induce and make both a promise and an obligation of words Whereby we lern yâ— words of promise either must be vttered by expressing the name of promise as if Christ should saie I pâ—…omise him the eating of my body who 〈◊〉 eateth with saith this bread or â—…ls must be 〈◊〉 in the fâ—…ure tense as if it were said Take cate this shal be my body to you but seing neither of both is don it is a vain folly to saie that words of present affirmation words oâ—… working consecrating be words of promise or of preaching Yea but God speaketh not to the bread saith Caluin that it should be made his body But he commandeth his Disciples to eate and he promiseth them the communicating of his body and blood In dede God saith to his Disciples take and eate But that is a commandement and no promise He saith farther this is my body and that is the making of the meate which must be eaten and the shewing of it but no promise For Christ maketh his supper ready by dede alone or by his word dede together by dede alone in taking bread by his word and dede together in blessing and saying this is my body which words turn the substance of bread into his body so that these words doe not promise any thing but they perfoorm an old promise made before at Capharnaum What saie we then to 〈◊〉 words who affirmeth that Christ spake not to the bread that it should be made his body but that he spake to his Disciples I answere he spake yâ— words eate and take to his Disciples but he spake these words this is my body to the bread or as the Catholiks rather vse to speake ouer the dread and vpon the bread But yet we might saie very well and truly that Christ spake to the bread euen as he is reaâ—… to haue commanded the windes and they cessed and to haue spoken to the figtree when he said let sruite neuer spring more of the. And as he said the Apostles hauing faith should speake to any certain hil Transi hine illuc transibit passe from this place to that and it shall passe from hence The speaking of God or of his ministers to any creature whether it be a reasonable a sensible or a diuine creature is the signisying that his wil is don alwayes vpon euery creature according as it pleaseth him neither â—…oth it skyll in what foorm of words he speaketh seing that somtime he is readen to saie Volo I will Mundare â—…e thou cleanied Somtime he saith Sicut credidisti â—…iat tibi be it don to the as thou 〈◊〉 beleued Somtime he cureth by touching alone without words Somtime he saith in the present tense RemittaÌ„tur tibi pec 〈◊〉 tua thy sinnes are forgeueÌ„ thee And thereuÌ„to these words of his supper are like For when he toke bread and hauing bleâ—…d said This is my body His word at that instant made his body of that bread which was taken euen as these words thy synnes are forgeuen thee made a iust man of a synner The speaking therefore of God vnto creatures is the shewing of his will to be don vpon them In so much that in Iob God confesseth himself only to dispose order and command all creatures he seâ—…deth lighting 's and they goe and returning they saie to him adsumus here we are which thing they could not say except they heard his voice Therefore it is not wel said of Caluin to make it an absurd thing for bread to heare the words of Christ seing they doe not only heare but also answer in so much that an other Prophet saith the starres were called and they said Adsumus we are at haud To be short S. Paul saith that God calleth things that be not as things that be Meaning that it is no lesse easy to God by his calling or naming to make a thing to be which was not at all or els to be that which before it was not then it is to call a thing by his old name It is all one to God to saie to vs this is water which before was water and to saie of water thiâ—… is wine for at his word it is made wine as who cannot possibly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seing experience teacheth vs that all creatureâ—… will go against their own particular nature rather then the order which God hath appointed in yâ— who le world shall in any â—…oint faile seing when a quill is put into any liquour the ayer thereof drawen vp with his breath that sucketh it yâ— heauy 〈◊〉 of water will rather against his nature goe vpward then any voide or emptie place should be shall we yet wonder that Gods will is don euery where euen at yâ— speaking of his word shall not his visible 〈◊〉 make faith of his inuisible mysticall doings so thâ—…t all which will not beleue shal be inexcusabâ—…e Caluin saith Christ spake not to the bread I tell him he spake to the bread not as to a thing that should tarie bread but as to that which should be chaÌ„ged into his body for he called the bread his body will Caluin graunt me that or no If he will not I bring foorth Tertullian one that is nere haâ—…d fourtene hundred yeres old who saith that Christ called the bread his body Panem corpus
altar to offer them That offering is a vowing of them to God When are they vowed When the word of vowing or of prayer is spoken When is that prayer made S. Augustine sheweth in the same place Orationes accipimus dictas cum illud quod est in Domini mensa benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur We take prayers to be sayd when that which is on the table of our Lord is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed Mark whether S. Augustine speake like Caluin or no. that which is on the table is blessed that is sanctified that is broken that is distributed that blessing sanctifying is made by prayer that prayer is the vowing to God of that which is brought to the table which was bread and wine The word of vowing is to saye ouer it This is my body For the sense of these words is that Christ so â—…estly offereth so throughly voweth the substance of bread and wine to the honour of God that he maketh them by his almighty power the same flesh and blood of Christ which is vnited to the sonne of God in one person This only is the offering and vowing of an outward thing which came to that perfection whereunto in the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 it was destenied Because the Priest who offered it according to the order of 〈◊〉 is God as well as man The instrument of this great sacrifice the word of this prayer the execution of this vow are the words of Christ who said in the waie of blessing of thaÌ„ksgeuing oâ—… praying and of vowing or of offering to God This is my body which is geuen for you doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me Caluin wold neither haue prayer nor vow nor any sacrifice made vnto God in these words but hath with swete poysoned talk made of them a promise apreaching to the people geuing to man the 〈◊〉 of sacrifice dew 〈◊〉 God only But S. Ireneus witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and geuen thanks said This is my body and confeâ—… the chalice to be his blood Et noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationem and he taught a new oblation of the new testament Which also he proueth out oâ—… Malachie the Prophet Caluin wold the words to be spoken without working any thing vpon the brend as who should say the bread could be offered according to the state of any law or testament and yet no change of substance be made therein Caluin wold the working to be only in the minds of yâ— hearers whereas yâ— gospell teacheâ—… that Christ hauing taken bread said This is my body But Caluin imagineth that he spake not to the bread but sayd to the people this bread is a witnesse that you shall caâ—…e my body whereas the bread it self was by those words made Christes body and so made that it was his body as sone as the word was spoken So saith Bregorius Nyssenus who writeth that the bread is chaÌ„ged into the body of Christ statim vt dictum est â—… verbo Hoc est corpus meum straight as sone as it is sayd of the word of God thiâ—… is my body S. Chrysostom sheweth the words to be spoken by the Priests mouth who saith This is my body Hoc verbo propâ—… sita consecrantur With this word the things set foorth are consecrated S. Ambrose saith Vbi verba Christi operata fuerint sanguis efficitur qui plebem redâ—…it When yâ— words of Châ—…ist haus wrought the blood is made which hath 〈◊〉 the people Is it nâ—…t a great madnesse to resist theâ—…e witnesses Or can the thâ—…ngs set foorth which are 〈◊〉 and wine be consecrateâ—… be chanâ—…d â—…e made the body 〈◊〉 of Christ not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I might bring against Caluin whatsoeuer the Catholikes teache or saie of the reall presence of Christes body and blood of 〈◊〉 and of the sacrifice For 〈◊〉 word destroyeth this foolish inuention of promising and preaching It shal be now sufficient to shew that the whole East and West Church by diuerse meanes yet conformably destroye that erroneouse opinioÌ„ of Caluin In the East Church the words of consecration This is my body which is geuen for you and likewise of the blood are spoken with so lowd avoice that the whole Church maie here the Priest pronouncing them And immediatly after eche of the words the quere and people cried out Amen Which doth signific as S. Ambrose hath expounded it Verum est it is true Wherby all those Churches did signifie that the body and blood of Christ was presently made when the people affirmed it to be true and yet noman had at that tyme receaued the communion Therefore thâ—…se words This is my body which is geuen for you and this is my blood which is shed for you Which Caluin calleth words of promise made to the receauers are witnessed by yâ— who le Churâ—…h to be true presently and so to be perfoormed lâ—…g before any man receaue cither kind On the other side in the West Churche the same words are spoken secretly oâ—…er the bread and the wine and immediatly after the pronouncing of eche words the body and blood of Christ is adored of all the people because it is really conteined â—…nder the foormes of bread and wine Which auncient custome of secretly pronouncing these words This is my body shew they are neither words of promise nor of preaching If they were words of promise or of preaching they should be spoken to the people out of the chaire or pulpit or some like place But now they are spokâ—…n at the alâ—…ar of God and not at all directed to the people as the which 〈◊〉 to that office of 〈◊〉 Priesthod whereunto yâ— people is not called For as the high Bishop among the Jewes went alone and that but one day in the whole yere into the Holy of Holies in the temple of Salomon right so when the Priest goeth to consecrate the Holy of all Holies which is the body and blood of Christ it is most conneniently ordeined that he alone enter 〈◊〉 And this custom is in that West Church which S. Peter and S. Paule planted with their preaching and watered with their blood This is the Church which S. Ambrose honoured so 〈◊〉 that albeit himself in manie points followed in his seruice the 〈◊〉 rite and manner yet he openly praised the good and laudable custom of the Romane Churche saying In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam In all points I couet to follow the Romane Churche But now let vs bring a practise of the whole primatiue Churche as well in the East as in the West which so euidently doth confute the 〈◊〉 opinion of Caluin that he is sain to condeÌ„ne the Apostles them 〈◊〉 to auoide that argument For so had he rather doe yea to deny all the whole Bible then once to remoue the breadth of a 〈◊〉 from
Christ â—…ayd to the Leprouse man Be thou made cleane which words gaue a signe and token of cleansing therefore in deed he was made cleane Christ gaue a signe and token that synnes were forgeuen to him that had the palsey by these words Remittuntur tibi peccata tua Thie synnes are forgeuen the therefore in deed they were forgeuen Likewise Christ bad him take vp his bed goe home for a token that the sonne of man had power in earth to forgeue synnes therefore Christ in deed had power in earth to forgeue synnes Because his token and signe is neuer false When Iohn Baptiste had sent two of his disciples to know whether he were the man that shuld come or an other were to be looked for Christ gaue a token to the eyes and eares of the messengers that the blind sawe yâ— lame walked yâ— leepers were cleansed Therefore in deed it was so And he bad them tell S. Ihon what they had heard and seen Christ sayd to the deafe and domme man Adaperire Be thou opened and as it foloweth in the Gospell straight ways his eares were opened and the bond of his tonge loosed Thus might I goe through euery example of the whole Gospell and allways when at the doing of any thing an outward signe of an inward grace is rehersed that which the signe soundeth the grace worketh Marke well good Reader that this rule be not wreasted to that mere doctrine of Christ which he spake doing or making nothing For then I confesse many parables many obscure sayings were vttered to prouoke his audience to be humble to think of their owne ignorance to depend wholy of Christ to aske him the vnderstanding of the darke sayings But now I speake not of sole doctrine I speake of a worke that Christ maketh and of words ioyâ—…d with his worke In this case I say what so euer signe is outwardly made the same is inwardly wrought Christ sayeth to his Disciples Take ye the holy Ghost and withal he 〈◊〉 vpon them Beholde the word and the doing The outward word is a holy signe or Sacrament so is the outward doing which is breathing The inward worke is the perfoorming of thâ—… 〈◊〉 signe which the worde and breath did betoken Seing then Christ at his last supper did somewhat seing he tooke bread seing he blessed seing he brake seing he gaue seing at the tyâ—… of this outward doing and working he sayd somewhat which saying was a signe a Sacrament a figure a token a pledge a 〈◊〉 of his body we are assured by the word of God which neuer shall perish that Christ gaue at the same tyme his true body vnder the forme of that bread which he tooke and which by blessing he turned into his body Hath not now the Apologie depely reasoned Hath it not put a goodly foundation of the Sacramentarie doctrine to saye the supper of our Lord is the euident token of the body and blood of Christ thereby meaning thâ—… his body is not in dede really present wherein although it speake otherwise then the holy scripture â—…oth in the same case â—…et mangre the will of the makers thereof it proueth the Catholike faith because the signe that euery Sa crament of Christ maketh euidently to our senses is inwardly wrought in that creature whereof the signifying words are spoken By this true declaration of the nature of a Sacrament it is proued that so many Fathers as call the supper of Christ a signe or figure geue witnesse that it is also the truth it self And if the Apologie will disproue the reall presence of Christ vnder yâ— foorm of bread it must shew that his supper is not so much as a signe of his body and blood But as long as they graunt vs the sigâ—…e the word of God will conuince the truthe to be present which is signified ¶ The words of Christes supper are not figuratiue nor his token a common kind of tokens WHen I graunt the supper of Christ to be a signe a token a figure yet I do not graunt the words wherewith it is made to be figuratiue If I geue you a ring and say were this token for the remembrance of me I both geue a token of me and name a signe or token and yet my words are not figuratiue It is therefore to be noted that how many Fathers so euer call the Sacrament a figure yet none of them all teacheth these words This is my body and this is my blood to be words figuratiue For when they call it a figure they meane not a figure of Rhetorike but a mysticall figure and calling it a signe they meane not a naturall signe or token but a mysticall signe that is to say a secret and miraculous kind of token such as the state of the new Testament requireth the nature whereof is to doe that which it sayeth â–ª because Christ the speaker 〈◊〉 all that by his diuine power and substance which his word spoken by the mouth of his manhod in holy Sacraments doth vtter and signifie Now he that wold the Sacrament of Christ so to be a signe that he should not make that thing to be his body in deed whereof in word he sayeth This is my body he most wickedly denieth the Godhead of Christ. Ebion was an heretike who denying the diuine nature of Christ sayd him to be NuduÌ„ hominem a bare man Epiphanius will proue against Ebion that he is God How so Because he was geuen to the world for a signe As the holy Ghost had prophecied before of him when he sayd to Achaz Pete tibi signum ask to the a signe And for as much as he wold not ask then sayd the Prophete Ipse Dominus dabit vobis signum our Lord him self will geue you a signe Behold a virgin shall conceaue Now sayth Epiphanius Non potest is qui per omnia homo genitus est signi gratia mundo dari He yâ— is alltogether begotten as a man can not be geuen to the world for a signe For that which is customably don what signe of the Godhead could be therein Epiphanius therefore doth signifie that sith Christes birth was geuen to the world for a signe it could not be such a byrth as other men haue but it must be miraculous and the miracle stode in this point because he was truly born of a true virgin Muche more we may say sith the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath bene left vnto vs as a signe of the body and blood of Christ It could not be so if it were bare bread and wine and not in deed his body and blood what signe what secret token what miracle were in the eating and drinking of bare bread and wine if none other thing were made thereof As the ordinarie birth of man is no mere signe for Christ who is true God so the ordinarie eating of bread drinking of wine is no mete signe for
Christes Church sheweth that after our second birth nourishment is necessarie to vs straight way bringeth foorth Christes words in S. Ihon ioyning them with the words of his last supper which S. Basile sayeth to be writen in the end of the Gospels thereby geuing vs to vnderstand that as the performance was made in the end so the promise went before Is it not maruaile now that any thing should be pretended out of this blessed man for the contrarie opinion But how iustly it is pretended wee shall see afterward Gregorius of Nyssa brother to S. Basile teacheth the flesh of Christ to be a bodily thing because it is made meate for mans body That it is meate he proueth out of S. Ihon. For there only are found the chief words by him alleged which are Panis enim qui de coelo descendit qui verus cibus est non incorporea quaedam res est For the bread which came down from heauen which is the true meate is not a thing without a body Quo enim pacto sayth he res incorporea corpori cibus fiet For by what meanes will a thing which lacketh a body be made meate vnto the body Doubtlesse Christ is made meate vnto our bodies no where els but only in the SacrameÌ„t of his supper And therefore this great clerck thought him self to reason wel in bringing such words as are in S. Ihon for that effect which belongeth to the holy coÌ„munion Because he iudged both places of holy Scripture to be of one argument Cyrillus of Hierusalem intreating of the Sacrament of the altar so euidently citeth these words of S. Ihon Excepte ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man caet that noman may doubt of his meaning And because this part of my work wold be ouer long if I should staye so long vpon euery of the auncieÌ„t Fathers I besech the studiouse Reader to be content that hereafter I may in fewer words declare euery mans iudgemeÌ„t shewing him the place of the author where if it please him he may at more leisure examine all the circumstances S. Ambrose disputing of the truth of Christes flesh in the Eucharist although it selfe be not sene bringeth out of S. Ihon My flesh is meate in dede and except ye eate the flesh c. Eusebius Emissenus hauing spoken of the bread and wine of Melchisedech sheweth Christ to haue spoken of eating his own â—…esh of drinking his own blood in S. Ihon as of two kindes whereby he is receaued which is done no where but in Christes supper S. Chrysostom is so plaine herein that of those wordes the bread which I will geue is my flesh he maketh none other literal meaning but such as apperteineth to the Sacrament of Christes body And yet he expoundeth the former partes of the Chapiter indifferently of spirituall eating and drinking S. Augustine albeit he may seme vpon S. Ihon to presse most earnestly vpon the wâ—…itie which we haue with Christ by eating his â—…esh and drinking his blood and by tarying in him hauing him tarying in vs yet he meaneth not to exclude out of those wordes al Sacramentall receauing but only the vnworthy Sacramentall receauing For he sayth expresly he that tarieth not in Christ eaâ—…eth not spiritually his flesh â–ª albeiâ—… carnally and visibly he presse with his teath the SacrameÌ„t of 〈◊〉 body and blood of Christ. So that by S. Augustine there is a dubble spirituall eating of Christes flesh one without the Sacrament and an other with the Sacrament Christ so spake of both that he spake specially of the most perâ—…it which is obteined by worthy receauing of the Sacrament Out of this worthy receauing riseth that greate societie vnitie with Christ his mysticall body whereof S. Augustine so much speaketh This is the SacrameÌ„t of Godlines the signe of vnitie the bonde of chaâ—…itie Without eating of this one way or other no life euerlastiÌ„g is to be loked for by eating yâ— same wor thely in yâ— best kinde of way which is in the Sacrament of the altar the highest degree of vnitie with Christ our head is obâ—…eined As the best signe of vnitie is in the forin of this Sacrament so the best effect springeth oâ—…t of the worthy receauing of the substaÌ„ce which is vnder that form Therefore in other places S. AugustiÌ„e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words out oâ—… S. Ihon This bread wâ—…cih I wâ—…ll geue is my flesh for the life of the world to shew the Priesthod of Melchisedech which Priesthod him selfe declareth to be in the Sacrament of the altar saying Melchicedech prolato Sacramento mensae dominicae nouit aeternum eius Sacerdotium figurare Melchisedech by bringing forth the Sacrament of our Lords table did know to shew the â—…igure of his euerlasting Priesthod Furthermore S. Augustine expounding these words of S. Ihon of the last supper in very many places of his works most expresly sayth that S. Ihon spake nothing of the body and blood of our Lord in the thirtenth Chapiter where he mentioned the last supper sed plane alibi multo vberius hinc Dominum locutuÌ„ esse testatur But verily in an other place S. Ihon witnesseth our Lord to haue spoken much more copiously thereof Except S. Augustine thought yâ— sixth Chapiter of S. Ihon to appertein literally to the Sacrament of the altar he wold neuer haue sayd that S. Ihon spake not of the supper in the due place because he spake of it in an other place more copiously But of S. Augustie I will speake again hereafter S. Hierome sayth the flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstanded two ways or in two maners Either that spirituall and diuine whereof he sayd My flesh is meate in dede and my blood is drinke in dede c â–ª or els yâ— flesh which was crucified for vs and yâ— blood which was shed with the speare of the Souldiour And that one substance is in eche maner of flesh and blood only the maner of geuing it being diuerse it appereth also by the senteÌ„ce folowing where he sayeth one flesh of the Saiâ—…res may see the saluatioÌ„ of God an other flesh can not possesse heauen Not that the substaÌ„ce of natural flesh but the worthines of the men is diuerse S. Cyrillus of Alexandria writing vpon S. Ihon of purpose and shewing the most literall sense thereof that he could deuise or learn interpreateth the whole sixth chapiter of S. Ihon of the SacrameÌ„t of the altar naming very many tymes the partaking of the holy mysteries and the mysticall blessing and the communicating of the holy chalice Also vpon those words I will reyse him vp again he maketh this exposition Ego id est corpus meuÌ„ quod comedetur resuscitabo eum I will reise him that is to say my body that shal be eaten shall reise him As if he sayd I will reise him because my body which shal be eaten of him shall reise him Sedulius proueth the
chalice of blessing to be the communicatiâ—…g of Christes blood according as Christ said He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. Leo the great sayth we ought so to communicate with our Lords table that we doubt nothing of the veritie of his body and blood seing he sayd Except ye eat the flesh c. Theodoritus speaking of the holy mysteries ioyneth with the words of the supper these also The bread which I wil geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world Isychius shewing that the penitent person may eate the bread whereof Christ sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh ioyneth there with all the words of S. Paul Let a man proue him self and so eate Declaring both sayings to belong to one mysterie Theophilact vpon these words The bread which I will geue witnesseth that Christ manifestly telleth vs in this place of the mysticall communion of his body Damascenus declaring that Christ sayd This is my body and not the figure of my body bringeth for the same purpose Except ye eate the flesh c. Prosper Aquitanicus ioyneth these words Except ye eate the flesh c. with these except a man be born again of water to shew that the Sacraments of Christ doe geue vs grace and not oâ—…r own works which goe before baptism As therefore S. Cyprian and S. Augustin applie those two sayings to two seuerall Sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist so must we think that Prosper doth who most diligently folowed S. Augustine Proco pius Gazeus writeth yâ— these words except ye eate my flesh c. Typum mysteriorum quae sub ipso latent continent conteine the foorm of the mysteries which lie priuie vnder it Eucherius teaching that Christ feedeth vs with the nourishmeÌ„ts of the healthiull mysterie saith that he distributeth to euery man a â—…ake of that bread which came down â—…rom heauen and geueth life to the world Cassiodorus saying that Christ did coâ—…secrate his body blood in geuing of bread and wine proueth it because him self sayd Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. Primatius shewing how the chalice of blessing is the communicating of the blood of Christ bringeth our Sauiour his words in S. Ihon saying he that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood tarieth in me and I in him S. Bede folowed in all points S. Augustin whose words he reciteth both vpon S. Ihon vpon S. Paule And therefore we nede not doubt but he is wholy of yâ— same mind Angelomus vpon the first booke of the kings reciteth S. Ihon in the same sense Haimo vpon S. Paule intreating of the Sacrament conferreth S. Paules words with the sixth of S. Ihon. S. Bâ—…rnard although he say the eating of the flesh of Christ to be the folowing of his painful conuersation in suffering voluntarie 〈◊〉 for his sake yet well knowing that Christ spake literally also of an other kinde of eating he saieth that Christ did speake of penance in a figure that is to saie couertly as rather including penance vnder the wordes which he named then expressely naming it Vnde hoe designat illibatum illud altaris sacramentum vbi dominicum corpus accipimus wherefore that pure Sacrament of the altar where we take our Lords body betokeneth so much Behold the true and literall meaning of Christes wordes is to haue his flesh eaten in the sacrament of the altar But that eating importeth a folowing of Christ in his painful conuersation For as that forme of bread saieth S. Bernard is seene to enter into vs so let vs knowe that Christ thorough that conuersation which he had in earth eutreth into vs to dwell by faith in our hartes Whereby we maie perceaue that S. Bernard vnderstandeth the sixth chapter of S. Iohn so literally of the sacrament of the altar that thereupon he buildeth a couert and a figuratiue preaching of penance Euthymius noteth that Christ did not say I do geue my flesh but I wil geue because he minded to geue it in his last supper Nicolaus Methonensis hauing first rehersed the wordes of the Gospell this is my body straight expoundeth all the chapter of S. Iohn thereof shewing the profit which we take by this Sacrament Samonas after the wordes of the supper declared as not betokening a figure or image affirmeth Christ to haue said in other places the same thing and straight reciteth the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn I omitt here Petrus Cluniacensis Guimundus Algerus Lanfrancus S. Thomas de Aquino Albertus Magnus Dionysius the Carthusian Nicolaus de Lyra a great number of late writers which all agreed vpon the same vnderstanding of the sixth of S. Iohu But what speake I of these Fathers one by one not only the Councel of Trident hath taken witnesse for the Sacrament of the altar out of S. Iohn but also the seuenth kept at Nice and the first kept at Ephesus doth allege against Nestorius the heretike for the presence of Christes person in the SacrameÌ„t the wordes of S. Iohn his gospell Yea the whole west church readeth the same gospell of S. Iohn when it celebrateth the feast of corpus Christi daie And surely wheÌ„ the Church kepeth any feast whereof there is mention in the gospell according to the letter it alwaies chooseth to reade that part where the feast is literally mentioned It wold therefore be very absurd sith S. Mathew S. Marke and S. Luke haue written so distinctly the historie of Christes supper to leaue them all and to reade the wordes of Christ in S. Iohn if the same wordes had any other sense more literall then that which belongeth to the supper of Christ. So that I trust there is no possible cause of doubting to a sober man but that the wordes of Christ in this chapiter maie literally and according to the first and chief meaning of them be brought to declare what we ought to thinke of his bodily presence in the Sacrament of his last supper But if any man be not fully satisfied therein let him reade the processe folowing and he shal haue lesse cause to doubt any more in this matter ¶ Answer is made to their obiections who teache out of the holy fathers that the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn ought to be expounded only of spiritual eating FOr their opinion who think the sixth chapiter of S. Iohn to speake only of the spiritual and not of the worthy sacramental eating of Christes body the authoritie of certaine fathers is alleged who are thought somtimes to expound the wordes of this chapiter partly of belefe in Christ partly of the vnitie which riseth by the sacramentes of baptisme and of penance But it maie seme a sufficient answere to that obiection if we saie first that so many fathers do not expound the wordes of Christ in the sixth chapter of S. Iohn of any other one
