The supper of our Lord SET FORTH ACCORding to the truth of the Gospel and Catholic faith. By Nicolas Saunder, Doctor of Divinity. with a confutation of such false doctrine as the Apology of the Church of England, M. Nowel's challenge, or M. jewels Reply have uttered, touching the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. MANHV? What is this? The figure. Exod. 16. This is the bread which our Lord hath given you to eat. The prophecy. Proverb. 9 Come eat my bread, & drink that wine which Ihave mixed for you. The promise. joan. 6. The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. The performance. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. He gave, saying: take, eat, this is my body which is given for you. The doctrine of the Apostles. 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break, is the communicating of our Lord's body. The belief of the Church. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit. Both our Lord hath professed, & we believe it to be flesh in deed. The custom of Heretics. Tertul. de Resur. car. The contrary part raiseth up trouble by presence of figures. LOVANII. Anno domini 1566. cum Regiae Maiestatis privilegio sub 20. m●…sis Augusti anni 1565. permissum esset Nicolao Saundero Anglo sacrae Theologiae Doctori, ut 〈◊〉 in scriptum, The supper of our Lord set forth according to the truth of the Gospel etc. imprimere posset: posteaquàm prodiisset liber quidam a duersus Catholicam fidem (qu●…m D. Nicolaus defendisset) anglicè conscriptus, quem etiam confutandum sumpsit renovato Privilegio concessum est eidem Nicolao, ut ei unâ cum confutatione contrariae doctrinae, suum librum typis mandare ac impunè distrahere liceat. Datum Bruxellis 22. Decembris. Anno Christi 1565. S. de la Torre. Approbatio sex priorum librorum. author ipse huius voluminis Nicolaus Saunder sacrae Theologiae Professor eius est apud nos fidei, ut sine aliquo metu tutò posset ewlgari: estque praeterà à multis Anglici idiomatis & sacrae Theologiae peritissimis perlectum, qui illud meritò plurimum commendarunt. Cunerus Petri, Pastor Sancti Petri Louan●…. 7. August. Anno. 1565. TO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF ou●… Saviour jesus Christ under the foormes of bread and wine all honour praisc and thanks be given for ●…uer. IF he that mainteneth a right good cause, yet partly for fear of the deceits and suttiltie of his adversaries, partly for mistrust of his own knowledge and memoric, dare not appear in judgement without his advocate or pro●…tour with 〈◊〉: seeing the sending forth of a book into the light of the world is the dangering to have it summoned to so many courts, as it shallbe brought into houses, & y● appearing before so many judges, as be readers thereof: what advocate and proctor, yea rather what Doctor and Patron am I constrained to seek, who do not only set forth my book to be readen of whatsoever English man, but also write of such a matter, as being of most weight, is most diligently examined in these our days? and wherein I am sure to find as well the Lutherans as the zwinglians, (though utterly dissagreing between themselves) yet against me not only agreeing to be severe judges in the reading, but also to be cruel adversaries in their judgement. Which seeing it is so, let noman wonder, that I, not mistrusting any whit the universal cause of the catholics, but misdoubting mine own wit, and the shameless shifts of our adversaries, have chosen to dedicate this work to the mystery of thy glorious body and blood (Lord jesus Christ,) to 〈◊〉, those that now take upon them to misjudge the manifest & effectual words of thy blessing and thanksgiving, pronounced by th●…o in thy last supper, making a figurative speech of a proper: and, whereas thy true body and blood itself worthy of all honour, is through thy godhead made really present, teaching not withstanding for their part, the substance of bread and wine still to remain, and therefore an idol to be falsely ●…et up and worshipped by the catholics: to th'inte●…t, I say, those false teachers may either through thy grace be converted from th●…r misbelief, (whereof I most humbly beseech thee) or else if they will stubb●…nly persist in their detestable opinion, may even presently be confounded with the majesty of thy name whose glory they opp●…gne. For what can be more dishonourable to thy goodness, then if it may be truly reported, that the wisdom of god did institute his chief Sacrament in such words, the which either being true and not believed, should b●…rden our consciences with infidelity, or being earnestly believed, and yet not concea●…ed in proper speech, should bring us into manifest da●…nger of idolatry? sith no faithful man believing this to be thy body (as thou hast said it is) can ab●…teine Mat. 26. Psal. 98. from the singular worshipping of that singular footstool of God. Now soever it be with other men, I adore thee my God and lord really present under the forms of bread and wine after cousecration duly made. Beseeching thee of pardon for my sins by the same propitiatory sacrifice of thy body and blood, which being made once with bloodshedding upon the cross, causeth the Heb. 10. Malac. 1. fruits thereof to be daily applied in that clean and unbloody sacrifice of the mass. To this great mystery of thy real presence I dedicate these my pains, as to the most undoubted fountain, cause, and supporter of them. In this faith I was baptised and made a member of thy mystical body, in the hope to maintain this 〈◊〉 mi●… parents and friends did set me to school, in the vehement love and affection thereof I have written this rude and simple work. And to whom should I refer the praise and thanks for it, but unto the alone? Or of whom should I crave the protection thereof, but of thee? seeing thou only art a meet patron for the defence of any book, which only art always present, wheresoever and whensoever it shallbe examined. To the honour therefore of thy body and blood I offer this poor mite of my simple understanding (thy merciful gift, whatsoever it be) trusting thou wilt not suffer, neither the truth of thy gospel to be long unrestored in the desolate I'll of pitiful England, nor me thy poor servant through 〈◊〉 or naughty living to perish everlastingly. AMEN. The Contents of the first Book. 1. The preface to the Reader. 2. Notes concerning the translation of holy scripture in this argument. 3. The state of the question. 4. What the supper of our lords is according to the belief of the catholics. 5. What it is according to the doctrine of our adversaries. 6. A special error of Calvin, concerning the words of Christ's supper, is confuted. The preface to the Christian Reader. WHo so will avoid the danger of pride, of schism and of hearesie, he hath no greater help thereunto in this Prou. 3. world, then to mistrust his own judgement, and to follow the authority of greater wisdom. Which thing he August. de Baptis. con●…a Dona●…st lib 2. Cap. ●…. 1. 〈◊〉. 3. must do, not only by preferring the holy scriptures before the writings of whatsoever men, but also by expo●…ding the same, according to the greatest authority that may be found in that kind. The greatest authority among men must needs be in the whole Catholic Church of Christ, the pillar and establishment of truth, whose consent in the interpretation of God's word, because we can not know by the handwryting of every particular 1. Cor. 8. member (for knowledge is not in all persons) we therefore must not so much seek after the books, as after the works, and practise of all faithful nations, to know by what means they expounded Christ's Gospel. For as the holy Ghost instructed Hebr. 10. always their hearts, writing his laws in them: so by their conformable deeds we learn, what he inspired to their hearts. As therefore it is most necessary to confer one part of holy scripture with an other, for the right understanding of both places: even so it behoveth to join with that conference, the August. ad●…anua. Epist 118 Matt. 28. use and custom of the people of God. To make this matter the plainer by an example, the Apostles are wille●… to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Now shall The anabaptists. this precept be understanded? For some think that teaching before baptism is so necessary, that no creature ought to be baptized, which is not first taught. Others think both necessary, The Catholics. but yet teaching to belong first to such as are able to be taught, and baptizing first to such, as are able to be baptised, and not yet ready to be taught. And because infautes may be baptised before they can be taught, they think that Christ meant, to have teaching go before baptism in men of discretion, and baptism before teaching in children, whose parents The practice of the whole Church 〈◊〉 a good interpretation of scripture ask baptism for them. Which later understanding is proved to be more agreeable to the meaning of Christ, not by the order of his words, but by the use and consent of all nations, which are the spouse of Christ. For in every age and country of Christendom, children are brought to be baptised by their friends: and the Bishops or Priests of those countries have always baptised them. So that we have two great and necessary points expounded, in the precept of baptism, by the custom of the Church. The one is, that children may be christened before they are taught their belief: the other, that such children only may be Christened, whose parents or friends ask baptism for them. But if any jew or Gentil do live among us, who will not have his child Christened, the Apostles by that fame 〈◊〉 of Christ, have no authority to baptise such a child. Which thing is proved, because the Church of God hath no such custom. ●…. Cor. 11 The same strength which the practice of Christian men is now seen to have in baptism, is also found to be no less in other Sacraments. For likewise all faithful countries have asked the Sacrament of consirmation for their baptised children, and all Bishops have given it, ointing and confirming them in the name of the 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thereby declaring, how the holy Ghost is given to the late baptised by the imposition Act. 8. of hands of the Apostles. 〈◊〉 all faithful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adored the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine after consecration. They have desired that holy sacrifice to be made and offered for them, & all Priests, Bishops, and Primates have said mass, and allowed that devotion of the lay-men. Whereby it is proved that those words of Christ: This is my body, and: This is my blood, are to be taken properly, Matt. 26. and not figuratively, in so much as the holy Ghost, by the use of all the people of God, hath expounded the whole meany●…ge of Christ. Therefore whosoever teacheth a figurative understanding of those words, he goeth first from the authority of the gospel, where it is 〈◊〉 said: This is my body. Next he 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of the whole Church, which so earnestly believed these words, and th●…effecte of them, that she adored the body of Christ present, under the form of bread, and acknowledged it to be offered to God unbloodely, for the obteiving of the sruites of Christ's death. thirdly he must needs 〈◊〉 concluded singular and proud, who had rather lean to his own The 〈◊〉 of a 〈◊〉 must not be trusted. judgement, or to the judgement of a few like himself, then to trust either God, or his whole Church. And whereas certain men are wont to say, that the holy Fathers and faithful people of the first six hundred years after Christ, did understand the words of his supper otherwise: It is (Good Reader) to to palpable, and to much affected a blindness not to ponder and w●…igh, how unsensibly that is spoken. All men of never so mean wit judge things uncertain by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. those that are most certain, not contrariwise leaving that which they evidently know, and measuring it by a rule clean obscure or thoroughly without the compass of their reach. Christ in that dreadful night wherein he was betrayed, 〈◊〉 now 1. Cor. 11 〈◊〉 the mystery of our redemption, after bread taken and blessing, 〈◊〉, and gave, and said, This is my body. Hereof 1. Scriptu●…. Matt. 26. Marci. 14 l. 〈◊〉. 22. 1. Cor. 11. S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. 〈◊〉 bear witness. Neither may any man doubt thereof, who looketh for salvation by 〈◊〉. Again whosoever is of lawful age, and hath but the use o●… his eyes and ears, can tell that in the Catholic Church all men 2. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of god. 〈◊〉 the real body of Christ under the 〈◊〉 of that bread, which was blessed by the Priest. These two principals no man alive may deny. 〈◊〉 no man is able to deny that 〈◊〉 three hundred and fifty 〈◊〉 passed it was decreed by 4. 70. Bishops in the great Council of 〈◊〉 kept at 〈◊〉, that the body, and blood of Christ are truly contained under the 3. General Counsels 〈◊〉 of bread and wine, the substance of bread and wine being changed into the body and blood of Christ by the power of God. The same thing is in effect taught in the councils kept afterward at 〈◊〉, at Constance, at 〈◊〉, at Trent. four before those councils, 〈◊〉 was condemned by three 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 re●…. other councils, and by the preachers and learned men of that age, wherein he 〈◊〉, and therefore he 〈◊〉 the same 〈◊〉, which now 〈◊〉 maintained in England. No point of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor may be 〈◊〉 denied. We have then the words of the gospel plain, the worshipping and adoration of the Christians plain, the authority of divers general councils exceeding plain. These all be things so known and certain, that our adversaries cannot say, they are not so, albeit they say, they should not be so. Well, they yet grant we have the words of the gospel, the use of the Church these nine hundred years, and the authority of general Counsels, of whom I 〈◊〉 on the other side, what gospel, what Church, what Counsels they have. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. First they can bring no gospel where it is written. This is 〈◊〉 figure of my body. Secondarily they can bring no Church, 2. No use of 〈◊〉 Church of God. where the body of Christ was not confessed, worshipped and 〈◊〉. Thirdly they have no general 〈◊〉, where it was ever said, that the words of Christ are 〈◊〉, and work not his body present. Thereunto they will strait take exception, affirming 3. No general Count 〈◊〉. that all the first six hundred years cook the words of Christ's supper to be figurative, and needs they must say so much, for 〈◊〉 they should say nothing at all. But what 〈◊〉 we to that saying of theirs? verily we 〈◊〉, that it is a main lie, an impudent assertion, a fond imagination, as the which hath no ground at all in the The first 600. years 〈◊〉 not for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. first six hundred years. Which thing although it may be proved many ways, yet in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is most invincibly declared by three 〈◊〉. The former is, in so much as divers holy Father's 〈◊〉 us most instantly to believe the words wherein 1. Christ said: This is my body, and: This is my blood, although they seem to be against natural reason and sense. and yet no wise man will require us to believe figurative words. The second is, 2. because the same Fathers teach expressly the adoration of that 〈◊〉 and blood of Christ, which is in the holy mysteries, which 〈◊〉 on the altar and table, which is taken into the hands mouths, and bodies of Christian men. The third reason is, 3. because the holy 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 things shallbe declared, God willing, in their places. We have therefore just cause, not to grant our adversaries the first six hundred years. And although we had not so just cause to show the first six houdred to stand so plainly for us, yet how is it possible, that they or any man alive can be sure of the opinion of that age? The scriptures that should teach them, what they ought to ●…ue, sound an other way▪ The practice of the Church, which hath derived to us their custom and use, doth inform us of a contrary meaning. By what means then come our adversaries to assure themselves of the first six hundred years? It is cle●…ely impossible that any man should have any sufficient ground, whereby to know, that the first six hundred years were of the 〈◊〉 or sacramentary judgement. For the writings of the Fathers (which only they pretend) cannot inform them of any such their mind, for so much as none of them all writeth so favourably for them, that he hath gone about once to prove, that the body of Christ is not under that which the Priest blesseth, or hath warned the people to beware of idolatry, or hath used such words in that behalf, as the Sacramentaries of our time do use. And yet surly a like faith would hau●… brought forth a like doctrine. Now where they call the Sacrament a figure and holy sign: that doth not withstand the real presence any whit, but rather proveth it, to him, who considereth the sign, we speak of, not to be a sign made by men, whose tokens do signify th●… The signs of Christ's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the signified 〈◊〉. truth absent, but instituted by Christ, who maketh real truth in every Sacrament, under a holy sign thereof. To be short, there is nothing to be seen or readen in the ancient Fathers concerning the matter of the Sacrament, but the same hath been always acknowledged of the Catholics for good and sound doctrine, even continually all these nine hundred years, when, if they had thought otherwise, they might without reprouffe of any man, before Berengarius, or after his time, have condemned what book they listed. But no Papist, were he never so much addicted to the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, did find fault with any Catholic Father of the first six hundred 〈◊〉: Undowtedlie, because he never saw word in them against his own opinion. Or tell me, doth S. Thomas, doth S●…otus, doth Nicolaus de Lira, doth Dionysius Larthusianus accuse any Father of the first six hundred years, as not thinking well of the Sacrament? No surly. And that is because they never found in them but the same docteine, which themselves believed and taught. And yet as soon as Berengarius began his new doctrine, every learned man found fault with it. Likewise with 〈◊〉, with ●…uinglins, and with john Calvin. It is therefore evident, seeing no Catholic neither hath been before Luters time, nor is now offended with the old Father's doctrine concerning the real presence of Christ's body, and yet every of them is offended with the Sacramentaries doctrine: that the Sacramentaries teach not, as the old Fathers did, and again that the Sacramentaries cannot be sure, that their doctrine is found in the old Fathers. For if it were there to he found, why should not Catholics find it there as well as they: Or what one word can be brought forth of them so plainly denying the real presence of Christ's body, under the form of bread, as we are able to bring forth certain hundred places, wherein the said real presence is earnestly affirmed? Admit the Father's doctrine were uncertain, were doubtful & obscure, yet cold our adversaries never be sure thereby, that the first six hundred years were with them. Admit some of them seemed rather to favour their side then owrs (which is utterly false) yet the plain word of God, the plain general Councils, the faith of all nations by the space of nine hundred years ought The 〈◊〉 mentaries are fam t●… 〈◊〉 the Father's of the first 600▪ years 〈◊〉 ●…ye. to prevail, before the probable and apparent sayings of a few men. But now seeing the Fathers of the first six hundred years are so clearly for us, that our adversaries are forced to excuse the express witnesses of S. 〈◊〉, S. Chrysostom, S. 〈◊〉 alleged for the real presence of Christ's body, as spoken by plain hyperbole which (in them that profess to teach the Catholic faith) is no less to say, than that these Fathers make rhetorical lies in writing of the blessed ●…ucharist, seeing they are constrained to defy certain works of the very most ancient, 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 such like (because their sayings are to 〈◊〉 against them) seeing all, that dispute now a days with the 〈◊〉, press them with nothing more customably then with the authority of the ancient Fathers. Now to say they lea●…e to the first six hundred years, when the holy scriptures, and ancient Fathers, general Counceils, and 〈◊〉 tradition maketh against them, he that listeth to consider how 〈◊〉, how vilely, how impudently it is pretended, may in all other assertions mistrust them, as men for great sins given over unto their own lewd fantasy, without they Roma. 1. repent and call again to the holy Ghost for more grace and better understanding. M. Nowell in the preface prefixed before the reprouf of M. Nowell in his pre●…. dorman's proof, seemeth to have small confidence in the first six hundred years, and therefore findeth fault with M. jewel, because he gave us that most large scope of all Doctors of the Church, who have written for the space of six hundred years after our Saviour Christ's being here in earth, and of a●…l councils kept in the said continuance of time: Whereas M. Nowell would have had him tie us straightly to the trial of the scriptures, the certain and only judges (sayeth M. Nowell) in controversies of religion. Wherein he affirmeth, we can say nothing at all. The holy scriptures, M. Nowell, are so certain and upright ●…udges, that if they cold speak, they would remove out of their The Scri ptures would never abid him that sh●…ld say: This is not my body. co●…rtes all such 〈◊〉 tongues as say, This is not Christ's body. This, I say, which is made at the holy table of Christ's supper. This▪ which after blessing and the words of consecration spoken, is broken and delivered. This, which at the hands of the Priest is taken and eaten. If scriptures might be heard, should he leave one hour, that seeing a thing so exa●…ly taken and pointed unto, and hearing the same with so many circumstances (all tending to the making a new mystery of the new testament) affirmed to be the body of Christ, which is given Luce. 22. for us, yet would neither care for the word nor the deed, but stoutly, 〈◊〉, that this which is seen and taken, is not by the words of Christ made his own real body? And yet have we nothing at all to say in the holy scriptures? Some others grant we have somewhat to say in this question of the real presence, but not in any other. Whom I beseech to suspend their judgement, until they know what they say. For not if they understand not how scriptures belong to us in other questions, we do therefore lack scriptures. From the highest The catholics lack no Scriptures. question of the sacrifice of the mass, to the most abject (in our adversaries reputation) of indulgences and pardons, the Catholic Church never lacked, nor shall at any time lack plenty of holy scriptures, as it shall appear when particular occasion serveth. In the mean time because I am not able to bring forth at once, what may be said out of holy scriptures, for all the con●… of our age, I have beg●…ne first with the chief of all, which is concerning the real presence of Christ's body and blood under the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine. Beseeching God I may have grace and time, to bring in other questions other like 1. scriptures. I have examined the words of Christ's supper, I have 2. noted the ci●…cumstances of things done and said there: I ha●… 〈◊〉. conferred the holy scriptures of one place, with them that in the same matter are written in other places, as well of the old as of the new testament: I have joined the Fathers of the first six hundred 4. years, to show, they thought as the Catholics now do, whom they call Papists. But what circumstance, what confere●…ce of holy scripture can help hour adversaries? T●…e 〈◊〉 cannot confer scri ptures in this matter. Before they can join one place of scripture with an other, they must have some one clear and plain, by which the other, that is more dark and obs●…re, may be interpreted and expounded. But what plain place can that be in the supper of Christ? For if the words and deeds, that make the supper, be obscure, if th●…y that fulfil the prophecies and promises going before, be dark and figurative: where is it possible to find a prophecy, a If the words of the supper be figurative, none other can be plain. figure, a psalm, a promise more e●…ident, than the perfo●…mance thereof was? Doth not the death of Christ as fulfil, so make plain and open all the law and prophets? Even so whatsoever is brought apperteininge to the purpose of Christ's supper, must needs be more uncertain and less evident, than the supper itself, which is the end and performance, and therefore the opening and interpretation of all the rest. Who so therefore maketh the words of Christ's supper figurative or uncertain, much more he maketh all other places, that belong to that argument, obscure and hard to be understanded. What certainty then can their belief have, who neither have an evident faith coming from their ancestoures to them, nor any manifest place of scripture, by which they may judge and try other such scriptures, as they bring for their figurative doctrine? As they imagine without any proof at all, that they have the faith of the first six hundred years: so I think they imagine a gospel, where it is w●…tten, This is not my body: or, This is the figure of my body. But as with thine eyes thou mayest read it distinctly written in four places of the th●… 〈◊〉, This is my body: so if thou be of any good years, thou 〈◊〉 ●…ember the time, when noman professed the belese that they now do profess. And farther, if god grant the to leave but twenty years more, thou shalt see many a thousand of their own fellowship believe the co●…trarie of that, which in many articles is now professed by the 〈◊〉 themselves. For heresy can not stay, until 1. Tim. 3. it come at the length to infidelity. But, as I said, thou art sure of the gospel, where it is said: This is my body, and sure of the Church, where ●…t both was, and is believed, to be Christ's body after consecration: so can they never be sure, where it is written, this is the figure of my body, nor yet can they be sure that ever it was believed in the first six hundred yer●…s, to have ●…ene a figure, without the real truth of Christ's s●…bstance under the form of bread. Tell me masters, I beseech you, sith before your ●…ies the words of Christ lie sounding against your opinion, and in your knowledge and experience you have seen all Christian people prof●…sse a 〈◊〉 faith unto yours, by what evidence, by what invincible authority can you prove, that the first six hundred years agreed with you? Is it written in the gospel? It say●…th 1. the contrary in these words, This is my body. Is it come to 2. your hands by tradition? All tradition maketh against you, whereby we are taught the body of Christ to be made by Christ's words under the form of bread. Did all nations and faithful 3. p●…ople bear witness to your opinion? It is clean contrary. For you can name no people where your opinion was professed before these fifty years, albeit a few have in corners now and then 〈◊〉 it, as now some or other always 〈◊〉 the blessed Trinity. Did general Cou●…cels teach you, to think as yo●… 4. dor? They are clean on the other 〈◊〉, as which profess an unbloody Con. Ni. Con. Lat. sacrifice, and a 〈◊〉 of Christ upon the altar, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Do the awcieut Fathers tell you, that them 5. 〈◊〉 believed so? They tell you clean contrary, as who forbid you to 〈◊〉 of Christ's words, and bid us adore his flesh in the mysteries. Where is then this faith of six hundred years proved: Admit you had a word or two, that seemed to favour your part. Is that enough to build your consciences upon, against the plain scripture, universal tradition, consent of nations, de●… of general Counsels, and so undoubted witnesses, as are in Ephes. 4. the a●…cient Fathers? are you so slenderly built upon Christ, that every blast of 〈◊〉, ●…inglius, or Caluins' mouth is able to remove you from the scriptures, tradition, Counsels, Fathers, and 〈◊〉 belief of all Christendom? I speak not this (God is my witness) to upbraid you of your 〈◊〉, but to warn you of the miserable state, that your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 se●…ses have carried you to. I now require not any other thing of you, then that you deeply ponder, and all par●… set a side (calling for the grace of God) earnestly examine, what was the first motion that made you doubt of Christ's T●…e reas●…s that 〈◊〉 our faith. 〈◊〉 and blood under the forms of bread and wine. Was it not your senses? Did not your sensual man say, how can this white round cake be the body of Christ? How can this bald shorn Priest make God? How can Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father, he also present in a thousand places at once? Tell not me, but tell your ghostly fathers, whether these reasons chiefly mo●…ed you not, to discredit this high mystery? If those or such like where the beginning of your departing from the Catholic ●…aith, remember that God is almighty, that Christ is God, that he said: This is my body, do and make this thing: and all Luce. 22. those thoughts of infidelity are strait driven away. But if now ye reply that there was in deed the beginning, but afterward you found more strong arguments, I tell you, the arguments also be daily the stronger, because your faith is daily the weaker. But for so much as I am not with every of you, face to face, where I may show the weakness of your arguments, I have answered in this book such as I found in the Apology of the Church of England, beseeching you most heartily to take my pains in good worth. If any where I seem to charge my adversaries with malice or any like fault, take not that spoken to you, but to him that is guilty of it. If my labour like you in this argument, it shallbe ready to serve in any other to my best ability. Far well and pray for me, as I beseech God of his grace that I may pray especially for all them, that read my book. To th'intent it may offend none, but the desperate, help some that be not incurable, comfort others that desire comfort of God, to whom be all honour and glory. Amen. ¶ Certain notes about the use and translation of holy scripture to be remembered of him that shall read this book. IN alleging the holy scriptures although I have had always due regard unto the tongues, wherein they were first written, yet I have specially kept that text, which hath been above these thousand years generally received throughowt all the west Church, and therefore is expounded best, and best known to the latins. Concerning the number of the Psalms, I have followed the seventy interpreters, whom universally the whole Church hath followed from the Apostles time, namely in the distinction of the Psalms. Concerning the english bible, I have almost never used the words thereof, partly because I am not bound thereunto, but specially because it almost never translateth any text well, whereof any controversy is in these our days. And to omit for this present other falsified places to the number of a great many hundreds, these that follow, are found not to be well translated in the only matter of the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. Christ saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Operamini joan. 6. cibum permanentem. The true English were: work the meat which tarrieth. The translation appointed to be read in the Churches turneth (Operamini) labour for. Whereby the Cert●…in places not weltranslated. sense of the place is corrupted. We labour for that, which we seek, and have not, we work that stuff, which is present with us, and must needs be present, before we can work it. I suppose there is a difference, whether a carpenter work a piece of timber, or labour for a piece of timber. He that worketh it, hath it present, he that laboureth for it, seeketh it absent. Christ bade the ●… jews not labour for a meat, which should be absent, when they came to work, but he bade them work the meat, which tarrieth to life everlasting, which the son of man will give them. The son of man (which is Christ) will make the meat present, and the jews are willed to work the said meat being first made present, and given to them. It is not therefore the commandment of Christ, that they should labourfor it, as if it were to be sought out by their diligence (for they should labour in vain, as never being able to find of themselves so precious a thing) But Christ meaneth that they should work, by faith and mouth, by soul and body, by soul in believing, by body in eating, that meat, which the son of man doth promise to give them. That is the true meaning of the word, Operamini, work ye: as the words that follow to the end of the Chapter do plainly declare. But because the Sacramentaries do not believe the meat that Why th●… Sacrain●… tarries have corrupted th●… text. tarrieth (which is afterward showed to be the flesh of Christ eaten in deed, whereby he tarrieth in us and we in him for ever) to be made really present, so that we may work it by faith and body: therefore they have changed working into labouring for, as though in the supper of Christ we laboured for his body, and did dot rather work his body. Again, Christ saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. joan. 6. Qui manducat me & ipse vivet propter me. The true English is, He that eateth me, he also shall live for me, The English Bible teadeth, He that eateth me, shall live by the means of me. There is a similitude made in that place, that as Christ being sent of the Father liveth for the Father: so he that eateth Christ liveth for Christ. The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places. It is construed with an accusative case in both places, it is latined by propter in both places. yet in the former place it is englished in the common Bible, for the Father: in the later, not (for me) as it ought, but by the means of me: Whereas Christ would prove, that as himself doth live for his Father (with whom he is one nature and Godhead by eterna! generation) so we do live for him, with whom we are one flesh and manhood by eating him worthily. As therfor●… the Godhead of the Father is really present in the whole substance thereof with Christ: so is Ch●…ist really present with us in his whole substance, when we eat him in the Sacrament, of which kind of eating he speaketh in that place by the way of promise, as I have proved upon S. Ihon. What hon●…sty can be here pretended in one sentence to turn one word di●…ersly, even when Christ ●…seth the self same word to show thereby the similitude of the matter? Is propter Patrem, for the Father? and yet is propter me, not, for me, but, by the means of me? A man may live by his means that is abs●…t, whom also he never saw. But he can not live for him, who is not with him, yea so with him, that his whole life is maintained through him. For here Christ meaneth, by living for me, such a kind of life as men have by living for, and because of the meat which they 〈◊〉. As therefore noman is able to live through that meat which is absent, and as when the meat causeth us to live, it is truly and really in us: even so when Christ saith, He that eateth me, shall live for me, he meaneth himself, to be really eaten of him who liveth through that he eateth Christ. This help toward the Catholic faith the Sacramentaries thought to make nothing, by sa●…ifying the holy scripture. Thirdly Christ saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Qui manducat hunc panem vivet in aeternum. The true English were. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. The Bible doth English it, He that eateth of this bread. It is true to say, he that earcth of this bread shall live for ever, and it was said before of Christ. But though it be true in his place, yet it is not the true sense of this place. For here Christ speaketh (by the way of promise) of sacramental eating, and he is so eaten in the Sacrament, that we both eat him, and of him. We eat him, because he is bodi●…y pr●…sent under the form of bread. We eat of him, because we take virtue and increase of li●…e of him, & he yet tarrieth whole. Of him we may eat also, without the Sacrament, by believing in him, and keeping his commaund●…ments. But himself we properly eat only under the form of bread, of which eating Christ now spoke. But because the Sacramentaries would have no difference between eating Christ, & eating of Christ, (as who believe Christ really never to be eaten under the form of bread) therefore they have corrup●…ed the text, putting, of this bread, where they should have left out, of, and have said: He that eateth this bread. this bread, I say, which before Christ called his own flesh and his own self. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. Other small faults in translating S. John I will not now stand about. Let us pass unto the supper of Christ. S. ●…athew writeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cunaccepisset jesus panem, et gratias egisset, fregit, et dedit discipulis, et ait. The true english is jesus having taken bread, & given thanks (or blessed) bra●…e, & gave to the disciples and said. The common Bible readeth: jesus tok●… bread, and when ●…e had given thanks he broke it, & gave it to the disc●…ples. The holy scripture saith not that Je●…us broke (it) neither that he gave (it) but that he broke and gave. For jesus took in deed wheaten bread. but having 〈◊〉 a●…d g●…uen thanks, and said the words of consecration, This is my body, he made f●…om of the 〈◊〉 of bread the subs●…ance of his body, because he said, This is my body, ●…nd he is not wont to say 〈◊〉. Thi●… 〈◊〉, which when Jes●…s took, was bread, is, after the words prono●…ced, the body of Christ, and consequently that which was taken is made his body, whiles it is changed by the power of God in to his body and therefore the substance of bread is no more present. For which cause the scripture said not, fregit eum, & dedit eum, as the English Bible hath, he broke it, and gave it, but he broke, and gave, without, it, for he broke the form of bread which remained, and he gave his body which by his word he made. The words of S. Matthew do not all stand in order, as it shallbe showed hereafter: in so much as Christ said the words of consecration, as it is more like, before he broke the Sacrament or gave to his Disciples. But the Sacramentaries who would the word of Christ (when he said: This is my body) to be void, to be figurative, to be a word of promising and not of performing, do say falsely that it is not in deed the body of Christ, but bread still as it was before, & to maintain that heresy they corrupt the text, saying: Jesus took bread Matt. 26. Marc. 14 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 and broke (it) and gave (it) Again, in S. Mark (say they) he broke (it) and in S. Luke, he broke (it) last of all in S. Paul, he broke (it) 〈◊〉 times putting the particle (it) which is neither in the Break nor in the Latin ●…ble. S. Luke and S. Paul after the consecration of the body of Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Christ, witness that Christ said: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hoc facite. The truest English were, Make this thing▪ The sullest, do and make this thing. The common Bible readeth in S. Luke, This do. 〈◊〉 S. Paul, This do ye. And that which is most abominable of all, in the second tome of your ho●…lies, in the homily of the Sacrament Fol. 213. of Christ's body, it is translated, Do ye thus. So that in two words three faults be committed: the one, tha●… facere is here Englished, to do, whereas it standeth not for that only, but also to make, which is the cheefer meaning of y● twain as I prove hereafter. And therefore either both significations of doing and making, or the more principal which is, of making, ought to ●…aue been expressed. Moreover, hoc, this thing, is turned (this) only without adding thereunto the name of thing, and that to th●…nd noman should think that a substantial thing were wi●… to be made, but only that a quality were d●…d. For they would have the words of Christ, to mean: Do as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 so, do this. Whereas he meaneth, Make this thing, wh●… I have m●…: This thing, I say, whereof you heard me say: This is my body: as though he 〈◊〉, make this my body. But the Sacramentaries, without all 〈◊〉, have corrupted the gespell's, because noman should think of 〈◊〉 any thing, least by ask what thing it were, he should 〈◊〉 that the body of Christ is commanded to be made. In so much that in those homilies Tom. 2. Fol. 213. where they pretend to teach the word of ●…d, they report the command●… of Christ, saying: Do ye thus. ●…a what 〈◊〉 do ye thus. 〈◊〉 bread and 〈◊〉 it, and 〈◊〉 it, and make no more a do, but do ye thus. O trusty go 〈◊〉, O blasphemous tongues. Did Christ say, 〈◊〉 ye thue? He say●…: Do and make this thing: Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur, hoc sacite. This is my ●…ody, which is given ●…or you, do●… and make this thing. ●…tt us go forward. It 〈◊〉 in S. Luke, and in S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 In meam come morationem. The true English were, for the remembrance of me, or to th'end I may be remembered. The common Bible turneth In the remembrance of me. A thing may be done best in the remembrance of a man, when the man is first remembered, and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him. But Christ meaneth not so, he meaneth to have this thing (to wit) his body made to this effect, that his death may be remembered, and so his words do sound: Do and m●…e this thing for the remembrance of me, to bring men into the remembrance of me. For when my body is made by the Priest, and listed up to be adored, and all the people taught to bow down to the body of Christ, and to come with pure consciences to receive it, than Christ is remembered by reason of his body made, and so the scripture is fulfilled which saith: Do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. But the Sacramentaries would have nothing made in Christ's supper. But they would have bread eaten, and wine drunken, which is not able to make Christ to be remembered so effectually, and with such contrition, confession and satisfaction, as he requireth to be remembered withal. For he seeketh not (as the zwinglians imagine) a remembrance in words alone, but much more in deeds. The remembrance of him is the following of his Cross and death by penance, by humility, by confessing our sins to his ministers, and taking absolution of them: and all this kind of remembrance ariseth by the making of Christ's body, whiles men are persuaded, they may not come to so precious a thing, without confoorming of themselves to the death of Christ. In translating S. Paul there are other faults not of so great 1. Cor. 10 weight, as these others, but yet which should have been more diligently translated: as where the Greek readeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Communicatio sanguinis Christi, communicatio corporis. There the common Bible turneth: The partaking of the blood of Christ, the partaking of the body. Whereas it should be translated, the communicating of the blood of Christ, and the communicating of the body. Communicating is more than partaking, albeit the old Latin text in the later place doth read, participatio, partaking. But that excuseth not the Sacramentaries, who pretend to correct it always by the Greek. and now whereas the Greek readeth twice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin once communicatio, the English agreeing thoroughly with neither o●… both, turneth twice, partaking. The communicating of Christ's body and blood is, when it self and all thing that is in it, is made common. Partaking is, when part thereof is taken. But because after his resurrection Christ can be no more divided, the partaking of his blood is the communicating of it, not by the force of the mean, but by the dependence of the thing. For as he that hath any part of God, must needs have all God, because God is a nature whole every where without any parts thereof: so he that hath any piece of Christ's body and blood, hath the whole body and blood, because it is unmortal and can no more die. Yet if it might be divided, it might also buy, so that although partaking must in this argument 〈◊〉 stand for communicating, yet the Sacramentaries have showed their spite against S. Paul, in translating it after the worst manner they could. 〈◊〉 after S. Paul sa●…th: we being many are one bread, because we all partake, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it should be Englished, of the one bread. For such strength hath y● 〈◊〉 article, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & so●…time the common Bible turneth the Greek article into, that. But here it was not for the purpose of the Sacramentaries, that it should be meaned so. S. Paul meaneth one certain bread of li●…e whereof we partake, & to show that, he said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the one joan. 6. bread (to wit) of the bread which hath no fellows, of that bread who said: I am the bread of life, and the bread which I will give, is me flesh. If so many faults be found without curious searching (which I have not used) in so final room, judge (good Reader) in what case their souls be, who take the word of God at these men's hands, judge whose Gospel they have delivered to the simple people in English. verily their own, and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ¶ The state of the question between the Lutherans, zwinglians, 〈◊〉, and Catholics, concerning the Sacr●…ment of the altar. TO th'inthent thou mayest good Reader the better understand, to what point and mark the whole disputation shallbe 〈◊〉: I will briefly declare how diversly the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath be●… set forth in our days. From the beginning of the Christian Church until the year of our Lord 1517. all that on the earth professed openly Christ's Catholic All the Church 〈◊〉 y● 〈◊〉 presence of Christ's body. faith, did believe, as well in the Break as in the Latin Church, the real presence of Chris●…es body & blood under the forms of bread and wine, after consecration duly made. This faith of theirs was preserved by the delivery from hand to hand of that doc●…rine even sithence the beginning of Christ's Church, and was maintained by the preaching and writing of the learned Fathers, and protested by the godly honour, which all Christian people gave to the said Sacrament at the time of mass or otherwise. Well it might be that s●…me one in his heart thought amiss of that hely myst●…, and that some 〈◊〉 in corners also conspired Noman denied openly the 〈◊〉 presence of Christ's body. against the truth thereof, as 〈◊〉 and some other like: as now ●…ull many may be suspected to think that Christ is not the saviour of mankind. 〈◊〉 as ●…o Christian this day teacheth openly and in express 〈◊〉, that 〈◊〉 is not y● 〈◊〉 of the world: so did no man in open 〈◊〉, with the authority or toleration of any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preach, writ or profess, that the body of Christ was not present in the Sacrament of the altar, if the Priest had once 〈◊〉 the solemn benediction, which our lord Jesus Luc. 22. commanded. On the other side, if in the first six hundred years, the Christians had believed, as the Lutherans or zwinglians now do, he that had first begun to have taught the real presence of Christ's body The opi●… of the real presence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first six hundred years. and blood under the forms of bread and wine, must have been at that time noted & reputed for an 〈◊〉, he must have been convinced by some general or proninciall Council kept either in the 〈◊〉 Church, or in the west, the Preachers and Doctors of that age should have written against him. It is not possible, that all the whole Church, which to that day had believed the mysteries, that be consecrated upon the altar, to be ●…more but holy bread and wine, to be only tokens of Christ's body absent in substance, to be neither a sacrifice 〈◊〉, nor the real body and blood of Christ: should 〈◊〉 through all nations change the Catholic and universal belief without ●… 〈◊〉 that had 〈◊〉 six hundred years, could not 〈◊〉 sod●…nly changed, without great tumult. any trouble or tumult at all, without any contradiction, or disputation, yea without any man at all known or ever heard of, that should first commend unto them this new opinion of nine hundred years old. Is it credible, that so many thousand millions of Christian men, as were in the Church at the end of the first six hundred years, believing the one year those hallowed things upon the altar to be still bread and wine, should the next year after, altogether in all countr●…es and languages fall 〈◊〉 prostrate or 〈◊〉, or at the least bow to the very same things, as to the true body of their maker and saviour, which before they had been taught to have been unreasonable and unsensible creatures●… And did they all this thing without any guide or preacher, who might will them so to do? Or did all the Preachers in 〈◊〉 at on●… moment change No history maketh 〈◊〉 of any change of the faith after the first six hundred 〈◊〉. their mind, & 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so? Or did some few go through the sour parts of the world, and without resistance of any man preach that new 〈◊〉? Were all the pens of all the writers of histories so tied, that 〈◊〉 of them all was able once to write any one man's name, who after the six hundred years 〈◊〉 taught first, second or third, or at any time that change of belief through out Christendom? Was that heretic alone so almighty, that noman durst write his name, neither whiles he lived, nor when he was departed out of this life? If the man were unknown, at the No 〈◊〉 can be pa●…, because none 〈◊〉. least why hath the sect no special name? Was there not one learned man in the whole Church of God either willing or able, to resist that fury of new doctrine in the matter of Christ's supper? If none were learned enough to conquer it by preaching, or disputing, or writing, at the least wise would none do bis best to set 〈◊〉 a bare history of that tragedy? Or who ever hath written that the whole Church changed her saith in this matter? So many councils have been kept in all ages and countries, so many he●… names and opinions, who were but in privy corners, have Euthimius, In panoplia Libro. 2. Bernardus. Concil. Viennen. been of late 〈◊〉 left written to us, as Bogomili, Waldenses, Petrobusiani, Pseudoapostoli, Begardi, Beguinae, with such like, and could this main heresy of Christ's real preseuce overrun the whole Church so far, that fifty years past and upwards no small chapel can be named in the wide world, where Christ's supper was made without adoration of his body and blood as present under forms of bread and wine, and yet 〈◊〉 noman upon the earth be found, in the space of eight hundred and fifty years, to leave in monuments of histories, when that heresy began, or by whom it was promulgated, or what name was given to it? Did Satan in those eight hundred years so strongly oppress Marc. 1. Matt. 16. joan. 16. Christ, that his gospel was clean darkened and his kingdom lost? Did hell gates avail against the whole Church? Did the rock itself 〈◊〉? Did the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 to teach the people of God all 〈◊〉? I think it willbe said, that the Bishops of Rome did preach, commend, set forth and maintain that 〈◊〉. But they must show which Bishop first began, and who writeth it of him, and by what means he was so 〈◊〉 obeyed, that no resistance in the world is read to have been any where made against him. And yet surely he never lacked e●…emies in the cast Church. The truth is, that all the Bishops of Rome, yea all the Catholic Bishops of the whole world, learned of Christ, this to be his real body, and this to be his blood. And this faith dured from the last supper of Christ in all faithful men without any denying or direct 〈◊〉 thereof, until Berengarius began to teach otherwise. It was in deed 〈◊〉 indirectly by Martion Valentinus, Manichaeus, and all those, that thought Christ to have had no true body of his own. Again by Arrius and Nestorius, who taught the body of Christ to be the body of a man. Arrius, because Christ was not equal in substance with his father but a creature only: Nestorius, because he had two persons, one of God, an Cyrillus in Anathematis mo. 11. other, man, therefore seeing this was his human body, Nestorius would it not to be the body of the son of God. But directly the real presence of Christ in this blessed Sacrament was not impugned, until Berengarius, about five hundred years past, began to sow in the field of the Church the corrupt seed of false doctrine, concerning that question. But his own 〈◊〉, and the three Counsels gathered strait against him at Uercelles, Tours, and Rome, Three coum cells kept against Berenga rius 〈◊〉 his life tyme. do rather show what, and how constant the Catholic 〈◊〉 was of old time in that behalf, than any thing help and 〈◊〉 the opinion of those men, who now adays endeavour to establish a new invention of their own. The Church therefore, as I said, believing most 〈◊〉, that Christ gave his own real flesh and blood in the mysteries of his last supper, taught consequently, the mean of making present The mea●… 〈◊〉 Chri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presence. that blessed body, to be (not the coming down of Christ from heaven) but the changing of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his 〈◊〉 and blood, by the almighty power of 〈◊〉 word spoken by a Priest, with such mind and 〈◊〉, as that solemn 〈◊〉 required. This ●…hange, wherein the wh●…le subs●…ance of br●…ad and wine should by the 〈◊〉 of Christ be so mightily converted into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 for us, and into that holy blood which Luc. 22. was shed for us on the ●…rosse, must of 〈◊〉 be a dreadful and propitiatory sacrifice, as well by reason of the body of Christ sacrifi●…ed once to death (which is now made 〈◊〉) as for the cause and final end, why it is made present. For Christ said at his 〈◊〉, This is my Lody, which is given for you, do and make Luc. 22. this thing for the remembrance of me. If it be at the time of The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of y● 〈◊〉. consecration given for us 〈◊〉 by the comma●…dement of Christ, who can deny but it is a sacrifice, and that we take great profit and advantage by that gift? Upon this ground, the Christian people were taught to esteem this holy sacri●…ice, abou●… all other external ●…inds of worshipping God in this life. Thence came so goodly bi●…ding of so many Churches, so rich decking of altars, so great foundations of ●…hanteries, in 〈◊〉, so much estimation of Mass, that some came to the holy order of Priesthood not for 〈◊〉, but for wealth. And The faults of the 〈◊〉. some other went into monasteries rather for case, then for 〈◊〉 to serve God. All which became, th●…ough over much ease, & lack of the fear of God, negligent in their office, dissolute in their behaviour, ignorant in good learning, and (which in that vocation is most filthy of all) 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, cou●…touse. And the more that in such sort vnworth●…ly presumed to those holy processions, the greater anger of God the●… sinful doing provoked against themselves. The people on th'other side seeing the unhonest li●…e of certain The 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉. religious persons and Priests, and how vnre●…erently they handled the divine service, sell in hatred not so much with their faults, as with the office itself, imputing the vices of evil men to a most holy vocation and ministery, against the commandment Matt. 23. of Christ. They withdrew unjustly their tithes and oblations, they envied the riches of the clergy, and in every alehouse d●…couered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their spiritual fathers. When these great enormities were come to the highest, so that the cockle began to overgrow and hide the good corn, and now time required that judgement should begin at the house of God, and those that in deed were good and faithful should be 1. Pet. 4. dissevered from the evil, Martin Luther a Friar of S. Augustine's order in Saxonic, was permitted like a proud ●…ing of Babylon to come out of the north, and to make spiritual battle to jerem. 1. the holy City of Jerusalem, because her Citizens did not worship Christ in such purity of good life, as they ought to have done. Whereby it came to light, who were the cha●…e, which is with every 〈◊〉 of windecaried up and down, & who were the true wheat, which lieth 〈◊〉 against all temptations, and persevereth in the Church of God. For those that were light and evil disposed, Who were me●…e to receive 〈◊〉 doctrine. when they understood they might keep their livings, though they did not discharged the office belonging thereunto, seeing they came to the office only to have the living, those, I say, embraced with all their endeavour the new religion of Martin Luther. And that, whether they were Monks and religious men, or secular Priests only. Make them sure of good 〈◊〉, & they will assure the Prince to give up their Abbeys and monasteries. And good reason why. For they never loved neither the cote nor the vow, but only the ●…ase and filling of their bellies. Then God made it evident unto the world, which were those who had slandered in deed the holy order of Priesthood. Who they were that having 〈◊〉 kept women, said afterward they were their wives, and who they were that 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 more them their vows made to God. I shall need name no man. But I think there are few men above forty years old in all England, but they can of their own knowledge reckon up divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, who before the preaching of Luther, shamed with their unhovest behaviour the clergy of the realm. And the same men showed themselves, when broaching time came, not to have been of the Church, but of that religion whatsoever should be set foor●… most carnal. This good then Luther hath do●…e, that whereas the evil were The profit which the Church taketh of 〈◊〉. in profession mingled among the good, now it should be no more so. For two bodies are made, ou●… of Catholics, an other of the Protestants. And the Church of God remaineth 〈◊〉 purged from that wicked generation of men. Not that Catho●…kes lack their great 〈◊〉, or can be justified in the sigh of God as no sinners. But it skilleth much whether a man do sin with fear of 〈◊〉 and with desire of repentance, or else whether he descend his sin, & make a doctrine of his evildoing. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priest sayeth, he doth not sin in marrying, though he 〈◊〉, not to marry. Yea to amend the matter, he sayeth, no man ought to vow chastity, condemning in that doctrine, beside an infinite number of holy professed virgins, the blessed mother of God, who wondered how she might have a child Luce. 1. 〈◊〉 she knew not any man. Whereunto her own reason mig●…t 〈◊〉 have replied, that hereafter she might know a man, except she had vowed herself not to know at all any man. Now Luther was permitted to discover such sinners, as were most desperate and of least purpose to repent. This Luther hath shaken the walls of more Chapels, Churches, Monasteries, than ever any king of Syria did shake 〈◊〉, Castles or houses in the land of the twelve tribes of Israel and ●…uda. He began with less matters, but as the Prince of the 〈◊〉 throwing 〈◊〉 and conquering such small forts as lay in his way, always made haste to besiege Jerusalem itselse the chief City of the land of jury: so Luther having his eye upon the highest mystery of all our faith, (as him self 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 In epist. ad argen to ratenses. to overthrow the great reverence which all good men gave to the blessed Sacrament of the altar. He went about to be persuaded, In Sacramento praeter panem & vinum esse nihil, that nothing was in the Sacrament besides bread and wine. For these are his own words. But finding the scriptures to plain (as himself also 〈◊〉) and the saith and consent of 〈◊〉 doctors and people to strong, he 〈◊〉 gave over tha●… 〈◊〉, and contented himself with 〈◊〉 the sacred ●…ower of 〈◊〉. He taught, that bread and wine were not in ●…. The 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 ther. their substance changed into the body of Christ, 〈◊〉 withal the 〈◊〉 presence of our saviours flesh and blood. Whose 〈◊〉 o●…ce being spread in Germany, a great multitude of 〈◊〉 Rutters voluntarily followed his 〈◊〉. But when the Catholics had evidently showed, that two divers natures al●…ready exta●…t in the world (as Christ and 〈◊〉 bread or wine) could never without a marvelous union be made one, and be incorporated together: the which union, between Christ and material bread and wine, neither is expre●…y acknowledged by the holy Gospel, neither gathered thence by general Counsels or learned Fathers (●…or who ever heard, De Christo impanato, of Christ imbreaded) moreover when the Catholics declared their belief of 〈◊〉 to be conformable to the Scriptures, and expressly allowed by the holy spirit of God in general Counsels, and in the books of ancient Doctors: 〈◊〉 In the great Con̄s●…l of 〈◊〉. etc. 〈◊〉 his Captain Luther neither to be able to withstand the reasons brought against him, neither yet willing to give over the opinion which himself had chosen, he much misliked with Luther, and within four years after began to publish at zurich in z●…cherland, that the real substance of Christ's flesh 2. The opi●…on o●… zum●…. Decolam●…. and blood was not in the Sacrament of the altar, as Luther had said, but only was named and signified to be there. To whom Decolam●…s a renegade out of S. Brigittes Cloister joined himself, stoutly defending that figuratine doctrine, both against the Catholics and against Martin Luther. The Catholics out of hand showed how much against the words and works of Christ that opinion is, how absurd, unseemly and uncredible it were, that Christ, who is the truth itself, joan. 1. Luc. 24. and by whom truth is made, and who came to fulfil all figures, should leave in his own supper, contrary to the meaning of his own sayings, nothing but figures and shadows. Satan therefore understanding this doctrine of zuinglius to be much better impugned by the Catholics, then by Decolam●…dins defended, fearing y● onerthrow of the whole army, speedily 3. The opi●… of Calvin. sent in a fresh band under the conduct and governance of John Calvin. who restoring the fight, protested that he neither thought nor taught a bare figure to be given at the supper of Christ, as zuinglius did seem to teach. In deed (quoth he) a figure it is, but a strong stout effectual figure, joined with words of promise, stirring up the heart of him, that heareth the promise and worthily r●…aueth the pledge thereof, to mount into heaven, and there by faith to feed in spirit upon Christ's own body and blood, as he in earth corporally feedeth upon bread and wine. For Calvin teacheth bread and wine to be the figures and signs of Christ's body, and those words, This is my body, to be words of preaching, or of promising Christ's body, to them that do believe. O pitiful tossing and tearing of God's holy mysteries. Are those words, which make and show the body of Christ present, words of promise? But hereof, I will speak more hereafter. Now concerning that he willeth us to go into heaven by faith, know ye not that, because our nature was not able to 〈◊〉 ●…y to the seat of God in heaven, therefore y● 〈◊〉 o●… God came 〈◊〉 from heaven to earth, to lead and list us up to the ●…ition o●… his Father? Know ye not, that because our body more quickly ●…weth Sapien. 9 our soul downward, than our spirit is able to draw our body upward, therefore Christ 〈◊〉 not only the soul, but also the body of man, giving us in his last supper that body of his, to th'inthent our bodies taking hold in the Sacrament of the altar of his body, might be carried into heaven to have the sight of God? And because faith without th'incarnation of Christ cannot lift up our bodies, therefore Christ fulfilled ●…aith with truth, and having taken of the virgin our nature, gave his body in deed to our bodies The flesh of Christ was sent down to lift 〈◊〉 up. and souls, that we again might in body & soul be lifted up with it. As a man that is cast into a deep pit, calleth by the mean of his tongue for help, but when a cord is let down to him for the aid and 〈◊〉 of him, it is not then sufficient to use his tongue still, and to let his hands alone: even so our faith called for Christ to come from heaven to help us, to let down the cord of his humanity, & of his flesh and blood. And shall we now when it is let down to be fastened in our bodies, and in the bottom of our hearts, by eating it really, shall we now refuse it, and say, we will go into heaven by faith ourselves, and there take hold of Christ, whereby we may be saved and delivered out of the deep vale of misery? As though the cord should have needed to have been let down, if we could have fastened our bodies to any thing in heaven, and yet our bodies are they which weigh down our souls Sapien. 9 ch●…ely. But what mean I to reason in this place of that point, whereof in all the book following, by God's grace, I will fully entreat? For as it happeneth, they are the scholars of Calnin, with whom specially we must have to do at this time. Of whose learning and pr●…ncie▪ I most crue●…y crave this favour, that none of them all The Author intendeth not to speak against the person of the Sacra mentaries. thin●… me to speak against their persons, but only against their opinions, and so to speak against them, as I am instructed by the holy Scriptures, not granting, that either they love more entirely, or study more carefully, or reverence more heartily the word of God, than my Fathers, brethren, and I myself do in the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. Only about the meaning of it, I rather would trust the common iudge●…ent of ancient Doctors, and practise of the whole Church, theu mine own private election and fantasy, or the devise of a newly planted congregation. A Catholic man must keep the most ancient path, and most jerem. 6. Matt. 24. commonly trodden high way. Privy bypaths carry m●…n a side to the 〈◊〉 dens of 〈◊〉. My purpose is to prove out of the The intent of the writer. word of God, specially against zuinglius and Calvin, that Christ giveth in his last supper the true substance of his flesh and blood, not only to our souls by words of promise, but also to our bodies under the forms of bread and wine. And for as much as the present Church of England, in the Apology thereof, hath set forth to the world an other doctrine contrary to that wce re●…ued of our fore Fathers: I will first disprove and confute the words and reasons o●… the Apology: and afterward will by the grace of God prove the Catholic faith, out of the holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers. But first of all I must declare what we catholics, and what the Protestants and Sacramentaries believe the supper of Christ to be. That seeing I make the Title of my book, Of the supper of our Lord, it may strait appear whose 〈◊〉 is more worthy to be instituted of Christ, that which we through his word believe, or that which they assign him, against the 〈◊〉 truth of his own words. ¶ what the supper of Christ is, according to the bel●…e of the Catholics. BEcause my purpose is to entreat of the blessed supper of our Lord, I thought it best to declare before hand, what we take that supper to be, showing withal how the Sacramentaries, under the pretence of refoorming the abuses thereof, have taken away the whole supper of Christ, and given us a bare drinking of their own 〈◊〉. And whence may that be more truly and sound proved, then chi●…fly out of the word of God, & next out of the monuments of the a a●…cient Fathers? The word of God is a most faithful witness o●… the institution of Christ, the monuments and writings of ancient Fathers do show the right understanding of the word of God. which thing I speak not, as though the Catholic Doctors of this later tyire had not the self same holy Ghost which the first had, but seeing our adversaries refuse Albereus magnus, Thomas of Aquine, Bonaventure, Alexander of ●…ales, Diony●…ns the Carthusian, Nicolaus de Lyra, Gabriel Biel, and such other men of excellent virtue, wit, and learning, (who not withstanding by a rule that S. Augu●…stine Augustinus in sine libr. 2. contra julianum Pelagianun. giveth, aught to be of credit, in so much as all they lived before this question rose be●…wene the Sacramentaries and us, and therefore can not bear nor show more affection to the one side then to the other) but seeing our adversaries refuse them for 〈◊〉, and yet follow men of later 〈◊〉, as Luther, zuinglius, 〈◊〉: we are content to put all the matter into the hands of the old Doctors. And to begin (as we promised) with the word of God, thus writeth S. Paul in his first 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians: Conuenientibus vobis in unum, iam non est dominicam coenam manducare, 1. Cor. 11. unusquisque enim suam coenam praesumit ad manducandum. when you come together, now there is no eating of our Lord's supper. For every man taketh 〈◊〉 his own supper to eat. By the name of supper, in the old time, that one meal was meant, Oecume nius in. 1. Cor. 11 which ordinarily was made after noon, and it served for dinner and supper. The Corinthians coming together to the holy communion, tarried not one for the other, but every man as he was most rich so he made haste to take his own meal, neglecting to call other poor men to it. S. Paul misliking this custom in them, showeth, that Christ did other wise, who communicated his supper to all his Apostles equally. For as S. Cyprian saith: Aequa omnibus Cyprianus de caena Do mini. Hiero. li. 2. adversus jovinian. Theodo ritus in 1. Cor. 11 Matt 26. Marc. 14 〈◊〉. 22. 1. Cor. 11 portio datur. An equal portion is given to all men. And S. Hieroine sayeth: Christi corpus aequaliter accipimus. We take the body of Christ equally. And Theodorite sayeth: All men are indifferently partakers of our Lord's supper. At this time we chief consider that Christ hath a supper of his own, as the Corinthians had one of theirs. And it is our question, what Christ's supper was. If we shall believe the holy scriptures: 〈◊〉 took bread & wine, & when he had given thanks, he said: This is my body, which is given for you, and this chalice is the new testament in my blood. By which words we are informed, the supper of Christ to be his own body & blood, given under the signs of the bread & wine, wh●…re upon he gave thanks, turning by his almighty power the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of his body and blood. The Sacramentaries take the words of Christ to be spoken figuratively, and therefore they put bread and wine to remain in their old substance, saying, we are 〈◊〉 by faith with the body and blood of Christ. Leaving other arguments for other places, we now only de●…, whether the name and nature of a supper be more agreeable to our belief, or to their meaning? Whether is more like, that Christ made his 〈◊〉 supper to his Apostles of the substance of common bread and wine, or of his own real body and blood? When a man departeth from his friends taking his leave with a banquet, it is like that his banquet shallbe, according to his ability, full of dainty dishes and costly cates, specially if it be published before and long time looked for, as Christ's banquet was. The which Melchisedech had prefigured more than two thousand Gen. 14. Sapien. 16. Psal. 22. Prou. 9 years before. 〈◊〉 had foreshowed it should contain all that might be delectable to the taste. David had called it a table provided by God. Solomon a table set forth by the wisdom of God, whereunto poor men in spirit and the fools of the world were 3. Reg. 17 called. Elias lying hidden at the Torrent of Laryth was said by crows that brought him bread and flesh every evening. Christ in a parable describing the great supper made at the Matt. 2●…. Luce. 14. marriage of the kings son which himself was, telleth of oxen and other satlings killed and made ready for that purpose. And now shall we suppose, that the son of the king of heaven making Galat. 2. a parting supper unto his best beloved and the pillars of all his Church, doth give them ou●…wardly at his farewell none other de●…uties besides common bread and wine sanctified in use only, and not 〈◊〉 in substance? A 〈◊〉 before, he had 〈◊〉 with the same Apostles the paschal lamb, and rising from that table (as being the table of Moses joan. 13. Matt. 26. rather than of Christ) he 〈◊〉 his Apostles fear to make them meet ●…or a greater mystery. And sitting down again he took bread and wine, not as the dishes of his banquet, but as matter and stuff whereof he would make his own supper. For it is to be well weighed, that this banquet is called our Lord's supper, that 1. Cor. 11. is to say, made, and ministered, and ●…ornished by Christ himself. He now did not send S. john & S. Peter to prepare his supper Luce. 22. (as he sent them to make ready the paschal lamb) Christ in his own supper is the provider and maker of it. He taketh bread and wi●…e into his holy hands, intending like a most cunning workman, of simple and little stuff to make the greatest and finest feast that ever was hard of. It is a great glory in the profession of cookery, to be able to make of one kind of stuff (as for example of eggs alone) sixteen or twenty diverse dishes. But to do that feat, much labour, many spices and sauces, great compositions and mixtures are required. Christ in stead of all those shifts used blessing, & working words Marc 14. of thanks giving, which were so sure to work their intent, that some men have doubted, whether he gave thanks first, because he foresaw the whole purpose out of hand should be obtained as himself wished, or else (which is more probable) whether the very What the blessing of Christ was. working of the feat were not the self thanks giving for the work. For his blessing and thanks giving was the saying over the bread, This is my body: and over the wine, This is my blood. By the virtue of which words his body and blood being made of the creatures of bread and wine, as well were a thankful sacri●…ice themselves to God even under the form of bread and wine, as Christ also in his visible form having wrought this work, did praise and thank his Father for such an excellent effect. The which body and blood his Apos●…les eating & drinking were made partakers of the greatest banquet, that ever was made in earth. For the better understanding whereof it may please the reader to repeat in his mind, how God in the beginning adorned this world, first with angels and heavenly spirits. Secondly with the Gene. 1. heavens themselves. Thirdly with the elements of fire, air, water and ●…arth. And as the angels occupy the highest place, so do the heavens with the lights and stars in them occupy the second place, & the four elements are beneath them. When 〈◊〉 were come after this sort from the highest order of 〈◊〉 to the earth, which is the lowest element of all, than it pleased the wy●…edome of God to make as it were a revolt of all things, and to return his creatures from the bottom of the earth upward From the ●…owest grow upward again. again towards himself. He therefore made the ●…arth to bring forth green grass with all such kind of things as have animam vegetativam, that is to say, as live and are quick by the strength which they have in themselves to grow and increase, of which kind all herbs, springs and trees be. Above those in a higher degree were birds, fishes & beasts, which have a life sensitive, being able (those that be perfect) to move from place to place. Last of all God made man, who hath not only the vegetative Man is the bri●…f and some of all creatures. power and sensitive in his soul, but also reason and understanding. In whose body are the virtues of the four elements, with the 〈◊〉 of the heau●…ns, in whose soul is free will and power to govern, agreeable to the nature of angels and of heavenly spirits. For which cause this creature hath been worthily called, even of the Christ●…n Philosophers, 〈◊〉, a little world, for that he alone hath in him all the degrees of creatures both living and without life, both sensible and reasonable, and therefore he is Marc. 16. Exod. 8. called in holy scripture, Omnis creatura, ●…ll creatures. Now when the son of God taking pity, that this little world the work of his great power was by the devil seduced, came down and took flesh of the virgin Marry, being true God and Luce. 1. true man in one person. At that time were all things briefly brought again to God, whence they first were created & brought forth. Christ above is all in one. In his Godhead, he is all that is Christ alone is all. jerem. 23 Psal. 98. above the heavens, and that filleth the world. In his manhood which is the 〈◊〉 of God, he is all that is in, or under the heavens. In this manhood are all creatures most perfectly compiled, without all blemmysh of nature, of mind or of body. So that seeing this body of Christ, (wherein also the fullness of Godhead Coloss. 2. dwelleth) is given and eaten at a banquet, there is no doubt but the same is such a banquet, as can not be made with all the creatures of heaven and earth gathered together. In this one dish is a composition most delicate of angels, heavens, elements, of herbs, fishes, birds, beasts, of reasonable men, and of God himself. No kind of salit, meat, sauce, sruyts, confection, no kind of wine, aqua vite, aqua composita, liquors, syrups can be found in nature, made by art, devised by wit, but it is all set upon this table, and that in a small room, where it cloyeth not with the abundance, we annoyeth with the unclean handling, it sylleth without lothsomues, it provoketh the appetite without danger of surfcating. To be short, were it not a banquet provided by the son of God, no man would think it possible, to have any such feast made in the desert of this wicked world. Thus, good reader, do the Latholyks teach of the supper of our Lord, and believe it agreeable to his word, and worthy his worship. This banquet feedeth the whole man, there is a reasonable soul to feed our reason, a natural substance of flesh to feed and nourish our flesh, there is the spirit of God which quickeneth both soul and flesh to life everlasting. This is the Sap. 16. true Manna, which containeth the taste of all sweetness, and hath in itself all manner of pleasant refection. This is the food of life, joan. 6. the which who so eateth worthily he shall live for ever. This is the feast whereof Solomon speaketh: Hoc itaque visum est mihi bonum Eccle. 3. 5. &. 7. ut comedat quis & bibat, & fruatur laetitia ex labore suo. This therefore seemeth good to me, that a man should eat and drink and enjoy mirth of his travalic. Which words. S. Augustine allegeth and expoundeth after this sort. Vbi ait: Non est bonum homini Augustinus. De civit. Libr. 17. Capi. 20. nisi quod manducabit & bibet, quid credibilius dicere intelligitur, quàm quod ad participationem mensae huius pertinet, quam Sacerdos ipse, mediator testamentinovi, perhibet secundum ordinem Melchisedech de corpore & sanguine sue? when Solomon sayeth, There is no good thing to a man, but that which he shall eat and drink: what is he more credibly thought to mean, than the thing which belongeth to the partaking of this table, the which table the Priest himself, who is mediator of the new testament, doth furnish according to the order of Melchisedech with his own body and blood? If then the Prophet have affirmed the greatest good that man hath in this life, to be eating and drinking, and that eating and drinking belong to the supper of Christ: we may perceive right well, that the matter and substance of Christ's supper consisteth not in bread and wine (for then we might be better occupied then in eating and drinking it) but in the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, wherein all goodness spiritual and corporal is collected into one heap, and given to us under the form of bread and wine. For so God hath appointed, Instaurare omnia in Christo quae Ephes. 