argument as doe conformably expound it of the supper of our lord And when we speake of the authoritie of the fathers their consent and agreement in one point is the chiefe waie to know according to the promise of Christ in what case they are specially to be followed Secondly those fathers which are named some where to haue expounded these wordes otherwise then of the supper of Christ haue them selues in other places expounded the same wordes of the verie supper As we maie perceaue by the places of S. Cyprian of S. Hierome of S. Augustine and of S. Bernard before alleged Whereby their authoritie is as great for that which I say as it is against it Thirdly no one of the auncient writers is brought forth who denieth these words in S. Iohn to appertaine to the supper And what skilleth it if many senses of one place be found out so long as they all stand together Is it not S. Augustines rule that all such senses may be well kept and all admitted Fourthly many of those places which are brought for the con trary opinion do manifestly and as it semeth to me inuincibly proue the wordes in S. Iohn to be literally meant of the supper of Christ. S. Cyprian who is first alleged for the other side putteth forth this truth that a man without baptisme can not come tâ—… the kingdome of heauen because except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy ghost he can not enter into the kingdome of God Likewise except ye eate the flessh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you Now they suppose that S. Ciprian bringeth these two sayinges for baptisme alone Wherefore say they it was not sayd of the supper except ye eate the flesh c. But herein they seme to be deceaued because the custome of the primitiue church i many places was to geue the sacrameÌ„t of yâ— altar together with the sacrament of baptisme not so much for necessitie as for sureties sake Hereof we haue mention i Dionysius Areopagita and in S. Am brose In so much that the very infantes were in the primitiue church in some countries made partakers of the sacrament of the altar Seing then the sacament of the altar was vsed to be geuen straight after yâ— sacrament of baptism therefore S. Cyprian ioyned together those two witnesses whiche did belong to those two Sacramentes that is vndoubtedly proued by his owne wordes for after he had cited those wordes in S. Iohn it followeth â—…mediatly Parum esse baptizari et eucharistiam accipere nisi quis factis et opere perficiat It is litle worth to be baptized and to receaue the eucharist except a man by deedes and workes make all perfit Behold as he alleged two sayings of Christ so he nameth the two sacrameÌ„ts whereof they were spoken Thus I think it most clere that S. Ciprian did not expound the eating of the flessh of Christ as spoken by baptism only And the lyke may be said of Innocentius Augustinus Eusebius Emissenus and of suche others whiche bring these woords of Christ except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man c. against the Pelagians to proue that infantes cannot haue lyfe in them selues vnles they be first baptized For seing they knew that no man could come to the eucharist except he were first baptized as also Iustinus Martyr hath witnessed seing yâ— Eucharist was namely called the bread of life whiche who so did eate he should liue for euer and who by any fault of his own did not eate it he should not haue life in himself moreouer seing the person baptized had not only Christ in him spiritually through baptism but had right vnto the very Sacrament of Christes supper and also being of lawfull discretion customably receaued it straight after baptism these things being so it is most true that who so is not at all baptized he is not only excluded from yâ— kingdom of heaueÌ„ as yâ— Pelagians graunted but likewise whiche thing they denyed from euerlasting life because he is by all meanes excluded from the food of life whiche except we eate by some meanes or other we cannot haue life in vs. we cannot eate it by any meanes at all that is to say not so muche as spiritually except we be first baptized either in deed or in perfit desire And being once baptized we doo eate it in some effect at the very font and really may and commonly must eate it afterward in the Sacrament to a farther effect So that the reasons of those Fathers do not import as though Christ meant in S. Ihon of spirituall eating only but that he meant of that kind of eating at the least and meant a farther kind of eating also in that case when farther occasion should be ministred For as when Christ saide except a man be born againe of water and of the holye Ghost he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen he so meant in those wordes to include his saluation that would be born vowed him self to be born again although by preuention of death he were not really so borne that yet not withstanding he meant muche more to haue most men really so born of water and of the holy ghost Right so when Christ sayd except ye eate the â—…lesh of the sonne af man drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you he so meant to binde vs to eate his fleash that he should haue life which was at the least spiritually fead there with in baptisme and yet also that most men should be bound to feed really thereon and that he should haue most perfit life who was â—…d sacramentally with his fleshe and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar As therefore not withstandinge that the will of being baptised â—…seth to some others must be sacramentally baptised by that very precept of Christ in S. Ihon euen so though it be sufficient for â—…tes to eate Christ in baptisme spiritually yet other are bouÌ„d by yâ— same very precept to eate his flesh SacrameÌ„tally Now to aâ—…irme the one sense whiche was lesse meant denying therewithall the chief sense which was principally meant it is no smal iuiurie to Gods worde Certeinly S. Innocentins Gusebius S. Auguâ—… in saying that infants can not haue life except they â—…t the least wise eate Christ in baptisme did not meane to say that these wordes except ye eate the flesh cae were only spoken of baptisme or els more principally of baptisme then of Christes supper but rather they meant cleane contrarie as it may appere by S. Augustines owne wordes who disputing against the PelagiaÌ„s in this very question which we now speak of saith expresly Dominum audiamus non quidem hoode Sacramento lauacri dicentem sed de sacramento sanctae mensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit nisi manducaueritis carnem meam
whiche the same flesh hath being crucified For although it be one substāce yet it is cru◅fied as a sacrisice onely but it is eaten as a sacrament wherin the sacrifice is partaken Secondarily the Greeke text maketh mention of two gifts The one of that which Christ will make to vs which also is y◠same substance y◠he wil geue for vs. The bread sayth he which I wil geue is my flesh the which I wil geue for the life of the world It is not in vaine sayd twise I wil geue For he wil geue one and the same flesh both as a Sacramētal food as a bloody sacrific◅ the one gift he wil make in his supper the other vpon the Crosse Neither doth it skill that the latin copies report but once I wil geue for as they say that which is true so the same truth is made the plainer by the greke text God forbid we should so vnderstād the one as to make y◠other false or super◅ons seing both may stand right well together Thirdly it ought diligently to be marked y◠Christ sayd before worke the euerlasting meate which the Sonne of man wil geue you He there said he would geue meate vnto them but he determined not what kind of meate it was but now expounding the kind of meate be sayth and the bread or meate which I wil geue is my flesh As then the meate which y◠Sonne of man sayd he would geue was promised to be geuen to vs for he sayd dabit vobis he wil geue to you euen so the kind of meate to wit the ◅esh of Christ which he wil geue must be vnderstāded of that gift which he wil make nobis to vs and not only pro nobis for vs. But his death is geuen more properly for vs then to vs. His death I say was paied to God the Father to whom we were detters and it was paied for vs and in our behalf but his death was not properly geuen to vs. For then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vs and consequently God the Father is robbed of his glory and that glory is geuen to men From which thought all good men doe abhorre All is one to say the sonne of man will geue and I will geue to say euerlasting meate and the bread which is Christes flesh But it was expresly sayd in the first proposition Dabit vobis he will geue it to you therefore in the second it is to be supplied the bread which I will geue to you is my flesh for the life of y◠world that is to say it is the same flesh which I will offer to my Father to the end the iust men of the world may liue for euer And so a reason is geuen by Christ why his flesh is that euerlasting meate vnto vs which he sayd before tarieth into life euerlasting For y◠which is offered meritoriously to God for the life of the whole world must nedes euen by that sacrifice haue strength in it selfe to quicken all that eate it worthely and to reconcile the partakers thereof to God Farthermore when Christ sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh he sayd in effect The eatable thing which I wil geue is my flesh as if it were in other termes sayd I wil geue you my flesh to be eaten For bread vnto the Hebrewes doth shew all y◠which is apt to be eaten of man Christ ◅ad the Iewes work the euerlasting meate which he wold geue They straight sayd their Fathers had eaten Manna thinking that Christ was not able to geue them a better kind of bread Then Christ shewing that his Father had geuen them him self by his incarnation the true bread of God last of all cometh to shew what bread he him self wold geue them And the bread sayth he which I will geue that is to wit the Manna the foode the meate which I wil geue is my flesh so that by the promise of bread he sheweth him self to speake properly of a banket which is to come The Iewes who knew the Hebrew phrase albeit they did amisse in that they taried not to see how y◠promise should be perfoormed yet they vnderstode right well that Christ sayd I will geue you my flesh to eate And therefore they in other words reporting the same sense ask how this man is able to geue them his flesh to be eaten As who should say we vnderstand that he promiseth vs the eating of his flesh but we see not that he is able to perfoorm it in such sort as Manna was geuen to our fore◅athers Neither is any man able to deny but the Iewes toke the words of Christ after this sense ◅s knowing him to promise his flesh to be really eaten The which sense surely is against their opinion who suppose that Christ meant only of the gift of his flesh vpon the Crosse. Yea Christ alloweth the sense of the Iewes cōcerning the naturall sound of his words and as S. Basile hath noted with a vehement repetition signifieth he wil so truly geue his flesh to be eaten that except they do eate is they shall not haue life in them selues Neither is it to be doubted but if they had so obediently submitted them selues to Christ cōcerning the maner of perfoorming his gift as they vnderstode what he promised they had not offended at all For they lacked rather belefe then wit or vnderstanding What shall I say more The circumstance of the whole talk the Greektext the like words going before the propriety of the Hebrew tong the vnderstanding of the Iewes the othe and cōfirmation of Christ geue a witnesse aboue al exception that when he sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh he meant I that am the true bread which by incarnation came down from heauē I that am presently sent and geuen to you to be beleued on of my Father I will hereafter geue mine own flesh euen the same flesh which is offered for the life of the world to be meate vnto you y◠wil tarie with me which haue the words of eternall life Which sense being thus proued their sense who wold haue the gift of Christes death only to be meant is not sufficient or full enough for the right interpretation of this place but it must be also meant of the last supper as all the Fathers both Greek and Latin haue bene shewed before to ha◅e taken it and as all these reasons doe euidently conuince Now whereas they who dissent from me in this matter say that Christ speaketh here of that gift which was common to the whole world euen to the Patriarchs and Prophets and therefore that it is a spirituall gift for els Dauid and Abraham could not haue partaken it I answere that Christ doth not promise in these words any one meate vnto the whole world but he promiseth his flesh to be eaten the which flesh is geuen for the whole world For as at his
or nothing els is here called the signe thereof If the maÌ„hood be the signe surely the maÌ„hood is now promised and is deliuered euen to Iudas at his last supper which being so I graunt it to be a most true â—…se yâ— Iudas did eate such a signe of Christes flesh as his owne substance is But if the Sacramentaries will needes haue materiall bread meant by these words The bread which I will geue besydes that they take that word otherwyse then it is taken in all the talke which apperteineth to yâ— true bread which came down â—…rom heauen I wil confute that grosse error an other way also Christ ioyneth together two diuerse tenses the future and the present Dabo I will geue and est it is aâ—…ing that the geuig of his bread is to come but the substance or being oâ—… the same bread which he wil geue is presâ—…nt for he sayd not yâ— bread which I will geue shal be my flesh but is my flesh And yet if the word bread did stand for materiall bread and the word flesh for yâ— signe and figure of fleshe as some doubt not falsely to teache or it the 〈◊〉 is oâ—…d stand â—…or the verbe signiâ—…icat which mâ—…aneth to betoken or to signifie theÌ„ Christ euen by our aduersaryes interpretation should haue sayd the bread which I will geue shal be my flesh and not as he now said is my flesh For seing that Christ spake these words one whole yere before his supper as by the ghospell it maie appere if the bread whiche he said he would geue should only betoken his flesh and not be his fleshe in dede then were it falsely spoken that the same bread now presently is his flesh for if the bread it self he not yet made yea perhappes not so much as the corne thereof in the grounde and certainly not yet blessed of Christ how is it possible that the bread which now is not can be now a signe or token of Christes flesh That which is not it self can much lesse be a â—…oken of an other thing but that which Christ sayd he wold geue was extaÌ„t in substance at that tyme when he spake and at that present instant when he spake For he sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh as I say is now is at this moment wherein I speake But the materiall bread that I will take into my hands turne into my flâ—…sh is not as yet extant any where Or if it be it is not a token vntill I blesse But the bread that I will geue is euen now my flesh As much as if Christ sayd that which I will geuâ—… at my last supper howe so euer it seme coÌ„mon breade and appeare in the forme of bread which forme and figure is to come and therefore I say that I will geue it hereafter yet the substance that shal be conteyned within that forme of bread that sub stance which is the being and essence of my gift whereof now I speake that substance is now present in your eyes What substaÌ„ce is that Forsoth the substance of my flesh For as the forme of brâ—…ad is to come and the substance of my flesh is here present in me so by the forme of bread I say I wil geue it but concerning the substance thereof I say it is my flesh I say not it shal be lest you should thinke I meante to make such a giâ—…t of my flesh the substance whereof were to come rather then present But I say it is my flesh For within the forme of that bread none other sub stance shal be then that which you see here which is my flesh so that these words the bread which I wil geue is my flesh are as much to say as I will geue you the substance of my flesh to eat And that the word flesh doth here signifie the substance of Christes flesh Tertullian hath witnessed almoste fourtene hundred yeres past Who disputing against those heretiks that confounded the flesh and the soule of Christ taketh vpon him to declare that they are two distincted natures Of yâ— soule of Christ it was sayd Anxia est anima mea vsque ad mortem my soule is sorowfull to death of his flesh Panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi caro mea est The bread which I shall geue for the life of yâ— world is my flesh Quod si vna caro vna anima illa tristis vsque ad mortem illa panis pro mundi salute saluus est numerus duaruÌ„ substantiarum 〈◊〉 genere distantium excludens carneae animae vnicam speciem If the flesh be one and the soule an other yâ— soule sorowâ—…ui to death the flesh bread for the saluation of the world the number of two substances differring in their kinde is safe excluding the one kind of a fleshly soule If in this disputatiâ—…n we might expound flesh for the signe of flesh and being for the signe of being Tertullian by this place had not proued a reall substance of flesh sith a signe of flesh is not the substance of flesh but now as in this saying my soule sorowfull the word soule standeth for the substance of the soule so in this the bread which I will gene is my flesh the word flesh standeth for the true substance of Christes flesh Seing then Christ promiseth to geue the substance of his flesh it must nedes be that he fulfilled his promyse vndonbtedly he hath geuen vs in dede the true substance of his flesh in his last supper when he sayd Take and eate this is my body that is to say as now I haue prosâ—…d the substance of my body Thus it is proâ—… first that these words belong to the Sacrament of Christes supper Next that the word bread 〈◊〉 â—…eth Christ him self the bread of life Thirdly that if it were exâ—… for common bread yet euery way the sense should serue to proue of 〈◊〉 the true gift of Christes substance in his last supper ¶ A farther declaration of the reall presence of Christes bo dy blood taken out of the discourse of his â—…wn words concerning the different eating of him by fâ—…ith and the reâ—…auing of his fleshe and blâ—… in the Sâ—…amente of the â—…ltar MAruaile not good Reader that I stand long about a little The strength of the word of God is so greate that a fewe syllables of his can not be sufficieÌ„tly expounded by a great many bookes of any mortall maÌ„s making for God spake but one and yet Dauid heard two things to wit the power and mercy of God Whereby are vnderstanded the two hole bookes of the old and newe Testament Now I wil goe forward to shew you the plaine differerence that Christ him selfe hath set forth in this Chapiter betwene eating of him by faith and eating of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar For these two are not one as our new preachers goe about against the worde
to an other wax doth make one thing of twain which is the similitude made here by S. Tyrillus What like ioyning to that other similitude of the leauen can be if no leaueÌ„ that is to say no benediction or no flesh of Christ be receaued into vs which may draw vs to it What mingling together is made of things that be so far distant as heauen and earth If you say faith and spirit doth ioyne mingle knitte Christ to vs and vs to Christ and make vs to tarie in him and him to tarie in vs either you geue a cause of yâ— ioyning which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ or els you correct his cause and put a better If the faith spirit whereof you speake shal stand with Christes cause it must be such faith as doth concurre with the eating of his flesh For he now sayd not he that beleueth in me tarieth in me but he yâ— eateth my flesh tarieth in me Therefore though ye beleue neuer so wel yet your present tarying in Christ is not assigned to faith but vnto eating Faith is necessarie to worthy eating and coÌ„sequently to our tarying in Christ. But not euery ground which is necessarie to a thing is by and by yâ— cause thâ—…reof Or though it be one cause it is not the only cause In the former part of this chapiter saith had his due commendation But now Christ speaketh of eating his flesh and saith it maketh vs tary that is to say to be ioyned to him wholy and to be mingled with him as well in body as in soule which thing can not be otherwise then through that we eate his flesh substantially He that leauing that eating of Christes flesh staieth vpon feeding by faith alone correcteth the cause assigned by Christ and also depriueth vs of that naturall tarying in him whereof he now intreateth ¶ We are made one with Christ by natural participation of his flesh as he being one nature with his Father hath assumpted our nature into his own person HE that eateth Christes flesh tarieth in Christ and receaueth life of him not by the meanes of faith spirit only but also by natural participation of his flesh which thing Christ declareth by this example As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue for the Father also he that eateth me shal him self liue for me But Christ liueth not for his Father by faith at all because he seeth his glorie face to face nor yet by the meane of spirit alone as we take spirit for deuotion or els for spiritual gifts and qualities but he liueth for his Father hauing his Fathers whole substance really present in him self therefore we that eating Christ liue in like maner for him must haue his whole substance really present in vs and so must we receaue life not by faith or spirit alone but by taking the flesh of life it self into our bodies and soules Thus veriâ—…ic Christ doth meane That we may reache to the true ground of this comparison it behoueth we lerne first how Christ liueth for his Father and then we may vnderstand how we receauing his flesh worthelie shall liue also for him Christ hauing two natures in one person may be sayd to liue for his Father according to either of bothe natures As God he liueth for his Father for that he is eternally begotten of him to whom the Father geâ—…eth his whole nature substance life glorie so that uo diâ—…ference is betwene the Father and the sonne but that the sonne is begotten of the Father and the Father is altogether vnbegotten and without any relation to a farther beginning This order wherein the sonne otherwise equall God 〈◊〉 his Father doth yet alwaies refer his generation and life to an euerlasting beginning is the cause why Christ as God liueth for his Father the which interpretation S. Hilarie S. Basile S. Chry sostom and S. Augustine doe confesse may well agree to this place Christ as man liâ—…eth for his Father because his Father sent him to take flesh whose flesh being of it self neither able to geue life euerlasting nor to haue it in his own nature yet for the word wherevnto it is vnited in one person both hath life and geueth life now the word is naturally one God and one life with the Father this second sense doth better please S. Basile S. Augustine and S. Cyril although they allow the former also but this second sense doth more agree with those words sicut misit me pater as my Father sent me For the sending of Christ was the taking of flesh at his incarnation bothe senses agree herein that both life is really and corporally dwelling in Christes flesh through the Godhead and the Godhead is naturally with Christ through that he is the sonne of God the Father Two things are to be noted in this comparison the one is the real presence of life the other is the hauing of it by gift and by relation to a farther cause or beginning For as Christes flesh liueth for the word of God to whom it is really vnited and the word of God liueth for the Father whose whole substaÌ„ce it hath really receaued by generation without beginning of tyme so he that eateth Christ liueth for Christ hauing the substance of his flesh really present with him and thereby partaketh life euerlasting This verie sense Christes words haue both by the conference of the text it self and also by the interpretation of S. Hilarie who by this scripture confuteth the Arrians that sayd Christ to be inferiour to his Father not to be equall God with him To mainteine the which heresie they brought foorth a similitude of vnitie which is made in holy scripture betwene God the Father Christ and vs affirming Christ to be one with his Father as we are one with him but sayd they we are one with Christ only by will and consent therefore Christ is one with his Father only after the same sort to which argument S. Hilarie answering turneth it vpon their own heads in this wise Viuit ergo per patrem quomodo per patrem viuit eodem modo nos per carnem eius viuemus omnis enim comparatio c. Christ then liueth by his Father and as he liueth by his Father after the same maner we shal liue by his flesh for euery comparison is presumed to be made according to the forme and concept of our vnderstanding to thintent the matter whereof we intreat may be so perceaued as the example geueth which is proponed This truly is the cause of our life in so much as we haue Christ abyding by flesh in vs who consist of flesh and he shall liue through him by such condition as he liueth through his Father Yf we then liue through him naturally according to flesh that is to wit hauing obteined the nature of his flesh how can he but haue naturally the Father