1. in caelis, & quae in terra sunt, in ipso. Briefly to renew all things in Christ, which are in heaven, and which are in earth in him. The Breek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, importeth such a brief gathering to one certain head and some, that not only heaven and earth, but all things that are in them are brought into Christ, and in him as it were begun again & renewed. The which cometh to pass by the taking of his flesh, and giving it to death upon the cross for man, in whom all things were both briefly collected, and piteously corrupted. Now when Christ gave to us in his banquet that flesh which he took of his mother, and that blood which he did shed on the cross, bidding us make and eat that thing for the Luc. 22. remembrance of him, than was the head, the flower, the chief composition of all meats, drinks, and junkets in the world given us in his last fupper. S. Cyprian considering the great dainties of this feast, saith: De caena Domin. Vident haec. Sacramenta pauperes spiritu, & hoc uno contenti ferculo, omnes mundi huius delicias aspernantur, & possidentes Chri stum, aliquam huius mundi possidere supellectilem dedignantur. The poor in spirit see these Sacraments, and contenting themselves with this one dish, they despise all the delicates of this world, and possessing Christ, they disdain to possess any stuff of this world. Contrariwise the wise men of this world, abhorring (as the same Cyprian saith) the commandment of this religion, even to this day go backward (he alludeth to the Capharnaits, who through the doctrine this Sacrament forsook Christ) & à secretis divinis, omnium intra se mysteriorum continentibus summam, diffugiunt & recedunt. And they flee and departed from the divine secrets, which contain within them the brief or some of all mysteries. A great deal more is found in S. Cyprian after the same sense, in so much he calleth the supper of our Lord, Omni●… consummationis sinem, the end of all perfection. All which praises only rise upon this ground, because these mysteries truly & really contain within them the body and blood of Christ. when S. Cyprian De coena Domi ni. saith within them (intra se) he meaneth within the compass or soormes of bread and wine. For those only are the things that we can point unto within or without. Other meat or drink we see not. S. Chrysostom hath so much in the praise of this feast, that it would make a great volume to bring all he saith thereof. I will con tent myself at this time with one place. Quando corpus Christi In 1. cor. Hom. 24 tibi propositum fuerit, dic tecum: Propter hoc corpus, & so forth. When the body of Christ is set before thee, sai●… with thyself: For this body's sake, I am no more earth and ashes. For this, I hope to receive heaven and the good things which are in heaven, immortal life, the seat of Angels, the company of Christ. The very table is the strength of our soul, the bond of trust, the foundation, our hope, salvation, life. If we go hence pure with this sacrifice, with most great confidence we shall ascend to the holy porch, or entry, as it were compassed round about with golden garments. But what rehearse I things to come? Dum in hac vita sumus, ut nobis terra caelum sit, facit hoc mysterium. Whiles we are in this life, this mystery causeth, that the earth is heaven to us. By the judgement of Chrysostom, the fame body of Christ which is our salvation and life, is set before us upon the very table, to th'intent whiles we live, the earth should be heaven to us, and when we departed hence, carrying that body with us, we should be safe conveyed unto heaven itself. When he saith the earth is heaven to us through this mystery, he meaneth nolesse to be set upon the table itself or altar, then is at the right hand of God the Father. And this is the supper of our Lord, which the catholics believe, and not an empty dish of faith, which although it be much worth when truth is absent, yet as in heaven where clear vision is, no faith abideth: even so when earth is through 1. Cor. 13 this mystery made heaven to us, we receive and eat the body of Christ, not only by faith from heaven, but also in truth from the very altar and table. For as there is a truth less of our bodies, then of our souls, and as the souls of the faithful never lacked God whom they might feed on by faith & spirit: so Christ therefore took flesh, that our bodies also might have a banquet made to them, and so the whole man might be no●…rished to life everlasting. Oportuit enim certe (saith Cyrillus) ut non solum anima In joan. Libro. 4. c. 14. per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam alcenderet, verum etiam ut rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu, tactu & cibo, ad immortalitatem reduceretur. For it behoved truly, that not only the soul should ascend by the holy Ghost into the blessed life, but also that this rude and earthly body should be brought to immortality by tasting, touching & eating the meat which were of alliance or kindred with it, that is to say, of the same nature and substance whereof our bodies are. Thus in the C●…tholik banquet of Christ's supper not only the soul but even the body eateth, tasteth, and toucheth such meat as is of the same blood and kindred with it. That is to say: our flesh eateth Christ's flesh, our body his body. It was flesh that made us all borne in original sin, it is flesh that maketh us all rege●…erate in Christ. Our soul was sp●…tted, by the entrance into that flesh which was spotted. Thereiore our soul is made clean by the washing of that our flesh, which was bor●… in sin. The flesh, Tertulli. De resur rectione 〈◊〉. saith T●…rtullian, is washed that the soul may be cleansed. The flesh is ointed, that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is sigued, that the soul may be defenced. The flesh is shadowed with imposition of hand, that the soul also may be defenced. The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may also be made sat of God. Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniung it. They cannot therefore be parted in reward, whom work ioy●…eth. Hitherto hath Tertullian commended to us the great privileges which God giveth to our flesh. The greatest of all which, is the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. As therefore we catholics believe most undoubtedly, not only that our souls be 〈◊〉 and redeemed of Christ, but even that our flesh is the creature of God, made with his own hands, redeemed by Christ, and shall 〈◊〉 again at the later day really, and Gene. 1. 1. Cor. 15 live for ever with the soul of the just man: even so we believe and profess, that not only our souls, but even the same flesh receiveth ●…to it the benefits of Chri●…s pa●…on, the Sacraments which he left to us, eating & drai●…ing really under the forms of bread and wine the true substance of Christ's body and blood. This is the last supper of Christ, which we catholics believe and profess. ¶ wh●…t the supper of Christ is according to the doctrine of the Protestants and Sacramentaries, with a confutation thereof. NOw let us consider on the other side, what kind of banquet our new brethren teach. They say: Christ giveth to the body bread and wine, but to the soul he ge●…eth himself by faith, spirit and understanding. This opinion shall by God's grace be strait ways proved faul●…ye and erroneous. In deed before that Christ was made man, such a banquet as Gen. 14. they speak of had been much worth, and was kept of Melchisedech and Abraham, of the children of Israel eating Manna, of Exo. 16. the priests eating the bread and cakes, which was offered according levit. ●…. to the law. For then with an earthly banquet of bread, of flesh, and of wine, the joining of a spiritual eating by faith and understanding was the highest banquet that could be made. For as the spirit and faith was virtuously occupied in lifting up itself to God: So was the body occupied in making a figure and sign of the true banquet of Christ, which was to come. But when Christ had taken flesh of the virgin mary, tunc 〈◊〉 joan. 1. Christum facta est, than the truth was made by Christ. Truth perfoormed outwardly in fulfilling the corporal figures, doth add much unto faith and spirit. In the faith of good men and in the spirit of God Christ was Christ 〈◊〉 by faith ●…ly. ever man, but not ever man in truth of nature. Whil●…s Christ was only a spirit and only God, so long the feast or banquet, which Christ eaten tie faith o●…ly. was given for him, had no better thing in it then the faith and spirit of the eaters and drinckers, for that was the highest gift th●…t God as yet had given to man. But all those eatings and drinkings which were in nature and in the law of Moses though they had corporal meat with faith and spirit, are so far behind the supper of Christ (after his manhood really ass●…pted) as the Christ really man. faith of Christ's incarnation is behind the incarnation it felf●…. Mark the point (good reader) and thou shalt not be deceived by false doctrine. As Christ by his incarnation did give a real truth to the faith of the old fathers, and not a new spirit: so in his last supper, he giveth the same spiritual gift to us that he gave to Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, and such others: but he giveth us an other kind of truth then ever he Christ really eaten ●… his own supper. gave them. The truth made by Christ is the true flesh and blood which he took of his mother, and the giving of that truth to be eaten, is the ge●…ing of that flesh and blood under the forms of bread and wine. Therefore they that now say: Christ giveth bread and wine with spiritual gifts, wherein our soul eateth and drinketh Christ's flesh and blood, they grant a good thing one way, but an other way they take away the greatest goodness that ever was given to man. Their spiritual eating is not evil, but it lacketh some truth. A true ea thing is to ea te 〈◊〉 thing bo●…h with body and soul. How so? because the whole man is not fed. For faith feedeth bue the soul, and yet the name of feeding is proper to the body, and thence is transferred to the soul. that feeding therefore is not fully true, which eateth not that in the mouth, which it eateth in the heart, whereas the true supper of Christ, is meat in deed, and drink in deed, and must be the eating of that in our body, which joan. 6. our mind and soul doth eat. So said Leo the great of Christ's supper: Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur. For that is Ser. 6. de jeiunio. 7. men. taken in the mouth, which is believed in faith. The real flesh of Christ is believed in faith, therefore the same real flesh must be eaten with mouth. And what other cause can be devised, why always from the beginning of the world to this day, eating by mouth hath been joined to the highest sacrifices and chief kind of worshipping of God that ever was used: what meaneth the ●…ating of the paschal la●…be, of Man●…, of show bread, wheate●… Exo. 12. Exo. 16. levit. 2. & 24. meal, and all such offerings as were in the law? Can not God have inveuted an other way to have occupied his people in serving him, but only by eating and drinking? Surely the meaning of all those divers, and suppers, and feasts, were to show, that in time to come the same Messiah, that they looked for, 〈◊〉 in whom they believed, should so truly come for our sakes into the earth, that he should come also into our bodies to dwell (by his flesh caten) in us, that we might dwell in him. Neither joan. 6. let this seem a laughing matter to thee (good Reader) For sith Christ was born to us, and given to us (as isaiah saith) he isaiah. 9 sought not his own commodity but ours, and perceiving that in paradise the whole nature of man was overcome of the devil, specially by eating with mouth of the fruit, which was forbidden 1. The devil Eua. him: As against the devil persuading Eva to disobaye God, he sent the ar●…hangell Babriell to persuade the blessed virgin Marie 2. Gabriel. Maria. to consent to his will: as against that appletree, he planted the cross of our redemption: as for the disobedience of Adam, himself 3. The ap●…. The cross. came to be obedient even to death: right so for the apple of the forbidden tree 〈◊〉 eaten, he gave himself the fruit and apple of the cross, which is the tree of grace, lawfully and medefully to 4. Ada●…. Christ. be eaten, and his blood to be drunken. Bibimus (saith S. Cyprian) 5. The apple eaten. The flesh of Christ eaten. Cyprianus de Coena Domini. de sanguine Christi, ipso iub ente, vitae aeternae cum ipso & per ipsum participes, animalis vitae peccata quasi sanguinem impurum horrentes, & fatentes nos per peccati gustum â beatitudine privatos & damnatos, nisi nos Christi clementia ad societatem vitae aeternae suo sanguine reduxisset. We drink of the blood of Christ, himself commanding, being partakers of everlasting life with him, and by him, abhorring the sins of bare natural life as unpure blood, and granting ourselves to have been deprived from bliss, and damned through the taste of sin, except the clemency of Christ had brought us again to the fellowship of everlasting life by his blood. S. Cyprian setteth the drinking of Christ's blood against the taste of sin, which man fell into, by tasting unlawfully the apple which was forbidden to be tasted of. The like phrase also Prosper Aquitanicus hath used. who firs●… declareth our fall by eating and drinking, and afterward our arising again by eating the body, and drinking the blood of Christ. Concerning our fall thus he writeth: Liberum ergo arbitrium, id est, rei sibi placitae spontaneus appetitus ubi usum bonorum quae Prosper Aquitan. contra Collato. acceperat fastidivit, & vilescentibus sibi felicitatis suae praesidijs insanam cupiditatem ad experientiam praevaricationis intendit, bibit omnium vitiorum venenum, & totam naturam hominis intemperantiae suae ebrietate madefecit. Free will therefore, that is to say the voluntary appetite of the thing which pleased it, being once 10thsome of the good things which it had taken, and without regard we were poisoned in Adam. or care had to the aids of his own blessedness, having bend his impotent greediness to the trial and experience of disobedience and prevarication, drank in the poison of all vices, and drowned the whole nature of man with the drunkenness of his intemperance. Thus was poison drunk in. Let us now consider whence health may be recovered. Ind, priusquam edendo carnem filii hominis, & bibendo sanguivem eius, lethalem digerat cruditatem, labitur memoria, errat iuditio, nutat incessu, neque vllo modo idoneus est ad illud bonum eligendum▪ & concupiscendum quo se sponte privauit. Thence it cometh, that man faileth in memory, erreth in judgement, wavereth in his going, neither is he by any means meet to choose and desire that good thing, whereof he deprived himself of his own accord, before that by eating the flesh of the we digest our surfeit 〈◊〉 Christ. son of man & by drinking his blood, he digest the deadly sur●…et which he took. As therefore the apple that Adam did really eat against the commandment of God, doth make us all, that were in his body at that time, guilty of disobedience, and the children of wrath: so the real eating of Christ's flesh, according to the worthy eating thereof, which Christ commanded, doth make us all free from the pain of everlasting death, and the children of grace and glory. But as every man did not eat the prohibited apple in his own person and by his own act, but by the act of our father and mother, and as being in them, and of them: so it is not needful that every man in his own person eat the flesh of Christ, which is It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every child eat really the flesh of Christ. given us in the Sacrament to be eaten, but it is absolutely needful that some or other eat it as really, as ever the apple was eaten, that all the rest, who by baptism enter into the same body, may be one perfectly with Christ, whiles they are one mystically with them, who really eat the substance of Christ's flesh, being the substance of our true sacrifice, truly roasted upon the cross, and truly rising from death, to th'intent it might be truly eaten of us without any corruption or perishing thereof. Thus we find, that the supper of Christ can not in any wise consist of eating the flesh of Christ, by faith and spirit alone. But we (that is to say) some of the mystical body that are of lawful age, must eat it to salvation, as the apple was eaten to damnation. And because before Christ was incarnate, we had no apple to damnation, he took flesh, and went of his own accord to death, that thence we The flesh of Christ is the would of life. might pluck the apple of life and the fruit of the wood of life which preserveth us to everlasting joys. For as Gregorius Bishop of Nyssa brother to S. Basil doth teach, the medicine must be according to the poison which we are infected withal. His discourse is to long to write it all in this place, so much as appertaineth to my purpose, I will translate into English. Quemadmodum qui per insidias venenum hauserunt, & caetera. As those that by 〈◊〉 have drunk in poison, do by an other 〈◊〉 Orat. 〈◊〉. medicine put out the strength thereof, and like as the poison so the medicine must go into the bowels, that by mean of them help may be spread throughout the whole body: even so is it to be done of us. That seeing we have tasted poison where with our Poison tasted. nature is dissolved, we may receive a medicine whereby that nature of ours is gathered together, that the infection of the poison may be expelled by the contrary and wholesome strength of the medicine. What medicine is this? None other beside that body, The 〈◊〉 of Christ is the medicine. which is declared to be above death, and the cause of our salvation. For as a little leaven (saith the Apostle) maketh the whole lump of dough like to itself: so that body, which is made immortal of God, entering into our body doth transfer and change the whole into itself. For as if a pestilent thing be mixed with a wholesome thing it maketh it hurtful: so the immortal body maketh all that, wherein The body of Christ entereth into our body. The medicine must needs enter into our bodies. it is received, of the like nature & immortal. But it can not enter into the body, except it be mingled with the bowels by meat and drink: Itaque necessarium est, ut natura nostra, quoad eius fieri potest, vim salutarem intra corpus admittat. Therefore it is necessary, that our nature (as much as lieth in it) do receive that healthful strength within the body. And seeing none other thing, beside that divine body (of Christ) hath received such grace (to heal our sickness) and seeing it hath been showed, it can not be, our bodies should attain to immortality, unless they be joined with the immortal body, and so obtain incorruption, it is to be considered how it may be brought to pass, whereas that one body continually through the whole world is given to so many thousands of faithful men, the whole may become every man's for his part, and 〈◊〉 tarry whole in it self. Consequently Gregorius goeth forward to show, how that 〈◊〉 be: and he showeth it to be brought to pass whiles bread and wine (wherewith Christ was nourished in this mortal life, and the How Christ's▪ body to really to many and yet re mayneth whole. Transubst anttation. which by the power of altering and 〈◊〉 were daily turned into his flesh and blood) be now also in his holy Sacraments turned by the consecration of his blessing and by his words, into his own body and blood. For by that means he proveth it possible, that Christ's whole body should both be given to every man a part, and yet remain whole in itself. But hereof we shall speak an other tyme. All that appertained to my present purpose, was to declare Gregorius an. D. 370. out of S. Bregorie of Nyssa, who lived about twelve hundred years past, that sith Christ hath made his body and blood, in the blessed Sacrament of the altar, a medicine against that poison, which Adam first, and in him all we took by tasting the apple against the commandment of God: it is not only profitable but 〈◊〉, that as the poisoned apple entered in at Adam's mouth, and was not only received by faith, spirit, and understanding, but by hand, tongue, jaws, and was digested into his bowels, and so poisoned all his flesh & blood, whereby the flesh that we took of Adam, was also 〈◊〉 and poisoned, and our souls united Driginall sin. to that infected flesh were also infected: even so y● medicine (which is the body and blood of Christ made of bread and wine) must not only be received by faith, spirit and understanding, neither only the figure of it must be received in at our mouths and so be 〈◊〉 into our bowels, but the body of Christ itself must come to our bodies, and it must be received as really into them by our mouths, as ever the apple came into the mouth of Adam. Who ever heard that when a man's body was really poisoned, The 〈◊〉 re of a me 〈◊〉 not. it should be sufficient to think upon a certain true medicine, and to receive withal the figure or sign thereof into his body, not at all touching and receiving really the medicine itself? And yet surely they that teach the body of Christ, to be 〈◊〉 into our bodies only by bread and wine the figures thereof, and into our souls by faith and spirit, do●… manifestly tell him that is bodily poisoned, that it is enough for him to think in his mind upon mithrida●…icum or some other medicine, and to receive the token thereof into his body. Such is the physic and the divinity of the Caluinists. Before that Adam had tasted of the apple, he was g●…tie of death in the sight of God concerning his own person and soul, in so much as in his heart he consented to taste thereof at his wife's Gen. 3. request. For he did not taste it so hastily, but that he first intended so to do: yea S. Augustine saith it is not to be thought, the devil August. de Gen. ad lit. li. 11. cap. 5. should have thrown down Adam, except a certain pride had been first in his mind. But when he took the apple into his mouth (to the eating whereof his heart had already yielded) then had he brought the inward disobedience into the outward act, so that he was inexcusable not only before God, but in the sight of angels, of his wife, and of all creatures, his hands, his eyes, his mouth, his throat and stomach was now witness against him. Thence came the dreadful necessity of death to all the children of Adam, it was the tasting of his flesh which made all our flesh so far guilty. That polluted body could not beget innocent children Iod. 14. with unclean seed. Well. Christ is the second Adam which taketh away this obligation 1. Cor. 15 and bond of death that lay on our necks. and he taketh it away, n●…t by force but by i●…stice, changing and recompensing Ro▪ 5. all that was before done amiss. For the corrupt generation which we have by the seed of Adam, he giveth us a new birth in the Sacrament of water and renewing of the holy Ghost, in which baptism Tit. 3. our soul only is not cleansed, but our body also is washed. For the fruit of death which Adam did ●…ate as well in mouth as heart, he hath given the apple of life, as well to be eaten in our mouths as in ou●… ha●…tes, so that as the old Adam carried a witness of damnation for him and his posterity in all his membres, so doth the new Adam with his children carry the witness of life in all their membres. They have God and man not in heart alone, 1. Cor. 10 but also in a Sacrament, yea in their ●…ands, in their mouths, in their bodies, and become one with the flesh of Christ which they eat, as the apple, which Adam did eat, became one with his flesh. This was the supper that Christ came to make: not to g●…ue bread and wine, not to make figures and shadows, not to give us a drinking in stead of a solemn feast. In comparison of this banquet all faith is impe●…t. For we eat the end of our belief. Spirit●… gifts are not here reproved, but Chr●…l is ●…fered before them all. Ephes. 4 All understanding faileth, in so much as more is in our mouth then we are able to comprehend in our wit or mind. All spiritual gifts are in●…erlour, because the flesh is present which triumpheth over death, and ascending into heaven sitteth at the right hand of God, thence distributing gifts unto men. We have the cause of all 〈◊〉 present, and letting it go, shall we chief commend the feast for ●…ertayn spiritual effects? In respect of Christ's real substance, thy supper O Caluyn is but a mere savour of sweet meats. give me the flesh of Christ, and take thou the savour of it. But alas the savour hath already 2. Cor. 2. Calvin setteth forth the king●…om of y● deui●…, & abaseth the kingd●… gifts of God. k●…lled thee▪ so much the less I wonder, if thou art weary of the flesh itself. In setting forth our damnation in old Adam thou lackest neither diligence nor eloquence, thou hast therein set forth the lump of perdition, the severe doctrine of induration, the impotent weakness of the wounded man, to help forward his own destruction. But when thou comest to Christ the new Adam, he hath a s●…ly poor unknown and unseen company, few children, a cold supper, small offering of sufficient grace, his baptism is (with thee) like a mark set upon sheep that showeth somewhat and worketh nothing, his Church hath no externa●… sacrifice, no priesthood, no one chief shepherd in earth, no authority to make laws, no communion of Sa●…ts (by the way of praying to them or for the soul's departed) no real joining & v●…iting with Christ's flesh and blood in the holy mysteries. What is this but to prefer evil before good, the devil before God, shadows before truth, vice before virtue, and the power of darkness before the kingdom of light? It is no eating now (as S. Paul 1. Cor. 11 sayeth) of our Lord's supper, for every heretic taketh a supper of his own before hand, making Christ's supper to give place to him. And that I may speak nothing of so great change of communions Luther's supper. as hath been in England, Luther saith: that Christ's words be proper, and that his supper is bread and flesh, wine and blood, as though the immortal flesh of Christ must be eaten with material bread. How do mortal things agree with immortal in one banquet? Carolstadius supposeth that Christ's words be proper, but Corolstadius supper. that he touching himself on the breast, said: Take bread and wine, this is my body, which I touch as though it were a supper meet for Christ's making, if he only showed his body to his Apostles which ever was in their sight, not suffering them to eat thereof. Zuinglius said, the bread and wine were only figures of Christ's Zuinglius supper. body and blood, given to our bodies to represent to our hearts t●…e death of Christ. And that the words of Christ's supper were figuratine only, by which reason the supper of the paschal lamb was better than the supper of Christ, because the dead flesh of an unspotted lamb was more apt than bread and wine, to show the death of Christ's innocent flesh, which is the lamb of God, joan. 1. that taketh away the sins of the world. Cal●…in added to Zuinglius bare figures, an efficacy of feeding Caluins' supper. by faith, and taught the words of Christ, not so much to be figurative, as words of promise, which being heard with faith, cause that the mind by faith eateth of Christ sitting in heaven. a meet supper for such a deviser, who setting the men that should be fed upon earth, keepeth the meat, whereof they should be filled, in heaven, promising them, who consist also of bodies mortal and corruptible, that they shall feed upon immortal meat in their souls. such an eating were good for Angels, I deny not. but it is not the supper that Christ made to corporal men for his farewell, when he said: Take and eat, this is my body, and, Drink Matt. 26. ye all of this, for this is my blood. Taking with our bodies is more than believing in our souls, eating the body of Christ is more than signifying the eating of his body. The meat is the body of Christ, the drink is the blood of Christ. Believe and thou hast it in heart, before thou comest to the table. But come to the blessed Sacrament of the altar, and thou hast it in thy mouth and body. Matth. 3. Both is better then one, Christ hath 〈◊〉 and fulfiled all manner of justice, he made both body and soul, redeemeth both, feedeth both, raiseth both, crowneth both. He doth not now divide the hand from the heart, the mouth from the mind, the figure from the thing, the token from the truth. That he saith, he doth, that thou believest in heaven, thou receivest at his table in earth. yea earth is heaven to thee (saith Chrysostom) through this mystery, Chrysostom. in 1. Cor. hom. 24. make his gift no less than he nameth it, lest for unthankfulness thou be guilty of judgement. He that believeth his plain words is on the surer side. The Corinthians fault concerning the supper of our Lord was The first fault of the Corinthians. partly for that they came to it after they had eaten their own supper, and undoutebly so do heretics. They first devise with themselves what supper they will allow to Christ, and then they come to his supper intending to conform it to their forme●… devise. Partly the 〈◊〉 were reproved of S. Paul for they're seeond fault. eating and drinking alone, without making their meat common to the poor. Even so the heretics eat and drink alone, teaching that every man eateth Christ only by the measure of his own faith, which hath diverse degrees in every man, and therefore it maketh Rom 12. Ephes. 4 every man eat Christ after his own faith only. Whereas the supper of Christ is equal and common to all, as S. Cyprian, S. Jerome, and Theodorite witnessed before. wherein he giveth o●…e 〈◊〉, one blood, one person to all that come, without any respect Hieroni mus li. 2. adversus iovinianum. concerning the meat and substance of the supper, although not without discerning the diverse merits of the guests. It is the honour of him that maketh the feast, to have the meat most bountiful and most real, howsoever the weak stomaches of evil men are able to bear it. Wilt thou yet see more plainly, how liberal Christ is in his supper? All that he hath he giveth, for he giveth his own self indifferently to every man that sitteth at his table, be the man rich or poor, good or bad. The 〈◊〉 of this feast at his table is the maker of the feast himself. Who sayeth so? verily he that cannot lie. Who after that he said: My flesh is meat in deed, doubted not to joan. 6. add moreover, He that eateth me, shall live for me, doing 〈◊〉 to understand, that by eating his flesh we eat himself. The same thing teacheth S. Hierom, a man worthy to be credited as well for his own great learning, as for that time wherein he lived, and the faith whereof in his writing he witnesseth. S. Jerome, I say, expounding these words of 〈◊〉 the Prophet, Hiero. in Ozeam. Capit. 11. Declinavi ad eum ut vesceretur, I bowed down or turned in to him that he might eat, writeth thus, in Christ's person: Declinavi ad eos deserens regna coelorum, ut cum eis vescerer assumpta forma hominis: sive, dedi eis esum corporis mei, ipse & cibus & 〈◊〉. Forsaking the kingdom of heaven I bowed down or turned in to them, that the shape of man being taken, I might eat with them: or else, I gave them the meat of my body, I myself Hieron. ad Hedib. 2. being both the meat and the banketer or feaster. And yet he speaketh in an other place more plainly: Nec Moses, etc. Neither Moses hath given us the true bread, but our lord jesus himself the feaster and the feast, himself the eater and he that is eaten. Behold Christ's supper. it may worthily be called his 〈◊〉, for never any man made any such before him, he biddeth geasts and feedeth them with his own flesh. He is at the table, as he was at the altar of his cross. For these two things are in most points agreeable. For this table is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and real remembrance of that cross. As therefore upon the cross Christ Augustinus. De Trinit. Libro. 4. Cap. 14. isaiah. 63 was the priest, who made the sacrifice, Christ the host that was killed, Christ the God to whom it was offered, Christ the head of that body of his Church for whom it was offered, & Christ alone played all parts, & non fuit de gentibus vir cum illo, and of all nations no man was with him: so likewise in the last supper, Christ 〈◊〉 the guests, telling them 〈◊〉 year before of his ban 〈◊〉 at Capharnaum, and the hour being come, Christ giveth joan. 13. Cyprianus De 〈◊〉 Domini. water not only to their hands, but even to their feet, Christ is the panter, Christ is the butler, as S. Cyprian also hath written: Christ is the meat, Christ is the drink, and what creature should have part with him in his supper? Are bread and wine meet ban ketting dishes for his table? They are in deed meet by their outward show to signify the supper of Christ, but not meet to be a substantial part thereof. He that is Lord of heaven and earth, will he borrow the substance of his creatures to make up his feast? As though he lacked bread of his own, or as though his flesh which is the true 〈◊〉 containing all sweetness in it, lacked the sweetness of wheaten bread or of material wine, as though Christ had not better bread and meat of his 〈◊〉, and better drink of his own then the grape maketh? and who shall have them if he be without them? A great shame it is that either any thing should challenge part in Christ's supper besides Christ himself, or that he should 〈◊〉 the table with bare odours of spiritual grace, haviug at Colos. 2. commandment the substance of flesh and blood, wherein the fullness of Godhead dwelleth corporally. Think of Christ's supper according to the worship of him that made it, leave bread and wine for Lutrish tables, believe thou that Christ gave no less to his geasts than he had to give. for verily all that he took, he took it to give for us and to us: for us, upon the cross, and to us, in his 〈◊〉. 22. last supper. Both which he expressed manifestly, when he 〈◊〉 saying: Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you. that body was given bloodily for us in the form of man, because he died for man. the same is unbloodily given to us in the form of bread, because man liveth by bread. But earthly bread is to maintain life to earthly men. heavenvly men eat the bread which came down from heaven, which is the son of God assumpting the flesh of man. For the bread which Christ promised to give, is his flesh for joan. 6. the life of the world. His flesh is meat in deed, and his blood is brink in deed. Therefore who so teacheth the body & blood of Christ to be now received by faith & spirit only, he denieth the supper of our Lord, where the body was given by the hands of Christ, received with Matt. 26. the hands of the Apostles, eaten with their corporal mouths, and the blood drunken out of the chalice of blessing, the which Christ 1. Cor. 10 delivered by their hands to their mouths and hearts, by that means feeding the whole man with his whole substance. ¶ A special 〈◊〉 of Calvin is con●…ed, who taught this is my body, which is given for you, to be words of promise in the way of preaching at Christ's supper, whereas they are words of perfoormance in the way of working. THe special authority that Calvin hath gotten through his scholars in England, moveth me specially to coufute, I can not tell whether I shall name it, his more false or more foolish opinion. Who perceiving the catholics wholly to stick to the most proper and most effectual words of Christ's supper, Matt. 26 and thereupon to build the belief of the real presence of his body and blood: thought best to inveigle the strength of those words, as much as might 〈◊〉, & to bring them from doing to saying, from making to speaking, from perfoorming to promising. and therefore among many other words of the same argument, thus he writeth. Atqui non panem alloquitur Christus, ut corpus suum fiat, sed discipulos jubet manducare, atque illis corporis & sanguinis sui communicationem pollicetur, & caet. But Christ speaketh The words of 〈◊〉 in his institutions De coena Do. not to the bread, that it might be made his body, but he commandeth his disciples to eat, and he promiseth them the communicating of his body and 〈◊〉. And afterward: Let us understand those words to be a lively preaching, which may edify the hearers, etc. which in the fulfilling of that it promiseth, may bring forth his efficacy. Hitherto Calvin. whose worthy scholars have consecrated that unsensible devise of his in the book of their The words of the 〈◊〉 the leaf 213. pag. 〈◊〉 English homilies. Where after an exhortation made that men should come themselves to communion, it is said: To this Christ's commandment forceth us, saying, do ye thus. to this, his promise enticeth us, this is my body which is given for you, this is my blood which is shed for you. This fault I find with my countrymen. There can not be a foolish saying in all Germany or ●…uicherland which they must The 〈◊〉 of the English new preachers. not allow, follow, preach to their audience, and set forth in print. And therefore if every man might have his will, so many schismatical Churches as they had se●…e beyond the seas, so many orders of communion they would have embraced. Men that never brought forth of themselves any thing worthy name, and yet never saw in other places so apish a toy, which they did not wonder at, and gredeily practise. Wherein they are both most like their master Calvin, for so much as they specially follow his peevish inventions: and most unlike him, because he followed none other man in his doctrine, but himself invented a new religion of his own making. What say we then? This is my body which is given for you, are they words of promise, or no? I answer. Words of promise Words of promise are of two sorts. Gala. 4. may be taken for such as make a promise, or else for such as have a promise made concerning them. Those who believe in God (as Isaac did) are named in holy scripture the children of promise, not of that promise which themselves make to God, but because through the grace of God which he promised before to Abraham in his blessed seed (jesus Christ) they are made his Gen. 18. 20. 22. Galat. 3. children. And in that sense This is my body which is given for you, may be called words of promise, in so much as they fulfil at Christ's supper the promise made before at Capharnaum, When Christ said: work the meat which the son of man will give you, and joan. 6. the bread which I will give is my flesh. Again these words which is given for you, at the time of Chri stes supper might stand to signify, which shallbe given for you, and so the old Fathers did read them, and the Latin copies of S. Paul have so at this day. But the●… the promise was to be 〈◊〉. Cor. 11 considered concerning the death of Christ, which was to come, and not concerning his supper which was present. Calvin speaking of Christ's supper as it is a supper, saith How Calvin taketh the name of promise De Coena Dom. (this is my body which is given for you) be words of promise, and that, not because they are justified concerning a former promise made at Capharnaum, neither concerning the death which is now past: but because they make a promise of Christ's body to be spiritually eaten at his supper. For he saith, those words were not spoken to the bread & wine, but unto the disciples, to whom Christ (pollicetur) promiseth the communicating of his body and blood. Also he saith, the promises are offered to the faithful together with bread and wine. Moreover, let us understand (saith he) these words to be a lively preaching, which may show his efficacy in the accomplisment of that it promiseth. First these words be a brief collation or sermon. Secondly they promise the communicating of Christ's ●…ody. Thirdly they being received of the faithful, bring forth in them that effectual eating of Christ which they promise. Last of all he saith, Take, eat, is the commandment like unto Inuoca me, call upon me. This is my body, is the promise like unto Exaudiam te, I will hear the. I am the longer in showing his mind, because I feared it might be thought of wise men a great slander to feign so foolish an opinion upon a man taken for wise and learned. For it seemeth an extreme madness, to affirm that those words, which show a thing really present, and bid us take the same, are notwithstanding Matt. 17. words of promise. At the transfiguration of Christ, it was said, this is my dear-beloved son, in whom I have delighted, hear him. But who was ever so mad as to think, that Christ was promised in those words, and not rather showed present? Likewise Matth. 9 when Christ said to him that had the palsy, take a good heart son, thy sins are forgiven thee, we believe his sins were presently forgiven him, and not only a promise made that hereafter they should be forgiven. The difference between a promise & a perfoormance. 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 beside words hath deeds also joined. A pr●… mice belongeth to the time to come, the performance to the time present. A promise may be differred to a certain day, or suspended with conditions, the perfoormance must ●…edes be altogether without delay. And how can, these words, Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you, be words of promise, which neither speak of the time to come, but of the present: neither begin, but end the covenant: nor consist in bare talk, but also in real deeds, nor have any condition or delay annexed, but have all things presently said, signified, made and delivered? If, this is my body, make to the hearer's a promise of a spiritual communicating, then seeing those words were spoken to judas Matt. 26. Luc. 22. one of the twelve, and are daily spoken to evil men without any condition or exception: it may seem that a spiritual communicating is promised to them, which possibly can not be so. For how can light and darkness agree? But if Calvin say these words promise the body of Christ only to the faithful, I ask whether those words be written in the supper of Christ, or no? If they be not written, how dareth Calvin supply them? It is not said, this is my body to you only that be faithful (as Calvin useth falsely joan. 6. 1. Cor. 11 Matt. 26. to interpret those words) But it is absolutely said, This is my body, whosoever take it, and eat it, whether he take it by faith, to his comfort and to everlasting life, or in deadly sin, to his judgement and death. For as God the Father said, This is my Matth. 3. dear-beloved son, and as thereof it followeth, that the person then showed and pointed unto by the voice, was the son of God in deed, whether evil men had to do with him (to whom he was the 2. Cor. 2. savour of death) or good men (to whom he was the savour of life) right so, this is my body was said of one certain thing then blessed, be the man that cometh to eat it, good or bad. And as this is my dear-beloved ●…ne are no words of promise but of a divine witness ●…oward Christ: even so this is my body, promise not, but witness and make presently the thing showed to be in deed Christ's body. If this is my body, do promise the body of Christ, & yet (this) must needs show where the thing is whereunto it pointeth: the This, ●…inteth to 〈◊〉 thing. body of Christ which is promised, is also pointed unto. and the sense is, I will give you this thing to eat, which is my body: and by that means the eating is promised, and the body is pointed to, but the pointing can be directed to none other sensible thing, but unto that which seemeth bread. therefore that is affirmed to be Christ's body, and is promised to be given us as meat. bu●… bread is not naturally the body of Christ, therefore it is made his body. And consequently Calvin who will have these words to promise the ●…ing of Christ's body by faith, must needs confess that they make the same body in deed, to th'●…nd the promise of eating that body, which is so directly pointed unto, may be fulfilled. Howbeit Christ said not, I will give you my body, but presently giving, said, take, eat, this is my body. But seeing Calvin teacheth, this, that is pointed unto, still to remain bread, I see not how those words which (as he saith) point unto bread, can withal promise the body of Christ. For the proposition is simple, and affirmeth but one thing, and that thing doth concern the substance, as we believe, of Christ's body, as he saith, of bread, so that none other thing can 〈◊〉 inferred upon those words, than what thing this is (as we say) or what thing this bread doth signify, as the Sacramentaries teach. Admit now it were expressly said, this bread is the sign of Christ's body, (which sense is salsely ascribed to those words by the zwinglians) yet it would not follow thereupon, that the body of Christ is promised to our souls, but only that by this bread we are brought to remember Christ. Now as for eating it is commanded, and not promised, Calvin had the chief property of an heretic, which was to be singular. And therein he delighted so much, that albeit he was determined not to tarry in the faith wherein he was Christened, Calvin would ●…des set up a new religion. yet he would neither go to Luther (who first withdrew himself from us) nor to Zuinglius (whose sect he favoured rather) but he would make a religion of his own. And therefore he devised a new sense of Christ's words. Affirming This is my body, not to be spoken to the bread (as both catholics, Lutherans and zwinglians after divers meanings do confess) but to be words of preaching, made unto the people that stand about the Priest, and that these words promise the body of Christ to all that believe his death and resurrection, as verily as that bread is really eaten into their bodies, and yet neither be the words concei●…ed in the manner of promising, neither do they speak of faith, or death, or of the resurrection of Christ, or of eating bread. Is not this a strange sense, to pick out of these words: This is my body? as if it were said: Masters, believe that Christ is dead and risen again, and then, as this bread is eaten of your bodies, so certainly shall you feed of his body in faith & spirit. Did ●…uer any man hear of such a 〈◊〉? Hoc, This, doth signify and show to Calvin the bread which must be eaten at the supper of Christ, and pointeth also to a spiritual food which is promised. Est, Is, doth stand both properly for the present time, in that it is a sign of Christ's body at the time of speaking, and also unproperly for the time to come, in that it is a promise of his body to be eaten spiritually. Corpus meum, My body doth signify to him, the sign of my body taken by mouth, and the strength or virtue ther●…of that shallbe taken by faith and spirit. Put together: This bread which you bodily eat, is the sign, & this thing which I promise that your souls shall eat, shallbe the strength or efficacy of my body (and yet he addeth farther of his own) to them that believe Christ's death and resurrection. This is the sermon which Calvin saith was made at Christ's supper. Wherein every word must signify at once two or three things. and one verb in one tense must signify two times. and the same word body, must signify two proprieties, and yet neither of them both properly. For whether body stand for sign of body (as he would have it taken in respect of bread) it standeth unproperly, or whether i●… stand for efficacy of body (as he would have it taken in respect of the communicants) it standeth unproperly: whereas the proper signification thereof is to signify the substance of Christ's body. If we press him out of S. Paul and 1. Cor. 11 out of the Fathers, that evil men eat the body of Christ, than he will answer they eat the sign of his body, without promise or efficacy. If we say, that good men eat the body of Christ, he expoundeth it in such sense, that they first have it promised them, & ●…ate both a certain pledge bodily, and in their souls a spiritual efficacy thereof. O crafty deviser. If thou canst thus deceive a sort of miserable, and either unlearned or ungracious men, thinkest thou to deceive God or to escape his terrible judgement? Agree at the last, how every word shallbe so taken, that thy interpretation may be like itself. Let not the same word be now a sign, now a pledge, now a promise, now an efficacy, & now again no efficacy, no promise, no pledge but only a sign. We believe that every word standeth properly. And that both evil and good receive one and the same substance The Catholic interpretation o●… Christ's words. of Christ's body. But as one medicine received of two diverse complexions worketh not one effect: so the good men have a good effect by eating worthily the body of Christ, the evil have condemnation by eating it unworthily. Thus we take the word body, for the real substance of the body. the verb, est is, we take properly, because it is in deed Christ's body, when the words are spoken. This, we say, doth finally point to the substance of Christ's body as then pr●…ently made under the form 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, b●…t a present perfoormance. If any man ask by what scriptures I convince Calvin, I would first ●…now by what scriptures he proveth his lewd interpretation. Shall he speak a thing without scripture beside all truth and reason, and shall not we be credited, unless we convince him by scripture? Howbeit let us forgive that injury, and confute his fond ●…pinion by the word of God. Calvin saith, This is my body, be words of promise, against which saying thus I reason. S. Paul intending to show that God was not bound to the carnal jews, because they were the children of Abraham by flesh, but that rather he would reward them who were the children of Abraham by faith and spirit, declareth Isaac to have been the child of promise, because the Angel said to Abraham, Secundum hoc tempus veniam, & erit Sarae filius: I will come according to this time, and a son shallbe unto Sara. out of which words S. Paul proveth a promise. How so? Promissionis Rom. 9 enim hoc verbum est. For this word or saying, is a word of promise. which word is that? Veniam, I will come, & filius ●…rit, a son shallbe, as if S. Paul said, will, &, shall, be words of promise. For when a speech is conceived for the time to come with 〈◊〉 circumstance that it may appear the speaker meant to warrant the thing spoken, it maketh a promise. If, I will come, and 〈◊〉 son shallbe, are words of promise: I am come and a son is, be words of perfoormance. and that is also con●…irmed out os the word of God. Where it is writ●…n, the Lord visited Sara, as he had 〈◊〉. 21. promised, and fulfilled the things which he spoke. and she conceived, and brought forth a son at the time wherein god had fore●…old 〈◊〉, that which was before in S. Paul named a promise is ●…ow called also a foretelling or prediction. For albeit every prediction A promi●… is a prediction. be not a promise, yet every promise is a prediction and a telling before hand. so that we have in the word of God, that a promise telleth a thing before hand, yea that a promise is conceived 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 b●…dy, do not tell a thing before hand. they do not belong to the time to come, but unto the time present. therefore they be not words of promise. they do not say this shallbe my body, but this is my body. Who knoweth not that there are three differences of time, one pa●…, an other present, & the third to come? out of question a promise i●… self is of a thing to come. therefore the words of promising must needs be words that may belong to the time to come. For the nature of the time is applied to the nature of the thing. except they be such words as being invented principally to signify the present bond of that thing to come, do contain at once each strength in them. as when we say polliceor, spondeo, ꝓmitto: I promise. & than it is all one to say▪ I promise to ge●…e, or, I will give. which thing is proved by the custom of all nations which speak so, and by the authority of the ancient civilians who when they bound men most str●…ightly to words and terms, yet they gave them leave to say, any of these following, as being all of equal power: Spondes? spondeo. Promittis? In 〈◊〉, de verb. oblige. promitto. Fideiubes? 〈◊〉. Dabis? dabo. Fancies? faciam. Where these words are put for words of like meaning a●…d sense, dost thou promise, or wilt thou give, or wilt thou do? all which induce and make both a promise and an obligation of words. Whereby we learn the words of promise either must be uttered by expressing the name of promise, as if Christ should say: I p●…omise him the eating of my body, who 〈◊〉 eateth with saith this bread: or ●…ls must be 〈◊〉 in the f●…ure tense, as if it were said: Take, cate, this shallbe my body to you: but seeing neither of both is done, it is a vain folly to say that words of present affirmation, words o●… working & consecrating, be words of promise or of preaching. Yea but God speaketh not to the bread (saith Calvin) that it should be made his body. But he commandeth his Disciples to eat, and he promiseth them the communicating of his body and blood. In deed God saith to his Disciples, take, and eat. But that is a commandment, and no promise. He saith farther, this is my body. and that is the making of the meat which must be eaten, and the showing of it, but no promise. For Christ maketh his supper ready by deed alone, or by his word & deed together. by deed alone in taking bread: by his word and deed together in blessing and saying, this is my body. which words turn the substance of bread into his body. so that these words do not promise any thing, but they perfoorm an old promise made before at Capharnaum. What say we then to 〈◊〉 words, who affirmeth, that Christ spoke not to the bread, that it should be made his body, but that he spoke to his Disciples? I answer, he spoke the words, eat and take, to his Disciples, but he spoke these words (this is my body) to the bread, or (as the catholics rather use to speak) over the dread, and upon the bread. But yet we might say very well and truly, that Christ spoke to the bread, even as he is rea●… to have commanded the winds, and they cessed, and to have Matth. 8 Matt 21. Matt. 17. spoken to the figtree, when he said let spruce never spring more of the. And as he said, the Apostles having faith should speak to any certain hill, Transi hine illuc, & transibit, pass from this place to that, and it shall pass from hence. The speaking of God or of his ministers to any creature, whether it be a reasonable a sensible or a divine creature, is the signisying that his will is done always upon every creature, according as it pleaseth him. neither ●…oth it skill in what form of words he speaketh, seeing that sometime he is readen to say, Volo, I will, Mundare, ●…e thou cleanied. Matt. 8. Sometime he saith: Sicut credidisti ●…iat tibi, be it done to the as thou 〈◊〉 believed. Sometime he cureth by touching alone without Matt. 9 words. Sometime he saith in the present tense: Remittantur tibi pec 〈◊〉 tua, thy sins are forgiven thee. And thereunto these words of his supper are like. For when he took bread and having ble●…d, Matt. 26. said: This is my body: His word at that instant made his body of that bread which was taken, even as these words, thy sins are forgiven thee, made a just man of a sinner. The speaking therefore of God unto creatures is the showing job 38. of his will to be done upon them. In so much that in job God confesseth himself only to dispose, order, and command all creatures. he se●…deth lightings and they go, and returning they say to him, adsumus, here we are. which thing they could not say, except they heard his voice. Therefore it is not well said of Calvin, to make it an absurd thing for bread to hear the words of Christ, seeing they do not only hear, but also answer in so much that an 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. other Prophet saith, the stars were called, and they said: Adsumus, we are at haud. To be short, S. Paul saith, that God calleth Rom. 4. things that be not, as things that be. Meaning, that it is no less easy to God by his calling or naming to make a thing to be which was not at all, or else to be that which before it was not, than it is to call a thing by his old name. It is all one to God to say to joan. 2. us, this is water which before was water, and to say of water, thi●… is wine. for at his word it is made wine as who cannot possibly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and seeing experience teacheth us, that all creature●… will go against their own particular nature, rather than the order which God hath appointed in the whole world, shall in any ●…oint fail, seeing when a quill is put into any liquor, & the air thereof drawn up with his breath that sucketh it, the heavy 〈◊〉 of water will rather against his nature go upward, than any void or empty place should be. shall we yet wonder that Gods will is done every where even at the speaking of his word shall not his visible 〈◊〉 make faith of his invisible & mystical doings, Roma. 1. so th●…t all which will not believe, shallbe inexcusab●…e? Calvin saith, Christ spoke not to the bread. I tell him, he spoke to the bread, not as to a thing that should tarry bread, but as to that which should be changed into his body: for he called the bread his body. will Calvin grant me that, or no? If he will not, I bring forth Tertullian, one that is near ha●…d fourteen hundred Tertull. adversus Marcionem. Libr. 4. years old, who saith that Christ called the bread his body. Panem corpus suum appellat. He calleth the bread his body. But we can not call a thing, except we speak unto it. Therefore when Christ called the bread his body, he spoke unto the bread, as if he had said to the bread, be thou my body. For as it is all one in Christ to say, let thy sins be forgiven, and thy sins are forgiven: so it is Matth. 9 one to say concerning a certain bread which was taken: Let this be my body, or this is my body. with whatsoever words the mind of Christ be uttered, out of question it is always fulfiled. But among all kind of utterance, none is more plain to us, then when a thing is clearly a●…rmed to be this or that: for than it is made plain to us, not only that God would have it so, or wisheth it to be so, but that really and in deed it is so. Christ calleth bread his body: Therefore Calvin saith fals●…, when he affirmeth that Christ speaketh not to the bread to th'end it might be made his body. You will say, calling is not making. yeas for fout●…, in God, in Christ, in those whom Christ willeth to call one thing, and make thereof an other thing, in all them calling is making. Men call a thing by the name of the former nature, but God in calling any The cal●… of Go●…. thi●…g, or in willing it to be called by a new name changeth the former nature, and maketh it to be as he called it. And therefore when the Prophet 〈◊〉 would signify that the gentiles and paynim should be turned to the faith, how doth he utter Ozee. 2. that matter? Saith he not in the person of God: Dicam non populo meo, populus meus es tu? I will say to that which is not my people, thou art my people? Dicam. I will say it. And trow ye, his saying is not done? Yes it solloweth immediately. Et ipse dicet: Deus meus es tu. And the people itself shall say, thou art my God. which thing the people could not say, except in deed it were converted and made the people of God from the people of infidelity. And therefore S. Paul himself expoundeth this place of Osoe, by the word of calling, and Roma. 9 〈◊〉 Vocabo non plebem meam, plebem meam. I will call that, which is not my people, my people: & erit in loco ubi dictum Ozee. 1. Roma. 9 est eyes, non plebs mea vos, ibi vocabuntur filii Dei. And it shall come to pass in the plate, where it hath been said to them, ye are not my people, there they shallbe called the sons God. After which sort when Christ having taken bread and blessed, said: This is my body: That saying was the calling of that which was before, Non corpus Christi, not the body of Christ. Corpus Christi, the body of Christ. In this sense S. Ambroise saith: Ante benedictionem verborum De ijs qui init. myster. Capit. 9 coeles●…m alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Et tu dicis, Amen, hoc est, verum est. quod os loquitur, mens interna fateatur. Quod sermo sonat, affectus sentiat. Before the blessing of the heavenly words it is named an other kind, after consecration the body is signified. himself saith (or nameth) his blood. Before consecration it is named (or said) an other thing. a●…ter consecration it is called blood. and thou 〈◊〉, Amen, 〈◊〉 is to say, it is true. That which the mouth speaketh, let the inward mind cousesse, that which the speech soundeth, let the har●… think. Here we learn by S. Ambrose, that the naming, signisying, or calling bread and wine the body and blood of Christ, is both 〈◊〉 ●…uident sign, that Christ spoke to bread and wine (otherwis●… than Calvin said) and also the making of them to be in deed so ●…s they are called and signified. also he showeth the custom of the primative Church to have been, that immediately before communio●… when the Priest said, the body of Christ, the people used, to answer: Amen, it is true: it is in deed his body. And as the word body soundeth, and as our confirmation thereof soundeth: so he requireth us to believe confess and think. certainly there is none othe●… thing sounding to our ears beside the name of body. Likewise Tertullian having witnessed that Christ called the bread his body, Tertull. advers. Marcio●… lib. 4. witnesseth also that he made the bread which was taken and distributed to the Disciples, his body. Fecit panem corpus suum. He made the bread his body, in saying, This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body. But neither calling nor naming, no●… saying, nor the being of a figure, stoppeth any thing the real truth●… of Christ's body. the Sacrament is the figure of Christ's body, because it showeth his death until he come, as S. Paul saith. But as Christ is the figure, or print and form of his Father's substance, 1. Cor. 11 and yet also his substance in deed: even so the Sacrament Hebr. 1. is a figure of Christ, and Christ in deed. Christ, as an other person beside his Father, so is he the figure of his substance. But otherwise in truth he is thoroughly the same substance. even so, as the Sacrament is another manner of Christ's presence, so it is a figure either of his visible body, or of his death. But concerning the truth of substance, all is one. Thus without all controversy the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 ●…ords standeth upright. And his naming, signifying, figuring, calling, is the making of a thing to be that which it is named by him, signified, figured, or called. He hath said Psal. 14●… & the things are made. There can be none more gross, more vile, more blasphemous opinion, then to think that Christ is a bare man▪ that his word is like our word, or his figures and Sacraments like our figures, or like the figures of the old law. Look what odds is between God and man, so much believe thou to be also between his naming, or his figures of the new Testament, and all other figures. His figures contain the self same substance which they express in figure, sign, or name, whereof God willing I will entreat more hereafter. It is at this time to be considered, that seeing the Sacrament of Chri Lucae. 2●…. 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 stes supper, is the remembrance of that great sacri●…ice made by his death upon the cross: Itself also must needs partake that nature, whereof it is the remembrance, & consequently it must be certainly believed to be a true sacrifice, as that of the cross was. In every public sa●… there is a thing offered & vowed unto God, & the act which offereth & voweth it, apperteiveth as well to the thing 〈◊〉 (by the mean of doing somewhat about it) as unto God, to whom the oblation is theifly dedicated. As therefore when a lamb is sacrificed, Leuiti▪ 1. Math. 21. hands are laid upon the lambs head, the lamb is killed, burnt or eaten, and all that while God in the lamb is honoured, prayed unto, blessed, thanked and praised: even so when the bread is taken, the words (which are the instrument to make our sacrifice) are spoken to the bread i●… the way of vowing and dedicating it unto Christ, into whose flesh it is turned by his almighty word in such sort, that God is withal the last end of the whole offering, to whom this th●…nkful sacrifice is made. For S. Ireneus Ireneus. Libro. 5. adversus haereses. hath witnessed, that when the mixed chalice and the bread broken percipit verbum Dei, taketh the word of God, the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ is made. Ireneus saith, the 〈◊〉 taketh the word of God. Calvin affirmeth that Christ speaketh not unto the bread. As though the bread could take that word, which is not directed unto it. Bread is the matter of the Eucharist, to wit, of the most thankful sacrifice of Christ's supper. Words are the instrument which the word of God useth in working and consecrating the bread. When the words come unto the bread, or (as S. Ireneus speaketh) when the bread taketh, and receiveth, or heareth the word of God, the Eucharist of Christ's body and blood is made. Is a thing made of bread by words, and yet doth not Christ speak those words unto the bread? How can words work or make any thing, but by speaking? In an other place likewise S. Ireneus saith: panis percipiens Ireneus a●…uersus haeres. li. 3 Cap. 34. vocationem Dei, bread receiving the calling of God is not now common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, one earthly, an other heavenly. The earthly thing is the old soorm o●… bread, the heavenly is the body of Christ newly made under that 〈◊〉▪ And yet doth not Christ speak unto bread, to 〈◊〉 it should be made his body? justinus Martyr entreating of the self same sacrifice, writeth justinus Martyr▪ In apolog. 2. thus: Cibum qui per verbum precationis, quod ab eo accepimus, consecratus est, jesu Christi carnem & sanguinem esse accepimus. We have learned that sood which is consecrated by the word of prayer (which we took of him) to be the flesh and blood of jesus Christ. there is a kind of meat or food consecrated. by what means? by the word of prayer, which we took of Christ. What word can that be I pray you, but only, This is my body? Calvin thought they had been words of preaching, but justinus scholar unto the Apostles, calleth them words of prayer, because he that speaketh them mindeth by that speaking, to make a sacrifice unto God, which is the highest kind of prayer & of worshipping God y● 〈◊〉 be. Of which kind Christ said: my house shallbe called that house of prayer. Preaching Math. 21. is principally directed unto the people, prayer only to God. But among all prayers, that which is most peculiar to public sacri fice, is most proper unto God. For he that offereth sacrifice to any other thing beside to God alone, is most properly an idolater. Now seeing Calvin is content that the word of prayer and sacrifice, which we received of Christ, shallbe so principally directed to the people, that it shall not in the like degree appertain to the bread (which Calvin is showed to be an idolater. is that matter of our sacrifice,) I say he is content, that▪ sacrifice by nature dew to God alone, be offered unto mortal men. & because in stead of God (to whom these words are chief directed) he hath placed the ticklish ears of the rude multitude, he hath committed main idolatry. As choosing to speak these words (This is my body) altogether to the men standing about him, whereas they are dew finally to God alone, and by the way of sacrificing, appertain to the bread, which is changed into Christ's body. As therefore if a man Acto. 14. should kill an ox or a Calf, referrig the last end thereof unto that people which standeth by, he should undoubtedly be an idolater: even so when he affirmeth that those words (which by the appointment of Christ, make the Eucharist & sacri●…ice of thanksgiving unto God) ought to be spoken to the people, as for the chief use where unto they were created, he not only committeth, but also defendeth main idolatry. Which is 〈◊〉 most gross fault that ever was done by so spiritual a worshipper of Christ, as Calvin will seem to be. Ad Pres by terorun preces (saith S. Hierom) Christi corpus sanguisque consicitur: Hierony mus ad 〈◊〉 to. 2. The body and blood of Christ is made at the prayers of the Priests. Doubtless at none other prayers, then wherein they say 〈◊〉 the mind of sacrificing, 〈◊〉 bread, This is my body, & over wine this is my blood. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of these words the body & blood Augustinus in Psal. 39 of Christ be 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 these words promise nothing. For as S. Augustine 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abstulit verba promittentia, The 〈◊〉 or the perfienesse of the th●…igs promised, ha●… taken away the promising words. And again. Tam diu quisque promissor est donec det, cum dederit, mutat verba, non dicit adhuc dabo, quod se daturum dicebat, sed dicit, dedi, mutavit verbum. So long every man is one that pro●…iseth, until he give. When he hath given, he changeth the words. He saith not still: I will give, of the which he said he would give: but he saith, I hau●… given. He hath cha●…ged the word. S. Augustine putteth a difference between a g●…er and a promiser. Between words, & deeds, between sayings and doings. He accounteth dabo, I will geu●… for a word of promise, but dedi, I have given for a word of per●…ance. Seeing therefore Christ in his supper did not say●… he would give his body to the faithful, but said expressly take, eat, thi●… is my body, and seeing the Evangelist saith of that fact, dedit Discipulis, he hath given to his Disciples, out of question the words which are joined with a real gift, be not verba promissiva, sed completiva: as S. Augustine nameth them, they are not words which promise, but which accomplish and fulfil the former promise. And now to return to the former talk of sacrif●…ce, they are such words as fulfil the act of the sacrifice, and therefore they are called of justinus Martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orationis aut voti verbum. justinus in apol. 2 Augusti●…us. ●…pist 59 ●…. Tim. 2. the word of prayer or of vow. ●…or (as S. Augustine hath well noted in expounding the words of S. 〈◊〉 to Timothe,) ea proprie intelligenda est oratio, quam facimus ad votum. That is properly understanded to be prayer which is made at vowing, that is to say, which we make with a special ●…owing and re●…ring unto God of ourselves, or of some 〈◊〉 thing where by we pro 〈◊〉 our faith. So that the word of prayer in the Eucharist, is the word which voweth and dedicateth unto God the substance of the bread and wine, which is taken to be consecrated. Voventur autem The oblation of the 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉. omnia que offeruntur Deo, maximè sancti altaris oblatio. Truly all things are vowed (saith S. Augustine) which are offered unto God, specially the oblation of the holy altar. We bring bread and wine to the 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 showeth in the same place: Orationes accipimus dictas, cum illud Epist. 59 (quod est in Domini mensa) benedicitur & sanctificatur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur. We take prayers to be said, when that which is on the table of our Lord, is blessed and sanctified, and broken to be distributed. Mark whether S. Augustine speak like Calvin or no. that S. Augu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r 〈◊〉 words, this is ●…y body to ●… upon the table, & not unto the audience. 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 say over it, This is my body. For the sense of these words is, that Christ so ●…estly offereth, so thoroughly 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 united to the son of God in one person. This only is the offering and vowing of an outward thing, which came to that perfection Gen. 14. Psal. 109. whereunto in the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 it was destinied. 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 Marci. 14 words of Christ, who said in the way of blessing, of thanksgiving, o●… praying, and of vowing or of offering to God, This is my body, which is given for you, do and make this thing for the remembrance Lucae. 22. of me. Calvin would neither have prayer nor vow, nor any sacrifice made unto God in these words, but hath with sweet poisoned talk, made of them a promise & apreaching to the people, giving to man the 〈◊〉 of sacrifice dew 〈◊〉 God only. But S. Ireneus Lib. 4. cap. 32. witnesseth, that Christ having taken bread, and given thanks, said, This is my body, and confe●… the chalice to be his blood. Et novi testamenti novam docuit oblationem, and he taught a new oblation of the new testament. Which also he proveth out o●… Malac. 1. Malachi the Prophet. Calvin would the words to be spoken without working any thing upon the burnt: 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. Calvin would the working to be only in the minds of the hearer's, whereas the gospel teache●… that Christ having taken bread, said: This is my body. But Calvin imagineth, that he spoke not to the bread, but said to the people, this bread is a witness that you shall ca●…e my body, whereas the bread itself was by those words made Christ's body, and so made, that it was his body, as soon as the word was spoken. So saith Bregorius Nyssenus, who writeth that the bread is changed In Orat. 〈◊〉. into the body of Christ, statim ut dictum est ●… verbo: Hoc est corpus meum, strait as soon as it is said of the word (of God) thi●… is my body. S. Chrysostom showeth the words to be spoken by Chryso. hom. de prod●…io ne Iud●…. to. 3. Ambros. de Sacra. lib. 4 c. 5 the Priest's mouth: who saith, This is my body. Hoc verbo prop●… sita consecrantur. With this word the things set forth are consecrated. S. Ambrose saith: Vbi verba Christi operata fuerint, sanguis efficitur, qui plebem red●…it. When the words of Ch●…ist haus wrought, the blood is made which hath 〈◊〉 the people. Is it n●…t a great madness to resist the●…e witnesses? Or can the th●…ngs set forth, which are 〈◊〉 and wine be consecrate●…, be chan●…d, ●…e made the body & 〈◊〉 of Christ, & not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I might bring against Calvin whatsoever the Catholics teach or say of the real presence of Christ's body and blood, of 〈◊〉, and of the sacrifice. For 〈◊〉 word destroyeth this foolish invention of promising and preaching. It shallbe now sufficient to show, that the whole East and West Church by diverse means yet conformably destroy that erroneous opinion of Calvin. In the East Church the words of consecration, This is my body The custom of the East Church at consecration. which is given for you: and likewise of the blood, are spoken with so loud avoice, that the whole Church may here the Priest pronouncing them. And immediately after each of the words the quere and people cried out Amen. Which doth signify, as S. Ambrose De iis qui init. cap. 9 hath expounded it, Verum est, it is true. Whereby all those Churches did signify, that the body and blood of Christ was presently made, when the people affirmed it to be true, and yet noman had at that time received the communion. Therefore th●…se words, This is my body, which is given for you, and, this is my blood, which is shed for you, Which Calvin calleth words of promise made to the receivers, are witnessed by the whole Chur●…h to be true presently, and so to be perfoormed, l●…g before any man receive either kind. On the other side in the West Church the same words are spoken The cnstom of the west ●…hurch in consecrating. secretly over the bread and the wine, and immediately after the pronouncing of each words, the body and blood of Christ is adored of all the people, because it is really contained ●…nder the foormes of bread and wine. Which ancient custom of secretly pronouncing these words, This is my body, show 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 chair, or pulpit, or some like place. But now they are spok●…n at the al●…ar of God, and not at all directed to the people, as the which 〈◊〉 to that office of 〈◊〉 Priesthood, whereunto the people is not called. For as the high Bishop among the Jews went Hebr. 9 alone, and that but one day in the whole year into the Holy of Holies in the temple of Solomon: 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 ordained, that he alone enter 〈◊〉. And this custom is in that West Church which S. Peter and S. Paul planted with their preaching, and watered with their blood. This is the Church which S. Ambrose honoured so 〈◊〉, that albeit himself in many points followed in his service the 〈◊〉 rite and manner, yet he openly praised the good and laudable custom of the Roman Church, saying: In omnibus De Sacra. lib. 3. cap. 1. cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam. In all points I covet to follow the Roman Church. But now let us bring a practice of the whole primative Church, as well in the East as in the West, which so evidently doth confute the 〈◊〉 opinion of Calvin, that he is said to condemn the Apostles them 〈◊〉 to avoid that argument. For so had he rather do, yea to deny all the whole Bible, than once to remove the breadth of a 〈◊〉 from his dear-beloved pha●…tasy. such is the stubborness of heretics. The holy Bishop and Martyr S. 〈◊〉 doth witness (as 〈◊〉 allegeth him) that the Bishops of Rome before the ●…useb. li. 5. c. 24 time of Pope Victor, to wit, Soter, Anicetus, Pius, Higinius, Telesphorus, Xistus, did all keep Easter-Day always upon the sunday, and yet withal kept peace with ohter Churches, which did otherwise. For a demonstration of that peace, 〈◊〉 allegeth The Eucharist was sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the pri●… Church. generally, that all the Priests which were before Victor, (which were in number, from S. Peter's time, twelve at the least) used solemnly to send Eucharistiam, the Eucharist (which is the Sacrament of Christ's supper) to such Priests who came out of those quarters, where Easter was kept otherwise, than it was at Rome. By that sending of the Sacrament from the Pope to other Priests a●…d Bishops, Jreneus concludeth all those to have communicated together. To our purpose, I note, that there is a certain thing so ●…crated in Christ's supper, that it hath in it the whole virtue of the s●…pper. And it is a torporall and real thing which may be ●…ued, carried, sent up and down, and so at the last received. Mark well the History. All the Bishops of Rome used to send to strange Bishops coming to Rome the holy Eucharist, in token that they were all of one communion, of one Church, and one religion. This Eucharist was the Sacrament of Christ's supper, this Sacrament was first made, and then kept for strangers, and sent unto them when they came. Which they received as the bond of peace & love. The consecration of that Eucharist could consist in none other thing so essentially, as in the pronouncing over bread, these words, This is my body. Now remember, I beseech you, what Calvin judgeth of our Lord's supper. He teacheth those words to be words of promise, and of preaching, Which being heard of the faithful stir up their hearts to receive Christ by faith. But the custom of the primative Church, even of the first hundred years after Christ's death, manifestly reproveth his opinion. For the Eucharist was made then The custom of y● 〈◊〉 Church is against the doctri●…e of Calvin. and sent afterward to those who were not present at the making thereof. Who neither heard any preaching, nor took hold of any promise, but came like strangers to Rome, and so had the blessed body of Christ delivered them. wherefore his body was not only consecrated in the hearts of men, but also in a corporal thing which might be seen, touched, carried, delivered and r●…ceaued. The consecration was fulfilled in that external thing, which was called the Eucharist. And so it is proved without any escape, that when bread was taken and blessed, these words, This is my body, were said to the bread and over it, and changed it into the substance of Christ's body. And by that means the body of Christ was contained under the form of bread, and so carried unto the faithful Prelates which came to Rome: The Eucharist itself was carried. The body of Christ was sent from one Bishop to an other. The words which Calvin dreameth to be words of promise, were not such: but in deed were word●… working the real presence of Christ's body. And truly when Christ gave his Apostles authori●…ie Luc. 22. to make his last supper: He ●…ad them not make a promise of any thing. But he said: Hoc facite, Do and make this thing. A certain external thing was made and done by Christ, which he will Christ ●…ad not his Apostles make a promise of a thing but make the thing itself. led his Apostles to do & make. He said not to them, preach th●…s, nor say thus, nor do thus (albeit the homilies corrupt the gospel after that sort) but he said: do this thing, make this thing, to wit, make my body with the same words of blessing, which you heard me use when I took bread, and having g●…uen thanks said thereof: This is my body, make this thing. Which thing the Apostles and their successors have always made, not in pulpits, (as Calvin, who would have them words of promise, and of preaching, must needs allow best) But they have made the body and blood of Christ upon the blessed altars & holy tables, where they o●…ered unblody sacrifice, and sanctified the holy mysteries with that mind o●… celebrating, of daing and making, but not with the mind of promising or preaching. Neither only was this the custom of Rome, to send the Eucharist already consecrated unto other Bishops, but wise and learned men think the like use to have been in every other Church. And certainly Iusti●…us Martyr, of sufficient antiquity to them that care for Apostolical doctri●… or traditio●…, doth witness that the Eucharist was made in the assembles of the 〈◊〉, and afterward sent by the Deacons to those that were absent: by Deacons, The 〈◊〉 charist was carried by 〈◊〉 to y● 〈◊〉 per●… without words of pr●… mising. Hieron. Euagri. to. 2. Iustinu●… Marty●… in apolog. 