him self to be almyghty God He said also that it was profytable because he that dyd eate his flesh and drinke his blood should be raised againe to life euerlasting If they had beleued him in these pointes they might haue asked yea without asking they had knowen at or not long after his last supper the maner how it should haue bene coÌ„ueniently done as those Apostles did know who continued in their belefe And the way of knowledge was at his last supper where taking breade with speaking of these wordes this is my body he changed the substance of the breade into his body and wylled his disciples to take and eate his body This much those could not fre because thei would not beleue but to say that Christ hyndred their belefe by words more hard then neded that is more cruelly sayd thê it neded Oportebat c. they ought saith S. Cyril first of al to cast the rootes of faith in their mind and then to aske the thinges that were to be asked but the Iewes asked importunely before they beleued for this cause our Lord shewed them not how it might be brought to passe aâ—…terward S. Cyrill declareth how Christ in his last supper shewed yâ— maner also to theÌ„ who dyd beleue although they asked not for it ¶ The right vnderstanding of those words It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing I May be the shorter in this point because none of those who are meanely conuersant in the bookes of auncient writers though otherwyse they beleue not well haue applied these words against the reall presence of Christes body in his last supper for how can it be that Christes fleshe which is geuen for the life of the world should profite nothing Therefore S. Basil S. Chrysostom and S. Augustin do expound the name of flesh after one sort for the fleshly and carnall vnderstanding of the Iewes who thought they should haue eaten Christ as men eat mutton and beefe whereas Christ meant to geue his flesh in a secret maner as the faithful know which notwithstaÌ„ding the Luciferian spirit of Caluin reproueth this first vnderstanding in his comments vppon this place But it is sufficient to say that he difsented from those three notable pillers of Gods Church before named The second vnderstanding is on Christes behalf whose flesh should not profit any thing if the spirit that is to say the Godhead did not make it able to geue vs euerlasting life The which sense is chiefly followed by S. Augustin also and by S. Cyrillus Now seing the flesh of Christ is geuen so to vs vnder the foorm of bread that the Godhead is present with it we are sure to haue much profit by it What nede moe words If this saying appertem not to the last supper it maketh nothing against our belefe If it doe appertein to it the words are Propheticall because they speake before hand of a thing which most certeinly shall come to passe in the last supper and then the fulfilling of them will make them plaine For as Procopius saith A prophecie at the first sight is not clere but when it is come to the euent which was forespoken and is coÌ„ferred with the thing it self then draweth it to a perfit clerenes If now the sayd words were fulsilled at the supper and take a clere vnderstaÌ„ding thereof what meaning can they haue but that when Christ gaue his body he gaue it after a spiritual sort not after a fleshely maner He gaue not a shoulder to one Apostle and a legg to an other a brest to the third and a ribbe to the fourth but the whole body to euery 〈◊〉 not visible in the forme of flesh but inuisible in the forme of bread so making plaine why he had so often called him selfe bread and said that the bread which he would geue is his flesh He gaue not his body without his soule and Godhead neither his blood without his bones and flesh but the spirite quickened al things eche kinde had whole Christ. He lost not his visible body by geuing of it but by his words which are spirit and life turned bread and wine into his body and blood shewing yâ— as he was at the table in his whole body notwithstanding they did eate the same body so he might be in heauen although the sub stance of his true body and blood were geuen in his Sacrament in earth What shall I say more If the vnderstanding of these words depend vpon the last supper they must not geue vs a rule how to vnderstand the last supper but they must take their vnderstanding of it Who dare say that bread was crucified for vs because Ieremie sayd Mittamus lignum in panem eius let vs put wood into his bread Do we not rather say that because we are sure that the true flesh of Christ was crucified therefore in Ieremie bread is taken for flesh Who dare say that Christ had hornes in his hands because Habacuk said Cornua in manibus eius Do we not rather say that by hornes he meante the corners of the crosse because we are sure that Christ had vpon the crosse no materiall hornes in his hands If then these words the spirit quickeneth be referred to the supper and there we finde bread wine taken and after blessing body and blood geuen we may be well assured that one truth doth not take away the other Spirit doth not take away flesh but spirit must be taken for the Godhead which maketh the flesh both to be present and profitable to all such as receaue it worthely ¶ The words of Christ being spirit and life shew that his reall flesh is made present in his last supper aboue all course of nature and reason VErba quae ego locutus sum vobis spiritus vita sunt The words which I haue spoken or as the greke text readeth which I doe speake to you are spirit and life The Capharnaits hearing Christ say he wold geue his flesh to be eaten partly thought it not possible for him to geue partly not semely for them selues to take They imagined a diuisioÌ„ of yâ— flesh which should be deliuered and consequently the person whose flesh were cut in such peeces must die but how could a dead man geue his own flesh to be eaten Again though he could doe it what a cruel thing were it for them to eate mans flesh Christ knowing this theyr grosse concept sayth that the sonne of man wil ascend into heauen where he was before Thereby declaring first his almighty power and Godhead Next that the gift of his flesh doth not import the lacke of life either in yâ— geuer or in the thing geueÌ„ For theÌ„ in dede the gift should be litle worth because it is the spirit life which quickeneth dead flesh profiteth nothing to euerlasting life My words sayth Christ be spirit and life that is to say they
In whom we liue are moued and haue our being Therefore the words which are called spirit and life are called in effect diuine and almighty Spirit sometyme standeth to signific the words of God as when S. Paule sayth the letter killeth the spirit quickeneth the letter in that place doth signiâ—…ie the law and the spirit doth signifie the words of our Lord as S. Basile doth expound it For Christ our Lord geueth grace to his words that they should not only signifie things as the words of the law did but also make and work the things which they signified The words that be spirit must be vnderstanded spiritually that is to say diuinely and as it becometh the words of him who is God him self whose words haue power in them selues to worke that which they betoken To vnderstand the words of Christ spiritually it behoueth we beleue them first as they sound to humble reasonable men for if we beleue not we shal not vnderstand but if we do beleue then we may be assured as S. Chrysoâ—…tom vppon this place hath writen that they conteine no naturall course but are free from al earthly necessity and from the lawes of this life Which being so when Christ taking bread and blessing saith this is my body we may not say with our selues how can this be so what other body can here be then a peece of bread which mine eye seeth and my tong tasteth If we speake after this sort we call the words of Christ from the spirit of God to the course of nature and of reason and we do not beleue them to be spirituall that is to say diuine and aboue the course of nature but we vnderstaÌ„d theÌ„ carnally loking for no miracle to be wrought by them and yet they are spirit and life able to quicken what soeuer they list they can make bread to be Christes body wine to be his blood they haue power to change natures and to worke inuisibly In a parable it is not nedefull that all things be in dede as the words doe sound but when Christes words are sayd to be spirit and life then it is declared to vs that they partake the nature of his Godhead that they worke a thing aboue our capacitie and make all that which they say Yea but say you shew me the body which they haue wrought I answer they are spirit and haue wrought a spiritual body not such as lacketh the truthe of flesh but such as through the vnion which it hath with the Godhead hath disposed the substance of flesh vnder the form of bread in such sorte as our soules are disposed within our bodies which are vndoubtedlie there but they can not be touched or felt by any sense euen so we beleue the real presence of Christes flesh vnder the form of bread and wine because the words of Christ are spirit life albeit no scuse or reason can attein to that highe mysterie Seing then these words of promise the bread which I wil geue is my flesh be spirit and life these words of performance which after bread taken say presently this is my body must nedes be much more spirit and life yâ— is to say of diuine power to worke that which they sound Let now al heretikes ceasse to mock vs of so many miracles as we teache to be in the sacrameÌ„t of the altar for so much as Christ hath witnessed it should be a miraculouse sacrameÌ„t and aboue al course of nature as being made by words which are spirit and life Let them likewise no more abuse the name of spirit to make men beleue that Christ spake not properly sith Christ calleth his words spirit because they be so proper that they come nere to yâ— nature of the Godhead as being his words who is naturally God then the words of men are able to doe and as the Godhead is most immurable and not at al subiect to any change euen so those words which partake most of the Godhead are most vnchangeable and least figuratiue for al figuratiue speaches are changed and abused hauing the name of tropes among the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab eo quod vocabula mutantur a propria significatione in alienam figuratiue speaches are called in greake tropes that is to say chaÌ„ges because yâ— words are changed from their proper significatioÌ„ to an vnproper meaning but God is not changed nor those words be not changed froÌ„ their proper signification which God hath called spirit life but as they partake yâ— Godhead so doc they partake the proprietie of not being changed from their most accustomed meaning proper nature It is a world to see what difference there is betwene yâ— words of Christes Ghospell the interpretation of the false Ghospellers betwene the old Fathers and the new brethern betwene Catholikes Protestants Mark I pray thee good Reader the differences diligently Christ by his incarnation was made to vs the bread of life to the end we might eate his Godhead otherwise then the Fathers had done before the new brethern after the incarnation and supper of Christ wherein we should haue the Godhead geuen vs bid vs beleue vpon Christ in heauen and so to fede vpon him by faith alone as Noâ—… Abraham did Their councâ—…l is not 〈◊〉 in bidding vs sede by saith but where is yâ— Godhead 〈◊〉 by this meanes is that also receaued by faith why so it might haue bene receaued and so it was receaued before Christ was man Where is the food of Angels made the food of man where is the word of God so geuen to me after his incarnation as it could not be geuen before Where is any euerlasting meate for my body Where is the supper which may fede the whole man faith fedeth my vnderstaÌ„ding but my wil affectioÌ„ hath as much nede to be fed my flesh is rebelliouse to my spirit it hath nede to be fed my body was the meane to poyson my soule therefore my soule must haue a medicine which shal be receaued into my body and so be communicated vnto my soule S. Ireneus reproued those heretiks who because men were called in scripture spirituall denied the true resurrection of their flesh as though their spirit only should tary for euer and yet our new brethern where so euer mention is made of spirit or of a spirituall body and flesh so wrast it as though the reall substance of flesh in the Sacrament were by that word denied or diminisshed whereas it is rather increased for so much as that flesh which is spirituall is not thereby the lesse true flesh but it partaketh the more of the spirit And because a spirit once created is by the natural gift of God immortal a spiritual flesh is likewise like to the spirit in that case S. Augustine writeth that after resurrection the body shall no more haue nede of corporal
was healed Her body also touched his manhod and her body was likewise cured Seing then it is writen This is my body and all men beleued it once as well as the other articles of our faith Seing that beâ—…eif is so honorable vnto God so mete for Christes coming and loue toward vs and so profitable vnto vs that the contrarie assertion shall lack the like holy Scriptures and the like belefe of the Church the like honour of God the like loue of Christ and the like profite of our soules There can be no reason alleged hereafter why we should oâ—…ce geue audieÌ„ce to him that pretendeth to proue the body of Christ not to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine For what thing possibly can excede these causes before alleged Moreouer all â—…igures were inuented partly for lack of proper words partly for the pleasantnes of speaking Christ surely lacked not words to shew that he gaue bread for a signe of his body if in dede he had done so For sith Zuinglius and Caluin had words to signifie their opinion in this matter it could not be but that Christ was able to haue spoken that which they speake If then he spake not figuratiuely for necessity our new brethern must proue that he spake figuratiuely for his only pleasure but how can they know that S. Augustine biddeth vs nolesse beware that we take not a propre speache for a figuratiue then that we take not a figuratiue speache for a proper The rule to know the one from the other is this Vt quicquid in sermone diuino c. that what soeuer in the woord of God can be properly referred neither to the honestie of manners nor to yâ— truthe of faith thou maist know to be figuratiue Yf nowe these wordes of Christ this is my body and this is my blood may be referred to the truthe of faith in so muche as all men haue beleued the body of Christ to be geuen in the Sacrament of the altar not diminishing thereby their faith in any other article by S. Augustins iugdement these wordes be not siguratiue For certeinlie they be not only nothing against the honestie of maners as good men vnderstand Christes presence vnder the form of bread but rather the strong belefe of them maketh al men more honest in life whiles they come with great feare to so dreadfull mysteries therefore it followeth yâ— they be not of necessitie figuratiue of necessitie I say because there is no repugnance in saith or good maners why they may not be proper whiche notwithstanding a man for his pleasure might vse his wordes in a figuratiue sorte when he neded not â–ª but who so affirmeth so muche beside that he breaketh S. Augustins rule he casteth himselfe in greate daunger of prouing yâ— whiche hangeth of an other mans pleasure What argument haue our new brethern to proue that it pleased Christ at this tyme to speake vnproperlie what ground in the word of God can their opinion haue how can they be sure that they erre not in their indgement when we reade that God is angry or sory or that Iohn Baptist is Elias or that the rocke is Christ we say they are siguratiue speaches because they can not be proper Anger falleth not in God nor sorrow the rocke for that reason is not Christ in person and nature because it is a rocke for by nature they are seueral thinges and suche as do not stand together the like might haue bene thought in this Sacrament if Christ had sayd this bread is my body and this wine is my blood but he foresaw greate cause why he wold not say so For he wold by his worde so make his body and blood of bread and wine that when the substance of his body and blood should be present the substances of bread and wine should not remain of this we are sure because besyde the faith of the whole Churche the proper signification of the words inforceth so much as now it shal be declared ¶ That as all other so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly vutill the contrarie doth euidently appeare WHat meaning words ought to haue we iudge most directly by the proper signification and common vse of them For if the contrary do not appeare al words must be taken in that meaning aâ—…d sense which the vsual custom of speaking and writing hath geuen them Otherwise all things are confounded and the profite which cometh of words is lost Neither any man shall know what an other meaneth neither how to make his own bargaine or last will and Testament Certè peruersissimum est sayth Tertullian vt carnem nominantes animam intelligamus animam significantes carnem interpretemur Omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quà msunt amittere quod sunt dum aliter accipiuntur si aliter quà m sunt cognoninantur Fides nominum salus est proprietatum Truly it is a most ouerthwart thing that naming the â—…esh we should vnderstand the soule and signifying the soule we should expound it the flesh all things shall be in danger to be otherwise taken then they are and whiles they are otherwise takeÌ„ to loose that they are if they be named otherwise then they are The faithfull naming of things preserueth their proprieties By these words of this auncient Doctour we may iudge how foule a thing it is that hearing the body of Christ named we should without any reasonable cause expound it the figure of his body And hearing the blood of Christ named we should expound it the signe of his blood As well when he is named the Sonne of God we may expound it the image of the Sonne of God And so we open a gate to all heresie we take away all certeintie of speache and make the holy Scriptures subiect to euery mans filthy lust pleasure We must therefore kepe euery word in his own nature and in his knowen signification except it be manifest vnto vs that the speaker meante otherwise Doth not naturall reason teach vs so much Sayth not Marcellus the same being taught only by coÌ„mon wisedom and iudgement Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet quà m cum manifestuÌ„ est aliud sensisse testatorem We must not otherwise depart from the significatioÌ„ of the words but when it is manifest yâ— the testatour thought an other thing In which rule if we rest all the world well knoweth that when Christ said This is my body and This is my blood the words both by theire propre signisication and by the present vse of all speakers and writers do importe the reall presence of Christes true body and blood For neither the pronoun This pointeth to a thing absent neither the verb is can be said of that which presently hath no true being neither the noun body vseth to be verisied of a shadow figure or token of a body neither when Christ sayeth
substantiue corpus body wherevnto it hasteneth is of the neuter gender And in the consecration of the blood Hic this of certeintie is the masculine gender because sanguis blood whereto it belongeth is of the masculine gender Thus the literall sense of Christes words is declared which ought to be taken for true vntill the contrarie be proued But this propriety of words standing as it ought to stand marke that whensoeuer any Catholike sayth The substance of Christes body and blood to be vnder the formes of bread and wine he speaketh not any other thing then the natural and proper signification of Christes words doth geue For as he that pointing to that kind of beast which an other cometh to learne sayeth This is an Oelephant in effect sayth The substance of an Oelephant is contemed vnder this visible forme So Christ hauing taken bread and saying This is my body sayeth in effect the substance of my body is conteined vnder the forme of this bread Only this oddes is betwene Christes naming and ours that we either must name the thing by his former substance or proprietie or els we make a lye But Christ by 〈◊〉 one thing the name of an other geueth it also the substance thereof whensoeuer he speaketh not in parables but in the way of doing some good turn for he being God as easily calleth things which are not as those which are and by his calling he maketh them to be as he nameth them and not as them selues were ¶ That the pronoun this in Christes wordes can point neither to bread nor to wine SEing Christ in his last supper assigneth none other substaÌ„ce to this and this besyde the substance of body and blood and yet the Sacramentaries will not graunt so muche I ask them for as muche as although it were so that his words did mean an accidentall token of his body and blood that token must be grounded in some substance or other I ask them what substance is pointed vnto as wherein the figure of Christes body and blood may by their iudgement consist when Christ saith this is my body and this is my blood is any substance included in those words or none at all yf none this may not be sayd to be any particular nature at all for yf it be any certain thing consisting by it self it is a substance if it be in any other thing it may be an accident and qualitie but Christ saith not this is in my body but this is my body Admit now that he meant this doth signifie my body yet this that doth so signifie must be sumwhat or other I aske what this thing is which you say doth signifie or shadow Christes body you must nedes say it is bread and wine and therefore you must expound it this bread signifieth my body this wine signifieth my blood This interpretation of yours can not be true For this wil not agree with bread or wine neither in greeke nor in latin For hoc in latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek is of the neuter gender but panis in latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke is of the masculine gender therefore hoc this doth neither in greeke nor in latin agree with bread likewise hic in latin is of the masculine gender vinum wine is of the newter and contrarie wise in greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the newter gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine is of the masculine gender therefore this nother in greeke nor in latine can be referred to wine Now to say hoc this thing vnderstanding which is bread is to correct the words of Christ as though he had sayd hoc quod est panis est corpus meum this which is bread is my body yet if it had bene so sayd the sense must haue bene thus the substance of bread doth signifie the body of Christ. for that thing which is bread is to say the substance of bread which if it were so euery substance of bread should be the signe of Christes body because that which the substance of one loafe is the substance of an other loaf is also in the same kind consequently whensoeuer any man eateth any substaÌ„ce of bread without examining himself he is giltie of the body of Christ. Again when it were sayd hic est sanguis meus hic being of the masculine gender could not be expounded by hoc quod est vinuÌ„ this thing which is wine for it standeth not neutrally to signifie this thing but only agreeth with the noune blood which foloweth after when it is sayd this is my blood The pronoun is put in the same case gender and number whereof the substance is wherevnto it pointeth as when Christ sayd hic est haeres this is the heire hic this is of the masculine gender aswell as the noune substaÌ„tiue hâ—…res an heire hâ—…c est hora vestra this is your hower As hower is of the femine gender so is the pronoun haec this hoc est opus Dei this is the worke of God as opus worke is of the neuter gender so is the pronoune hoc that But when Christ tooke bread blessed he pointed not to bread by the pronoune this as to the substance which should remaine at the end of his whole talke for bread is of the masculine gender both in greke and latine Again let vs consyder that it is all one to say hoc est corpus meum and haec est caro mea in so much that S. Cyprian rehearseth the words of Christes supper by these words haec est caro mea where haec being the feminine gender doth only agree with caro flesh and not with panis bread which is neither of the neuter gender that hoc may agree with nor of the feminine thaâ—… haec may be referred to it but only of yâ— masculine gender Therefore if Christ had pointed finally to bread he must hane sayd neither hoc est corpus nor haec est caro but hic est corpus meum vnderstanding to hic the substantiue panis and in Greke it should haue bene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English this is of all geÌ„ders and therefore it can not be exemplified in our barbarous tong which thereby appereth not so mete to haue the word of God handled literally in it as the lerned tongs are although it is able enoughe to receaue an interpretation of Gods word But it is much like as if one pointing to a man called Laurence should say she is Laurence or her is Laurence which is as good english among the Brytons as hoc panis and hic vinuÌ„ is good latine among the Sacramentaries Thus make they the wisedome of God to speake at this time who say that the pro noune this determineth and pointeth to bread as to a thing that still remaineth in his old substance whereas bread is of
quod sumitur This is my body this I say whiche you take So that by his 〈◊〉 this pointeth not finally to that wheaten bread whiche Christe tooke neither to any doing of his but to yâ— body of Christ whiche he made by his words at the holy altar and table and which the Apostles tooke afterward at the handes of Christ. Howbeit if any man be so hastie that he wil not tary the speaking of fower words to know what particular finall substance the pronoun hoc this doth point vnto but will nedes knowe what it meaneth as sone as it came out of Christes mouth vntill the last word be pronounced I answere that by the circuÌ„stances which are about and concerne the dedes and words of Christ it may be wel sayd that the pronoun this beside his generall signisication whiche is declared before doth here also particularly betoken euen from the beginning of Christes words to the end this thing which is to be eaten or drunken and so doth it declare as well the beginning of the words which belong to wheaten bread whose cheefe vse is to be eaten as the progresse which tendeth to a supper the substance whereof is eating the end which is the bodâ—… of Christ made present to be eateÌ„ So this doth truly always signifie this food or eateable substance of which particular pointing and signification I shall haue occasion to speake more at large hereafter when I come to confer yâ— holy scriptures together which belong to the supper of Christ. ¶ The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of Christes words to be figuratiue HEreof the Sacramentaries make no small boast that Christ sayd this chalice is the new Testament in my blood It can not be denyed say they but the name of chalice is figuratiuely put for that whiche is in the chalice Why may not therefore other words in the supper be also figuratiuely taken Masters it foloweth not because one word is euidently siguratiue that therefore another word must be also figuratiue except one reason be in both words Which in our case is cleane contrary and that for diuerse causes for all men that is to say as well Catholiks as Protestants and Sacramentaries confesse the word chalice to be figuratiue and thei are compelled so to doe because if we take the name of chalice properly we must confesse sith Christ sayth this chalice is the new Testament in my blood that a material cup of wood glasse or siluer is the new Testament or yâ— cause of our synnes to be forgeuen which no reasonable man will so much as dream of Seing then we are constrained by force of reason to say the chalice to stand for that which is in the chalice and no like reason presseth vs to think the like of the verbe est is or of the noun corpus body or of the noun sanguis blood the example which moueth vs to graunt a figure in the one word kepeth vs from suspecting any figure in the other words which are nothing like Secondly whereas S. Luke and S. Paul named the chalice S. Mathew and S. Marke speake not of it geuing vs to vnderstand that the meaning of Christ was only to make and shew the blood of the new Testament which was in the chalice As therefore the holy Ghost prouided for a sufficient declaration of thaâ—… word which was in dede figuratiue so leauing the verbe est is and the nounes body and blood still in they proper significatioÌ„ without mention of signe or figure it hath sufficiently witnessed that they were to be takeÌ„ as they did naturally sound to the common â—…ares of men Thirdly although the word calix a cup or chalice were at the beginning appointed to signifie chefely that vessel which holdeth liquour meâ—…e to be drunk yet by common vse of speaking which is farre the chefe gouernour in the vnderstanding of wordes we being at the table meane by the cup that which is in the cup. in so much yâ— if a maÌ„ sitting at the table bid yâ— cup be geuen to another no seruaÌ„t is lightly so rude as to geue a stranger the cup without drink in it now when words are as commonly vsed in theyr siguratiue sense as in theyr natural then eche way the sense is proper enough in so much as the vse of speaking is equal to the first propriety of the word Fourthly seing Christ sitting at the table in the sight of his Apostles taking the cup of wine mingled with water blessed gaue thaÌ„ks saying not only the chalice or a chalice but this chalice or this cup is the new Testament in my blood it could not be that any dout could rise to his Apostles through naming that chalice which the Apostles them selues knew to contein a certen liquour but that notwithstanding maruelouse great dout wold haue risen to them and to al Christians if he should haue vsed est for significat and body blood for the signe of body blood for so much as they could not coniecture any other meaning of these words then they did outwardly sound For it is no common vse of speaking but only both seldom vsed and not vnderstaÌ„ded but by great doctors and interpreters who know and discern tokeÌ„s of things to be called sometyme by the names of the things them selues Fifthly when with a figuratiue worde an other is immediatly ioyned which doth expound the figure the whole speach is ra ther to be accompted proper then figuratiue for so much as the weaker part yeldeth always to the stronger euen as in 〈◊〉 when one noune adiectiue serueth two substantiues of diuerse genders we make it agree with the masculin as with the more worthy gender When Christ sayd to S. Peter I will geue thee the keies he spake figuratiuely coÌ„cerning the name of keies but if we marke that he ioyned thereunto the keies of the kingdom of heauen and yet again what soeuer thou bindest or loosest in earth and so foorth by these words the former speache is made plain as if it were not figuratiue at all right so when he sayth this chalice is the new testament in my blood yâ— naÌ„ing of the blood is so plain a declaration how the name of chalice is taken that al is one as if it had bene said this is my blood of yâ— new testament which is in the chalice See then for Gods sake how farre the figuratiue naming of yâ— chalice is froÌ„ any figuratiue naming of the body or blood As to yâ— chalice such words were ioyned which did shew the name to bâ—… figuratiue so to the body and blood such were ioyned as forbid vs to think the like of them not only because Christe sayd This is my body my blood which surely were enough to proue that I say because the body and blood of Christe waâ—… not figuratiue but true and naturall but also because to