2. I say, who could in no wise themselves either consecrate or iterate again the words of consecration already spoken. For as S. Hierom writeth, Priests differ from Deacons, because at the prayer of Priests the body and blood of Christ is made. Which thing the Deacons can not do. They on'y can minister unto the people the body and b●…od already consecrated and made by the Priests. And therefore justinus Martyr writeth thus of them, and of the whole making of the mysteries. Panis vinumque & aqua afferuntur, tumque is qui primum locum tenet eodem modo preces gra tiarumque actionem pro virili mittit, populusque acclamat dicens, Amen. Et ijs, quae cum gratiarum actione consecrata sunt, unusquisque participate. Eademque ad eos qui absunt, Diaconis dantur perferenda. Bread, wine, and water are brought. And then he which is chief prayeth and giveth thanks to the uttermost of his p●…wer, after the same manner (which was described before) and that people reioysingly crieth, Amen And every man partaketh those things which are consecrated with thanksgiving. And the same things are given to the Deacons to be carried to these which are absent. What can be more plainly spoken? Bread, wine, and water are consecrated by the words of prayer which we took of Christ. those words are, This is my body, and, this is my blood. After which consecration the people cried, Amen. And the consecrated things, to wit, the body and blood which are made by the consecration of bread, wine, and water, the body and blood, I say, are delivered by the 〈◊〉 to them first which are present. And when they have communicated, to others also which are absent. Therefore the holiness rested in the things that were consecrated and was not made by 〈◊〉 in the ears and 〈◊〉 of the people but the consecrated mysteries were given and carried: given to the present, carried to the absent. given by hands, not by words, given to their hands or mouths, and not to their ears. they were carried to the absent, as having real virtue made in them by the words of Christ. what saith Calvin to these practices of the primative Church? what spirit will he in this point show to us? whether will he show the spirit of humility in wondering at, and in following those Fathers which learned all their service and orders of the Apostles themselves? If Calvin had that spirit, he were far from hearesy. But now see what spirit Calvin hath. Thus he writeth in this matter. Immediately after the words which I rehearsed in the 〈◊〉 of this chapter, thus he writeth. His rationibus constat, repositionem Sacramenti, etc. It is The words of Calvin. De Coen. Domini. evident (saith Calvin) by those reasons, the reservation of the Sacrament (which some men press, to th' end it may be distributed extraordinarily to the sick,) to be unprofitable. For either the sick shall receive it without rehearsal of the institution of Christ, or the minister together with the sign will join the true explication of the mystery. If the institution of Christ be not spoken of, it is an abuse, and a fault. If the promises be rehearsed and the mystery be declared, so that they who shall receive, may receive with fruit, we n●…de not doubt, this to be the true consecration. To what purpose then is the other, whose strength reacheth not so far as to come to the sick? But you will say, they that do so (to wit, that reserve the Sacrament) have the example of the old Church. Fateor. I grant but in so weighty a matter, & wherein error is not committed without great danger, nothing is more safe then to follow the truth itself. Hitherto Calvin hath reasoned, who putteth the whole strength of the Sacrament of Christ's supper in promising and preaching. therefore if any where preaching and promising be not used in the giving of the Sacrament, he calleth it an abuse and fault. And seeing the primative Church, even whiles the Apostles were alive, did by the witness of 〈◊〉 reserve the Sacrament so long after consecration, as to send it to such Bishops, which might come to strange dioceses out of an other province: and seeing the deacous used to carry it in the time of justinus Martyr (who lived within a hundred years of Christ's death) to those which were absent: Calvin, I say, perceiving the use of all Apostolical Calvin reproveth the 〈◊〉 Church. Churches to stand against him, will seem to con●…ute them all with this fond reason. Either the sick and absent persons (for all is one concerning this matter) shall receive that which was consecrated in the Church without a new rehearsal of these words, This is my body, And then, it is an abuse, saith Calvin, & a fault: (& he calleth it an abuse, which the scholars of the Apostles used) or ●…ls (saith he) the words shallbe joined with the sign, and it is a true consecration. And then, saith he, the first consecration made at the Church was in vain concerning the sick and absent men. But the second is good, which is made by preaching and rehearsing the words of promise to the sick persons. I have most faithfully behersed the opinion of Calvin. But let us now examine, why it is an abuse and fault to deliver to the sick or to the absent persons the holy host which was consecrated in the Churches, without a new rehearsal of Christ's words. why is that an abuse? who told Calvin it was an abuse or a fault. Calvin bringeth no reason for his 〈◊〉 re●… of the Apo●…●…lers. For south his own mind gave him so, his wisdom thought so, his gravity said so, his blasphemonse penue wrote so. But other cause, reason, or scripture he bringeth none for it. ●…e first 〈◊〉 that the consecration of Christ's supper consisteth in saying to the people, This is my body which is given for you: And proneth it not at all. but grant him once his dream, & consequently he inferreth that if such an host whereupon the words of consecration were once duly pronounced, be afterward given to him that hea●…d not those words of promise, because he was sick or absent, if the ●…ost, I say, he given without a new rehearsal of the words, it followeth that it is an abuse. Yea but some Papist will say, the old Church did so. For now he calleth the primati●…e Church the old Church. I grant, saith Calvin. But it is better yet to follow the truth itself. Why 〈◊〉 dost thou only know, what the truth itself is? we allege the old Church, to pro●…e, that the truth 〈◊〉 Christ's gospel doth stand for us: and to prove that consecration is not made by preaching and by the hearing of the people, but by the virtue of God's word, which spoken over the elements of bread and wine, saith by the one: This is my body, making it so. And by the other: This is my blood, making it so. We say these words make the body of Christ under the form of bread, and his blood under the form of wine. For our saying we bring the gospel, where ●…t is written, this is, and, this is. When other 〈◊〉 the gospel, we show that the Apostles and Matt. 26. their successors practised this which we believe. For they all understood, by these words directed to brcad and wine, that the body and blood of Christ was really made, under the forms of them. How prove we that? Because if once the words had been spoken by a Priest upon those elements, the things consecrated were afterward kept and carried as a most holy sacrifice to men ab●…ent. as the which things contained really within them the body & blood of Christ. Why else should they be carried to others that were absent? A 〈◊〉 may say, that when they came to the absent persons, the words were again rehearsed. First that appeareth not in justinus, or in Ireneus, of whom the one saith, the 〈◊〉 was sent to stra●…gers: the other saith, that the things consecrated, which were received of the present Christians, the same were carried to the absent. How is the Eucharist sent, if it be Nothing known to be consecrated may be 〈◊〉 teo again. no Eucharist until it come to the stranger, and then be made a new? Or is it 〈◊〉 to iterate the consecration of any Sacrament? Hath Calvin learned so far? Did the first consecration lack ●…ertue, so that an other must be made, or the first be repeated? Last of all the Deacons carried the Eucharist, who possibly could not rehearse the words of consecration, This is my body, and, this is my blood. And yet if they were words of promise & preaching, the Deacon, who may 〈◊〉 and in preaching may 〈◊〉 the spiritual seeding of our souls, might also rehearse those words. But from the Apostles time to this day it was never heard, that ●… Deacon might consecrate the body and blood of Christ. For noman Hebr. 5. A Deacon cannot con secrate the holy my●…. is able to do any more, than whereunto he is lawfully called. But no Deacon hath the power to consecrated given him. And that his name showeth, which is to say, a 〈◊〉, or a waiter on. For he waiteth upon the Priest at Mass, and is not as yet promoted to the office of 〈◊〉. Seeing then the Deacons carried the Eucharist, and they could not say the words of consecration, doub●…lesse they that received it of their hands, received neither words of promise, nor of preaching, but they received that blessed body and blood of Christ which was consecrated before, under the foormes of bread & wine. This faith will stand sound when Calvin and all his scholars be out of memory. This practice did the Apostles leave to their successors and scholars, as justinus the Martyr, Ireneus and Eusebi●…s witness. Now consider what an intolerable spirit of arrogancy was The intolerable pride of 〈◊〉. in Calvin, who dareth oppose himself against the first hundred years after Christ. He dareth affirm, that all the Priests and Bishops of Rome before 〈◊〉 committed an abuse, in sending the Eucharist to strangers. That all Asia and Brece committed an abuse, in sending the Eucharist by Deacons to men that were absent, who heard not the words of promise. If thou look to be saved (good Reader) beware of that arrogant spirit. Learning thou shalt not find in Calvin, and much less honesty. Only he hath a sort of smooth words, which are poisoned with pride and ignorance. If any of his scholars will take upon him to defend his error, I will by God's grace discover more ignorance of that arrogant Master of theirs. In the mean time I will content myself with these reasons, which I have presently brought against him out of the word of God, and out of the sayings and doings of the whole primative Church. ¶ The preface of the second Book. FOr so much as contraric things, one being set against the other, are both made the more clear and plain: it seemed best I should not only confirm the Catholic faith, but also confute the contrary doctrine, which is allowed for good and laudable in the Apology of the Church of England, to th●… intent the Reader might judge, whether the Catholics or Protestauts do more oftallege, more sincerely interpret, and more thoroughly believe the word of God. I fear me he shall find nothing, beside the name of the gospel, to be among the Protestant's. But the true meaning and use thereof only to remain in that Catholic Church of Christ. Let the thing itself speak: I ask but an upright and indifferent judge. Neither let any man be now shamed to hear that his new chosen opinion, is a great deal worse than his old faith was. For if he blushed not to forsake the faith of the Catholic Church vowed at the font of Baptism, and to embrace a truth lately espied (as he thought) in the gospel: Much less ought he to account it any reproach, to read further in the same gospel, and there to learn, his old profession, made at the time of his Christendom, to have been not only the received belief of all Christians, but also to have been grounded in the true word of God, and practised of the Apostles and their Successors from the beginning. The chapters of the second Book. 1. The catholics require their cause to be uprightly tried by the holy scriptures, which they have always studied and reverenced. 2. It is proved by the word of God, that evil men receive the body of Christ in his supper. 3. The ancient Fathers teach, that evil men receive truly the body of Christ. 4. What is the true deliverance of Christ's body and blood. 5. What it is which nourisheth us in the sup of Christ. 6. The real presence is proved by the union which is confessed to be made in the supper of Christ. 7. That the Apology speaking of the Lords supper, goeth clean from the word of God. 8. That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more than two Sacraments. 9 That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all, but not acknouledged of the Apology according to the word of God. 10. That the supper of our Lord is both the sign of Christ's body, and also his true body, even as it is a Sacrament. 11. What sign must chiefly be respected in the Sacrament of Christ's supper, & what a Sacrament is. 12. Which argument is more agreeable to the word of God: It is a token of the body made by Christ, and therefore not the body: or else, therefore the true body of Christ. 13. The words of Christ's supper are not figurative, nor his token a common kind of token. 14. That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at all, if these words of Christ, This is my body, and this is my blood, be figurative. 15. There all presence of Christ's body is that, which setteth his death and life before us. 16. Our thanksgiving and remembrance of Christ's death, is altogether by the real presence of his body. 17. The true resurrection of our bodies cometh by eating that body of Christ, which is both true, and truly in us. 18. Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ, according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries. 19 The real presence of Christ's flesh is proved by the express naming of flesh, blood, and body, which are names of his human nature. 20. It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assign to Christ in comparison of his true supper. 21. By eating we touch the body of Christ, as it may be touched under the form of bread. 22. The Sacramentaries have neither understanding, nor faith, nor spirit, nor devotion to receive Christ withal. 23. The real presence of Christ's body is proved by the confession of the Apology. 24. The contrariety of the apology is showed, and that the lifting up of our hearts to heaven, is no good cause, why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar. 25. What be gross imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 26. What the first Council of Nice hath taught concerning Christ's supper. 27. That the catholics have the table of Eagles; and the Sacramentaries the table of jays. 28. The bread which is the meat of the mind, and not of the belly, can be no wheaten bread, but only the bread of life, which is the body of Christ. 29. Sacramental eating differeth from eating by faith alone, whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apology. ¶ The Catholics require their cause to be uprightly tried by the holy Scriptures, which they have always studied and reverenced. THe Apology of the Church of England boasting itself, The first Chapter. partly of the word of God, partly of the primative Church, requireth that we call the new gospelers no more by the name of heretics, neither account ourselves hereafter Catholics, except we co●…ince them out of the holy Scriptures, as the old Catholic Fathers did use to convince the old stubborn heretics. If we be heretics (saith the Apology) & they (as they would The words of the Apology. Fol. 14. b vi. pag 1. gladly be called) be Catholics, why do they not, as they see the Fathers, which were Catholic men, have done always? Why do they not convince and master us by the di●…e Scriptures? Why do they not call us again to be tried by them? Why do they not lay before us, how we have gone away from Christ? From the Prophets? From the Apostles? and from the holy Fathers? Why stick they to do it? Why are they afraid of it? It is God's cause, why doubt they to commit it to the trial of God's word? To this proud brag of the Apology, thus I answer. To The answer. the holy scriptures, and to the holy Fathers ye have appealed: By the holy Scriptures and Fathers your doctrine shallbe tried▪ The Catholics never feared to be tried by the holy Scriptures, but they always feared to abuse them. For we that know in deed what holy Scripture is, are so careful how to behave ourselves reverently and seemly about the same, that we lightly use not to allege any part thereof to prove any rare and hard matter, unless we show some ancient Fathers or Council to have expounded that piece of Scripture before us, in such sort & sense, as we, by the witness thereof, desire to persuade and confirm. But otherwise, the Catholics never refused the trial of the ●…oly Scriptures, as the which they always both studied & loved. Do not the writings of S. Beruard in manner wholly consist of S. Bernard. Petrus Lombarbus. Tho. de Aquino. Lyranus Dionysius. burr gensis. Caietanus. continual testimonies taken out of holy Scripture? Did not Pet●…●…ombardus learnedly comment the Psalms, the Epis●…s of S. Paul, and other parcels of God's word▪ Did not S. Thomas of Aquin writ so upon job, Esaias, jeremias, S. Matthew, S. john, S. Paul, the Canonical epistles, and the apocalypse, that he useth to expound one hard place by an other, as nigh as th●… thing will suffer? Did not Nicolaus de Lyra, Dionysius the Carthusian, Paulus Burgensis, Caietanus the Cardinal, with diverse other expound the whole Bible, or make notes upon it? would they have done so, except they had been specially delighted with the word of God? More over when heresies arose in our days, Did not Contarenus, Sadoletus, Polus, ●…osius, 〈◊〉, Gropper, Tapper, Eckius, Pighius, Petrus and Dominicus of Soto, Miranda, Uillegagnon, joannes a Lovanio, with diverse other co●…ince those heresies by the holy Scriptures and Fathers? And yet as though we brought nothing at all for defence of the Catholic faith out of the word of God or primitive Church, so doth the penner of this Apology, more to his discredit then to ours, falsely and unhonestly report. But now to show the better his falsehood and dishonesty, I thought good for my part to set forth such holy Scriptures, and such witnesses of the primitive Church, as plainly confirm the Catholic belief concerning the chief matter, which at this day is in controuer●…e betwixt us and them. The chief question is about the blessed Sacrament of the altar. The 〈◊〉 question of our age. Our belief is, that after consecration duly made, the body & blood of Christ is really present under the forms of bread and wine. The Apology teacheth other wise, as now it shall appear. But whereas there are many questions in this behalf, as of the real presence, of transubstantiation, of the sacrifice of the mass, of communion under one kind, of receiving alone, of r●…tion of the Sacrament, and of such other: I will begin 〈◊〉 with the matter of real presence, which i●… the ground of all the rest, not despairing to have (at other times) more leisure to handle also the other questions. So much therefore as in the Apology belongeth to the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar, I will faithfully set forth, and try the truth of that doctrine by God's word, and by the holy Fathers. Neither let any man be offended, if I seem to keep no good order, in so much as I make no new method of mine own, but follow the order of the Apology, which suddenly and abruptly thus intreth in to the question. ¶ It is proved by the word of God, that evil men receive The second Chapter. the body of Christ in his supper. WE do expressly pronounce, that in the supper (unto The Apo logie. Fol. 24. c. 8. pa. 1. The answer. such as believe) there is truly given the body and blood of the Lord. This doctrine being called to the word of God, & to the judgement of holy Fathers for his trial, will appear false & forged. Because the holy scripture teacheth the body and blood of Evil men 〈◊〉 the body of Christ. Tit. 1. joan. 6. Leo. de passione Domini Sermo. 1 The body of Christ was delivered to judas. Christ to be truly delivered not only to such as do believe, but even to wicked men, who in their works have denied their faith howsoever they keep it, or give it over in heart. judas one whole year before the last supper, was called a de●…ll, for so much as Christ knew that he would betray and sell him unto the Jews. Which it is not to be thought that judas would have done, if he had been of the true belief, that Christ was the Son of God, & God himself. And yet the body and blood of Christ was truly delivered unto him. Who although he had believed the divine power of Christ, yet he had not believed as we now take believing, for the fulfilling and perfoorming of all that which belongeth to the Belief is takē●…tune for ye●…hole state of the gospel. joan. 3. Galat. 5. state and law of the new Testament. According as it is written, Vt omnis qui credit in eum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. That every man which believeth in him, may not perish but have everlasting life. Such a belief worki●…g by charity, judas had not. And yet he received the body and blood of Christ. For albeit some ancient Father's thought, that judas went out before the supper of Christ, yet far the greater part teach otherwise. And Hilarius in Matt. it is much more agreeable to the word of God. How prove I that? S. Mark writeth that Christ came with the twelve. S. Matthew Matt. 26. Marc. 14 sayeth, Christ sat down with the twelve, and whiles they were eating he gave his body and blood. S. Luke agreeth upon the very same number, and upon the same gift. Among the twelve Matt. 10. Marc. 3. Luc. 6. joan. 6. Matt. 26. judas is reckoned in S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. john. And whiles they were at supper (which they beside the twelve?) jesus took bread and blessed (and gave thanks) and broke and gave to them. To which them I pray you, but unto the twelve that came with him, and sat with him? to the twelve therefore he gave and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave them saying: Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament, Which is (or shallbe) shed, ●…or the remission of sins. Et biberunt ex illo omnes. Marc. 14 And all drank of it. Which all, if not the twelve? judas therefore being one of the twelve, had the body & blood judas drank the which the other Apostles did. Matt. 26. of Christ delivered to him. For Christ said: Take, eat, and drink ye all of this. And as they drank all, so is there no doubt, but they all did take and eat: therefore judas took that, which Christ delivered. But Christ witnessed himself to deliver his own body, saying, Take, and eat, this is my body: And drink ye all of this, for this is my blood: Therefore the body and blood of Christ was delivered unto judas. And sith judas did not believe: judas did not be leave well. the body and blood of Christ was truly delivered to some such, as did not believe. We now call these defenders to be tried by the holy Scriptures. We make it appear that they have severed themselves from Christ, from the Prophets, from the Apostles, we stagger not, we flee not, it is God's cause, we doubt not to commit it to God's word. And that no man may suspect we take the words of the Apology to short, that we expound them to hardly, that we seek advantage upon small occasion: I will bring forth their own words, which they have more fully written in an other place of the same Apology concerning this matter. We do affirm with the most ancient Fathers, that the body The 〈◊〉 logie. Fol. 90. m. ij. pagin. 2. of Christ is eaten of none other, but of godly and of faithful men, and such as are endued with the spirit of Christ. These fellows do teach, that the very body of Christ may in very deed, and as they term it really, and substantially, be eaten not only of wicked and unfaithful men, but also (it is horrible to speak it) of mice and dogs. Whether mice and dogs may in some sense eat the body of 〈◊〉 answ●…re. Victor persecutionis vand. li. 1. cap. 3. Optatus lib. 6. de schisma. Donat. Christ or no, it is not worth while to discuss, for so much as the Catholics keep the body of Christ so warily, that neither mouse nor dog may come nigh to it. But as the Arrians threw down the body and blood of Christ, and trod thereon with their filthy feet, and as the Donatists brake the chalices, which as Optatus saith, carried the blood of Christ: so the Sacramentaries of England have taken out of the holy pixes, and trodden under their profane foot the blessed body of Christ, they have sold, broken and abused to filthy ministries the chalices which have holden Christ's blood. If the wicked men be able to pollute, to tread on, and to defile, (as much as lieth in them) the body of Christ, 〈◊〉 men are worse than dog's, Heb. 10. The Fathers teach that judas did eat the body of Christ. 1. Cypri. de coena Domini. 2. Hiero. Li. 2. ad verse. Io. 3. Theodorit. in 3. Cor. 11 4. Chrysost. Ho. deprodit 5. Augustinus in joà. tractat. 50. 6. Leo in Ser. 1. de passione. 7. Sedul. in Carm. Paschali. 8. Beda in joà. 6. 9 Theophil. in Matt. 26. 10. Euthi mius. 64 in Matt. A think that to be worse, then if mice and dogs did eat it. Not that the immortal body of Christ can take any harm at all. But yet a terrible damnation is reserved to them, who being able to do it no hurt, show not withstanding their unsatiable malice against the highest mystery of our redemption, treading under foot the son of God, & counting the blood of the new testament profane and unholy. Leaving therefore this question, we return to the principal matter, confessing ourselves to teach, that the w●…ked men ●…ate in deed & really the body of Christ in our Lord's supper. Thus we teach, not only because the greater part of the Fathers have delivered so unto us, but also because thus we learned of Christ. Who after bread taken having blessed, gave to judas one of the twelve bidding him take & eat, saying, This is my body. A worse man than judas, I think, is not lightly heard of. Which among other things causeth us to believe, that be the man never so evil, yet if he take and eat after consecration and benediction, he taketh and eateth really and in deed the body of Christ. Which unworthy receiving of so precious a thing, although it mislike Christ (as all sin doth) yet as he permitteth sin for the goodness which he worketh by the occasion thereof: so he thought it less evil that evil men should eat his body, then that his Sacraments by any our infidelity should be made void, or that the gift of his grace should be uncertain. For Christ in the institution of his Sacraments dependeth not upon our faith or virtue, but upon his own mercy and truth. Wherefore when so ever by a lawful Priest intending to execute the ministery commanded by Christ, it is d●…ely said over bread and wine, This is my body, and, This is my blood, Christ would it so to be as the words declare, and who so ever receiveth that kind of food, receiveth the body of Christ. whether well or ●…uill, that dependeth upon his worthy or unworthy eating. If any man eat unworthily, then will Christ complain of him, as he complained of judas. For strait after the delivery of the blood, he said (as S. Luke doth witness, and S. Augustine Lucae. 22. S. Augustin. de verb. do. serm. 22. so expoundeth it. hath noted the same to pertain to the Sacrament) Veruntamen ecce manus tradentis me, mecum est in mensa. But yet see, the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the table. As if he had said: You see what love I show to you by giving mine own body to be eaten, mine own blood to be drunken in this my last supper, this only grieveth me, that a very devil doth eat & drink these precious gifts together with me and you. Except our new brethren will say judas to have been a good faithful man, I see not but they must confess, that evil men may have the body and blood of Christ delivered to them. Which thing S. Paul most evidently confirmeth of all evil 1. Cor. 1●… Christians, saying: Therefore who so ever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shallbe guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Doth not he that speaketh of un Unworthy eating presupposeth 〈◊〉 eating. worthy eating, confess a true eating? True, I say, in nature of the thing eaten, but unworthy concerning the effect of grace ensuring. And yet do not evil men, who receive the body of Christ unworthily, eat really the same body? It is written in the book of the Maccabees, that King Antiochus Machab. li. 2. ca 5. having slain four score thousand, within three days, entered also into the holy Temple. Et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa, contrectabat indign & contaminabat. And taking in his ●…andling 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 handling. wicked hands the holy vessels, he handled or touched them unworthily and defiled them. I ask whether it doth not follow: Antiochus touched unworthily the holy vessels, therefore he touched the holy vessels? If that argument be good, it is like to say; an evil man doth eat the body of Christ unworthily, therefore he doth eat the body of Christ. Or did not Adam and 〈◊〉 eat of the ●…uit of the tree, because they did eat the same against the commandment Gene. 3. of God? For these defenders seem to make an unworthy eating no eating. Whereas if it were no eating, it were An unworthy ea ●…ng is an 〈◊〉. not an unworthy eating. Perhaps they will say, S. Paul writeth not that sinners & wicked men eat the body of Christ unworthily, but that they eat this bread unworthily. verily S. Paul speaketh not of bakers bread in the place. But having showed that Christ taking bread after thanks given, 1. Cor. 11 said: This is my body, strait he inferreth that, as often as this bread is eaten, the death of Christ is showed, & therefore who so eateth this bread unworthily, he shallbe guilty of the body of our Lord. This bread is one certain kind of meat or food (for so Bread is tak●… in holy scripture for all the which is eaten. bread in the holy scripture doth signify) which food before was declared to be the body of Christ. And S. Paul doth so warily describe this kind of bread, that he putteth both an article and a pronoun to it, saying. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As if it were said in English, who so eateth unworthily The grek article & the pronoun make plam the words of S. Paul Matt. 26. this certain kind of bread: For so the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth ●… certain bread spoken of before. But than followeth beside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most vehemently restraineth that certain bread to this kind of bread & food which Christ gave at his last supper, saying, take and eat, this is my body. So that S. Paul by (bread) meaneth a thing eaten: By (the bread) a certain known thing eaten: By (this bread) one certain kind of thing eaten, which a little before was declared to be the body of Christ. Who so ever eatet●… this kind of bread unworthily, he is guilty of the body of Christ. Why so? Because he eateth the body of Christ unworthily. oth●…wise by eating he can not be guilty of that body, which he doth not eat. But hereof we shall say more upon S. Paul. Thus now I reason out of the holy gospel. That thing where of Christ said to the twelve; take and eat, and drink, was taken This, can not be spoken of two things. & eaten & drunken of all the twelve, that was one thing only concerning the eating, & one thing only concerning the drinking, that is to say, the body of Christ, & the blood of Christ. For he said, This is my body. (This) truly is but one thing, which Peter, john, james, & likewise August. in loan. tracta. 50 Peter and judas took of one bread. Lucae. 22. judas did eat. If judas did not eat this, he did eat nothing of Christ's supper. But Christ complaineth at his own last supper, that his betrayer had his hand on the table with him. He did therefore eat somewhat: And consequently this one thing, which was only at Christ's supper given to be eaten. But this (one thing) is my body (sayeth Christ) therefore judas did eat Christ's body. This, can mean but one thing, which all the ●…postles did take a ●…ke If that argument be not plain enough, take an other. judas and john did eat one thing. Each of them that food, whereof Christ said, This is my body, But S. john, by the confession of the Apology did truly eat Christ's body, because, I suppose, the Apology doth take S. john for a faithful man: Therefore judas did truly eat the same body. As truly, as really, did judas eat the body of Christ, as S. john, but not so worthily. Or made Christ in his supper two gifts? Did he deliver one thing Christ made but one gift of his ●…ody. to S. john, an other to judas? What gospel teacheth that? said not Christ, This? Is not This the singular number? Is it not one certain thing? (This) was delivered to all twelve, and to every of them. (This) was eaten of all twelve, and of every of them. Therefore seeing (this) was to S. john the body of Christ, (as the Apology confesseth it was, as also to all others that do believe) likewise (this) was to judas the body of Christ, and to all others that receive at Christ's table. If judas did not eat the body, neither any o there co●…ld eat it. What jugglers be these, that of one certain thing whereof Christ said, This is my body, do make the true body to john, and not the true body to judas? If they say, that (this) doth nor point to the body of Christ, but to Baker's bread: then how doth S. john by eating this, eat the body of Christ? S. john eateth that same thing which Christ delivereth to judas. But you say Christ delivereth Baker's bread, and none other thing to judas: Therefore S. john though he believe never so well, yet by eating (this) he doth not eat any thing beside Baker's bread, and so he doth not eat the body of Christ. More than Christ delivereth him, he can not eat at the supper of our Lord. But Christ giving (this) delivereth bread to judas, and not his body, as you say. Then how can S. John by eating (this) eat the body of Christ? You will say: S. John may eat it by faith. Yea Sir, but that is not the eating (this) whereof Christ spoke. Here again I press you with the word of God. The eating whereof Christ spoke in his supper, was an eating The eating in Christ's supper was bodily. by body. It was such an eating as agreed with the giving of Christ, and with the taking of the Disciples. But Christ gave with his hands, they took with their hands, and they did eat by the mean of their tongues, teeth, and mouths. Therefore the eating and drinking whereof Christ said: take and eat & drink, was an eating and drinking by body, albeit the end of that banquet was to feed also the soul by that bodily food. The end, I say, intended on Christ's part. But you can not out of that outward precept of eating and drinking, deduce an eating and drinking of the body and blood an other way, that is to wit, by faith and spirit only. If you can, it must needs follow, that judas did eat and drink the body and blood of Christ by faith and spirit also. For as it is said: Bibite ex hoc omnes, drink ye all of this: so Mat. 26▪ Mar. 14. it is said, Biberu●…t ex illo omnes, they all drank of that. If the precept be fulfilled: such as the precept is, such the fulfilling is. If Christ by saying, drink, did will them to drink wine in their mouths, and his blood in spirit only: Then they whom the gospel ●…heweth to have drunken, did also drink wine in their mouths and his blood in spirit. Or will you take in the history of the same drink 〈◊〉 all of this and they all drank must needs be said of one thing. supper Bibite otherwise, then biberunt? Is not drink ye, said of the same thing, whereof it is said, They drank? Now then either John drank not truly (according to the precept given in the supper) the blood of Christ, or judas drank also the blood of Christ. For (this) whereof Christ said: drink ye all of this, came as well to judas, as to S. Ihon. Christ said to all: drink ye of this, and they all drank of that. Lo, that which S. John drank, also judas drank, concerning, I say, the drinking of the supper. And the drinking of that thing, which is the substance of the Sacrament of the altar, John truly drank, as ye confess: judas truly drank, as the Gospel teacheth. Wherefore judas drank the same blood, that S. John judas drank the samethig, but not to the same merit. 1. Cor. 10 did. Had judas then as great merit by drinking, as S. John? God forbidden. But judas drank the same thing, as all the children of Israel did eat one, and the same Manna, but not to one and the same merit, as S. Paul hath declared. The merit riseth not of drinking, but of worthy drinking. As Manna tasted better to Sap. 16. the good Israelites, then to the bad: so S. John drank worthily, judas unworthily. S. John had by drinking life everlasting, Augusti. tractat. 50. in Io. Peter took to life, judas to death. judas had by drinking damnation. S. John drank by body & by faith working by charity. judas drank by body alone, with a malicious intent to betray Christ. The good faith of S. John was not the thing, whereby he drank the blood according to the outward precept of Christ in his last supper, but it was the thing whereby and wherewith he Faith was necessary not to the drinking but to the worthy drinking. worthily drank the blood. Did not then Christ will and command his Disciples to come worthily to his supper? yes forsooth, he not only willed them to come worthily, but for his part he offered them grace to come worthily. He not only for his part was ready to ●…euse their souls, but in token thereof washed also joan. 13. their bodies: Saying, they were all clean except one, which was Iuda●…. The preparing to have a good faith, to have a good charity, to 1. Cor. 11 examine himself, goeth before the supper: eating by faith and Eating by faith is a 〈◊〉 to worthy 〈◊〉 of y● sacramt. spirit is a thing required to come worthily to the supper. But when we once come thither, we all eat one thing, one meat, one food, one body, whether we come worthily or unworthily, even as all that are sprinkled with water in the name of the Trinity, are baptised in one, and the same Sacrament of baptism, whether It is one bap●…e to good & evil. they be good men as Cornelius was, or ●…uill men as Simon Magus was. For Simon Magus was baptised of Philip the deacon. But as it may appear by that is told in the scriptures, and gathered by the Acto. 2. Simon Magus was bapti ●…ed as well as Cornelius, but not so meritoriously Ephes. 4. Break and Latin Fathers, he came not worthily to that Sacrament, but feignedly, as one that hoped to make gain of his faith. And yet he had that baptism, which (as S. Paul sayeth) is but one. But he had not the virtue of that one baptism, which is the remission of sins. I trust by this time the defenders need not boast of their doctrine, neither upbraid us of ours, because they teach, that only Tit. 3. Acto. 2. good men have the body of Christ delivered to them. And we teach that evil men also eat really the true body of Christ. We have, I suppose, declared the word of God to stand in our side. and seeing their doctrine must be tried by the word of God, I tell them it is tried and sound to be false and forged, except they can prove judas to have been an honest man. For surely that he received the body of Christ, it is the mind of S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, S. Chryso●…om, S. Augustin, S. Leo, S. Bede, Theodoritus, Sedulius, 〈◊〉, Euthymius. yea it is so far the common opinion of all men, that upon that example this▪ conclusion is grounded, that we can not remove 〈◊〉 evil man from the C. Si Sacerd. de off. judi. ordinar. Chryso. hom. 83. in Mat. communion, excepthy order of law we may convince him, Quia nec Christus judam a communione removit: Because Christ did not remove judas from communion. Howbeit we stand not in this doctrine upon the person of judas only, but also upon the general doctrine of S. Paul, who teacheth every evil man to be guilty of the body of Christ, for eating that bread unworthily. ¶ The ancient Fathers teach, that evil men receive The third chapter. truly the body of Christ. YEa but (say they) we do affirm with the most ancient The Apo logie. Fathers, that the body of Christ is eaten of none other, but of Godly and faithful men. Seeing the holy scriptures are proved to stand on our The ans●…e. side, it were great marvel if the ancient Fathers did make for you. They are not wont to be contrary to the word of God. But what a misery is this, what a seducing of the people? The word of God is pretended, the ancient Fathers be named, and not one syllable brought forth out of either both, concerning this question. But as before we brought holy scriptures, so let us now allege the ancient Fathers. Origen sayeth: Those who come to the Eucharist without examining Origines in Psal. 37. Hom. 2. & cleansing themselves, are like to men sick of an ague, who presuming to eat sanorum cibos the meats of whole men, do hurt themselves. Whereby we may perceive, he judgeth the meat of Christ's supper, which is pro●…ded only for whole men, yet to be truly, but not profitab●…y, eaten of them, who are burdened with great sins. Basile asketh, what a man shall say of him, qui otiose et inutiliter Basil. de Bapt. 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 ca vlt. edere audet corpus, et bibere sanguinem Domini nostri jesu Christi? Who dareth in vain and unprofitably eat the body and drink the blood of our Lord jesus Christ? If a man eat in vain and to his disprofit, yet he eateth in deed, and as S. Basile sayeth, he eateth the body of Christ. Chrysost. in joan. Ho. 45. Chrysostom writeth thus: If those which spot the kings purple be no less punished, than those that cut it, what wonder is it, if those who take the body of Christ with an unclean conscience, have the same punishment which they have, who pierced him with nails? Behold as it is one purple still, whether it be spotted or cut, so is it the same body still, whether it be pierced with nails (as the jews haudled it) or taken with an unclean conscience, as evil Christians order it. S. Cyprian in manner of purpose answereth those objections Cyprianus de Coena Domini. which might move any man to doubt, how evil men may & do receive so good a thing, as Christ's own body is. The Sacraments (sayeth he) for their part can not be without their proper virtue. Neither doth God's majesty by any means absent itself from the mysteries. But albeit the Sacraments permit them Evil men receive the Sacraments but not the holiness of them. selves to be taken or touched of unworthy men, yet those men can not be partakers of the spirit, whose infidelity or unworthiness withstandeth such holiness. If, by the mind of S. Cyprian, the Sacraments can not lack their own proper virtue, come good men or evil to them, one substance is always given. but the evil can not receive the spirit or grace thereof, because they are unworthy of such a benefit. S. Jerome: Opponis mihi Gomor Mannae unam mensuram: Et nos Christi corpus aequaliter accipimus. Thou layest unto me the one measure of Manna called Gomor, and we take the body of Christ equally. One as well taketh it as an other, but as it there followeth: Pro accipientium meritis diversum fit, quod unum est. According to the merits of them that receive, that which is one, is made diverse. The Sacrament is one in itself, yet to one it is made the cause of goodness when he taketh it worthily, to an other the cause of evil, when he taketh it unworthily. There also S. Jerome sayeth, that judas drank of the same cup, whereof the other Apostles drank, but yet that he was not of the same merit. S. Augustine sayeth: Tolerat ipse Dominus judam, Diabolun, in Epist. 162. furem, & venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos, quod norunt fideles, precium nostrum. Our Lord himself beareth with judas, he su●…th a devil, a thief, and the seller of himself to receive among the innocent Disciples, our price, judas did eat our price, which is the real body of Christ. which the faithful knowe. If any thing, besides that body of Christ, may be our price, then S. Augustine might mean that evil men receive an other thing. But if our price be undoubtedly that body of Christ which by death redeemed us, judas receiving our price received the very true body and substance of Christ. In an other place he writeth: Eundem cibum sanctum alios manducare Contra Crescor. li. 〈◊〉. ca 25 dign, alios indign. Some eat worthily, some unworthily the same holy meat. Behold the meat is the same, Whether the evil receive it or the good. And because the Apology (though it name no Father at all) yet it may have some pretence of certain words which are in S Augustine, it is to be weighed diligently, Christ hath both a natural, and a mystical body. that Christ hath as well a mystical body, as a true natural body. The mystical body of Christ, are his members which are incorporated by grace, & joined to him being their head. This incorporation is wrought by the grace of baptism in one degr●…, and finis●…ed by the Sacrament of the altar in a higher degree, whereof we shall speak hereafter more at large. The natural body of Christis that, which he took of the virgin and gave to death for us. Now Christ in his last supper gave the substance of his natural body to be ●…aten of his disciples, to th' intent they should be made one mystical body, even by eating his flesh & blood. Seeing then the natural body of Christ is given to th●…end we may be nearer knit in the mystical body, (according as S. Paul sayeth, The bread which we break is the communicating of our 1. Cor, 10 Lord's body, because we being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread: Seing I say, we communicate the natural body, to be made a mystical body in a greater unity than we had in baptism, any man of discretion may perceive, that in some Evil men receive not the union which is in the mystical body. August. ●… joan. troth ctat. 26. sense evil men receive not the thing or the effect of the body of Christ, understanding by the effect of body, the unity of the mystis call body, the obtaining whereof is the end of the eating. Which unity S. Augustine sometime calleth Rem ipsam: The thing itself, that is to say, the last effect and benefit which ariseth to us by worthy eating of the Sacrament of the altar. After which sort S. Augustin saith, evil men are not to be said August. de civita te Dei. li. 21. c. 25 to eat the body of Christ, adding thereunto this reason, Quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi: Because they are not to be reckoned among the membres of Christ. So that evil men eat the substance of the natural body, but not the thing for which that substance was given, which is the unite of the body mystical, because they eat not worthily. Whereas worthy eating only maketh them to obtain the unity of the mystical body, which is to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in them. Therefore joan. 6. S. Augustine himself sayeth, Non quocunque modo quisquàm De verb. Domini. Serm. 22. manducaverit carnem Christi, & biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, & in illo Christus, sed certo quodam modo. Not how so ever a man eateth the flesh of Christ, and drinketh the blood of Christ, he abideth in Christ, and Christ in him, but by a certain kind of way. As though S. Augustine said: Every way the flesh and blood of Christ is received in the supper of our Lord, But not every way it is so received, that we may dwell in Christ, and Christ in us. S. Bregorse saith by evil men: Salutis fructum non percipiunt Grego. in prim. reg. li. 2. Cap. 1. in comestione salutaris hostiae. They receive not the fruit of salvation in the eating of the healthful sacrifice. They eat the healthful sacrifice, which surely is nothing else but the natural body of Christ, but the fruit they receive not, as many men take an healthful medicine, but because their bodies be evil affected, it proveth not healthful to them. Beda in Lucae. ca 22. S. Bede, compareth him to judas, who with his sinful members presumeth to violate, Illud inestimabile & inviolabile Domini corpus, That inestimable and inviolable body of our Lord. And how could he violate it with his members, if with no part Arnobius. 1. Cor. 11 of his body he touched it? I omit Arnobius upon that Psalm. 74. S. Ambrose, Theodorite, Decumenius, Haimo, Theophilact, Anselme upon S. Paul, who agree with the rest of the Fathers Every Sacrament hath a substance and an ●…ffect. Evil men receive the substance of Christ's body, but; ●… not the effect. What come parisons the Father's use in showing, that good & evil 〈◊〉 receive one 〈◊〉 in the Sacraments. that there is in every mystery the substance of the Sacrament and the effect thereof. As well the evil as the good receive the substance, which (in our Lord's supper) is the body and blood of Christ. But only the good receive th'effect, Which is the grace of spiritual nourishment to life everlasting, and the union with Christ. Now as we have showed by the holy Scriptures, even so have we proved out of the holy Fathers, that evil men receive the body and blood of Christ as really, as the purple is one still whether it be spotted or cut: as really, as one meat is eaten of some to their hurt, of others to their health: as really, as good and evil jews had all one measure of Manna, but not all one sweetness in ye●…ast thereof: as really as judas did kiss traitorously the same body of Christ which himself (as all evil men) traitorously received at Christ's supper. If now the Apology hath neither Scriptures nor Fathers, it may leave those boasting upbraidings, as though the Catholics fled the tria●… of b●…th Scriptures and Fathers. It is God's cause, we have committed it to God's word. The Fathers when they agree in any one article, are known to have the spirit of Christ, and they bear witness that we have rightly expounded the holy scriptures. He that listeth to see more of the same argument, 〈◊〉 read that which I have written upon that saying of S. Paul: He that eateth this bread unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. ¶ What is the true deliverance of Christ's body The fourth Chapter. and blood. IN the supper there is truly delivered the body and blood of the The Apo logie. Fol. 24. Lord, the flesh of the son of God quickening our souls, The food of immortality, grace, truth, life. In these words no evil doctrine is contained, but all sound The answer. and Catholic. In so much a man would wonder, to what purpose these things are now brought, being extreme contrary to the which the Caluinists defend, saying, they would seem to speak as the holy scriptures and primitive Church hath spoken. Seeing therefore these words contain true doctrine, I will reason briefly out of them, against their opinion that wrote them. You say, The body and blood of the Lord is truly delivered in the su●…per. If it be so, it is truly present. And seeing none other thing can be warrauted The Apo logie by his own confession defendeth the real presence. to have been delivered in the supper, beside that which Christ gave with his own hands, which seemed bread, whereof he said: This is my body, and beside that which seemed wine, where of he said: This is my blood, by the doctrine of the Apology it will follow, that Chris●…es body was delivered truly under that, which seemed bread, and his blood was delivered truly under that which seemed wine. Or tell me: Can 〈◊〉 any man prove out of the word of God, that any other thing was delivered in the supper of Christ, beside two kinds, the one being bread, until Christ had said: This is my body, The other being the cup of wine, until Christ had said: This is my blood? Is there mention made of any other thing truly exhibited, offered, or delivered to the Apostles? Or doth the supper of Christ consist of four kinds? of bread & body, of wine and blood? In what gospel read we of bread and wine delivered? Bread and wine were taken, but body and blood were Matt. 26. only delivered. For Christ said: Take, this is my body. Drink, this is my blood. This, can be but one thing. Therefore Christ delivering that, whereof he said: This and this, delivered at each time but one thing, in all but two things. He delivered his body & blood as himself said, and you confes●…e he truly delivered them, whereupon I conclude, that he delivered neither bread nor wine, and consequently that the bread taken was changed in to the body of Christ, and the wine was changed into his blood. For seeing Christ took both bread and wine, and delivered truly his body and blood, & yet delivered but one thing at each time, and that also keeping the form of bread and wine, it must needs be granted, that the substance of bread and wine which was truly taken, and not truly delivered (because an other thing was truly delivered) was in the mean time truly changed into that body and blood, which was truly delivered. O masters, truth is strong, and by the adversaries own weapon getteth the victory. Again, remember that the name of body and the name of blood A work belonging 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of Christ must have a truth according to the manhood. The 〈◊〉 heresic. are names belonging to the manhood of Christ, to which manhood when you adjoin any act or work which may truly be verified thereof, it must be meant according to that truth, which properly belongeth to the nature of the manhood. When we say, Christ was truly scourged, nailed to the Cross, bound, and buried, it is not here to be understanded, that these things were done in figure, in spirit, in faith: But that his body suffered, according to the flesh, all these things. And he that saith the contrary is an 〈◊〉 which heresy would the manhood of Christ to be changed into his divine nature. If then the body and blood of Christ be truly d●…red, you must not vuderstand a figure only to be d●…red, neither a spiritual d●… only. For if the body of Christ be delivered truly, and yet by spirit only: then the truth of his body is by these men brought unto the truth of a spirit, and the flesh of Christ hath losis his true nature and prop●…. Mark well the reason: when the body of Christ is truly delivered, it is delivered according to the truth of his own nature. The nature of a body is to be d●…d after some bodily manner, verily by hands, or by some other corporail action. And they to The deli●… of a corporal t●…ing must have some ●…t of the body. whom it is del●…red, likewise receive it by some part or sense of their body. For so requireth the true nature of flesh and blood, not immediately to be given to the spirit and soul, but to come to it by mean of the body. Whereof it is inferred, that the body and blood of Christ, which are truly delivered in the supper, are bodily delivered and bodily received. But from the body of Christ who made the d●…ance unto the bodies of the Apo●…es, who received the things delivered, none other thing can ●…syde that which seemed bread and wine: therefore under that foormes the body and blood of Christ were truly cont●…ined, and by the means truly delivered, and truly received. Thirdly when you say, the ●…sh of God quickeneth our souls, you should have said also, that it quickeneth our bodies, as in other places I have proved out of the sixth of S. 〈◊〉, an●… out of S. Jreneus, ●…tullian, Cyrillus, and other ancient Fathers. ¶ what it is which nourisheth us in the supper of The fifth Chapter. Christ▪ ANd that the same supper is the co●…ion of the body The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fol. 24. and blood of Christ, by the partaking whereof we are q●…ned, we are 〈◊〉 and sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That which 〈◊〉 and ●…th can not be 〈◊〉 from The ●…swere. them whom it nourisheth, and when it is cut of their reach, they can not have it before it be given. If then we have in 〈◊〉 the body 〈◊〉 is by 〈◊〉 r●…y pre●…. and blood of Christ, we received it by his gift at his supper. And surely it was the thing whereof he said: Eat, and whereof he said, Drink. Other food was not delivered in Christ's supper, be●… his body and blood: Nor possibly can we have the food of his supper at any other man's table, then at his. Wel. If we be nourished by the meat which Christ gave us Christ gave with 〈◊〉 h●…s the which nour●…sheth. when he said: Eat, and yet we be nourished by his body and blood: undoubtedly he said: Eat, of that which he gave with his hands, and which the Apostles took into their mouths, and that was bread to see unto, therefore under that ●…orme of bread we take the nourishment whereby we are said to immortality. Otherwise, what warrant have we to come by this food, which is clean out of our reach, until God give it saying, Eat, this is my body: Drink, this is my blood? By those words o●…●…ate & one liquor only is given, which also ●…deth us to immortality, as the apology co●…h. But none other food that man may receive bodily, can feed us to immortality, beside the real substance of Christ. therefore that substance is received, & nourisheth us when Christ said: Eat, this is my body: Drink, this is my blood. ¶ The union, which is made by eating Christ's The sixth 〈◊〉. real flesh, must n●…s be a natural union, ●…ore it be a mystical. ANd by the which we are coupled, we are united, and grafted The Apo 〈◊〉. into the body of Christ, that we might ●…well in hin●…, and he in us. Christ's ●…sh is delivered to the end we should be nourished therewith. And the end of nourishing is to make one thing of the The aun●…. which is eaten, and of him that eateth it. The flesh delivered to nourish us, is not any mystical flesh, but only the natural flesh of Christ, neither can it be any other food. For none other thing that co●…th in at the mouth of man, is able to seed him to immortality, beside the substance of Christ's flesh and blood. If then it be the natural flesh which feedeth, and the union do come by seeding: the union must of neces●…ty be made with the natural flesh of Christ. And because that is such a flesh, as joan. 1. being united to God, hath power to give life and ●…mortality: out of the natural union which is made with it by eating, an other spiritual and mystical union floweth, which maketh all the members of Christ to be one mystical body. So that we have now fi●…e degrees. First, the flesh of Christ is The de●…s o●… re ●…ing Christ in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supper. delivered to us in his supper. Next, we eat the same flesh. Thirdly, we are fed by it, if we eat it worthily. Fourthly, of the feeding conuneth a real and natural union and joining with Christ's flesh, as S. Hilary teacheth, and other ancient Fathers. Of that natural union proceedeth a spiritual union with Hilarius de trinit. li. 8. the whole body of the Church. Because being made one with Christ's flesh, we are united thereby to his spirit and Godhead, living for him, as he ●…th for his Father: whereof I will speak joan. 6 more hereafter. The Apology acknowledgeth a joining with Christ by eating. But it surely meaneth the last spiritual joining, which ariseth of the other natural union. Whereas that spiritual joining doth ●…ude the other natural, as every effect presupposeth the necessary cause thereof. We are coupled to Christ by eating that flesh of his, which he delivereth to us. But Christ delivereth it not only spiritually, but also with his hands, saying: Take, eat, this is Math 26 my body. As therefore the delivery is real and not only spiritual, so is the eating real, and the coupling real. I have proved this thing in other places following. Here it is 〈◊〉 to say this much against the bare words of the Apology. ¶ That the Apology speaking of the Lords supper, The seven th' chapter goeth clean from the word of God. WE do acknowledge the Eucharist or the lords supper The Apo log●…. to be a Sacrament, that is to say, an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the body and blood of Christ. Besides the former va●…t of the word of God already brought The answer. forth to the reproach of the Catholics, also the Apology a●…tle before these words witnessed, that the auctors & ab●…tours thereof gave thanks to God for the light of the Gospel raised to them, The ●…or des of the Aplogie. which they might always have before their eyes, as a most certain rule, to which all doctrine of the Church aught to be called for his trial. And within less than 〈◊〉 lines after, the same Apology cometh to deny our Lord's supper, calling it a Sacrament, that is to say, an 〈◊〉 token of the body and blood of Christ. The scrip 〈◊〉 call not the supper of 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉. joan. 6. The na●… of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What m●…ers? Hau●… you in the holy Scriptures, that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament or a sign of the body and blood of Christ? From the beginning of 〈◊〉 to the later end of though ●…ocalips, you find ●…t our lords supper so called. Christ in S. 〈◊〉 calleth it y● m●…e which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not, but 〈◊〉 into l●…e 〈◊〉. He saith, the bread which he will 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he will 〈◊〉 ●…or y●●…se of the world. He 〈◊〉 it the 〈◊〉 and the blood of the son of man, meat in deed, and drink in deed, his flesh and his blood, the eating of him, the bread which who so eateth shall live for ever. In S. Matthew, and in S. Mark, Matt 26. Marc. 14 Lucae. 22. 1. Cor, 10 his body and his blood of the new testament. In S. Luke, his body which is given for us, and the chalice which is the new testament in his blood, which is shed for us. In S. Paul, the bread which we break is the communicating of our Lord's body, the chalice of blessing which we bless, which is the communicating (or partaking) of Christ's blood; the one bread, the table of our Lord, and the chalice of our Lord, the body which is broken for us, the chalice which is the new Testament of his blood, the eating of 1. Cor. 11 this bread, and drinking of this chalice. So many names are given in so many places of holy scripture to this blessed Sacrament, and it being no where called a sign or token, yet the Apology which thanketh God for the holy scriptures, a●…d will try all doctrine by them, in the chief question of The Apo logie goeth quite from the scriptures our age, goeth quite from all holy scriptures and sayeth, the Eucharist or the lords supper is an evident token of the body and blood of Christ. What is the matter that in words you make so much of holy scripture, and in deed so little? What Apostle, what Evangelist, what Prophet, or Patriarch taught our lords supper to be a sign or token? S. Paul threateneth damnation to him, who unworthily eateth 1. Cor. 11. it, and he calleth unworthy eating, not only the contempt thereof or lack of faith, but even the omitting to prove or examine What unworthy ea thing to in S. Paul himself, before he eat our Lord's body. And that because he maketh no difference betwixt it and common meats. And come you with a new doctrine, affirming that we receive not our Lord's body into our bodies, but an evident sign and token thereof? you 〈◊〉 no authority, no rule, no trial of matters belonging to faith, but only the holy Scriptures. and immediately ye break The Apo logie break●…th 〈◊〉 own rule. your own rule, in so much as the holy scriptures call the supper of our Lord, his body and blood, and you teach it to be an evident token of his body and blood. If you keep not your own rule, whom can you bind to keep the ●…aine? Ye will ask me perhaps, whether the lords supper be not a Sacrament? if a Sacrament, than also a sign and token. I answer, ye that prescribe rules of believing to the world, ye that will have all things judged and proved by that touchstone of God's word, ye that for pretence of following the gospel, have stirred up so great strife through all Christendom, must not talk with us with if, with and, with conditions and peradventures. But ye must bring forth the word of God for that ye say. Although the supper of our Lord were never so much a Sacrament, The s●…pper of our Lord to ●…res is no ●…acramet. surely to you it were none, because ye cannot prove out of the word of God, where it is so named. To us it is both a Sacrament and a sacrifice. A Sacrament, because we are so taught by tradiction from the Apostles: A sacrifice because Malachi the prophet in the person of God expressly saith In omni loco sacrificatur & offertur nomini meo oblatio munda▪ Malac. 1. quia magnum est nomen meum in gentibus. In every place a clean oblation is sacrificed and offered to my name, because my name is The supper of Christ is a ●…acrifice. great among the gentiles. There is absolutely no pure and clean oblation besides the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, which was offered to death not in every place, but without the gate of Jerusalem alone, and the same is at this day unbloodily offered Heb. 13. in the mass in every place, where so ever among the gentiles the name of God is 〈◊〉 called upon. Thus both we and you may prove the ●…upper of our Lord to be a sacrifice, but that it is a 〈◊〉▪ we can prove, because our forefathers delivered such a doctrine to us: You can not It is a tradition unwritten that our Lord's su●…per is a Sacrament. The Apo logie. Fol. 24. ●…a. 8. pa. 1 prove the same, seeing you will not be bound to follow unwritten traditions. If you flee to the Church for naming it a Sacrament, the church hath seven Sacraments. But ye in this present Apology acknowledge only two, properly to be reckoned under the name. for so many (say you) do we find delivered and sanctified by Christ, and allowed of the old fathers Ambrose and Augustine. Concerning the delivery of Sacraments by Christ, ye might have found in the word of God Confirmation. Actor. 8. Penance, joan. 20. Extreme unction, jacob. 5. Priesthood. Luk. 22. Matrimony, Eph. 5. And not only Baptim and the Eucharist. But what kind of talk is this, to say, that S. Ambrose and S. Augustine allow that works of Christ? was not the delivery and consecration of Christ of suffic●…ent authority, except Ambrose and Augustine had approved it? I tho●…ght Ambrose and Augustine should have been allowed by the scripture, and not the scripture by them. I stand with you upon the authority of the word of God. prove Nor baptim nor the supper is called a sacrament in the scriptures. me thence, that these two are Sacraments alone, yea prove, that they are so named at all. what gospel calleth baptism a Sacrament? What holy write nameth the supper of our Lord a Sacrament? dare you give these things a name, which is not in the word of God? What warrant have you for that deed? you will say, Ambrose and Augustine call them so. I reply, Peter and Paul do not call them so. At other times and with other men, I will stay upon the authority of Ambrose and Augustine ', whom as I ought to do, I reverence for men of excellent virtue and learning. But yet they were men (as you are wont to say) they might err, they might be deceived. At this time we have appealed chief to the holy scriptures, and out of them we must ground all our talk, and next unto them, we will hear what the Fathers say. I say, that neither the old testament, nor the new calleth the supper of our lord, a Sacrament. Therefore the Apology that so calleth it, goeth from the assurance of the word of God, to the good and ●…audable inventions and traditions of men, which themselves 〈◊〉, when they lilte. And yet the said Apology so calleth it a Sacrament, that upon The word Sacrament is the ground o●… 〈◊〉 y●●…ro testars ●…o 〈◊〉 in our lords supper. that only word the authors thereof ground all their doctrine. Thence it hath to be a sign, to be a token, to be a badge, a seal, a pattern, a counterpa●…e. Thence all the figurative doctrine riseth. Thence it cometh, that the real body and blood of Christ is denied to be under the forms of bread and wine. Shall now so much as Christ hath plainly spoken of his body and blood, so much as his Apostles and disciples have preached and written in that behalf, shall now all this be overthrown The Apo logie fleeth from the written wor●… to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by an unwritten verity? Are these the men o●… God who f●…ee from S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. john, S. Paul, to Augustine and Ambrose? Will the Apology allow that deed? If it will not, why hath it done so itself? If none but prophets and Apostles had written, where had they found two Sacraments? where had they readen, that the supper of our Lord is a sign and token? They make much a do about the word of God, till they have gotten credit among the ignorant, and then they quite lead them from all the word of God. To you I speak, good Christian readers, that have the true love of the word of God 〈◊〉 in your hearts, to you I speak. give not over S. Ma●…hew, S. john, S. Paul, for Ambro●…e and Augus●…ine. 〈◊〉 not over Christ, who is God and man, to have the opinion of what s●… ever ●…ottor and Father in causes of belief. Some men in comparison of others be of great authority. But in comparison o●… God, all men be nothing at all. God saith, this is my body. Now what so ever man or angel No man is to be heard who saith: This is not the body of Christ. Gal. 5. Ephe 5. from heaven tell you, this is not the body of Christ but only a figure of it, believe him not, but let him be ●…cursed to you. Shall we not be well occupied, if we leave the plain word of God and come to see whether Ambrose and Augustine teach two Sacraments, or more than twain? S. Paul teacheth Matrimony to be a Sacrament. And yet shall we go from him to Ambrose and Augustine, to see whether it be one or no? Was ever such a vile practice heard of, as to brag of scriptures, to boast of holy write, to cry upon us for coming to the word of God, and now that we are come thither, to call us from all Prophets and Apostles, yea from Christ himself, to Ambrose and The Apo logi●… brin g●…th v●… from the holy Scripture to the Fathers. Augustine? Is this the way to the holy scriptures? Can this fault be excused? Can this hypocrisy be tolerated? To win to you the itching ears of the inconstant multitude, to get you the applause of licentious libertines in the pulpit, you call to the word of God, and when you have gotten them within your nets, you teach them out of Ambrose and Augustine. Yea, would God ye did so at the least. And although it be a little out of my way, (if to detect falsehood can ever be out of a man's way) yet what if now we prove that ye deceive them also, by fathering that upon Ambrose and Augustine, which they never wrote 〈◊〉 thought? ¶ That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more The eight chapter. than two Sacraments. Do they teach but two Sacraments only? What if they taught two especially, yet if they do not deny the other, your proof is none. But let us see. Do they approve no more than twain? What if besides these twain which you have named, I bring within the compass of one chapter. two more out of S. Augustin as plainly named of him, as possibly can be? Where then will this Apology re●…t? Bonum igitur nuptiarum per omnes gentes atque omnes homines Aug. d●… bono conjugal. ca 24. in causa generandi est, & in fide castitatis. quòd autem ad populum Dei pertinet, etiam in sancti tate Sacramenti, & caet. The good (sayeth S. Augustine) which riseth of marriage through all nations, and all men, consisteth in the cause of begetting (children) and in the faith of chastity. And in so much as appertaineth to the Marriage among Christians is a Sacrament. people of God, it consisteth also in the holiness of the Sacrament, through which it is unlawful (yea though divorce come between) to marry an other, whiles her husband liveth, not so much as for the very cause of bringing forth of children, which though alone it be the cause why marriages are made, yet the band of marriage is not loosed (unless the husband die) albeit the thing follow not, for which the marriage is made. Much like, as if to bring the people Priesth●… is a Sacrament. together, some of the clergy should be ordered (or consecrated with holy orders) for although the meeting of the people do not ensue, yet Sacramentum ordinationis, the Sacrament of giving orders abideth, in them that be ordered. And if for any fault The substance of the Sacrament tarrieth in an e●…ill priest removed from his office. any man be removed from the office, he shall not lack the Sacrament of our Lord, which is once put upon him, although it remain to his damnation. In these words S. Augustine hath showed, that among Christian men there are two other Sacraments, of Priesthood & of Matrimony, besides baptism and the Eucharist. And each of them so great and so strong, that they can not be loosed and taken away but only by death of the party, although the chief cause ●…asse why the Sacrament was given. I could bring if need were an other notable place out of S. Augu. eon troth Don. li. 5. c. 20 Ambros. lib. 1. de Paenit. cap. 7. Augustine, where he nameth together, the water of baptim, oil, the Eucharist, and the imposition of hands. S. Ambrose like wise confesseth more Sacraments than Baptim and the Eucharist: Cur baptizatis, si per hominem peccata dimitti non licet? In baptismo utique remissio peccatorum omnium est. Quid interest utrum per paenitentiam, an per lavacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacerdotes vendicent? unum in utroque mysterium est. Sed dices, quia in lavacro operatur mysteriorum gratia. Quid in paenitentia? Nun Dei nomen operatur? Why art thou baptised if it be not lawful sins to be forgiven by man? Truly in Baptim there is forgiveness of all sins. What skilleth it whether Priests challenge this right (of forgiving sins) to be given them by penance, or by baptim? The mystery or Sacrament is one in both. But thou wilt say: that in Baptim the grace o●… the mysteries worketh. What in Penance? doth not the name of God work? Here is the same virtue and name of a mystery or Sacra meant given to Penance, which is given to Baptim. Whereby S. Ambrose taught as well that there was a Sacrament of Penance, as the Apology granteth one of Baptim. But to stand about the proof of all the seven Sacraments it Seven Sacram●…ts were pro●… 〈◊〉 the Greeks & Latins in the Council of F●…orence needeth not, sith in that most notable general Council gathered both of Greeks and Latins at Florence, all the seven Sacraments were according to the word of God confessed, proved, declared and expounded, as in the end thereof it may appear. But neither S. Ambrose, nor S. Augustine had the charge committed to them, to reckon up how many Sacraments there are. I brought these few places out of S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose to show as it were to the eyes of all them that will not wilfully blind themselves, how these defenders cry out upon the word of God, until they have with sweet words won ●…anour Heretics e●…eme neither scriptures nor Fathe●…s. among the miserable number ●…f those unstable me●…, that always hearken for news. But when they have them fast, then is the word of God clean forgotten, and in side of it, Ambrose and Augusti●…e are captiously and falsely alleged. For the truth is, they that set nought by the word of God, can not long es●…me Ambrose and Augustine, who with all their hearts embraced the word of God, and expounded the same according to the ancient tradition of holy Church. To what end then doth this Apology run? Truly to set The Apo logie pretendeth scriptures till it may set up an idol of his own. up an Idol of their own making, in place of the word of God. To set up, I say, a fantastical religion of their own devising. But if they should cry to the people: Come, come, bow down to the Idol that we have devised for you: the people would not come, as being feared with the infamous name of an Idol. Therefore they say, come to the word of God, come to the holy Scriptures, come to the true gospel of jesus Christ. well Sir, you say herein exceeding well, we are come. Teach us the word of God, the Scriptures, the gospel. Say on a God's name. ¶ That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament The ninth chapter. of all, but not acknowledged of the Apology, according to the word of God. WE say, that Eucharistia, the supper of the Lord, is a The Apo logie. Sacrament, that is to wit, an evident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is most true, that the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament, The answer. The supper of our Lord is a sacrament Dion. de Ec. Hier. cap. 3. Maxim. in schol. Graecis. yea it is the chief Sacrament of all Sacraments. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Est enim, secundum clarissimi praeceptoris nostri sententiam, Sacramentorun Sacramentum. The most holy Eucharist (which Dyonisius named so a little before) according to the mind of our renowned master, is the Sacrament of Sacraments. Although Dionysius had S. Paul to his master, yet he meaneth at this time (as upon him Maximus hath noted, & by other places of his work it may well appear to be true) Hierotheus an holy Father and Disciple of Christ, who in his talk which he was wont to have with Dyonisius, did use to call the holy E●…charist of all the Sacraments the chief Sacrament. Surely i●… there had been but two Sacraments, both Hierotheus & Dyonisius ●…sius acknowledgeth more Sacraments than twain. had abused their words. For where two things only are of one degree, there one may be worthier than the other, but neither of the twaives may justly be called the chief of the others. If in all there be only two Sacraments, baptism & the Eucharist, how is the Eucharist the Sacrament of Sacraments? sith when one is taken away, there doth remain but one more, to which relation may be made. The opinion therefore of this Apology standing, the Eucharist may be the more chief Sacrament of t●…e twain, but not the Sacrament of more Sacraments. But what need we stand hereupon, seeing Dionysius hath at Ca 4. 5. 6. de Ecclesiast. Hierar●…hia. large prosecuted more Sacraments than baptism and the Eucharist, as it is easy to see in his works? Seeing then the supper of our Lord is a Sacrament, and yet not found so to be named in holy Scripture, the Apology is constrained to believe itself, and to teach others somewhat which is The Apo logie is con strained to believe many verities unwritten. not readen in holy Scripture. Again that every Sacrament is a sign and token, it is also true, but not readen in holy Scripture. Thirdly the Sacrament of the altar is an evident token of the body and blood of Christ. But so much is not expressed in holy Scripture. Last of all, the supper of our Lord is the real body & blood of joan. 6. Matt. 26. Mark. 14 Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 10. &. 11. Christ himself. And that truth is very plainly, very oft, very earnestly said, taught, repeated in holy Scripture. Four things are now verified of the supper of our Lord. It is a Sacrament, it is consequently a holy sign. It is an evident token of the body and blood of Christ. It is the truth and substance of the body and blood of Christ. Of the four truths, the last only is expressed in holy scriptures because it is the ground of all the other. The three first are taught by the Church not contrary to the scripture, but over and beside it. Now mark well whether these defenders lead us to the word of God or no. In describing the supper of our Lord, they put the three first verities, of which never a one is named in the scripture. And the last verity which is expressly named in all the four Evangelists and in S. Paul (as before I have declared) that they utterly The apology skippeth the written ve●…. 〈◊〉 a●…d leave out: As if they should say, we make much a●… to pretend the holy scriptures, but we will be sure to bring any thi●…g sooner than the holy scriptures. Mark this Apology who shall, he never lightly saw any book written in so many matters of divinity, wherein so little scripture The Apo logie is full o●… gloss but not of scriptures. hath been alleged. It is full of gloss, but the text it hath very seldom. And why? They love not in deed the scriptures, they know not the scriptures according to the mind of the holy Ghost, but only make a show of them to entangle the sunple in their snares. The supper of our Lord is a sacrament, a holy sign, an evident token of the body and blood of Christ. hitherto they teach without Math. 26 Heretics love not the gospel. scriptures. It is the body and blood itself of jesus Christ. Hereof speak they at this time never a word, because it is in the Gospel which they love not. If this last truth can not stand with the first, what doubt is there, but the word of God must overcome, and the doctrine of men g●…ue place? If therefore the supper of our Lord ma●…e both be the sign of the body, and the body itself, it is well, we are thoroughly agreed, for all sc●…iptures call it the body, and some doctors call it a sign, But if these things can not both be true together, awase with signs, away with tokens, let the word of Matt. 26. God be heard, which saith: This is m●… body, This is my blood. Is it reason we obey men, or God? If both stand in one degree, Actor. 5. men keeping themselves under God, let both be obeyed. But if men draw from God, he is more worth alone, than all the men of the world. What 〈◊〉 we now? Will the sig●…e of the body and the body it sel●…e stand together or no? If not, let the sign of the body (which is not in scripture) give place, let the body itself which is often times found there, tarry still. If the sign and the truth can not stand together, the Sacramentaries must needs be condemned, who deny the truth which is in the scripture, and prefer the sign before it, which is not in the scripture. If the sign & truth do both stand together, the Sacramentaries Every way the Sacramen 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉. (unless they repent) be condemned, because they deny the one part of y● twain. For they deny the true presence of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. In what case stand these defenders, which still be in state of damnation, whatsoever be concluded true. We verily teach and believe the figure and the truth to stand together: the supper of our Lord to be the sign of Christ's body, and to be his own body. The weaker part is the sign, the greater The fig●…re and the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. is the truth. But both do not only stand together in one Sacrament, but futhermore, the true nature of every Sacrament of Christ is to have both: that is ●…aie, to have ove certain truth, & one certain sign of the same truth. The truth is hidden under the sign, the sign is witness of the truth. Which thing once being declared, you shall see the vain doctrine of this Apology, & with what kind of worthy School●… the English Church is now governed, to the great 〈◊〉 and destruction of Christian souls. Pardon me, good reader, if I stand somewhat long upon the name of a Sacrament, for in that word lieth hidden all the poison of the sacramentary doctrine. ¶ That the supper of our Lord is both the sign of The. x. Chapter. Christ's body, and also his true body, even as it is a Sacrament. Give diligent care (good Reader) to the doctrine following. Because as it is most true and profitable, so is it somewhat hard. I will show that such a sign as belongeth to Christ's institution, must needs have the same truth present, whereof it is the Sacrament, or holy sign. joan. 1. Christ hath two natures in one person. Galat. 3. 1. Tim. 2. The natural son of God took natural flesh of the virgin Marie, to th'intent he being o●…e person and there in having his human nature common with men, and his divine common with God, might by that means reconcile man to God again. His divine person stayed in it the nature of man, his manhood partly covered the divine nature, from the eyes of mortal men: partly by marvelous signs and works showed the same to the faith 1. joan. 5. &. 10. of 〈◊〉 men. Li●…ewise man consisteth of two parts, of a soul invisible, and Man consisteth of two parts of a visible body. The soul ruleth and governeth the body. And the body showeth to others by outward tokens, what the soul thinketh and inwardly worketh. Christ therefore intending to leave certain holy mysteries unto his Church, thereby to 〈◊〉 to her the fruit of his passion and death: as well for regard of his own self, in whose person The Sacraments consist of 〈◊〉 parts. two natures were united, as for regard of us who consist of body and soul, made the said holy Sacraments to be of a double sort and nature, so that the one part thereof might appear to the senses, the other should lie privy and only be seen by faith. But as the outward works and doctrine of Christ were undoubted testimonies of the inward Godhead really present, so the outward sign, which is in the Sacraments, is a most evident witness of the inward grace which they work really present in them. A●…ter this sort Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, joan. 3. that we might be newly borne and regenerated of water and of the holy Ghost, as himself said to 〈◊〉. For the outward washing of the body in the na●…e of the Trinity, is an evident Mat. 28. sign that the holy Ghost at the same instant by the mean of the word and water, inwardly washeth the soul from sin. Therefore S. Paul sayeth: God hath saved us by the washing of water, Tit. 3. and of the renewing of the holy Ghost. The which holy scriptures S. Augustine embracing, sayeth: Aqua exhibens forinsecus In ep. 23. ad Bonifacium. Sacramentum gratiae, & spiritus operans intrinsecus beneficium gratiae regenerate hominem in uno Christo, ex uno Adam generatum. Water giving outwardly the Sacrament (or holy sign) of grace, and the holy Ghost working inwardly the benefit of grace, begetteth man again in one Christ, which was begotten of one Adam. Water is the outward sign. Grace is the inward benefit. The outward water which washeth the body, is the sign of the inward grace which is wrought upon the sou●…e. Here thou seest, good Reader, the sign of a thing, and the thing itself to agree so The sign and thing signified stand toge ther. well, that the one is always depending of the other. Much less doth one of them hinder the other. Except any man will say, that Christ was not God in deed, because his works were tokens & signs of his Godhead, which were a detestable saying. Likewise the supper of Christ is both a sign of his body, & also his true body, A sign outwardly & the true body inwardly. A sign by the sound of words when it is first made, & a truth by the inward working of the holy Ghost, by the means of the words of the censecration. For as when the Priest sp●…inkleth or dippeth the child in water, Mat. 28. saying: 〈◊〉 wass he thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: At the same moment the holy Ghost washeth the soul of the person baptised: Right so, when Christ, or any lawful Priest in his name, taking bread, & bles●…ing duly sayeth: Mat. 26▪ Marc 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 This is my body, making in those words an evident token of his body ●…eally present, at the same instant the holy Ghost worketh inwardly the true substance of Jesus Christ really present under the form of bread. The outward pronouncing of the words over bread and wine, is the Sacrament or holy sign that maketh and showeth Christ's body, and the inward meaning of the substance of bread into Christ's real body, is the grace which is at the same time inuis●…bly wrought. Thus in holy Scripture the sign of body, and the true body stand so wel●… together, that both are true, because one is true. The which doctrine S. Chrisostom confessing, writeth: Sacerdotis Homil. de judae proditio ne. oreverba proferuntur: Et Dei virtute proposita consecrantur & gratia. Hoc est (ait) corpus meum, hoc verbo proposita consecrantur. The words are pronounced by the Priest's mouth. And the things set forth are consecrated by the virtue and grace of God. This (sayeth he) is my body. With this word the things which are set forth are consecrated. Who seeth not here the visible Sacrament, and the thing or in●…isible grace of the Sacrament? The Sacrament is the due pronouncing of the words over bread o●… wine. As for example, taking bread, I say, in Christ's person, This is my body. The words naturally have their known signification as other words of other things have. Which who so hea●…eth spoken or perceiveth to be spoken, can tell what they mean and signify. Neither can it be denied but they betoken the being or substance of Christ's body. That natural betokening of theirs alone without the matter of bread and wine present, should not be a Sacrament, that is to say, an evident sign and token of a holy thing. But when those words are spoken over bread by a Priest (as Christ appointed them to be spoken) then by his institution they are a Sacrament, to wit, an evident token of a holy thing. Now as God and Christ can not lie, so they do not institute Christ c●… not insti●… a false sign. a false sign and token. If the token be true, and it be the token of Christ's body present, that thing which it betokeneth by the institution of Christ, must needs be not only true, but also present, if it be so betokened. ¶ What sign must chief be respected in the Sacrament The. xi. chapter. of Christ's supper. And what a Sacrament is. IAm not ignorant that in the Sacrament of the altar, diverse diverse sign●…s are in y● Eu●…. kinds of signs & tokens are found. † 1. some be tokens of the making and consecrating the Eucharist: † 2. others of it being now consecrated and made, until the outward signs be consumed: † 3. a signification also of the Church of Christ is gathered out 〈◊〉 it now made and consecrated. † 4. Yea the very eating is again a sign of a marvelous banquet in the life to come. † 1. The first sign of all is the sign of consecrating our Lords supper, and it is the words duly spoken by a Priest over bread and The Words of ●…tion ar●… the first sign. 〈◊〉, which both betoken the making of Christ's body & blood, and make it in deed. † 2. The sign of the Eucharist now made, is the form of bread and wine. But this later sign presupposeth the first sign and token. For except it had been said over the bread and wine: This is my body, and this is my blood, the forms of bread and wine could not betoken the real body and blood of Christ under them. For not wheresoever we see such forms, we do there believe the body and blood to be, except we think the words of consecration to have been spoken over them. We now speak of that first sign and token, which both signifieth and maketh the Sacrament. Wherein Christ would that to be wrought invisibly, which the words do signify to our cares, and whic●…, the doing showeth to our eyes. A man is able to institute a token of the truth, but not always able to make present the truth of the token: As when he leaveth a ring in token of him himsel●…e, not being able to leave his own substance in the same ring, or under the form of it. But Christ as he is both God and man, so he leaneth both an Christ's took hath in it, the truth 〈◊〉. outward token according to his hu●…ane nature, and worketh an inward truth of the same token, according to his divine allnughtynes. The outward token is called the Sacrament, the truth thereof is called the thing of the Sacrament. Christ intending to show to the people that his Father always heareth him, sayeth: Father I thank the because thou hast joan. 11. heard me. These words betoken a thanksull heart. Wheresore if in ●…ede the heart be thankful, they are a Sacrament or holy sign because they betoken a most holy sacrifice of thankigeving. But if in deed the heart give no thanks, they are a false token, & therefore 1. joan. 5. please not God, who is truth and loveth nothing but truth. Upon this ground of holy scriptures and of learned Fathers, What a Sa●…rament is. the definition of a Sacrament is agre●…d ●…pon by all diuin●…s, taken specially on't of S. Augustine, as 〈◊〉 doth 〈◊〉, in these words. Sacramentum est 〈◊〉 gratiae, visi●…ilis forma. De consecratione 〈◊〉. 2. cap.▪ Sa●…. A Sacrament is the visible form of 〈◊〉 grace. whereby 〈◊〉 may perceive a Sacrament to 〈◊〉 o●… two parts. the one is apprehended by faith, whiles the other is outwardly showed to the senses. If we see one baptised in the name of the Trinity, we say, a Christian man was made to day. How prove we that? because the Sacrament, which we saw, telleth us what was wrought inwardly. Therefore seeing Christ hath willed us to say at his holy table Luc. 22. over bread and 〈◊〉 (This is my body and this is my blood) there is no doubt but the very naming of body and blood solemnly commanded, is the comma●…udement to make a holy sign, which is as much to say, as to make a Sacrament. Whereof it followeth, that the same thing is invisibly wrought, which is outwardly signified. Otherwise a Sacrament may be false, it may be of one part alone, it may lack the operation of the holy Ghost. And to be short, it may be made void and of none 〈◊〉. The token and sign sayeth, when bread is present: Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. The pro●…ne Hoc (This) and the verb (est, is) betoken a thing present. The thing spoken of, is the body of Christ. If the body be not made the words make a fall se token. Psal. 58. If this (whereof I speak it) be not made my body here presently, I signify and betoken a false thing. No false signification can be a Sacrament, because rather it is an execration or cursing, wherein au untruth is betokened, from which God abhorreth. The Apology confe●…eth the supper of our Lord to be a Sacrament, and whereas every Sacrament 〈◊〉 of words and things, of which twain the words are the more plain token of the holy thing which is made: seeing the words of Christ's supper are, This is my body, & This is my blood, of necessity there must be a truth of that thing which these words do signify. And for asmuch as they signify the presence of Christ's body, his body must needs be present, where they do signify it to be present. I will exemplify it in an other Sacrament also. Christ at his Facere is to do and make. last supper having said, This is my body which is given for you, said to his Apostles, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Do, and make this thing for the remembrance of me. In these words Christ betokened somewhat, surely that they sho●…ld make and do the thing he spoke of. I ask now, whether he gave in deed power to the Apostles to make and do that thing for the remembrance of him, or no? If in deed he gave them no power, the signification of his words was false, and the token which they make to our ears, untrue. On th' otherside if in deed by that precept Priests have power to make that thing, whereof Christ spoke, than the token was true, and the outward signification of the words agreeth with the inward effect and working of them. For which cause we say, that When the order of Priestho●… was geuè to the Apostles. Christ in those words instituted a Sacrament of holy orders. For he gave unto his Apostles at that time by those words the order of Priesthood. The holy sign of this Sacrament is, the pronouncing of these words. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Make and do this thing for the remembrance of me. The invisible grace wrought therein, is the power which the Apostles took to make the body of Christ. Even so: As soon as these words This is my body, and this is my blood are duly spoken, strait the body and blood is made present. If indeed it be not present, here is no Sacrament at all. Note well what I say, here is no true sign at all, but an hypocritical and fond Imagination of a thing, the truth whereof is not so as the word soundeth, and therefore the sig●…e is false. Neither will it help any thing at all, if one say that Christ spoke figuratively. For a figurative speech can not be an evident token of any thing, except it be such a figure, as through the custom of speech hath now obtained some easy and known 〈◊〉 among all men that use the same language as when by the name of a cup, we mean the drink in it, or by the keys of Lucae. 22. Matt. 16. the Kingdom of heaven we mean authority to bring men to Christ and God, or by opening the mouth we mean speaking, which kind of speech though it be called figurative for some respect, yet in deed it is all one with proper speech, because use and custom maketh every speech proper. Otherwise a very figurative A figurative speech doth not signify till it be understanded. speech signifieth no certain thing, until it be plainly understanded. And consequently no figurative speech can be a Sacrament or a holy sign of an other thing. For a sign is ever plain evident and able to instruct, as being according to the judgement of S. Augustine the thing which besides the show it maketh to August. de doctr. Christ. li. 2. ca 1. our senses, causeth an other thing to come to our knowledge. But a figure not made common by use, is obscure, dark, uncertain, as all riddles be until they are opened. So that if Christ saying, This is my body, had meant (this doth signify my body, and in deed is not so,) truly no Sacrament had been made (as I will show hereafter) because no evident token had been given of any thing. It can not be called an evident token, when I may more truly verify the contradictory then that which is spoken. For if the Sacramentaries teach well, it is a truer token to say, This is not my body: then to say, This is my body. But this is my body, can never signify to me by any figure of ●…hetorike, this is not my body. For doubtless as long as I am not driven to think this is not my body, or to think of an other thing as of trees, stones, water, bread, wine, or any like thing which is clean diverse in nature from Christ's body (which to do after the name of body once heard out of Christ's This is my body either doth signi fie nothing or it signifieth the body of Christ. mouth is almost impossible) so long it may still be a sign to me that it is Christ's body. And seeing it can never come to pass that I hearing Christ say, This is my body, can exclude the thought of his body from my understanding, will I or nill I, (This) will be to me either a falsehood, or it will be the Sacrament or sign of his body. If it be so, then seeing the Sacrament and holy sign must needs be true, the body must likewise be truly present, for so the token doth report. If when I hear Christ say This is my body, I must stand musing and devising, how (is) may be taken unproperly, and signify a certain betokening without a true being, surely because all ignorant men, (study they never so long) are able to conclude no Simple men can not under stand how the sig●…e may ●…e called ●…y the name o●… the thin●…. such thing, for that no such example cometh to their mind, and they are not exercised in scriptures as divines be, thereby it will follow, that Christ's words shall signify one thing, to one man, and an other to an other. To some learned men after some conference they may signify by the way of conjecture the betokening of his body. To others who conjecture that Christ pointed to his own person when he said so, they will sound otherwise. But to the simple and ignorant who can not so put matters together, they will signify always The Apostles were simple men. the real presence of his body. verily the twelve Ap●…tles were very simple, ignorant and (as the scriptures call them) 〈◊〉 without learning, neither was their mind opened to understand the scriptures at the tyme. And yet I dare say they knew Actor. 4. what they did receive: wherefore they took the words of Christ literally as they sounded to them. Now seeing these words (This is my body) signified the body of Christ, it will ensue, that seeing Christ maketh always a true sign, to them it was the truth of Christ's body. Marry to John Caluine who is more deeply learned, and who studieth full sore to If Christ's words have not their first meaning they must sound to diuer●…e men diversly. make and prove Christ a liar, it may well be they will sound otherwise. O Lord to what case are these signs and Sacraments brought, if according to some men they shall sound one way, and to others an other way. And yet the truth of them standeth chief & wholly dependeth upon the sign which they make. As though all other men being able to make their last wills with words plain enough, thou Lord alone hadst neither utterance, nor wit, nor mind, nor remembrance to make a token of thy invisible work. And yet the Apology saith that the Eucharist is an evident token of the body and blood. If the token be evident all men do The Apo logie is con futed by his own saying●…. quickly understand it, why then strive we upon an evident matter? Call women & children to ask of them what token the words of Christ make: I warrant you, they will not say, that (is) doth stand to betoken, nor (body) for figure of body. That kind of tokens is not very evident to them. But in deed the token of Christ's body is evident by his own words, and therefore the truth which he doth betoken to be present, is really present, for as his token is most evident, so is it most true. Christ after his resurrection gave power to his Apostles to forgive and retain sins. This thing was the institution of the Sacrament of Pevance. Let us there see the Sacrament or holy sign of this gi●…t. whose sins ye forgive (sayeth he) they joan. 20. are forgiven them. And whose ye retain, they are retained. 〈◊〉 in those words a sign of remission of sins be instituted, su●…ely when that sign is made by a Priest du●…ly absolving the penitent, his sins are in deed remitted. For look how much the words words must be taken as they commonly sound. do signify to men of common understanding, so much is given by them. How prove I that▪ because so much is signified to be given. And seeing the gift of God which might have been secret, is now so made that the sign and token of it goeth together with the truth thereof, it could give from itself no other token than it hath nature of his own. The token of Christ showeth power of forgiving and retaining sins to be given to the Apostles. Therefore that power is in deed given. I am not ignorant that the Apology (as it denieth this Sacrament of Penance) so it falsefieth the words of Christ, saying The Apo logie falsifieth the words of Christ. that the words whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven, are meant, whose sins ye declare to be forgiven, but thereof we may by God's grace, dispute an other tyme. Now it is enough to show that the word (forgiving) doth not import evidently and at the first sight a declaration of forgiveness, but an actual forgiveness in deed, and a sign thereof. Even as these words This is my body, do import both a sign, and work a true being of the body, and not a sign without a truth. Briefly, it is one thing to consider, what words any other where may signify, and an other thing, to consider what they may signify in a Sacrament. For many words may signify unproperly The chief words of a Sacrament must not be unproper. in other places, but the principal words of a Sacrament can not be unproper. For the nature of the thing doth ly●…itte the interpretation of the words. When Christ maketh a Sacrament, he maketh a thing of a double nature, to wit, a holy thing, and the sign of a holy thing. But the whole is to us known by the sign. For the thing we see not, neither in Baptisine nor in confirmation, nor in the Eucharist, nor in Penance, nor in extreme unction, nor in Priesthood, nor in Matrimony. The thing, the truth, the grace, the inward operation is hid from our eyes, from our ears, & feeling. The sign thereof is sensible and appertaineth to the eyes and ears. Now to say that a plain sign is not made outwardly, it is as much to say, as a plain grace or truth is not made inwardly. Again, if it be not a plain sign, it is dark and obscure, it is doubtful and in controversy. Wherefore it will be inferred that An obscure saying is no sensible sign it rather confoundeth our understanding, then teacheth it. Which being so, it is no visible sign of invisible grace. For surely, be the inward grace what so ever it pleaseth God it shall be, yet one certain being, nature, substance, condition and state it hath, whereof no man is certainly warned, if the words that warn us of it, be not plain. And therefore we have found a Sacrament according to the It is against the nature of an holy sign or sacrament not to signify plain ●…y. Sacramentaries opinion, without a holy sign, a truth without a figure, a certain grace without a certain form, a great mystery without belief or knowledge thereof. A notable institution of a supper i●… men knew, or might know what it were, a thing to be made daily, to be frequented oft, to be eaten and drunken, but what it is, no man is able to prove it plainly. To this point our new ●…es would bring us. That they covet to bring you into this blindness clean contrary to the word of God, I wonder not, they do their ministery, they work their master's inspiration, they practise the de●…ils devices. Antichrist must deny all the mysteries & verities of Christ, Antichrist could not take away the whole faith, if some part 〈◊〉 not called in ●…oubt be●…ore. how could that come to pass if no man went before to bring them in doubt? Suddenly to preua●…le that belongeth only to God, by piece meal, and by little and little, to creep in, that is the work of Satan. They are faithful servants to their Lord. And as long as they serve him, I blame them not, but I exhort them to leave his service, for he is but an evil paimaster in th'▪ end. Marry that other so diligently follow them, that they so carefully strive to maintain the same doctrine, that they by so long experience do not understand whence it cometh, and whereto it hasteneth that is the greater grief. ¶ which argument is more agreeable to the word of God, it is a token of the body, made by Christ, and The. xii. Chapter. therefore not the body, or else, therefore it is the true body of Christ. THe common argument of all the Sacramentaries against the blessed Sacrament of the altar, is thus form. The supper of our Lord is the Sacrament, the sign, the figure, The argument of he ●…es. the pledge, the token, the remembrance of Christ's body, therefore it is not his body in deed. This argument is so good, or rather so bad, that if I should dispute for my life on the contrary side, I would bring the same, to prove the contrary truth. I would say, the supper of our Lord is The supper of our Lord is his body▪ because it is a sign thereof instituted by himself. the Sacrament of Christ's body, the sign, the figure, the pledge, the token, the remembrance thereof, instituted by Christ, therefore it is in deed the body of Christ. Now let us go to the word of God, to try which argument is better. First it is to be noted, that although before the incarnation of Christ, signs were in part empty and void of the truth which they si●…nified, yet now the signs of the new Testament which joan. 1. August. Psal. 73. Christ himself hath instituted, contain the truth which they signi fie, because truth is made by Jesus Christ. And S. Augustiue saith, the Sacraments of the new Testament geue salvation. Again not with standing that Christ left to his Church only seven Sacraments, which it should use according as the nature of everyone, or the profit of men doth require, yet Christ himself made a great number more, not leaving ordinary a●…toritie to us to do the same, but those which himself made in his own dispensation of flesh, & which he left to his Church to be made, be all of one nature. His incarnation, fasting, baptis●…, miracles, transfiguration, passion, resurrection, ascension, were marvelous great 1. Tim. 3. Sacraments. For besides the truth which was wrought in them, they also be tokened an other thing either fulfilled in the old ●…igures and Prophecies, or to be followed of his members, which 1. Pet. 2. should conform themselves to the deeds of Christ their head. But because we now speak of such Sacraments as are made chie●…ly by words (of which kind those are, which the Church practiseth.) I will show only a few such places which do witness a ●…hing to have been done, whiles a word signifying so much, was spoken. And all my examples shall prove, that look what is out wardly said, the same is invisibly wrought at the same 〈◊〉. So that the word is an undoubted token of the thing done and made thereby. The true conception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 with the sign thereof. Lucae. 1. For my part I say, the Angel Gabriel made the sig●…e & token that Christ should be conceived of the virgin mary. Saying: Concipies in utero. Thou shalt conceive in thy womb. And the holy virgin signified her consent thereunto saying, Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. Be it done to me according to thy word. Therefore Christ in deed was conceived, and took flesh of the Matth. 8. Cleansing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in deed 〈◊〉 the word is 〈◊〉. virgin Marie at the very same tyme. Christ ●…ayd to the Leprouse man, Be thou made clean, which words gave a sign and token of cleansing, therefore in deed he was made clean. Christ gave a sign and token that sins were forgiven to him that had the palsy, by these words. Remittuntur tibi peccata Matth. 9 〈◊〉 be forgiven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s●…d 〈◊〉 Christ. Math. 11. Those miracles were done in deed which were be●…. Marci. 7. The ears were opened 〈◊〉 deed when it was said, be y● opened. tua. Thy sins are forgiven thee, therefore in deed they were forgiven. Likewise Christ bade him take up his bed, & go home, for a token that the son of man had power in earth to forgive sins, therefore Christ in deed had power in earth to forgive sins: Because his token and sign is never false. When john baptist had sent two of his disciples to know whether he were the man that should come, or an other, were to be looked for: Christ gave a token to the eyes and ears of the messengers, that the blind saw, the lame walked, the leepers were cleansed: Therefore in deed it was so. And he bade them tell S. John what they had heard and seen. Christ said to the deaf and dumb man, Adaperire. Be thou opened, and as it followeth in the Gospel, strait ways his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue loosed. Thus might I go through every example of the whole Gospel, and always when at the doing of any thing an outward sign of an inward grace is rehearsed, that which the sign soundeth the grace worketh. Mark well good Reader, that this rule be not wrested to that mere doctrine of Christ, which he spoke doing or making nothing. Math. 13. Parables w●… used in teachig but not in doing. For than I confess many parables, many obscure sayings were uttered to provoke his audience to be humble, to think of their own ignorance, to depend wholly of Christ, & to ask him the understanding of the dark sayings. But now I speak not of sole doctrine. I speak of a work that Christ maketh and of words ioy●…d with his work. In this case I say, what so ever sign is outwardly made, the same is inwardly wrought. joan. 20. Christ sayeth to his Disciples. Take ye the holy Ghost, and withal he 〈◊〉 upon them. Behold the word and the doing. The outward word is a holy sign or Sacrament, so is the outward doing, which is breathing. The inward work is the perfoorming of th●… 〈◊〉 sign which the word and breath did betoken. Seeing then Christ at his last supper did somewhat, seeing he Christ rather did, than taught in his supper. took bread, seeing he blessed, seeing he broke, seeing he gave, seeing at the ty●… of this outward doing and working, he said somewhat, which saying was a sign, a Sacrament, a figure, a token, a pledge, a 〈◊〉 of his body: we are assured by the word of God (which never shall perish) that Christ gave at the same 1. Pet. 1. time his true body under the form of that bread, which he took and which by blessing he turned into his body. Hath not now the Apology deeply reasoned? Hath it not put a goodly foundation of the sacramentary doctrine? to say the supper of our Lord is the evident token of the body and blood of Christ, thereby meaning th●… his body is not in deed really present? wherein although it speak otherwise then the holy scripture ●…oth in the same case: ●…et maugre the will of the makers thereof, it proveth the Catholic faith, because the sign that every Sacrament of Christ maketh evidently 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 proved, that so many Fathers, as call the supper of Christ a sign or figure, give witness that it is also the truth itself. And if the Apology will disprove the real presence of Christ under the foorm of bread, it must show that his supper is not so much as a sign of his body and blood. But as long as they grant us the sig●…e, the word of God will convince the truth to be present, which is signified. ¶ The words of Christ's supper are not figurative, The. xiii. Chapter. nor his token a common kind of tokens. WHen I grant the supper of Christ to be a sign, a token, a figure, yet I do not grant the words wherewith The words of the Sacrament be not figurative. it is made, to be figurative. If I give you a ring and say, were this token for the remembrance of me, I both give a token of me, and name a sign or token, and yet my words are not figurative. It is therefore to be noted, that how many Fathers so ever 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 figurative. The Father's calling the supper of Christ a figure, mean not a figure of Rheto●…. For when they call it a figure, they mean not a figure of Rhetoric, but a mystical figure, and calling it a sign they mean not a natural sign or token, but a mystical sign, 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 do that which it sayeth▪ because Christ the speaker 〈◊〉 all that by his divine power and substance, which his word spoken by the mouth of his manhood, in holy Sacraments doth utter and signify. Now he that would the Sacrament of Christ so to be a sign, 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 heretic, who denying the divine nature of Epiphanius. li. 1. To. 2. Her. 30. Christ, said him to be Nudun hominem, a bare man. Epiphanius will prove against Ebion, that he is God. How so? Because he was given to the world for a sign. As the holy Ghost had prophesied before of him, when he said to Achaz, Pete tibi signum, Esaiae. 7. The signs of Christ are miraculous. ask to the a sign. And for as much as he would not ask, than said the Prophet, Ipse Dominus dabit vobis signum, our Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive: Now saith Epiphanius: Non potest is qui per omnia homo genitus est signi gratia mundo dari: He that is altogether begotten as a man, can not be given to the world for a sign. For that which is customably done, what sign of the Godhead could be therein? Epiphanius therefore doth signify that sith Christ's birth was given to the world for a sign, it could not be such a birth, as other men have, but it must be miraculous, and the miracle stood in this point, because he was truly born of a true virgin. Much more we may say, sith the blessed Sacrament of the altar hath been left unto us as a sign of the body and blood of Christ: It could not be so if it were bare bread and wine, and not The Sacraments of Christ are secret tokens. in deed his body and blood. what sign, 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 ordinary birth of man is no mere sign for Christ, who is true God, so the ordinary eating of bread & drinking of wine, is no meet sign for the remembrance of Christ's death. As the birth of Christ was a true birth but most miraculous withal: so is the Sacrament of the altar a true sign, and therefore his true body and blood, by the great miracle of turning the substance of bread & wine in to them. This is the sign that Christ made in his last supper. This is such a sign as is withal a secret miracle. For it is a miracle not showed to 〈◊〉 but only to the faithful. For as The 〈◊〉 of Christ's church be ge●… to the 〈◊〉, & ther●…ore are ●…ble. the birth of Christ is a 〈◊〉 to the faithful only, who believe Christ being God and man, truly to have been borne of a virgin, withou●… sede of man by the almighty power of the holy ●…host: Right so the supp●… of Christ is a sig●…e of his body 〈◊〉 blood to the faithful only, who believe the 〈◊〉 of bread and wine to be ●…urned into his body and blood without 〈◊〉 or corruption, by the only 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 o●… Chris●…. Who said after bread taken, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is my body, and this is my blood. Luc. 22. Do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. Behold: the making of Christ's body ●…nd blood ●…or the remembrance of his death, that is the sign we speak of. This was the memory or the remembrance whereof David said: Memoriam Psal. 110. fecit mirabilium suorum misericors & miserator Dominus, esean●… dedit timentibus se. Our merciful & gracious Lord hath made a remembrance of his marvelous works, he hath given meat to them that fear him. And think we that a remembrance of marvelous things is made of God without a miracle? Cyprian. de coena Domini. August. in manuali. cap. 11. Chrysos. de sacerdot. lib. 3. Damasc. de orthod. fid. li. 4. c. 14. S. Cyprian saith the bread to be made flesh Omnipotentia verbi. By the almighty power of the word. S. Augustine calleth it Mirabile sacrificium, A marvelous sacrifice. S. Chrysostom crieth out, o miracle, o the goodness of God he that sitteth above with the Father, in the self same moment of time is touched with the hands of all men. If thou ask how it is made (saith Damascene) it is enough for the to hear, that it is made by the holy Ghost, even as our Lord made for himself, and in himself a body out of the virgin, Mother of God. And we know no more but that the word of God is true, strenghtfull, almighty. Euseb. li. 5. daemon. cap. 3. Beda in hom. vidit jesus etc. Basilius in Litur. Gregor. Nyssen. in orat. de paschate. Hieron. in Levi. Nicepho rus lib. 1. cap. 28. Eusebius calleth it Admirabilem exitum oraculi, a marvelous event of the oracle. S. Bede nameth it a sanctification of the holy Ghost that can not be uttered by speech. The like words have S. Ba●…ile, S. Gregorins Nyssenus, S. ●…ieront, Nicephorus. This much I thought good briefly to say concerning the manner how the blessed Sacrament of the altar is a sign, token, figure, mystery, remembrance: Every word whereof expounded according to the Gospel and to the state of the new Testament, doth prove the real presence of Christ's body and blood under the foormes of bread and wine. It is a Sacrament which outwardly signi●… that which is inwardly wrought. It is a figure containing the truth figured. It is a sign meet for the institution of Christ, whose signs are miraculous, it is a secret token known only to them that believe. It is a remembrance of Christ's death, by the presence of the body which died. What shall I say more? It is the body and blood of Christ covered from our eyes, revealed to our faith, feeding presently our bodies and souls to life everlasting. ¶ That the supper of our Lord is no Sacrament at The. xiv. Chapter. all, if these words of Christ, (This is my body, and This is my blood) be figurative. The ●…rence between ●…res of 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. THere is a great difference between a figure of Rhetoric, and a Sacramental figure made by Christ. The Rhetorical figures consist in words or sentences: the mystical figures of Christ consist in deeds, & secret workings. Those sometimes sound one way, and mean an other way. These mean and sound always one thing, but they show it one way, and do it an other way. Those chief serve the ears of mortal men: These chief serve the hearts of faithful men. Those were found by men, these were instituted of God. Christ sometime used figures of Rhetoric, because in taking the nature of man he addicted himself to use the kind of speaking which men observed. But now Christians use the mystical sign●…es of Christ, because he that took their nature left unto them the virtue of his almighty Godhead. Let noman ther●…ore think when the supper of our Lord is called sometime a figure, that a Rhetori The figures of Christ are mystical. call figure is meant, it is not so. A mystical figure, a secret knowledge, a pri●…ie watch word is understanded by the name of a figure, as if Christ should say to his Apostles & followers. Let this be a token between you and me, & between one of you toward that other that when a faithful man is washed with water and in the Matt. 28. mean time it is said over him, I Baptize the in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost, strait all sins are forgiven him. And he is of my flock and received into my fold. Let it be again an other covenant or sign between us. When my Apostles or those which are made Priests by them, say over bread this is my body, and over wine this is my blood, having Matt. 26. the intent to bless and give thanks and to make a remembrance of my death, that my body and blood are really present under the forms of bread and wine accordingly as my words do sound. These are mystical signs, privy tokens, and secret figures to be kept only among the faithful, and not to be published to infidels. For as men by use of speaking have agreed to transfer certain words from their most proper signification to an other figurative custom: even so Christ hath transferred certain natural things to an other mystical use, which is now called in some Fathers by that name of holy signs, or figures, or tokens, or which is most common of all, by the name of sacraments or mysteries. See good reader to what misery we are grown. He that cometh late from his grammar, where he learned certain figures of construction, or he that beginneth his rhetoric where he more ●…oyes judge the figures of God to be figures of grammar. deeply entereth into the treatise of tropes and shemes, when he readeth in a two penny book the place alleged, where it is said (in Tertullian) this is my body, that is to say the figure of my body he judgeth out of hand that Tertullian meaneth a figure of rhetoric, and Decolampadius, Calvin, or Peter Martyr is a meet Heretics name what figure of grammar it is. Schoolmaster for him to expound what kind of Rhetorical figure it is, verily saithei, metonymia, or synecdoche. Again, whe●… they hear S. Augustine affirm that Christ gave a'signe of his body, they think he meaneth such a sign as is set up at an ale house, or wine tavern. that Doctors mean a peculiar sign and token, miraculously instituted by Christ, which containeth & giveth to the faithful the truth which it betokeneth. This kind of signs and figures concerning the substance of 〈◊〉 things. them, consist of two parts as I said before. Of things and of words: the things are divers, as for example, water, bread, wine, Mystical words. oil and such other. The mystical words coming to such things as Christ hath appointed, make up the whole Sacrament. So that the things are like stone, timber, iron, wher●… withal a man will build or make somewhat, the words are like the order, and foorm which the Carpenter will set the stuff in. The things are confuse until the words determine them particularly to this or that use. Therefore S. Paul saith, that Christ sanctifieth his Church Mu●…dans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae. Cleansing it with the Ephes. 5. was●…ng of water, in the word of life. What is that word of 〈◊〉? ●…erily whereof Christ said, go teach all nations Baptizing Math. 28. them in the nanse of the Father and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: This is the word which giveth life to him that is duly washed. Of this word Christ said: jam vos mundi estis propter joan. 15. sermonem quem locutus sum vobis. Now ye are clean for the words sake which I have spoken to you. S. Augustine demandeth, why Christ said not, ye are clean In joan. tract. 80. for the Baptim wherewith ye are washed, but rather ye are clean for the word which I have spoken to you, saving that even in it is the word that cleanseth? Detrahe verbum, & quid est aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum. Take away the word and what is water but water? The word cometh to the matter, and the Sacrament is made. S. Angustine calleth the thing or stuff whereof the Sacram●…t Elementum. is made, Elementum: Which is to say a material thing that serveth for a beginning whereof a farther mystery may be made, when the word appointed by Christ cometh to it. The Grecians use to call those things, especially in the supper of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things put or set before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Priest who must consecrate them with the word of God. The element therefore whether it be water, oil, bread, wine, or any other thing that Christ appointeth, is the weaker and inferior part. The word is the more chief and principal. unde ista tanta virtus aquae (saith S. Augustine) ut corpus tangat & cor August. in ●…oan. tract. 80. abluat, nisi faciente verbo? Non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur, Nam & in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manens. Whence hath water this great virtue, that it should touch the body, and wash the heart, but that the word causeth it, not (only) because it is spoken, but because it is believed, For in the ●…er e word the sou●…d which passeth away is one thing, and the virtue which remaineth is an other thing. Now have we three things considered by S. Augustine in a ●…n. things in a Sacrament. Sacrament, the lowest is the element which in baptun is water, the higher, is the word which again is considered in two respects, in one as it is spoken, and so being joined with the element it maketh the substance of the Sacrament, and passeth away: in the other as it is believed of him that receiveth the Sacrament, and so it worketh in him a grace, virtue, and effect of the Sacrament. If now the word be it that both chiefly maketh and effectually establisheth the Sacrament, it can not be doubted, but that Christ gave the greatest diligence of all, in assigning the solemn words of his blessed Sacraments. For the words appointed by Christ to the making of his Sacraments are so strong, that although the minister be never so August. count. Donat. li. 5. cap. 19 &. 20. éuil a man, yet as S. Augustine saith, God sanctifieth his Sacraments, Ad verba quae procedunt ex ore homicidae. At the words which come forth of the mouth of a mankiller. And again he saith, Deus adest Sacramentis & verbis suis, per qualeslibet administrentur. God is present to his Sacraments and words by whatsoever manner of men they be ministered. In so much that if August. count. Ep. Parmen. li. 2. c. 12. at the time of celebrating, both the giver and receiver have done vula●…fully (saith S. Augustine) Non tamen pro non dato habebitur. Yet the Sacrament shall not be accounted as not given. For seeing the word was once spoken and joined with the element, the substance of the Sacrament was made though it lacked his effect. Whereof it followeth, that the Sacramental words bring forth a secret strength for their own part, albeit neither the minister Chrysost. in Epist. ad Roma. Hom. 16 nor the receiver be of such worthiness as they ought to be of. In ipso aquarum lavacro (saith S. Chrysostom) verba Dei sunt quae nos generant. In the very washing of the waters they be the words of God which beget us. Which thing sith it is so, the words of Christ's Sacraments do not depend upon the understanding either of the minister, or of him that receiveth the Sacrament, but they have a sufficient virtue in themselves, whereby they may work. It is enough that the minister do as the Church useth to do in such cases. This intention being kept, the words will bring the rest to pass. Or if a malicious Priest baptise a child with the mind to make him a Lutheran or an Anabaptist, shall that child by that intention be made an heret●…ke? No verily: For so much as the words of Christ wherewith he is baptised, make him a member of his mystical body, not incorporating him to any other fellowship. Qui fuerit superbus minister, cum diabolo computatur, sed non contaminatur August. in joan. tracta. 5. donum Christi. The proud minister (saith S. Augustin) is accounted with the devil, but the gift of Christ is not defiled. To come somewhat near our purpose, S. Ambrose doth by name witness, what strength Christ's words have in making his Ambros. de Sacra. li. 4. c. 4. &. 5. supper. Sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum, The words of Christ make this Sacrament. Antequàm consecretur, panis est, ubi verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi. Before it be consecrated, it is bread, when the words of Christ are come to it, it is the body of Christ. Hoc (ait Sacerdos) est corpus meum. Hoc verbo proposita consecratnr. Chryso. hom. de prodi●…i. judae. S. Chrysostom writeth, that when the Priest saith: This is my body, the things set forth are consecrated with this word or saying. If now it be clear, that among many causes which concur to make a Sacrament, one of the chief is the words pronounced at the same time: and in the Sacrament of the Altar, seeing they are: This is my body, and, This is my blood, Which are spoken over bre●…d and wine, I say these words may be in no wise figurative. For by that means they shall not only not consecrate the body and blood of Christ, but (which is more) they shall not 〈◊〉 so much as a sign of Christ's body and blood. For if words make any thing, they make it by signifying, as the which are not only signs of things, but by S. Augustine's August, de d●…ct. Christi. li. 2 ca 3. August. de Magistro. judgement, they are the chief among all signs. And as the same Doctor saith in an other place, Signum nisi aliquid significet, non potest esse signum: A sign except it signify somewhat, can not be a sign. Now that which doth not signify a thing at all, can not by signifying make and work that thing, which it doth not signify. Take these four words, This is my body: Never a one of them doth signify washing. Therefore if a man washing an other with the mind to make him a member of Christ's body should say, This is my body, out of doubt that man washed with those words, should not be baptised. What is the cause? Washing was used, the minister was present with intent to baptise, some words also lacked not. but yet because those words lacked, which might signify washing in the name of the Trinity, he was not baptised. If then the words of Sacraments must signify that which shallbe made, these words, This is my body, spoken by any Priest, shall never make the sign of Christ's body. Because they do The words of Christ's supper do not sig nifie a figure of his body. not signify any figure or sign thereof. Ou the other side, If they be in deed figurative, (as the zwinglians affirm them to be) they shall not make the body of Christ, because (they say) Christ meant not so, but only meant a figure to be made in bread and wine. Behold to what case we are now brought. We have strived so long about the words of Christ, whether they be proper or figurative, If Christ's words be figurative, they make nothing at all. that now they are proved to make nothing at all, if they be figurative. For they make not the body of Christ, because (if they be figurative) they mean not to make it. They make no figure of the body, because they name and signify no figure. And that which they do not signify, they by signifying can not make. Fo●… their whole institution, use, nature, and commodity is to signify, to show forth, to betoken & make plain the mind of the speaker. That which words do not signify they do not work. That Words do all 〈◊〉 they do by signifying. which they work not is never done by them. But these words, This is my body, and this is my blood signify no figure no sign, no token (for so much as they signify an other thing) therefore they work no figure, they make no sign, they leave no token. And then have we no Sacrament at all made, because none is made without such words as may signify that which is made and wrought. If any man say Christ may mean a figure and sign, and by his meaning, these words, This is my body, may work a figure o●… his body, I answer, if Christ will work by his meaning, who can forbid him, seeing he is almighty? And if he will work without any words, who can gainsay him? But then his words work not. And why then are they delivered to us, as the chief instrument to work withal? Why said he, Hoc facite, Do, and make this Lucae. 22. thing? why are they rehearsed in every Mass and communion? Why do the ancient Fathers teach the bread and wine to be consecrated by them? Why may not Baptism be made by other words then by those which Christ instituted? Surely to say, that these words, This is my body, make a figure Math. 28 of his body because Christ will have it so, is to say that Christ will not have words necessary to the making of his Sacraments. Or it is to say, that he will have a thing wrought by words, to work the which they be vumete instruments: as if a man would take a saw to plane timber withal, & a beetil to cut down a tree. The word of God hath given ho●…ur to words. Christ being the word of God hath given that honour to words of men (but yet to such as are appointed by himself) that they should principally among instrumental causes work and make his Sacraments. Next unto words he chose marvelous convenient things, wherewith they should concur. The things to be most agreeable to th'▪ effect which they are set to work, all men agree. It is convenient for water to wash, for bread and wine to concur to the Sacrament of the Altar as meetest to nourish, for oil to serve in ointing at the use of other Sacraments. And now hath Christ erred in choosing his words? hath he 〈◊〉 (body) to signify the figure of his body? To whom doth it signify after that sort? Surely not to all men, as it is e●…ident. not to all Christians, as it may appear, in that we hearing it said, that Christ had a man's body, or walked in a man's body, or that our Body doth signify the substance but not the figure of a body. bodies shall rise at the later day, in all these phrases, we take not the name of body, for a sign and figure of a body: but we take it to mean the true substance of flesh and blood. How then? shall the word body be taken only in the supper of our Lord for the sign and figure of body? Where is that rul●… readen? Where is that secret revealed▪? For dowtlesse if it were true, it were of itself a mystery, and an unwont acception appointed by Christ, and it had needed to have been registered in the Scriptures or in the holy Fathers, or at the least to have been delivered to us by tradition. But who teacheth, that body standeth to signify the figure of body? many Fathers say the words of Christ are plain, manifest, true, and effectual, but no man telleth us of such a strange taking of the words (body and blood,) noman witnesseth them to be taken for the figures of body and blood, and no marvel. For no man knew that iuterpretation. They knew that the true body of Christ given after such a sort How Christ's body is a figure. under the foormes of bread and wine, was a figure of the self same body, either walking visibly upon the earth, or suffering death upon the cross, or sitting now at the right hand of his Father, or intending to come to judgement. They could tell, that a thing present in a secret manner, is a token, a sign, and a watch word to all the faithful, of an open manner, either past or to come in the same thing. By this means they confessed the Sacrament to be the figure of Christ's body and blood, but they knew no such figure as the Sacramentaries have devised. they never could tell of Synecdoche, or of Meronymia. they knew Sacramental, and not Rhetorical figures, Mystical, and not Poetical, holy and not profane. Let him therefore that will have any thing at all made by Christ's words, acknowledge them to be proper, to signify somewhat, and to make that they signify, which is the true body and blood of Christ. ¶ The real presence of Christ's body is that, which The. xv. Chapter. setteth his death and life before us. WE do acknowledge the Eucharist to be a Sacrament, The Apo logie. wherein is set after a manner before our eyes the death of Christ, and his resurrection, and what soever he did here in his human body. The eating of common bread and drinking of common wine The answer. is but an homely manner of setting the death and resurrection and life of Christ before our eyes. Here is the Sacramentaries argument: I eat bread and drink wine in token of Christ's death & resurrection, therefore he is dead and risen. I pray you Sir, how doth this argument hold? What affinity hath bread and wine with the death and with the resurrection of Christ? But if bread and wine be turned into the same body & blood of It is the body of Christ which setteth his death before us, & not bread and wine. Christ, which died and rose again, which wrought all the miracles done in this world: Then is the death and resurrection and conversation of Christ in deed itself set before the eyes of our faith. Because (as Chrisostom teacheth) Hoc idem corpus cruentatum, & caet. This very same body bloodied, pierced with the spear gave as it were out of a spring, fountains of blood, healthful to the whole world. And the self body God a●…anced unto the highest seat, the which body also he gave to us, both to th'intent we should have it, and to the intent we should ea●…e it. But what speak I of S. Chrisostom? This (sayeth Christ) is Lucae. 22. 1. Cor. 11 my body, which is given for you. And again, the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. joan. 6. How oft so ever (sayeth S. Paul) ye shall eat this bread and 1. Cor. 11 drink the chalice of our Lord, ye shall show his death until he come. So that the having of the death, and resurrection, and all the miracles of Christ before our eyes at Mass time, riseth chief of the thing which is the body of Christ. And secondarily of the things which are done about that his body. The consecrating, the offering, the eating of the self same body, which wrought these miracles, which died and rose again, those facts I say in that thing, show his death and resurrection. All other ways of setting the death and resurrection and conversation of Christ before our eyes without the real presence of Christ, is painting and shadowing in comparison of this lively representation. O how many (sayeth S. Chrisostom) say now adays, I would Hom. 83. in Ma●…h. see the soorm & shape of Christ, I would see his very garments, and shoowes. Ipsum igitur vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis. Lo, thou seest himself, thou touchest himself, thou eatest himself. Non quòd corpus illud (sayeth Damascen) è coelo descendat, sed Damascenus de orthod. side. li. 4. cap. 14. quia panis & vinum in Christi corpus & sanguinem transmutatur Not as though the body of Christ came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. See now good Reader, whether the Apology say more truly, that, the sign or token of Christ's body and blood (the body itself not being made present under the so●…nes of bread and wine as it teacheth) do more effectuously set before our eyes that death and resurrection and all the miracles of Christ, or else whether the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of him be not better and more according to the word of God set forth by the Catholics who teach that the substance of bread and wine is changed into that body and blood of Christ to th'end the death and resurrection of the same body might be effectually remembered. So teacheth S. Cyrillus in these words. Prebet Christus nobis Cyrillus in joan. lib. 12. cap. 28. carnem suam tangendam, etc. Christ giveth us his flesh to be touched, that we might believe assuredly that he hath in deed raised his temple. For that the communion of mystical blessing is a certain confession of the resurrection of Christ, it is proved by his own words. For he distributed the bread after it was broken, saying, This is my body, which shallbe given for you, for the remission of sins. Make and do this thing for the remembrance of me. Therefore the participation of that mystery is a certain true confession and remembrance that for our sakes and for us our Lord both hath died and is revived, and through that filleth us with divine blessing. Let us therefore flee infidelity after the touching of Christ, and let us be found strong and steadfast being far from all doubtfulness. Thus far S. Cyrillus. Who alludeth in that place to S. Thomas the Apostle. And as S. Thomas touching the side of Christ cried out My Lord and my God, even so S. Cyrillus teacheth that we touch the body of Christ when we come to the holy communion. joan. 20. For as under the visible flesh of Christ, his Godhead lay privy but yet was truly present, and had assumpted his flesh into one person, even so under the visible form of bread the flesh of Christ is really present in the holy mysteries, and therefore we touch that flesh, when we touch the form of bread, as S. Thomas did touch the Godhead when he touched the flesh of Christ. For in each place we touch not either the Godhead or the flesh visibly, but by the mean of that thing, wherein it is truly present. That thing I say received of us, doth make his death and resurrection to be remembered. Hath not he all that ever Christ did, presently before his eyes, who hath Christ himself present? But take Christ away, and afterward it is a foolish dream to talk, how his deeds be set before our eyes by bread and wine. The appearance of bread is the token, that Christ's body is here to be eaten. And the similitude of wine doth show, that his blood is here to be drunken. But the true showing of his death, life, and resurrection, ariseth of that truth which is under those foormes. When I eat the body that died, I show the death of it, because 1. Cor. 11 no sacrificed flesh was ever eaten before the host was offered. But we eat really the body of Christ, therefore our fact crieth, that Christ is dead. We eat his body alive having the blood and soul in it, therefore our fact crieth, he is risen again. Thus the catholics reason. Let him that hath common sense judge, who goeth near the truth of the Gospel, the sacramentary, or the Catholic. ¶ Our thanksgiving and remembrance of Christ's death is altogether by the real presence of his body. The. xvi. Chapter. TO th'intent we should give thanks for his death and our The Apo logie. deliverance, and that by often resorting to the Sacraments, we should continually renew the remembrance thereof. These men presuppose we have a sign or token left unto us The answer. in bread and wine, to give thanks withal. We have in deed a token, but this token though it were made of bread and wine, is not bread and wine. For Christ in his last supper, took bread, Lucae. 22. and when he had given thanks, he said, This is my body, which is given for you, do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. Behold the token, wherein Christ both himself gave thanks, and would us to give thanks in the same. The making of his body for us, is the thanksgiving for his death, and for our deliverance. Ipso genere sacrificij (sayeth S. Chrysostom) ad iugem nos pro Chrysost. in Hom. 26 in Math. beneficijs suis invitans gratiarum actionem: Stirring us to give thanks perpetually for his benefits, by the very kind of the sacrifice. And showing farther in an other place what kind of sacrifice it is, God (saith Chrysostom) did yearly by certain holidays set the remembrances of his benefits before the jews. Tibi vero Chrysostom. Hom. 51. in Math. quotidiè ipse, ne obliviscaris, proponitur. But he is set before thee daily himself, lest thou shouldest be unmindful. See now by what means the death of Christ is renewed. Not by tokens wherein he is doubtfully called to mind, himself being absent, (for that were a feeble token) but by these tokens, wherein himself is made present, lest we should forget his death. The body of Christ must be made, to th'intent we may remember Lucae. 22. his death. If you take from us the making of his body which causeth the vehement remembrance of the death, it is afterward a vain thing to talk of the remembrance of his death by eating bread and drinking wine. For the necessary mean of necessary remembrance of his death, consisteth in the real presence of him that died. For who can forget his death, whose body is daily made, worshipped and eaten, to the end the death may be remembered. But I may right well eat bread and drink wine, not yet remembering thereby, that Christ is dead for me. ¶ The true resurrection of our bodies cometh by The. xvii. Chapter. eating that body of Christ, which is both true and is true in us. TO th'intent we being fed with the body and blood of The Apo logie. Christ, may be brought into the hope of the resurrection, and of everlasting life, and may most assuredly believe that the body and blood of Christ doth in like manner feed our souls, as bread and wine doth feed our bodies. I omit to say any thing upon that oversight, wherein the English The answer. translation of a body hath left out the word Vero, the true body, which the Latin edition hath. But here the Apology presupposeth that Christ's supper consisteth as well of bread & wine, as of body and blood. The first two they will have given to the bodies: The later twain to the souls. The bread & wine they will have present on the table, whence they be delivered: The body and blood they will have to be received from heaven, by faith and understanding. Against this dream thus I reason out of the word of God. Christ made his whole supper upon a visible table, accordingly as it was prophesied by king David, Parasti in conspectu meo Psal. 22. mensam. Thou hast prepared a table in my sight. And by Solomon, Prou. 9 Sapientia proposuit mensam svam & insipientibus locuta est: venite, comedite panem meum, & bibite vinum quod miscui vobis. Wisdom hath set forth her table, and hath spoken to simple men: come ye, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mixed for you. S. Paul saith, Non potestis mensae Domini participes 1. Cor. 10 esse, & mensae Daemoniorum. Ye can not be partakers of our Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Put these three together, and the sense will be, the supper and table of our Lord was prepared and set forth in the sight of the faithful, that they might thence eate and drink such as the wisdom of God gave them at his supper. Therefore no meat, no food, no banquet is to be looked for at his supper, but such as is prepared by Christ & set forth upon his table. Otherwise Christ Psal. 22. had prepared no supper, in the sight of that faithful (as David foretold) nor had not set forth his table (as Solomon prophesied) Prou. 9 nor we had not been partakers of our Lord's table (as S. Paul 1. Cor. 10 writeth. For bread and wine is not prepared of Christ: But was before Bread & wine was not the table that Christ pray pared. hand made ready by the baker and vintner, or by the servants that brought them forth. The preparing which Christ made, was by blessing and conse●…ng, to make of earthly bread, the bread of life everlasting. And having made it, he delivered the same to the Apostles, and bade them both make and do that thing. If he delivered not his own body with his own hands, Lucae. 22. doubtless they did not eat his body. For he, said in respect only of that which he delivered, take and eat. Whereupon S. Chrysostom Hom. 82 in Math. sayeth to him that cometh to our Lord's table: Cogita quid manu capias, & caet. Bethink thyself what thou takest in thy hand, and keep it free from all covetousness and violent robbery. Consider again, that thou takest it not only in thy hand, but also The hand & tongue receive ●…he same body that the heart doth. puttest it to the mouth (and) after thy hand and tongue, the heart receiveth that dreadful mystery. Thus much S. Chrysostom. Let any reasonable man judge, whether he sayeth not, that the heart receiveth the same which the hand doth, and the hand the same, which the heart doth. For if the heart receive it after that hand, the hand received it before the heart. It is not therefore, as the Sacramentaries falsely teach, bread only in hand, and body only in heart: But body as well in hand, as in heart. And none other true body in the heart, than was first in the hand, and mouth. For this cause ever sith we received the faith, we called this blessed supper, The Sacrament of the altar. As if we said, the Sacrament Why the supper of Christ is called the Sacrament of the altar. Malach. 1 which is made upon the altar or upon the table of Christ. for the table of Christ is an altar, as in Malachi it may appear, and in an other place, by the favour of God, I will declare. This name of the Sacrament of the altar was delivered to us with our Christianity, and it is found very oft in the old writers, namely in S. Augustine. By which we are informed that De civit. Dei. li. 10 cap. 6. the consecration and oblation thereof is made, not in the hearts of men by words of promising and preaching, but upon the visible altar, in the sight of Christian people, by the visible Priest who as a public minister ordained by God, consecrateth the body of Christ by the same power, which Christ gave when he said: Hoc Lucae. 22. facite, do and make this thing. This is 〈◊〉 table prepared in the sight of David, set forth by Psal. 22. Prou. 9 1. Cor. 10 August. li. 9 confess. ca 13. the wisdom of God, whereof we are partakers, when we receive the blessed Sacrament of the altar. At this altar S. Augustine's mother desired a memory of her to be made, unde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis. From which altar my mother knew (sayeth S. Augustine) the holy sacrifice to be distributed, whereby the handwriting that was contrary to us, is put out. Behold the sacrificed body of Christ was dispensed and given from the altar, as both S. Augustine, and his mother, and all the faithful then believed. Thus thou seest the dream of the Apology by the word of God to be blown away like chaff & dust dispersed with the wind. The Apology sayeth, our bodies are fed at Christ's supper Math. 26 with bread and wine. that is not in the word of God, where it is said: Eat, This is my body. The Apology seemeth to say, that our bodies be not no●…rished with the body and blood of Christ, for it assigneth body and blood to our souls as our bodies are fed with bread and wine. But Christ gave his body to no●…rish our bodies also. And therefore joan. 6. said: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. That is (as Cyrillus expoundeth Cyrillus li. 10. c. 13 in joan. it) In corpore vestro, in your body. And therefore on the other side Christ said, he that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting, and I will raise him again in the last day. Ego (sayeth Cyrillus) Id est, corpus meum quod comedetur. I will raise him, that is to say, my body which shallbe eaten. raising belongeth to the body which falleth into putrefaction by death. As therefore the body is raised by Christ's body: so the body liveth in the state of grace, by Christ's body. and such life is by spiritual nutriment, which is received of the flesh of Christ really present in us. For which cause Tertullian confessed that not only our soul, Tertul. in lib. de resurrec. carnis. Ireneus adversus haereses. li. 4. c. 34. but also our body seedeth upon the body and blood of Christ, to th'intent our soul may be made fat of God. Likewise Ireneus writeth that our flesh is nourish●…d of the body and blood of our Lord. We may now see what error they fall into, who assign the body and blood of Christ to our souls, and bread & wine to our bodies, whereas there is no substance left of bread or wine, but even our bodies feed upon Christ's body, as Ireneus, Cyrillus and Tertullian have said. ¶ Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries. AFter the Apology had spoken of communion under both kinds, and of transubstautiation, of which points as yet I speak not, it returneth again in a confuse manner to the matter of the real presence, and thus it sayeth. And in speaking thus, we mean not to abase the Lords supper, The Apo logie. or to teach that it is but a cold ceremony only, and nothing to be wrought therein, as many falsely slander us, we teach. If they that pluck down altars, and other ornaments of Christ's The answer. supper, if they that call the blessed Sacrament of the altar by so vile names as you and your scholars have done, be not of your By what means the Lords supper is aba sed now in Englā●… number, if they be not your derelings, if they learned not that contempt of holy things, and the denial of the unbloody sacrifice of you, if they first persuaded not the licentious youth and faithless company of men and w●…men in England rather by blasphemous names, given to the Eucharist, then by any word of God (which you still pretend and never allege) then let it be thought, that you mean not to abase the Lords supper. But if you did set all the players and minstrels in the realm a work with such scoffs, as your brotherhood invented against the blessed body and blood of Christ, I fear me you be not slandered, when you are said to teach it to be but a cold ceremony, The Apo logie nameth the ho nouring of Christ's body, the worshipping of bread. sith you doubt not to call, even in this Apology, the honour done to it the worshipping of bread, whereas it is in deed the worshipping of the true body and blood of Christ. Well, you teach not, that nothing is wrought or made in the supper. Then by like you teach, that somewhat is wrought there. I would fain see what it is which you teach to be wrought in the sup per. For where you say, that Christ giveth himself in his supper that we may eat him by faith: You teach a work of Christ, in giving himself, & a work of ours in eating him, but not any thing wrought or made in the supper itself. For the supper is that meat which is provided to be eaten at the table of Christ. There you confess bread and wine to be taken. But seeing you teach the same things (notwithstanding he speaketh otherwise of them) yet to tarry bread and wine still, I can not perceive, what substantial thing you teach●… to be wrought No substantial thing is wrought in Christ's supper by the Sacramentaries doctrine. in the supper concerning the matter of the supper, which is bread and wine. Now concerning the body and blood of Christ, which you grant to be given by faith, I trow you teach not any thing to be wrought a new and made therein, sithence they be impassable, and therefore can not have any thing made in them. what is it then, which you teach to be made in the supper? Either bread and wine is the supper, or the body and blood of Christ, or both together. For nothing else is there mentioned. Bread and wine, you say, remain still as they were before concerning their substance. Then I say, nothing is wrought in them. The body and blood of Christ can have nothing wrought in their substance, because that wherein somewhat shallbe made, must suffer of that which worketh it. therefore gloze the matter how ye will, you teach not any substantial thing to be wrought in the supper of Christ, except you call the guests themselves the supper. And then I we●…e they must be eaten up of some body, in so much as every supper is provided to be eaten. We teach the substance of bread and wine to be made the substance What the Catholics believe to be wrought. of Christ's body and blood. And that is the true work made in the supper of Christ, where the mutable creatures are turned into the immutable substance of Christ. which work sith you deny, babble what you will, you teach nothing to be wrought in the supper of Christ. ¶ The real presence of Christ's flesh is proved by the The. nineteen. Chapter. express naming of flesh, blood, and body, which are names of his human nature. FOr we affirm that Christ doth truly and presently give his The Apo logie. own self in his Sacraments. in Baptism, that we may put him on, and in his supper, that we may eat him by faith and spirit, and may have everlasting life by his cr●…sse and blood. Hear ye not how they affirm that Christ presently giveth his The 〈◊〉. own self? would not a man think they meant honestly and truly? But sith they can make the words of Christ figurative when they list, wonder not if they require their own words to be taken figuratively. They mean not that Christ doth give himself presently to our bodies and souls, as is requisite to the presence of the flesh The Apo logie ●…peaketh 〈◊〉 & meaner●… evil. and blood of man. why then use they such words? verily because they see the Scriptures so plain, the Fathers and councils so manifest, the ●…aith and practise of the Church so evident for the real presence of Christ, that in no wise they may confess any other thing than they do. And yet on the other side being fully determined to stick to their desperate opinion, that we really neither eat nor drink under form of bread and wine the flesh & blood of Christ, they have invented such kind of speaking, as may both seem to agree with the Scriptures, and yet withal maintain their false doctrine. The which thing that thou mayest the better understand, this is to be considered. The Catholic faith is, that Christ in one person hath two natures: Two natures in one per●…on of Christ. The nature of God, and the nature of man. which two natures are joined and united together into one person, after such sort, that what so ever is said of the one nature, may be said of the other, if we speak by that word which signifieth the person. For example, we may say that man was in heaven before the joan. 3. ascension of Christ, and that God died, not because the nature of God could be borne of a woman or die, or the nature of man could be in heaven before the ascension of Christ, but because that which was borne and died, was also God, and that which was in heaven was also man. albeit his birth and death was by the nature of man, and his being in heaven by the nature of God. The natures than tarry distinct, but the p●…rson of God & man is but one. Now shall you see the mean, whereby these new preachers go about to deceive you. They say Christ giveth himself in his Sacraments. The word Christ, & himself be names of his person (Christ) doth signify his person, wherein he is both God & man: Likewise the word (him self) is a word belonging to his person, wherein both natures of God & man are contained. Now when they say Christ giveth himself, they mean that he being God & man giveth by some spiritual way the virtue of his flesh & blood, which they call himself, for that he, as God, being every where, may dwell in us more excellently by charity, as the Father and the holy Ghost do. But they mean not by giving of himself, the real gift of his person and of both natures which are joined therein, after such sort that our whole nature might receive his nature. For than they should teach that, which we do. But howsoever they babble of our souls, they will grant our bodies no touching nor tasting of him, no not so much as under y●●…oormes of bread and wine. You have heard what they say: Now hear what Christ sayeth. Christ speaketh of himself in diverse places diversely. Due where he sayeth: I will not leave you Orphans, I will come unto joan. 14. you. There he speaketh of his person, and concerning the nature of Godhead, as it appeareth afterward where it is written: If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him and we will come unto him, and make a mansion or dwelling with him, or at his house. Here he speaketh first in such sort of his own coming, that his Father (as it appeared afterward) might come after the same sort. Then was it the coming of God, and not of man. At his departure when he ascended from the world into heaven, he said: Behold I am with you all days even until the consummation of the world. These words may be meant as well by Math. 28 the nature of manhood, which we have with his Godhead in the S. Germanus in rer. Ecc. Theoria. Sacrament of the altar (and so some holy Doctors have taken them) as also by the only nature of the Godhead, which is every where by majesty, and in good men by grace. In an other place he said: Poor men ye shall have always Math. 26 with you, me ye shall not have always. Where, by the word, me, he meaneth not his Godhead, which is always every where, but the nature of his manhood, and that not as it is in the Sacrament, but as it was when he spoke, in a visible form of a poor man, who had not any house of his own, where he might rest his head. Last of all let us mark, after what sort he said that he would Math. 8. be in his blessed supper. Did he say: I will give myself to be eaten and to be dr●…nken? If he had said so, yet seeing he had mentioned eating and drinking, which according to the letter, rather belongeth to his manhood then to his Godhead, we should rather have thought, that the words must have been taken properly, then improperly. To eat the substance of a man may be said properly, for in deed it may be eaten with mouth and teeth, but to Cyrillus in. 11. Anathematismum eat the substance of God it is said unproperly: For it can not be eaten with teeth and mouth (as also S. Cyrillus hath noted) but only with understanding and faith. If then Christ had said before supper, I will give myself to be eaten, and had said at his supper: I do give myself to be eaten: These words with a circumstance of a supper, had made so strongly for the bodily giving of himself, that their part had been more probable, who had understanded it of his manhood. With whom if the tradition of the Apostles had stood, there were no doubt but he should have been a wicked heretic, who, when Christ had said I give myself to be eaten, would have denied that we had eaten the human nature of Christ. But now attend what words Christ used: He forcseing this hearesie made 〈◊〉 against it, and therefore he said not, I will give or do give myself to be eaten, as heretics now delight Christ used the names of his human nature in his supper. to speak, but I give my flesh, my body, my blood. These are not words of parsonage, which may be applied two ways, but they are the words of nature, and only of man's nature. For God by the nature of his Godhead hath neither flesh ne blood, ne soul, ne body, ne bone. Christ as man hath all these things. Now do the heretics and false preachers of our age maruclously deceive the people of God, who always say that they diminish not Christ's benefit, nor do not abuse the Lords supper, 〈◊〉 (say they) we teach that Christ giveth his own self, and they repeat again and again his own self, his own self. And thereby they mean no more than the coming of his grace and charity into our souls, by faith, spirit, and understanding: Wholly robbing us of that flesh which died for us, and of that blood which was shed for us. For although God was able to have saved man otherwise, yet he sweetly disposed our salvation, by sending his dear son to take It is real flesh and blood which saveth us. of the virgin our flesh and blood. This flesh and this blood worketh our salvation: Which he that taketh away from the Sacrament of the altar, depriveth us of the mean whereby to come to life everlasting. For as by this flesh and blood we are redeemed: So that redemption is applied to all that be of lawful age by worthy joan. 6. eating and drinking thereof. Now when these preachers cry unto you, of God, of faith, of spirit, of understanding, of virtue, they seem perhaps to say goodly things, but they craftily put you from that only mean of flesh and blood, whereby God hath ordained our salvation. Abraham was the father of all believers, Rom. 4. because never any man's belief was so thoroughly tried, as his. He lacked not grace, virtue and understanding, but he lacked the flesh and blood of Christ: Which flesh when it came really into the world, when it was crucified and gushed out streams of blood, than the soul of Christ delivered the soul of Abraham and all the other Fathers out of prison. Well, to end this matter, Christ to show that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhood, for that cause he named not his person, but his flesh, his body, his blood. And S. Paul named Ephe. 5. his bones, as you shall see hereafter. Wherefore y● talk of his presence by faith is unfaithful, y● talk of his presence by spirit as Lucae. 24. thereby excluding his body & soul from our bodies and souls, is spritish and devilish. A spirit hath no flesh and bones: Christ is with us in the substance of his own flesh, & of his own bones. And yet that we might understand that Christ naming flesh & blood, meaneth not that either his flesh is under the form of bread without blood, or his blood under the form of wine without flesh, but that under each kind both flesh and blood and soul and Godhead is: he saith, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my joan. 6. blood, taryethin me, & I in him. That is to say, when I promise flesh and blood, I name them only to declare plainly, that my being in the Sacrament is a being according to the truth of my human nature, and not as though I were not there in mine own person. for he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. But it I had said, that I give myself & no more: 〈◊〉 false preachers had expounded myself by my Godhead and by faith upon me, my simple faithful people might have been deceived. I name flesh, body, and blood, to show according to what nature I am 〈◊〉. But I am not divided as though my flesh were under one kind, and my blood under the other. And therefore I say last of all: He that catcth me, he also, shall live for me, so that I am altogether in mine own person under each kind, after consecration. Mark this again and again, and let not the doctrine We ought to believe as the word of God speaketh. of Christ himself pretended in suttil words, deceive thee any longer. Believe thou the presence of body, of blood, of flesh, and of bones, as the word of God speaketh. ¶ It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assign The. xx. Chapter. to Christ, in comparison of his true supper. ANd we say not this is done slightly and coldly, but effectually The Apo logie. and truly. The eating of Christ by faith and spirit is no sleight or The answer. cold thing. But to say that no more is done in his supper, that is slightly & coldly said. Partly because so much may be done without Why 〈◊〉 Sacramentaries make the 〈◊〉 of Christ a cold supper. joan. 6. the supper, namely when so ever a man with good faith and charity doth meditate upon his glorious victory over death & sin: Partly because, it is a cold thing to 〈◊〉 men, who consist of bodies, to a supper of Christ's making, and to give their bodies none other meat then corruptible bread and wine, as you teach, whereas Christ did forbid us to work the perishing meat at his banquet. How can that be worthily called the supper of Christ, which a man may make at home, without coming to the table of Christ? As though it were not for his honour to have a singular kind of sup●… of his own. Every man may eat bread and drink wine at his own house with his wife and children, and remember that Christ died for them, neither will Christ leave his good devotion unrewarded, wherein the supper, that you assign to Christ, consisteth and is fulfilled. And is not that, which may be done at private men's tables, coldly and slightly done in comparison of that great sacrifice of the true Melchisedech, who by his blessed word turneth the substance of the bread and wine into that body of his 1. Cor. 10 Hebr. 5. which died, and into that blood which was shed for us? ¶ By eating we touch the body of Christ, as it may The. xxi. Chapter be touched under the form of bread. FOr although we do not touch the body of Christ with teeth The Apo logie. and mouth, yet we hold him fast and eat him by faith, by understanding, and by the spirit. These men have lost their wits through malice. As who can The answer. devise an eating of meat in a supper, which eating shallbe without touching the meat that is eaten with teeth and mouth. For in the supper of Christ it is a detestable heresy and an intolerable Math. 26 ignorance to say, that Christ saying: Take and eat, did not mean taking by hands or mouths, and eating by teeth and mouth. Taking and eating is not without touching: Christ said Take and eat, this is my body, therefore he said in effect, touch my body with your teeth and with your mouth. Neither doth it skill that his body is immortal and impassable. for though it be not perished by the eating, yet the eating and touching is not therefore false, but so much the truer, by how much the meat received is the more profitable cven to our bodies. And as we are said truly to kiss the King's knee, when we kiss his hose under which the knee is contained: even so in touching the accidents of bread and wine, we touch the body and blood of Christ which is contained under them. For which cause S. Chrysostom Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 10 Hom. 24 & in Math. 83 said, 〈◊〉 we do not only see, we do not only touch, but we eat, and fasten our teeth in the flesh of Christ, thereby noting and teaching the undoubted presence thereof under the form of bread. Which form we see, we touch, we eat, we chaw, and by that means we do these things to the body of Christ under that form, not perishing the body one whit. For the same cause S. Cyrillus speaking of the blessed Eucharist, sayeth of Christ: Praebet Cyrillus in loan. li. 12. c. 