bread but the Eucharist or sacrifice of thanksgeuing The Sacramentaries on yâ— other syde make thanks to be geueÌ„ of Christ in bare wheaten bread and wine They make also the words of thanksgeuing figuratiue and thereby untrue in theyr proper sense The liâ—…e was done by theyr auncestours before as S. Ignatius doth witnesse whose words Theodorus allegeth thus Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem saluatoris nostri They admit no sacrifices of thanksgeuing nor oblations because they coÌ„fesse not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour But hereof I shall speake again hereafter ¶ The xii Circumstance of breaking BY the fact of breaking the Protestants thinke them selues to haue one circumstance making for their opinion for what can be broken say they at Christes supper beside common bread But if we take the bread to haue bene brokeÌ„ before the coÌ„secration thereof they haue no more aduaÌ„tage by the fact of breaking common bread then they had by the fact of taking common bread For we confesse it to be still common bread vntill Christ hath said of it this is my body After whiche words if we thinke the breaking to haue bene vsed which is farre the more probable opinion we must nedes confesse the Euangelists not to haue rehearsed all things in such order as they were done in we must construe the wordes in this wise Christ tooke bread blessed or gaue thanks and sayd this is my body and then brake and gaue to his disciples the whiche interpretation is confirmed both by S. Paule as I haue shewed in an other place by the dayly practise of the vniuersall churche neither haue the Sacramentaries any iust occasion to triumphe hereof that we graunt a figure in changing the order of the words for the figure is not in Christes words of which only we contend but in the words of the Euangelistes who knowing that before the tyme of their writing the order of Christes supper was taught practised in a great number of Christian churches dyd rather attend to write the 〈◊〉 of the matter as in most other things they haue done then curiously to note the cerimonie and order of the doing speaking And therefore he that will may obserue that they â—…oyne together all the dedes of Christes supper belonging to eche kind and afterward place the words apperteyning to the same not because none of the wordes came not betwene some of the dedes but to make short and by diuision made into dedes words to set like to his like That is to wit to ioyne only dedes with dedes and only words with words the dedes were taking bread blessing thanksgening breaking deliuering which stand together the words are take eate this is my body doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me and those be placed altogether Let it then goe for a truthe howsoeuer our aduersaries are now pleased withall that Christ did breake and gene after the words of consecration yet shal it euen so make more for the reall presence of his body vnder the form of bread theÌ„ against it because that very breaking doth shew the substance of flesh whereof Christ sayd this is my body to be so really and miraculoush present that it was conteined whole vnder euery peece and fragment of that which stil appered bread otherwise euery Apostle could not haue â—…aued one and the same whole substance without more and lesse which an other did â—…aue but the contrarie was figured in manna of the which some gathered more and some lesse but neither he that gathered more had more nor he that gathered lesse found lesse when it came to the trial of measure the which thing S. 〈◊〉 sheweth to be verified of that SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper and yet it were not so neither externallie nor spiritually if it were the substance of wheaten bread which the Apostles 〈◊〉 after yâ— breaking for then one should haue the greater peece of bread an other the lesse neither could any balance or measure daâ—…y make them througly equal Again if it being bread which was broken and taken Christ be only eaten by faith and spirit surely seing the faith and deuotion which euery man hath is in a 〈◊〉 measure from that which an other hath according as Christ or the holy Ghost diuideth his 〈◊〉 to one after one sort to an other otherwise as he listeth to euery man neither by that meaues one should haue as much as the other And that especially because some receaue life euerlasting by eating that which was broken to them and other eate their own damnation And how is it I pray you all one measure to them Or is it one to be saued to be damned S. 〈◊〉 hauing spoken of the equall measure of Manna sayeth Et nos Christi corpus â—…qualiter accipimus vna est in mysterijs sanctificatio Domini serui 〈◊〉 Quanquà m pro accipientium meritis diuersum fiat quod vnum est And we also take the body of Christ equally there is one sanctification in the mysteries as well of the seruant as of the master Albeit according to that merits of the 〈◊〉 that is made diuerse which is one The meaning of which words must of necessitie be that one substance of Christes body is receaued in the mysteries to wit vnder the foorm of bread as well by the poore as by the riche although the deuotion be diuerse wherewith it is receaued To one it is more meritoriouse in effect and to an other lesse meritoriouse but in substance it is one sanctification to all men So that the breaking and the peeces which are made certifie vs of suche a mysticall presence that as Eusebius 〈◊〉 witnesseth Corpus hoc sacerdote dispensante tantum est in exiguo quantum esse constat in toto And again De hoc verò pane cum assumitur nihilo minus habent singuli quam vniuersi totum vnus totum duo totum plures sine diminutione percipiunt This body when the Priest 〈◊〉 is as great in the small peece as it is great in the whole loaf of this bread when it is taken euery man hath no lesse then alltogether haue 〈◊〉 hath all twaine all 〈◊〉 haue all without diminishing These words I say can be 〈◊〉 neither of materiall bread outwardly broken and deliuered the peeces whereof are vnequall nor of inward grace and faith the measure whereof is diuerse â–ª but only of the substance of Christes body which is conâ—… wholy vnder euery fragment of that which is broken hauing with it none other substance which may cause any man to haue more or lesse then his fellow Of this kind of breaking S. Ignatius sayeth Vnus panis omnibus confractus est One bread is broken to all one bread of life he meaneth As for materiall loanes they werâ—… diuerse euen in the same Church and not always one But
come from God and belong to causes of religion And yet in them as euery thing is most obscure so are words more necessarie for the opening of it All mysteries by their very name pretend a secret and an obscure knowlege Among all the mysteries which were lest vnto the Church by Christ none hath obteined that name so peculiarly as the Sacrament of Christes supper whereupon it foloweth that words are most necessarie of all for the declaration of that Sacrament therefore noman ought to wonder that with so many dedes of sitting down at yâ— table of eating the paschal Lamb of washing the Apostles fete of raking bread and wine of blessing thanksgeuing breaking geuing words at the length be ioyned which may shew plainly the meaning wherevnto all those dedes tend Let vs not therefore follow the Sacramentaries in this behalf who looke only to this that Christ toke bread and will not consyder his promise going before his present performance in geuing that which he promised his blessing and his words Wherein he plainly sayth This is my body But because bread was taken and still bread is tasted and seen doâ—… and say Christ what him list they will trust their eyes and not his word But S. Mathew S. Marke S. Paule 〈◊〉 that Christ did these things sayd S. Luke writeth he did them saying All meane that saying is a principall part of the supper And that not without a cause For whereas dedes may haue many and diuerse interpretations as it appeareth by the figures of the law except words be ioyned withall to make them certein and plaine we shall not know how to vnderstand the dedes and therefore we can not tell how to beleue them For this cause S. Chrysostom sayd that whereas Christes words ought in al things to be more credited then our senses yet he addeth Quod praecipue in mysterijs faciamus the which thing let vs do specially in the mysteries Ponder then I pray you whether Christ did expound one parable by an other For the dedes of his last supper 〈◊〉 to me vndoubted parables Who could tell what the taking of bread meant after supper or to what end the blessing and geuing of thankes wolde goe except Christes own words had interpreted his mysticall doings For whereas all Christes doings are our instruction it can not be denied but when he toke bread blessed gaue thanks brake and gaue those dedes were a certein aduertissement or dark lesson to his Disciples Of the which some vnderstode more some lesse according as they had grace and wit Now the words of Christ come to these dedes as it were a plain exposition added to an obscure parable And yet shall we think that the words also are paraâ—… Shal we say the thing that is spoken to geue more light bringeth more darknesse Or did the comment of Christ nede again an other comment He did certain things and to shew what he did He sayd this is my body If these words be 〈◊〉 it had bene better he had sayd nothing but only doâ—… this for the remembrance of me For by that meanes we might haue done as he did and so haue referred obedieÌ„tly the meaning of the dede to his wisedom But he in words expounded the secrete meaning of the dedes sayd This is my body What reason can now excuse vs why we should not rest in the authoritie of the speaker sith he spake as an expositour or interpreter of his own doings This reason alone ought to persuade any man But now I will bring a greater Not only the interpretatioÌ„ of Christes dedes dependeth vpon his words but also the whole substance of them For he being the word of God hath ordeined that no Sacrament shal be made without words Yea that words shal be the chief part of euery Sacramâ—…t This appereth in baptisme where the washing with water is the lesse part and the pronouncing of the words is the chefe part Hereof I haue spoken before and haue declared out of S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustine that yâ— Sacraments haue their verie chese being through words As therefore water breade wine and oile whiche are the inferiour elements and the baser part of the Sacraments be most commonly knowen and most easily gotten so the words which are the higher part of the same Sacraments must be such as be most common easy For euery Sacrament is a signe euery signe is to geue knowledge of a thing whiche otherwise had bene secrete Now if the token it self be secrete what knowledge can rise thereof Seing therefore Chriâ—… making a Sacrament said this is my body we must think either no signe at all to haue bene made or els we must beleue the wordes as they sound outwardly ¶ The fiftenth circumstance of taking SEing Christ willed all the twelue Apostles among whom Iudas also was to take that one thing which he gaue we must vnderstand such a taking as may agree to 〈◊〉 nolesse then to the other Apostles Againe whatsoeuer taking be vnderstanded it must appertein to corporal appreheÌ„sion whereof only Christ sayd take 〈◊〉 thing therefore which was taken either was 〈◊〉 bread being a bare figure of Christ or the body of Christ vnder the form of bread For in bothe these ways Iudas might take that which all the other toke As for any effectual signe whereof Caluin vseth to brag no man corporally toke sith it is clere that Iudas toke none such yet it was sayd to him no lesse then to the other take Nâ—…w if the Apostles toke only a bare 〈◊〉 of Christes body Christ gaue no more with his hands but a 〈◊〉 signe 〈◊〉 they â—…oke that which he gaue but Christ was not sent to geue bare signes which thing was thâ—… 〈◊〉 of the old lawe therefore it being false that he gaue a bare signe it must nedes be true that the Apostles toke at his haÌ„ds his own body vnder the form of bread Neither will it serue here if a â—…cramentarie say yâ— Christ gaue spiritually more â—…heÌ„ bare signes and likewise that yâ— good Apostles toke more spiritually for if we speake of spirituall gifts they wanted â—…ot in y◠〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and of the old law Abraham beleued God and it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to instice Elizeus receaued the dâ—…bble spirit of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beseching God to restore him y◠〈◊〉 of his 〈◊〉 to strengththen him with his chefe spirit doth 〈◊〉 that both he had once the holy Ghost and loked again for greater comfort of him Seig then the good men always receaued â—…pirituall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwene Christ and the old law doth not stand only in â—…all gifts receaued in the soule but in this that Christ in his maÌ„hod which he toke for that purpose left vs such coâ—…poral meanes and instruments of grace as might work also vpon our soules And therefore Christ denyed 〈◊〉 to be the
the body Looke what place corpus did occupy the same figura corporis must nedes occupy And therevppon it foloweth that the pronoun hoc must be ruled by the noun figura likewise the relatiue quod and it must follow the verb est and goe before the verb datur And so the sense is Haec est figura corporis mei quae pro vobis datur This is the figure of my body the which figure is geuen for you Thus the SacrameÌ„taries haue brought vs not only â—…o a figuratiue presence of Christes body but also to a figuratiue death and sacrifice thereof I know they will say that albeit by the noun corpus body they vndcrstand figura corporis the figure of the body 〈◊〉 they wold not the relatiue quod which to be ruled by the noun figura but by the genitiue case corpus body As if it were sayd this is the figure of my body the which my body is geuen for you This shift will not serue because after that sort the noun substantiue corpus body is takeÌ„ two ways that is to say first vnproperly and then again properly Unproperly when it standeth for the figure of Christes body properly when it is sayd to be geuen for vs. Now seing that noun substantiue is but once named in all how so euer it is taken at one tyme it must be taken likewise at the other tyme for so much as it is not twise repeted but once only mentioned This sayeth Christ is my body which is geuen for you I ask how ye take the word body which is but once named in the whole sentence If ye take it to stand for the signe of Christes body mark well that you take it vnproperly And remember that you euer continew in taking it vnproperly after the same sort therefore if it be Christes body vnproperly it is geuen for vs vnproperly If it stand for the signe and figure of Christes body when it is ioyned with the verb est is how can it but stand for the same signe and figure when it is ioyned with the verb datur it is geuen Can the relatiue quod take half of that signification which was in his noun substantiue and lay asyde the other half You say corpus doth signifie two things to wit the figure of Christes body beit so Then the one peece of the signification is in the noun figure the other in the noun body To which word so consisting of two parts when a relation is made that relation can not respect the oâ—…e half of the word and neglect the other half But howsoeuer the word is taken so must the pronoun relatiue quod repete him again In this is my body say you the body standeth for the signe of Christes body therefore say I in these words which is geuen for you it must nedes be vnderstanded the which signe of my body is geuen for you And seing they say yâ— this pointeth to bread it followeth that bread is geuen for vs. This later sense is so blasphemous that the very Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists and Anabaptists abhorre from it therefore they ought likewise to abhorre from the former sense where they take the noun body for a figure of Christes body For doubtlesse as they take yâ— word in the one place they must nedes take it in the other sith it is one simple proposition hauing but once in it the word body This thing is yet more plainly sene in the Grâ—…ke text where S. Luke writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is to say word for word as â—…igh as our tonge may attein to the phrase This is the body of me geuen for you Or rather presently geuen for you And yet more expresly this is my body the same body I say which is presently geueÌ„ for you Two of the which Greek words can hardly be expressed in the Latin tong The one is the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which being of the present tense hath no like in Latin answering to it But we are constrained to put for it these two words quod datur which is geuen The other is the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which repeteth again yâ— noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body Geuing an vndoubted witnes that the thing geuen for vs is the same body which is pointed vnto and affirmed to be present This is my body This is the same body I say which is euen presently deliuered to be sacrificed for you But in Greek all this sense is without any other verb sauing the verb substantiue est is As if it were sayd in Latin Hoc est corpus meum datum pro vobis this is my body geuen for you In which proposition corpus is the noun substantiue to the participle datum And therefore one and the same body is both pointed vnto vnder yâ— forme of bread and presently geuen that is to say offered to 〈◊〉 sacrificed on the Crosse and to be pearced and crucified the next day for vs. I require and humbly beseche him yâ— thinketh me to be deceaued in this point â–ª as he loueth God and his neighbour to shew me wherein I misconstrue these words or by what meanes the argument which I now make for the reall presence of Christes body may be possibly auoided For it semeth to me that noman of good conscience who will not wilfully be damned is able to auoide but that Christ affirmeth this which he pointeth to really to be the same substance of his body which was betrayed and offered vpon the crosse for vs. He that sayth this is a figure of Christes body sayeth a figure of his body to haue bene geuen for vs. I can deuise no maner of escape besyde wilfull malice It may be some ignorant man will say that the noun corpus body standeth not for the signe of Christes body but that the verb est is rather standeth for the verb significat doth signifie and so the sense to be this doth signifie my body and so the noun body standeth still properly who so maketh any such obiection vnderstandeth not that it is all one to say this doth signifie my body and this is the signe of my body therefore either of both being confuted both are confuted for the cause why the verb est should be resolued into the verb significat must nedes come from the word corpus body sithens this doth therefore signifie the body because it is made the signe of Christes body But if it be not the signe thereof surely it doth not signifie it in so muh that this proposition hoc significat corpus meum being resolued into this hoc est significans corpus meum as the rules of good reason and of the arte of logik require the word which apperteined to the signe shal be found à parte praedicati rather then à parte copulae that is to say it shal be found that the reason of signifieng con sisteth in the
the more particular my reasoning is the more it ought to moue them earnestly to looke to the worde of God and not to contente them selues with the bare shewes thereof For my exposition beside the very order and conference of Christes supper hath for it as auncient a witnesse as Iustâ—…s Martyr is a man within the first two hundred not only within the 600. yeres whose works Robert SteueÌ„s printed in greke at Parise An. Dom. 1551. Thus he writeth The Apostles in their com meÌ„taries which are called gospels haue deliuered that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundement who when he had taken bread geuen thanks said do and make this thing for the remembrance of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est corpus meum That is to say my body Thus I reade the words thus they are vnderstanded make this thing That is to say make my body They that haue translated Iustinus haue turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est whiche words may be Englished as if the cause had bene This is But they also may signify hoc est that is to say For so the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in greke in the way of interpretation or of exposition when the wordes that went before are expounded by the wordes that follow The same phrase is vsed in S. Matthew where after the Hebrew wordes were writen which Christ said vpon the Crosse Fli Eli Lamalabachtami it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is to say my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Therefore albeit the Latins can not distinct betwene hoc est whiche signifieth this is and hoc est whiche signifieth that is to say yet the grecians write the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing Iustinus also hath obserned in the wordes belonging to the blood putting in euery letter The last they write leauing out yâ— last letter of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Apostrophe in pronountiation making one word of both And this sense is proued true by the processe of Iustinus who after that he had said we are taught the meat whiche is consecrated by the praier of the word whiche we toke of Christ to be his body and blood He would proue it to be still so because the Apostles dyd witnesse Iesum sic sibi mandasse Christ to haue geueÌ„ theÌ„ such a precept Hoc facite make this thing what thing my body Now if this thing were not meant to be yâ— body of Christ Iustinus had proued no commandement thereof and consequently no fleshe of Christ present whiche yet he affirmeth most plainly Therefore straight after he had rehearsed the commaundement Hoc facite make this thing he sheweth what thing it is â—…aiyng that is to say my body whereunto we must nedes vnderstand to make vp the full sense make my body or make this thing which is my body Therefore as well by the force of the letter of the Gospell as by the authoritie of S. Iustinus these words can be verified of no signe or figure nor by any other way theu by that we make the selfbody of Christ which always is this thing because it always tarieth one and the same in number person whereas the taking of bread and breaking or eating it is alwais such anotherthing but neuer this thing ¶ the xxi Circumstance of the words in meam commemorationem for the remembrance of me THe finall cause of instituting this new passouer was to make the remembrance of Christes death which so effectually and profitably for vs could be made in nothing els as in the same flesh that died for vs and being made therein it forceth vs by al meanes through the presence thereof to remeÌ„ber him whose flesh it is If now he that hath a busines to doe will those the beast meanes he can to bring it to passe if Christ came into the world to redeme vs by his death and if in beleuing and folowing that death our life consist seing no meane possibly can be deuised so effectuall to make vs remember and partake his death as if the thing which died be it self made present with vs and it self deliuered to vs a wise man may easibly iudge whether Christe hath not rather leaft his own body to vs for an vndoubted token of his death seing his words doe sound so theu that he hath leaft a peece of bread and a litle wine which neither be spoken of in the deliuery of the mysticall tokens nor be aptâ—… enough to worke the matter for which they are sayd to be least Therefore S. Chrysostom shewing the difference betwene other figuraâ—…iue remembrances and this truthe sayth Tibi quotidie ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur Christ is euery day him self put before thee least thou shouldest forget him Note that Christ him self in this Sacrament is a remembrance of him selfe dying for vs euen as Manna was kept in the taberâ—…le of God to be a remembrance of it self Kepe it sayth God Vt nouerint filii Israël panem quo alui vos in solitudine That the children of Israel may know the bread wherewith I fed ye in yâ— desert So likewise the self body of Christ is kept as it were and preserued in the tabernacle of this blessed Sacrament that we may know by that knowlege which is meete for faithfull men that our Lord hath died for vs. ¶ The xxij circumstance of these words Drink ye all of this AFter the cup was taken and thanks geuen Christ gaue to his disciples and sayd bibite ex hoc omnes drink ye all of this In S. Luke it is sayd take and diuide among you By these words Christ meaneth literally that all the twelue should drink of that one cup and S. Marke witnesseth this precept to haue bene fâ—…illed saying Et biberunt ex illo omnes and all drank thereof This interpretation S. Dionysiâ—…s the Areopagite confirmeth saying that one chalice was diuided among them all And as S. Lyrillus witnesseth Circumtulit calicem dicens bibite ex hoc omnes He caried about the chalice saying drink ye all of this By carying about he meaneth all the twelue to haue receaued the drink out of that one cup in order Christ then would that his twelue Apostles should al drink of the same cup. The reason why he wold haue it so foloweth For sayth he this is my blood as if he sayd I haue conserated this cup only and none other therefore drink yâ—… all of this For if two or three of the twelue should haue drunk vp all that was in that cup either Christ must haue consecrated the cup again or the rest must haue receaued a drink not consecrated But it is not the wil of Christ that one Priest should coÌ„secrate in one Masse any more then once eche kind of the Sacrament because Christ died but once and then he onght to consecrate both kinds together because Christes blood and