〈◊〉 nobis carnem suam tangendam, ut firmiter credamus, quia templum verè suum suscitavit. He giveth us his flesh to be touched, that we might believe assuredly, that he hath truly raised his temple, that is to say, his own body. Christ giveth us his flesh to be touched, and yet do we not touch it? But how do we touch it? verily as S. Thomas touched the Godhead of Christ. For as in joan. 20. touching his flesh he confessed him to be God, because the Godhead lay hid in that flesh: right so, when we touch with teeth & mouth the form of bread in the holy mysteries, we confess that we touch thereby the flesh which lieth hid under that form, and yet the Apology denieth us to touch the body of Christ with teeth and mouth. And whereas it sayeth we hold him fast by faith, that is true also, but it is not the whole truth. for as S. Thomas the Apostle did believe upon the Godhead of Christ, and withal touch the flesh wherein it dwelled corporally: even so we believe the presence of his body, and touch it under the form of bread, not hindering Colos. 2. our touching by our belief, but rather furthering our belief by our touching, for so much as we touch that visibly, wherein we believe the flesh of Christ to be invisibly. The Apology supposeth holding by faith, to be contrary to touching with teeth. But we think them both to agree right well, and both to be true in their proper kind. S. Ireneus writing against those heretics who denied the resurrection Ireneus adversus 〈◊〉. li. 5. of our flesh, sayeth: that S. Paul naming spiritual men, doth call them so, because they partake of the spirit, Sed non secundum defraudationem & interceptionem carnis, but not as defrauding them, or as taking their flesh from them. Even so it is true that we hold Christ by faith, spirit, and understanding in the holy mysteries, but we thereby ought not to take away the truth of his flesh which is in the same mysteries. It is an old custom of heretics by the assertion of one truth to imbarr & stop an other truth, whereas the catholics believe as well y● one as that other. ¶ The ●…acramentaries have neither understanding, The. 〈◊〉. Chapter. nor faith, nor spirit, nor devotion to receive Chri●…t withal. ANd this is no vain faith which doth comprehend Christ, The 〈◊〉 logie. and that is not received with cold devotion, which is received with understanding, with faith, and with spirit. The fai●…h of receiving Christ in spirit (which you speak of) The answer. is not vain, when it denieth not some verity of the Gospel. But seeing you deny this to be the body of Christ which Christ visibly delivered, now it is a vain faith to believe, that who so denieth Math. 26 parcel of his faith, doth notwithstanding comprehend and receive Christ by faith or spirit. What understanding have you, that say: This is my body, doth not mean, This is my body? What faith have you, that believe not the working and effectual words of Christ which were spoken with blessing? What spirit have you, when you know not the words of Christ Marc. 14. to be spirit & life, as the which make all that which they sound in that joan. 6. consecration of his holy mysteries? It is a warm devotion that hearing the body of Christ by himself affirmed to be present, can eat without adoring, and deny Godly honour to it. God keep Psal. 21. me and all others from such faith, such understanding, such spirit, and such de●…otion. ¶ The real presence of Christ's body is proved by The. xxiii. Chapter. the confession of the Apology. FOr Christ himself altogether is so offered and given us in The Apo logie. these mysteries, that we may certainly know, we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and that Christ continueth in us, and we in him. If Christ be given us in these mysteries, he is present in th●…m. The answer. For a gift is not made of a thing absent. But he is not any where to be showed present, but only under the forms of bread and wine A gift is of a thing present. & yet Christ showed his body & blood saying: This is my body & this is my blood. This and this be words that show things which are spoken of. therefore the presence of Christ, which you confess, and which himself showeth, must needs be meant of his presence under the forms of bread and wine. Again if we may certainly know, we are flesh of Christ's flesh, and bone of his bones, if we may know it (as your words import) by his presence in these mysteries: Seing our knowledge That is not know 〈◊〉 ●…hich 〈◊〉 not true must needs rise of a certain truth, (otherwise it were an error and not a knowledge) it is certainly true, that in these mysterics we are by the presence of Christ in them, flesh of his flesh, & bone of his bones. But that can not be, except the flesh & bones of Christ be really present, yea so really present as Christ's mother was really present to him, & he to her when he took flesh of her flesh. For a conjunction betwixt the flesh of Christ & the flesh of men can not demand by faith, spirit, & understanding: For that is a conjunction o●… mind, but not of flesh & bones. Flesh and bones have no faith or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with flesh can not be made by 〈◊〉 only. spirit, whereby the conjunction between them and Christ may be received. they have a natural substance as well in Christ as in us. And as the man and wife can not be one flesh by the consent of marriage, except in deed they come bodily together: Even so can not the flesh of Christ be made one with our flesh, except both his flesh he present in the Sacrament for us, and we come to the self Sacrament to be joined to it. And this example of marriage is so good and true, that S. Paul himself useth it in talking of this very conjunction of flesh and bones betwixt us and Christ. which now the Apology seemeth to allude unto. But the flesh of Christ cometh not from his Father's right hand corporally to be joined with our flesh: Therefore it remaineth that the bread is by consecration turned into Christ's 〈◊〉, to th'intent it may ●…e received and made one with our flesh. Other means how either Christ may be present in flesh, or his flesh joined to our flesh, the Gospel never taught, the Fathers never learned, the Catholic Church never knew. But by this means, S. Irenens, S. Hilary, S. Cyril, S. Chrysostom, and other Fathers confess our natural joining with Christ's flesh, as it shall appear in diverse places of this book. ¶ The contrariety of the Apology is showed, and The. 〈◊〉. Chapter. that the lifting up of our harrs to heaven is no good cause, why we should lift the body of Christ from the altar. ANd therefore in celebrating these mysteries the people are The Apo logie. to good purpose exhorted, before they come to receive the holy commun●…on, to lift up their hearts, and to direct their minds to heavenward, because he is there, by whom we must be full fed and live. Who ever had to do with so forgetful men? A e●…ueller name I The answer. will not use. For God's sake, good reader, suffer not thyself to be lead of them, as if thou hadst nor wit nor sense. Be a child in 1. Cor. 14 avoiding malice, but in understanding show thyself a man. I assure thee he is not worthy to be called a man, who perceiving their extreme folly (as now he may) yet will addict himself to follow their doctrine. See I beseech you how this gear hangeth together. Christ (said the Apology in the last sentence) giveth himself present in these mysteries, & we know we are flesh of his flesh & bone of his bones, and therefore we are bid lift up our hearts to heaven, becau●…e he is there by whom we must be full fed and live. Mark how this (therefore) cometh in. it agreeth together as if it were said in shorter words: Christ giveth himself present in The contr●…tie of the Apo logie. these mysteries, and therefore he is not here but in heaven, seeding us from thence. You deceived deceivers, how fear you not to dally thus with the dreadful mysteries of God? Doth Christ offer and give himself present in th●…e mysteries, or no? You grant he doth. be these mysteries in heaven, or in earth? I suppose they be in earth. Then (say I) your words import, th●…t Christ giveth himself present in the earth. How then do you strait way infer (by a therefore) that we are bid lift up our hearts to h●…nward, because he is there, by whom we must be 〈◊〉 fed? If you mean he is both there and here, you say very well, bu●… th●… you grant his body to be at once in divers places, at the least by the way of Sacramental being. Except you will say his body is not in these mysteries, and then he giveth not himself present. For his body is the chief thing whereof this Sacrament is named. Neither we are flesh of his flesh in those mysteries, where his flesh is not present to be joined with ours. You say, that Christ giveth himself present, yea so far present, that we know certainly we are flesh of his flesh, and yet you bid us go to heaven, because he is there of whom we must be full fed. As though his mysteries were not in earth, in which you grant he giveth himself present. If any spark of grace remain in you, consider that God hath Rom. 1. given you over into a lewd understanding, into a blind heart, in to palpable darkness. Ye would set God and the devil together, ye would reconcile your fond hearesie with the healthful Gospel of Christ, you would seem to conf●…e with Christ, that he giveth himself present in these mysteries, with S. Paul, that we are flesh o●… joan. 6. Christ's flesh, and yet withal you will join your own repugnant Ephes. 5. assertion, that the body of Christ is only in heaven, and consequently not in these mysteries which are in earth. The longer you stand in this repugnance, the more you shame yourselves. I have not spoken this for any other cause but to stir up your minds by words of sharp warning (which S. Paul biddeth us Tit. 3. use to heretics) thereby to provoke some such, as have regard to their souls, to repent in time, and to persuade themselves that they are not able to give a new exposition of Christ's supper, which may stand with the old Gospel of Christ's Church. The body of Christ is the meat of his supper. For thereof he said: Take Math. 26 eat, this is my body. If then Christ give himself present in these mysteries, he geneth his body present. If his body be present, how say ye, we must lift up our hearts to heaven, there to be full fed? Is not Christ himself being present, able to feed us full? How is it then, that we must go up to heaven to be full fed? But let us farther consider your discrete discurse. It is said in the preface of the Mass: Lift up your hearts. which words you interpret as though it were said, your meat is in heaven, and not upon the holy table. This argument I marvel if any man be able to answer: The people are warned before consecration, to li●…t up their minds to heaven: Therefore the body of Christ is not really present on the altar after consecration. As much to say, as: Before the incarnation of Christ the Prophets and Patriarches called and cried to God themselves, and also exhorted the people to pray for the coming of Christ, therefore when he was come, he was not true God and true man in earth. We cry: Lift up your hearts, before the body of Christ is made, as beseeching God we may have his body made for us. & when it is made, we lift the body itself up, to be adored, and worshipped of the faithful people as having then obtained our desire, and that because it is the true body of true God. And yet even after consecration and after the body is really Chry so. de Dei natura Hom. 4. present, it might well be said, lift up your hearts to heaven. where by lifting up, we should mean nothing else, but that the faithful men should not give themselves to worldly thoughts of the earth, of money, of flesh, but list up their minds to think of everlasting joys. Again by naming heaven, we mean not to deny the real presence either of God in the whole earth, or of Christ on the altar, but only to show that we should look for another world and the life thereof. This argument might have become a tinkar better than a divine, and least of all it could become a superintendant, who ought to have known, that the Church is the kingdom of heaven, and therefore the kingdom of God is within us: & that to consider, Lucae. 17. what Christ worketh in his Church and for her sake, is also after one sort to lift up our hearts to heaven: & last of all he ought to consider that S. Chrysostom writeth. Didst thou not promise the Priest, when he cried: lift up your Chryso. Hom. de Eucharistia. minds and hearts, and saidst thou not: we lift them up unto our Lord? Will you see a wonderful matter? The table is furnished with the mysteries, the Lamb of God is offered for thee, the Priest is hofull for thee, a spiritual fire floweth from the table. See what lifting up of hearts was to the old Fathers. It was, to acknowledge the mysteries upon the table, to believe the sacrifice of the Mass, and not to deny the real presence of Christ. That is in deed a homely lifting up of hearts, to lift the body and blood of Christ, clean from the altar and holy table. Such lifting away becometh thieves. Hitherto these men brought neither any evident authority of Scripture, thereby to fortify their opinion, nor any sentence of ancient Father, concerning the question of the real presence. And now I pray you see what worshipful gear they bring. We say in the Mass, lift up your hearts, before the body is sanctified and made present: therefore it is not made present at all. We say grace before the meat is set upon the table: therefore none at all is set there. This is the stuff of them that boast so much of the Gospel. This is my body is forgotten: which is four times repeated twice of two Apostles, and twice of two Evangelists. Yet is that forgotten, and, lifting up of hearts, which came of the good invention of Godly Fathers, but yet from men it came, that is called in for a witness, against the truth of the Gospel. And yet every man thinkeththey bring nothing but the pure word of God for their false doctrine. ¶ What be gross imaginations concerning the supper The. xxv. Chapter. of Christ. ANd Cyrillus saith, that in the receiving of the mysteries, The Apo logie. all gross imaginations must be put away. Here is the second authority alleged against the real presence The answer. of Christ's body, and that, I warrant you, full strong. Gross imaginations must be put away in receiving the mysteries: The argu meant of the apology. therefore Christ spoke not properly nor truly, when he said, This is my body. Are we not now happy to have such fine preachers, who can show the believing of that, which Christ saith and teacheth, to be a gross imagination? O gross imagination of these pitiful preachers. May there be a more gross imagination, then to imagine that Christ lied? Cyrillus biddeth us put Cyrillu●… in Epist. ad Calosyr. away gross imaginations, and Cyrillus saith of the real presence, Ne dubites an hoc verum sit, eo manifestè dicente, hoc est corpus meum: Sed potius suscipe verba salvatoris in fide. Cum enim sit veritas, non mentitur. Doubt thou not whether this be true, sith himself plainly saith: This is my body. But rather embrace the words of our Saviour in faith. For seeing he is the truth, he lieth not. Who so considereth well these words, may understand, that Cyrillus thought nothing more gross, then to doubt whether that body of Christ be present or no. What gross imaginations than did Cyrillus bid us put away? * 1. For soothe above all, that we should not imagine, Christ to lie. * 2. Secondly that we should not imagine his words, concerning this Sacrament, to be dark or obscure, seeing Christ (as he saith) spoke manifestly. * 3. Again, that no man should think, any other body to be given, besides the true body of Christ, who in one person is God and man. In the time of Cyrillus, a great heretic named Nestorius, Nestorius' his hearesie. scholar to one Diodorus, falsely taught that Christ had two persons, one of God, an other of man. Therefore they imagined, the the body of Christ (which all the world, even the heretics themselves, believed to be present upon the altar after consecration) to be the body of man, but not the proper body of God the word. This was a very gross imagination, and therefore aught to be put away from the mind of faithful men, in receiving the mysteries. Hereof Cyrillus literally said, Num hominis comestionem In. 11. Anathematismo nostrum hoc Sucramentum pronuncias, & irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum mentem qui crediderunt? Dost thou pronounce this our Sacrament, to be the eating of a man? And dost thou irreverently enforce the mind of the faithful, to gross cogitations? Behold, the gross cogitation was to think, that we do eat that body of a man, whereas in deed through the unity of person it is y●●…ody of God himself. And therefore Cyrillus saith afterwar●…: Proprium est corpus eius verbi, quod omnia vivificat. It is the body proper to that word, which quickeneth all things. Of this ●…oule and gross e●…oure, two epistles are extant of Cyrillus, as Ad Successum Episcop. Isauriae. also in all his works he full oft confuteth it. One thing I will further note. this fine penner of the Apology citeth not, where Cyrillus speaketh of these gross imaginations, because the place is marvelous evident against him. And what foul play is this, to bely Cyrillus, as though he had spoken of that imagination, wherein we believe that real presence of Christ's body under the form of bread, whereas he spoke, of that wherein Nestorius understanded, that we did eat the flesh of Christ, with out the divine nature united unto it in one person. Cyrillus saith, because the word which is of God the Father, Cyrillus▪ in Anathem. 11. ad Enoptium. is life by nature it hath declared his flesh to be the giver of life, & hac ratione, facta est nobis benedictio vivificatrix and by this means, the blessing is made to us, giver of life. Cyrillus calleth the Sacrament of the altar, benedictio, blessing, because it is made by blessing. Now in naming blessing, he must The Eucharist is called bless sing. needs mean, that which is blessed, which is on the altar before us, and not any thing co●…ceaued in faith or spirit. Therefore Cyrillus meaneth out of all controversy, that thing which is made by blessing, which we take in our hands, which Cyrillus natura di vinitatis minime comeditur. we put in our mouths, to be able to give life everlasting, which none other eatable thing can do besides the real flesh of Christ. For the nature of Godhead (as Cyrillus there confesseth) is not eaten, by itself, or a part from the flesh. If we put this together, I require no more, but that he be an honest man, who shall construe the place of Cyrillus. He shallbe forced to confess such an eating in the Sacrament of the altar as is not proper to the Godhead: And yet eating by faith is proper to us in respect of the Godhead, therefore Cyrillus speaketh of eating, that which quickeneth us to life everlasting with our body also, and not with faith alone. another gross imagination was to think that we eating the * 4 The. ●…grosse imagination. body of Christ, should eat it dead, or mortal, and passable, as we use to eat other meats: Whereas it is quick, yea of power to quicken us (as Cyrillus teacheth) Quoniam salvatoris caro, verbo Dei quod naturaliter vita estconiuncta, vivifica effecta est, quando eam comedimus, tun●… vitam habemus in nobis, illi coniuncti, quae vita effecta est. Because the flesh of our Saviour, joined to the word of God which is life na turally, is made able to give life: When we eat it, than we have life in us, being joined to that flesh which is made life. * 5. The fifth gross imagination is, to think that we should so eat Christ's flesh, as if it were raw and not by any means, made meat for man's eating. Of this gross imagination, the Capharnaits were. Ad immanes ferarum mores, vocari se a Chri Cyrillus in joan. li. 4. c. 22. sto arbitrabantur, incitarique, ut vellent crudas hominis carnes manducare, & sanguinem bibere: quae vel auditu horribilia sunt. They thought themselves to be invited of Christ, to the cruel custom of wild beasts, and to be provoked, to eat the raw flesh, & drink the blood of man: which things are horrible to hear. It was yet no less a gross imagination to suppose, they should 〈◊〉 6. eate the body of Christ piece meal, one taking the shoulder, an other the leg, the third the breast, and so forth. Against which imagination S. Augustine hath written. Their imagination also, is very gross, who think that substance, August. in Psal. 98. of bread to remain, after consecration, as though they would eat that immortal and glorious flesh of Christ, with bakers bread. * 7. Which is the cursed banquet, of the Lutherans, whereas Christ said, The bread which I will give, is my flesh. giving us to understand, joan. 6. that he would not have in his heavenly supper, an earthly substance, of material bread. And yet it is, a more gross imagination, to confess that reallpresence * 8. of Christ's body, and to deny adoration to it, sithence it is the body of God. * 9 But how gross is it to deny it to be a propitiatory sacrifice, sith it is his body, who is the propitiation for the whole world. ●…. joan. 2. * 10. I omit at this time his gross imagination who teacheth the words which are spoken of a gift presently made and delivered, to be words of promise and of preaching. * But the grossest imagination that ever was heard of, is of them, who affirm no body of Christ at all, to be made really present, under the form of bread when it is said over the bread, of Christ himself: This is my body. This gross imagination, maketh Christ a liar, as Cyrillus hath witnessed. And now came our Apologists, and bring those words against the Catholics, as though they had a gross imagination, who think and teach, the words of Christ, to be true & to work that they speak, when soever they belong to any Sacrament. And therefore the substance of bread and wine, to be turned into that substance of the body and blood of Christ, the forms of the same bread and wine remaining, as veils and cortaines to cover the Why the forms of bread and wine remain. said flesh, as well because our faith should have merit, as because our eyes be not able to see that glorious & mystical kind of presence. The which consecrating of Christ's body, is an unblody sacrifice wherein God is put in mind, of the death, which redeemed the world. Every part of that Sacrament hath in it whole Christ, every kind alone is sufficient to nourish him to salvation, who worthily eateth it. And yet both kinds together must be consecrated, to show the death of Christ. This belief hath no gross imagination in it, as shall appear in all the work following. ¶ What the first Council of Nice hath taught concerning The. xxvi. Chapter. Christ's supper. ANd the Council of Nice, as it is cited in Greek of some, The Apo logie. doth expressly forbid us, that we should not basely occupy our minds about the bread and wine set before us. The words of the Nicen Council, whereof the Apology The answer. speaketh, are these. Iterum etiam hic in divina mensa, & caet. Again here also in the holy table, let us not basely attend the bread and cup The words of the first Nicene Con cell. set before us, but lifting up our mind, let us understand by faith, That Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, situm esse, to be put, and laid on that holy table, incruente a sacerdotibus immolatum, to be unbloodely sacrificed of the Priests, and that we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Verè, Truly and in deed, taking his own precious body and blood, do believe, these to be the mystical tokens, of our redemption. For this cause we take not much but little, that we might know we take not, to fill us, but for holiness. In these words many things are affirmed, of the blessed Sacrament of the altar, every of the which doth prove, or help to prove, the real presence of Christ's body, under the form of bread and wine. * 1 First the Council sayeth the bread and the cup to be set before us, upon the holy table, bidding us not basely attend or consider them. What other thing, can these words mean, then to warn us▪ that we should not look to the natural appearing or show, of the Some virtue lieth privy under the forms of bread and wine. bread and of the cup, but to a greater virtue, which lieth privy under their forms? Therefore begin we to collect, that the bread and the wine, which stand upon the holy table, keep not any more their old nature & substance, but contain under their old forms, the new substance of Christ. For if they remained (as before consecration they were) material bread and wine: then we need no warning to put away base considerations of them, sith by that opinion, we are bound to believe, earthly bread and wine, to be still bread and wine, and to be nothing bettered in substance. * 2 Then as concerning the use of them, so long as the blessed word of God, which is the form of the Secrament, is joined with any How long a Sacrament may be so called. element, (which remaineth still in his old nature), so long the word and the element, make a mystery: But when the word or form is ended, the Sacrament is ended, as the which only worketh, and hath grace annexed to it, whiles it is in the use, whereunto Christ hath appointed it. So long as the Priest, whiles he washeth, is saying, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, so long the baptim is a doing and working: when the words be ended, the Sacrament is ended. For seeing the promise of forgiveness of sins, is given to the washing in the joan. 3. Marc. 16. name of the trinity, when that is done, the promise is sinished for that course. The council of Nice, speaketh of the bread and of the cup after consecration, after that it was said over them, This is my body and this is my blood, which words are the form of that Sacrament. For the council speaketh of the being, and standing, and of consyderig these things upon the holy table, not only whiles the words are spoken, but still afterward until they be received. If then, both the words of the Sacrament be past, and yet the council say, we must not basely attend, the bread and the cup that are upon the holy table. It giveth us to understand, that the words did not only come to the elements of bread and wine, to make them a Sacrament, after the comen sort of making, which The words of the supper di●… work so●… permanē●… thing. is in baptim, in confirmation, in holy orders, and in penance, but also, that the words did work some real thing, under the forms of bread & wine, which remaineth still as long as the said forms & signs remain. For this cause the council said, we ought not basely consider the bread and cup, for that, more was under the show and colour of them, than our eyes could tell us. What must we then do? * 〈◊〉 We must resort to a higher master, than our eyes are: we must lift up our mind, we must understand, not by looking & seeing, but by faith. Whether must we lift our mind? To heaven? That is not evil, but the council saith, an other thing: We lifting up What lifeing up of the mind is. our minds must understand by faith. Then the lifting up of our mind, is the renouncing of our senses, & the cleaving to our faith. We must believe that which we can not see. * 4. What must we believe? That the Lamb of God is upon the holy table. Which Lamb? He that taketh away the sins of the joan. 1. world. On which table? On the holy table, whereon that standeth, which seemeth bread and wine. * 5. How is the Lamb there? He is put laid & situate there as a thing may be situate which is under the forms of an other thing. For of such a situation the council speaketh & so we must believe of it. Now put this gear together, and thus the council saith. Consider not basely that bread and cup which standeth before The meaning of the Nicen Council. you. For although it seem that which nature made, yet we must lift up our mind, and understand by faith, that thing or substance, which is standing on the holy table, how so ever it appear bread and wine, to be the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world. Now we see, what is base, and what is high. Bread and wine is base: Body and blood is high. That must not be considered, because the substance thereof now hath ceased to be: This must be believed, because it is made present in substance. And it is so truly made, and the Lamb so truly prosen●…, that he * 6. The sacrifice of the Mass. is offered not in heart alone, but even outwardly of the Priests, not by shedding of blood (as upon the cross) but unblodely as it becometh the clean oblation of the new Testament, whereof Malachi did prophecy. That sacrifice which Priests offer can not be but present, for Malach. 1 c●…p. they offer with their hands, mo●…thes, and other external members of their body. * 7. After that the sacrifice is made, the faithful people, who stand by, do partake with the altar, which could not be, except a perma ne●…t substance were made by consecration. The Lamb is upon the table. He is offered there by the Priests. It followeth in the Council. * 8. We take truly the precious body and blood: We take it and truly take it. That is to say, in deed really and bodily. For the True body. truth of Christ's body and blood, is not an imaginary or feigned truth, it is not a thing conceived only (as a man might conceive in his mind, men flying in the air), it is not only believed or hoped, but he in natural existence, and among external things, hath as true a body and blood, as any creature hath a substance of his own. The true taking of the which precious body and blood, is the Trne taking. taking of it in such a truth of subs●…ce as itself hath. And because it is true in the thing itself, the taking of it, is in the thing itself. * 9 The taking of that which s●…andeth before us on the table, is by instrument of our bodies, therefore it is delivered according to the same external truth, by the corporal ministery of the Priests So that all is truly and externally done, by the judgement of this ancient council. * 10. Well, we truly taking them, believe them to be the tokens of our The tokens of our redemption. redemption or as some books read, of our resurrection. For as our redemption was by the ●…ame body and the same blood really wrought upon the cross: so having themselves present upon the holy table, and truly taking them, we take the sure witnesses and evident tokens of our redemption. Bread & wine be not 〈◊〉 of our redemption. But if the things which stand upon the holy table were in substance bread and wine, how could they be the tokens of our redemption? Did bread and wine redeem us? Or did they rise from death for us? It is the body and blood of Christ which redeemed us and which arose from death, and the self same body and blood are now made present to us, & offered unbloodely for us, to show in fact and deed, our redemption already wrought by them, and to distribute the fruits of the Cross, by none other thing so much, as by the same body and blood that redeemed us. For lest we should assign any part of our salvation, to any Why Chri stes body is the token of our redemption. other creature besides to the only body and blood of Christ, he made the self-same body, both the price wherewith he redeemed us, and the token and dispensour of the redemption. It was proved before, that if these things be the tokens of our redemption, instituted by the express words of Christ, than they are the things themselves, which they betoken, because they are mystical tokens of the new Testament. But they are here not as redeeming us new, and therefore as tokens of the old redemption, that no man should think Christ to die again, or should doubt (as S. Chrysostom hath noted) of his death already past, or of Chrysos. Hom. 83, in Math. any manner prices of our redemption to be paid then one, or that it hath any other token left thereof in the holy mysteries besides itself. For it was so worthy a truth and ra●…som paid for us upon the Cross, which was able to be painted worthily or set forth, to the remembrances of the faithful by none other image, than such, wherein the truth might be set forth after an other sort more mystical, concerning the manner: But no less true than the thing which died was, concerning the substance. Who so is faithful and humble, is now able to understand, how The some of all that was said. the show of bread and wine, standeth with the truth, of body and blood present on the holy table: How the unbloody sacrifice, is made of the Priests, whiles by pronouncing the words of God they turn the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of Christ's body and blood: how we both truly take the precious body and blood of Christ, concerning the substance of them, under the forms of bread and wine: And yet believe them to be tokens instituted of Christ, of our redemption, betokening the price paid, by making present the body and blood which paid it. Was not this a worthy place, for the Apology to allege? But How much of this testimony the Apolog●… left out. I warrant you, it alleged the weakest part thereof, leaving out the situation of the Lamb of God, on the holy table: The unbloody sacrifice made of Priests, the true taking and receiving of the precious body and blood. Only bread and wine, (which are named to show the forms within the which the body and blood are) them they name, as a great matter, to further this new broached heresy. But he is a faithful trier and examiner of ancient Fathers, who faithfully citeth the whole place, neither adding nor diminishing, which honest dealing we may not look, for, at these defenders hands. ¶ That the catholics have the table of Eagles, and The. 〈◊〉 Chapter. the Sacramentaries have the table of jays. ANd as Chrisostome writeth well, we say, that the body of The Apo logie. Christ is the carcase, and we must be the Eagles, that we may know, that we ought, to fly high, if we will come to the body of Christ. For this is the table of Eagles, not of jays. It is a weak stake that these men would not take hold of, being The answer. now plunging for life, under the water. S. Chrysostom so plainly expoundeth his own meaning, immediately where he speaketh, of the carcase and of the Eagles, that I can not sufficiently wonder, at the impudency of him, who allegeth this place. For the alleger, would have the words taken, as though the body of Christ, were not upon the altar: But we only should by faith ascend into heaven, whereas S. Chrysostom speaketh, of going in to heaven, by good life also, and not by faith only. His words are these. The body of our Lord is through death become the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chryso. in. ●…. cor. Hom. 24 carcase. for unless he had fallen, we had not risen. Christ useth the name of Eagles to declare, that it behoveth him, who shall approcheunto his body, to seek for high things, and not to meddle with the earth, nor to be drawn down, or creep unto earthly matters, which are a low, but to flee always up to higher matters: And to behold the son of righteousness, and to have the eye and the mind quick of sight, for this is the table of Eagles and not of jays. Hitherto S. Chrysostom. * 1 The carcase. Who first showeth why the body of Christ is called the carcase. Not because it is without life, but because it once hath died for us * 2 Like Eagles. Secondly we must be like Eagles in life and faith. In life by forsaking earthly affections: In faith by quickness of mind, whiles we believe, that not withstanding bread and wine appear to us, yet it is in deed an other 〈◊〉. The propri●…es of the Egle. The Eagle hath many proprietes, as to flee high, to look ●…edfastly upon the sun, to see most clearly a far of, and to take his prey most swiftly: To the flying high, our good life must answer: to the quickness of sight, our faith: Not in such sort to flee a high as though the matter we seek were not present, but to ●…spie the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine. This is the table o●… Eagles. For as S. Chrysostom saith: This is the table of Eagles. He speaketh not now of heaven, which is a bo●…e the sun, he speaketh of the table which standeth in the Church before us, whereupon the son of righteousness is situated, from which we take the food of life, the joy of heaven, the earcase that hath died for us. The table is it whereof he speaketh. What impudency is this, so to abuse the words of that blessed man, as if he spoke of going into heaven by faith, whereas in deed he speaketh of them that live like the saints of heaven, and of them that have a quick sight, to wit, a faithful understanding, that they be able as it were to look through the forms of bread and wine. there to see under those forms the real body and blood of Christ. The quic ●…ight of Eagles is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For strait upon the naming of a quick sight, he inferreth that this is the table of Eagles not of jays. As who sho●…ld say here is a meat that none can see but those who have a most pure eye of faith. Aquila (saith S. Augustine) sublimiter volans, de tanto intervallo August. in lib. de diumat. Daemonun sub fluctibus natantem piscem dicitur ꝑ●…idere, & graviter aquis illisa extertis pedibus atque unguibus rapere. The Eagle flying a high, is said most perfectly to see a great way of, a fish swimming under the waves, and vehemently beating herself against the water, by stretching out her feet and claws, to snatch up the fish. Behold an Eagle seeth one thing under an other: And so must An Eagle seeth one thing under an other. we repute the table of Christ to have in it one thing under an other. To have upon it the body of Christ under the form of bread. And therefore no●…e but Eagles can espy the said body. As for the Sacramentaries & zwinglians they are like jays, The heret●…s are jays. ever prattling of the body of Christ, but never espying it, or seeing where it lieth, they flee low as the jays do, as thinking that good works bring small aid to ●…ife everlasting. They see weakly, and content themselves with a base banquet of bread and wine, requiring to their bodies none other food of life. And whereas the son of reghteousnesse hath covered himself as it were with the clouds of bread and wine, to thint●…nt our eye might be able to bear more easily the bright●…esse of his shining, The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sight of ●…tiks. yet they are of so dull and of so dim eye sight, that th●…y say there is nothing but 〈◊〉 upon the table. So that our table is the table of E●…les, where faithful Eagles may e●…pie the son of 〈◊〉 present upon the altar and table, and their table is the table of jays, where nothing is 〈◊〉 besides that, which iufidell jaies may find out by natural eye sight, & bare naming without true being. It followeth in S. Chrysostm. If noman will rashly handle an Chryso. Hom. 24 in. 1. cor. other man's garment, how dare we, to our great shame and reproach, receive this pure and immaculate body▪ which is Lord of all, which is partaker of the divine nature, through which we have our being and living, by which the gates of hell are broken down: and the gates of heaven set wide open? Thus S. Chrysostom showeth, us to receive this body of Christ, from the holy table or altar, as truly, concerning the substance thereof, as we may truly touch, an other man's garment. Heaven is used both in holy Scriptures and in the Fathers for Heaven. Lucae. 10. &. 12. etc. the heavenly life. And so we must flee in to heaven, not, to receive this body (so it is not said) but, when we approach unto this body. The body is in earth with us, concerning the nature and substance thereof, under the forms of bread: But as it is a body glori●…ied, and thereby made heavenly, even so we must cleanse and purge ourselves from sin, when we come to it, and so be made heavenly, Lucae. 10. 1. Tim. 3. or flee in to the state of them who live in heaven: And that state we profess who are called the kingdom of heaven, & the house of God. ¶ The bread, that is the meat of the mind and not of the The. 28. Chapter. belly, can be no wheaten bread, but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ. ANd Cyprian, this bread (sayith he) is meat of the mind, The Apo logie. not meat of the belly. The truth is so strong, that the more is brought against it, the The answer. better it is seen. The saying of S. Cyprian maketh so clearly for the contrary of that which the Apologi teacheth, as it is possible to devise. If this bread be meat of the mind not meat of the belly, out That the substance of bread r●… mameth not in Christ's supper. of question, it is not material bread, it is not the substance of common bread. for though such material bread, be never so much hallowed, by prayer and thanksgiving, yet it still remaineth, in substance, bread of the belly. But seeing the substance of the common bread, is changed into the flesh of Christ, (as we catholics believe and teach) now, it can by no means be meat of the belly. for albeit we receive it really, under the forms of bread, into our bodies, and that also to feed Two kinds of feeding. them, as well as our souls, yet there are two kinds of feeding, one, which is to live in this world (and in that case meat is for the belly, and the belly for meat, and God shall destroy both 1. Cor. 6. the one & the other). But an other feeding is to life everlasting, & joan. 6. that is called by Christ, cibus permanens, meat which abideth & which perisheth not. Such a meat, is the blessed body of Christ. It is a meat in deed. The body of Christ is not the meat of the belly. A meat which is truly eaten, but is not digested into our corruptible flesh, and voided as common meats are, but a little and a little, it feedeth and nourisheth us to life everlasting. These defenders thought, if it were ●…aten in deed, that it could The error of the apology. not be, but meat of the belly. As well they might blasphemously say, that because Christ was man in deed, he was born in sin. And in that opinion, they are like the Capharnaits, who could joan. 6. imagine none other kind of meat, besides that which is divided into pieces, and consumed by eating. The true Christians have learned, by the mercy of God, with Cyrillus lib. 4. in joan. c. 14. holy Cyrillus, how the flesh of Christ (because it is the flesh of God) may be eaten, and yet quicken the eaters, and make them live to God, and notbe wasted by eating, but rather how it may profit our souls being worthily received into our bodies. For so Tertullian sayeth. The flesh is fed with the body and Tertull. de resur. carnis. blood of Christ, to th'end that the soul may be made fat in God. Perhaps the Apologists will say, that S. Cyprian doth call it bread: I answer he calleth it bread because it is meat for he The kind of bread whereof S. Cyprian speaketh. sayeth, This bread is meat. But what kind of meat? Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mu tatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. This bread which ou●… Lord ga●…e to the Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in Cypria. de coena Domini. nature, is made flesh by the almighty power of the word. Behold the kind of bread, it is common bread in shape, but made the flesh of Christ in substance. In the old time saith S. Cyprian, the show loves being cold Cypria. de coena Domini. and hard, were changed every Sabothe day, and hot loaves of the same number were wont to be set upon the table. I am nulla ●…itpanis panis mutatio, unus est panis caloris continui. Now there is no change of bread made, there is one lose os cōt●…al heat, which never is cold. By this we understand that sometime S. Cyprian speaketh of common bread which Christ took into his hands, and that is changed, and is at every time a new loaf. At other times he speaketh of the bread whereunto the change is made. And the bread is the flesh of Christ which is never changed. The first bread if it tar●…ed in substance, it should fill the belly. But because the substance thereof is changed, the flesh of Christ which is made by consecration is the meat of the mind, and not of the belly. For it feedeth us to that state of immortality where the belly shall no more be filled with coruptible meats. So that it feedeth us in such sort that we leave to cherish o●…r bellies so much the less, by how much the more we eat it 〈◊〉. ¶ Sacramental eating differreth from eating by faith The. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. alone whereof only S. Augustine speaketh in the place al●…aged by the Apology. ANd Augustine. how (saith he) shall I hold him that is absent? The Apo logie. How shall I reach forth my hand into h●…auen that I might hold him there sitting? Reach out (saith he) faith: & thou hast caught him. To make up and to con●…lnde all these wrested places, which have The ●…sivere. been alleged heretofore out of the Fathers, a plain text is brought forth out of S. Augustine, which speaketh never a wh●…t of the present August. tract. 50. in joan. controversy, nor can not be at all applied to it. The question betwixt us is, whether Christ's body be present in the Sacrament of the altar or ●…o? The Apology reasoneth thus A jew that yet believed not, niay begin to believe, and so may The argument of the apology. stretch forth his hand to heaven, and hold Christ fast by faith, although he be bodily absent, therefore Christ's body after consecration duly made, is not present under form of bread. Is not this a mighty argument, and worthy to be kept for the last place? A jew may hold Christ by faith if he will believe upon August. tract. 50. in joan. him, therefore he is not to be eaten really of faithful Christians in the Sacrament? Nos indicemus modo judaeis, ubi sit Christus. Let us now show to the jews (sayeth S. Augustine) where Christ is. Occisus est a parentibus eorum, he is ●…aine of their Parents. Venturus est judex, he shall come a i●…dge. Audiant & teneant, let them hear and hold. Respondet, quem tenebo? The I●…we maketh answer, whom shall I hold? Absentem? Shall I hold him that is absent? Quomodo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam? How shall I stretch my hand unto heaven that I may hold him sitting there? Fidem mitte, & tenuisti, stretch out faith, and thou hast caught him. Parents tui tenuerunt car●…, tu tene cord. Thy Parents have holden (him) in flesh, hold hold●… (him) in heart. Quoniam Christus absens etiam presens est, because Christ being absent is also present. And again, corpus suum intulit coelo, maiestatem n on abstulit mundo. Christ hath carried his body into heaven, he hath not taken away his majesty from the world. This dialogue S. Augustine made between himself & a jew, not intending any whit, to spcake in that place of the Sacrament of the altar, whereof jews ought to know nothing. And yet cometh the apology, and will prove that we touch not the body of Christ with our teeth, and jaws, but by faith, mind, and spirit, because, beside all the former arguments (which be not woreth a straw) S. Augustine telleth a jew, that he may believe upon Christ absent in body, but present in majesty of his Godhead. You will say perhaps, If Christ be absent in body, that his body is not present under the form of bread, after consecration. Sir, S. Augustine speaketh not of Christ's body, as it is in the Sacrament to be eaten, but as it is visible in heaven. Infidels were kept from Mass. And to assure you thereof, it was the custom of the primitive Church, to let no infidel see, or be present, at the time of Mass of the Christians. Therefore S. Augustine might not lawfully talk to a jew, of the mystical presens of Christ in the Sa●…ament, neither surely any word of his in that alleged place, is to be referred to the Sacramental eating. They are two distinct things, to receive Christ by faith alone, and to receive by faith and Sacrament together: that may be done Receiving by faith. Act. 10. Sacramen tall receaning. justinus in Apol. 2. before baptism (as it appeareth by Cornelius in the Acts of the Apostles) But a Sacramental receiving in the supper of Christ, is granted only to Christians after baptism (as S. Justinus the martyr and the experience itself doth witness) For as he, that is not borne, can not eat, so he, that is not regenerated in Christ, may not be suffered to eat his body & drink his blood in the Sacrament. And truly, except a man hath so addicted himself to Christ, that he will be contented to bele●…e what so ever Why infi●… might not come to Mass. he shall say unto him, he would never be persuaded, that under the form of so small a piece of bread the real body of Christ were contained. But when he hath learned in the articles of his faith, that Christ is God, and therefore almighty, after that belief, he both can believe his word to be true, when he said over bread which was taken: This is my body, and also may eat the same body of Christ Math. 26 to his profit, and to the increase of life everlasting. But what ignorance was this, to apply the eating of an infidel jew to the mystical eating, which only the faithful make in Christ's supper? ¶ The preface of the third Book. THe mystery of Christ's supper was so great, that not only Gen. 14. Leuiti. 2. diverse figures in the law of nature and of Moses were by the patriarchs & Priests outwardly celebrated thereof, and not only diverse predictions were made by the Prophets Prou. 9 Psal. 22. concerning the same: but also, when Christ himself was come into the world, he did both make an introduction to the promise of his supper by a miraculous blessing and breaking of five and Math. 14 Marci. 7. seven loaves to the jews, and more over in express words foretold, that he would give his flesh to be eaten, even the same flesh, joan. 6. which he would give for the life of the world. But for so much as some men think, that Christ in the sixth Chapter of S. John speaketh not properly at all (no not so much as by the way of promise) of his last supper: I must as Two things are to be proved in this book. well prove against them, who think so, that Christ spoke in that place of the gift which he afterward made in his parting banquet: As also, that the real presence of his flesh and blood, is evidently proved by such words of promise, as he there uttered. For it can not be doubted, but the truth itself performed all that in deed itself, which his words had before promised for the time to come. Neither ought it to be a grief to any man, if in handling these matters I seem to entreat of hard questions, which are above the capacity of the vulgar people. For the nature of all holy mysteries August. de util. creden. ad Hon. cap. 2. is such, that (as S. Augustine sayeth) it may sooner be impugned popularly and plausibly, then be so defended. Which notwithstanding, I have done what I can to utter all things plainly. And yet who is there, that now can justly find fault with me, for handling deep and obscure matters? Is not every man sufficiently instructed by this time to judge of all points in divinity. Is not that man, who in parliament scared not to sit judge of this high mystery, and without the consent of any one Prelate in that house, to condemn the unbloody sacrifice of the blessed Mass, is not that man able to understand such writings, as are set forth in that behalf? He that must, if a parliament be called, prescribe a faith unto me (what, say I, unto me?) he that will take upon him to prescribe it to all the realm, to general Counsels, yea to the whole Church, he that will accuse his Fathers and grandfathers even to the tenth generation of ignorance, of superstition, and of idolatry, he that accounteth himself 1. Cor. 2. spiritual, and therefore sufficient to discern doctrines & spirits, will he say that a poor scholar of Oxford doth write to high for his understanding? If it be so, let him understand, that the said scholar is a very base member in Christ's Church, and a very ignorant man, in respect of those notable Bishops & other divines, whom he heard Of the 〈◊〉 Council. and saw at the Council of Trent with such admiration, that 〈◊〉 deed he was neither able nor worthy to speak among them. Let him understand that those Fathers did so exactly search out the truth of the present controversies, as well by conferring together the holy Scriptures, as by viewing the books of the ancient Doctors and Counsels, that they spent in some one matter four months continual. To be short, let him understand that seeing the tenth part of the learned men 〈◊〉 Christendom came not to the Council, and yet there were in it above two hundred persons of such excellency, for wit, learning, & virtue, that it passed much more the wisdom of any one realm, than the grave Senate of a The wise doom of the whole Church. whole realm doth exceed that particular Council of never so mean a Litie: Let him, I say, understand, what wisdom, what knowledge, what judgement is, and hath been in the whole Church of God, by the space of fifteen hundred years together. The preaching practice, and government of which long time a few such feared not of late by their open voices to condemn, as to whom if a man should at their own house propose a very mean problem The judges of religion in our tyme.. or doubt in divinity, they would not only refuse to answer thereunto, but they would also confess plainly, that they never studied the science of Divinity. They would swear if need were, that they never attended principally to any other thing, then to serve God and their Prince, and to hawk or hunt. Whereof I put them in mind, to the end they should deeply consider with what temerity they attempted, to determine the high and secret points of Christian faith, and that knowing their fault they should bewail & amend the same. I beseech God to give us all grace to know ourselves, and t●… beware that, whiles we covet to be as Gods in understanding the Scriptures, we taste not of the tree which is named the knowledge of good and evil, and afterward be cast out of Paradise, because we contented not ourselves with the order Genes. 3. and condition, which our Lord had appointed for us. I trust, although the matters, which I entreat of, be very hard, to make them yet plain by such help as the ancient Fathers have left unto us in their most learned works and commentaries. According to whose wisdom I will expound those places of S. John, which specially appertain to my purpose. The chapters of the third book. 1. The Argument of the sixth chapter of S. john is declared. 2. It is proved by circumstances, and by the conference of holy Scriptures, that Christ speaketh in S. john of his last supper. 3. The same is proved out of the Fathers and Counsels. 4. Answer is made to them that teach the contrary out of the Fathers. 5. Item to them, that teach the contrary out of the Scriptu●…es. 6. The gift of the everlasting meat is showed to be the gift of Christ's flesh at his supper. 7. The equality of substance alleged between Christ and his Father, proveth one substance to be given both of God the Father to Christ, and of Christ to us. 8. Christ is not the bread of life to us by the gift of his flesh, except we eat really his own flesh. 9 Whereas three gifts are named in S. john, Christ's gift partaketh of both the other, & therefore containeth his real flesh under a figure. 10. The middle state of the new Testament between the law and glory requireth the same truth, which is in heaven, to be given under a figure. 11. The bread that Christ will give, which is his flesh, must needs be meant of the substance of his flesh. 12. Christ himself showeth, that the eating of him by faith or in a figure only differeth far from the real eating of his flesh in his last supper. 13. Christ's flesh to be as really present in his supper, as water is at baptism: In so much that children were sometime communicated. 14. That S. Augustin did not teach these words, except ye eat the flesh & caet. to betoken only eating by faith and spirit, or by figure alone. 15. Christ's flesh, being meat in deed, must needs be really present to be eaten. 16. By the manner of Christ's tarrying in us, it is proved that we eat his real flesh. 17. We are one with Christ by eating his flesh in the natural substance thereof, as he is one nature with his Father by eternal generation. 18. The real presence of Christ's body was so true, that it was taught with the loss of many disciples. 19 How the flesh profiteth nothing without the spirit. 20. The words of Christ, being spirit and life, make and witness his flesh to be present miraculously and above the course of nature. ¶ The argument of the sixth Chapter of S. John is The first Chapter. declared. WHereas Christ may be received either by faith & spirit only, without the Sacrament of the altar, or else in the Christ may be received three ways Sacrament of the altar only, without lively faith and grace, or in both together, which is the most fruitful kind of communicating: some have thought, that in the sixth chapter of S. john there is no talk of the second and third kind of receiving (which is referred to the Sacrament of the altar) but only of the first, which is by faith and charity. Merrily those men are not to be blamed for saying that Christ speaketh Christ speaketh not in S. John of unworthy eating. not there, of the second kind of eating which is by Sacrament alone, without spiritual eating and drinking (for thereof in deed he speaketh not) but they are to be reprehended, if they deny that he speaketh of such Sacramental eating, as is used in our Lord's supper, when it is (as it always aught to be) worthily received. My purpose is at this time, to show that albeit Christ in the former part of that Chapter speaketh for the most part of spiritual Worthy Sacramental eating is spo ken of to ward the end of the Chapter. eating and drinking only, yet afterward he speaketh also of that eating which is by receiving worthily the Sacrament of that altar at the Priests hands. for to that end chief goeth all the talk of it, not as though spiritual receiving alone were not better then only Sacramental receiving, but because both together are better than one alone. Christ presseth his Disciples to such a receiving of himself as is most perfect of all. For proof of which thing, I am constrained bri●…fly to touch the time and order of Christ's talk. A little more than one whole year before his passion, Christ about the great feast of Easter, went beyond the sea of Galilee, and wrought that notable miracle, wherein he fed about five thousand joan. 6. men with five loa●…es and two fishes. Whereby the people were induced the rather to seek him that next day at 〈◊〉. Whom The miracle of multiplying bread, was a pre paratorie to the talk of Christ'S supper. he no 〈◊〉 saw, but he did put them in mind of yesterday miracle, telling them that they followed him, not for the signessake which they had seen, but because they had eaten their bellies full of bread. as though he had said: my intent was that you should rather have noted the miracle, then have respected your bellies▪ which 〈◊〉 sith you have not done of yourselves, I warn you thereof willing you to work, not the meat which perisheth (as yesterday bread & fish did) but that which tarrieth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. In these words Christ doth manifestly declare (as also S. Chry●…ostom Chryso. in ca 6. joan. Ho mi. 45. Math. 14. hath noted) that the miracle of five loaves appertained in some part unto his last supper, whereof he intended at that time to speak, taking an occasin of that bread which by blessing and thanksgiving he had multiplied. For which cause he said, work 〈◊〉 other kind of mea●…e than ye did yesterday, for the meat is now perished, and ye are a hungered again. Work a meat that may tarry longer with you, that may tarry unto everlasting life. Hitherto the words of Christ may be meant▪ by spiritual eating and drinking only, B●…t the words that follow, do mean also a further kind of eating The gift of Christ which is to come is meant of his supper and drinking. For when he saith: which the son of man will give you, he plainly meaneth that gift of his last supper, as Theophylact doth witness, but yet uttereth his meaning after a secret sort, as S. Cyrillus doth write upon the same place. And in deed that 〈◊〉 Christ doth expound the spiritual eating before the Sacrametall ●…ating. is the gift which is namely reserved in this Chapter to the son of man, as it shall appear afterward. But because they could not come to the worthy working of Chrstes own gift, until the work of faith were by y● 〈◊〉 wrought in them, he strait declareth by an occasion taken of the old figure manna, how they must have faith from God, to believe upon him. for that he was the bread of life, who came down from heaven to give life eu●…rlasting both in body and soul to all such as his Father brought unto him. for who so ever should eat of that bread which himself was, should live for ever. After which preparation made, he returneth to expound his own gift which he named the gift of the Son of man showing most expressly that which he will give in his last supper: And the joan. 6. bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. The Spiritual ●…ating was present. gift of spiritual eating by faith & charity was not to come when Christ spoke unto his Disciples. For it was then present, & therefore he said presently, I am the bread of life, meaning that he was presently so, concerning spiritual feeding, in so much as, if any man would have believed in him, even at that instant, he might through grace have eaten of Christ. But Christ saith his own peculiar gift was to come: and there Sacramental eating was to come. fore he continueth expounding his gift in many sentences, until at the last he saith, he that eateth this bread (which himself had before promised to give to be eaten) shall live for ever. I will by God's grace make the proof hereof so plain hereafter, as any reasonable man shall desire. Only first protesting that I follow not mine own brain herein, but that judgement of all y●●…cient Fathers, who with one accord have taken this Chapter to speak (by way of promise), of the Sacrament of the altar, which was iustituted by Christ in his last supper. ¶ It is proved by circumstances & by the conference of holy The second Chapter. Scriptures that Christ speaketh in S. John of his last supper. 1. The time of Easter. HE that doth well consider the only time when this talk was had, he that weigheth how Christ having made that great 1. The miracle made ●…n bread. miracle in blessing five loaves, doth the next day about the time of Easter, one whole year before the celebrating of his last supper, as it were make both a prophecy and a promise 3. The Prophetical promise. what he would do the Easter twelve month after, he that conferreth as well what was done and said abonte the sea of Tiberias 4▪ The conference of things done and said. and at Capharnaum as what was done and said in the last supper which was kept the night wherein he was betrayed, he that noteth the father's gift to be accounted present, and that to be the working of belief in that hearts of the faithful (which is a spiritual 5. The present eating of God's gift. eating of Christ) but the sons gift to be reckoned as a thing to come hereafter, and to be called eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Which if it shall differ any thing at all from the father's gift, must needs be more than a spiritual eating of Christ's flesh) he shall 6. The eating of Christ's gift to come. joan. 6. Math. 26 Marc. 14. perceane ●… this chapter both a spiritual eating presently offered, and a sacramental eating promised hereafter ●… the natural substance of flesh and blood. which in this place thus briefly touched shall at large be handled in the treatise following. At this time he that conferreth what was done and said both at the last supper of Christ and the year before about the sea of 1. Bread taken. Tyberias: shall see concerning the doings, bread taken in both places, blessing and thanksgiving in both, eating in both. And as concerning words, let him deeply ponder, and consider 2. Blessing. that as in S. john he began his talk of common bread saying to the 3. thanksgiving. jews: ye follow me because yehave eaten of the loaves of bread, 4. Eating. but at the length he ended his talk with the eating of his flesh, and drinking his blood: So in his last supper he took into his 5. From bread to flesh. Math 26 hands common bread, but at the length he ended his banquet in the eating his body and drinking his blood. As in S. john he speaketh distinctly of a meat which the son 6. The son of man is the giver. of man will give: So at his supper, the soon of man did administer the whole gift of his heavenly meat in his own person. As in S. john he saith: the bread which I will give, that is to 7. Meare is given▪ Mar. ●…4. Mat. 26. say, the meat of my last supper: so in his last supper he tak●…g bread after blessing & breaking, d●…th give a blessed food saying, sumite, take. 8. That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ took first. 〈◊〉. 6. As in S. john he said, the bread which I will give, and not the bread which I will take: so in his supper he took one kind of bread, and gave an other. For as in S. john he saith, the bread which I will give is my flesh: so at his last supper after he had taken common bread, and blessed, he said: Take, this is my body. 9 Flesh and body is given. joan. 6. As in S. John the bread to be given and the flesh of Christ is all o●…e: so in his supper he giveth none other bread besides his own body. For the substance of the common bread was changed by blessing and speaking the words. 10. No common bread is given. joan. 6. As his bread and flesh was said to be in S. john for the life of that world: so in his supper he said: This is my body which is given for you. 11. The flesh that died is given. As in S. john he saith, my flesh is meat in deed: so in his supper he saith: take, eat, this is my body. That which is eaten in deed, is meat in deed. 12. The gift is eaten in deed. joan. 6. As in S. John there is mention o●… drinking the blood of Christ: so in his supper he saith: drink ye all of this, for this is my blood. As in S. John there is no mention of wine to be given or drunken: 13. The blood is drunken. joan. 6. so Christ in his supper neither spoke of wine at the time of drinking, nor gave any wine at all to be drunken, because it was by his words changed into his blood. 14. No wine was ●…run ken. joan. 6. As at Capharuaum certain of his Disciples went away from him: so at his last supper he did reject and separate them from his table. And as his twelve Apostles most faithfully tarried with him at Capharnaum: so they alone were in the night of his betraying admitted to his holy table. 15. The. xii. only tarried 〈◊〉 both places. As at Capharnaum when Christ had asked the twelve, whether 16. The. xii. protested in both places not to ●…orsake Christ. joan. 6. they also would go away, S. Peter answered for them (Lord to whom shall we go?) meaning they were not offended●…, nor would not got from him: even so after his last supper S. Peter & likewise all the rest said they would not de●…ie him, though all the world forsook him, or took offence against him. As at Capharnaum Christ said, that one of the twelve was a devil: so at his last supper the Bospel doth tell that Satan entered 17. judas was reproved in both places. joan. 13. into judas one of the twelve. If the time, words, deeds, & persons thoroughly agree, it is unseemly to make them diverse kinds of eating and drinking, whereof one man at one time of the year speaketh and practiseth to the same Disciples so conformable a doctrine and doing. ¶ It is proved out of the holy Fathers and general The third Chapter. Counsels, that Christ in S. John spoke of his last supper. THat I may here omit S. Ignatius, who defineth the bread Ignatius ●… epist. add Roman. of God, of heaven, and of life (which is named in the sixth of S. John) to be the flesh of Christ and his cup or blood: That I may let pass Clemens Alexandrinus, who speaking of Clemens Alexand. De Paeda gogo. li. 1. ca 6. joan. 6. Origen. Hom. 7. sup num. joan. 6. the nourishment which we, that are baptised in Christ, have by him, calleth it not only Christ, the word, milk, bread and drink, but also the flesh and blood, and body of Christ, and the mystery of bread, alleging diverse places out of S. John for that purpose: Last of all, that I may not stand upon Origen, who comparing the fullness of Baptism to the red sea which was but a shadow, and likewise the Sacrament of Christ's supper to Mauna, declareth out of S. John that now the flesh of Christ is meat in deed, by that means witnessing, that he took the words of the sixth of S. John to belong to the mystery o●… Christ's last banquet: Surely S. Cyprian doth not only by occasion of other talk, Cypria. in oratio nem Do mini. but even of set purpose teach, that who so ever for some great fault is any long time kept from the body of Christ in the Sacrament, he is in danger of everlasting life. And that because Christ said: except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. And yet he should wholly fail of his proof, if that place which he bringeth out of S. John, did not prove the necessity of communicating Sacramentally. S. Athanasius setting forth a brief and compendious rehearsal Athanasius in Synopsi. no. testa. lib. 4. joan. 6. of the whole divine Scripture, witnesseth that Christ at his coming to Capharnaum, reasoneth with the multitude concerning the mysteries. Which saying of his can not be justified according to the historical sense which he professeth in that work, if Christ in S. John spoke principally of that spiritual eating which is beside his holy mysteries. S. Hilary disputing of the natural verity of Christ which is Hilarius libr. 8. de Trinit. joan. 6. in us by the Sacrament of receiving his flesh, doth not only bring for that intent, these words, My flesh is meat in deed: But also concludeth that as well by the profession of our Lord, as by our own faith Christ's flesh is truly in us. And certainly he meaneth it so to be in us as we receive it in his last supper. But if the place by him alleged prove not so much, his reason lacketh a sufficient ground, for so much as he citeth none other authority for that argument of his against the Arrians, but only the words which are in S. Ihon. By those words he affirmeth Christ to be in us after such sort, that he is in us naturally, and we naturally in him. S. Basile intituling his book of Baptism, and wholly bend to Basilius de bapt. li. 1. ca 3. declare the Sacraments of Christ's Church, showeth that after our second birth nourishment is necessary to us, & strait way bringeth forth Christ's words in S. John: joining them with the words of his last supper, which S. Basile sayeth to be written joan. 6. in the end of the Gospels, thereby giving us to understand that as the performance was made in the end, so the promise went before. Is it not marvel now that any thing should be pretended out of this blessed man for the contrary opinion? But how justly it is pretended, we shall see afterward. Gregorius of Nyssa brother to S. Basile teacheth the flesh of Gregorius Nys senus in vita Moy sis. joan. 6. Christ to be a bodily thing because it is made meat for man's body. That it is meat he proveth 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 heaven which is the true meat is not a thing without a body. Quo enim pacto (saith he) res incorporea corpori cibus fiet? For by what means will a thing which lacketh a body be made meat unto the body? Doubtless Christ is made meat unto our bodies no where else but only in the Sacrament of his supper. And therefore this great clerk thought himself to reason well, in bringing such words as are in S. John for that effect which belongeth to the holy communion. Because he judged both places of holy Scripture to be of one argument. Cyrillus of Jerusalem entreating of the Sacrament of the altar, Cyrillus Catech. mystagogi. 4. so evidently citeth these words of S. John, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, & caet. that noman may doubt of his meaning. And because this part of my work would be over long if I should stay so long upon every of the ancient Fathers, I beseech the studious Reader to be content that hereafter I may in fewer words declare every man's judgement, showing him the place of the author, where if it please him, he may at more leisure examine all the circumstances. Ambros. de Sacra men. li. 6 cap. 1. Euseb. Emissen. Hom. 5. ●… Pa●…cha. S. Ambrose disputing of the truth of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist, although itself be not seen, bringeth out of S. John: My flesh is meat in deed, and except ye eat the flesh, etc. Eusebius Emissenus having spoken of the bread and wine of Melchisedech, showeth Christ to have spoken of eating his own flesh, & of drinking his own blood in S. John, as of two kinds whereby he is received, which is done no where but in Christ's supper. S. Chrysostom is so plain herein, that of those words, the Chryso. Hom. 44 in joan. bread which I will give is my flesh, he maketh none other literal meaning, but such as appertaineth to the Sacrament of Christ's body. And yet he expoundeth the former parts of the Chapter indifferently of spiritual eating and drinking. S. Augustine albeit he may seem upon S. John to press most August. in joan. cap. 6. tract. 26. earnestly upon the w●…itie, which we have with Christ by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and by tarrying in him, & having him tarrying in us: yet he meaneth not to exclude out of those words all Sacramental receiving, but only the unworthy Sacramental receiving. For he saith expressly, he that tarrieth not in Christ ea●…eth not spiritually his flesh▪ albei●… carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 body and blood of Christ. There is a double spiritual eating of Christ. So that by S. Augustine there is a double spiritual eating of Christ's flesh, one without the Sacrament, and an other with the Sacrament. Christ so spoke of both, that he spoke specially of the most per●…it, which is obtained by worthy receiving of the Sacrament. August▪ in joan. cap. 6. As the greatest sign there of, so the highest 〈◊〉 is in this Sacrament. August. de ●…uit. Dei li. 27 cap. 5. joan. 6. Out of this worthy receiving riseth that great society & unity with Christ & his mystical body, whereof S. Augustine so much speaketh: This is the Sacrament of Godliness, the sign of unity, the bond of cha●…itie. Without eating of this, one way or other, no life everlasting is to be looked for: & by eating the same worthily in the best kind of way (which is in the Sacrament of the altar) the highest degree of unity with Christ our head is ob●…eined. As the best sign of unity is in the forin of this Sacrament, so the best effect springeth o●…t of the worthy receiving of the substance which is under that form. Therefore in other places S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words out o●… S. John (This bread w●…cih I w●…ll give is my flesh for the life of the world) to show the Priesthood of Melchisedech, which Priesthood himself declareth to be in the August. Epist. 95 Sacrament of the altar saying: Melchicedech prolato Sacramento mensae dominicae, novit aeternum eius Sacerdotium figurare. Melchisedech by bringing forth the Sacrament of our Lord's table, August. de conse. Euange. li. 3. ca 1. de civit. li. 17. c 5. de verb. Apostol. Serm. 2. de pecca▪ mer. li. 1. ca 20. & 24. in Psal. 33. &. 98. Crescon. Gran. li. 1. c. 25. de verb. Do. Ser. 11. &. 46. q. in Levi. ca 57 Hieron. in. 1. ca Epist. ad Ephes. joan. 6. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. li. 4. c. 14. &. 16. did know to show the ●…igure of his everlasting Priesthood. Furthermore S. Augustine expounding these words of S. John of the last supper in very many places of his works most expressly saith, that S. John spoke nothing of the body and blood of our Lord in the thirteenth Chapter (where he mentioned the last supper,) said plane alibi multo uberius hinc Dominum locutum esse testatur. But verily in an other place S. John witnesseth our Lord to have spoken much more copiously thereof. Except S. Augustine thought the sixth Chapter of S. John to appertain literally to the Sacrament of the altar, he would never have said that S. John spoke not of the supper in the due place, because he spoke of it in an other place more copiously. But of S. Augustie I will speak again hereafter. S. Jerome saith, the flesh and blood of Christ is understanded two ways or in two manners: Either that spiritual and divine, whereof he said. My flesh is meat in deed and my blood is drink in deed, etc.▪ or else the flesh which was crucified for us, and the blood which was shed with the spear of the Soldier. And that one substance is in each manner of flesh and blood (only the manner of giving it being diverse) it appeareth also by the sentence following, where he sayeth: one flesh of the Sai●…res may see the salvation of God, an other flesh can not possess heaven. Not that the substance of natural flesh, but the worthiness of the men is diverse. S. Cyrillus of Alexandria writing upon S. John of purpose and showing the most literal sense thereof that he could devise, or learn, interpreateth the whole sixth chapter of S. John of the Sacrament of the altar, naming very many times the partaking of the holy mysteries and the mystical blessing, and the communicating of the holy chalice. Also upon those words, I will raise Cyrillus in 〈◊〉. li. 4. ca 15. him up again, he maketh this exposition: Ego, id est, corpus meum quod comedetur, resuscitabo eum. I will raise him, that is to say, my body that shallbe eaten, shall raise him. As if he said, I will raise him, because my body which shallbe eaten of him, shall raise him. Sedulius proveth the chalice of blessing to be the communicati●…g Sedulius in 1. Cor. 10. Leo in serm. 6. de jejune. mens. 7. Theodo ritus in D●…alo▪ 1. of Christ's blood according as Christ said: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, etc. Leo the great saith, we ought so to communicate with our Lord's table, that we doubt nothing of the verity of his body and blood, seeing he said: Except ye eat the flesh, etc. Theodoritus speaking of the holy mysteries, joineth with the words of the supper these also: The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Isychius showing that the penitent person may eat the bread Isychius in levit. li. 6. c. 22. whereof Christ said: The bread which I will give is my flesh, joineth there with all the words of S. Paul: Let a man prove himself and so eat: Declaring both sayings to belong to one mystery. Theophilact upon these words: The bread which I will give, witnesseth that Christ manifestly telleth us in this place of the mystical communion of his body. Damasce nus de Orthod. l. 4. c. 14. Damascenus declaring that Christ said: This is my body, and not the figure of my body, bringeth for the same purpose: Except ye eat the flesh, etc. Prosper Aquitanicus joineth these words, Except ye eat the Prosper de vocat. gent. lib. 1. cap. 18. flesh, etc. with these, except a man be born again of water, to show that the Sacraments of Christ do give us grace, and not o●…r own works which go before baptism. As therefore S. Cyprian and S. Augustin apply those two sayings to two several Sacraments of baptism, and of the Eucharist: so must we think that Procop. in comment. in cap. 12. Prosper doth who most diligently followed S. Augustine. Proco pius Gazeus writeth, that these words: except ye eat my flesh, etc. Typum mysteriorum quae sub ipso latent, continent, contain the form of the mysteries which lie privy under it. Eucherius teaching that Christ feedeth us with the nourishments Eucher. in 2. Reg. cap. 4. of the healthiull mystery, saith that he distributeth to every man a ●…ake of that bread, which came down ●…rom heaven and giveth life to the world. Cassiodorus saying that Christ did co●…secrate his body & blood Cassiod. in psalm. 109. joan. 6. Primate. in 1. Cor. cap. 10. in giving of bread and wine, proveth it because himself said: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. Primatius showing how the chalice of blessing is the communicating of the blood of Christ, bringeth our Saviour his words in S. John saying, he that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, tarrieth in me and I in him. S. Bede followed in all points S. Augustin, whose words he reciteth both upon S. John, & upon joan. 6. Beda in joan. 6. 1. Cor. 10 & 11. Angelomus in 1. Reg. c. 2. Ha●…o in 1. Cor. cap. 11. Bernardusin 〈◊〉. 