soule must be signified a part from his flesh and his bdoy It is not therefore according to the mind of the Gospell that as now they doe in England when one cup is drunken vp an other should be filled out of a prophaue pot that staudeth by as though al were one so that wine be drunken with a remeÌ„brance of Christes death and resurrection it is not so All must drink of one chalice that is to say of yâ— one blood of Christ which is consecrated at one tyme though the chalices which hold it were diuerse as sometymes they haue bene when a great multitude of people did receaue at once This circumstance doth shew that it is more then wine which is drunke This doth shewe that these words This is my blood work somewhat in that one chalice whereof all must drink And consequently that Christ speaketh to bread and wine at his supper and not only preacheth to the audience as Caluin most ignorantly aud impudently affirmeth This is the cup whereof S. Ignatius writeth VnuÌ„ poculum vniuersis distributum est one cup is distributed to the whole eâ—…mpanie and he meaneth not so much one cup in nuÌ„ber as that the drink is al one in euery cup to wit the blood of Christ. This cup was so throughly communicated to all the twelue that Iudas one of the twelue drank thereof and that to his own damnation because he made no difference betwen the blood of Christ and other drinkes And now the Sacramentaries be in the same case concerning that they teache the substance in Christes chalice to bethe substance of common wine and not the blood of Christe As our Sacramentaries in England by geuing the faithfull people drink they care not whence so it be wine doe by that facâ—…e shew them selues to beleue that the blood of Christ is not present in the cup of the holy table so Christ by willing his Apostles that all should drink of that one cup because it was his blood geueth vs a greate warning to beleuc that cup to haue had really his owne blood in it For contrary doctrines haue contrary vsages ¶ The xxiii circumstance of these words This is my blood I Must nedes touch in this place somewhat spokeÌ„ of before but I will doe it for a farther purpose and to an other effect whereas the Sacramentaries teache the wine to be made a â—…igure of Christes blood wine is neither named at the consecration tyme as it is euident nor pointed vnto because the article hic this which only pointeth to all that is pointed vnto can not agree with wine but diffeâ—…eth from it in gender for so much as in Latine hic this is of the masculine gender and vinum wine is of the neuter Again in Breeke the articicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the neuter gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine is of the maculine so that if the pronoune hic this be not a noune substantiue it self but do point vnto a certain substance and yet that substance by the rules oâ—… grammar can not be wine and withall it both may be blood and of Chist is sayd to be his blood there can be none other literall proper and historical sense of these words but that This which is shewed by pointing vnto it is the substance of Christes blood I chose rather to say this much vpoÌ„ these words then vppon yâ— other This is my body Because though in them also yâ— pronoune hoc this doth only agree with the noune body not with bread yet I know that the Sacramentaries would striue therein say impudently that hoc standeth substantiuely for this thing and so would resolue it into this thing which is bread But in the consecration of Christes blood they can not pretend so much for it is not sayd hoc est sanguis meus in the neuteâ—… gender but hic est sanguis meus in yâ— masculine gender where the pronoune hic may only agree with sanguis blood By the which words we are certified also that in hoc est corpus meum the pronoune hoc this may only agree with the noune corpus body and neither with bread nor with any other acte which at the supper tyâ—… is a doing It can not now be sayd that est doth staÌ„d for significat seing there is no nominatiue case at al to go before the verbe significat for hic this can not stand neutrally but is of the same case geÌ„der and number that his substantiue sanguis blood is of It can not therefore be sayd Hic significat sanguinem meum this doth signifie my blood because in that speache this doth lack a noune substantiue to whome it may be referred and consequently the verb significat lacketh a noune substantiue to be the nominatiue case vnto it By which meanes the Sacramentaries leaue no congruitie of speach at all And so as S. Hierom wel noteth of their forefathers they build a roofe without walls or fouÌ„dation For what sense can they make without congrue words or what congruitie of words is in hoc panis and hic vinum what proposition will they haue without a nominatiue case or what nominatiâ—…e case without a noune substantiue or without an other thing which may stand substantiuely Or how can hic this in the masculine gender stand substantiuely The words of S. Hiâ—…rome are Debemus scripturam sanctam primûm secundum literam intelligere facientes in ethica quaecunque praecepta sunt Secundô iuxta allegoriam id est intelligentiam spiritualem Tertiô secundum futurornm beatitudinem Vos autem primam inquit secundam contemnentes diem spiritualia vobis quaedam figmenta componitis sine fundamento parietibus tectum desuper imponentes We ought first to vnderstand the holy scripture according to the letter doing whatsoeuer things are commaunded concerning morall vertues Secondly according to the allegory that is to say according to the spirtual vnderstanding Thirdly according to yâ— blessedues of the things to come But you sayth God contemning the first and yâ— second day do frame you certain spirituall imaginations putting a roof thereuppon without a foundation and walles Euen so the Sacramentaries tel a goodly tale of eating and drinking by fayth and of spirtuall feeding but they take away the meat and drinke whereupon we should â—…eed they take away the literall sense of Christes words which being once gone all that is buylded vppon the words is the putting vp of a roofe without walles or fouÌ„dation These three propositioÌ„s are found hic est sanguis meus haec est caro mea hoc est corpus meum In all three it is euident that the pronoune agreeth only with the noune folowing the verbe The Sacramentaries pull hic from sanguis blood ioyne it to vinum wine They pul haec from caro flesh and hoc from corpus body and ioyne haec and hoc to panis bread Is not this to
to blame to cast it out For the holy Ghost would not haue compelled you in vaine to call it in God meant ye should cal it in and kepe it in For in that he left it out he would shew to your hard harts how that verbe which when ye had it present in other Euangelists ye disdanied and scortiefully remoued that it was not only well placed but it was so necessary to the meaning of his words yâ— wheÌ„ it was left out ye should be forced to cal it in And wil ye be so forgetful as not to note these secret inforcements of God Know ye not that one iota or one title of the law and much lesse of the Gospel passeth not away vntill all things be fulfilled And yet dare you take away the verbe substaÌ„tiue it self from Christes own words the same verb I say which he coÌ„pelled you to take in when it was omitted by S. Luke See how farre Christ is from your mind when it is but once left out he will haue it euen then put in and when it is expressed in the words of Christes supper seuen tymes you will euery tyme put it out It is the custome of the Hebrew tonge to leaue out the verbe substaÌ„tiue sum es fui when it signifieth properly But how is it left out when if you say true it was neuer meant to be in Or how was it meant to be in when being put in it is by you remoued as not meant properly by him that spake And yet it is so necessarily meant to be put in Christes words that when it is left out the Sacramentaries can not chose but supply it and put it in therefore Christ meant to haue it stand in his proper and vsual signification For seing the verbe est is vsed to be left out because it may easily be supplied and may be taken as expressed though it be not expressed in deede then the vse which maketh it to be leaft out as a verbe easily supplied must by the same reason make it signifie that thing which it vseth commonly to signifie sith it is supplied by the only force of the vse of speaking and surely the vse of the verbe est is to signifie the substance of that noune substantiue which hath a peculiar substance and consequently in the words of Christes supper it must signifie the substance of his body and of his blood really present ¶ The xxvij Circumstance of these words whiche is shed for you THis cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood saith S. Luke whiche is or shal be shed for you The relatiue which in these words is not ruled as some perhaps would thinke of the noune blood which went last before but of the noune cup or chalice Which thing is most plain in the Greke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo quod pro vobis effunditur This cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood the whiche cup is shed for you For seing the Greke participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth shedding is in the nominatiue case with the noune cup and not in the datiue with the noune blood no escape can be had but it muâ—…t be referred to that word wherewith in grammer it may agree otherwise if we shall neglect the literal sense which ariseth of the right construction of the words we build a roofe as I alleged before out of S. Hierâ—…m without walles or foundation What meaning then haue these words the whiche cup is shed for you or as the latine copies reade which shal be shed For it was both presently shed in a mystery at the holy table of Christ should the next day be naturally shed vpon the crosse The substance of blood was one in both places the maner of shedding only differing But as I sayd how is the cup sayd to be shed for vs The word for vs importeth a sacrifice made in the shedding and therefore S. Mathew sheweth it to be shed in redeÌ„ptionem peccatorum for the remission of synnes Marke good Reader the maner of speaking the cup is shed â–ª that is to say the thing contemed in the cup. For we all agree herein that the name of cup standeth to meane the liquour in it as continens is vsed to be put pro contento the thing which holdeth a liquour is vsed to be put for the liquour it selfe which it holdeth We say he dranke vp a great bolle who drank the ale bere or wine that was in it and that is a figuratiue speach by exacte rules of Grammar but a speach made as proper through vse and custome Therefore to say the cup is shed for vs doth signifie that the liquour in it is shed for vs what liquour was that It is the greatest marâ—…eyle in the world if any man be so impudent as to affirme that material wine was shed for vs or that wine obteined vs remission of oúr synnes and yet it can not be denied but the liquour conteyned in the cup of Christes supper was shed for vs as Christ sayth Therefore I say the liquour conteyned in the cup of Christes supper could be no wine but only the blood of Christ. Is this a plaine argument or no the liquour in the cup of Christes banket was shed for vs to obtein the forgeuenes of synnes but only the reall blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our synnes therefore the only real blood of Chist was conteined in the cup of Christes banket What answer can be framed to this argument if Hell were let loose what probable solutioÌ„ were it able to bring The first part is in S. Luke the second is in S. Paule who affirmeth it to be the blood of Christ who offered him self by the holy spirit vnspâ—…d vnto God which cleanseth our coÌ„science froÌ„ dead works to serue the liuing God After these two partes the conclusion 〈◊〉 solow that Christes real blood is in the cup of Christes supper in the cup I say which Christ shewed pointed vnto saying this cup that is to say the thing herein conteined is the new Testament in my blood the which thing conâ—…eiued in the cup is shed for you Euthymius wel peceauing this to be yâ— meaning of S. Lukes wordes writteth thus Quod verò dicitur quod pro vobis effunditur ad poculum referendum est porrô poculum est saguis eius Whereas it is sayd the which is shed for you it is to be referred vnto the cup. Now the cup is Christes blood God grauÌ„t our deceaued bretheren may once perceaue this Grammaticâ—…ll literall senâ—…e of Christes wordes ¶ The last circumstance of the Hymne sayd at Christes supper WHen Christ had ended his banket he renounced to â—…ate or drinke any more with his Apostles vntil the kiâ—…gdom of God came geuing theÌ„ an euident watch-word therein that he would presently offer him self to death and so depart from this world vntill he should
Iudas saith Panem cui tradidit ipse Qui panis tradendus erat to whom Christe himselfe gaue bread the whiche bread was to be betraied See the bread that Christ gaue it was not euery bread not the substance of coÌ„mon bread but euen that bread in substance which was betraied for vs to death For Christ is bread geuing himself to Iudas he gaue the same bread that was betraied except any other thing was betraied for vs beside Christ. I might surely bring a maruelouse number of suche testimonies all which declare the name of bread whiche is attributed to the body of Christ after consecration not to signifie materiall or wheaten bread as it was before the blessing and pronouncing of the words but to describe that meat that food that true Manna which is only the flesh of Iesus Christ eaten vnder the forme oâ—… common bread And that kinde of bread is neuer named without an article or pronoune ioyned with it Whereby the excellency of the bread is witnessed the difference of it from common bread It is called in S. Mathew supersubstantiall bread in S. Iohn the bread which is flesh and in S. Paul the bread which who so eateth vnworthely he is gilty of the body of Christ which is as much to say as that kind of bread is the body of Christ. ¶ The presence of the body and blood of Christ in his last supper is proued by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old Testament FRom Adam to S. Iohn Baptist all the faithfull people of God was both in continuall expectation of the coming of Iesus Christ partly foreshewed in dedes by holy figures and pagents partly foretolde in words by the spirite of prophecie what should afterward be done by Christ him self and be obserued in his kingdom the church After which sort the brasen serâ—…ent betokened the death of Christ and Ionas his resurrection The figures by the way of doing commended the same truth to the eyes which the prophecies by the way of speaking dyd set forth to the eares Which two senses are the chief meanes whereby we atteine to knowledge in this life And because both figures and prophecies are obscure darke and vnpleasant vntill they be fulfilled I thought best not tâ—… speake of them before I had declared the true meaning of that gift whiche Christ made at his last supper Now it remaineth yâ— we briefly conferre the one with the other shewing that sense of Christes wordes which the Catholiks defend to be agreable to suche old shadowes figures prophecies as apperteined to the SacrameÌ„t of the altar For to the Iewes as S. Paul affirmeth all things chanced in figures And Christ saith all things must nedes be fulfilled which are spoken of him in the law Psalmes and Prophetes ¶ The figure of Abel ABell the first shepherd Priest Martyr and perpetuall virgin made a sacrifice of the first begotten of his flocke and of the fat of them which God shewed him self to accept by sending down fier from heauen Abel then hauing first offered him self vnto God vnder the shape of other thinges afterward went forth to be offered in his owne person and shape being â—…aiterously put to death by his brother Cain with a deadly â—…ripe of a wodden club or stake whose blood the earth opening her mouth receaued into her bowels and from thence it cryed to God The prince of shepherdes the chief Priest greate martyr and witensbeaâ—… to al truth the flower and garland of all virginitie is Iesus Christ God and man whose flocke the faithful men are The first begoâ—…eÌ„ and fatte of them is the flesh and blood which Iesus â—…oke of the virgin Marie which flesh and blood he first offered to God by wil and affection when he toke into his hands bread and wiâ—…e within a certaine parler vpon mounte Sioâ—… where he did eate the Paschal lambe with his Apostles And God shewed him selâ—…o to accept that intent of the sonne of man by working with the consuming fiex of his Diuinity that marucilouse grace which turned the substance of bread and wine into yâ— substance of Christes own flesh and blood And from that place Christ went forth ouer the brook of Cedron to be offered in his owne person and shape betraied by Iudas and put to death vpon the wood of the crosse by his own brethren the Iewes whose blood the Church called forth from among both Iewes and gentils with al due honour receaueth into her mouth bowels whence it geueth a better crie then the blood of Abell did from the earth where it lay Abel vnder the sigâ—…e of his Lambes did by will and affection consecrate the same truth of his body and soule to God which at yâ— tyme of his death he actually rendred and gaue vp into the handes of his maker And surely if he had bene able to haue made the substance of his owne body anâ—… soule present in his owne handes when he offered he would much more 〈◊〉 haue offered it then yâ— dâ—…ad flesh of lambes which he vsed for a signe of 〈◊〉 For who would content him selfe with a barâ—… signe if he weâ—…e able to offer the truth it selfe He was not of such power as to change the lambes into him selfe thereby working that in his haudes outwardly which his hart inwardly offered But yet he shewed his desier to haue a change made in that he slew yâ— laÌ„bes taking from them theyr former substance to thinâ—…t by consecration they might obteiâ—…e a more holy and sacâ—…ed being God also looked vpon his gifts as wel accepting the mind of his Priest as the maner of his doing But that which lacked in Abel who was faine to shew outwardly the consecration of his owne hart by a thing of an othere substance that thing Christ fulfilled making the same substance of his owne flesh present in his hands which he dedicated to God in his hart For taking bread and blessing he sayd This is my body Abel offered his gift before he went forth into the field where he was â—…aine The Sacramentaries deâ—…e Christ to haue offered his giftes in his last supper before hâ—… went forth to his passion Abel contented not him self with the former substance which his lambes naturally had They teach that Christ contented him self with the former substance of bread wine Fier â—…rom heauen inâ—…amed the external giftes of Abel They deny yâ— fier of the word of God to swallow vp the substance of bread and wine which Christ toke Abel consecrated his own body and blood as farre as he was able vnder the outward signe of his lambes They deny Christ to haue consecrated his owne body and blood vnder the formes of the bread and wine which he toke although they must nedes confesse that both Christ was able really to do it and by yâ— way of blessing to haue sayd this is my body
not born is made I say Therfore hoc facite signifieth make this thing 〈◊〉 sayth Inefficabili operatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traÌ„sformatur etiam si nobis videatur panis although it seme bread to vs it is made an other thing or transformed by an vnspeakeable working 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after this sorte If the word of God be liuely and of efficacy and all things what soeuer it wold it hath made if it sayd Let light be made it was made let the firmament be made and it was made If the 〈◊〉 be establyshed by the word of God and all the vertue of them by the spirit of his mouth if heauen and earth water fier aier and all the decking of theÌ„ and man himself a lyuing creature spred and made common euery where were made perfecte with the word of God If God the word him self of his owne wil was made man and hath vpholden and staied in his own person flesh without seed of maÌ„ out of the most pure and 〈◊〉 blood of the holy virgine is he not able to make bread his own body and wine and water his blood He said in the beginning let the earth bring forth 〈◊〉 spring to this day reyne being made it bringeth forth springs holpen and strengthned with the commandement of God God hath sayd This is my body and this is my blood and make this thing for the remembrance of me Et omnipotenti eius praecepto donec veniat efficitur and by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is made 〈◊〉 he come Marke whether Damascene doth not ground all his authorities vppon making and the authoritie of Christes supper vpon these words make this thiÌ„g 〈◊〉 expouÌ„ding these words Hoc facite sayth Hoc inquit nouum mysterium non illud vetus make this new mysterie sayth he and not that old Haymo sayth Hoc facite id est hoc corpus sanctificate sanctifie this body that is to say make holy and consecrate this body 〈◊〉 Archbysshop of Cantorbury although he sheweth first that by this word Hoc facite eating and drinking for the remembrance of Christes death is commamded to al Christians yet declaring also a farther sense of yâ— same words he sayth Aut corde vos qui Sacerdotes estis hoc facite quod ego 〈◊〉 feci id est calicem vini consecrate vt 〈◊〉 sanguismeus hoc facite in meaÌ„ commemorationem vt in hoc facto sitis memores mei eorum quae pro vobis passus sum Or els ye that are Priests make that which I haue now made that is to say consecrate the chalice of wine that it may be made my blood make this thing for the remembrance of me and of those things which I haue suffred for you 〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople sayth that the holy Ghoste maketh the mysteries by the hande of Priestes and toâ—…g Nicolaus Methonensis sayth the body and blood of Christ to be those thinges quae hoc ritu perficiuntur which are made peâ—…fit with this ryte If sanctificare efficere panem corpus Christi panem facere corpus Christi vinum sanguinem if consecrare operari diuinissima fieri eucharistiam facere panem corpus Christi conficere corpus Christi ore conficere oblationem Christi conficere paneÌ„ calicem mysticum fieri panem sui ipsius corpus facere nouum mysterium sacere corpus effici corpus hoc sanctificare coÌ„secrare calicem vini vt fiat sanguis Christi If al these phrases and kindes of speache can not be â—…nglished by doing but only by making and yet the aucthority and commandement that any Priest hath to make the body and blood of Christ commeth only from these words Hoc facite it must nedes be confessed that these words do signifie much more make this thing then doe this Otherwise we should not make the body of Christ at al whereas S. Iames Dionysius Areopagita S. Iustinus S. Ireneus Tertâ—…llian S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Augustine Theophilaet Euthymius Haimo Damascene Germanus Methonensis yea al the whole Church doth say with one accorde that Priestes doe make and are commanded to make the body of Christ. Is it now possible that the body of Christ which is thus made froÌ„ of wheaten bread by yâ— coÌ„mandement of God him self should not be for al yâ— present with vs vnder the form of the same bread If when the word was made flesh in the virgins wombe it was present with vs not only by saith and spirit but dwelt really in the world being conuersant among men and was sene in earth likewise when the body of Christ is made from of the creature of bread by the Priests mouth in the vertue of Christes word it is present with vs not only by faith and spirit but in deede and trâ—…th it self it dwelâ—…eth not only among vs but euen within vs as meate dwelleth in him who receaueth it weth a sound stomake and digesteth it well For seing Christ hauing taken bread and blessed sayd this is my body and â—…ad his Apostles make this thing bread is in such sorte made his body yâ— when y◠〈◊〉 of the words is past the body of Christe remaineth still according to the distinction of S. Basill as the work which was wrought by yâ— sayd words and it is receaued of the faithfull people vnder the form of bread to nourish theyr soules and bodies to euerlasting life ¶ What these words doe signifie For the remembrance of me that they much help to proue Christes reall presence vâ—…der the formes of bread and wine IT may be some man will say I deale not honestly â–ª for Christ sayd not only make this thing which I haue most pressed vpoÌ„ but he added other words thereunto which declare that a figure should be made and not his true body For he sayd do this in the remembrance of me If it be a remembrance of Christ how is it Christ him self The remembrance of a man differeth from the man him self Thus much if any man say against me I feare nothing but I shall satisfie him concerning my doing if now I shewe that the words of remeÌ„brance whereof he taketh holde doth much more help my saying theu his Which that I may the better perform I besech him to remember that Chist said not hoc agite in coÌ„memoratione mei doe this in my remembrance or in remeÌ„brance of me but hoc facite in meam commemorationem which signifieth as wel to make as to do this thing not only in but rather for the remembraÌ„ce oâ—… me and yet so haue these words bene commonly Englyshed and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 as though he had said only hoc agite doe this not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite which is both doe this and make this thing Again as though he had said in mea commemoratione in the ablatiue case in the remembrance of me and not 〈◊〉
Paule speaketh of is named specially also the communicating of Christes blood A generall blessing geueth a general benefite as when we say our Lord blesse you God send you good speede the right hand of God blesse this meate the holy Ghost sanctifie this wine and make it to be a remembrance of Christes bloodsheading These like wordes be blessings hallow or sanctifie the thing blessed as S. Paule saith the creatures to be sanctified by the word of God and praier But when a speciall blessing is geuen a speciall sanctifiyng must folow As when God blessed the 〈◊〉 Benedixitque eis dicens Crescite multiplicamini replete aquas maris and God blessed them saying Increase and multiplie and fyll the waters of the sea this special kinde of blessing worketh a speciall benefite vnto the creature which is blessed â–ª and it worketh euen that which the word signifieth â–ª who doubteth but by these words of Gods blessing increase and multiplie the fisshes toke the vertue of increasing and multiplying which before these words they had not for this kind of blessing gaue them this kind of benefite Seing then Christ blessed the chalice saying This is my blood of the new testament out of doubt he gaue it really this vertue to be the blood of the new testament Tell me no more that Christ willed it to signifie his blood for I tel you out of yâ— word of God what soeuer words haue bâ—… spoken belonging to any creature by the way of blessing they haue wrought that which they did signifie But Christ said in the way of blessing â–ª This chalice is the new testament in my blood Therefore he made by that blessing his blood within the chalice Bring me no more of those paltry examples I am a dore I am a vine the rock is Christ Iohn Baptist is Elias the holy Ghost is a doue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that sort I 〈◊〉 in one word to al that none of these were spoken by God in the way of blessing The 〈◊〉 saieth not that Christ blessed any certaine vine saying this is Christ or This is my body â–ª He sayd many thinges without blessing and he blâ—…ed sometymes without speaking But when blessing words are â—…oyned we are certified that those words are not figuratiue nor only tokens and bare sigâ—…s but working and making that which is said For if they promise a thing to come they worke by the way of causing the promyse in due tyme to be fulfilled as when a soâ—…e was promysed to Abraham by the Aungell of God If they be spoken as betokening a present verbe they presently worke the thing betokened Let no 〈◊〉 deceaue thee good Reader There is a dubble blessing spoken of in S. Paule there is the chalice of blessing and the chalice which we blesse The chalice of blessing as S. Chrysostom saieth is that which wheÌ„ we haue before vs we prayse God with admiration and horrour of the vnspeakeable gift but it is not the chalice of blessing vntill we haue blessed it The blessing whiche maketh it the chalice of blessing is that we speake of and that is the blessing whiche is made by the wordes of consecration as I haue said before Therefore S. Chrysostom wryteth thus vpon this place of S. Paule Cùm benedictionem dico Eucharistiam dico dicendo Eucharistiam omnem benignitatis Dei thesaurum aperio magna illa munera commemoro When I say blessing I say the Eucharist and in saying the Eucharist I open all the treasour of the goodnes of God and I make rehearsall of those great gifts But least any cauill should be made as though the wordes of 〈◊〉 were not the words of blessing heare what S. Ambrose aâ—…th of this Sacrament Quantis vtimur exemplis vt probemus non hoc esse quod natura formauit How many 〈◊〉 vse we to proue that it is not yâ— thing whiche nature made but that which blessing consecrated Lo that which conâ—…eth is blessing But what blessing After yâ— S. Ambrose had bronghâ—… many examples to shew what strength blessing had at the last he concludeth Quòd si tantùm valuit humana benedictio vt naturam conuerteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur If the blessing of man was of that power that it changed nature what say we of Gods own consecrating where the self words of our Lord Saniouâ—… do worke Marke good Read er blessing consecrating and the words of our Sauiour working is all one matter And yet againe to make it playner S. Ambrose saieth Nam Sacramentum istud quod ac cipis Christi sermone conficitur for this Sacrament which thou receauest is made with the wordes of Christ what the words be he telleth him self Vide omnia illa verba Euangelistae sunt vsque ad accipite siue corpus siue sanguinem inde verba sunt Christi Behold al those are the words of the Enâ—…ngelist vntill we come to this word take either body or blood from thense they are the wordes of Christ. Yf blessing be that which consecrateth both blessing consecration be made with the words oâ—… Christ his words he those which folow the word take yâ— words which folow be these This is my bodie and This is my blood who perceyueth not yâ— these only are the words of blessing Then we blesse the chalice when we consecrate when we say This is my blood of the new testament when we blesse saying the wordes of blessing in Christes mysteries then we make so much as our words do signifie For which cause S. 〈◊〉 concludeth that yâ— chaâ—…ce which we blesse is the coÌ„municating of the blood of Christ. In saying which we blesse he sheweth the cause why it is Christes blood In saying it is the communicating of Christes blood he sheweth both yâ— effect wrought by blessing which is yâ— presence of the blood of Christ and the cause finall why it is made verily to communicate vnto vs the merites of Christes death where the sayd blood was shed for the remission of synnes If the â—…halice after blessing had no blood in it how did it communicate to vs the blood of Christ S. Chrysostom geuing the literall sense of these woordes writeth thus EoruÌ„ auteÌ„ huiusmodi est sententia Quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit et illius sumus participes of these wordes this is yâ— meaning The same which is in the chalice is that which flowed from the side aâ—…d thereof we are pà rtakers He affirmeth S. Paul to say that both yâ— blood which flowed from Christes side is in the chalice also that we are thereof partakers But yâ— blood whereof we are partakers by the confession of yâ— Sacramentaries is yâ— naturall blood of Christ therefore the natural blood of Christ is coÌ„teined within yâ— chalice And consequeÌ„tlie