90. vers. tertio. S. Paul. And therefore we need not doubt but he is wholly of the same mind. Angelomus upon the first book of the kings reciteth S. John in the same sense. Haimo upon S. Paul entreating of the Sacrament conferreth S. Paul's words with the sixth of S. Ihon. S. B●…rnard although he say the eating of the flesh of Christ to be the following of his painful conversation in suffering voluntary 〈◊〉 for his sake, yet well knowing that Christ spoke literally also of an other kind of eating, he saith, that Christ did speak of penance in a figure, that is to say, covertly as rather including penance under the words which he named, then expressly naming it. unde & hoe designat illibatum illud altaris sacramentum, ubi dominicum corpus accipimus. wherefore that pure Sacrament of the altar where we take our Lord's body betokeneth so much. Behold the true and literal meaning of Christ's words is to have his flesh eaten in the sacrament of the altar. But that eating importeth a following of Christ in his painful conversation. For as that form of bread (saith S. Bernard) is seen to enter into us: so let us know that Christ through that conversation which he had in earth, eutreth into us, to dwell by faith in our hearts. Whereby we may perceive that S. Bernard understandeth the sixth chapter of S. john so literally of the sacrament of the altar, that thereupon he buildeth a covert and a figurative preaching of penance. Euthymius noteth that Christ did not say: I do give my Euthymius in 6. joan. joan. 6. Nicolaus Methon. In tract. flesh, but I will give, because he minded to give it in his last supper. Nicolaus Methonensis having first rehearsed the words of the Gospel, this is my body, strait expoundeth all the chapter of S. john thereof, showing the profit which we take by this Sacrament. Samonas after the words of the supper declared, as not betokening Samonas in tract. a figure or image, affirmeth Christ to have said in other places the same thing, and strait reciteth the sixth chapter of S. john. I omit 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 upon the same understanding of Goncilium Tridentinum. sessione. 13. ca 2. the sixth of S. johu. But what speak I of these Fathers one by one? not only the Council of Trident hath taken witness for the Sacrament of the altar out of S. john, but also the seventh kept at Nice, and the first kept at Ephesus doth allege against Nestorius the heretic Concilium Nice num 2. Concilium Ephe sinum in epist. ad Nestorium. for the presence of Christ's person in the Sacrament, the words of S. john his gospel. Yea the whole west church readeth the same gospel of S. john, when it celebrateth the feast of corpus Christi day. And surely when the Church keepeth any feast, whereof there is mention in the gospel according to the letter, it always chooseth to read that part, where the feast is literally mentioned. It would therefore The practise of the church. be very absurd, sith S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke, have written so distinctly the history of Christ's supper, to leave them all, and to read the words of Christ in S. john, if the same words had any other sense more literal than 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 words of Christ in this chapter may literally and according to the first and chief meaning of them, be brought to declare, what we ought to think of his bodily presence in the Sacrament of his last supper. But if any man be not fully satisfied therein, let him read the process following, and he shall have less cause to doubt any more in this matter. ¶ Answer is made to their objections, who teach out The iii●…. Chapit. of the holy fathers, that the sixth chapter of S. john ought to be expounded only of spiritual eating. FOr their opinion, who think the sixth chapter of S. john to speak only of the spiritual and not of the worthy sacramental eating of Christ's body, the authority of certain fathers The arguments for the contra rye part. is alleged, who are thought sometimes to expound the words of this chapter, partly of belief in Christ, partly of the unity which riseth by the sacraments of baptism and of penance. But it may seem a sufficient answer to that objection, if we The answer. say first, that so many fathers do not expound the words of 1. Christ in the sixth chapter of S. john of any other one argument, as do conformably expound it of the supper of our lord. And when we speak of the authority of the fathers, their consent The consent of fathers thers is mo●…t to be followed. Math. 18. and agreement in one point is the chief way 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 have 2. expounded these words otherwise then of the supper of Christ, have themselves in other places expounded the same words of the very supper: As we may perceive by the places of S. Cyprian, of S. Jerome, of S. Augustine, and of S. Bernard, before alleged. Whereby their authority is as great for that which I say, as it is against it. Thirdly no one of the ancient writers is brought forth, who 3. denieth these words in S. john to appertain to the supper. Li. Confess. 12. cap 28. 29. 20. And what skilleth it, if many senses of one place be found out, so long as they all stand together? Is it not S. Augustine's rule that all such senses may be well kept and all admitted? Fourthly many of those places which are brought for the contrary opinion, do manifestly, and as it seemeth to me, invincibly 4. prove the words in S. john to be literally meant of the supper of Christ. S. Cyprian (who is first alleged for the other side) putteth Cypria. ad Quiri num. li. 3. cap. 25. &. 26. joan. 3. joan 6. forth this truth, that a man without baptism can not come t●… the kingdom of heaven: because except a man be borne again of water, and of the holy ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Likewise, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. Now they suppose that S. Cyprian bringeth these two sayings for baptism alone. Wherefore (say they) it was not said of the supper, except ye eat the flesh etc. But herein they seem to be deceived, because the custom of the primitive church i many places was, to give the sacrament of the altar Baptism & the Eu●…●…ere in some places given together. Dionys. de Eccle. Hierar. c. 1. i fine. Ambros. de ijs qui init. ca 9 Cypria. de lapsis. Cypria. ad Quir. cap. 26. together with the sacrament of baptism, not so much for necessity, as for sureties sake. Hereof we have mention i Dionysius Areopagita, and in S. Ambrose. In so much that the very infants were in the primitive church in some countries made partakers of the sacrament of the altar. Seeing then the sacament of the altar was used to be given strait after the sacrament of baptism, therefore S. Cyprian joined together those two witnesses which did belong to those two Sacraments, & that is undoubtedly proved by his own words, for after he had cited those words in S. john, it followeth ●…mediatly Parum esse baptizari et eucharistiam accipere, nisi quis factis et opere perficiat. It is little worth to be baptised and to receive the eucharist, except a man by deeds and works make all perfect. Behold as he alleged two sayings of Christ, so he nameth the two sacraments whereof they were spoken. Thus I think it most clear that S. Cyprian did not expound the eating of the flesh of Christ as spoken by baptism only. And the like may be said of Innocentius, Augustinus, Eusebius Tob. 2. August. Epist. 93. &. 106. Euseb. Hom. 5. in Pascha justinus Martyr in Apologia. 2. joan. 6. Emissenus, and of such others, which bring these words of Christ, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man etc. against the Pelagians, to prove that infants cannot have life in themselves, unless they be first baptised. For seeing they knew, that no man could come to the eucharist, except he were first baptised (as also justinus Martyr hath witnessed) & seeing the Eucharist was namely called the bread of life, which who so did eat, he should live for ever: and who by any fault of his own did not eat it, he should not have life in himself: moreover, seeing the person baptised, had not only Christ in him spiritually through baptism, but had right unto the very Sacrament of Christ's supper, and also being of lawful discretion customably received it strait after baptism: these things being so, it is most true, that who so is not at all baptised, he is not only excluded from the kingdom of heaven (as the Pelagians granted) but likewise (which thing they denied) joan. 3. from everlasting life, because he is by all means excluded from the food of life, which except we eat by some means or other, we cannot have life in us. & we cannot eat it by any means at all, that is to say, not so much as spiritually, except we be first baptised, either in deed or in perfect desire. And being once baptised we do eat it in some effect at the very font, and really may, and commonly must eat 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. John of spiritual eating only, but that he meant of that kind of eating at the least: and meant a farther kind joan. 3. of eating also in that case, when farther occasion should be ministered. For as when Christ said: except a man be born again of water and of the holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven, he so meant in those words to include his salvation, that would be born & vowed himself to be born again (although by prevention of death he were not really so borne) that yet not withstanding, he meant much more to have most men really so born of water and of the holy ghost: Right so, when Christ said: The preceptof bap tism, and of eating Christ's flesh are like. except ye eat the flesh of the son of man & drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you, he so meant to bind us to eat his flesh, that he should have life which was at the least spiritually feed there with in baptism, and yet also that most men should be bound to feed really thereon, and that he should have most perfect life, who was ●…d sacramentally with his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar. As therefore not withstanding that the will of being baptized ●…seth to some, others must be sacramentally baptized by that joan. 〈◊〉. very precept of Christ in S. John: even so though it be sufficient for ●…tes to eat Christ in baptism spiritually, yet other are bound by the same very precept to eat his flesh Sacramentally. Now to a●…irme the one sense which was less meant, denying therewithal the chief sense which was principally meant, it is no small injury to God's word. Certainly S. Innocentins, Gusebius, & S. Augu●… in saying that infants can not have life except they ●…t the least wise eat Christ in baptism, did not mean to say that these words except ye eat the flesh, & cae. were only spoken of baptism, or else more principally of baptism, then of Christ's supper, but rather they meant clean contrary, as it may appear by S. Augustine's own words. who disputing against the Pelagians in this very question which we now speak of, saith expressly, Augu. de pec. mer. li. 1. c. 20. Dominum audiamus non quidem hood. Sacramento lavacri dicentem, sed de sacramento sanctae mensae suae (quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit) nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, & caet. Let us hear our Lord, verily not saying this of the Sacrament of baptism, but saying it of the Sacrament of his holy table, (whither no man cometh well, unless he be baptized) except ye eat my flesh, and soforth. S. Augustine here declareth the precept of eating Christ's flesh which is in the sixth of S. John, so to appertain to the Sacrament of his holy supper, that it appertaineth not in such sort unto baptism. And yet if by eating his flesh he meant only believing in him, and the receiving of grace or the unity of Christ's mystical body, then truly those words, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, should belong first to baptism where we are united first, and incorporated unto Christ 〈◊〉 But S. Augustine ●…meth a difference between baptism and the Eucharist by these words, in so ●…uche as he saith God spoke of the one & not of the other. But if he spoke of spiritual uniting us to Christ withou●… the Sacrament of his own supper, than he rather spoke of baptism then of his supper, which S. Augustine himself denieth. Therefore S. Augustine meant, that Christ in S. John literally Lib: 1. ca 〈◊〉. promised the gift of his supper, but yet to them only that were baptized. And for the cause he giveth a reason why this gift which is proper to Christ's supper, is applied to the infants which are Augu. in Epi. 106. 10. 2. baptized, his reason is, quo n●…mo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit, to the Sacrament of which holy table no man cometh duly, without he be baptized. the which reason also he brinketh another where for the same purpose. If the Sacrament of his holy table be taken for the thing and general effect of that Sacrament (as some expound S. Augustine) than the reason alleged is false. for some man, yea all men that are worthily baptized, in the very baptism come to the thing, to the grace, and to the general effect of Christ's holy table, because they come by baptism to the unity of his mystical body, which is a general effect wrought in the Sacrament as well of baptism as of Christ's table, as S. Paul saith: we are one bread, one body, 〈◊〉. Cor. 10 all that receive of the one bread. But if we take the thing or effect of Christ's table for the special effect rising thence (which is the nourishing and maintey●… of life ●…ing) that effect being spoken of in S. John doth inf●… of 〈◊〉, that the ordinary ca●…se of the same effect is also spoken of▪ which is the blessed Eucharist. For every effect presuppose●… necessary cause. But the cause without which we can not ordinarily maintain o●…r spiritual life, is the Sacrament of Christ's supper. He therefore saying except ye eat my flesh, ye shall not have life in y●…; meaneth exceptye co●…●…helye to the Sacrament of my supper, ye shall not keep and preserve life in you. For, that the verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habere, doth in holy scripture signify Habere. not only the first obtaining of a thing, but also the keeping and Hieron. adu. jou. lib. 1. 1. Cor. 7. use thereof. S. Hierom hath well noted against jovinian, upon those words of S. Paul: unusquisque habeat uxorem suam, let every ma●…haue and hold his wife. I make ●…o doubt but all men of judgement will confess, that The maintenance of life dependeth vpo●… the alone. when a Sacrament is instituted of Christ for a special purpose, that purpose dependeth ordinarily upon that Sacrament alone. and although Christ be able otherwise to save ●…en 〈◊〉, yet we can not warrant that he will save him, who being of lawful age doth abstain voluntarily from the Sacrament of his holy table. Thus much I have said concerning S. Augustine's mind, 〈◊〉 whose works I never saw one syllable, why to think that he would the literal sense of the sixth of S. John to ●…long only to spiritual eating. But I have seen very much and have alleged, and shall hereafter allege many places out of him, wherein it ap●… most clearly, that he meant otherwise. Basilius in ep. 141 S. Basil is also brought forth, who saith that Christ in those words: except ye eat my flesh, etc. calleth his whole mystical coming flesh and blood. But what of that? is not therefore that saying verisied also of the Sacrament of his last supper? which The Eucharist is the sum of all that Christ did in his flesh. who so receiveth worthily, he is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ, of his 〈◊〉, of his preaching, of his passion, ●…tion, ascension, and of all the rest his doings and saing. so that it is a very good sense to say: except ye believe that the so●…e of mā●…ath done and taught in flesh, & except your selu●… by his grace 〈◊〉 and keep all his commandments, ye shall not have lice in 〈◊〉, but S Bastil knew right well that the chief Sacrament left by Christ was the institution of his last supper, and therefore that Sacrament is a singular piece of that which Christ in these words commandeth us to believe and to perform, and for that cause in the place where S. Basil purposely disputeth of the holy Sacraments, Basilius debaptis. li. 11. c. 3. he declareth all the later part of the sixth of S. John to appertain specially to Christ's supper. Their reasons are answered who deny Christ to speak properly of his last supper in S. Ihon. THe first reason which is brought, to show that Christ in S. 1. John promised not properly the Sacrament of his holy table, is grounded upon this negative proposition, because there is no mention made of bread and wine, which are the matter and elements whereof his supper is made. As though he The answer. might not promise the thing which sho●…ld be made in his banquet unless he named that whereof it should be made. A man may be invited to a pasty or tart or some like confection, although it be not told him of what stuf it shallbe made▪ it skilled nothing for the multitude of men to know the order of ●…king his banquet, which thing was committed to the Apostles alone. But it skilled much for them all to know what kind of food they should receive. Again the matter of any sacrament is not more necessary, than the form of wor●… which is used therein. But when Christ said: except a man b●…●…orne again of water and of the holy Ghost, he joan. 3. can not enter into the kingdom of heaven, He showed not by what words the water which washeth, should be made a sacrament to our use & profit. Therefore (if this kind of reasoning be good) he spoke not at all of baptism to Nicode●…us, which is a false conclusion. In ●…ede it followeth well, Christ in S. John speaketh neither of bread, nor of wine, therefore he meaneth not to bind us by his words in that Chapter to receive v●…der both kinds▪ but only bindeth us to receive that thing which is his flesh and blood, under whatsoever kind we receive it. But to say that he speaketh notat all of his flesh in respect of the sacra●…nt of the altar, that is not true▪ as I have proved before. another argument of theirs, is, that Christ speaketh of 2. eating him by faith, and therefore saith: this is the work of God, that ye should believe in him whom he hath sent. He that believeth in 〈◊〉 shall not hunger, but there be some of you which believe not, so that the eating is the believing, and the not believing is the not eating. Christ in deed speaketh of belief which is very The answer. Cyr. li. 4 ●…a. 17. in joan. necessary and even the foundation (as S. Cyrillus noteth) of his last supper, but he speaketh also of a farther act, which is to build upon the foundation of faith the working of the everlasting meat that he will give▪ and to work not only by faith, but likewise by eating and drinking, and therefore as he challengeth belief to his godhead, so doth he say that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood according as he is the son of man. Thus may we consider in Christ's words, a double kind of eating, the one is called manducare ex hoc pane, to eat of his bread The difference between e●…tinge of Christ, & eating Christ. the which bread Christ is, the other is manducare hunc panem, to eat this bread. by faith we eat of Christ, by his last supper we eat Christ. By eating of him we partake some effect of grace from him: By eating him we receive his whole flesh, blood, soul and godhead into our bodies. As therefore Christ willeth us not only to eat of him, but also to eat himself: so besides the eating which is by faith, he giveth us to understand there is another eating proper to his last supper described in S. Ihon. The third argument of theirs is, that Christ was the bread of ●…. life presently, when he spoke to the jews. For he said I am the bread of life, or the lively bread which am come down from heaven & my father doth geu●… you the tru●… bread from heaven. Therefore Christ was presently the bread of life, yea rather he was so when he was incarnate first of the virgin. for even then he came down from heaven. but how can this stand together, if his words be applied to his last supper, which was not yet instituted? The answer. Christ through his Godhead was the bread of life to us all for ever, and strait upon his incarnation he was the bread of life through his manhood, and so continued still at the time when he spoke to the jews, and after that visible and corporal sort he was to be eaten by faith & not corporally. But he sa●…d also: work the meat which the Son of man will give you, and the bread which I will give, is my flesh. This gift which Christ saith he will make, differeth in time and manner from the gift which his Father doth presently make, so that as he is the bread of life by faith, so he willbe the bread of life by corporal participation. which second gift is fulfilled in his last supper which he himself now promiseth. For no reason can be showed why Christ should say his gift was to come, except it had been some other gift than to eat him by faith alone. The which eating by faith sith it was lawful even at the same instant wherein he spoke, he would not say: I will gove, of any spiritual eating. therefore he spoke of the Sacramental giving which he intended to make at his last supper. Against this last saying of mine, Cajetan or some other of his The iii●…. argu●…t. opinion will pretend, that Christ's gift whereof he speaketh in S. John was in deed to come, but yet not meant of his last supper, because it was the gift of himself to death upon the Cross which This obie ction hath many things to be weighed in it. he meant. And therefore he said, the bread which I will give is my 〈◊〉 for the life of the world, signifying that the gift which he will make shallbe such as shall redeem the world. Which gift was only performed upon the Cross, & was partaken always of the old Fathers, and may be daily & hourly partaken of us. Which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christ's ●…upper. This argument although it were wittily devised, yet it is insufficient, The ●…sw●…. and for many causes. First becaus●… Christ spoke of a meat which he would give even unto our bodies, and not only unto our souls. And that may ●…ppeare to be so, as well for that he ordained the miracle of multiplying five loaves to be an introduction to this talk (the which loaves were corporally eaten) as also for that he showed himself to be the true bread, which would fulfil and exceed ●…anna the figurative Cyril. in joan. lib. 4. ca 16. bread of the jews. and therefore S. cyril saith, that Christ saying, my flesh is meat in deed, maketh a distinction between the mystical benediction and manna▪ for manna did not give life everlasting, but by the blessing of the mystery (saith S. cyril) we take the very son of God. Now seeing manna was eaten of the jews, both spiritually of the just men, and also corpor●…llye of all the Israelites, Christ who said his father to give presently the true bread, and promised that himself would give Christ promiseth his flesh as he gave 5. loaves and manna to the Jews. hereafter his flesh to be eaten, which is ●…ate in deed, did show, the spiritual eating of manna to be presently fulfilled by his father's gift, whereby he took flesh, and that the corporal eating should likewise be hereafter fulfilled in his last supper. Which being well considered, it is plain that Christ when he speaketh of a gift which he will make, doth speak of such a kind of gift as the miracle of five loaves, as the figure of manna, as the name of bread and nature of eating requireth. But his death upon the cross is not the fulfilling of manna, in that respect as manna was eaten either corporally or spiritually. It is in deed the cause of all our feeding both in spirit and body, the fontain of all our sacraments, the wellspring of all grace. B●…t we seek a similitude of things which are spoken together, an agreement of one matter with an other. Manna was a sacrament only and not properly a sacrifice, and Manna wa●…●… Sacr●…te ●…ely. therefore it being eaten betokened the gift of Christ which he would make in his supper, wherein the true manna should be sacramentally eaten. For which cause after Christ had said, the bread which I will give is my flesh, he both commanded his flesh to be eaten & showed the profit of eating it, and concluded in this wise, not as your fathers have eaten manna & be dead, he that eateth this bread, joan. 6. shall line for ever. If now we must eat that which he will give, & we must eat it after the rate as manna was eaten (albeit the thing eaten is far better) surely the gift promised must be of a thing that De conse. di. 2. c. de hac. Mark this place of S. Hiero●…. in cap. 1. ad Ephes. shallbe given to us in a supper, and not y● shallbe made for us upon the Crosse. for noman (as it is alleged out of Origines) eateth properly the flesh of Christ as it was crucified. In so much that S. Hierom distincteth expressly the flesh of Christ, whereof Christ speaketh in S. John, from the respect which the same flesh hath being crucified. For although it be one substance, yet it is cru●…fied as a sacrifice only, but it is eaten as a sacrament wherein the sacrifice is partaken. Secondarily the Greek text maketh mention of two gifts: The one of that which Christ will make to us, which also is the same substance that he will give for us. The bread (saith he) which I will give is my flesh, the which I will give for the life of the world. Chr●…t maketh two diverser ●…o mises of giving. It is not in vain said twice I will give. For he will give one and the same flesh both as a Sacramental food, & as a bloody sacrific●…: the one gift he will make in his supper, the other upon the Cross, Neither doth it skill that the latin copies report but once I will give, for as they say that which is true, so the same truth is made the plainer by the greek text. God forbidden we should so understand the one, as to make that other false or super●…ons, seeing both may stand right well together. Thirdly it ought diligently to be marked that Christ said before, work the everlasting meat which the Son of man will give you. He there said he would give meat unto them, but he determined not what kind of meat it was, but now expounding the kind of meat be saith, and the bread (or meat) which I will give is my flesh. As then the meat which the Son of man said he would give Christ pr●… miseth to give his flesh to us was promised to be given to us (for he said dabit vobis, he will give to you) even so the kind of meat, to wit, the flesh of Christ which he will give, must be understanded of that gift which he will make, nobis to us, and not only pro nobis, for us. But his death is given more properly for us, then to us. His death, I say, was paid to God the Father, to whom we were debtors, and it was Christ's death was for us rather than to us. paid for us and in our behalf, but his death was not properly given to us. For then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to us, and consequently God the Father is rob of his glory, and that glory is given to men. From which thought all good men do abhor. All is one to say, the son of man will give, and I will give, to say, everlasting meat, and the bread which is Christ's flesh. But it was expressly said in the first proposition, Dabit vobis he will give it to you, therefore in the second it is to be supplied, the bread which I will give to you, is my flesh for the life of the world, that is to say, it is the same flesh which I will offer to my Father to the end the just men of the world may live for ever. And so a reason is given by Christ why his flesh is that everlasting meat unto us which he said before tarrieth into life everlasting. For the which is offered meritoriously to God for the life of the whole world, must needs even by that sacrifice have strength in itself to quicken all that eat it worthily, and to reconcile the partakers thereof to God. furthermore, when Christ said: The bread which I will give is my flesh, he said in effect, The eatable thing which I will give is my flesh, as if it were in other terms said, I will give you my flesh to be eaten. For bread unto the Hebrews doth show all y●, What bread is in this place. which is apt to be eaten of man. Christ ●…ad the jews work the everlasting meat which he would give. They strait said, their Fathers had eaten Manna, thinking that Christ was not able to give them a better kind of bread. Then Christ showing that his Father had given them himself by his incarnation the true bread of God, last of all cometh to show what bread he himself would give them. And the bread, saith he, which I will give, that is to wit, the Manna, the food, the meat which I will give is my flesh, so that by the promise of bread he showeth himself to speak properly of a banquet which is to come. The jews who knew the Hebrew phrase, albeit they did amiss in that they tarried not to see how the promise should be perfoormed, yet they understood right well that Christ said: I will give you my flesh to eat. And therefore they in other words reporting the same sense, ask, how this man is able to give them To give bread which is flesh, is to geu. flesh to 〈◊〉 ●…aten his flesh to be eaten? As who should say, we understand that he promiseth us the eating of his flesh, but we see not that he is able to perfoorm it, in such sort as Manna was given to our fore●…athers. Neither is any man able to deny, but the jews took 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 upon the Crosse. Yea Christ alloweth the sense of the jews concerning the natural sound of his words, and (as S. Basile hath noted) with a Basil. de baptis. li. 1. cap. 3. vehement repetition signifieth, he will so truly give his flesh to be eaten, that except they do eat is, they shall not have life in them selves. Neither is it to be doubted but if they had so obediently submitted themselves to Christ concerning the manner of perfoorming his gift, as they understood what he promised, they had not offended at all. For they lacked rather belief, than wit or understanding. What shall I say more? The circumstance of the whole talk, the Greektext, the like words going before, the propriety of the Hebrew tongue, the understanding of the jews, the oath and confirmation of Christ give a witness above all exception, that when he said, The bread which I will give is my flesh, he meant, I that The meaning of Christ's promise. am the true bread, which by incarnation came down from heaven, I that am presently sent and given to you to be believed on of my Father, I will hereafter give mine own flesh, even the same flesh which is offered for the life of the world, to be meat unto you that will tarry with me, which have the words of eternal life. Which sense being thus proved, their sense who would have the gift of Christ's 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 have been showed before to ha●…e taken it, and as all these reasons do evidently convince. Now whereas they (who descent from me in this matter) say, that Christ speaketh here of that gift which was common to the whole world, even to the Patriarches and Prophets, and therefore that it is a spiritual gift (for else David and Abraham could The answer. not have partaken it) I answer, that Christ doth not promise in these words any one meat unto the whole world, but he promiseth his flesh to be eaten, the which flesh is given for the whole world. For as at his last supper he said: This is my body which is or shallbe given for you (thereby giving us in his supper a far Lucae. 22. 1. Cor. 11. better meal, than he gave to Moses or Elias) even so in this place, when he promiseth to give us the bread which is his flesh for the world, he meaneth not that we shall have no more than jacob had, but that our meat is such as also is the propitiation for 1. joan. 2. the sins of the whole world. By which words it is showed that our meat is also an external sacrifice, and not that it is only a spiritual food received by faith and charity. Concerning that daily we may eat the bread which Christ promiseth, it is not against the Sacrament of his supper, which is left to be our daily and supersubstantial bread: Either because we Math. 6. may come daily to it, or else because being received at certain times, it always tarrieth with us, by some spiritual effect, which the Sacramental receiving worketh in us. And as the absolution which we receive of the Priest at certain times, causeth a continual Penance in us through all our life: so a Sacramental receiving of Christ's body causeth a continual eating of him by spirit. Now Christ so meant to have his flesh eaten spiritually, that the ordinary cause of that feeding should consist in the Sacrament of his last supper. for that Sacrament maintaineth our spiritual life as S. Paul teacheth. The last reason of the contrary part 1. Co. 10. is thus formed. Christ in S. john speaketh of that eating, which maketh us tarry in him, and him to tarry in us. But that is not always the effect of the Sacramental eating. for as S. Paul sayeth, a man 1. Co. 11. may eat Christ's body in the Sacrament of the altar unworthily, and to his damnation. Therefore, say they, Christ speaketh not in S. John of sacramental eating, but only of that eating by faith and charity whereby we may live for ever. For answer to this argument thus I say: Sacramental The annswer. Sacramen tall eating is considered two ways. eating must be considered two ways, as all the other works of God towards men may be considered. one way is to consider it in that nature, virtue, and effect which God for his part putteth in the Sacrament. An other is in that abuse, and imperfection which man wickedly committeth about the holy works of God. Who can doubt but that Christ came into the world to save joan. 3. men, ut saluetur mundus per ipsum, that the world may be said by him? as for condemnation it was not brought in by Christ, Rom. 5. but by Adam and Eve our first parents, and by our own wilful sins ad misdoings. And yet the holy scriptures witness that 2. Cor. 2. Christ is the savour of death to many, and the stone whereat they stumble, not through any fault of his, but because they use their 1. Pet. 2. free-will to the worse part with whom he hath to do. Even so cometh it to pass in the blessed Sacrament of the altar. Christ giveth it only to this end, that we by eating thereof may tarry in him and he in us. For as Isychius hath well Isychius in levit. c. 22. l. 6. noted, Sanctificationis causa, non autem contaminationis proposuit suum mysterium. Christ hath set forth his mystery to sanctify, and not to spot us. As he giveth faith to th'end it should Gal. 5. jacob. 2. work by charity, and not to th'end it should lie dead and unfruitful. And in deed so should all men tarry for ever in Christ, if they did eat this Sacrament as they ought to do. If now they will profanely come unto it without contrition, and confession of their joan. 20. sins, and absolution of the priest, that is not the salt of the Sacrament, which is given to make us dwell for ever in Christ, but it is their fault, who abuse the gift of God to their own hurt and loss. This thing well weighed I answer, that always the effect of The Sacramental eating, on Christ's behalf is ever profis table. Sacramental eating on Christ's behalf is the tarrying of us in Christ, and of Christ in us. And S. Paul saying, that some receive it unworthily and to their damnation, speaketh not of any effect rising of the Sacrament itself, but only of a negligence and impiety which standeth on their part, who come to the rea●… 1. Co. 11. flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, as if it were common bread and wine, only hallowed by the devout prayers of man, whereas in deed it is changed in substance by the mighty power of the word of God. Let it therefore stand for a truth (as it is a most undoubted truth) that Christ in the sixth chapter of S. John doth prophecy of his last supper, promising to give in it his own flesh to be eaten, as the which is meat in deed, and for his part he promiseth that it shall have a perfect effect, albeit we sometimes through ma louse withstand his goodness. This meaning is not only true in itself, but it is confirmed also by S. Augustine, who declaring that Augusti. contra Cr●…scon gramm. li. 1. c. 25. Rom. 3. a thing good in itself may be vnpro●…itable to him that useth it evil, after he had showed that to be so in light which hurteth sick eyes and delighteth the whole eyes, and in the law, in which although the jews were, yet they abused the same: at the length he cometh to our very purpose saying, Quid de ipso corpore & sanguine Domini unico sacrificio pro salute nostra, quamuis ipse Dominus dicat: nisi manducaveritis, & caet. What say we concerning the very body and blood of our Lord the only sacrifice for our salvation? Not withstanding that our Lord himself saith, Except joan. 6. a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he shall not have life in himself, doth not yet the same Apostle teach even this thing to be made hurtful to them that use it evil? For he saith: Whosoever eat eth the bread and drinketh the chalice of our Lord unworthily, he shallbe guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. What can be 1. Co. 11. plainer than these words of S. Augustine? Who thought that argument, which I have answered, to be nothing worth at all, affirming the Apostle S. Paul, and Christ in S. John to speak of one and the same body or flesh of Christ, as it is given in the Sacrament of his last supper. And truly they do no small injury to S. Augustine, who by any means would father upon him this opinion, as though he S. Augustine always expoundeth the sixth of John as being the promise of Christ's supper. taught Christ in S. John to speak only of a spiritual eating by faith and charity, whereas he never gave any sufficient token of that meaning, but expressly teacheth the contrary as all the other Fathers do. The reason which moved some men to think, that S. Augustine meant so, was for that he speaketh much of spiritual eating and of the unity of Christ's Church. But that eating is also made, and best of all made in the mysteries of Christ's supper when they are worthily received, as Christ would always have them to be received. If any other argument remain, by this which is already said it may be easily seen, what answer ought to be made thereunto. Thus I have proved by the propriety of the words in S. John, By how many ways it is proved, that Christ i S. John speaketh of his supper. by the circumstance of the time and place, by the conference of holy Scriptures, by the uniform consent of the ancient Fathers, by the authority of general Counsels, by the yearly practice of the west Church, by the confutation of the reasons which are made to the contrary, that Christ in his disputation at Capharnaum spoke in some part of the sixth Chapter (by the way of promise) of the Sacrament of his last supper. All which things if they prove not joan. 6. my intent, I desire the learned Reader to show me, wherein they fail from the truth. But until that be showed, I must say all the authority, that is an the earth, seemeth to concur to that my position. And therefore God willing, I intent to build upon this so sure a ground the rest of my disputation against the heretics of our time, who teach false doctrine in the matter of Christ's supper, The entrance to the ●…e cond part of this book. affirming that Christ promiseth in S. John to give his flesh in spirit only and not under the form of bread. Against whom I will from hence forth dispute, if yet I first show somewhat more particularly, that the everlasting meat (which Christ promiseth in S. John) doth appertain to that part of Christ's talk whic●… is before proved to appertain to his last supper. ¶ The meat tarrying to everlasting life, which Christ The 〈◊〉. Chap. promiseth to give, is meant of his real flesh and blood to be given at his last supper. CHrist going about to draw the people from filling of their bellies to a more spiritual feeding, said: work not the meat which perisheth, but that which tarrieth to life joan. 6. everlasting, which the son of man will give you. This proposition is diligently to be considered, as being the chief key of the whole disp●…ation following. And therefore I will declare how every part of it doth agree with the process of The conference of Scriptures. the talk, which towards the end of the chapter is made concerning Christ's own gift. First where he saith: the son of man will give meat, he afterward uttereth the kind of meat or food more plainly saying: The Bread which I will give, is my flesh. joan. 6. And whereas he ●…ad them work the said meat, he afterward showeth that by working, he meaneth first believing in him with a true and working faith, and afterward also eating and drinking What it is to work the meat which Christwil g●…ue. worthily his own flesh and blood. And therefore saith: this is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent, and again: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting. And yet farther expounding his former words he saith, for my flesh 〈◊〉 meat in deed. the word (verè in deed) declareth what kind of verè. work belongeth to this meat, not only a metaphorical work, but a true work of the body and soul, of the soul in believing, of the body in eating. So that if we mark well, the meat that must be wro●…ght, the bread that he will give, and his ow●…e flesh which must be eaten, is all one thing. The working of this meat req●…reth the help as well of the mind as of the body, accordingly as Tertullian Tertul. de resur. carnis. saith: Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut & anima de Deo saginetur. non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit. The flesh eateth the body and blood of Christ, to th'intent the soul also m●…e be made fat of God. They can not therefore be separated in reward whom the work joineth. The body worketh with the soul in eating the flesh of Christ, the The bo●…y worketh in eating Christ's flesh. work joineth them, because they both work and eat one thing, and therefore they must be rewarded both together in the day of judgement. But if we did eat the body of Christ by faith only (as the Sacramentaries teach) our bodies should not work the meat which perisheth not, but only should eat bread and drink wine, which must needs ●…erish. But Christ goeth forward to show his own flesh to be meat in deed, & to be that true meat, which he said before should not 3. joan. 6. perish, but tarry and abide still, saying: for he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, tarrieth in me and I in him; which thing ●…hy Christ's flesh be●…ng eaten ●…arieth uncon su●…ed. cometh so t●… pass, because Christ's flesh being eaten is not digested into our earthly flesh, and so consumed of us as other meats are, b●…t rather as being incomparably stronger than o●…r stomaches, it consumeth all our carnal and fleshly humours. If then it cause us not to perish, how much more is itself a meat not perishing, but tarrying for ever? And to show, that the said worker of the meat and flesh which Christ will give, ta●…ieth in Christ ●…ot only for a time, but to life everlasting, (as the not perishing meat was before said to do) again it followeth, He that eateth this br●…ad shall live for ever. By which 〈◊〉 of Christ's words it is evident when he sayeth: work not the meat which perisheth, but which tarrieth to life everlasting, which the son of man will give you, that then he meaneth they should eat his flesh & drink his blood, in such ●…orte as the son of man will give it. I 〈◊〉 thee, good Reader, once again to confer these sayings. Is it not all one to say, the son of man will give, and 1. I will give. Likewise the son of man will give you meat, and 2. the bread which I will give is my flesh. only this difference there is that in the later words he nameth the kind of meat, which in the former he did not name. The son of man will give the meat which perisheth not. and what is that 〈◊〉 say, but that he 3. will give his flesh as meat, which flesh he will give for the life of the world. And how can that flesh be thought able to perish, which maketh all other men that believe in it to live for ever? The meat which the son of man will give must be wrought: and the bread which Christ sayeth to be his flesh which he will give, must also be eaten. for except ye ●…ate the flesh of the son of 〈◊〉 4. and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. The meat of the son of man tarrieth, and he that eateth the flesh of Christ and 5. drinketh his blood, tarrieth in Christ, and Christ in him. The meat of the son of man dureth to life everlasting. And he that 6. eateth the flesh of Christ hath life everlasting. If these things answer thoroughly, if Christ be the son of man, if the bread he will give (which is his flesh for the life of the world) be the meat which perisheth not, if the working of this meat be both believing and eating, if the meat make the eater ●…arie for ever: then ●…ith so many things agree, let these words be confessed no less to pertain to the promise of Christ's supper, than those do towards th'end of the chapter when he saith, the Theoph. 〈◊〉 cap. joan. 6. bread which I will ge●…e is my flesh. So doth Theophilact expo●…d this place; Cibum manentem mysticam dicit sumptionem carnis domini, quam nobis ipse dat filius hominis factus. He calleth the meat which tarrieth, the mycall receiving of our Lords flesh, which himself being made the Son of man giveth us. What name I Theophilact? All the Fathers, yea all Christians August. in Psal. 〈◊〉 agree that Christ in his supper is the meat whereof it is said, it perisheth not. Now Christ perisheth not whether he be given to us by faith as his Father is said to give him, or in the Sacrament of his supper, as the Son of man is afterward said to be of the will to give his flesh which is meat in deed. As therefore we can not deny Christ when he is given by faith Christ in his supp●… is the not perishing meat. to be the not perishing meat: so it were wo●…derfull impiety to say the substance of Christ's flesh given at his supper, not to be the same not perishing meat. or seeing it is also a not perishing meat at his supper, why should not these words be understanded of the same supper? And seeing Christ would it to be wrought not only as his Father giveth it presently, but also as the Son of man will give it hereafter, to wit, under the form of bread at his last supper: it must needs be gra●…ted that Christ speaking of working the gift of the Son of man, meant no less of working his own gift which he nameth afterward eating, than the working of his Father's gift which is straghtways called believing. Howbeit concerning equality of substance in Godhead, all is common betwixt them. In fine, the not perishing meat which the Son of man will give to the Jews, is his flesh, which he will give to be eaten. Which flesh 〈◊〉 not perish, as well because it is wholly 〈◊〉 in by the nature & substance of almighty God, as also because it is not changed Collos. 2 into our flesh when it is ●…aten, as other meats are, but spiritually changeth us into it. Now that flesh not perishing but tarrying in our souls & bodies maketh them also keep and preserve 〈◊〉 life, whereby we The ●…eat whereof 〈◊〉 speaketh ●…elon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our bodies. Cyril. in joan. li. 3 cap. 28. come to the ioy●…s of heaven. For, that Christ meant of such a not perishing meat, as might be received not only into our souls but into our bodies. Also, S. Cyrillus hath witnessed upon this place. Operemur igitur (ut salvator ait) non eum ●…ibum, & caet. Let us work therefore (●…s our saviour saith) not that meat which ●…iding into the belly and giving us a short pleasure, at the leugth go●…th forth in excrements and perisheth, but let us work the spirit●…all meat, which strengtheneth the hearts, & leadeth to life ●…uerlasting, the which meat he promiseth that he will give saying: the Son of man will give you this meat. Thus he hath joined the things Humana o●… man to the things of God, and touched the whole mystery of the incarnation. For he showeth sum what privily the spiritual Occult. meat whereby we live in Christ, being sanctified both in soul and body. But he will say this thing more openly anon, wherefore Apertius we also will write there more at large, an interpretation that shall agree to this place. 〈◊〉 dured the words of S. Cyrillus, who as he was a most excellent man of wit and learning, so hath he most exactly declared the meaning of these words which I now expound. Christ meant to persuade the jews his divine nature, and that Christ's 〈◊〉. he was himself according to his flesh the true ma●…a which came down from heaven, and that he would give the self same flesh as truly to be ●…aten into the bodies of the faithful for a spiritual nourishment of them, as ever the jews did corporally feed upon manna. To persuade this he wrought a miracle in bread, he trai●…ed them to talk of bread, and of manna, withal exhorting them to seed upon the ●…corruptible meat which he would give. This meat was his own flesh. but he as yet would not utter so much, until their minds were somewhat prepared thereunto by true faith. For this cause S. Cyrillus writeth, that Christ as yet describeth the spiritual meat occultius somewhat secr●…tly. Bu●… that afterward h●… will show it apertius more openly. Again S. Cyrillus saith: Christ hath joined humana divinis, the things of man to the things of God. The things of man are that, flesh assumpted by Christ, and the sanctifying of our bodies by receiving his flesh into them through the gift of Christ, which he gave as man. The things of God are, the feeding of our souls by right belief upon God. Thirdly by the judgement of S. Cyrillus, this place appertaineth to that which followeth concerning the sanctification as well of our bodies as of our souls. but that which followeth is most properly meant of the sanctification, which our bodies receive by the food of Christ's supper, of which supper S. Cyrillus exponndeth those words: except ye eat the flesh of the son of man. etc. What need more words? this place is like to the oth●…r following in the end of the same chapter: The bread which I will give is my flesh, which words all the ancient fathers without any contradiction, teach to belong to the supper. Therefore doubtless they are of the same mind concerning this place also, but because this place is not so plain as the other, no man need to marvel why they rather allege the other, than this. And yet even to this place of S. john, the holy martyr Ignatius alluded, when he said in that epistle, which both Eusebius & Hier. in Catalo. Ignatius ad Rom●… nos. S. Hierom acknowledged to be his: Non mihi placet cibus corruptionis, nequè voluptates vitae huius. panem Dei volo, panem coelestem, panem vitae, quod est caro Christi filii Dei, & poculum volo, sanguinem eius, quod est charitas incorruptibilis & perennis vita. The perishing mea●…e and pleasures of this life pl●…ase me not. I long for God's bread, the heavenly bread, the bread of li●…, which thing is the flesh of Christ the son of God, and for the cup, his blood, which thing is ●…haritie not perishing and life everlasting. Thus as well the conference of holy scriptures, as the witnesses of S. Ignatius, of S. Cyrillus, of Theophilact, of S. Augustine, and of Tertullian do show this place to belong to the Sacrament of the Altar. therefore therein we must eat, not bread and wine which perish, but only the permanent flesh of Christ, and so we must eat it by mouth, as we believe on it in heart. For eating and believing is referred in this Chapter to the self same flesh of Christ. therefore as really it must be eaten by mouth, as it is believed in heart to be most r●…all in itself. ¶ The equality of substance with his father (which Christ allegeth for his gift) proveth the real presence of his body The seven. Cha●…tt. and blood in the Sacrament of the altar, even as God the Father gave him real flesh and blood at his incarnation. CHrist for the meat which he promised to geue in his last supper, alleged his divinity, as who should plainly say: wonder not that I promise you such a thing of so great difficulty and miracle, for I am God. His words are these: work (saith he to the multitude of the jews) not the meat which doth perish, but that which tarrieth to life everlasting, which the son of man will give you, for him God hath signed, that is, God the father hath printed his divine substance upon him by 1. The father and the son be equal. Psal. 44. eternal generation, or hath ointed him with the oil of gladness above all others, because his human nature is united to the godhead, whereby he is able to do as much as his father. It is not to be thought, that Christ would have alleged his equal authority with his Father, for a gift which were not of 2. Their gift●…s be equal. equal truth and of equal power with that, which his Father is said to gene. But his Father gave him not only the virtue and 〈◊〉 of flesh, but real and natural flesh and blood at his incarnation, there●…ore God the S●…nn 〈◊〉 to give us the same 〈◊〉 ●…ral f●…sh in his last supper. For which cause he doth immediately declare both God his Father's gift, and his own. 〈◊〉 joan. 6. his Father's gift he say 〈◊〉 My Father giveth you the true bread 3. The Father's gift. from heaven, for it is the bread of God, which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. But what bread is this? I (saith Christ) am the bread of life, I am the lively bread which came down from heaven. ●…ow we have learned, that God the Father gave Christ his Son from heaven; when he sent him to take the flesh of man: which flesh assumpted o●… the word is also by union to the word made the bread of life. Christ therefore having showed his Father's gift, and that him 4. Thesōn●… gift. self is the bread of li●…e, cometh to show his own bread, which he will give saying: And the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. The brief discourse of the whole doctrine is this: work the meat which tarrieth for ever, which the Son of man will give you. for 5. the whole discours●…. this So●…ne of man is equal with God his Father, whose natural image he hath printed in him. God the Father hath given his Son to the world and made him true man, the true bread of life. Therefore God the Son being equal with his Father, will give us the same true flesh of the Son of man as meat y● shall tarry with us to life everlasting. But his Father gave him ●…o the world not only in faith & spirit, but in real and substantial flesh. Therefore God the Son by the drift of all his talk doth signify, that he will give in his supper (whereof he speaketh) not in spirite and faith only, but in truth of nature and substance, the 〈◊〉 same real and substantial flesh. First he saith, he will give that meat, which shall tarry to life 1. everlasting. Secondly that he is able to do so, as one signed of 2. God his Father. Thirdly he showeth what bread and meat his ●…. Father hath given him, that is to say, the true flesh, wherein ●…e 4. spoke to that present multitude of men. Fourthly, he saith the bread 5. that he will give is his flesh. Last of all who so cateth it, hath life everlasting. 1. Christ took real flesh. Doth not all this go to prove, that as he bade them work the meat which tarrieth for ever, and showed him sefe (concerning 2. He is able to give us the same. his 〈◊〉) to be made that meat, sent from God his Father: so he is able to give them that meat which his Father gave him, and saith he will give it them, to the end they eating it, may live 3. He saith he will give it. for ever, he tarrying in them, and they in him? And yet is not that his real and substantial flesh, which he promiseth? Or did he not perform in his supper, that, which he pro 4. Healwais performeth his promise. missed? If he can not be false of his word, we have in our Lord's supper (where he perfomed this promise) the real and substantial body of jesus Christ, as truly as ever his Father gave him real 5. In his supper he gave it. and substantial flesh in this world. And consequently we have it not only by faith and spirit, but in truth and substance. This plainly is the disco●…rse of Christ himself, who by his 6. He gave it really & not by faith alone Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit. Godhead assureth us of the gift of that incorruptible meat, which is his flesh. Whereupon S. Hilary saith, that no man doubteth of the verity of Christ's flesh in us, except he deny Christ to be true God. ¶ Seing Christ is the bread of life to us by the gift of his flesh, the eating of that flesh by our faith & spirit The 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉. only sufficeth not, but itself also must be really eaten. GOd sent his Son, who is by nature the bread of life (as 〈◊〉. 6. himself hath witnessed) to take flesh for us, that in his flesh he might give us the same di●…ine nature, which is the 〈◊〉 bread of life. Therefore when Christ had said: The Son of man will give you the meat, which tarrieth to life everlasting, straightways he showeth in one word three causes of that his promise. For God the Father (sayeth he) hath signed this Son of man, that is to say, he hath given him his own substance concerning the divine nature of Christ, and concerning his human nature he hath showed his will by him, as by a seal of his own hand. furthermore he hath assigned him to bring us this meat, which Signare. tarrieth to life everlasting. The verb Signavit, he hath signed, may 1. Cy●…illus Libr. 3. cap. 29. signify the printing of the same form and image, which the original seal hath, as S. Cyrillus hath noted in this place. also it may stand to show or confirm a thing by witness of seal, as 2. Theophi lact. in ca 6. joan. Theophilact expoundeth it. or else to assign or appoint a thing to some certain effect and purpose, as S. Chrysostom, and E●…thymius take it. 3. God the Father signed Christ after the first sort by giving him 1. his own nature: And after the second sort by showing him (through 2. miracles wrought in his flesh) to be his own Son. And last of 3. all in appointing to have his will done most perfectly and executed joan. 4. by him, as Christ himself said: It is my meat to do the will of him that sent me. According to this last sense, it was the will of God, that Christ should give us the everlasting ●…eate, which naturally is his Godhead, and by the mystery of the incarnation, it is his flesh. And to signify so much, Christ said: I will give you the everlasting meat, because my Father hath signed me to this purpose. The which sense S. Chrysostom followeth in the first place of Chryso. ibidem. his interpretation writing thus: Signavit, hoc est misit, qui hunc vobis cibum ferret. God the Father hath signed, that is to say, hath sent the Son of man, to bring you this meat. And E●…thymius agreeth with S. Chrysostom therein. Christ therefore being sent of his Father to give us the everlasting meat of life, first faith: I am the bread of life. And then showeth how he will give the same bread, saying: And the bread which I will give, is my flesh. S. Cyrillus upon those words: Cyrillus in I●…an. li. 3. c. 36. I am the bread of life, writeth thus: His verbis subostendit sanctissimi sui corporis vitam, & gratiam, qua in nobis unigeniti proprietas, id est, vita & ingreditur, & permanet. In these words he showeth privily the life and grace of his most holy body, whereby the propriety, that is to say, the life of the only begotten both entereth into us and tarrieth. Likewise S. Hilary hath these words: Si verè verbum caro factum Hilarins' lib. 8 de ●…rinit. est, & nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manner in nobis existimandus est? If the word be truly made flesh, and in our Lord's meat we truly receive the word (made) flesh, how can it be, but he must be judged to dwell naturally in us? Christ being for ever God in the fullness of time took flesh, and when the hour of death was at hand, he gave us that flesh to be eaten, by the which eating we re●…eaue the word itself, that is to say the natural Son of God into our bodies, and so Christ dwelleth in us not only by faith, spirit, or understanding, but naturally. Wherefore S. Hilary saith, we take and receive the word truly. Verè verbum sumimus. We receive truly and in deed the word which was with God in the beginning, and which was God. But how can we receive joan. 1. joan. 4. God truly or naturally? God is a spirit, and our nature, consisting of a body, can not feed truly and naturally upon a spirit, but only by faith and charity. How ●…hen receive we God truly? For south because 〈◊〉 took flesh truly, and we receive truly the word made flesh. Noman doubted but we can truly receive flesh, seeing then the word is made flesh, we thereby can receive the word itself, not only by understanding, but also whiles his own propriety, that is to say, whiles the life & Godhead, which corporally dwelleth in Christ's flesh, entereth into us with his flesh & tari●…th in us, if we receive worthily his most holy body. Thus it appeareth that Christ in his flesh giveth us the bread of life which he was sent to give, and he giveth it because that flesh is united to the word of God, which is life by his own nature. But if this flesh of his be given to us by faith alone, and understanding, or spirit alone, and not in very deed: We have not the bread of life in deed given to us, but only given to us by faith & spirit or understanding. And so it was given to us before the incarnation of Christ. For God was ever believed on of the just men Hebr. 11. joan. 14. ●…oth to be, and to be the rewarder of them who seek him, as S. Paul saith. And faith by nature is due to God, as Christ saith: 〈◊〉 believe in God, believe also in me. Therefore although Christ hath taken flesh, yet if his flesh he given to us only by ●…aith and spirit, the bread of life and nature of God, which dwelleth corporally Colos. 2. in that flesh, is not given us after the coming of Christ by any other means then by faith. And so by the incarnation of Christ we have not the bread of life given to us by any other way than we had it before. Which is expressly against the word of God, where the everlasting meat, and the bread of life is now first promised by the gift of Christ, as who came into the world to bring us this everlasting meat. And the bread which he will give is his flesh. Therefore to save the truth of the gospel (which never can fail) we must believe, that by the incarnation of Christ and by his gif●… at the last supper we have his real flesh, and in it the bread of life given to us, more than by faith, or understanding, or spirit. & that more, is the gift of the true substance of flesh and of blood, wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth. And by it the Godhead is received of us, not only by an effect of grace, & by a certain ver●…ue, Colos. 2. but in such truth of nature, as it is corporally dwelling in the person of Christ, who is one in substance with his Father. jerem 23 justinus Martyr in libr. de Trinitat. For although God be every where by nature, and fill both heaven and earth, yet as justinus Martyr witnesseth, he is in the Son of man by so excellent a mean of v●…g man to God, that he is no where else after that sort. And by that singular mean he was promised unto us, as who is only the everlasting meat, which alone satisfieth the hunger of man: whose heart as S. August. li. confess. 1. cap. 1. Augustine confesseth, is without rest, until it rest in God, because it was made to come to God: And nothing is at quiet, until it h●…ue obtained the end whereunto it was first made. Seeing then God is by nature that only everlasting meat which perisheth not, and seeing he must be given to us in his own nature, and we are not able to receive him as he is a spirit, he hath done for us as good mothers and Nurses do for their babes. The mother eateth bread, & by her eating, turneth it into milk, and that milk she giveth to the infant, and by that means the August. in conc. 1. in Psal. 33 joan. 1. infant eateth bread made milk. This similitude S. Augustine bringeth for the same purpose whereof I now speak. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. Ecce cibus sempiternus: Behold, sayeth S. Augustine, the everlasting meat, Sed manducant Angeli: But the Angels eat it. Quis homo posset ad illum cibum? What man were able (to attain) to that meat? Oportebat ergo ut illa mensa lactesceret, & ad paruulos perveniret. It behoved therefore that food should be turned into milk, and so come to little ones. unde cibus in lac convertitur, nisi per carnem traijciatur? By what means is meat turned into milk, except it be conveyed through flesh? Quomodo ergo de ipso pane pavit nos sapientia Dei? How then hath the wisdom of God fed us with the bread itself? Quia verbum caro factum est, & habitavit in nobis. Because the word is made flesh and hath dwelt in us. And so S. Augustine concludeth that man hath eaten Angels food, and that, as he showeth there, in the new sacrifice of Christ's supper. For of that sacrifice & Sacrament he entreateth. Thus we see that God himself must be eaten of us, not only by faith (for then he needed not to have been made man) but he must be eaten also, as infants eat milk, by mouth and body. And because that could not be, unless God were made man, he united to his divine person the nature of man, thereby making the bread of life and the food of Angels apt to be eaten of men. And at his supper he gave that flesh, wherein the Godhead corporally dwelled, by which only means the word of God is fulfilled, where he sayeth: Work the everlasting meat which the Son of man will give you. For God the Father hath signed him to this intent, that he should bring and give you this meat. The way of bringing was for the word to become man: The way of giving was for the Son of man to give the flesh of his, which is united to the Godhead, to be eaten. It is given at Christ's supper under the form of bread. No other mean of giving will serve. for eating by faith No gift can recompense the gift of Christ's real flesh. alone, be it never so lively a faith, lacketh the Godhead, in such sort and truth, as it hath assumpted the flesh of man to feed us therewithal. No spirit, no understanding, no faith, no grace, no other gift in heaven or in earth (beside the natural substance of Christ) can supply the gift of God's nature dwelling corporally in Christ. What thing can be equal to the gift of the everlasting meat, and to the gift of the bread of life? There is but one means in all the world for us to obtain the substance, which means is the flesh of Christ, where it only dwelleth for us. and God assumpted that flesh to give it unto us. And now what cruelty is it, to spoil us of that flesh, & thereby to spoil us of God, of life, and of the spirit? That spirit is it which we must eat. The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit joan. 6. that quickeneth, it is the Godhead that feedeth, God is a spirit: And because man consisting of a body could not eat joan. 4. God, therefore the spirit assumpted flesh, and quickened that flesh singularli●… for our sakes. That flesh is given us, and is profitable, not in respect as it is flesh, but because the spirit of the Godhead and the life itself dwelleth in it, and that not by faith or understanding alone, but corporally. That Godhead the Sacra●…entaries deprive us of, that spirit they pluck from us, and it is no where else to be so eaten of man. Heaven and earth, Angels and archangel's, yea all that creatures can not give us God corporally dwelling in them▪ and so to be eaten in any kind of meat besydès the flesh of Christ. But in that flesh we eat the substance itself of God himself. So teacheth Ambros. de Sacra mentis li. 6. c. 1. blessed S. Ambrose, saying: Tu qui accepisti eius carnem, divinae eius substantiae in illo participaris alimento. Thou that hast taken his flesh, art made partaker of his divine substance in that food. It is not possible to understand this saying of any spiritual virtue, or of any other thing, then of the real flesh of Christ. Therein only is the substance of God made meet to be eaten of man. No sign sufficeth to convey to us that heavenly br●…ad. It is an heinous impiety and an horrible blasphemy to say that a piece of bread can make us partakers of the substance of God, as it hath assumpted flesh in one person: Or to say that my faith is able to derive the substance of God as meat into my ●…phes. 2. soul and body. faith is a great gift of God, but yet a creature only wherein the fullness of Godhead dwelleth not. and therefore it is not able to a●…iue to the union of God's nature, and much less able to give it me. But Christ although he be true man, yet is he God also in one person, equal with his Father, and that fullness of Godhead dwelleth in his flesh. that flesh he giveth & in it the fullness of the Godhead. So may we eat the meat which perisheth not: So we receive the bread of life. But other way in the whole world none can be devised, how we may eat God, or carry him in our bodies properly and corporally. ¶ By the three diverse geving which are named, in S. The. ix. Chapter. John, it is showed that Christ giveth his real flesh under the figure of an other thing. IN that wonderful disputation which our saviour had at Capharnaum, and which is described by S. john, divers persons at three several times are showed to have had somewhat to do about the giving of bread or food: God by the ministry of Moses, God the Father himself, and jesus Christ God and man. God by Moses, is said to have given in time past: He hath 1. joan. 6. given them bread from heaven to eat. God the Father himself 2. is said presently to give: my Father giveth you from heaven the 3. true bread. jesus Christ saith that hereafter he will give: Work the everlasting meat which the son of man will give you: the bread which I will give is my flesh. God by Moses gave bread The breadgeu●… by ●…vses was figur●…ue which was figurative, coming from the uppermost part of the air, not able to give life of itself, and therefore not the true bread. The bread of God the Father was from heaven itself, able to The b●…d of God is true. give life of itself, and therefore the true bread. Christ's bread is such according to the form thereof, as both God by Moses had figured (which was manna) and such in substance Thebread of Christ 〈◊〉 true under a figure. as God the Father gave, which is the flesh of his son incarnate, and therefore it is called the bread, which is the flesh of Christ. Christ's bread, concerning the substance thereof, is the same flesh which giveth life everlasting, which is made the proper flesh of the word, and it is under the form of bread, in token The gift of Christ showeth both his Godhead & manhood that he fulfilleth the figure of manna. For Christ being true God with his Father, and true man with Moses, doth both give us by his Godhead the same true fle●…h, which his Father gave to him, and also he giveth it by his manhood, under such a figure and form of bread, as in the ministery of the law was used, and eaten with the paschal lamb a little before the making of his ow●… supper. He giveth not the substance of common bread, as Moses did, (for then the outward substance of his gyste had been no better, The form of bread. than God by Moses gave) neither giveth he the shape of flesh. as his Father gave (for then he had kept no agreement with the Keepeth the agreement with the law of Moses. figurative law of Moses) but he giveth as true flesh, as his Father gave him, because he is one with his Father: and covereth the same flesh with the form of bread, because he is not only God with his Father, but man also with Moses, and with all us. By which manhood he is less than his Father. and therefore as under the form of man he covereth his true Godhead, (wherein he is equal with his Father) so under the form of bread, he covereth the gift of his flesh, wherein he giveth as much as his Father gave him. Only this difference there is, that it was expedient for us the flesh assumpted of Christ to tarry flesh still. & in deed seeing God Why the substance of bread taken is changed, and the substance of flesh taken, 〈◊〉. Math. 26 is by all means immutable, neither could the word be changed into flesh, neither flesh into the word. but sith the substance of common bread doth not help us to life everlasting, and may be changed into the flesh of Christ, it is by the power of Christ changed into his flesh, when he taking bread and blessing saith, this is my body. Hereby we may see how the name of br●…ad and the figure of Manna is joined with the flesh of Christ, as the process of this chapter teacheth. Hereby we may understand how the blessed Gen. 14. seed of Abraham, which is the body of Christ, is joined with the apparent show, that Melchisedech made of bread and wine: Exo. 12. how the unleavened bread eaten with the old lamb is the cover of the true paschal lamb jesus Christ, and to be short how the substance of the old figure, is gone into the substance of Christ's flesh, and how the outward form of the figure remaineth until we come to heaven, where we shall see face to face without 1. Co. 〈◊〉. any veil or shadow put between us and the glorious flesh of Christ. Hence it cometh that (as S. Ireneus doth witness) the Eucharist Ireneus l. 4. c. 34. consisteth of two things, of one earthly which is the form of bread and of wine: of the other heavenly, which is the substance of Christ's body and blood. But if Christ's gift consisted of the substance of bread being The absurdities which rise of the Sacramentaries opinion. only sanctified in quality and made a sign of Christ's body (as the Sacramentaries teach) it should neither be that true bread, which his Father gave him, nor be in substance better than manna, but rather worse (for that Manna was miraculously wrought by angels, whereas at Christ's supper common bread is taken) nor it should not be dis●…ncted from the gift made in the law: for Psal. 77. as much as there also while Manna was eaten, the just men had grace from God given them, because it was a Sacrament of the law. It is not therefore grace and common bread which Christ giveth, but the substance of his flesh made under the form of common bread by his almighty word. ¶ By the shadow of the law past, and by the 〈◊〉 truth to come in heaven, it is perceived, that the middle The x. Chapter. state of the new Testament requireth the real presence of Christ's body under the form of brea●…. THe occasion of the three times, the past, the present, and the future, and of the gifts made in them which are named in S. john, doth provoke me to enter into a farther discourse, whereby it may appear to those that delight in conferring the holy scriptures, what wonderful witness every part of them doth bear to that truth, which our forefathers believed, and we that are not bastard children do keep and maintain. The law (saith S. Paul) hath the shadow of good things to Heb. 10. Shadow. Image of things. Things them 〈◊〉. a. Cor. 5. come, not the very image of things. whereby he meaneth, that as the law had but a shadow: so the gospel hath the thing itself. but yet not clear and plain. for (as the same Apostle sayeth) we in this world walk by faith, and not by vision and clear sight. If Christ gave not unto us his real and substantial flesh under the form of bread, how gave he us the thing itself? How Christ is the thing itself. were he by that gift proved greater than Moses, and equal with his Father? If on the other side he gave us his flesh naked, how were our state an image of the things themselves? Christ is our mediator. A mediator is in the middle to Galat. 3. 1. Tim. 2. join two parts that otherwise do not agree. then if he will make man agree with God, he must have ●…oth the nature of God and of man joined in one person. likewise if he will make the state of the gospel present, agree with the law past, and with the state of glory to come, he must take the similitude of the law and the nature of the glory of heaven, and join these two into one mystery, and so he hath done. For as he is in one person very God, and very man: so he hath perfectly expressed the old state of the law and the state of heaven in o●… Sacrament. The nature of the law of Moses was to show Christ, and to The state of the law. Galat. 3. be a guide unto the school of Christ, which thing it did by diverse figures. The nature of glory is to see face to face, to have all truth with 1. Co. 13. The state of glory. The middle state. 〈◊〉 any figure. Now the state of the new Testament, being the middle state betwixt the law and the glory of heaven, must have the very truth that is in heaven (which is the true flesh of Christ whereon Angels desire to look) and the true Godhead, which is the full blessedness of all saints, and this thing it must have under a figure. Therefore the the●…e Sacrament thát Christ left unto his Church (which also he called the new Testament in his Luc. 22. blood) must by the same reason have the true flesh of Christ, wherein Colos. 2. the Godhead dwelleth corporally, and that under a very figure, which is the form of bread. A●…d truly this form of bread and of wine is only a true figure, because there is in it none other substance but the bare figure. Other figures of the old law were set to signify, being themselves 〈◊〉 other substance in nature, as the ark, the tabernacle, The form of bread is only a true figure. the veil, the ●…hewebread and all the sacrifices. but the bare figure of bread without the substance of bread set to signify the bread of life really present under it, that is the only true figure as the which hath none other truth in his own substance, but only the truth of a figure, because the substance thereof is turned Hebr. 5. Psa. 109. into that flesh of Christ, who under the figure of the order of Melchisedech (whereof he is priest) fulfileth all figures, that ever have been of him, in his real and substantial flesh. which real flesh if we had not in our Sacrament of the altar, Christ gave no more in his outward mysteries than was given by Moses, he were not equal with his Father by his gift, he were not the corner stone joining the state of Moses' law which Ephes. 〈◊〉. was only 〈◊〉 a●…d the verity of glory together. But if these are great ●…rrours, let us steadfastly believe that Christ left us his very crew rcall flesh in the blessed Sacrament of the altar, under the form of bread and wine. Math. 5. For as in other precepts we may understand the old law not Galat. 5. to be taken away concer●…ing the spirit which lay hid in it, but only to be fulfilled and made more perfect: so notwithstanding the old figures be dead and changed, yet the state of fulfilling them is such, that the new Testament is not itself without all figures, but rather containeth the truth covered with a convenient figure. verily Christ said so much in effect, when he taught that he came not to put away the law, but to fulfil it▪ for the fulfilling Math. 5. of the law without the putting away thereof, is no less to say, then to put the fullness of new grace under a shadow, which shadow may seem to keep a resemblance with the old law: so that of two distinct states there must now be made one new middle state of the which the outward part resembleth the law, and the inward is one with the state of grace. Let us put an example in the precepts of nature to make this thing more plain. The law saith: Non occides: Thou shalt not Exo. 20. kill. This precept was not put away by Christ, but the true ground of it (which is, not to be angry) was joined thereunto as it appeareth by y● serm●…n of Christ in S. Matthew: It was said Math. 5. to them of the oldelaw, Thou shalt not kill, but I say unto you that every one that is angry with his brother shallbe guilty in judgement. Here we see two things, the one of kylliug, the other of being angry. That of killing is outward: That of anger, is inward. Anger is the ground of not kil●…ng. they both make but one precept of the new Testament. the not killing dependeth upon the not being angry, and then is killing thoroughly taken away, when anger is thoroughly cured, and as it fareth with this precept: so staudeth it with the the blessed Sacrament, whereof we reason. For it keepeth the form of bread and wine which under the law was empty, and the truth which was be tokened by the old manna, is put by the almyghtic power of God under the forms of bread and wine. and so remaineth the law not altogether put away (for a kind of figure tarrieth still, and it was ever a figurative law) but fulfilled, because the body of Christ, which is the fulfilling of the law, is made present under a figure. The sign of circumcision (saith S. Leo) the sanctification of Leo de passione Domini serm. 13. gifts, the consecration of priests, the purity of sacrifice, the verity of washing, the honour of the temple is with us. there is no legal instruction, no prophetical figure, quod non totum in Christi sacramenta transierit. which is not wholly transferred into the Sacraments Leo de passione Domini serm. 8. of Christ: and again, one oblation of thy body and blood fulfilleth the diversity of the old sacrifices. Hitherto S. Leo the great. To the same effect serve the words of blessed Dionysius a Counsellor of the Senate of Athens scholar to S. Paul, who having In lib. de coele. Hi erarchia. declared the holy kind of governance, which is in heaven among the orders of Angels, and having showed, that by them the inferior degrees of men are brought unto God according to their capacity, he first showeth that God gave unto the world the government of the law, which he gave as to children in signs and tokens, and as to weak eyes in figures, clouds, or shadows. But afterward came our holy governance, which is the end and fulfilling of the former law. Now saith this holy Dionys. Areopagita ●… eccles. High rar. ca 5. writer. Nostra hierarchia & coelestis est & legalis, quae communiter medietate extremorum comprehenditur, cum illa communes habens spiritales contemplationes, cum hac autem signa quo sensum movent, quorum varietate distinguitur & per ea piè ad deum adducitur. Our holy governance (saith Dionysius) is both heavenly and legal, that is to say, having somewhat like to the law contained in common between those two extremities, partaking with that of heaven spiritual contemplations, and with this of the law sensible signs, whereby it is diversly distincted, and by them it is brought after an holy maver unto God. We have heard how the scholar of S. Paul joineth in our Our state is mingled of law and glory. state the heavenly contemplations of Angels (who look upon God himself) with the outward signs of the law. For by heavenly contemplations S. Dionysius meaneth that truth, which face to face is seen in heaven. But let us return again to the words of S. Paul, who did yet express this matter more plainly, keeping the same division, but giving every thing his plain name. The law had the bare shadow of things to come: The truth, Heb. 10. is the body of Christ itself, which he calleth also Rem ipsam, the thing itself, wherein also dwelleth the nature of God. Now the Colos. 