vnworthy eating and drinking of euill men WHen S. Paule had said As oft as ye shall eate this bread and drink the cup of our Lord ye shall shewe our Lordes death vntill he come he goeth forward saying Therefore who so eateth this bread drinketh the chalice of our Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of our Lordes body and blood How doth this senteÌ„ce hang vpoÌ„ yâ— former how coÌ„meth it in with â—… Therefore but because in the former sentence S. Paul said by eating this bread we shew Christes death And for as much as we shew it in that self thing which dyed for vs therefore he that eateth vnworthely such a meate wherein by the substance which died he sheweth Christes death he is gilty of our Lordes body none otherwyse then if he had betraied it as Iudas did For the same body that Iudas did by a false kisse geue to death we eate vnder the forme of bread to shew the same death If then Iudas were gilty of Christes natural body for geuing it vnworthely to death we are gilty of the same naturall body when by eating it we shew vnworthely the same death But if we had not present the same real flesh which Iudas hetraied our vnworthy shewing could not be like his vnworthy doing al the strength of S. Paules reasoning is only grounded vpon the real presence of Christes body the vnworthy shewing whereof he now speaketh is the vnworthy â—…ating And for so much as eating is a corporall action which is done by the instruments of teeth and mouth S. Paule doth vs to vnderstand that euil men might touch and haue in their mouthes yâ— bread and drink of our Lord. But his bread and his drink is of him â—…elfe affirmed to be his body and blood therefore S. Paule confesseth that euill men may haue the body and blood of Christ in theyr mouthes But that they could not doe except the body and blood were vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore he teacheth the body and blood of Christ to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine Saith not S. Paule whosoeuer eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of our Lord vnworthely Then this bread and the cup of our Lord may be eaten and drunken vnworthely But what Speaketh he of eating by faith or of drinking by spirit No verily for such eating and drinking can not be vnworthely made You wil say it is bread and wine whereof he speaketh If it were so why doth S. Paule name it this bread â–ª For 〈◊〉 the pronoune this doth shew a thing present to some sense or other and seing when S. Paule wrote these wordes he being absent in body from the Corinthians could not shew them any thing by any corporal actioÌ„ of his it remaineth that yâ— thing whereunto this doth point was named in the epistle of S. Paule which he worte to those faithfull men and also that it went not long before as the which otherwese might be of vncertaine vnderstaÌ„ding What is it then which went before Christ toke bread and after thanks geuen said Take eate this is my body whosoeuer eateth this bread vnworthely he is gilty of the body of our Lord. If this bread point vnto that whereof Christ said This is my body S. Paule meaneth to shew his faut whosoeuer eateth the body of our Lord vnworthely and thereby he grauÌ„teth euil men to eate Christes body which they can doe by no meanes except that be Christes body which they take into theyr â—…outhes The Sacramentaries will obiect againste me that Christ ment the signe of his body which truly can not be so For seing S. Paule named no signe as this can not point to that which was not named so it must point only to the thing named before But the thing before named was the body of Christ broken for vs therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance ¶ The reall presence is proued because vnworthy receauers are gilty of Christes body and blood WHo soeâ—…er eateth this bread or drinketh the cup of our Lord vnwortehly he shal be gily of yâ— body blood of our Lord. A man may be gilty either for doing an euil deede or for leauing a good deede cleane vndon or els for doing a good dede in an euil manner Here S. Paule maketh the vnworthy receauer gilty for eating this bread and drinking the cup of our Lord vnworthely which is to say for doing a good deede after an euil manner his dede is eating which thing he so reaâ—…ly doth that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drink damnation to himself But no man is gilty of doing more theÌ„ he actually doth therefore the vnworthy receauer who for eating and drinking is gilty of the body and blood of Christ doth eate and drink in deede the same body and blood of Christ whereof he is gilty The Sacramentaries imagine S. Paule to haue said He that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christes supper refuseth to eate by faith the body of Christ sitting in heauen is gilty of not eating Christes body Who euer heard of such a toy what iote of all the scriptures which appertein to Christes supper haue they left vnwrested vntorne or vndefiled what sentence clause or word haue they left in his naturall meaning If S. Paule and the foure Euangelists were not theÌ„ selues men of sufficient discretion who might consider how nedefull it were to vnderstand wel the mysteries of Christ yet surely in repeting one matter oft it would at the least chance vnto them that they should haue told vs some one syllable which might haue made for the Sacramentary doctâ—…ine if it had bene true But now whatsoeuer they speake doth destroie vtterly and ouerthrow theyr fond assertion And that I may for this tyme go no farther what caÌ„ be answered to this place of S. Paul he that eateth a very good thing vnworthely is pronounced gilty therefore his present fault consisteth in the euill manner of his eating For to eate vnworthely is to eate in deede but not to eate after a good manner No man by eating in an euill manner can be gilty of that which he doth not eate in that euill manner and yet the vnworthy receauer of this bread is pronounced gilty of Christes body and it is ment of his naturall body Therefore this bread which he doth eate vnworthely is the reall and naturall body of Christ. If a man had done neuer so heinouse a robbery yet thereby to condemne him of adulterie it were an euideÌ„t 〈◊〉 although the paine due to adultery be lesse then that which is due to robberie But now to condemne a man for eating the body of Christ who did eate only the figure of it that were much more vniust for that his paine increased aboue the measure of his fault Let it be neuer so great a fault to eate the holy bread vnworthely yet if that holy bread be
Epiphanius Who so beleueth not the saying to be true as him self spake it is fallen from grace and saluation Cyrillus Hierosolymitatus Seing Christ him self affirmeth so and sayth of the bread This is my body Who hereafter may be so bolde as to doubte S. Ambrosius Our Lord Iesus him self geueth witnes vnto vs that we take his body and blood Ought we any thing to doubte of his fidelitie and witnesbearing S. Chrysostome Because our Lord sayd This is my body let vs be intangled with no doubtfulnes but let vs beleue and see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Eusebins Emissenns Let all doubtfulnes of infidelitie depart for so much as the author of the gift him self also is witnes of the truth S. Cyrillus of Alexandria Doubt not whether it be true sith Christ sayth manifestly This is my body But rather take y◠word of our Sauiour in faith for seing he is y◠truth he lieth not And againe Let vs take great aduantage by the synnes of other men Geuing stedfast faith vnto the mysteries Let vs neuer in so high matters either thinke or speake that word Quomodo How S. Gregorius Nazianzenus Eate the body and drink the blood without confusion or doubte if at the least thou arte desirouse of life Neither do thou withdraw faith from the sayings which concerne the flesh The same thing S. Hilary Leo Isychius Theophylact Paschasius and diuerse others haue spoken requiring vs not to doubte of the truth of this mysterie and that specially because Christes words make full persuasion and take away al occasion of doubting But if they be figuratiue it is not so for then one may vnderstand this kinde of figure an other that kinde One may thinke it to be a Metaphore An other that it is Synechdoche The third that it is Metonymia The fourth that it is altogether an Allegorie or parable and without all ground of Historie Others doubt not to expound This is my body as if it were sayd in this with this or vnder this or about this my body is Yea from that day wherein the proper and natural sense of those words was denied I thinke neuer any words haue bene more vncertayne and more doubted of then This is my body Yet the Fathers were so farre from this vncertaintie that they counted him an infidell and ◅allen from grace and saluation who so did not beleue them euen as Christ spake them To wit euen so as they sound at the first sight If the truth of Christes body be the reall substance thereof they that intreating of the Eucharist affirme y◠truth of his flesh must nedes meane that his substance is really present in that Sacrament whereof they speake S. Hilarius speaking of the holy mysteries sayth There is left no place of doubting of the truth of flesh and blood Yet surely if the substance of flesh and blood were not present not only some place but the chief place of doubting were left S. Ambrosius It is the true flesh of Christ which we take Doubt ye nothing at all sayeth Leo concerning the truth of Christes body By like he spake to Catholikes for doubtlesse the Sacramentaries doubt so vehemently thereof that they beleue the truth of Christes body to be only at the right hand of his Father Isychius He receaueth by ignorance who knoweth not this to be the body and blood according to the truth Damascenus The bread and wine is not the figure of Christes body and blood God forbid But it is the self deified body of our Lorde The like assertion Theophylact Euthymius and diuerse other Fathers haue They that name the supper of Christ a figure a Sacrament or a remembrance do not therby exclude the true substāce of Christes flesh but they meane to shew that it is present vnder the signe of an other thing after a mysticall and secret maner S. Cyprian The diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it self in the visible Sacrament S. Hilarius We take in dede the flesh of his body vnder a mysterie Lo the flesh the substance of God is present in truth but vnder a signe Ty◅illus Hierosolymitanus Vnder the figure of bread the body is geuen to thee Who now knowing the Sacrament to consist of two parts wil wonder that sometyme it is named of the one and sometyme of the other S. Augustine The body and blood of Christ shall then be life to euery man if that thing which is visibly receaued in the Sacrament be in the truth it self eaten spiritually B◅holde there is a thing in the Sacrament and so really it is there that it is visibly receaued Therefore it is not a spirituall thing only for no such matter is visibly receaued but it is there and thence it must be eaten spiritually and in y◠truth it self That is to say it must not only be taken into the mouth but into the hart also then it shal be life vnto the receauer This thing so receaued in the Sa cramēt must nedes be the body of Christ vnder y◠forme of bread for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually It were to rediouse to allege all that S. Augustine hath writen in this behalf but his other words being conferred with these wil make it plaine that whensoeuer he nameth it a figure he meaneth the truth hidden vnder a figure which is more shortly named a mysticall figure He that allegeth cause why the flesh and blood of Christ is not seen in the mysteries presupposeth albeit an vnuisible yet a most reall presence thereof S. Ambrose sayth it is not seen in his owne forme Vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis To th' end there may be no lothsome abhorring of raw blood and yet that the price of our redemption may work So that by his iudgement the truth of blood is present to worke in vs the effect of Christes death and yet the foorm of blood is not seen because we should not abhorre to drink it Theophylact Although it seme bread to vs it is chaunged by vnspeakable operation Because we are weake and abhorre to eat rawe flesh specially the flesh of a man and therefore it semeth bread but in dede it is flesh If these words can be glosed with a figure then I know not what shall escape the hands of these figure makers They that acknowledge a change of the substāce of bread into Christes body must nedes meane a real presence of that body whereinto the change is made When Iustinus Martyr denyeth vs to take the things consecrated as common bread and drinke shewing also that we haue learned them to be not only sanctified in qualitie but to be the flesh and blood of Christ which is an other substance he doth vs to vnderstand that he meaneth them not to be after consecration the substance of common
Chapiters of the seuenth Booke 1. Maister Iuel hath not answered D. Hâ—…rding wel touching the vvords of Christes supper 2. That the supper of Christ is a naked bare figure accordig to the Doctrine of the SacrameÌ„taries 3. That Christes bodie is receaued by mouth not by faith only 4. M. Iuel hath not replied vvel touching the sixth Chapiter of S. Iohn But hath abused as vvell yâ— gospel as diuerse authorities of the fathers 5. Item he hath not replied vvell touching the Carpharnaites 6. Neither conferred the supper vvith the sixth of Iolm as it ought to be 7. Neither disputed wel touching the omnipotenâ—…ie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh 8. Whether the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 exponÌ„d more vnpropertie or inconuenientlie the vvords belonging to Christes supper 9. A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel 10. Of the signification of aduerbs 11. Of the first author of the SacrameÌ„tarie heresie 12. Of Christes glorified bodie and the place of S. Hierom expounded 13. A place of S. Chrysostom examined 14. The difference betvvene baptisme and oure Lordes supper 15. The ansvvere to M. Iuel concerning the Nicene Councell S. Augstine caet 16. VVhether Christes bodie dvvelleth reallie in our bodies by his natiuitie 17. Item vvhether by faith 18. The contradictions of M. Iuel in this article 19. Whether by baptism Christe dvvelleth reallie in our bodies 20. Item VVhether by the Sacrament of the altar or no. 21. Christes bodie is proued really present by S. Chrysostoms vvordes 22. Item by the vvordes of S. Hilarie 23. Item of S. Gregorius Nyssenus 24. Item of S. Cyrill ¶ Master Iuel hath not answered D. Harding well touching the words of Christes supper IVel. fo 316. The people was not taught in the first 600. yeres to beleue that Christes body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the Sacrament Harding Of the termes really substantially corporally coet found in the doctors Iuel His answere is that Christes body is corporally vnited to vs but whether it be corporally in the Sacrament he answereth not one word Harding The termes are fouÌ„d in the doctors treating of the true being of Christes body in the Sacrament Sander Ergo M. Iuel said not truly For as D. Harding now saith it so he proueth afterward Christes body to be really in the Sacrament Iuel In this matter he is able to allege nothing for direct prouf Harding Christen people hath euer bene taught that the body of Christ is present verely in the Sacrament vvhich doctrine is founded vpon Christes plaine vvords Sander Ergo M. Iuel â–ª he was able to allege some what Iuel It is marueil the people should be taught without a teacher or without â–ª words â–ª or those not writen Harding Christes vvordes are expressed by three Euangelists and S. Paule Take eate this is my body this is my blood coet San. Ergo M. Iuel hath 〈◊〉 plainly 〈◊〉 whereby direct prouf of Christes real presence is 〈◊〉 â–ª Harding Neither saieth our Lord only This is my body but to put the matter out of dout he addeth vvhich is geuen for you Iuel 317. Hereupâ—… M. Harding fouÌ„deth his carnal presence 318. in such grosse sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament c. San. It is no grosse sort of presence whiche is reall true and miraculouse as being of Christes own institution Marcion and Apelles herein your auncestors M. Iuel thought it a carnall a grosse a fleshly thing for Christ to lie nine moneths in his mothers belly to be nourished there with blood and humours to be borne naked to be wrapped in clouts For a remedie of which absurdities the one of them deuised that Christ was not really borne but that which Tertullian saith against Marcion shal be my answere to you First God saieth he hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound men that are wise in their own conceit 2. Whatsoeuer is vnworthy of God is expedient for maÌ„ 3. Be thou assured Christ had rather be borne then in any parte to make a lye Now if we applie all these sayinges to Christes presence in the Sacrament it shal be lesse carnall lesse grosse lesse fleshly to haue the substance of Christes corporall flesh in a spirituall manner really present vnder the forme of bread then either to be corporally in his mothers womb or to think that he made a lye when he said take eate this is my body Iuel Christ vseth not any of these words San. I will say with S. Augustine although the word be not found the thing is found Harding 130. Though this manner of speaking be not thus expressed in the scripture yet it is deduced out of the scripture Iuel Christ vseth no leading thereunto Sander The worde 〈◊〉 â—…id lead the Apostles to that which was in Christes hands or which lay before him the wordes is my body shewed the substance thereof as if I shewing to a man that kind of beast should say this is a lion the word this leadeth him to that beast which he feeth and whereunto I point is a lion sheweth the substance of the thing pointed vnto This oddes only there is that a man by pointing speaking can shew only that which was before but God who spake it was made by pointing and speaking doth make that to be the substance of his body whiche was not so before Nowe as when it is truly said this is a lion it wil follow thereof vnder this visible forme which I shew a lion is substantially conteined so seing Christe pointeth to the Sacrament saying This is my body it will follow thereof in this Sacrament my body is conteined substantially corporally c. Thus Chrisâ—…es wordes lead vs to his body substantially present in the Sacrament ergo M. Iuel must subscribe by his owne promise Iuel 317. D. Fisher saith this sense can not in any wise be gathered of the bare wordes of Christ. Sander Wel fisht I promise you if he fish wel that catcheth a lie 1. The blessed B. of Rochester had said that the vnderstaÌ„ding of the Gospell is more certeinly obteined by the interpretation of the Fathers and by the practise left by them then by the bare words of the Gospel For example hereof he saith no man shall prone by the bare wordes of the Gospel that any Priest in these daies doth coÌ„secrate the true body and blood of Christ. Marke good Reader whereof he speaketh For although saith he Christ him self did in dede make his body and blood of bread and wine yet except the like be promised and graunted to vs we can not be sure we do it but no suche thing is promised For in S. Mathew now followeth one of the places alleged by M. Iuell No word is put whereby it maie be proued that in our Masse the very presence of Christes body and blood
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
miraculouse 26. Ye expound to be gilty of Christes body and blood for eating that is to say for not eating or resusing to eate For you teache euill men not to eate the body of Christ which is against S. Paule 27. Ye will not haue Christes supper to be an externall sacrifice but to be worse in that point then the Iewish or idolatours altars and tables who both did sacrifice and also S. Paule compareth Christes table with theirs 28. Ye so expound the shewing of Christes death by eating bread a figure of him that you rather shewe him not to be truely dead because your figure is yet emptie voide which can neuer proue Christes death truely past 29. Ye expound the not making a difference betwene Christes body eaten and other meates in suche sort that ye wil not haue the body present wherein the difference is to be made 30. Ye deny our vnion with Christes flesh by corporall participation which S. Paule teacheth by the example of Adam Eue being two in one flesh 31. Whereas S. Pauie saieth Christe to be so muche better then Angels by how much he had a more excelleÌ„t name theÌ„ they you regard not yâ— name body blood geuen to yâ— mysteries of Christ but affirme them to be still that they were before and therefore not to be that excellent substance which they are named to be 32. In all the scriptures so great and oft mention being made of Christes supper as there is yet no promise can be found made to him who eateth materiall bread and drinketh wine But all the promise is made for eatinge Christes fleshe and drinkinge worthely his blood Therefore you affirm bread to be eateÌ„ and wine to be drunken in Christes supper beside the word of God 33. Although Dauid prophecied of cating and adoring yet you wil graunt no such meat to be geueÌ„ to vs which may be external ly adored 34. Notwithstanding that the prophets teache that by Christes comming al externall idolatrie shal be taken away yet you feare not to say that Christes owne Sacrament bearing the name of his owne body and blood is it selfe an idol which was left with vs to kepe vs from all idolatrie 35. The sonne of man came as to saue so to fede the whole man why then denie you the food of life to our bodies affirming them to eat common bread and to drinke common wine whiles the soule is fed by faith with the body and bloode of Christ 36. If in the Sacrament of the altar we fede vpon Christ by faith alone why is that Sacrament called a supper more theÌ„ baptism where also we must fede on Christ by faith 37. Seing a figure may also be the truth it selfe whereof it is the figure as Christ is the figure of his Father and yet the same substance what reason haue you why you would rather detract this hoâ—…our from Christes Sacrament then geue the same vnto it 38. Christ being equal with his Father made promise to vs of his â—…ne fleshe whiche his Father had geâ—…en Why then denie you the gift of Christ to be as real to vs as his Father gaue him real fleshe 39. How teache you the words of Christ which are spirit life to be notwithstanding figuratiue and consequently deade and voide of al life or strength 40. Because yâ— word of God who was only able to be fed vpon by faith and so was the food of Angels or soules woulde be also the meate of man in respect of the body it toke flesh aâ—…d at his supper sayd to vs take eate this is my body And yet you make him still to be only the meate of the minde whereby we are excluded frome hauing God corporally in vs through the fleshe of Christe 41. To coÌ„clude whereas ye find flesh bodie blood ioyned with eating drinking taking partaking geuing breaking distributing coÌ„municating dâ—…udicating ye expound all those words figuratiuelie as though God by so manie waies repeating those words had not strengthned the coÌ„mon and proper significatioÌ„s of them Let this suffise for this time to shew that you obserue nor gender nor number nor nominatiue case nor verb nor antecedent nor relatiue nor the condition of the maker of the supper nor the nature of the sacrament nor the state and perfection of the Gospel nor the sayings of the prophetes nor the â—…ulfilling of the old law nor the oft repeting of the matters belonging to Christs supper but onlie to serue the eye and the senses deny al the marueilous workes of the new testament yâ— remeÌ„brance of al which this one mysterie is affirmed to be â—…rag no more M. Iuel of our figuratiue expositions sith you haue thus erred in graÌ„mar in Logick in Diuinitie in truth in faith in coÌ„mon sense Iu. If in these words except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of maÌ„ ye follow the letter it killeth San. To follow yâ— letter is to take words as thei sound to an inâ—…del as to haue flesh torn in to peeces and so eaten but he that taketh them as Christ in his supper by his fact did expound them doth folow yâ— spirit and not the letter ¶ A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. Iuel IVel. S. Augustine sayth The Sacrament of Christes body after a certain phrase or manner or trope or â—…igure of speache is the body of Christ. Sander This place is wickedly abused because it is nakedly alleged and falsely englished whereas it dependeth wholy vpon the words going before which are these Nónne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in Sacramento caet Was not Christ once offered vp in him selfe and yet in the Sacrament he is offered vp for the people not only at euerie feaste of Easter but euerie day Neither surely doth he lye who being demanded Eum responderit immolari Doth answere that he is offered vp For if the SacrameÌ„ts had not a certain likenes of those thinges whereof they are the Sacramentes they were not at all Sacramentes Out of this likenes they take also for the most parte the names of the things theÌ„ selues As therefore according to a certaine â—…anner the Sacrament of Christes body is the body of Christe the Sacrament of the blood of Christe is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith In these words of S. Augustine it is to be seen euidently that he putteth a difference betwene the thing and the Sacrament of that thing The thing therefore it selfe must be first knoweâ—… and then we shal see how the Sacrament thereof is both like vnâ—… it and taketh the name thereof The thing it selfe in ouâ—… question is Iesus Christ not only so but the true body of Iesus Christe neither only true in substance but euen