2. joining of a figure with the truth is called Ipsa imago rerum, the very shape or image of the things. Vmbram enim habens lex futurorum Heb. 10. bonorum non ipsam imaginem rerum: For the law (saith S. Paul) hath the shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things. The good things to come are the vision of The good things. Christ in glory, and the clear sight of God, who corporally dwelleth in the body of Christ. The shadow hereof was the law, whereof The shadow. The image of the things. Moses being steward, obtained bread from the air for the children of Israel: But the image itself of the things, that is to say, wherein the body of Christ is contained and in that body God dwelleth, the image is the substance of God & man covered under the forms of our blessed Sacrament of the altar. The pecu liar gift of Christ. And therefore that Sacrament is properly the gift of Christ containing both it which we shall see in heaven, and such a figure as we have seen under the law, covering presently the truth to come, with the shadow past, to come I say without a shadow, & Maxim. in scholijs in Di ony●… Pachim. Oecume nius in 10. ad Hebr. The distinction of the gifts is not in vain. past I say, without the real truth, but now having the truth under a shadow. Maximus and Pachimera do upon S. Dionysius allege S. Paul for the proof of that which Dionysius said. Oecu menius likewise expoundeth the things themselves, to be the life to come, the shadow to be the old testament, the image of things to be the state of the Gospel. This I take to be the true meaning of the holy Ghost, who doth not in vain cause the gift of God by Moses to be named diversly from the gift of God the father, and the gift of Christ to differ from them both. Moses is said to have given, God the father presently to give, Christ promiseth that he will give. God by Moses hath given bread, God the father at the time of speaking, gave his son in visible flesh, Christ promiseth to give the bread which is the flesh of the son of man, which flesh under the form of bread bringeth together in the Sacrament of the altar the good things of heaven, & such figures as were in the law. The Sacramentaries make void these diverse gifts All which distinctions of giving, and truth of gifts, the Sacra mentaries by their figurative doctrine make void, as they do the rest of the holy Scriptures. For they will that Christ's outward gift should in it contain no invisible truth of flesh and blood, but even the bare substance of common bread and wine, feeding us with needy and impotent creatures, as though we Gal. 4. remained yet babes, as though Christ in fulfilling all figures had destroyed them, and not left them full and perfect. That which the water and the cloud did signify, is now really 1. Co. 10. performed in baptism, where we are saved by the washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the holy ghost. Likewise Tit. 3. that which Manna did then shadow having the sweetness of all dainty and pleasant tastes, as now really given, because the flesh Sap. 16. of Christ is meat in deed. We differ not in substance of our manna from the Angels of We are near to the Angels then to the Jews. heaven, but only they are out of all fear, we lyuc in good hope, they see and eat we eat, & see not, but be●…ue. They are in their and our country, we are in the way to them. Whiles we are going, the truth of heaven is covered to us, but sith Christ came down to be our guide, he hath left the kingdom of heaven in the blood of the new testament among us, as really as himself ●… really for that purpose took flesh, and died in the same flesh, to joan. 12. th'intent he being exalted upon the cross, should draw all things unto himself. ¶ The bread that Christ promiseth to give which is his flesh, must needs be meant of the substance of The. xi. Chapter. his flesh. Having already touched the three several times of giving▪ which are spoken of in S. John, order would that I should show the three several kinds of working those three gifts. But for as much as the last gift of the three is the gift of Christ, whereof we do principally entreat, I thought good to say somewhat of it alone. Christ having said before: work the everlasting meat which the Son of man will give you, cometh now to namè what kind of meat it is, and the bread (saith he) which I will give is my flesh. I have proved already that these two sentences belong to one manner of gift, which also is promised to be given to us, and not only to be given for us, as some do a●…. To be given to us I say, in the Sacrament of Christ's supper, and not only for us upon the Cross, the which thing because I have by diverse reasons proved in two places of this present book. it shallbe now su●… In ●…he ●…▪ Chap. in the answer to the iiij. objection, & in the vi. Chapter. Cyp de orat. Do min. Chrys. hon. i. 46 in joan. Cyril. li. 11. in joan. cap. 22. Aug. de civit. lib. 17 c. 5. de pec. mer. & remis. li 1 c 24. etc. Theodo. dial. 1. to warn the reader that S. Cypr●… writing upon our Lord's prayier, hath alleged these words: The bread which I will give is my flesh, as spoken of the Eucharist. The like hath S. Chrysostom done in his comments upon the same place, affirming that Christ spoke of the mysteries: beside that which he speaketh hereof upon the sixth of S. John, doth also allege it again for the Sacrament of Christ's supper, naming benedictionem mystica●…, the mystical blessing. S. Augustine often times allegeth this text for the gift made in Christ's supper, as I have declared before also. Theodoritus was of the same mind: and as for Theophilact and Euthymius be so clear in this matter, that they never doubted thereof. Which sith it is so: let it stand for a truth most universally received, that Christ saying, The bread which I will give is my flesh, meant, the bread which I will give you at my last supper is my flesh. Moreover, the word bread must be noted, which standeth not presently for wheaten bread, but only for food and meat. For as Christ said before, work the meat which the son of man will give you: so now he saith, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, declaring the bread in this place is all one with meat. The which Cyril. in joan. lib. 11. ca 22. truth is also expressed of S. Cyrillus where he saith: salvator cum ad judaeos multa de carne sua dissereret, ac vivisicum verè panem ●…am appellaret, panis enim, inquit, quem ego dabo, caro mea est. When our Saviour disputed many things among the jews, of his flesh, and ca●…ed it the bread truly giving life, he said: for the bread which I will give is my flesh. Thus it is clear, that Christ in effect saith, I will give you a kind of meat or food in my last supper, the which is my flesh, even the same flesh which I will give for the life of the world. This promise Christ made at Caph●… to all the ●…tude, but 〈◊〉 submitted themselves to receive that doctrine beside the twelve Apostles, among whom judas being one, had this promise made to him also. For although Christ knew him to be a devil and traitor, as himself said even at Caph●…um: yet seeing joan. 6. he tarried with the twelve even at the last supper, and other men knew not so much of his malicious intent, Christ dissembled it, and as he promised his flesh to all, so he gave it to the twelve in the night wherein he was betrayed. The which thing I speak to th'end the reader might perceane, what Christ promised presently. Such a gift it was the which was performed ●…o less to judas, then to the other Apostles. It was not therefore a spiritual gift only which was promised (for such a one judas neither did nor could take) but it was a real▪ and external gift, which was delivered with the hands of Christ, and received into the mouths of the Apostles. After which sort judas took it. Which could not be so, except the flesh of Christ were under the form of bread, which Christ gave. Again Christ spoke not now of giving his flesh by faith only, for that gift his Father presently gave, as he said: Pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum, my Father doth give you the true bread from heaven. That gift Christ himself was being given in flesh, to th'end we should believe in him, and 〈◊〉 upon him by spiritual devotion. But Christ's gift both hath an other person, & an other tyme. The person is Christ, the time is to come. Whereupon Chrys. homi. 46 in joan. S. Chrysostom here noteth: See, non patrem dare dicit: He saith himself to give, and not his Father. It is therefore a real gift to be made externally whereof Christ speaketh. Whereupon it followeth, that Christ's flesh was promised under the form of bread which suin his ●…pper was taken, blessed, and delivered. Under that form Christ's flesh is promised not in faith only, but in truth of nature, and in the same substance which was given 〈◊〉 the life of the world. The Sacramentaries must now say, that flesh here standeth The ●…ction. for the sign and figure of Christ's flesh, and so by that means (they will say) both judas had the figure of Christ's flesh given▪ and the other Apostles had the flesh itself by faith and spirit. It hath b●…e ●…wed before, that the bread, whereof Christ now The ●…swere. speaketh, and which he affirmeth to be his flesh, is Christ himself, as he is true God and man. Therefore to say, the bread which Christ will give, is the sign of his flesh, is to say that Christ himself through his own gift is the sign of his own flesh, for of any other bread Christ spoke not in this place, then of such bread as himself is. And of that he spoke, not in that only respect as he is God, but as he is man. And so either the man●…hood of Christ is the Either no sign is given by Christ, or his flesh is the sign that is given. sign of his flesh, or nothing else is here called the sign thereof. If the manhood be the sign, surely the manhood is now promised and is delivered even to judas at his last supper: which being so, I grant it to be a most true ●…se, that judas did eat such a sign of Christ's flesh, as his own substance is. But if the Sacramentaries will needs have material bread meant by these words (The bread which I will give) besides that they take that word otherwise, than it is taken in all the talk which appertaineth to the true bread which came down ●…rom heaven, I will confute that gross error an other way also. Christ joineth together two diverse tenses, the future, and the present, Dabo, I will give, and est, it is, a●…ing that the gevig of his bread is to come, but the substance or being o●… the same bread which he will give, is pres●…nt. for he said not, the bread which Flesh here can not mean the ●…igure of flesh. I will give shallbe my flesh, but is my flesh. And yet if the word bread did stand for material bread, and the word flesh for the sign and figure of flesh (as some doubt not falsely to teach) or it the 〈◊〉 (is) o●…d stand ●…or the verb (signi●…icat) which m●…aneth to betoken or to signify, them Christ even by our adversaries interpretation should have said, the bread which I will give shallbe my flesh, and not (as he now said) is my flesh. For seeing that Christ spoke these words one whole year before his supper (as by the gospel it may appear) if the bread which he said he would give, should only betoken his flesh, and not be his flesh in deed, than were it falsely spoken that the same bread now presently is his flesh. for if the bread itself he not yet made, yea perhaps not so much as the corn thereof in the ground, and certainly not yet blessed of Christ, how is it possible that the bread which now is not, can be now a sign or token of Christ's flesh? That which is not itself, can much less be a ●…oken of an other thing. but that which Christ said he would give, was extant in substance at that time when he spoke, and at that present instant when he spoke. For he said the bread which I will give, is my flesh as I say, is now, is at this moment, wherein I speak. But the material bread that I will take into my hands, & turn into my flesh, is not as yet extant any where. Or if it be, it is not a token until I bless. But the bread that I will give is even now my flesh: As much as if Christ said, that which I will geu●… at my last supper, how so ever it seem common bread, and appear in the form of bread, which form and figure is to come: (and therefore I say that I will give it hereafter) yet the substance that shallbe contained within that form of bread, that sub stance which is the being and essence of my gift, whereof now I speak, that substance is now present in your eyes. What substance is that? Forsooth the substance of my flesh. For as the form of br●…ad is to come, and the substance of my flesh is here present in me: so by the form of bread I say, I will give it. but concerning the substance thereof, I say it is my flesh. I say not it shallbe, lest you should think I meant to make such a gi●…t of my flesh, the substance whereof were to come rather than present. But I say, it is my flesh. For within the form of that bread none other sub stance shallbe, then that which you see here, which is my flesh. so that these words (the bread which I will give is my flesh) are as much to say, as I will give you the substance of my flesh to eat: And that the word flesh doth here signify the substance of Christ's flesh, Tertullian hath witnessed almost fourteen hundred Tertull. de carne Christi. years past. Who disputing against those heretics, that confounded the flesh and the soul of Christ, taketh upon him to declare that they are two distincted natures. Of the soul of Christ it was said: Anxia est anima mea usque ad mortem, my soul is sorrowful to death. of his flesh, Panis, quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea est. The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. Quod si una caro, & una anima, illa tristis usque ad mortem: & illa panis pro mundi salute saluus est numerus duarum substantiarum 〈◊〉 genere distantium, excludens carneae animae unicam speciem. If the flesh be one and the soul an other, the soul sorow●…ui to death, & the flesh bread for the salvation of the world, the number of two substances differing in their kind is safe, excluding the one kind of a fleshly soul. If in this disputati●…n we might expound flesh for the sign of flesh, and being for the sign of being, Tertullian by this place had not proved a real substance of flesh, sith a sign of flesh, is not the substance of flesh. but now, as in this saying, my soul sorrowful, the word, soul standeth for the substance of the soul: so in this, the bread which I will geue is my flesh, the word flesh standeth for the true substance of Christ's flesh. Seeing then Christ promiseth to give the substance of his flesh, & it must needs be that he fulfilled his promise, undonbtedly he hath given us in deed the true substance of his flesh in his last supper, when he said: Take and eat, this is my body, that is to say, as now I have pros●…d, the substance of my body. Thus it is pro●…: first, that these words belong to the Sacrament of Christ's supper: Next that the word bread 〈◊〉 ●…eth Christ himself the bread of life: Thirdly that if it were ex●… for common bread, yet every way the sense should serve to prove of 〈◊〉 the true gift of Christ's substance in his last supper. ¶ A farther declaration of the real presence of Christ's bo The 〈◊〉. Chapter. die & blood taken out of the discourse of his ●…wn words concerning the different eating of him by f●…ith, and the re●…auing of his flesh and bl●… in the S●…amente of the ●…ltar. Marvel not, good Reader, that I stand long about a little. The strength of the word of God is so great, that a few syllables of his can not be sufficiently expounded by a great many books of any mortal man's making. for God spoke Psal. 61. but one, and yet David heard two things, to wit, the power and mercy of God. Whereby are understanded the two hole books of the old and new Testament. Now I will go forward to show you the plain differerence, that Christ himself hath set forth in this Chapter between 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 go about (against the word of God) to make you believe: neither do they differ only, because in the supper a bodily sign of that thing is eaten, where upon we feed by faith: but because that thing is received into our bodies, where upon we feed by faith. In so much that of purpose Christ impugneth & destroyeth the Sacramentary doctrine by these his words in this Chapter. wherein as I have heretofore no●…ed diverse kinds and times of Three 〈◊〉. ge●…ng, because God by Moses gave naked figures in the time past, the father himself giveth presently the true natural flesh of his natural son to our eyes and hearts. and Christ will give hereafter the same true flesh under the form of bread to our mouths and minds: so now must I note diverse workings of the said gifts. One work answered to God's gift by Moses, another to Three workings. the father's gist, and the third to Christ's gift. By Moses his minister God gave Manna. This bread was 1. Manna was wrought corporally only corporal, and the people wrought the substance thereof only with their teeth & bellies: other thing was there not in it which might be wrought. for although it were ordained to be a figure o●… a greater thing to come in Christ, yet that was no part of the Manna itself, but consisted and had his whole ground in the appointment of God, and in the understanding of the people of God. to whom (if they were well instructed and so took it) Mamna was a figure: and whether they took it so or no, it was ordained to be a figure, but not to them profitable who took it only for bodily food. Again those which understood well what Manna signified, had not any good by the meat itself, but looked for it of the truth which Manna shadowed. for which cause Christ saith, your fathers have eaten Manna in the desert and are dead: as who should say, Manna by his own virtue could save none of them all, but that true bread jesus Christ only saveth, which Manna did signify. The second gift is the present gift of the Father, whereof Christ 2. joan 6. Christ wrought on by faith Augu. in joan. c. 6 sayeth: My 〈◊〉 doth give you the true bread from heaven. This gift of the father must be wrought not by teeth and bellies (as Manna was) but by faith and spirit. And therefore S. Augus●…ine saith upon this place: Vt quid paras dentem & ventrem? Credit de & máducasti. What dost thou provide tooth and belly? believe, and thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The third gift is that where Christ promiseth to give his flesh: Christ received cor porally. and the working of it, is to eat worthily the same flesh under the form of bread. God the father is said to geue the true bread, which is Christ Christ given. himself in such sort as he is God and man in one person: and the same one God doth work faith in all that hear his voice, by Faith given. the which faith they may work upon Christ and eat of him by spirit. Of this work it is said: This is the work of God that ye joan. 6. believe upon him whom he hath sent. of this kind of working it is said: He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth The reward of faith. in me, shall not thirst for ever. To be short, of this work doth Christ speak specially, and in manner wholly from that place where he said, that the Father giveth the true bread, for twenty sentences together, until he conclude that kind of working by these words: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever▪ Take the pain to read over once or twice the Chapitre of S. John from that place, where it is said, operamini, work, not that The division of the Chapter. meat which perisheth, and so forth to the end, and conferte therewith that which I now write, and you shall see as clevely as can be, that Christ distincteth as three gifts, so three workings of them. As God by Moses gave the delicate bread called Manna, so they wrought upon it by eating the same bread with their teeth. As God the father giveth the true bread jesus Christ, so the faithful must work it by believing, and their reward shallbe life everlasting. But as thou dost tender thy soul health, so go forward with me to the third gi●…t, and the third working or eating: which in deed if it be done profitably containeth both a bodily and a spiritual working, a bodily with manna, a spiritual with the gift The third gift is eaten with body ●… soul. of God the father. a bodily to 〈◊〉 the manhood of Christ, a spiritual to eat it fruitfully. the eating is spiritual because it requireth faith in Christ, and love towards God and our neighbours, the same eating is bodily, becau●…e it in deed eateth under that forms of bread and wine that flesh of Christ, which it believeth in saith and heart. First Christ showeth his gift, saying: And the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. That this gift doth differ Christ's gift ●…issereth from manna. from the gift of Moses (who gave bare bread) it is easily seen. For the sons gift tarrieth for ever, but Mamna perished and they that did eat it, concerning any virtue that Manna had in his own substance to save them from death. The working of this gift is also named eating and drinking, but yet after another sort then the eating of Manna was under Moses. for here the truth is eaten that was figured in Manna. But how it differeth from the father's gift, and the work which belongeth to the father's gift, there standeth a great part of this question. Here I must warn the Reader, that he confounded not himself. for in oft repeating what the Father, and what the son, why the Father, and why the son giveth this, or that: it is to be seared lest the mind gor●…et the chief distinction, and so take one part in stead of the other. The Father, and the son, yea the holy ghost also be all one God, and give all one thing. But the holy scripture, for the instruction The whole trinity worketh. of us, and by reason of Christ's flesh assumpted, doth attribute sometime one thing to the Father, a other to the son, an other to the holy ghost: meaning most commonly by the name of the Father, God, and the whole Trinity, according to the which appropriation of works and gifts, we now intent to speak. The Father is said to give many ways in this chapter, he giveth faith into our hearts, he giveth Christ to the world in How many ways the Father giveth. flesh, he giveth Christ to us, and giveth us to Christ. Therefore the gift of the Father may be respected specially two ways. either in Christ himself, or in us toward Christ. The Father's gift in Christ himself is real and external, because he sendeth and giveth his only begotten Son in the true flesh of man to be seen, heard, and felt. The Father's gift, in respect of that we receive of him, is real, but internal, spiritual, and without working outwardly that same sensible gift which is wrought inwardly. For after the Father had once given flesh to his Son, all sensible and external working was worthily committed to that heavenly instrument of Christ's flesh. So that sometime we say the Father's gift is real and external, but then we mean the visible flesh of Christ in his own person: Sometime we say the Father's gift is only spiritual, and then we understand the faith, charity, and grace, which the Father worketh in us, whom he bringeth to Christ by faith and spirit. This distinction well remembered, I trust to make the matter plain enough. The state of our nature is such, that sith we consist of body and soul, our soul being the chief part of us, and our body the inferior part, God the Father in his gift intendeth to feed our The Father feedeth the soul. Sap. 9 souls: which being fed, our body shallbe fed, by reason it dependeth upon the soul. But Christ considering that our heavy bodies most commonly weigh down our souls to the pit of hell, would also invent a way, that our very bodies might not only not hindre, but rather help our souls, and not only through our souls, but also through a meat that themselves should receive, be made light and meet to rise upward, and to obey the spirit gladly. So that the meat, which God the Father giveth to the soul, Christ 〈◊〉 the spiritual food even to the body. Christ bringeth to the body. And because the body hath no faith to apprehend the flesh of Christ withal, neither understanding, nor spirit, whereby to follow the flesh of Christ into heaven: it hath pleased his infinite mercy to leave his flesh in so marvelous a manner under the form of bread, that it might be given into our hands, mouths, and breasts, by which means we are able to receive it corporally and naturally. The Son The Fa●… and 〈◊〉 geu●… one thing not one way. therefore and the Father give one thing on Christ's behalf, but not one way on our behalf. For the Father giveth Christ unto the world in deed, but to us in faith and spirit. The son giveth himself to us in faith and spirit with the Father, and moreover he is here said to give himself in truth of body and blood to oursoules and bodies. Because therefore the thing itself is one which the Father and the Son give, one effect doth follow in us of both gifts. For as it is said of the Father's gift, He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life: So it is said of the 'Zounds gift, He that Thereward is one of both gifts The diverse ways of giving. The ●…irst difference. eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life. But for so much as the Father and the Son give not their gifts after one sort: Therefore their two gifts are in this chapter of S John diversly described. First as I said before, of the Father's gift it is said, He doth give the true bread, in the present tense: Of that Son, I will give, in the future tense. The Father giveth Christ in the form of man, and therefore The 〈◊〉 difference. it is said: This is the will of my Father which sent me, that every one, who seeth the Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life, and again, ye have seen me and have not believed. Behold, by the manner of the Father's gift, the faithful may see that Son of man, upon whom they believe. But of the sons gift it is only said. The bread which I will give, is my flesh. where it is not said that his flesh shallbe seen, but rather insinuated that it shallbe under a covering of an other kind of food, which the naming of bread signifieth. And in the supper (where this prophecy was fulfilled) it is most clear. The Father's gift is called Verus panis de coelo, the true bread The 〈◊〉. difference. or meat from heaven: The sons gift is called not only true bread, but also truly bread, and meat in deed, Caro mea verè est cibus, my flesh is truly meat. some true meat may chance not to be truly meat, because it is not eaten: but nothing is meat in deed, and truly meat, except it be in deed eaten. There is difference between being the true vine, and a vine truly. Christ said himself was the true vine, but he said not, that he was truly any certain vine. The jews and Disciples went not away from Christ for The iiij. difference. any thing that was spoken about the Father's gift. For albeit they believed not Christ to be the son of God, yet they well perceived, that such a gift of eating by faith might stand with the custom of God's people. but when the sons gift came to be declared, they could abide no longer. Seeing then it is plain that they lacked faith, but yet lacked not understanding, we may be sure they saw more apparent absurdity in the sons gift (as they took it) then in the Fathers. because it seemeth stranger for man's flesh to be eaten, as the son seemed to say, than God to be made man, which is the Father's gift, who sent his son to take our flesh. The gift of the Father is called by such names only, as belong The v. difference. to the person of Christ, or to his divine nature, to say: the bread of life, the lively bread, the true bread, (for God only is absolutely the true bread of life) or by the pronown●… ego, which is to say, I. but the gift of Christ, is called also by the names of his human nature, to wit, the flesh and blood o●… the son of man. another difference may be, to consider, that Christ endeth his The vi. difference. talk of each gift with repeating the old figure Manna, betokening y● as well by the giste of the Father as of the son the shadow of manna was fulfilled. But (as it shall hereafter appear) Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings Manna was fulfil led in both gifts. by the sons gift. As therefore when he had long reasoned of the belief which they ought to have in him, whom God the Father had sent, he last of all concludeth: I am the bread of life. To eat o●… this bread Your Fathers did eat manna in the desert and be dead, if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: right so, having at To eat this bread large reasoned of eating his own flesh, and of the effect which riseth thereof, he at the last endeth: This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your Fathers have eaten manna, and be dead, he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. The like peroration used in both places with words somewhat unlike, doth declare that one substance is given of the Father to be eaten of us by faith, and of the son to be really eaten. so that the manner differeth, because we eat only ex Christo, that is to say of Christ by faith, but we eat and receive Christum Christ himself, in the Sacrament of the altar. For it pleased the whole Trinity, that the fullness of our salvation should be in the manhood of Christ, whose food it is, to end joan. 4. his Father's work. The Father's gift is to believe in Christ: the sons gift is, to eat and drink in very deed his flesh and blood. In working the Father's gift, a working faith is sufficient. in working the sons gift, ●…aith is required with taking and eating that, wherein we believe. The Father's gift is to work Christ in us, as Christ is God and man: but more as he is God, then as he is man. for our ●…aith and belief is due to the Godhead first of all, a●…d unto the manhood because it is joined unto the Godhead: and therefore joan. 14. Christ said, ye believe in God, believe also in me. But drinking and eating is first appertaining to the manhood, and afterward reacheth unto the Godhead, because the Godhead is in that mea●…e and drink, which we take, therefore Christ said: he that 〈◊〉 my flesh, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 4. The Father's gift is belonging first to our spirit, and then to our flesh, because it is the flesh of such a spirit, which believeth in God, and loveth him. the sons gift is first in our body and flesh, concerning the Sacramental receiving of him, and then in our spirit, because it is a spirit belonging to such a flesh, which receiveth the flesh of God through Christ. In the Father's gift we are not said to receive the true bread it 5. self, which the Father gave into the world, but to receive, as it were an effect wrought by the strength thereof. for after Christ had at large described his Father's gift, he said: this is the bread coming We eat of Christ by the Father's gift. down from heaven, to the intent that if any man shall eat, ex ipso, of it, he may not die. he saith not ipsum, if any man eat it, but of it. Again: Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi, si quis manducaverit ex hoc páne, vivet in aeternum. I am the bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever. to eat of this bread, is, to receive some grace and effect coming from it. And this much concerning the Father's gift. But concerning the sons gift, Christ saith: except ye eat the flesh of the son of man. He saith not of the flesh, but y● wholè flesh itself. Again, My flesh is truly mea●… he that eateth my flesh We eat Christ by the sons gift. tarrieth in me. and afterward, he that eateth me●… he saith not now of me, but me. Last of all: qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum, he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. he saith not now, he that eateth (of this bread) as he said before speaking of spiritual eating, but he that eateth this bread. And yet to make the matter more plain such an eating is assigned 6. We eat Christ in his supper as Mana was eaten. to the gift of Christ (which is made in his supper) as before was named of Mamna. for it was said thereof: Our Fathers did eat Manna. they said not of Manna, but Manna in his own substance. which words are three times conformably rehearsed, and every where they did eat Manna, not only of Man nam (as though they had only taken a certain virtue out of it) but they did eat Manna, as we eat common bread. Seeing then we may eat of a thing, or else the thing itself, the eating of it is a spiritual eating by faith and understanding. But the eating it is a real eating, in the nature and substance of the thing itself. When I say, that by the Father's gift we eat of Christ, and by the sons gift we eat Christ, I mean not to deny but that also by the sons gift we eat of Christ. For as he that hath two, hath four: so he that eateth worthily Christ's flesh, eateth He that eateth Christ, may eat also of Christ. both Christ, and of Christ, but not only of Christ, for he eateth Christ in his human nature, wherein the divine nature dwelleth, and is given thereby to be eaten of. He eateth of Christ, I say, concerning that effect & grace, which by Sacramental eating the Godhead worketh in his body and soul. For the Godhead itself is the bread whereof we must partake. But the mean to partake it most abundantly is to receive worthily the manhood, wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth. Therefore Christ giving all the spiritual gifts that his Father Colos. 2. doth, as mean to make us partakers of the Godhead, giveth also besides all them, the truth of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar, as the mean far the highest to join us most nigh to the spirit of God. And although his Father give us by his appointment the same flesh and blood which Christ doth give, yet Christ calleth it for a great reason his own gift, because the substance of it proceedeth from his own person, where unto he assumpted flesh and blood. For in this Chapter (as in many other places) by the Father's gift, the gift of God and of the whole Trinity is meant. And by the sons gift that chief is meant, which peculiarly proceedeth by mean of the incarnation & strength of Christ's flesh joined always with the divine nature, the which flesh we receive in the Sacrament of Christ's own institution, Mat. 26. wherein he said in his own person: Take and eat, this is my body, drink ye all of this, for this is my blood. Who seeth not now the difference between the gift that God giveth us by charity (which he spreadeth in our hearts) and the gif●… wherein he gave his own Son, when he took flesh and became man with us, and the gift which the Son being made man giveth in his supper. No gift of God could save us (the Theword made 〈◊〉. prophecies standing as they did) but only the giving of his son into the world, when he took real flesh for us. And yet was not Christ ma●…e our sacrifice. that enough, except the Son again had given himself to death for us. Then the flesh of Christ is the mean for us to be saved, that is, a ladder let down from heaven, whereon we may step and so climb up. God himself we could not eat, thereby to be Christ made our food. changed into him, and made membres of him. But God became man, that we eating man might receive God, as he dwelled in that flesh which we re●…aued. The conclusion is, that if the Father's gift, which is the in●…arnation of Christ and his manhood, be to be taken in spirit and faith, concerning the feeding of our souls (as you have seen it plainly proved) the sons gift (which is an other different manner of giving, and hath an other kind of working, appointed to it) must be received not in faith, spirit, and virtue only, but also in the substance of flesh and blood. Our new preachers expound the whole matter, as though The Sacramentaries ex●…. Christ gave his flesh in his last supper no●…e otherwise (excepting material bread and wine) than his Father giveth it unto us by faith. And therefore they teach, that we receive in the supper of our Lord with common bread and wine, Christ himself by faith and spirit. But by that means Christ giveth a great deal less, than his father gave. For bread and wine is less than the gift of faith, & when Christ giveth faith, he doth it as God, therein being one with his father. Is then his own gift only bread and wine? Came he into the world to give a less token, than God had given before under Moses? For who can doubt, but manna did in his own substance far pass bakers bread and wine of the grape? Is this the end of this long disputation, of so many differences put between Moses, God the Father, and Christ, between manna, Christ's incarnation, & his supper? between eating by body alone, by faith alone, by body & faith together? Is this all, to have by the gift of Christ, only a token of himself in bread and wine? how is then the bread, which is eaten, able to make us live for ever? if the eating it by faith only at Christ's supper, make us live for ever, and yet we had it by faith before of the father's giving: then Christ geneth himself by none other mean (saving bread and wine) than his father had done. and doth he in vain (trow ye) distinct his own gift from his fathers so many ways? is it then all one to eat of Christ alone, and to eat Christ and of Christ? verily if concerning our taking of it, the thing were thoroughly one (saving bread and wine) he would not make so many differences. But if Christ's gift (concerning our partaking) differ front his father's gift in time, in manner, in degree, why should it be so, but that Christ giveth for a greater joining of us to him▪ the same in truth of nature, which his father in faith and spirit gave before, as the necessary preparation to the sons gift? His father is only spirit and truth, and therefore giveth Christ really to the world to be fed of, spiritually by us. But the son is flesh joan. 1. (for the word is made flesh) and so giveth really to us the gift of that flesh which he took, not for his own sake, but for ours to th'end we might really eat the spirit of God which is in it. Neither let it be strange to you, that Christ seemeth to give more to us then his father. for he giveth more both for us upon the Cros●…, and to us in his supper, than his father doth outwardly ge●…. but yet all his gifts come from his father, because his father gave his only begotten son to us in the truth of our flesh, to th'end he should give the same fl●…she in his own person both for us & to us: that by such an excellen●… mean we might 〈◊〉 the nearer joined to God himself. Although the conference of the words of the Ghospel do prove sufficiently that which I have said, yet I will show also that S. Chrisostom took this chapter in the same sense that I have done. First he noteth the diversity of persons, in that Christ said: se, In joan. hom. 45. non pat●…em dare: himself to give, and not his Father. Secondly, the distinct places of the chapter where Christ speaketh, in the one, of eating his Godhead by faith: in the other, of In joan. hom. 44. eating his body. Primum de divinitate etc. de corpore circa finem inquit. Panis quem ego dabo etc. Christ speaketh fir●…t o●… his Godhead: & of his body he saith toward the end: the bread, which I will give, is my flesh. Thirdly S. Chrysostom noteth, that the word panis bread, signifieth either the doctrine of Christ, and salvation, and faith in him: In joan. h●…m. 45. or else his body. By which words who seeth not, that he distincteth eating by faith alone, from eating the body itself? The body therefore is itself eaten otherwise then by fa th'. Fourthly he saith (upon these words, my flesh is verily meat) that Christ said so, to th'end they should not think him to speak In joan hom. 47. In joan. hom. 45. in parables. And yet by flesh to meave the sign of his flesh, or by eating to mean be●…uing, is to speak in parables. Last of all he saith, it is brought to pass by the meat which he hath given us, that we should not only by love, but also in deed In Math. hom. 83. itself be turned into the flesh of his. And again: Christ mingleth himself with us not by faith only, but he maketh us his booy in itself. But if we 〈◊〉 Christ by faith only & love, surely we should be reform to him by none other mean than by faith & love. But now we are turned from our corruptible nature, and are made able to live for ever, not only by the gift of faith and charity, but even by that we receive Christ's flesh in deed it sel●…e in his own substance, truth and nature. All these things did S. Chrysostom gather out of Christ's words. I need not to show in many lines that Theophilact and Euthymius follow that same order in expounding S. John, which S. Chrysostom before had used. For I think no man, who knoweth their trade of writing, doubteth of it. The former saith upon these Theophi lact. in 6. joan. words: The bread which I will give is my flesh, that Christ manifestly in that place speaketh of the Sacramental communion of his body, and that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries is not only a certain resembling of our Lord's flesh, sed ipsa caro Domini, but the flesh of our Lod itself. Euthymius likewise agreeth, that Christ is bread two ways, Euth. in c. 6. ●…oā. according to his divine and human nature. Non autem dixit, quem do, sed quem dabo. He said not, which I do give, but which I will give. For he minded to give it in his last supper. Now as Christ is bread two ways: so is he eaten two ways. As God, he is eaten by faith alone: as man giving his flesh to us at hi●… last supper, he is eaten not only by faith but in very deed. The later way of eating the Sacramentaries take away. ¶ The like precept made to men o●…lawful age for The xi●…ij. 〈◊〉. caring Chris●…es flesh, as was made generally for 〈◊〉, showeth his 〈◊〉 to be as really present i●… his 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 is in 〈◊〉. WHen Christ had promised to give his flesh to be eaten, and the jews had asked how he was able to do it, Christ answered: Except y●… eat the flesh of the Son joan. 6. of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting, and I will raise him in the last day. These words first were spoken to men of lawful age as it appeareth by the circumstance, who are bound to receive the blessed Sacrament of Christ's supper, if no lawful impediment stop them, to th'end they may nourish and maitein the life which they took in baptism, and increase it to a higher degree of unity with Christ himself. But baptism, by our adversaries confession, may and aught to be given to infants, and yet it could not do them any good, if it contained not in itself the strength to regenerate them in Christ, seeing they are not able for their parts to believe actually. Marry if baptism really make them a new creature, & save them (as S. Paul speaketh): the nourishment which we receive in the Sacrament 2. Cor. 5. 'tis 3. Greg. in orat. catheche●… ca, apud Euthy. in Panoplia. li 2. Hor. 21. of ●… altar (being now of perfect understanding) must needs be also real. For as ●…regorius of Nyssa reasoneth, our nature is not at any certain state, but continueth in his substance by perpetual motion, drawing to it that which it lacketh, and expelling superfluo●…se things. As therefore our baptism is made by real washing with water, & real renewing of the holy Ghost: so now in the supper of Christ it behoveth we be really fed with the fruit of the 〈◊〉 of life, which is ●…one other thing beside the flesh of Christ. That flesh th●…n 〈◊〉 be really eaten of us, and not only eaten by spirit, (〈◊〉 is convenient for Angels, but satisfieth not the necessitie●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature) but eaten by mouth and body. For of 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ at this time, neither is it worth while to say, that the body shall eat bread while the soul feedeth upon the flesh of Christ. For the bread and wine have no promise made in this place of them. For albeit bread and wine be necessary to the consecrating of the Sacrament, yet the substance of them is not necessary at the time of receiving the Sacrament. it is only the flesh which died for us, that Christ promiseth to give to be eaten, it is the flesh of the son of man, which if we eat not, we shall not have life in us. It is Christ's flesh, which if we eat, he will raise us up at the last day. That flesh of his must be eaten & his only blood must be drunken. This threatening which is made, if we receive not worthily the flesh of Christ, must be understanded in his kind, like the other threatening precept made before, concerning baptism: where it was said, except a man be borne again of water and of the holy ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven. both are Sacraments, both necessary to faithful men and both profitable to life everlasting. that which water doth in washing us, the flesh of Christ must do in feeding us. for this cause the ancient Fathers have always both joined these two Sacraments together, Cyp. ad Quiri. li. 3. cap. 26. & 26. Basil. de baptis. li. 1. c. 2. & 3. Ambr de & de 〈◊〉 qui initiam Aug de 〈◊〉. mer. & remis. cap 20. and have alleged these two places for them: the one out of the third, the other out of the sixth of S. john. and they have named the one baptism, of washing: and the other is called Christ's body and blood, of that substance which is given in it. What should I name here S. Cyprian, S. Basil, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, & all the rest, who reckon every where the same truth of flesh to be in the 〈◊〉, which is concerning water in baptism. Therefore as the water which washeth us, is present really: so must the flesh of Christ which feedeth us, be made really present. As baptism can not be truly kept without natural water, so can not the supper of Christ be truly kept without his natural flesh. As if an evil man come to baptism, he is truly washed though not profitably to himself: so if an evil man come to the supper of Christ, he truly (though not worthily) receiveth his flesh. As it is not enough for the Sracrament of baptism to have water present in faith only and in spirit or understanding: so the presence of Christ's flesh by faith, spirit, or understanding only sufficeth not, to make the Sacrament of his supper. I pray you what understanding had children, wherewith they might receive the body and blood of Christ? and yet seeing it is 〈◊〉. in servant de lapsis. Innocent. epist. 92. to. 2. apud Aug. & Aug. epi. 106. 〈◊〉 by the witness of S. Cyprian, of S. ●…unocentius, and of S. Augustin, that children (although without evident 〈◊〉) received the 〈◊〉 in many places of christendom, even while the Church was yet in his chief flower, it can not be denied but in that age all those Bishops, Doctors, and preachers which used to do so, did well understand, that the receiving of the Eucharist consisted not in receiving Christ by actual faith, and meditation of his death and resurrection, but in the virtue of those visible gifts, which were sanctified by the Priests upon the holy altar of God, and thence distributed to the faithful people. T●…at custom of so ancient time used more for a security than The com●… 〈◊〉 of infants doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 tarries. for necessity, yet was approved of God thus far, that we thereby might have an 〈◊〉 witness of the learned farthers' authority, against them, who doubt not to affirm all the writers and preachers of the first six hundred years after Christ, to have believed of our Lord's supper, as the new preachers do now pro●… in England. But the new preachers make the substance of Christ's supper to 〈◊〉 in faith, in spirit, and in understanding. And that not in 〈◊〉 saith, which another man 〈◊〉 for me (as it is d●…ne for 〈◊〉. ants at the 〈◊〉) b●…t teach t●…e ●…upper ●…o con●…ist in 〈◊〉 faith, as every man for himself bringeth and 〈◊〉. So that if a man think not of Christ's death, and lifting up his heart do not sweetly feed upon Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father, they say he doth not receive our Lord's body. And they teach that he eateth nothing but bread and wine, and toucheth nor the body and blood of Christ at all. Of whom I ask, what S. 〈◊〉, what all the other Bishops Cypr. in 〈◊〉. de 〈◊〉. of A●…rica thought. If they had thought so as these men do, they would not have given the Eucharist to children and infants, who could not ●…uminate Christ's passion, nor think upon him sitting in heaven. They doubtless believed far otherwise of the Sacrament, than so. They believed the body and blood of Christ to be really contained under the forms of bread and wine, and therefore that children might have profit by receiving it into their very bodies & souls, albeit they could not lift up their minds actually to heaven. The matter in those da●…es did not stand upon the faith of men, but upon the word of God, who said: this is my body. This, I say, which I bid you take, this, which I give, this, which I bid you eat. What a toy is it now for our Sacramentaries to imagine an eating above the sky, whereas the body is given to the Apostles hands & mouths by Christ himself, and to the hands or mouths of other faithful men by his ministers in earth? The xiii. Chap●…ter. ¶ That S. Augustine did not teach these words, except ye eat the flesh etc. to betoken the eating o●… Christ on●…y by faith and spirit, nor yet the eating o●… material bread with 〈◊〉 remembrance of him, but the eating of his flesh, to the●…d we may be the better wyned to the spirit of God. IF any speech (saith S. Augustin) seem to command a dishonourable Aug. de doctrina Christ. li. 3. c. 16. act or uncharitable deed, or to forbid a profitable or benesiciall thing, that speech containeth some figure. Fxcept ye eat (saith our Lord) the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He seemeth to command a dishonourable act, or an evil deed. It is therefore a figure commanding that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord, and that we should sweetly and profitably remember, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. This place of S. Augustine may be alleged against me, first by The objection of the ●…utherās the Lutherans, who would prove thereby that Christ in S. Thou spoke figuratively, whe●… he named the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. For there (will they say) he took eating and drinking for perfect believing and remembering Christ's death, which is no sacramental eating. To whom I answer, that S. Augustin by calling this speech The answer. a figure, meaneth not to deny that it appertaineth to the last supper, but only that it is a figure of speech in respect of the manner of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood: because it seemeth to command the visible and external eating of a man's flesh, which is a heinous thing. but in deed Christ meant, that they should ca●…e his flesh and drink his blood sweetly and profitably in a Sacrament, in a mystery, in a remembrance of his death who purchased our life: which was done at Christ's last supper, when taking bread he said after blessing, this is my body which is given Luc. 22. for you, take & eat. which body who so eateth worthily, he must needs communicate with the passion of Christ, in so much as he eateth that body, which suffered so bitter a passion for him. Now by the fact of eating to communicate also with the spirit & godhead of Christ, that is the figure whereof S. Augustin speaketh: but otherwise it is out all question, that S. Augustine meant not by the sweet remembrance of Christ's death to exclude the necessity of receiving that Sacrament, the which if we ca●…e not when we should eate it, we shall not have life, and the which is ●…. Co. 11. commanded to be made for Christ's remembrance. Or is any man able to make a more sweet remembrance of his own devotion, than Christ hath iustituted for us at his last supper? therefore S. Augustin ●…oth mean that whiles we eat the Sacrament, we should communicate with Christ's passion, by doing that in soul, which our body doth. furthermore S. Augustin expoundeth these present words of Christ's last supper in divers other places of his works. in Aug. de pec. me. li. 1. c. 20. so much that he disputing against the Pelagians expressly affirmeth them to be said, De sanctae mensae Sacramento, of the Sacrament of the holy table. and upon the book of Leviticus, he asketh why the jews were forbidden to drink blood, sith Christ & in Leuit. 9 q. 57 & in ep. 106. etc. & in Ps. 68 contra Crescon li. 1. cap. 25. exhorteth all men that will have life, to receive the blood of his sacrifice, in alimentum, to nourish them. which thing is known to be done in the Sacrament of the altar, and the exhortation thereunto is made in S. john. This much is sufficient to answer the Lutherans concerning that they lean to S. Augustins authority, in whom he that listeth to see more, may read the places noted in the marge●…t. secondarily the Zwinglians granting this place to be understanded of Christ's last supper, and building untruly thereupon The obie●… of the 〈◊〉. the necessity of both kinds, make an argument, that in his last supper we have not the body of Christ present under the form of bread after consecration, but only that by eating material bread the figure thereof, we must remember it absent, and sweetly repeat in our mind what pains Christ suffered ●…or us, and with how great love he redeemed us. and this their saying they would father upon this present place of S. Augustine, because he calleth Christ's speech figurative. For the better understanding of this present controversy, it The annswer. is to be noted, that S. Augustine, writing rules or precepts of christian doctrine, taketh and defineth a figurative speech after a certain peculiar manner, which he himself describeth in this sort: Aug. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. cap. 10. Quicquid in sermone divino nequè ad morum honestatem, neque ad fidei veritatom propriè referri potest, figuratum esse cognoscas. Whatsoever in the word of God can not be properly referred neither to the honesty of manners, nor to the truth of faith, be thou sure it is figurative. Whereby we may perceive, that he measureth a figurative What a fi guratiue speech is to S. Augustine. speech, by true faith and good manners. to either of which all that cannot be properly attributed, he doubteth not to call figurative, in such sort as he now useth that word for a thing that meaneth a farther truth, than the word naturally soundeth. The figure, that S. Augustine findeth in Christ's words, is because if we rest in their natural sense, they can not be referred to the honesty of manners. for it seemeth a dishonourable deed and against charity to eat a man's flesh. for it is both against that charity which a man oweth to himself (and therefore is called flagitium, ●…agitiū. dishonour) and also against the which we own to our neighbour, and therefore is named facinus an uncharitable or hurtsull act. facinus. For as S. Augustine himself showeth how he taketh a figurative speathe, so doth he tell how he taketh flagitium and facinus. L. 3. c. 10. It is surely a wilful abusing of good learning, if a man knowing how a master and teacher taketh his terms, will notwithstanding dispute with him, using them in other seuse. which thing sith it is not landable, we knowing what S. Augustine calleth figurative, and what he calleth dishonour and uncharitable, must so talk of those things, as he hath done. Why then is it a figurative speech, when Christ ●…ad the jews ●…ate his flesh? S. Augustine himself giveth the cause, saying: Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. he seemeth to command a thing dis honourable and hurtful. dishonourable to the cater, hurtful to him, whose flesh is eaten. for it is a thing much against the honesty of nature to feed upon our brother's flesh, and it can not be naturally and properly done, without the loss of his life whose flesh we eat. for these two causes, or else for any one of them, we ought to think this precept to be a figure, that is to say, that it must be more profitably understanded, then the words do properly sound. what sound they properly? See, good reader, whether I deal sincerely with thee, or no. It is a weighty matter to handle divine mysteries, and therefore I endeavour to use therein such wariness, as becometh me. I will bring none other man's words, but S. Augustine's own, to show, what the precept of eating Christ's flesh at Capharnaum did seem to sound properly. S. Augustine speaketh in this wise August. tract. 26. in ●…oan. of the jews: Carnem sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur, & caet. The jews understood flesh after such sort, as it is torn in pieces in a carcase, or as it is sold in the shambles, and not as it is quickened with the spirit. And in an other place S. Augustine writeth also of the very same matter: Durum illis Aug. in Psal. 98. visum est quod ait, nisi quis manducaverit etc. it seemed a hard saying to the jews: except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have life everlasting. They took it foolishly, they thought of it carnally and supposed, that our lord minded to cut of certain small pieces of his body, and to give it them. This is a hard talk said they. they were hard, and not the talk. for if they were not hard, but gentle, they would say to themselves: He speaketh not this thing rashly, but because there lieth privy some Sacrament. ●…eing gentle & not hard, they would ●…arie with him, and should learn of him that thing which, after their departure, those learned who tarried. for when the twelve had tarried with him (the other being departed) they (as who were sorry of that others departing,) warned Christ, that they were offended with his word & so were departed. but Christ instructed them and said: It is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth not, the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life. understand that, which I have spoken, spiritually. Ye shall not eat this body which ye see, ne shall not drink that blood which they shall shed who will 〈◊〉 me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament, which, being spiritually understanded, shall make you live. and although that Sacrament mustenedes be visibly celebrated, yet it must be invisibly understanded. thus much S. Augustine. First I note in these words against the Lutherans, that S. 1. Augustine understandeth the precept of eating Christ's flesh of the Sacrament of his last supper. for there only a Sacrament of his death is visibly folemnized, and invisibly understanded. Secondly I note against the Zuingla●…s, that the figurative 2. speech which S. Augustine acknowledgeth in Christ's words, is to be measured and meant according to the natural and customable speaking and understanding of carnal men, who yet be not fully faithful. for they thought they should have eaten Christ's flesh torn into pieces, & to f●…l their bellies there withal. for in deed the eating of flesh naturally employeth cutting or tearing, before it come to our month, and afterward chawing with the teeth, and so the filling of the belly. but in respect of all such meanings, the words of Christ be figurative. For seeing it is against the honesty of manners to order man's flesh after such a cruel fashion, the jews should have devised how to make an honest meaning of his words, whom joan. 6. they confessed to be a great Prophet, or at the least they should have asked of Christ the true meaning of his own words. For seeing Christ had multiplied siue loaves miraculously to feed them, and did so many other miracles and so much good in all the country, that all men who were void of malice confessed him joan. 9 to be of God, reason giveth, they should hearken obediently to his words, as the which they might perceive to be spoken by no mean or common man, and that therefore they should not measure them by their own fantasy & experience. Now then to say, that except ye eat my flesh, is a figurative speech, is no more to say, but you must not take the eating of Christ's flesh so as at the first sight it cometh to your mind, neither concerning the usual manner, nor concerning the customable end of the eating, for that is unhonest. Tarry therefore until you find a better sense. Which sense is found when it is known that Christ under the form of bread giveth the substance of his flesh whole, Colos. 2. sound, and quick, with the Godhead corporally dwelling in it, to the end we should live spiritually for ever, by worthy receiving it into our bodies and souls. Thirdly I note much the kind of speaking, which S. Augustine useth. For he calleth that thing a Sacrament upon the words of the Psalm now alleged, which in his books of Christian Psal. 98. doctrine, he called a figure: Showing himself to take the name of a figure for all that, when a farther and higher thing is to be lib. 3. ca 10. understanded then was outwardly expressed, in which case the thing expressed is a Sacrament, to wit, a figure or a holy sign of that higher truth which is to be understanded. but he meant not by the name of a figure either to exclude the truth of eating Christ's flesh, or the truth of drinking his blood, but only the gross manner of eating and drinking it to a carnal end, which the jews thought upon. for as the kill and eating of the paschal lamb was not only natural, but also gave the faithful to understand that Christ ●…ould be both killed on the cross, and eaten in a Sacrament: and as the figure which was in that Lamb did not diminish the real kill and eating thereof, but only did refer it to a higher truth: so the figure, which is in eating Christ's flesh, doth not diminish the true eating thereof, but only declareth that eating to be a figure, because it is referred again to a higher truth, both in Christ, whose flesh that once died is now eaten, and in us, who eat it not so much for to eat it corporally, as to feed spiritually of God himself, who maketh that flesh profitable. and that S. Augustine thought so, it is evident by his own words upon S. john: ye know not what is that manner of eating this flesh, but except ye eat it etc. Lo the manner of eating was secret, but the thing that should be eaten was natural flesh. August. in joan. tractat. 26. &. 27 Again: Carnem sic intellexerunt, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur, aut in macello venditur, non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. They so understood flesh, as it is torn in a carcase, or sold in the shambles: And not as it is quickened with the spirit or Godhead. Here it is reported, wherein the jews did err. They took the word, flesh, amiss, not concerning the substance of it, (which must be really eaten) but concerning the manner of eating Modus. it. Is not modus Latin for the manner? Is not quomodo as much to say, as by what manner? The jews understood the name of flesh, Quomodo dilaniatur, non quomodo vegetatur: After such manner as it is torn into pecces, and not after such manner as it is quickened with the spirit of God. Do not these words import, that the jews erred in the manner of eating Christ's flesh? Doth not he that findeth fault only with the manner of eating flesh, sufficiently allow the eating of the flesh itself, if it be done after a good manner? Yea farther, doth not he that showeth the manner how it may be well eaten, approve that kind of eating it? As we must not ●…ate Christ's flesh after such a gross manner, as is used in eating such flesh which is commonly cut into pieces: Right so we must eat Christ's flesh after such manner, as it is quickened with the Godhead. So do S. Augustine's words import. I beseech thee, good Reader, see the odds between the argument of a Catholic and of a sacramentary. He reasoneth thus: The sacramentary. we must not eat Christ's flesh carnally and butcharly, therefore we must not eat really the substance thereof. We reason thus: We must eat Christ's flesh as it is quickened with the Godhead, The Catholic. Why the Sacramentaries argument faileth. therefore we must eat really the substance thereof. The argument of the sacramentary is nought, because a certain use or manner of a thing forbidden doth not infer, that the substance of the thing itself is forbidden. Yea contrariwise, the forbidding of one manner seemeth to licence the same thing in an other manner. As if the law say, let noman were a sword in the city, it seemeth to grant that men may were a sword in the high way. And yet because S. Augustine saith, we ought to take Christ's words figuratively in respect of such a foul manner of eating his flesh, as the jews imagined, the sacramentary will conclude, that Christ's flesh itself must not be eaten really and substantially at all. See on the other side, why the Catholics argument is good Why the catholics argu meant is good. and laudable. Every manner and quality which is granted, concerning the use of any substance, doth infer of necessity the having of that substance. But we may externally in a Sacrament by our fact and deed, as well as by faith, eat Christ's flesh, Quomodo spiritu vegetatur, after such manner as it is quickened with the spirit, therefore we must have it substantially and really present, to the end we may so eat it in the said Sacrament. The not eating it after a gross manner, doth not take away the eating of it in substance. but the eating of it in a Sacrament, whereof we now speak, as it is dw●…t in of the 〈◊〉 (which is a mo●… pure manner of eating it) doth include the eating of it in substance, where dwelleth the Godhead but in the substance of Christ's flesh? Or how can I eat it as the spirit doth quicken it, if I eat not the substance of it, which only is quickened and united to the Godhead? which thing sith it is so, S. Augustine meaneth no●…, by calling Christ's words figurative, to exclude the eating 〈◊〉 his flesh substantially, but to exclude the eating of it by piece meal, or else for the filling of the belly. And therefore upon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he writeth: Quomodo illi intellexerunt carnem, non tract. 27. sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam. After such manner as they understood flesh, I do not so give my flesh to eat. What is this to say, but I g●…ue my flesh to be eaten after an other sort, but not in an other substance than the jews thought of? The jews erred in the manner of eating, as thinking they should eat it in that visible quantity wherein Christ spoke: and so they erred in the manner, but not in the substance of Christ's flesh. But the Sacramentaries err in the substance it 〈◊〉. The jews thought Christ's flesh should have been eaten properly and naturally, as other meats are eaten which are divided and perished in the eating. The Sacramentaries think, that Christ's flesh must not be eaten substantially or in truth of his own nature, but 〈◊〉 and by faith alone. The truth received in the whole Catholic Church is, that Christ's flesh is eaten both substantially and figuratiu●…, in such sort, that the 〈◊〉 eating is referred to an eating by faith. we eat Christ's flesh substantially, because his true substance Gen. 14. Exo. 〈◊〉. & 16. Pro. 9 was both shadowed in the law of nature and of Moses to be eaten: and prophesied of before as meat and drink: and promised by Christ under those names: And delivered by his own hands with these words, This is my body, and this is my blood, take and eat. and believed in the whole church, and adored Hila. li. 8 de Trin. Augu. in Psal. 98. under the forms of bread and wine through all Christendom: we believe that same substance of Christ's flesh to be also eaten figuratively, because it is not removed thereby from his place in heaven: but is made present by words, which signify & work the presence of his flesh and blood. It is not seen in his own shape, not felt nor tasted in his own proprieties, not cut into pieces although diverse take it together: it is not perished by eating, it ●…deth not the belly, or the sensible, but the reasonable & spiritual life, it is not eaten only to be eaten, but to make us remember effectually, and to conform ourselves to the death and life of him, whose flesh it is. And thereby to make us to love him, & to believe him to be the bread of life to all the faithful, and no less to gather diverse men into one mystical body of his church, then diverse bodies of wheat and of grapes are made into one artificial body of bread and wine. the which mystical body he will no less change from mortality, than he hath changed the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his flesh and blood. Seeing the flesh of Christ may signify so many things unto us through the manner of the presence, it were more than madness to say it is not a figure, or is not eaten figuratively. But because it signifieth so many things, therefore to deny it to be present, is to take away no less the figures which come by the presence of it, than the thing it self. Christ is the figure of his father's substance, the image of God Hebr. 1. Coloss. 1. Phil. 2. who can not be seen, he is 〈◊〉 in shape as a man. But what? is he not therefore the same substance with his father, 〈◊〉 God with him, and true man in deed: who reason thus but 〈◊〉; who Tert. con. Mar. l. 5. 〈◊〉. ep. 46. but Arrians, but Marcionits, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? did S. Augustine ever mean such a figure of Christ's 〈◊〉, which was void of the truth sigured? taught he not that we must adore the body and blood of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we 〈◊〉 it▪ but of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in Psal. 98. 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 doth not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 or twain 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that bread is there to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lose is both bread, 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 bread in 〈◊〉, and a 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉: so is the 〈◊〉 of Chri. a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 us. It is the flesh itself and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but it is 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 own substance without any 〈◊〉 or lack, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of death which the same 〈◊〉, having 〈◊〉 once, 〈◊〉 not now suffer, but would by his own 〈◊〉 make it 〈◊〉 to us in such sort, that we should 〈◊〉 the death of 〈◊〉, and partake the fruits of the death as oft as we came to receive that 〈◊〉 worthily. what need more words? To give a brief resolution of S. 〈◊〉 mind, it is to be noted, that both by his judgement, and by the 〈◊〉 of the Sacramentaries, these words, except ye eat the flesh etc. belong to the mystery of Christ's supper: therefore, if they be figurative, they must show some figure in one part or other of the supper. The supper consists of bread & wine as of material parts, ●…of it must be made, and of pronouncing upon or over them (as S. justin. in Apol. 2. justinus the martyr speaketh) the words instituted by Christ, this is my body and this is my blood, the which words when they come to the elements of bread and wine, the Sacrament is made: what is that Sacrament? we say, it is the making present (in a miraculous sort) the true body and blood of Christ. Our adversaries say, it is the appointing of bread and wine to be a figure of Christ's body and blood through the remembrance of his death. For our belief, I bring S. Augustine's authority, who saith, except ye eat my flesh, are words figurative, and out of it, thus I reason. The ●…ating of Christ's flesh, and the 〈◊〉 of his blood, being real 〈◊〉 which must be performed in Christ's supper, & yet being called 〈◊〉 good 〈◊〉 figurative 〈◊〉, must needs 〈◊〉 the sigures of somewhat, & the 〈◊〉 deeds & words being referred to the supper os Christ, 〈◊〉 needs betoken somewhat as they are there 〈◊〉. But the eating of flesh in Christ's supper can betoken nothing at all, 〈◊〉 his flesh be there eaten, the eating whereof may be the 〈◊〉 of this betokening. Therefore these words import of 〈◊〉, that in Christ's supper the 〈◊〉 of Christ is really eaten, and his blood is really drunken. It is not said of Christ: except ye eat bread & drink wine. Of Bread & 〈◊〉 are not ●…ned at Ca 〈◊〉 those elements he in the promise of his supper made at Caphar●…, speakethnot one syllable. for which cause we must not ask at this time what they figure & signisy in Christ's supper, because now there is no mention of them, except any man be so frontike as to say, that the flesh of Christ is here made the figure of bakers bread, & his blood the figure of wine. whereupon it would follow that the 〈◊〉 & blood, as being 〈◊〉 of these dead 〈◊〉, were worse and base than the elements themselves. for every figure is some way or other behind the truth, which it figureth. If then we must leave of the consideration of bread and wine, if likewise no respect must now be had of the words of consecration, which are not yet spoken os: what other thing can these 〈◊〉ratiue words, except ye eat my flesh, signify in Christ's supper, but this: except ye eat my flesh in that mystical and wonderful manner, which I will give it in, and to that 〈◊〉 end, for the which I (being true God) will give it you? that is to say, except ye do both take it in the Sacrament, and spiritually remember my death 〈◊〉 me thanks for it, and conforming yourselves to it, ye shall not have 〈◊〉 in you. By which interpretation Christ's 〈◊〉 are figurative, in so much as they mean neither that manner of ●…ating p●…ces of flesh, which the jews understood, no●… that end of eating it, which they thought upon, minding altoge Cyr. li. 3. ca 35. in joan. Chrys in joan. ho. 44. there (as S. Cyrillus and S. Chrysostom note) the feeding of their bellies. But if Christ's flesh be not present at all, whereof is it a figure when it is eaten? can that, which is not, signify or figure any thing? can the flesh which is only figured at the time of our eating bread (as the Sacramentaries teach) be made a sign and figure by eating it? if the eating of Christ's flesh be not the figure, the words: Except ye eat my flesh, be not figurative. For if eating ●…e thoroughly taken for believing and for no eating at all, them these words do not appertain to the Sacramental eating of Christ's supper. But seeing the Sacramentaries teach them to speak of the supper (as in truth they do) the eating must so be figurative one way, that yet it be true another way. For if there be no true eating, there lacketh a ground which may be the figure of another eating, that is to say, of spiritual communicating with Christ's passion. If some real eating must be had to warn us of that spiritual eating, surely that real eating can not in S. john be meant of bread and wine, sith Christ never named them. therefore it is employed that Christ meaneth, except ye eat my flesh so, as it is a figure both of my death, and may be a cause of your spiritual life, ye shall not live everlastingly. Thus doubtless did Christ mean, thus did S. Augustine expound his words. The Sacramentaries doc err in making Christ's words to be figurati●… only passively, whereas they are also figurative Wherein the Sacramen tarries ●…re in 〈◊〉 ding th●…e wor●…es. actively. That is to say, the Sacramentaries so take this matter as if it were only said, the flesh and blood of Christ be figured & signi●…ed in his supper as to be spiri●…ually fed on. But it is not so said only, but also the actual eating of Christ's flesh is taught to be a figure itself of another spiritual eating. Therefore we eat really flesh one way, to signify another way the ●…ating and Ambr. in 1. cor. ca 11. believing in flesh spiritually. And that is proved out S. Ambrose most mani●…estly, where he saith: In edendo & potando 〈◊〉, & sanguinem, (for there is the point, albeit the Sacramentaries go about to corrupt his words by evil distincting of them) quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus. In eating and drinking the 〈◊〉 and blood, we signify those things, which were offered ●…or us. Behold, the ●…ating 〈◊〉 doth signi●…ie and make a figure of the self same flesh, as it was offered for us. And so doth both Christ & S. Augustine ●…ane at this tyme. our Lord commanding us to eat●… his flesh, doth command us to communicate with his passion (saith Li. 3. ●… 1●… de doct. Christ. S. Augustine) and profitably to remember his death, that is to wit, he comma●…deth both to eat the body which died, & to eat it worthily, to eat it in heart as well as in mouth: to eat it in remembrance of his love toward us, as well as in the Sacrament: to eat it as the Godhead doth quicken it, and as it figureth the entering and tarrying in his mystical body the Church. This eating of Christ's ●…eshe is sweet, is profitable, is not hard, not carnal, not without a figure, or mystery. For to eat without any mystical meaning is only to fill the belly, whereof Christ spoke not. he commanded a figurative eating of his flesh, 〈◊〉 that figureth another thing must be 〈◊〉. the which figurative ●…ating should not take away the real eating of his flesh. for that eating which is not real, can not be actively figurative, sith every figure is made upon a true ground of one thing done really, & of another thing meant mystically. But the figurati●…e eating importeth a farther thing, then to rest in the eating itself. It is therefore insensibly said of the Sacramentaries, that those words which naming a certain actual and real deed (as the eating of man's flesh is) be figurative, because the flesh is not really ●…ten. But they be in deed figurative because the flesh of that 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 also and understanded to be more then ●…ally eaten: for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spirit●…lly eaten also. The Sacrame●…taries com●…ted an ot●…er foul error in these 〈◊〉 second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. words. 〈◊〉 while they will draw this place of S. john to their purpose, they are constrained to expound the words of Christ i●… this 〈◊〉: 〈◊〉 ye eat t●…e 〈◊〉 of the son of man, that is to say, the figure of his flesh. That is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speech which they find ●…n the text, and yet that might be well born withal, if they rested there. For in deed it is meant in some sense of Christ, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a 〈◊〉 of itself. ye eat the figure of my flesh, to wit, except ye eat that invisible s●…stance of my flesh, which is a figure of my visible & passable 〈◊〉, ye shall not have life in you. But now they can not so ●…ke it. For they will not grant that Christ mea●…t of his own substance to be really eaten. For which cause they must go forward and expo●…d again the figure of Christ's flesh saying: ●…xcept ye eat the ●…gure of my flesh, the which ●…igure bread & wine Bread ●… 〈◊〉 are not the 〈◊〉 which S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aug. de doctr. Christ. li. 3. c. 16. shall make, ye shall not have life in you. Did S. Augustin refer the ●…gure he 〈◊〉 of, to bread and wine? Did he once touch or mention those material elements, in declaring the figurative speech th●…t Chr●…st by his judgement used? where named S. 〈◊〉 bread and wine? He saith our Lord commanded us to communicate with his passion, to remember sweetly the flesh which was crucified for us. In that communicating and remembrance he putteth the figurative speech. So that, if we mark well, the real eating of Christ's flesh is not 〈◊〉, but left still as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ●…gure must be built. The figure must be in the end of the work, and not in the beginning ther●…of. 〈◊〉 ●…gure looketh higher to a truth above it, and not lower to 〈◊〉 elements which ●…re 〈◊〉 it. ●…rily neither Christ, nor S. Augustine did speak or mean of bread and 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ saith: except ye eat my 〈◊〉. ●…hey s●…y, 〈◊〉 ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which shall 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood. 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…s this, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood to 〈◊〉 bread and wine, and there 〈◊〉 to make 〈◊〉 & wine to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blood? What ignorance, what abusing of God's word, what a blasphemy is this, to make the higher 〈◊〉 first to si●…nifie the lower, that the lower may afterward 〈◊〉 the higher? It is as mu●…h to say, as Chr●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a door, & then a door is s●…ōdarily the token of Christ. Where is honesty? where is shame●…nes? where is common 〈◊〉? I ask of them whether these words, except ye eat, belong to the supper. They say, they do belong to the supper so truly, that they build upon them falsely the 〈◊〉 of both 〈◊〉. Then say I, ●…ating is meant not only of eating by heart and faith, but also by mouth, as S. Basil, S. Chryso●…ome, S. Cyrillus, S. Augustine, with all the rest of the father's before alleged, do co●…fesse, and the Sacramentaries grant the same most willingly. Then we are agreed that eating standeth in some part properly, concerning that some one thing eaten shall enter into our mouth. I ask them, wherein the figure chiefly standeth? They say in the word flesh principally, & secondarily in eating, that is, in remembering (by that thing which is eaten) an other thing, and I con●…e it also. What is now meant by that word, flesh? They say, the figure of flesh. and that do I grant, although it were more properly said, that flesh meaneth, and is the figure of the passion. But let flesh stand for the figure of flesh. Here beginneth the issue. What mean you by the figure of flesh? Bread, say they. That, Flesh can not signify bread. say I, is stark false, and unpossible. For how cometh flesh to be latin for bread? By what grammatical, by what rhetorical, by what Mosaical or mystical figure is that interpretation brought about? All the world seeth, that in proper speech he that will have bread, useth not to call for flesh. Or if he do so, I think the butcher will sooner serve him, than the baker. Moreover no figure will serve to make one thing mean another, except there be some affinity or dependence between them. but flesh and bread are clean several kinds of natures. Thirdly, Christ never in any covenant or truce instituted flesh to signify material bread. we have no such Sacrament neither in the old, nor in the new Testament. and surely sith flesh is neither a natural nor a divine token of bread, nor so used in common speech, it can not by any ordinary mean betoken bread. In so much that the lawyers, who of all men best know the propriety of words, and are most prone to expound them favourably in the testaments of men departed, yet have concluded, that if any man err in naming the kind of thing, as if intending to bequeath his garments do say: I bequeath my silver, or contrary wise: the legacy can not hold. For saith Ulpian: Rerum vocabula immu Vlpia. de leg. 3. l. 4. tabilia sunt, hominum mutabilia. Proper names given by men may be changed, and therefore an error in them is tolerable. but the appellative names of things can not be changed. and yet our new brethren can find the means how flesh may stand for bakers bread, & blood for wine of the grape. The contrary might stand right well, because bread and wine were instituded by God in the law of nature and of Moses (as the fact of Melchisedech Gen. 14. Leu. 2. 