bone but not thereby really dwelling in our bodies which belong to our persons Iuel In that sense S. Ihon saith the word was made flesh and dwelt in vs. San. In what sense Whether that Christes bodie by his natiuitie dwelleth substantially in our bodies for so you said but S. Ihon said not so God gaue men power to be made the sonnes of God to such as beleue in his name to such as are borne of God and when S. Iohn had said we had power to be the sonnes of God if we were borne of God he consirmeth that power geuen to vs saying And yâ— word is made flesh hath dwelt 〈◊〉 vs. Therfore saith S. ChrysostoÌ„ he hath dwelt in vs that it might be lauful to come to him selfe to speake to be câ—…uersant boldly with him He was not in our bodies really straight vppon the incarnation but when he dwelt 〈◊〉 our nature wheÌ„ he was a trúe man as we are then might we come to him Priusipsu verbum voluit nasci ex homine vt tu securius nascereris ex deo The word wold first be born of a woman to thâ—…d 〈◊〉 mightest be born of God without feare Iuel Therefore Christ calleth himself the vine and vs the braunches San. It is vntruly sayd 〈◊〉 Iuel For albeit Christ by his humane birth be as it were the 〈◊〉 of the vine for his owne part yet he is not to vs the vine nor we be not the braunches 〈◊〉 we are graffed into Christ which is don by saith and Baptism S. Augustine saith he is made maÌ„ that the nature of man should be a vine in him whereof we that are men might be also the braunches If his only birth had made vs braunches what neded a new birth in Baptism When S. â—…yrill wold shew that Christ according to his humane nature was the vine which thing the Arrians denied he went not for the matter to Christes birth only for then Iudas and â—…ain had bene braunches but he went to the Sacrament of Christes supper to proue that we depend of Christes flesh as braunches doe of the vine Iuel S. Paul calleth Christ the head and vs the body San. S. Paule speaketh of Christes mysticall body and you should proue that his natural body is really in our bodies Now if to make his body to dwell really in our bodies more then his birth be necessary it is not true that M. Iuel with such vain brags hath hitherto sayd that his body by â—…is natiuity dwelleth really or substancially or naturally in our bodies But only that he dwelleth in vs to wit in our nature being made Emanuell nobiscum Deus God with men But thereby Christ dwelleth but in one body really to wit in that which he made to himself out of the virgins most pure blood Wherefore S. Cyrillus saith Habitauit in nobis Dei verbum in templo vno quod propter nos de nobis sibi condidit vt omnes in seipso habeÌ„s in vno corpore patri reconciliaret The word of God hath dwelt in vs or among vs in one teÌ„ple yâ— which he made to himself for our sakes and out of vs that hauing al in himself he might reconcile them to the Fathâ—… in one body One thing M. Iuel I must put you in mind of You 〈◊〉 that Christes body may not be in many places at once which doutlesse you meane of his naturall body and his body is by no meanes more natural then by the natiuity thereof But you say now that Christes body by his natiuity dwelleth really substan cially and fleshly in our bodies and certeinly our bodies dwell in many places therefore you are against your own doctrine as who confesse Christes body by his natiuity to dwell naturally in all our bodies which are not only in many places of yâ— earth but a great number also are vnder the earth in al which Christes body according to your doctrine must dwell corporally and therefore it must be in many places together ¶ Whether Christes body dwell in our bodies by faith really or no. IVel. Towching faith S. Paul saith Christ by faith dwelleth in our harts San. The word hart in holy scripture doth not alwayes signifie that fleshly part of a mans body commonly so called but S. Paule meaneth that Christ dwelleth in our minds and wills by faith and charitie which is made very plaine by the words going before secundum interiorem hominem according to the inner man Therefore no dwelling of Christes body really or substancially in our bodies is proued by this place of S. Paule except we shall say that Christ hath no real and substanciall body of his own For if is be a reall substance what meaneth M. Iuel to affirm it dwelleth really and substancially where the real substance thereof it not if it be a reall dwelling of Christes body in our bodies in that we beleue in Christ and yet Christ haue but one reall and substanciall body by M. Iuels phrase of speache that body may be sayd to haue dwelt really in yâ— virgins â—…omb in that she only beleued in Christ. and by such worthy interpretation the truthe of the incarnation is vtterly taken away Iuel S. Peter saith Hereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature San. Those wordes generally pertein to all the giftes of God and specially to yâ— incarnation of Christ whereby we communicate most perfitly if yet we be faithsull with the nature of God For when we beleue in Christe who is man with vs and God with his Father then wee communicating with his manhood coÌ„municate also with the Godhead whiche dwelleth corporally in Christ. But that coÌ„municating may be made either by faith or baptism and other Sacraments And as the Godhead dwelâ—…eth incomparably more excellently in Christes own body â—…then it doth in any other thing which dependeth thereof so the vnion with his nature is made far better by the meane of the Eucharist with faith and Baptism ioyned together then by one or two of them alone And that this place of S. Peter doth pertein to the communicating of Christes flesh in the Sacrament also Cyrillus of â—…ierusalem doth witnesse writing thus Under the forme of bread the body is geuen and vnder the forme of wine the blood is geuen c. And so we shal be made partakers of the diuine nature as S. Peter sayth Now M. Iuel hath most improperly placed this Testimonie in the second kind of Christes dwelling in vs sith it apperteyneth to all foure ways generally but most especially to that coÌ„munion or ioyning which is made by the holy Eucharist Iuel So sayth Ignatius By his passion and resurrection that is by our faith in the same we are made the members of his body San. S. Ignatius in two places oâ—… that Epistle speaketh of such a matter as M. Iuel wold
in which word yâ— greatest weight of his iudgeâ—…ent resteth For he intendeth not to denie but that the sacraments of the new lawe conteine and geue grace but he saith Thei conteine it not essâ—…ntially as a veâ—…el coÌ„teineth water or as a box holdeth a medicine Whiche notwithstanding he sheweth two other waies how thei conteine grace But I pray you to what end allege you Bonauenture if not to disproue yâ— reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacramente For say you though Christes bodie were in our bodies really it woulde not therefore be concluded that it is really in the Sacrament how is tâ—…at proued forsoth by S. Bonauenture did he then say that Christes bodie though it be really in vs yet it is not râ—…allie in the Sacrament Did he meane any such thinge You shall nowe heare his own words in the same verie place concerâ—…ing the con ference of the Eucharist with other Sacramentes In illo Sacramento est transubstantiatio Vnde illud quod significatur ibi vera est substantia quam congruit esse per se. In that Sacrament there is 〈◊〉 whereby that thing which is signified there is a true substance which substance is fit to be by it self ¶ That Christes body is proued to be really in the Sacrament by S. Chrysostoms words HArding By this Sacrament sayth Chrysostom Christ reduceth vs as it vvere into one lumpe vvith himself And that not by faith only but he maketh vs his ovvn body in very dede Re ipsa VVhich is no other to say then really Iuel This place wold haue stand M. Harding in better stede if Chrysostom had said Christ mingleth his body with the Sacrament and driueth himself and it into one lumpe San. If the Sacâ—…ament of Christes supper were a thing so distinct from Christes body as Christes body is distinct from vs S. Chrysostom might haue sayd perhaps that Christ mingleth himself with the Sacrament But now it is a great ignorance that M. Iuel marketh not the SacrameÌ„t of Christes supper to be of it self the reall body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore to say Christ is mingled with the Sacrament were to say that Christ is mingled with him self S. Chrysostom was wiser then to say so but speaking of the Sacrament he sayth that Christ mingleth himself really with vs who worthely receaue that Sacrament Iuel Neither will M. Harding say that Christ mingleth himself with vs simplie and without figure Whereof it foloweth that much lesse it is so in the Sacrament San. This is a fine kind of Rhetorick to make D. Harding beleue he will not say that which he doth say He meaneth that Christes own reall body is ioyned to our bodies and that simplie concerning the substance thereof and without any figure of Rhetorike or of grammar but not without a mystical figure because it is geuen vnder the formes of breade and wine The whereof that you inferre vppon your false surmise is â—…louse vnsensible and fond Iuel It is a vehement and a hot kind of speache such as Chrysostom was most delighted with San. To speake without sporting it is so hot that if you amend not your opinion it may help to promote you to the 〈◊〉 of hell but to good faithful men it is a mild and calme saying Iuel It is a speache farre passing the coÌ„mon sense and course of truth San. I thought you wold bring it to a phrase or figure of speache But he 〈◊〉 it for a truth as we shal see anon Iuel Himself thought it necessarie to correct and qualifie the rigour of the same speache by these words vt ita dicam which is 〈◊〉 it were or if I may be bold so to say San. You stand altogether vppon phrases and 〈◊〉 but S. Chrysostom meant not to correct or qualifie the doctrine which he taught concerning Christes reall ioyning with vs. But only he shewed himself in teaching it to 〈◊〉 or rather to allude to a similitude and Metaphore at the vse whereof he stayed somwhat As if he had sayd at large euen as many graines of corne are by the baker brought into one lumpe of dough right so Christ and they that doe communicate are made all one with Christ and 〈◊〉 with him in this Sacrament Now because this similitude is not set foorth at large but briefly alluded vnto therefore S. Chrysostom saith vt ita dicaÌ„ that I may so say to wit that I may at this time vse this allusion and this briefsimilitude So that the correction is referred only to the word Massa which is a lump of dough or of any like thing and not to the correction of the doctrine whiche is mainteined both by S. Chrysostom and others without any correction or qualifiyng He writeth vpon S. Ihon that Christ sayd he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood tarieth in me to shew cum ipso se admisceri That himself is mingled with him Again he sayeth It is brought to passe by the meate which he hath geuen vs that we should be turned into that flesh not only by loue but by the thing it self Again Cum suum caet WheÌ„ Christ wold shew his loue toward vs he mingled himself with vs through his body And he brought himself into one with vs to th' end the body should be vnited with the head Many like words he hath in his sermons to the people of Antioche in the which he neuer vseth the phrase vt ita dicam that I may so say because he vsed not the similitude of the lump of dough wherevnto that correction perteyneth Yea what shall we say if euen in this place S. Chrysostom vse no such qualifying nor say not vt ita dicaÌ„ for albeit the Latine text reade so yet the edition of Parise doth wiâ—…nesse that his Greke words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seipsum miscet nobis he mingleth himself with vs. Where is now M. Iuels discrete phrase Where is his corrâ—…ction His qualifying of the rigour of the speache To be shorte where is his answere Iuel In such phrase Anacletus sayeth the power of the holy Ghost is mingled with the oyle San. Mercifull God whither will not this man runne for phrases He now appeleth to a Pope whose Epistle he estemeth as muche as his shew sole only meaning to make some not of the wisâ—… sort to beleue yâ— he hath answered well when he hath writeÌ„ somewhat although himself beleue not that which he writeth Doe you beleue this very sentence M. Iuel which you allege How say you Is the iâ—…isible power of the holy Ghost mingled with the oyle If you thought so you wold vse holy oile more then you doe One thing I must tell you which I had almost forgotten it is not in Anacletus in oleo in yâ— oile as you name it but sancto Chrismati to the holy Chrism It was not
not proue that Christ hath a bodie But Christ is so made meate vnto vs that the reall truth of his body is proued thereby Thereâ—…ore it is taught that his body is made meate to our bodies in a corporall truth of his naturall substance This only is the discourse of S. Nyssenus This meate sauoreth to euery maÌ„ who receaueth it as Manna did Therefore it is meant that it is receaued to fulfill the figure of Manna which can not be throughly fulfilled without the self meate which came from heauen being receaued into our mouthes and bodies geue thence that spirituall tast sauour for Manna gaue his swete taste in the mouthes of the Israelits This kind of bread which is able to be turned to all things and yet not able to be wasted is no materiall bread but the food which was born of the virgin He that prepared this table was Christ who neuer prepared for vs any table so literally as at his last supper Yet al this to M. Iuel is not one word concerning the dwelling of Christ naturally in vs or concerning his reall presence in the Sacrament Nay here is not one word touching the Sacrament at all besyde that where he nameth herbs and milke For those words M. Iuel thought mete meate for his diuinitie and therefore spied them out and vttered the same to destroy all the discourse of Gregorie Nyssen whereas they signifie the effect of grace proceding from the reall â—…esh of Christ. Tell me good Reader of thy conscience if thou sawest a mad man running with a naked sword in the streat which were full of children slaying and killing all that euer he could come by tel me I say wold you not crye out to all men to beware of him Wold you not run to saue yâ— poore babes wold you not if nede were rather lame the mad man â–ª theÌ„ he should so destroy a number of persons God is my iudge I haue no quarell to the person of M. Iuel But for as much as I see him run mad and to kill innumerable soules of poore men with greef of hart I crye out against him and say to you all beware the mad man who is so much the more 〈◊〉 mad because it appeareth not outwardly But what shal we 〈◊〉 If whâ—… he came to reade Gregorie 〈◊〉 he saw neuer a word of that which I haue now declared and which euery man may see if he will open the booke If he I say saw not one word thereof doe you not perceaue that his eyes are possâ—…ed with seme horrible spirit of blindnes Is not all reason and vnderstanding takeÌ„ from him But if he saw all that which I haue told and therein found so many words spoken of the Sacrament and those so effectuall against his errour what shall we then think or say Is it possible that so great a malice may be in any man as to delight in deceauing willingly poore and ignorant men and to lead them al to infidelitie If such malice may be in man whome shall we trust and in what danger are the simple and 〈◊〉 people Whether it be blindnesse or malice in him take this rule to thy comfort against all 〈◊〉 that euer shall chaunce Trust no one man aliue Trust no one generation of men the beginning of whose doctrine thou hast knowen or heard of Trust only the whole bodie of Christ the whole Catholike Church the whole cumpaine of the faithfull the whole succession of Bisshops of Priests ioyned also with the faithfull forefathers That which hath once prâ—…led through all the knowen Church that beleue in Christes name For to dispute against it S. Augustine saith it is the point of a most proude 〈◊〉 But the whole Churche can not faile It is a citie built by God vppon a hill which can not be hid It is the piller of truth as S. Paule sayth To that vniuersall practise and belefe if thou committe thy soule and doe as it commaundeth it shal be saued in that 〈◊〉 body of Christ whereof only he is the Sauiour Leaue Iuel Cranmer Ridley Latymer leaue all that tarie not in the tried faith and stick only to that interpretation of Gods word which the Caâ—… receaued and deliuered euen from the Apostles tyme to this day Iuel The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen was only to speake of Christes birth San. His purpose was to speake of the miracles done in the wildernes vnder Moyses of yâ— which MaÌ„na being one of yâ— chefe it did both signify the birth of Christ by the falling of it from heauen vpon the earth the Sacrament of the altar whiles it was afterward taken into the bodies of the Israelits as we eate really the flesh of Christe which he toke of the virgin Iu. In like manner of speache S. Hierom saith the wheat wherof the heauenly bread is made is that of which our Lord said my flesh is meate in dede San. I marâ—…le what you meane to say the manner of speache is like whereas by your assertioÌ„ Gregorie Nyssen speaketh only of Christes birth But S. Hierom speaketh not thereof but of Christes body and blood as it is receaued in the Sacrament Thus you are againste your self For in deede as S. Hierome speaketh of that wheat and of that wine which is Christ himself not only being borne of the virgin but also eaten at his supper euen so doth Gregorie Nyssen speake as wel of the supper as of the birth of Christ. Iu. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius onlesse Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not bene borne spiritually San. To what purpose did he say it For I see not howe your wordes hange together but only that you patche vp a number of sentâ—…nces as sone as one is done you bring in an other with a therefore or in like manner or to this purpose or in this sense and he saith so foorth But if they were particularly 〈◊〉 â–ª it is but a heape of words without order dependaÌ„ce or any good reason To what purpose I praie you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ had bene borne carnally thou haddest not bene borne spiritually I see noâ—…e other purpose therein but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation and thâ—…t because if the birth had not gone before we could not haue eaten that bodie in the Sacrament whiche had not bene at all borne Iu. As Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread so he saith he becoÌ„meth strong meate vnto the perfite herbs vnto the weake c. San. Here you presuppose that Gregorie Nyssen saith Christ is made our bread and nothing els But I haue shewed you that he saith howe can a thing bodilesse be made mâ—…ate vnto the body As for the wordes whiche you name I finde them not in Gregorie Nyssen so vttered as you report them He saith Christ is bread but D. Harding forced not
he applieth the answere made by S. Hilarie concerning the vnion betwene our selues by faith as though he had sayd it of Christes vnion with vs. a matter of great weight is so shamefully belied He writeth things expressly contrary as that by faith Christes body dwelleth in our bodies really and corporally and that Christ dwelleth in vs not really or bodily but because his faith is in vs. Againe what contradiction is it to say all accidentall coniunction is remoued and yet not to graâ—…nt a reall and substantiall coniunction to say the Sacrament is taken with our mouthes and that we vndontedly receaue Christes body in the Sacrament and yet that Christes body is not receaued into our mouthes really but by faith only That our coniunction with Christ is called corporall because it is spirituall He vseth a point of so great and shamefull dishonesty as one boy in scholes wold not vse in reasoning against an other Making D. Harding to reason so as he neuer thought os as to say 1. The Capharnaites mistoke Christes words 2. Christ speaketh of his ascension 3. We eate not the flesh that was crucified Uppon euery of which propositions and many suche like he maketh D. Harding conclude ergo Christes body is really in the Sacramâ—…nt Either falsifying the whole argument or leauing out a principall part or putting that in one part which should haue stode in an other And when he hath done his feat then to amend the matter he is wont to come in with a But M. Harding will say cet A man of good conscience and of learning wil rather make his aduersaries reasons stronger and then answere them when they are at the worst then to dissemble the strength of them and only to blere mens eyes with defacing his Aduersaries strong argument by falsifying his proof D. Harding requireth only that men of vnderstanding wil vouthsafe to reade his words againe after M. Iuel hath made his argument and then to consider his vnhonest report a witnesse of his euill conscience He falsifieth the doctours by making them to say more then they do say He putteth into S. Hierom these three words into heauen that whiche doe vtterly change the sense He reporteth that S. Augustine teache th the olde Fathers to haue eaten the selfe same body that is receaued now of the faithful all the which wordes are forged In the words of Cyrillus he did put in these three wordes non aliud quà m He maketh S. Hilarie to say that we are one with Christ by faith naturally He leaueth out certein words of the doctours whiche were of importance touching the principall question The nominatiue case in the B. of Rochesters words conueying in also a false nominatiue case in steede of the true In S. Augustines wordes in one place he left out the genitiue case vnitatis and huius rei and in the same place the verbe praeparatur in mensa Domini In the third place the noune adiâ—…ctiue spiritualem wherein the whole weight of the cause rested in the fourth the ablatiue case in ipso eius corpore constituti In Anacletus he left out Chrismati putting in oleo for it In Alexander he omitted MissaruÌ„ solennia In englishing yâ— wordes of BonaueÌ„ture he left out the adueâ—… essentially In S. HieroÌ„ he left out repellamus Iudaicas fabulas which wold haue shewed whereof he spake In alleging â—…usebins Emissenus he left out three linesin yâ— miâ—…dest ioyning yâ— foormer part with the later He affirmeth Gregorie Nyssen not to speake one worde of the Sacrament and therein formeth D. Hardings argument Christ is borne of the virgin ergo his body is really in the Sacrment whereas Gregorie Nyssen said cleane contrarie Christ is made meate to to the body ergo he was borne of the virgin and thereof D. Harding concluded ergo he was as really made meate to our bodies in the Sacrament as euer he was really borne sithe his being real meate proueth his birth He saith one Iohn Scote and Bertram wrote openly against the real presence with good contentation of the world a more impudent lye was neuer vttered by man He disgraceth S. Hilarie and priuily fathereth vppon him a great blasphemy as though he taught that we are one with God the Father and the sonne in nature of the Godhead whereas his mind was nothing so as I haue declared before He calleth the Fathers wordes spoken in the matter which is in question betwen D. Harding him hot violent rigorouse excessiue therein plainly yelding him selfe giltie that he ought to subsribe as who would not find fault with those three most lerned and auncient Fathers words Hilarie Chrysostome Cyrill vnlesse he clerely saw them to speake vtterly against his doctrin I beseche God to geue him grace to amend these enormouse faults It is better M. Iuel once to subscribe hartely then to be damned for euer Now to leaue M. Iuel and to speake these few words to thee good Christian Reader I chose to speake so copiously of this argumeÌ„t partly because it is the safer way to offend in that side partly because this one questioÌ„ is the ground of a great number â—…oe whiche depend of it For if the body and blood of Christ be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine which thing nowe is most fully proâ—…d there is no doubt of transubstantiation as the which is the most conueâ—…ient way to make the body present Againe wheresoeuer that body is it can not be but a propitiatory sacrifice sith it is the substance once bloodily sacrificed wherein the merite of that sacrifice still remaineth Thirdly seing that body being risen from death dieth no more the whole must nedes be vnder eche soorme and therefore albeit the consecration muste be necessarily made in two kindes to represent the death of Christ where his blood was apart from his flesh yet no lesse merite vertue grace cometh to him who receaueth worthely one kind alone then if he receaued both together Fourthly there can be no dout but the body of the sonne of God both ought to be adored being present for vs may be preserued for our necessity So that all these truthes and many moe depend of this one wherein the reall body of Christ is proued to be present in the Sacrament And seing it is proued present by the word of God as it hath bene declared in the third fourth and fifth bookes seing it hath bene taught to be adored as it is declared in my sixth booke seing it is 〈◊〉 to be taken into our 〈◊〉 mouthes and bodies and to nourish our very flesh to resurrection to be made meate to our bodies which haue neither faith nor spirit but only flesh and bones to receaue
Custom The vse of Gods church The adoration of Christes body A new heresie in PoolelaÌ„d Circumâ—… of them selâ—…s Tertull. de prae scriptioÌ„ aduersus haeretic One chaÌ„ge only could be in religioÌ„ Iacob 1. Heb. 11. A teacher of new doctrine is not to be heard Berenga rius preached a new doctrine The Sacramentaries can haue no ground of their doctrine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The honour of God The profite of the faithfull Lucae 6. Lucae 8. Two cau ses of spea king figuratiâ—…ly Aug. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. cap 10. The proper sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nother agaâ—… the 〈◊〉 nor good maners We can neuer be sure that Christ spake figu ratiuely The ii Chapiter Wordes are to be taken as they do properly signifie Tertull. de carne Christi Things must be beleued aâ—… they are named Li. 67. de leg 3. The names vsed at Christes supper are to be kept This is body my EpiphaÌ„ lib. 2. to 1. haer 61. TraditioÌ„ is to be re spected in exposiding holy scriptures The iiâ—… Chapiter Ioan. 13. This can be said but of one substance Christes words directed to the bread The streÌ„gth of the pronoun this The prâ—…per sense of Christes wordes TransubstantiatioÌ„ 1. Co. 11. Luc. 22. hoc this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the noune body Christes naming to making Rom. 4. The 〈◊〉 Chapiter The optmoÌ„ of the protestants The substance of bread is not pomted vnto 1. Co. 11. Mat. 21. Luc. 22. Ioan. 6. This and bread be not of one gender CypriaÌ„ de coena Domini not farre from the beginning This in English is of all genders The v. Chapiter This doth not stand to signifie many things All the doings be not pointed vnto 1. Co. 10. 1. in Apo. 2. 2. in Or. cathech 3. li. 4. de Sacram. 4. depro dit lud 5. contr Faust. li. 20. ca. 13. epi. 59. Breaking is not poin ted vnto Of S. Iames. Of S. 〈◊〉 Of S. Chrysost. Of S. Chrysost. Eating or drinkig is not alone pointed vnto 1. Cor. 10 The body or blood is only pointed vnto The brea king The taking The eating Luc. 22. The geuing The vi Chapiter Theop. â—… Math. 26 In Marc. 14. This doth mean particular ly this eatable thiâ—… The vii Chapiter 1. Cor. 11 The obiecion The aunswere 1. The Cha lice 2. The chalice expouÌ„ ded in holy scripture 3. The chalice by vse of speakig signifieth the drinke in it 4. This cha lice where in liquor is knoweÌ„ to be can not make the speach obscure 5. Matt. 16. The word ioâ—…ned with the name of 〈◊〉 maketh aâ—… plaâ—… 6. Luc. 22. 7. 26. 14. 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 is â—…amed The 〈◊〉 Chapiter Ioan. 15. 1. Cor. 10 Uniuersal consent is a way to knowe figuratiue speaches 〈◊〉 dore The dore Chiâ—…ore Ezec. c. 5 The circuÌ„ stance of yâ— speache is to be considered Aug. lib. quaest 83 q. 69. The intâ—…t of the author in this chapi ter Ioan. 1. 14. God Ioan. 6. Sent 〈◊〉 flesh To men that were flesh Rom. 12. Col. 2. Promiseth flesh Geueth flesh He is to be beleued Euseb. homil 5. in pasch Men speake most ware ly toward their death 1. Co. 11. Aug. ep 118. ad Ia nuar. Christ 〈◊〉 not bethought lesse discrete in his words then other men wold 〈◊〉 The Apostles haue 〈◊〉 Christes words to vs without any mentioÌ„ of a figure Math. 13. Parableâ—… hide the truth in part Math. 13. Ioan. 6. Leo in serm de pass do Exo. 12. 1. Cor. 5. Ioan. 1. Ireneus lib. 4. ca. 32. Leo de pass do serm 7. Heb. 7. Ioan. 1. Lucae 22. Chryso in Math. ho. 83. Christ did not eaâ—… his own flesh by faith but in dede Hom. 83. Psal. 77. The old Lamb was not desired for his own sake Psal. 49. Malac. 1. Tertul. l. 4. aduer Marcio Chryso in Ps. 37. Chryso in Math. hom 82. 83. Ioan. 13. In fine di lexit eos Chrys. hom 61. ad Anti. Chrys. 1. Cor. homi 24. great loue cauleth yâ— greatest gifâ—…s Ioan. 13. Dionys. de Eccl. Hierar cap. 3. Hieron in Math. 26. Luc. 22. Why the bread of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yâ— of 〈◊〉 Luc 22. Niceph. li. 1. 〈◊〉 Eccles. cap 28. Damasc. de orth fi lib. 4. cap 14. Gal. 4. Hebr. 11. Psal. 22. Prou. 9. Leuit. 24 Christos supper is vpon the table it self If yâ— table be râ—…ll muche more the meate Luc. 6. The bread â—… Christ toke was already ha lowed The 〈◊〉 of Christes supper is made in bread and wine Gen. 14. Leuit. 1. 2. c. Al things that be sacrificed be changed Matth. 5. Cypr. ad Caecil li. 2. epi. 3. Blessing Psal. 148 Ioan. 6. Marc. 6. Luc. 24. The blessing of god is a doing The word blessing sheweth yâ— intent of Christ. Amb. de ijs qui init mys cap. 9. Cyril li. 4. in IoaÌ„ c. 16. 17. 19. lib. 11. ca. 22. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. Nysse in orat cathechet Amb. de ijs qui init ca. 9. Blessing Thanks 〈◊〉 Iustin. in Apol. 2. Euchar. The best kind of thanks True words be most thaÌ„k full â—…ren lib. 4. ca. 34 Theod. Dial. 3. The order of doing and speaking 1. Cor. 10 Christes supper diuided into 〈◊〉 and wordâ—… Manna Exod. 16 Hieron aduersus Iouinia lib. 2. Ephes. 4. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12 1. Cor. 11 Hieron aduersus Iouinia lib. 2. Homil. 〈◊〉 in Pasch. Ignatius ad Phila delphien 〈◊〉 In Theo 〈◊〉 Eccles. 1. Cor 10 The one bread to Christ who 〈◊〉 breaking 〈◊〉 whole 1. Cor. 10 Christ gaue with his hands Ioan. 6. The meat of Christes supper came from his hands 26. 14. 22 1. Cor. 11 Christes gift in S. 〈◊〉 is meant of an externall gift The Sacramentaries can not 〈◊〉 when Christ ful filled his promise 1. The profite of words 2. The necessitie of words 3. The wordes of God 4. Mysteries 5. The mysterie of Christes supper 6. The Sacramentaries trust not Christes words 26. 14. 1. Co. 11. 22. 7. Dedes be doubtfull Chryso in Math. Hom. 83. 8. The 〈◊〉 of the supper were para bles 9. The words of the supper expound yâ— parable of the dedes 10 Mere 〈◊〉 words ex pound nothing 11. The words of yâ— supper geue 〈◊〉 to y◠〈◊〉 Ioan 3. Matt. 28. In yâ— secoÌ„d booke ca. 〈◊〉 12. It is no singâ—… 〈◊〉 che is not knowen The 〈◊〉 The aunswerâ—… Ioan. 6. In Epi. 162. 〈◊〉 belongeth to the body â—… soule Tertul. de resur carnis â—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epipha haer 30. Hebr. 10 Christ pre sented no external sacrifice besyde his own flesh Gen. 14. Exod. 16 Malac. 1. Working words caÌ„ not be figuratiue Chrys. homi de prodit Iudae Ioan. 6. Howe the SacrameÌ„ taries 〈◊〉 Chri stes wordes Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 35. How S. 〈◊〉 placed 〈◊〉 â–ª words There is but one noun substantiâ—… in Christes 〈◊〉 By the Sacraâ—… doctrâ—…e a â—…gure was cruâ—… for vs. The obâ—…ction The aunswer One word can not haue at once a pro
per vnproper meaning The rela tiue must repete hiâ—… whole 〈◊〉 By the Sacramentarie doctrine bread is sacrificed for vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is but one verb in the Greek text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 The aunswer To signifie and to be a signe â—…o all one Significat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Reg. 18 Leuit. 15 Exod. 12 Gen. 14. Cypria lib 2. Epist. 3. The 〈◊〉 were com 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 sacrifice Psal. 39. Heb. 10. The body oâ—…red was at Christes â—…ble ThisthiÌ„g is more then such an other thing Haimo in 1 Cor. 11. Iustin. iâ—… Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. 27. Hoc est 1. Cor. 11 A thing is the remeÌ„braunce of it self Exo. 16. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. Marc. 14 De eccl Hierar cap. 3. In Ioan. li. 4. c. 14 why althe Apostles dranke of one cup. Theaâ—…use 〈◊〉 the English ministers Ignat. in epist. ad Phi. Matt. 10. Iudas drank The graÌ„maticall sense of Christes words Est 〈◊〉 not stand for significat Heretiks build with out a foun dation Hieron in Amos proh c. 4 Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of hoâ—… scriptuâ—…e The literall sense â—…s the fon dâ—…tion Cypr. de coena do haec est caro mea A testament Hebr. 9. Gene. 31 Galat. 4. Ierem. 31 Hebr. 9. Exo. 24. Three things in a solemne TestameÌ„t Ierem. 31 Hebr. 8. Math. 26 Ierem. 31 Chryso in Math. Hom. 83. Li. 4. coÌ„t Marci Sedulius in 1. Co. 11. The chalice beareth witnesse 1. 〈◊〉 Math. Hom. 83. 2. l. 4. coÌ„ Marci 3. in Lucae 22. The same blood which con firmeth doth also witnesse y◠〈◊〉 Chryso in Ioan. Hom. 13. The blood is not meant the figure of blood Gene. 31. Exod. 24 Hebr. 9. Lucae 22. 1. Cor. 11 Why the cup is named Exod. 24 Chryso Hom. 27 in 1. Co. Oecum in 1. Co. cap. 11. Christes blood real ly in the chalice The verb substaÌ„tiue left out The verb significat can not be vnderstan ded The verb est must nedes be supplied The necessitie of the verb est in Christes words Math. 5. Qui calix The which cup In Amos cap. 4. A demonstratioÌ„ out of Gods worde Hebr. 9. Euthy in c. Luc. 22. Matt. 26. An hymne said only at Christes supper Ioan. 12. The x. Chapiter Ioan. 6. Math. 26 1. Cor. 10 The places which are to be conferâ—…ed Ioan. 6. Math. 26 1. Cor. 10 This. Thebreâ—…d promised is not mâ—… teriall bread This is 〈◊〉 by yâ— other places The verb 〈◊〉 What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean by 〈◊〉 The communicatig Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom 24. Body Matt. 6. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Matt. 26 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 1 Cor. 11 Matt. 26. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Lucae 1. Ioan. 1. Exod. 17 Num. 20 Acto 17. Collos. 1. Marc. 14 16. Lucae 24. Rom. 8. Actor 1. 2. Lâ—… 22. The presence of Christes bâ—…dy is not impossible The sitting of 〈◊〉 in heauen 〈◊〉 a hâ—…p to his 〈◊〉 presence in the Sacra 〈◊〉 Chryso de sacer lib. 3. Christes supper pas seth all woÌ„dering The places belonging to Christes supper The 〈◊〉 Chapiter All foode 〈◊〉 in Hebrew called bread Vide Pagninum in verbo Laham Deut. 8. Cath. 4. Math. 6. Luc. 11. Exod. 7. Gen. 1. 3. Marc. 16. That 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 bâ—…ad wâ—…ch 〈◊〉 bread 〈◊〉 â—…et semâ—…th brâ—…ad Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 10 Ignatius in 2. epi. ad Rom. Iustinus in Apol. 2. First Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water 2. Consecration 3. Food 4. Flesh and blood Libro 2. Epist. 3. â—…d Cecil 2. Ireneus â—… 4. ca. 34 Ambrosius de Sacram. li. 5. ca. 4. Hieron in Math. cap. 6. Nyssen in vita Moysis Tract 26 in Ioan. In Leuit. c. 22. l. 6. In operâ—… Paschal Thebrâ—… geuen to Iudas was betrâ—…â—…ed for vs. Math. 6. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 The xii Chapiter Euseb. Emissen Hom. 2. de Pasch. Num. 21. Ioan. 3. Ionae 2. Math. 12. 1. Co. 10. Luc. 24. Gen. 4. De mira bil sacrae scriptur cap. 3. Hier. in quaest He br in ge Didym in epist. Ioan. 1. Ezech. cap. 24. Math. 26 Ioan. 18. Aug. ad quaest Orosij 4. 9 Prosper de promissis prae dict Deâ—… He. 11. 12 If any good man were able to offer 〈◊〉 to God his owne body in his owne haÌ„ds he wold do Abel by sleying his Lâ—…bs shewed himself to haue desired an other sacrifice Marc. 14 Gen. 4. Aug de Trm. l. 3. Aug. in Psal. 39. The Sacramenta ries make the supper of Christ like to the doings of â—…ain Cain did beare a sigure of yâ— English coÌ„munion Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Maro 14 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Galat. 3. Gen. 14. Luc. 22. Gen. 14. Clemens AlexaÌ„d StroÌ„ l. 4. Christ â—…as seth Melchisedech by turning the bread which he brought forth into his owne body Cypria ad Caecil li. 2. ep 3. Euthy in panoplia Christ hath set his owne true substence vnder those formes of brend and wine which Melchise dech vsed Exod. 12 Gregor Nazian in Pasch. orat 4. Leo de pass domin se. 7 Theod. in 1. Co. 11. Ioan. 1. Ioan. 12. Luc. 22. Gregor Paschal Hom. 22 â—… mysterie conteineth the truth but it conteineth it after a secret manner Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. See how yâ— words of Moses and of Christ agree Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Psal. 77 Mala. 2. Luc. 22. Exo. 16. Matt. 26. The bread whiche Christ ge ueth is both a signe and a truth Exo. 16. Luc. 22 Exo. 16. Hieron aduersus Iouin l. 2 The whole sub stance of Christ is vnder 〈◊〉 ry peece of the forme of bread The figure of MaÌ„na is not fulfilled except the reall fleshe of Christ be geuen vnder yâ— form of bread 1. Cor. 12 Ephe. 4. All that come to yâ— sacrament 〈◊〉 yâ— body of Christ equally Sap. 16. The figure of 〈◊〉 old Testa ment Exo. 24. The 〈◊〉 of couenaÌ„t Heb. 9. Matt 26. The blood of the new testament 〈◊〉 geueÌ„ in the chalice as the 〈◊〉 was geueÌ„ in 〈◊〉 Gen. 49. Philip. 2. The prophecie of Iob applied to Christ. Iob 31. Hieron in hunc locum Greg. in Iob li. 22 cap. 11. Matt. 26. Chrys. hom 45. in Ioan. Luc. 22. Matt. 26. Loue desyreth as great a ioyning vnion as may be had Ioan. 6. Chrys. hom 83. in Matth. 45. in IoaÌ„nem Psal. 22. Prophecies takeÌ„ out of the Psalmes and prouerbs of SalomoÌ„ Prou. 9. What supper wisedoÌ„ prepared Cyp. lib. 2. epist. 3. The supper of Christ is set vpon the table Christ hath but one table Aug. in IoaÌ„ tractatu 50. The Sacramentaries assigne two tables to Christ. 1. Cor. 10 Psal. 21. An other prophecie taken 〈◊〉 Dauid Only Christiâ—… adore that they eate because they only eate the flesh of God Bread not 〈◊〉 our Lords table Augu. in
〈◊〉 Chapiter Therfore Unworthy â—…ating This 〈◊〉 An â—…tion The â—…swere The ix Chapiter Doing The â—…meles interpretations of Heretikâ—… Deut. 25 This bread * In the third chap â–ª of the secoÌ„d booke Theodo in 1. Cor. cap. 11. Haymo â–ª 1 Cor. 11 â–ª Primasius Sedulius Hiero. in 1. Cor. 11 Theoph. in ca. 11. 1. Cor. In Math. Hom. 8 â–ª In Ioan. li. 9. c. 19 De Bap. cont donatist 5. cap. 8. The x. Chapiter Misbelefe CoÌ„tempt Aug. in 〈◊〉 tract 62. Neglâ—…gence Chrys. iâ—… 1. Cor. Hom. 28 1. Co. 11. 1. Co. 11. Mala. 10. Hieron in Malach Alpian de iniur lib. 1. c. 7. Rom. 2. 1. Co. 11. Heb. 10. 1. Cor. 2. In 1. Co. Hom. 28 The xi Chapiter An â—…ction The aunswer Figures Epist. 23. In Anco rato Internall figures Num. 21. Ioan. 3. Typicall images Heb. 10. Theodo retus in 10. Heb. Shadowes Self images In the 〈◊〉 booke the x. Chap. 1. Co. 11. Leo de nat Do. ser. 4. 5. Ipsa ima go Heb. 1. Colos. 1. Artificiall figures Naturall figures Typicall figures Mysticall figures Sacrifice Heb. 10. Num. 21. Exod. 16 Ioan. 5. Cyrill in IoaÌ„ c. 19. Gen. 41. Ad Phil. cap. 3. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. 1. Cor. 10 11. Euthy in6 c. Io. S. Chry. in Ioan. hom 48. Oâ—…cum in Epi. 1. ad Cor. cap. 11. Basil. de baptis li. 2. cap. 3. Aug. de 〈◊〉 Monachorum cap. 13. Ioan. 6. Math. 6. Matt. 26. Marc. 14 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 Ephes. 5. Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. The first Chapiter Ambros. â—…erm 3. Matt. 27. Psal. 21. The 〈◊〉 The performance The meane of performiÌ„g the vow The king dom of the Lord. AdoratioÌ„ 〈◊〉 Eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reminiâ—… 1. Cor. 11 2. Cor. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacraâ—… 〈◊〉 Unfâ—…ithfull Iewes Hebr. 〈◊〉 Domini est regnuÌ„ Ioan. 8. Luc. 17. The king donâ—…e of God in his Church Ioan 6. Math. 5. Hieroâ—… in Ps. 21. The â—…owes of Christ. 1. Co. 10 1. Co. 11. Aug. coÌ„ment 2. in Ps. 21. Sacrificium In comment Sacrifice Uowes Sacraments Cassiod in Ps. 21. Uowes Sacraments Eating â—…eda in Psal. 21. 〈◊〉 Sacraments Sacriâ—…ices Understanding Appering The subgement of euill men Arnob. in Ps. 21. Euthy in Ps. 21. Psal. 21. Ioan. 6. Hieron in Ps. 21. The verbs The cases belonging to yâ— verbs 〈◊〉 Aug. in ep 120. ad Honâ—… ratuÌ„ c. 27 The table of Christ. AdoratioÌ„ What brin geth the riche or the earth to adore From the table they eate and adore The secoÌ„d Chapiter In Ps. 98 God is to be adored absolutely AdoratioÌ„ is dew to that manhod through yâ— vnion The fotestole The Arke Angelo in 2. Re â–ª cap. 6. The body The Arke was the figure of our Lords body Heb. 9. Ioan. 6. Cyril li. 4. cap. 19 1. Co. 10. The TeÌ„ple Ioan. 2. Heb. 9. 〈◊〉 22. The â—…arth is y◠〈◊〉 Eâ—…ai 66. Hieron in Ps 98. The body of Christe is the 〈◊〉 2. Reg. 6 De spiritu sancto li 3. ca. 13 AdoratioÌ„ of Christed fleshe in the mysteries Aug. in Psal. 98. Eâ—…a 66. Tooke walked Gaue. In Psal. 98. A Sacrament We must eate the bodytakeÌ„ but not the body sene The body sene The body taken Lucae 1. The body takeÌ„ walked in and eaten Spiritual vnderstan ding Ioan. 6. Cyrill li. 4. in IoaÌ„ cap. 14. The same not the same Luc. 22. Before Earth that is to say Christes flesh Terra quaelibet The only one fleshe of Christe is vnder many formes of bread The only sense of S. August wordes Prosternere Inclinaâ—… The third Chapâ—…ter Idols not takeÌ„ away Idolatrie mainteined Christ ge ueth the occasion oâ—… idâ—…try 2. Thes. 2 2. Thes. 2 Antichrist The pope is not like Antichrist 2. Thes. 2 Who shâ—…be deceaued by An tichrist The pope adoreth yâ— Eucharisâ—… An obiection The â—…swere 1. â—…or 12 The lymmes of An tichrist Rom. 9. Matt. 6. The king doÌ„ of God Deut. 6. 1. Tim. 2. Esa. 2. Matt. 3. Luc. 17. Matt. 13. The king dome of darknes Iere. 50. Ezec. 30. Mich. 1. Soph. 2. Zach. 13. Psal. 9. Dâ—… Deuil is perished Idols are the sword of the Deâ—…l August in lib. de diuinatione daemonum Athanasius de In carnatio neverbi The Papâ—…ts be no idolatours Hieron in li. 2. in Esaiam cap. 41. Spiritual idolatry The Ma nichees idolatours Bread is not the God of yâ— Papists Psal. 98. De spiri sancto li. 3. ca. 12 In li. coÌ„tra Gentiles Psalm 〈◊〉 Math. 26 Ioan. 14. Ioan. 10. An obiection The aunswer 1. Co. 15. Externall idolles be destroyed Outward idolatry Inward idolatry Gal. 5. Eph. 5. Cypria de vnitate Ecclesiae Idols forsaken Heresies and schismes are yâ— idols after Christes coming The vnâ—…tie of our fore Fathers Luther yâ— first idola tour of our age ann 1517. Ann. 1522 Two idols Thre score idols The SacrameÌ„tary English idoll Hierom. in Zacha riaÌ„ ca. 13. The framing of an Idoll â—… Tim. cap. 2. In Epist. ad Argen toratenses The folowers of heretikes The Eucharist set foorth only by Christ can be no Idoll In Ps. 98 The iiij Chapiter August in Ioan. tracta 62 The others in 1. Cor. 11 Two differences The first The second In 1. Co. Hom. 28 who is set worth Ambros. 1. Cor. 11 〈◊〉 In 1. cor hom 24 â–ª Ipsa meÌ„â—…a Ioan. 4. In Psal. 7â—… Luc. 22. Cypr. de coena do min. Heb. 10. 1. Ioan. 2. 1. Cor. 11 Aug. in epist. 118 SacrameÌ„ tuÌ„ honorare Luc. 19. Matth. 8. Sapi. 26. l. 2. Retr cap. 20. A worshipping singularly 〈◊〉 Honourâ—… Making a 〈◊〉 Sacrament No dishonouring 〈◊〉 The thing in yâ— mouth is honoured 〈◊〉 That meat Diiudicare Singular â—…orship Godly hoâ—…our Aug. de ciui Dei li. 10. c. 1. 〈◊〉 tum Matth. 8. Origen hom 5. in diuersos Euang. In liturg Chrys. missall Roman The fyfth Chapâ—… De eccl Hierar cap. 3. Pachyme res in his greâ—…e Pa râ—…rasis The substance of our passoâ—…er Sacramâ—…t is onâ—…o Christ. Cyp. li. 2 epist. 3. Luc. 22. Our Sacrifice Rom. 6. 〈◊〉 is to be 〈◊〉 De ijs qui mit myst c. 9 Ignat. in epist. ad Rom. Amb. li. 6. de Sacram c. â—… Euseb. li. 10. ca. 10. Cyril li. 3. in IoaÌ„ ca. 37. Lib. 4. cap. 18. Isych l. 6 in cap. 22 Leuit. The God head can not be corporally â—…aten but in the Sa crament Chrys. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24 Hoc Id. In the altar The Chri stian is better instructed The Sacramentaties refuge Note those com parisons The body set foorth The body holden â—…ten 〈◊〉 Vides Luc. 22. In 1. Co. Hom. 24 The shewing of Christe The body of Cheâ—…ste in earth The Lorde she 〈◊〉 A shift of the Sacrâ—… mâ—…s The Fathers gilty of â—…dolatry Theodo retus dia log 2. Theodo retus dia log 2. In substance In nature In shape Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Made As. Ioan. 1. Theoph. in 1. cap. Ioan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 2. The beâ—… â—…nderstaÌ„ ding
for Christ to worke But it is a great deale more semely for him to turne bread into his body then to turne him self into a vine Because it is to be thought he being the wisedom of God changeth allways for the best Which were not so if in stede of him self he should leaue vs a materiall vine and yet in turning bread into his body the change is made for the better by infinite degrees Therefore these words I am the true vine though al other thigs were equall could neuer proue that vnwise change so well as This is my body wil proue a most wise happy change of common bread into the bread of life Morcouer these words the vine albeit they were ment of a certeyne vine yet there is no necessitie that they should shew it present Sith those words may be verified of a vine which being a hundred mile thence were knowen to Christ alone as likewise wheÌ„ S. Paule sayd The rock was Christ the rock whereof he spake was not present 〈◊〉 him but in his mind he noted a certeyne rock which yet in truth it self was not very certeyne touching any one materiall rock because two diuerse rocks were stryken out of which water flowed at diuerse tymes But as I was about to say the true vine being only described by those termes might be vncerteine to the Apostles and to the hearers of Christ either because they neuer knew it or because they haue forgotten it So that these words I am the true vine will not as well proue a transubstantiation as the other words This is my body For both the bread which was changed was first present and the body wherevnto the change is made is presently shewed taken and eaten vnder the forme of the same bread It is doubtlesse a great help in prouing transubstantiation to know both the vttermost partes and to be able to bring that foorth into the which the other is changed For the nature of proof among men consisteth in making a thing plaine to reason by the meane of senses and among faithfull men it consisteth in making it plain to faith by the meane of the same senses If one should aske where the vine is whereof Christ sayd I am the true vine and ye could not bring it foorth and on the other syde if I could bring foorth the body of Christ into which yâ— bread were changed although you might as wel beleue the transubstantiation of Christ into the vine through the word of Christ as I do beleue the transubstantiation of bread into his body yet you could not so wel proue it because you could not shew it so well The vine is lesse then this vine and the proof that this maketh doth far excede the proof that the can make If an inquisition were made who had done a certeyne murder and you said the man hath done it but I could say this man hath done it I suppose all the Iudges in the world wold say that I proued the murder done better then you When it is sayd the man hath done such a murder albeit the Iudge beleue the saying yet his vnderstanding is not quieted but he asketh farther which man is that But when you come so nigh to the point as to say this man hath done it nothing caÌ„ be asked more plaine Which being so albeit I graunted a transubstantiation in eche saying yet M. Nowell had not sayd truly in affirming that these words I am the true vine do proue as well a transubstantiation as This is my body By how much this in making proof doth passe the by so much the later words wold better proue a transubstantiation then the first Besydes this when two transubstantiations are affirmed of the which one hath bene in some like sorte practised before but the other hath not bene likewise practised those words which affirme such a transubstantiation the like whereof hath bene before done do proue the sayd transubstantiation better then those that speake of a thing that neuer was done Bread was vsually turned into Christes body whiles he lined in earth for his body was nourished with bread the which bread was turned into his flesh Quamobrem rectè nunc etiam Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credimus im mutari Wherefore now also we beleue well sayeth Nyssenus brother to S. Basile the bread which is sanctified with yâ— word of God to be changed into the body of God the word This argument also Damascene Theophylact and Euthymius do make So that it is no newes for bread to become Chri stes body but for Christ to become a vine that as it is throughly impossible because Christ is God and vnable to be changed so albeit we did graunt it possible yet it were yâ— harder to proue it because it had not benâ—… done before Last of all there was neuer any auncient Father or Generall Councell nay there was neuer no learned man were he Catholike or otherwise there was neuer none of the lay people no woman no childe no naturall foole which tooke or thought any vine or rock in the whole world to be the naturall substance of Christ Notwithstanding that Christ had sayd I am the true vine and S. Paule that the rock was Christ. But if we come to these words This is my body and consider them so pronounced as they were we shal finde not only thousand millions of faithful people to haue beleued the bread ouer which those words are spoken to be changed into Christes body but also whole Generall Councels wherein many hundred of Bisshops and of great clerks haue bene gathered together to haue taught and decreed directly or by manifest sequele yâ— doctrine of transubstantiation as the Councels of Lateran of Basile of Constance of FloreÌ„ce of Trent Which all are knowen to haue agreed in this behalf Besides many auncient Fathers haue moste constantlie writen the same as S. Iustinus the Martyr Ireneus Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom with all the rest The prosecuting of which argumeÌ„t were at this present to far distant from my principall intent but in case I may vnderstand that these few reasons doe not satisfie M. Nowell or any other man to whome my labour may doe good I will proue moste fully the doctrine of transubstaÌ„tiation both out of the holy scriptures and out of the holy Fathers Now for M. Nowell not withstanding al these sâ—…ueÌ„ differences to affirme that no Papist shal euer be able to shew cause why I am the true vine doth not proue as well a transubstantiation as these words This is my body it was an ignorance in a preacher not pardonable For if I should only staye vppon the last argument wherein all Christendom is shewed to haue beleued transubstantiation through these words This is my body and that as well before in dede as by confession of our aduersaries euer sence the great Councell of
Lateran which was kept aboue three hundred yeres past seing M. Nowell for his parte could not bring foorth one reasonable creature that euer surmised any transubstantiation in these words I am the true vine were not cause shewed why these words I am the true vine did not as well proue a transubstaÌ„tiation as these words This is my body S. Paul thought it a sufficient prouf of resurrection to say If there be no resurrection our faith and our preaching is in vaine But that can not be so as S. Paule concludeth therefore likewise the faith of all Christendom these three hundred yeres together was a cause why a transubstantiation should be proued by the one words much rather then by the other M. Nowell ¶ Is not this as plainlie spoken and as pithily I am a true or a very vine as this is my body IT were small pleasure to me M. Nowell to impugne your words against whose person I haue no quarell were it not that you are wold be accoÌ„pted a teacher in yâ— realme of England which kinde of men as it is moste necessarie when by lawfull commission it preacheth the Ghospell which it hath taken of the Apostles and their successors so is the same moste perniciouse wheÌ„ it preacheth a Ghospell of his owne framing otherwise vnderstanded then they tooke it of their Prelates vnder whome they liued before they departed froÌ„ yâ— fold of Christ who appointed S. Peter to be yâ— generall sheperd of his whole flock in earth in whose chaire the Bishops of Rome sit by lawfull succession Is it then so plainly and so pithily spoken M. Nowell I am a true or a very vine as this is my body If the words I am a true vine or a very vine be as pithy as those of Christes supper without controuersie they must as well institute a Sacrament of a true and of a very vine as Christ at his supper did institute a Sacrament of his owne body and blood For words a like pithy must work an effect of like pith otherwise if yâ— words of the supper do work that which the words of a true and very vine do not work you haue spoken falslie in affirming that it is as pithily sayd I am the true vine as this is my body Before Christ came in to the world he made diuerse figures of his last supper as that of Melchisedech of the Paschall laÌ„b of manna of shew brâ—…d of wheateÌ„ meale of such like was there likewise so many figures made to prefigure that he wold be a verie vine When he was come into the world he promised at CapharnauÌ„ that the bread which he wold geue was his flesh Made he the like of geuing any vine to vs or of making himself a very vine When the houre of sacrificing the Passouer was come he sent S. Peter before to prepare the passoner which was but the shadow of his supper Did he likwise make a certeyne banket or any like matter be prepared for him which might be the shadow of himself in any such respect as he is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did eate the passouer with all the twelue a mysticall number as it may well appere in the holy 〈◊〉 one of yâ— which was departed â—…rom him before that he sayd I am the true vine He protested his desier to eate this passouer but not so to eate or to be made any vine He washed his Apostles feete immediatly â–ª before his supper wherein he said This is my body but not immediatly before that he said I am the true vine He sate at the table when he said This is my body which was the place whereupon he wrought his mysterie but he rose and went out of the place before he said I am the true vine And so lacked the circumstance of that table whereof Dauid and Salomon had prophecied To make his supper he toke bread but he toke nothing at all to make thereof a vine Therefore there is a more reall ground of the one then of the other He blessed at his supper he did not so when he said I am the true vine and yet surely yâ— words wherewith blessing is ioyned are thereby the playner He gaue thankes there but not here which is a token that the mystâ—…rie of his body was the greater He brake there but not here whereby the very vine lacked a notable cerimony concerâ—…ing yâ— represeÌ„tation of Christes death He gaue there but not here because in his supper the cheif gift was externall and geuen by Christes hands to theyr bodies and hartes He sayd there and also he did those other things as S. Luke râ—…orteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying wherein he doth vs to vnderstand that Christ at his supper as well did as sayd for he toke he blessed he brake he gaue saying to wit his saying and doing went together one made the other plaine but wheÌ„ he said I am the true vine he did nothing els whereuÌ„to his words could apperteyne so that the dede might geue light to the word At his supper he bad his Apostles take â–ª not so in speaking of yâ— true vine because they had already the gift of being the braunches of him the true vine At his supper he bad them eate â–ª not so in the other place for yâ— he prouided no externall meat vnder the forme of auy vine as he had prepared his owne flesh vnder the form of bread At his supper he sayd This is my body where one substance only is named and yet that by Christes doing and speaking is vnderstaÌ„ded to be verified within the cumpasse and form of that which once was knowen to haue bene the substance of bread but in these words I am the true vine two substances are named of the whiche one is only a proper and peculiar substance the other is taken vnproperly and is no reall substance distincted from Christ. There the words passe from the worse to the better from that which was bread to the body of Christ here they passe from the better to the worse from Christ to the name of a vine There is in the former part a demonstration by pointing to this thing really present here it is only described to be the true vine but no such creature is shewed or brought foorth There such words are added which restraine the name body to that true body of Christ which died for vs here such words be added which declare the true vine which is spoken of not to be a natural vine but a parabolical vine for it is said afterwad As a branche can not beare fruit of it self vnlesse it tarry in the vine so neither ye except ye tarry in me See the ods M. Nowell This is my body Which body which is deliuered for you to say this is mine owne substance the