1. Cor 10 joan. 6. & the figures of the law do show) to figure & shadow Christ's flesh & blood. So was the rock instituted to signify Christ, manna to be a sign of his last supper. But that flesh, yea the flesh of Christ (who is the end of the law) that it should serve to signify wheaten Rom. 10. bread, that divinity was born and sprang first in our days, being unknown to S. Augustine, and to all other Fathers and Counsels. yet it is so good divinity in England, that a man may sooner have a bishopric for it, then for saying God is one in three persons. I have stood somewhat long upon this place, because it is one of them, where upon the Sacramentaries use fond to boast & brag, as although they had gained somewhat by the name of a figurative speech, which S. Augustine saith is in Christ's words. but the figure serveth to show a higher & a more profitable mystery, than the word nameth, but not as they vulearnedly would have it, to show the base creature of wheaten bread & wine. It is the passion of Christ, & the spiritual manner of eating, in respect where of Christ's speech is called of S. Augustine figurative. for if Christ's flesh were eaten only to fill the belly, without farther account of spiritual grace and life, than were the eating of that flesh natural, sensible, accustomable and without all figure, and should be eaten by cutting, tearing, and wasting it: but in that case flesh profiteth nothing. the flesh we speak of, must be How fles●… must be eaten in a figure. be eaten as a figure, as a mystery, as a Sacrameut, as a holy sign of a higher truth wrought in the soul, than that bodily eating doth work. So likewise in baptism we are washed in a figure, because the washing hath a farther and higher end, then only to cleanse the body. That speech therefore wherein Christ commandeth his flesh to be eaten, is figurative, not that we should deny the true eating of his flesh, but because that eating is referred to a greater purpose, then to the feeding of the body. for Christ's flesh is meat in deed, that is to say, is eaten in deed as I shall prove upon that place. but it is not eaten only that it should be corporal●…y received, but to th'end we should partake of the spirit and godhead which is in it, and so by the merit of that flesh really present in us, obtain life everlasting with it. now from what a worthy meaning would these figurative Gospelers bring the words of our saviour? whose hard hearts I beseech God to mollify, that when they hear the truth, their stomach do not kindle to maintain their old fashion, before they have well looked about them. rather choosing to confess a fault and to amend it, then to make a new sin by myssexcusing the former fault. ¶ Christ's flesh being meat in deed, must needs be really received into our bodies. HE that will know exactly why the flesh of Christ is called meat in deed, must put before his eyes three things. The first is, that the jews hearing Christ say he would give 1. them his flesh, asked, how he could give it, to be eaten? The second is, that although Christ answered not directly to their captious, 2. how and unsaythful question, yet he said, the eating of his flesh to be necessary for them (as without the which they could not have life) and profitable (as whereby they should have everlasting life, & that not in their souls only, but also in their bodies, for so much as he would raise them up in the last day. after which two things well pondered, the third is to mark, that 3. Christ confirmeth all these former sayings of his, by such words, These words confirm the former talk. as give a reason of them. for my flesh (saith he) is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. as if he had said, wonder not y● my flesh giveth you life everlasting, & raiseth up your bodies, for it is meat in deed. that is to say, it hath truly & in deed those proprieties, which any man would wish for in true meat. Two things may be considered in meat: the one, that it is truly received into the body of that living creature for whose Two proprieties in 〈◊〉. use it is appointed: the other, that it is received as a medicine which may preserve us against death. for meat is neither properly attributed unto the feeding of the soul (but only by a metaphor and an unproper speech) neither is it worthy to be called true meat, if it geue not a true remedy against death. there fore when Christ saith: My flesh is meat in deed, he meaneth thus, my flesh both shallbe received into the very bodies of my people, and shall give life everlasting as well to their bodi●…s, as to their souls▪ the which interpretation S. Chrysostom maketh writing thus: Quid significat etc. what mean these words, Chryso. in joan. Hom. 46 my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is truly drink? either it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat which saveth the soul, or else, he speaketh it to confirm them in the former words, N●… obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur, sed scirent omnino necessarium esse ut corpus comederent: that they should not think him to have spoken in parables darkly, but that they should know Note that Christ ●…pake not now in parables. it to be by all means necessary to eat his body. thus far S. Chrysostom. By which interpretation Christ giveth a reason both of his first words, wherein he said, the bread which I will give, is my flesh, and of the second, when he said, he that eateth my flesh hath life everlasting. for my flesh is meat in deed, both in that respect that it shall be given to you as true meat is wont to be delivered to them, who truly take and truly eat it, and also in that respect that it nourisheth truly, as true and e●…erlasting meat ought to nourish. he that denieth any one sense of the twain, devieth one verity of the gospel. he that granteth both senses, must needs grant, that the true eating of the flesh standeth It were a parable if flesh stood for bread and 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉. not for eating truly the sign of flesh, because he spoke not obscurely nor in parables as S. Chrysostom affirmeth. and yet it is an obs●…nre saying to put flesh for material bread, or eating for believing. it is a parabolical speech, if when flesh, blood, eating, and drinking is named, yet we shall ●…derstand that bakers bread must be eaten and wine drunken, and Christ must be loved & believed upon? these parables neither Christ thought of, nor the Fathers knew. If Adam had not sinned, the opinion of ancient doctors is, that notwithstanding his body consisted of contrary elements, by whose continual fight and battle it should naturally have drawn to corruption and dissolution, yet through the marvelous grace of God (saith S. Augustine) his body sho●…lo have Aug. de ●…iuit. dei lib. 13. c. 20. Gen. 2. been far from diseases, from old age, from death, & from all corruption, by tasting of the wood of life which was in the midst of paradise. Tanquam caetera essent alimento, illud Sacramento. ut sic fuisse accipiatur lignum vitae in paradyso corporali, sicut in spiritali, hoc est, intelligibili paradyso sapientia Dei, de qua scriptum est: Lignum vitae est omnibus amplectentibus eam. So that Prou. 3. other meats (in paradise) were to nourish Adam corporally, the word of life was also in stead of a mystery or Sacrament, to th'end the word of life should be understanded to be after such sort in the corporal paradise, as the wisdom of God is in the spiritual paradise, which is attained to by only understanding. the which wisdom of God, as it is written thereof, is the wood of life to all that embrace it. As now the wood of life which should have preserved man from Corporal ●…asting is ●…ecessarie to make y●●…eat true ●…eate. incorruption, was to be bodily tasted of, and yet to wor●…e a Sacramental and spiritual effect in preserving man's body above all course of a corrutible nature: so is it meant that Christ's flesh, which is in deed the wood of life, should be a Sacrament unto us by the corporal eating and spiritual working thereof, & for both these canses together it is called meat in deed. Take a way the corporal tasting of Christ's body: and charity, ●…aith, hope, or any like virtue is proportionably & in his degree meat in deed, or drink in deed, as the Sacrament of Christ's supper jacob. 1. is. For all those virtues coming from God feed us in deed to life everlasting, & therefore have that second propriety of trut meat, which is to nourish for ever. But they have not the first propriety, which is to be received after an external manner into our bodies. To this external manner Christ had also respect, when he ●…ayd: My flesh is meat in deed, or verily meat. For he said not only my verè▪ Truly. flesh is true meat, but it is truly meat. It hath not only the true nature of meat, but also the true manner of it. for as verus cibus is true meat: so is verè cibus truly meat. As true meat is said in respect of the essential propriety and effect of meat, which is to nourish: so is the flesh of Christ truly meat in respect of the manner of it, because it is received in at the mouth, & goeth into the body, after such sort as other meats doc, although it nourish spiritually. I have said often times, that Christ in this chapter speaketh both of spiritual eating alone, and besides that of Sacramental eating together with spiritual. He speaketh of spiritual alone about the midst of the chapter ●…raight after those words: work The theme of y● 〈◊〉. of S. Ihon. the everlasting meat which the son of man will give you. Which words are the general theme to the whole Sermon following. But of Sacramental eating, as being the s●…cond part of his Sermon, Christ speaketh specially and expressly, from these words forward, and the bread which I will give, is my flesh. Whiles Christ was yet about the first part of his Sermon, which belongeth to spiritual eating alone, he said: Patermeus da●… vobis panem de coelo verum. My Father giveth you the true Verus panis. bread from heaven. Qui credit in me, non sitiet unquam. He that believeth in me shall not thir●…t at any tyme. As Christ is only believed on and only received by faith, so he is panis verus, the true bread, or meat. But when he was come to the second part of his Sermon, where he spoke of Sacramental eating as well as of spiritual, there he said, for Pater meus dat, ego dabo: For verus, verè. In How the sons gift is different from the Father's gift. stead of, my Father, he saith, I: in stead of, doth give, he saith, I will give. In stead of, himself to be true food, he saith, His flesh is truly food. There is in the second part none other substance than was in the first, to th'end we should understand that Christ giveth in his Sacrament the same real flesh, which his Father gave him when he came down from heaven by taking flesh. But there is an other time of Christ's gift at his last supper, and an other sort or manner of his giving. For that which God the Father gave unto the souls of the faithful, God the Son giveth to their bodies also. And by that means he is not only true meat, but also truly meat. And that without all dark speeches or parables. S. Hilary well understanding the strength of the same word Verè, truly or verily, or in deed presseth the old Arrians and new Sacramentaries therewith in this manner. De naturali in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus nisi ab eo discimus, Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinitat. stultè atque impiè dicimus. ipse enim ait, caro mea vere est esca, & caet. Thus they are in English. That we say concerning the natural truth of Christ being in us, except we learn it of him, we say it foolishly and ungodly. For himself saith, My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, tarrieth in me and I in him. There is no place of doubting left concerning the truth of flesh and blood. for now both by the profession of our Lord, and by our own faith it is truly flesh, and truly blood. And these things taken and swallowed are the cause, that we tarry in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this thing the truth? It may well chance not to be true to them, who deny jesus Christ not to be true God. S. Hilary disputing in those words against the Arrians, who would Christ to be one with his Father in will only, doth prove that we also are one with Christ naturally by some ●…anes, that is to say, by natural partaking of Christ's flesh in his last supper. And to prove that thing, albeit he might have brought many places out of the Gospel, or out of S. Paul, yet 〈◊〉 to bring this place out of S. John, as the which he thought no less plain, than any other was. And twice he repeateth that the flesh of Christ is truly meat: D●…ce as being spoken of God, an other time as being also believed of us. and farther he affirmeth upon this place, that the flesh and blood of Christ being taken Accepta. and swallowed, bring to pass that we are in Christ, and Christ in us. The taking of Christ by faith doth not prove S. Hilaries purpose. for he must show that we take Christ in body and nature, even as he defendeth Christ to be one nature and substance with his Father. The being of Christ's flesh in our bodies, and the real joining of the one to the other is that, which S. Hilary forceth upon. And therefore he saith afterward, that Christ naturaliter in nobis permanet, tarrieth naturally in us. By that word naturally S. Hilary expoundeth how he taketh Naturally. Truly. the word Verè, truly. For he taketh it, as if it were written, my flesh is to be naturally received of my Disciples, as meat. The which thing he had twice expressed before, saying: nos verè, verbum Lib. 8. de Trinitat. carnem, cibo Dominico sumimus. We take the word (made) flesh truly in our Lord's meat. And again: Verè sub mysterio ●…arnem corporis sui sumimus. We take the flesh of his body truly under a mystery. Lo, by these means the natural verity of Christ is in us, according as we learned of him, saying: My flesh is meat in deed. All men know what we receive into our mouths and bodies in Christ's supper. That very thing is affirmed of Christ to be his flesh. And by that receiving of ours, his flesh is truly meat. S. Gregory of Nyssa, brother to S. Basile the great, warneth Gregor. Nyssen. in vita Moysit. us, puro defaecatoque animo coelestem cibum sumere: To take the heavenly meat▪ with a pure▪ and clean mind. The which meat (saith he) no sowing brought forth unto us by the art of tilling the ground. But it is bread provided for us without seed, without sowing, without any other work of man. It flowing from above is found in the earth. for the bread which came down from heaven, which is the true meat, which is obscurely meant by this history of Manna, is nor a thing without a body. For by what means can a thing without a body be made meat unto the body? The thing which is not without a body, is by all means a body. This blessed man alludeth evidently to the words of Christ in S. john, where he saith: my flesh is meat in deed. for the bread which came down from heaven which is the true meat, is none other thing then the flesh of Christ. this kind of thing is not a spiritual thing that lacketh a body, but it is a true body. how doth S. Gregory prove it to be a true body? because it is Nyssenus proveth the truth of Christ's body by the truth of the eating it. made meat unto the body. for how (saith he) can a ' thing which lacketh a body, be made meat unto the body? as who should say, there is no doubt but the flesh of Christ is made meat unto one body, because Christ said: my flesh is meat in deed. and meat is ordinarily promised to nourish the body, although it, being the meat of God, helpeth the soul also. If the bread that came down from heaven which is the flesh of Christ, be true meat, it is a bodily thing. for else how could a thing that hath no body, be made meat for the body? if that can not be so, truly the flesh given at the supper of Christ, which is meat in deed and drink in deed, can not be only received in spirit, but it must be so real, that it may feed our bodies also, to th'intent they may be raised in the later day. therefore that which our body receiveth when Christ saith: take and eat, is the same flesh of Christ which is meat in deed. and seeing it is proved to be a body, because it is made meat unto the body, it must be meat in deed unto us, and must be really taken into our bodies by our mouths, or else Nyssenus ●…ayleth in his whole discourse. for he proveth it a body, because it is meat unto the body. then certainly it is not meat only to the soul, nor it is not only received by faith, but truly and in deed. And seeing all wise men reason The faith of the primative church. upon a sure ground, we may not doubt but all the Catholic Church twelve hundred years past and so upward took it for an evident truth, that Christ's body was meat unto our bodies. ¶ By the manner of our tarrying in Christ it is proved, The xvi. chapit. that we receive his real flesh into our bodies. WHereas hitherto the necessity, the profit and the truth of eating Chrisies flesh hath been showed and confirmed: Now the proper effect of that banquet is The effect of Christ's supper. also declared, because he that eateth Christ's flesh, and drinketh his blood, tarrieth in Christ and Christ in him. In respect whereof the same thing was before named, Cibus permanens, the meat which tarrieth. Whereby we may perceive, that in the Sacrament of Christ's supper we do not beginue to live (as in baptism) but we maintain, keep, nourish, & increase the seed of life, which we took in our spiritual birth. Neither only do we preserve life during the time of our feeding, but also when the banquet is ended, some effect remaineth in us, through the which we are said to tarry in Christ, and he in us. Let us then try out what effect that is. for by the manner & kind of the effect, we may gather somewhat of the cause. What moveth it, that Christ tarrieth in us and we in him? S. Chry●…ostom answereth: In me manet, dicit, ut cum ipso se admisceri ostendat. Christ saith: He tarrieth in me, to show that him Chryso. hom 46. in Math. self is mingled with him. S. Chrysostom meaneth, that whiles we receive worthily the substance of Christ's flesh into our bodies, we are so entirely joined to him, that we may be said to be mingled with him. And how that is done, S. Cyrillus declareth by Cyril. in joan lib. 4. ca 16. this similitude. As if a man pour wax upon melted wax, he wholly must needs mingle the one with the other, so it must needs be, if any man receive the flesh and blood of our Lord, that he be so joined with him, that Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ. And again: Sicut parum fermenti, & caet. As a little leaven tempereth the whole lump of dough: so a little benediction (whereby he meaneth a piece of the consecrated host, be it never so small) draweth the whole man unto it, and filleth him with his grace, and by this means Christ tarrieth in us, and we in him. S. Cyrillus calleth the things which are consecrated at Christ's Cyril. li. 4. in joan. cap. 17. supper, Benedictio, a blessing, because they are consecrated by the words of blessing, the which Christ left unto us. Now a little of that blessed food being received worthily of us, is not so properly said to tarry in us, as we to tarry in it, for that, though it be small in form, yet in virtue it is great. And therefore it draweth us unto it, as leaven turneth the dough to his nature. It can not be avoided by these interpretations, but that the heavenly food which we receive into our mouths, is the real substance of Christ's flesh. For it is here called Benedictio, the Benedictio. blessing. & that word is not meant of an inward virtue coming from heaven, but of that which seemeth bread, and is visibly received at our Lord's table. For even in the same Chapter S. Cyrillus exhorteth men ad recipiendam benedictionem, to receive the Sacrament of Christ's supper. The which Sacrament if it were wheaten bread, how could it be true, that a little thereof should draw the whole man unto it? Doth wheaten bread make us like it? are we then made unreasonable, unsensible, and a corruptible creature, as wheaten bread is? Christ saith, his meat tarrieth to life everlasting, so doth not wheaten bread. Christ saith by eating his flesh we tarry in him. But we tarry in him, whiles the gift, which at his supper he delivereth, is mingled with us, and converteth us unto it, as S. Chrysostom and S. ●…yrillus teach: And yet we be not converted or drawn to the nature of material bread or wine. therefore it appeareth the gift which Christ delivered, not to have been bread and wine, but his own body and blood under those forms. S. Hilary bringeth the very same word of tarrying to prove, Hilar. 8. de trinit. that as Christ is in his Father by the nature of Godhead, & we in him by his corporal birth: so he is in us by the mystery of the Sacraments, and tarrieth in us naturally. The like witness Theophilact giveth, saying: Contemperatio Theophi lact. in joan. 6. fit nova & super rationem, ita ut sit Deus in nobis & nos in ipso. There is made (by eating Christ's flesh) a new mingling together, so that God is in us and we in him. Briefly thus Christ meaneth: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood receiveth me, as meat into his body and soul. But because I come not to nourish carnal life but spiritual in him, he doth not digest and turn my body into his, (as it happeneth in other meats) but he is turned to be like me. For the real joining and knitting of my flesh to his maketh a marvelous mixture, as if melted wax were poured to other wax, so that a great grace and virtue is left of me in him, whereby he may tarry still in me and increase the fountain of life, which is in him. This kind of our tarrying in Christ, and of his with us, could not be true, if we ●…ed spiritually only upon Christ absent in body. For how can the body, which is only in heaven, be so tempered t●… our bodies & souls in earth, as one melted wax being powered to an other wax doth make one thing of twain, which is the similitude made here by S. Tyrillus? What like joining to that other similitude of the leaven can be, if no leaven, that is to say, no benediction or no flesh of Christ be received into us, which may draw us to it? What mingling together is made of things that be so far distant as heaven and earth? If you say, faith and spirit doth join, mingle, & knit Christ to us, and us to Christ, and make us to tarry in him, and him to tarry in us, either you give a cause of the joining which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ, or else you correct his cause and put a better. If the faith & spirit, whereof you speak, shall stand with Christ's cause, it must be such faith as doth concur with the eating of his flesh. For he now said not, he that believeth in me tarrieth in me, but he that eateth my flesh tarrieth in me. Therefore though 〈◊〉 tarry ●…ng in Christ is assigned to eating and not only to 〈◊〉 ye believe never so well, yet your present tarrying in Christ is not assigned to faith, but unto eating. Faith is necessary to worthy eating, and consequently to our tarrying in Christ. But not every ground, which is necessary to a thing, is by and by the cause th●…reof. Or though it be one cause, it is not the only cause. In the former part of this chapter saith had his due commendation. But now Christ speaketh of eating his flesh, and saith it maketh us tarry, that is to say, to be joined to him wholly, and to be mingled with him as well in body, as in soul, which thing can not be otherwise then through that we eat his flesh substantially. He that leaving that eating of Christ's flesh, stayeth upon feeding by faith alone, correcteth the cause assigned by Christ, and also depriveth us of that natural tarrying in him, whereof he now entreateth. ¶ We are made one with Christ by natural participation The xvi●…. Chapter. of his flesh, as he, being one nature with his Father, hath assumpted our nature into his own person. HE that eateth Christ's flesh tarrieth in Christ, and receiveth life of him, not by the means of faith & spirit only, but also by natural participation of his flesh. which thing Christ declareth by this example: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live for the Father: also he that eateth me, shall himself Christ ●…ueth not for his Fa there in faith. live for me. But Christ liveth not for his Father by faith at all, (because he seeth his glory face to face) nor yet by the mean of spirit alone, as we take spirit for devotion, or else for spiritual gifts and qualities. but he liveth for his Father, having his Father's whole substance really present in himself: therefore we that eating Christ live in like manner for him, must have his whole substance really present in us, and so must we receive life, not by faith or spirit alone, but by taking the flesh of life itself into our bodies and souls. Thus veri●…ic Christ doth mean. That we may reach to the true ground of this comparison, it behoveth we learn first, how Christ liveth for his Father: and then we may understand, how we receiving his flesh worthily, shall live also for him. Christ having two natures in one person may be said to live for his Father, according to either of both natures. As God: he liveth for his Father, for that he is eternally begotten of him, to whom the Father ge●…eth his whole nature, substance, life, glory, so that How Christ liveth for his Father as God. vo di●…ference is between the Father and the son, but that the son is begotten of the Father and the Father is altogether unbegotten and without any relation to a farther beginning. This order wherein the son (otherwise equal God 〈◊〉 his Father) doth yet always refer his generation and life to an everlasting Hilar. li. 8 de trinitate. beginning, is the cause why Christ as God, liveth for his Father. the which interpretation S. Hilary, S. Basile, S. Chry sostom, and S. Augustine do confess may well agree to this place. Christ as man li●…eth for his Father, because his Father sent How he liveth as man. him to take flesh, whose flesh (being of itself neither able to give life everlasting, nor to have it in his own nature) yet for the word whereunto it is united in one person, both hath life and giveth 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. both senses agree herein, Wherein both senses agree. that both life is really and corporally dwelling in Christ's flesh through the Godhead, and the Godhead is naturally with Christ, through that he is the son 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 having of it by gift, and by relation to a farther cause or beginning. For as Christ's flesh liveth for the word of God, to whom it is really united, and the word of God liveth for the Father, whose whole substance it hath Wherein be similitude standeth. really received by generation without beginning of time: so he that eateth Christ, liveth for Christ, having the substance of his flesh really present with him, and thereby partaketh life everlasting. This very sense Christ's words have, both by the conference of the text itself, and also by the interpretation of S. Hilary. Arrians. who by this scripture confuteth the Arrians that said, Christ to be inferior to his Father, & not to be equal God with him. To maintain the which heresy, they brought forth a similitude of joan. 17. unity which is made in holy scripture between God the Father, Christ, and us: affirming Christ to be one with his Father as we are one with him, but (said 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. Hilary answering, Hilar. li. 8. de Tri nitate. turneth it upon their own heads in this wise: Vivit ergo per patrem, & quomodo per patrem vivit, eodem modo nos per carnem eius vivemus. omnis enim comparatio, etc. Christ then liveth by his Father. and as he liveth by his Father, after the same manner we shall live by his flesh. for every comparison is presumed to be made according to the form and concept of our understanding, to th'intent the matter whereof we entreat may be so perceived, as the example giveth, which is proponed. This truly is the cause of our life, in so much as we have Christ Christ in us by flesh. abiding by flesh in us, who consist of flesh: and he shall live through him by such condition, as he liveth through his Father. If we then live through him naturally according to flesh, that is to wit, having obtained the nature of his flesh, how can he but have naturally the Father in himself according to the spirit (or Godhead) sith he liveth through the Father? S. Hilary showeth first in these words, that there is a similitude of living between us and Christ, and between God the Father and Christ. we live for Christ, by eating his flesh, as he liveth for his Father who sent him: but we (saith S. Hilary) live for Christ by eating his flesh in such sort, that we have the nature of his flesh in us. Therefore Christ living for his Father, hath his Father's nature in himself. Thus have the Arrians gained nothing, by saying that the Father was one with Christ, as Christ is one with us. For Christ is found to be one with us naturally. and thereunto it sufficeth not that Christ took our natural flesh in his mother's womb. for Christ spoke not of that unity: otherwise The 〈◊〉 nation maketh not Christ to be in us naturally. the gentiles, jews, heretics, and heinous sinners should be naturally one with Christ, which thing is not so. for, to be one with Christ, it behoveth that as he took our nature into his own person, we take his nature into our bodies & souls. Two reasonable parties, which have both free will & consist of bodies, be not properly made one in nature, if they both do not as well consent thereunto in mind, as also approach in bodies. Let us put an example between Dina and Sichem. for although Gen. 34. One in bo die without mine Sichem had by force oppressed Dina corporally: yet she not consenting in heart thereunto, was not thoroughly and in her whole nature made one with him, for that the chief part of her dissented. Again, let us put the ca●…e, that two other persons be together in heart wishing to be man and wise: but yet that they can not come together, because both, or one of them is enclosed One in mind with out body. in prison. these also are not one naturally, as long as their bodies be asunder. even so albeit Christ have the same nature which all men have (excepting sin) yet he is not naturally, that is to say, in the whole truth of nature one with us thereby, except we both in heart and body approach unto him. If we come to him in body alone, we come unworthily: if in heart alone, it is a spiritual conjunction, which will serve if either necessity or infamy keep us from natural conjunction. but if we come to lawful age & have opportunity, we must approach both in body One in body and mind. and soul to the Sacrament of Christ's supper, to be made one with him naturally, that is to say, to take his body really into ours, to th'end the spirit and Godhead which dwelleth corporally in that body of his, may feed our spirit and soul (which believeth in him) to life everlasting. Of this kind of living Christ spoke when he said: he that eateth me, lineth for me, as I live for my Father. And it is to be considered, that Christ brought the similitude of his own living for his father, to show thereby how we do line for him, when we eat him. But S. Hilary was so sure of this later part of the similitude, to wit, that we live for Christ by natural conjunction of his body and spirit to our bodies and souls, when we eat him: that thereby he proved Christ to be one with his father in nature and substance. And now come our new Sacramentaries teaching the argument 1. The Sacramentaries be aga●…st S. Hilary. of S. Hilary to be nothing worth, because they presuppose Christ's flesh not to be eaten of us, and consequently not to be in us in his own nature and substance. whereby they also affirm that the father is not proved to be in Christ naturally by these words of our saviour. as the living father sent me, and I live for the father, also he that eateth me, shall live himself for me. For if here the comparison be only in this point, that as Christ referreth his life to another beginning, which is his father: so we live by Christ who is the cause of all the grace we have: if I say nothing else be respected in both parts, but that a thing which is 2. Against ●… Godhead of Christ. less receiveth a benefit by the greater: these words rather seem to prove against the Godhead of Christ then for it. Yea the manhood is not by them showed to be really united to the word. And so that which the Catholic fathers bring for the truth, which is believed in Christ, the Sacramentaries make altogether void. Let us add to the former considerations, that we, eating Christ, live for Christ. we then so live for him, as we eat him. For seeing the eating is the cause of the life, such is the life as the eating is. But the Sacramentaries avouch that we eat bodily nothing else at Christ's supper beside bread and wine, therefore by their 3. Against ●… life of our bodies. judgement we shall live bodily none other way, then to that end whereunto bread & wine can feed us. They can not feed us to life everlasting, therefore it followeth of the sacramentary doctrine that our bodies have no meat whereby they may live for ever. What say ye masters? Have we not bodies as well as souls▪ Do not our bodies eat in their kind, as well as our souls? Do 4. Against that food our bread. not our body's line by their proper meat, as our souls do live by the meat which is convenient for them? If Christ be meat unto us, is he not meat to us as well in respect joan. 7. Our bodies bo fed to live for ever. of our bodies, as of our souls? Doth he not heal the whole man, regenerate the whole, feed the whole, and save the whole▪ Then by like he feedeth our bodies to life everlasting. What food it that? Where is it given? how cometh it unto us? The catholics answer: It is the flesh of Christ which is given to us under the form of bread. But ye zwinglians (who deny that real presence of Christ) show what meat our bodies receive, which is able to make them live for ever. Either say, they shall not live, or show the mean of life. You say our bodies eat sanctified bread at Christ's supper. Be it so. But is that sanctified bread still bread, or is it made the flesh of Christ which is the bread of life? If it be made Christ's flesh, ye agree with me. our bodies have Bread is no food of life. the true food of life. But if it tarry bread still, it can not give our flesh life everlasting. Ye will say, Christ is able to use wheaten bread tarrying bread The objection. for his instrument or token, to give us by that maane everlastiug life: As common water tarrying water, is in baptism the instrument & mean, as well to our bodies, as to our souls of life everlasting. In which reason ye vaunt yourselves over much, and think ye have found a goodly defence. But beware lest ye triumph before the The answer. victory. As hitherto I have resorted to the word of God to confute your vain doctrine: so now I will repair to the same undoubted fountain of true wisdom. It is most certain that God were able to save us by what means he would. But his will is now committed to writing, that heretics might not fame upon him what should please them, but should be controlled by his word. For as universal tradition sufficeth Scriptures were provided against heretics. to catholics who believe it, so the heretic, who esteemeth no tradition, must have his overthrow by the holy Scriptures. In them we read, that who so believeth and is baptised, shallbe saved: Whereby is most clear, that baptism hath his promse of salvation Marc. 16 annexed to it. But when we come to our Lord's supper, no promise at all is made to him, that eateth material bread, or driketh wine. Therefore no man may be so bold to say, that by eatig No promise is made to bread.. bakers bread we shallbe saved. Eating verily hath his promise of salvation annexed thereunto. but it is the flesh of Christ which must be eaten, it is the blood of the son of man, which must be drunken, it is the food of life Christ him self, which must be sacramentally received. In all S. john there is promise of life made to none other joan. 6. thing. At the last supper it is said: this is my body, take eat: and this is my blood, drink ye all of this. Where no mention of eating Matt. 26. bread, or of drink●…g wine is made, much less any promise of life is thereunto annexed. S. Paul speaketh of none other bread 1. Cor. 10 & 11. then of that, which is the communicating of his flesh, and which being one, is received and partaken of all faithful: and yet neither in him, nor in the acts of the Apostles, nor in anieplace place else is any promise made by Christ, that who so eateth material bread in his remembrance (though he eat it never so devoutly) shall by that eating live forever. Now whereas Calvin pretendeth the words of Christ's supper In the. 1. book. to be words of promise, it is already confuted. and albeit they were words of promise, yet they neither promise bread to be eaten, nor life to them that devoutly eat bread. In consideration whereof we may conclude, that water is the instrument to give life, because baptism is expressly named, andd hath the promise of salvation in God's word. But seeing bread hath not such promise, they speak beside all scriptures, who think it sufficient for our bodies to eat bread, and to drink wine at Christ's supper. And lest any man should think, that I may be deceived in the word of God, and that some promise there made to bread & wine may escape me: I answer, that even here Christ showeth us not only to live for him, but also to line for him by eating him: so that we have the word of God, that Christ himself is our food not only by faith, but by eating. We have then two advantages, one that no promise of life is made to bread and wine: The other, that express promise of life is made to him, who eateth Christ. whereupon thus I reason: Either this promise of life, which is made to him that eateth Christ, su●…iseth in the kind of eating or no. If this suffice not, the word of God is reproved, which saith: He that eateth me, shall live for me. And by eating Christ he understandeth It sufficeth ●…ocate Christ. (as I have often times declared) believing upon him, doing his will, and besides all that the receiving of him corporally in the Sacrament of his supper. If now his promise of life be alone sufficient, what place is left for the Sacramentaries, to challenge life to their bodies by the eating of wheaten bread and by drinking wine. Their bodies verily can not live without the food of life, for as Christ said before, except ye eat my flesh, ye shall not have life in you. and I am sure he spoke to men that had bodies. But material bread is not Christ's flesh, neither hath it any promise to give life to our bodies, therefore either our bodies die for ever, or else they live through y● Our bodies receive Christ. Cyril. in joan. lib. 10. ca 13. that they receive Christ into them corporally, the which saying of mine is confirmed by this place of S. Cyrillus. Non poterat aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem & vitam traduci, nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur. This corruptible 〈◊〉 of the body could not otherwise be brought to incorruption and life, 〈◊〉 the body of the natural life were joined unto it, which, if it be true, 〈◊〉 not they, who take the body of Christ (who is the natural life) from 〈◊〉 corruptible bodies, deprive us of all hope of life in our bodies: How then do we live for Christ & through him, as he lived for his father? Doth not he live for his father as well in body as in soul, because his manhood is united to the word which word is the son of the father? Therefore as we live for him by eating him, & as he liveth for his father who sent him: so must we be naturally joined to his flesh in the Sacrament of his supper, & by receiving the same worthily into our bodies, live in body and soul for ever. ¶ The eating of Christ's flesh was so true, that it The 〈◊〉. Chapter. was taught with the loss of many disciples. IT is not to be thought that Christ, who forbiddeth all occasions Matt. 18. Christ gave no offence. of giving offence to other men, would himself cast a stumbling block in his disciples way, by pressing them to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, if in deed they were not really to be eaten and drunken. But if Christ spoke that, which was true in deed, and spoke it as it was true, then was it their fault (who had seen him the day before working so great a miracle) not to joan. 6. believe such a Prophet, as their own experience and express words witnessed him to be. If then they were bound to believe him, and that they could do no The disci bless should have believed. otherwise, then if they believed that he would give them his flesh to eat in deed, their fault was in that they did not believe that he was both able, and in deed would by a conu●…nient mean give them his true flesh in the way o●… meat, and his true blood in the way of drink. If that were their fault, then is it their ●…ault likewise, who in our days think & teach, that Christ hath not given us in his last supper his 〈◊〉 flesh to be really eaten, & true blood to be really drunken. 〈◊〉 the manner of eating flesh and drinking blood 〈◊〉 should in time convenient have learned that also. All men do know, that when a thing is to be done, the first question is to demand, whether it may be done or no. wherein it is The natural order of questions. also contained, how easily a thing may be done. The second is, whether it be worthy the taking in hand. The third, how it may be brought to pass. As long as the thing is thought either unpossible, or very hard or vnpro●…itable: so long it is in vain to talk of the manner of the doing it. Christ did talk with the jews of the two first points, showing that he was able to do it: Quia h●…nc pater signavit Deus, because God the father hath signed him, whereby he declared himself to be almighty God. He said also that it was profitable, because he that did eat his flesh and drink his blood, should be raised again to life everlasting. If they had believed him in these The jews believing not the ●…. first points not the third. Matt. 26. points, they might have asked, yea without ask they had known (at, or not long after his last supper) the manner how it should have been conveniently done, as those Apostles did know, who continued in their belief. And the way of knowledge was at his last supper, where taking bread with speaking of these words (this is my body) he changed the substance of the bread into his body: and willed his disciples to take and eat his body. This much those could not free, because they would not believe. but to say that Christ hindered their belief by words more hard than needed, that is more cruelly said, than it needed. Oportebat, etc. they ought (saith S. Cyril) first of all to cast the roots of faith in their mind, and then to ask the things that were to be asked, but the Cyril. li. 4. c. 14. in. joan. jews asked importunely before they believed. for this cause our Lord showed them not, how it might be brought to pass. & a●…terward S. cyril declareth, how Christ in his last supper showed the manner also to them, who did believe, although they asked not for it. ¶ The right understanding of those words: It is the spirit The nineteen. Chapter. that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. I May be the shorter in this point, because none of those who are meanly conversant in the books of ancient writers (though otherwise they believe not well) have applied these words against the real presence of Christ's body in his last supper. for how can it be, that Christ's flesh, which is given for the 1. de bap. li. 1. ca 2. 2. in joan. hom. 46. 3. in joan. tract. 27. life of the world, should profit nothing? Therefore S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, and S. Augustin do expound the name of flesh (after one sort) for the fleshly and carnal understanding of the jews, who thought they should have eaten Christ, as men eat mutton and beef, whereas Christ meant to give his flesh in a secret manner, as the faithful know. which notwithstanding, the Luciferian spirit of Calvin reproveth this first understanding in his comments The pride of Calvin. upon this place. But it is sufficient, to say, that he difsented from those three notable pillars of God's Church before named. The second understanding is on Christ's behalf, whose flesh should not profit any thing, if the spirit, that is to say, the Godhead did not make it able to give us everlasting life. The which sense is chief followed by S. Augustin also, and by S. Cyrillus. Aug. in Psal. 98. & in joan. Cyril. in joan. li. 4 c. 23. & 24 Now seeing the flesh of Christ is given so to us under the form of bread, that the Godhead is present with it, we are sure to have much profit by it. What need more words? If this saying appertem not to the last supper, it maketh nothing against our belief: If it do appertain to it, the words are Prophetical, because they speak before hand of a thing, which most certainly shall come to pass in the last supper, and then the fulfilling of them will make them plain. For as Procopius saith: A prophecy at the first sight is not clear, but when it is come Procop. in praefationem genesim. to the event, which was forespoken, and is conferred with the thing itself, then draweth it to a perfect clearness. If now the said words were fulsilled at the supper, and take a clear understanding thereof, How Christ's flesh was given spiritually. what meaning can they have but that when Christ gave his body, he gave it after a spiritual sort & not after a fleshly manner? He gave not a shoulder to one Apostle, and a leg to an other, a breast to the third, and a rib to the fourth, but the whole body to every 〈◊〉: not visible in the form of flesh, but invisible in the form of bread: so making plain, why he had so often called himself bread, and said that the bread which he would give, is his flesh. He gave not his body without his soul and Godhead, neither his blood without his bones and flesh: but the spirit quickened all things, each kind had whole Christ. He lost not his visible body by giving of it, but by his words, which are spirit and life, turned bread and wine into his body and blood, showing y● as he was at the table in his whole body, notwithstanding they did eat the same body, so he might be in heaven although the sub stance of his true body and blood were given in his Sacrament in earth. What shall I say more? If the understanding of these words depend upon the last supper, they must not give us a rule how to understand the last supper, but they must take their understanding of it. Who dare say that bread was crucified for us, because jeremy said: Mittamus lignum in panem eius, let us put Hie. c. 11. wood into his bread? Do we not rather say, that because we are sure that the true flesh of Christ was crucified, therefore in jeremy bread is taken for flesh? Who dare say that Christ had horns in his hands, because Habacuk said: Cornua in manibus eius? Do Habac. 3. we not rather say that by horns he meant the corners of the cross, because we are sure that Christ had upon the cross no material horns in his hands? If then these words, the spirit quickeneth, be referred to the supper, and there we find bread & wine taken, and after blessing, body and blood given, 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 receive it worthily. ¶ The words of Christ being spirit and life show, that The xx. Chapter. his real flesh is made present in his last supper above all course of nature and reason. VErba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. The words which I have spoken, or (as the greek text readeth) which I do speak to you, are spirit and life. The Capharnaits hearing Christ say, he would give his flesh to be eaten, partly thought it not possible for him to give, partly not seemly for themselves to take. They imagined a division of the flesh The error of the Capharnaits. which should be delivered, and consequently the person, whose flesh were cut in such pieces, must die. but how could a dead man give his own flesh to be eaten? Again though he could do it, what a cruel thing were it for them to eat man's flesh? Christ knowing this their gross concept, saith, that the son of man will ascend into heaven where he was before. Thereby declaring first his almighty power and Godhead: Next, that the gift of his flesh doth not import the lack of life either in the giver, or in the thing given. For then in deed the gift should be little worth, because it is the spirit & life which quickeneth, dead flesh profiteth nothing to everlasting life. My words (saith Christ) be spirit and life, that is to say, they be The spirit of Christ is his Godhead. words of him that is by nature everlasting life, who meaneth to give his flesh alive, and that not only so alive as our flesh liveth whiles the soul is in it, but so living as that flesh liveth, which is 〈◊〉 and joined in one person to the Godhe●…d. Think no more (you gross Capharnaits) of dead flesh given by piece meal, which is not avayable to br●…g you to heaven, but think of such a flesh as God hath assumpted, to give life by it to the world, of such a flesh as will ascend by his own virtue into heaven, of such a flesh as being conceived not by the seed of man, but by the holy ghost, hath power to become spiritual without loss of his true nature and substance. My words be spirit and life. Spiritus est Deus, God is a spirit. In ipso vita erat, life was in joan. 4. joan. 1. the word, & verbum caro factum est, and the word was made flesh. Of that flesh Christ words must be understanded. That is the flesh which he will give, & which we must eat. that flesh liveth with God and in God, and giveth them life who receive it worthily. This doubtless is the literal meaning of Christ's words, and therefore S. Cyrillus doubted not to write: Spiritum hic etc. Cyril in joan. lib. 4. ca 24. Christ hath called here the very flesh, ●…pirit, not because it hath lost the nature of flesh, and is changed into the spirit, but because the flesh, being very nigh joined with the spirit or Godhead, hath received the whole power of quikning, or of making things to live. The words then, which I have spoken to you, are spirit, that is to Spiritus. say, spiritual. Et de spiritu & vita, id est, de vivisica & naturali vita sunt. And they are of the spirit and life. That is to say, of the natural life, and of that which maketh other things to live. De spiritu. This phrase: Verba mea de spiritu sunt, my words are of the spirit, doth mean, that the words of Christ have in them some of his spirit and of his divine power. Which meaning sith it is most true, these words of Christ do Note. not show, that the naming of flesh and blood which went before was figurative, and that now Christ declareth only a spiritual understanding of them (as the Sacramentaries teach) but all is clean, contrary. For Christ now giveth a reason, why his former words be possible, easy, true, and proper. The reason is, for that he is God that spoke them, and he spoke them of that flesh, which is united to the son of God. Spiritus vivificans est caro Domini etc. The flesh of our Lord Damasc. de Orth. sid. li. 4. cap. 14. joan. 3. (saith Damascen) is a spirit which quickeneth, because it was conceived of a quicken●…g spirit. for that which is borne of the spirit is spirit. Which thing I say not, taking away the nature of the body, but intending to show the Godhead thereof, and the power which it hath to make things live. As therefore the flesh of Christ was not thereby no flesh, because it was joined to his divine substance, but rather had by that union the power to make us live for ever: even so the words which before did show the flesh of Christ to be meat in deed, and his blood to be drink in deed, are not now declared to be figurative or unproper words, but rather they are declared to be most proper and true, because they are witnessed to be spirit and life. For as the Godhead is in his own nature most infinite, almighty, simple, and uncompounded, and the truth itself: So those How the words be spirit●…al. words, which partake of the Godhead, are declared to be of most strength to work that they sound, to be most simple, and to have least figures & parables in them, as the which contain the virtue to make that truth which they signifi●…. So that the name of spirit doth not stand to depri●…e us of Christ's real flesh, but only to make it profitable to us, and to show that Christ by his word is able to give us his flesh, wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth. Corpus Dei (sayeth S. Ambrose) Ambros. de ijs qui init. myster. c. 9 Corpus est spiritale: corpus Christi, corpus est divini spiritus, quia Spiritus est Christus. The body of God is a spiritual body, the body of Christ is the body of the divine spirit, because Christ is the spirit, that is to say, God. Non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritalis est. It is therefore no bodily, but a spiritual food. The food is spiritual as the body of Christ, which he took of Spiritual food. the virgin, is spiritual. But the body is not spiritual, as though it lacked the substance of true flesh, but because it was wrought and made by the holy Ghost in the virgens womb. Therefore the heavenly bread, which we receive from the altar, is a spiritual food, no●… that it lacketh the true substance of Christ's flesh, but because it is wrought and made present under the form of bread by the spirit of God and by the holy Ghost above all course of nature. It is clear (saith S. Ambrose) that the virgin did bear (Christ) Ambros. ibidem. otherwise, than the course of nature was. and this body which we make, is of the virgin. What seekest thou here the course of nature in the body of Christ, seeing our Lord jesus himself is brought forth of the virgin beside the course of nature? As who should say, the real flesh of Christ is made present under the form of bread by the holy Ghost, even as Christ was incarnate in the virgens womb by the holy Ghost. It is the Godhead, the spirit, the life that worketh all things in the holy mysteries. The flesh without the Godhead profiteth nothing. From the Godhead the words came which Christ spoke. That Godhead is it which maketh Christ's flesh profitable. Per carnem spiritus (saith S. Augustine) August. in joan. tract. 27. aliquid prosalute nostra egit: caro vas fuit. quod habebat, attend, non quod erat. By the flesh the spirit (or Godhead) did somewhat for our salvation. The flesh was the vessel (or instrument) mark what the flesh had or held, and not what it was by his own nature. And again: The charity of God is spread in our Roma. 5. hearts by the holy Ghost which is given to us. Ergo, it is the holy Ghost which quickeneth. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life. What is it to say, they are spirit and life? They are to be understanded spiritually. If thou hast understanded them spiritually, they are spirit and life, if thou hast understanded them carnally, they are spirit and life, but not to thee. Thus far S. Augustine. The word spirit may stand to signify God, Angels, the soul what spirit may signify. of man, the life, the gift of God made to any reasonable creature, & the wind, or breath, or air, or briefly any thing that moveth. But among all significations the chief is to signify God, who is by nature the only spirit which quickeneth and moveth all other spirits: In whom we live, are moved, and have our Acto. 17. being. Therefore the words, which are called spirit and life, are called in effect divine and almighty. Spirit sometime standeth to signify the words of God, as when S. Paul saith, the letter killeth the spirit quickeneth, the letter in that place doth signi●…ie the law, and the spirit doth signify Basil. de baptis. l. ●… cap. 2. the words of our Lord, as S. Basile doth expound it. For Christ our Lord giveth grace to his words, that they should not only signify 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 understanded spiritually, Spiritually. that is to say, divinely, and as it becometh the words of him who is God himself, whose words have power in themselves to work that which they betoken. To understand the words of Christ spiritually, it behoveth we believe them first as they sound to humble & reasonable men. Esaiae. 7. for if we believe not, we shall not understand: but if we do believe, than we may be assured (as S. Chryso●…tom upon this place Chryso. hom. 47. in loan. hath written) that they contain no natural course, but are free from all earthly necessity and from the laws of this life. Which being so, when Christ taking bread, and blessing saith, this is my body, we may not say with ourselves, how can this be so? what other body can here be, than a piece of bread which mine eye seeth, and my tongue tasteth. If we speak after this sort, The Sacramentaries make Christ's words no spirit. we call the words of Christ from the spirit of God to the course of nature and of reason. and we do not believe them to be spiritual, that is to say, divine, and above the course of nature. but we understand them carnally, looking for no miracle to be wrought by them. and yet they are spirit and life, able to quicken what soever they list. they can make bread to be Christ's body, & wine to be his blood. they have power to change natures, and to work invisibly. The words of parables. In a parable it is not needful that all things be in deed, as the words do sound. but when Christ's words are said to be spirit and life, than it is declared to us, that they partake the nature of his Godhead, that they work a thing above our capacity, and make all that, which they say. A spiritual body. Yea but (say you) show me the body which they have wrought. I answer, they are spirit and have wrought a spiritual body, not such as lacketh the truth of flesh, but such as through the union which it hath with the Godhead, hath disposed the substance of flesh under the form of bread in such sort, as our souls are disposed within our bodies, which are undoubtedly there, but they can not be touched or felt by any sense. even so we believe the real presence of Christ's flesh under the form of bread and wine, because the words of Christ are spirit & life, albeit no excuse or reason can attain to that high mystery. Seeing then these words of promise (the bread which I will give is my flesh) be spirit and life, these words of performance, which after bread taken, say presently: this is my body, must needs be much more spirit and life, that is to say, of divine power to work that which they sound. Let now all heretics cease to mock us of so many miracles, as we teach to be in the sacrament of the altar, for so much as Christ hath witnessed it should be a miraculous sacrament, and above all This Sacrament is miraculous. 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 believe that Christ spoke not properly, sith Christ calleth his words, spirit, because they be so proper, that they come near to the nature of the Godhead (as being his words who is naturally God) than the words of men are able to do. and as the Godhead is most immurable, and not at all subject to any change: even so those words, which partake most of the Godhead, are most unchangeable, and least figurative. for all figurative speeches are Tropi. changed and abused, having the name of tropes among the Grecians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab eo quod vocabula mutantur a propria significatione in alienam. figurative speeches are called in greek tropes, that is to say, changes, because the words are changed Malach. from their proper signification to an unproper meaning. but God is not changed, nor those words be not changed from their proper signification, which God hath called spirit & life. but as they partake the Godhead, so doc they partake the propriety of not being changed from their most accustomed meaning, & proper nature. It is a world to see what difference there is between the words of Christ's Gospel, & the interpretation of the false gospellers: The error of the Sacramen taires. between the old Fathers, and the new brethren: between Catholics & Protestants. Mark I pray thee, good Reader, the differences diligently. Christ by his incarnation was made to us the bread of life, to the end we might eat his Godhead otherwise then the Fathers had done before. the new brethren after the incarnation and supper of Christ, wherein we should have the Godhead given us, bid us believe upon Christ in heaven, and so to feed upon him by faith alone, as No●… & Abraham did. Their counc●…l is not 〈◊〉 in bidding us seed by saith, but where is the Godhead 〈◊〉 by this means? is that also received by faith? why, so it might have been received and so it was received before Christ was man? Where is the food of Angels made the food of man? where is the Psal. 77. word of God so given to me after his incarnation, as it could not be given before? Where is any everlasting meat for my body? Where is the supper, which may feed the whole man? faith feedeth my understanding, but my will & affection hath as much need to be fed. my flesh is rebellious to my spirit, & it hath need to be fed. my body was the mean to poison my soul, therefore my soul must have a medicine, which shallbe received into my body, and so be communicated unto my soul. S. Ireneus reproved those heretics, who because men were Ireneus. adversus Her. li. 5. called in scripture spiritual, denied the true resurrection of their flesh, as though their spirit only should tarry for ever. and yet our new brethren, where so ever mention is made of spirit or of a spiritual body and flesh, so wrest it, as though the real substance of flesh in the Sacrament were by that word denied or diminished: whereas it is rather increased, for so much as that flesh which is spiritual is not thereby the less 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 August. lib. 1. retractat. cap. 13. & de civit. Dei. lib. 13. cap. 22. the body shall no more have need of corporal nourishments, because the only spirit shall suffice to nourish it. qua causa etiam spiritale erit, for which cause also the body shallbe spiritual. now as after resurrection the spiritual being, which our bodies shall have, doth not diminish the truth of their nature, but declareth a wonderful abettering of them, in that they be made in manner equal to spiritual substances: even so the body of Christ in his supper is spiritual, not for any lack of his true substance under the forms of bread and wine, but because it is wholly possessed and replenished with the Godhead, and is present after the manner of a spirit, as being neither seen, nor felt, nor tasted, but only believed. And therefore this blessed Sacrament is worthily called of the Church at the consecration of the blood, yea (as I think) it is 12. The mystery of faith. 1. Tim. 3. called of S. Paul also, mysterium fidei. the mys●…erie of faith, because it secretly containeth under the forms of bread and wine, the flesh, the blood, the soul and the spirit, or Godhead of jesus Christ. The which mystery of faith the Deacons used to deliver to the faithful after consecration, as justinus the martyr doth witness, and therefore S. Paul willed the Deacons to use that mystery of faith with a pure and clean conscience. To be short: The Sacramentaries abuse the word of God miserably, when they talk of the spirit and of the flesh of Christ in such sort as they do. For Christ said, the flesh profiteth nothing, meaning only the corruptible flesh of a bare man, who is no God. The Sacramentaries expound it, as if it were said, it is nothing worth to eat Christ's own flesh really, but only it is profitable to feed on it by faith. Christ said, it is the spirit that quickeneth, meaning the Godhead, to make his flesh profitable unto us. They take it so, as though the spirit alone did q●…icken us at his last supper, without eating his flesh really. Christ by naming the spirit revoketh ●…ot the real gift of his flesh, the eating whereof he avouched to be necessary for us. They use it contrarily to prove his flesh to be given us really in his last supper, as though he had corrected his former words: Christ meant to add more dignity and worthiness to the eating of his flesh, then is in other men's flesh, because the spirit made it alone quick, alive, and profitable. They endeavour by the precense of the word spirit, to say, he would not give his flesh to be eaten in deed, and so abuse that name to the diminishing of his inestimable gift. Christ said: my words are spirit, that is to say of divine power, & proceeding from God. They imagine he said: my words be unproper and cropicall or parabolical, as being only true by an allegory. Christ meant his words to proceed from his own spirit and majesty, and there●…ore to be true above the course of nature. They expo●…nd them as if he had said, you must care my flesh in your spirit only, & not in very deed. Thus they wrest that to the spirit of man, which Christ said of the spirit of God, and under this ambiguity of words they cover their poisoved doctrine. Christ would us to understand spiritually the real ●…ating of his real flesh, because he would give it us without loss of his own body, without loathsomeness of our stomachs, and without removing from his own place in heaven. They apply the spiritual understanding of eating his flesh, to take away the real ●…ating of it, as though he that understandeth a thing spiritually, should not therefore eat that really, which he understandeth to be mystical. The substance of Christ's flesh eaten is the ground of that mystery, figure, Sacrament, or spiritual understanding, which Christ spoke of. Because he would them to eat his flesh, not to fill their bellies, but to signify and partake the merits otherwise done in that flesh. They taking away the ground of the figure (which is Christ's flesh) add of their own i●…ention, bread & wine to be the ground of this figure and of the spiritual understanding. They making Christ's spiritual words tropical and gramatically figurative, abase them beneath the condition of common words. For a proper word i●… of more dignity than an improper, and men for the most part speak properly. Christ said, my words are life, meaning them to be so proper, that they perform whatsoever they promise or speak, as having the propriety of the Godhead which is most far from all figures, shadows, and changes. They make them dead words. For seeing the mind of the speaker uttered in plain words is the life of the words, the same words uttering the speakers mind obscurely are as dead and without life, until they be expounded. What shall I say more? they take these words to be figurative in such sort, that they make them inferior to the common words of mortal men, who never ligthtly use the words flesh and blood for the signs of flesh and blood, but for the substances of them, and much less do they use, flesh and blood so to signify bread and wine, that the same bread and wine must again signify Christ's flesh and blood, as I have noted before that the Sacramentaries are constrained to say, if they will defend their false and 〈◊〉 doctrine, the which I pray God they may have grace to see and to amend. The preface of the fourth book. VUe have showed what proofs may be brought out of Christ's promise at Capharnaum, for his real and corporal presence in the Eucharist: it remaineth we now declare the same truth, by that which he performed in his last supper. And because the chief controversy is, whether the words of Christ do mean as they sound, or else must be taken otherwise: I will first make it plain, that they ought to be taken properly & as they sound to men of common understanding, until an evident reason be brought why they must be meant unproperly. & therewithal I show, that no reason is now to be heard for the unproper interpretation of them, because the time of all such allegations is expired more than fourteen hundred years past, for so much as the whole Church is in possession of the proper meaning. Afterward I will prove the proper & literal meaning of those words by the circumstances of the supper: by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old and new testament, and last of all by the commandment which was given the Apostles to continue the Sacrament of Christ's supper until he come to judge the world. If in conferring the promise with the performance, or by any other occasion I chance to say somewhat, which was before touched: I must ask pardon thereof, as who endeavour partly to make all things plain, partly to confirm the present matter, whereof I speak by such convenient allegations as for the time come to my remembrance. Once I am sure, it is not a thing affected of me to say the same thing oft: albeit either the affinity of the argument, or the desire to have the thing well remembered, or my forgetfulness may cause me to fall in to that default. The chapters of the fourth Book. 1. That no reason ought to be heard, why the words of Christ's supper should now be expounded unproperly or figuratively. & that the Sacramentaries can never be sure thereof. 2. That as all other, so the words of Christ's supper ought to be taken properly, until the contrary doth evidently appear. 3. The proper signification of these words (this is my body) and (this is my blood) is, that the substance of Christ's body & blood is contained under the visible forms of bread & wine. 4. That the pronoun (this) in Christ's words can point neither to bread nor to wine. 5. That the pronoun (this) can not point to any certain act, which is a doing about the bread and wine. 6. That the said pronoun pointeth finally to the body and blood of Christ, and in the mean time it signifieth particularly one certain kind of food. 7. The naming of the chalice proveth not the rest of the words to be figurative, but helpeth much the real presence. 8. That the words of Christ's supper be proper, though many other (unlike to them) be figurative. 9 The real presence is declared by xxvij. circumstances which belong to Christ's supper. 10. The same is proved by conference of holy scriptures in the new Testament. 11. Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration. 12. The real presence is proved by c●…nference of holy scriptures of the old Testament. 13. Item by the words (hoc facite) which do signify, make this thing. 14. Item by the words: for the remembrance of me. 15. The gross error, & impudent challenge of M. Nowell is corrected, and fully satisfied concerning the conference between these words: this is my body, and, I am the true vine. ¶ That no reason ought to be heard, why the words of The first Chap●…ter. Christ's supper should now be expound●…d unproperly or figuratuely. and that the Sacramentaries can never be sure thereof. CHrist in his last supper was b●…th like a testator, who disposeth before his death what shallbe com●… of his goods afterward, and like a maker of laws, who prescribeth an The gift or legacy of Christ. order to be kept in his common weal. The legacy bequeathed, or rather the gift made by his life time in consideration of death cer●…einly approaching, was the delivery of those inestimable t●…wels, which he called his own body and blood, willing his heirs and fruids to take & to care h●…s bod●…, which should be given for them: and to drink his blood of the new Testament, which should be shed for the remission of synn●…s. The law which he made, was, that the Apostles and their successones The law of Christ. (in the like degree of Priesthood) should make that Sacrament, which he had then instituted, for the remembrance of his death, until he came again to judge the world. His Testament and the gift made therein was confirmed by that famous death, which he siffered the next day upon the Crosse. His law was received and practised from the coming down of the holy Ghost even to this day through all the catholic Church. A few years after Christ's death his Testament and law which The writing of both. he made by mouth, was by witnesses of sufficient credit, put in writing, published, and acknowledged of all faithful men. If therefore any question arise concerning such words, as were either in the last will or in the law, or the narration of them who wrote the Gospel: We ought to weigh, whether that question be moved of a thing not already determined, or else upon that which many years before was accustomed and received. For as reason would a new Ne●…e doubts. doubt to be newly dissolved: so no reason, no law, no conscience can suffer, that a matter once fully decided and perfectly ended, should be again called into judgement. The question is, whether the words of Christ be figurative, or proper. I say, that question was decided above fifteen hundred years past. For when that will & law of Christ was first published, The question decided of old. all men took those words, This is my body, and this is my blood, to be proper: And so we received of our forefathers from hand to hand, in so much that the Church never heard before these days any other doctrine preached by public authority. it never saw other practice, then to adore with Godly honour those things over which the Priest, as Christ's minister, had said the words before rehearsed. The universal preaching and usage of Christ's Church is a sufficient witness, that it hath always taken those words to be proper & not figurative. Which thing sith it is so, minimè sunt Paulus ff. de leg. mutanda (saith the lawyer) quae interpretationem certam semper habuerunt. Those things are least of all to be changed, which have always had a known understanding. And yet if we should come to give account of these universal customs, how reasonably might it be applied to our purpose, which the same lawyer saith. Si de interpretatione legis quaeratur, inprimis inspiciendum est, quo iure civitas retro in huiusmodi casibus usa fuisset. Optima enim est legum interpres 〈◊〉. If a question be moved concerning the interpretation of a law, it is principally to be attended, what order and law the common weal hath used before in those Custom. cases, for custom is the best interpreter of laws. We are sure that before the birth of ●…uther, yea also of Berengarius, The use of God's church. all the Church used to worship the body & blood of Christ under the forms ofbread and wine: and yet it could not have done so, if it had taken the word, body, for material bread only signifying the body, & that name of, blood, for wine which was appointed only to signify Christ's blood. For the Church of God would never have worshipped with Godly honour bakers bread & wine of the grape, though they were tokens of never so goodly things. But if the Sacramentaries answer, that once the Church did other wise, and that the ancient fathers neither adored the body & blood of Christ under that forms of bread and wine, nor preached the words of Christ's supper to be proper, beside that such answer of theirs is stark false, as by that plain words of S. Ambrose, The adoration of Christ's body. of S. 〈◊〉, of S. Augustine and of Theodoretus it shall hereafter evidenrly appear: yet surely though so much could not be presently declared, yet it were a great folly upon the allegation of a thing so far beyond memory of man (as the primitive Church is) to leave the manifest use and custom of the present Church, the which Christ no less redeemed, no less governeth and loveth, than he did the faithful of the first six hundred years. Furthermore if all that is presently believed shallbe undone, as oft as it is pretend●…d that the primative Church thought otherwise, what quietness can there be in the Church after this order? what end shall we have of controversies? When shall we hope to see that agreement of minds, that consent of wills, that uniformity of life and belief, which our grandfathers and great grandfathers had? The Trinitaries of Polonia under their Captain 〈◊〉 A new heresy in Pooleland. (who is a false preacher in 〈◊〉 that chief city of the Kingdom) said that the name of the blessed Trinity is a monstrous thing, not because they openly deny the father, the son, & the holy ghost, or the equality of them, nor because they defend any more than one God: But they affirm, that albeit there are three unius naturae, of one nature & of one Godhead, yet there are not three, say they, that are una natura, vel Deitas, one nature or Godhead. And for proof hereof they appeal to the new Testament and old, and to the Church which they call privative, which was of the first two hundred years, or thereabout, bidding us, look whether we find, Trinum & unum deum, or Trinitatem in unitate, or unum deum in tribus personis, in any scripture, or in any Father of that age. As for S. Athanasius, S. Hilary, S. Basil, S. Augustin & so forth, they esteem no more, than our new brethren esteem S. Bede, or S. Thomas of Aquine. The book entitled of the Trinity, which is in S. justinus works, they affirm not to be his, using presently the same shameless shifts against the blessed name and nature of that Trinity, which the Sacramentaries use against the nature & name of the Mass. Not long after these Trinitaries, an other company began to Circum●… of them sel●…s think circumcision so necessary, that in Lituania many 〈◊〉 themselves, who to defend that heresy must needs deny S. Pan les epistles, as Luther hath denied S. james his epistle, for that it is against his justification of only faith. And what forbiddeth an other sect to do the like in an other Tertull. de prescription. adversus heretic. matter? Thus always are we seeking (as Tertullian saith) but we never find any thing, if once we go from that which we all believed. If then a stay be to be made at any time in questions of belief, if we may be sure of any article of all our faith, it behoveth we undo not that, which our forefathers have so long before concluded to be true. No reason of inducing a new faith can be so weighty, as the peace and preservation of unity in Christ's Church ought to be singularly weighed of every man. There was but one universal change to be looked for in religion One change only could be in religion. from the beginning of Christ's Church to the last end thereof. And that was at the coming of Christ into the world. The which change that it might not be sudden, it was prophesied of before in all ages both by the deeds and words of Patriarches, of Prophets, and of Priests. And when the fullness of time was come, it was proved to become by miracles of so great virtue and name, that the very stones, that is to say, the infidels were turned by them: so great a matter it was with God, to have the order of his religion altered. And now shall we after Christ's faith preached & believed fourteen hundred years together, shall we now take a new faith of Luther, of Zumglius, and of Calvin? If they be Christ, I grant we must admit their doctrine: but if they be not so, it is not possible they should come of God, though they came with never so many miracles, but they must be the forerunners of 〈◊〉. To come again near 〈◊〉 own matter, if we shall give any ear to them who affirm the words of Christ's supper to be figurative, jacob. 1. that must be with some doubt of our former faith. and in doubting thereof we are become men that lack faith. which if it be not sure, it is not good, for so much as it hath not the foundation of Heb. 11. the things, which the Apostle said were to be hoped for. Or tell me, he that first gave ear to Berengarius or Zuinglius against the blessed Sacrament of the altar, may the same man give care now to another that should wickedly say, the Apostles had A teacher of new doctrine is not to be heard. no authority given them to write holy scriptures? If he may, then he may doubt of the said ●…utoritie. and yet surely it were very hard to prove to a wrangler, that such authority of writing Gospels or epistles could be justified out of the express words of the holy Bible. But if it be unlawful to hear any such seditious man, how could it be lawful when ear was first given to Berengarius or Berenga rius preached a new doctrine. Zuinglius? for than it was no less generally received through all Christendom, and much more expressly to be proved by the holy scripture, that the things set forth and consecrated upon the holy table and altar were the real body and blood of Christ, than it is said, that whatsoever the Apostles did write, should be confirmed and established, as the words of the holy goo●…. Where yet I will enter farther into the 〈◊〉 of the cause▪ And before we hear what reasons he can bring, who will reprove the faith of the church in the blessed Eucharist, I say, he is not The Sacramentaries can have no ground of their doctrine. to be heard, because it is not possible that his reason can have any sufficient ground, why we should give over our old faith: and that whether we respect the written word of God, or the faith of all Christians, or the glory of God, or the love of Christ toward us, or the profit of his church. For ●…either can he show, where it is written, or when it was 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. believed, This is not my body: nor can prove that it is more honourable to God, or more agreeable to Christ's coming, or more profitable to us, that we should lack his body present under the form of bread, rather than have it. For if the death of Christ did proceed from excessive charity of him toward us, and of God and our profit, that his Son should take flesh and die for us: I can not devise how the most honourable remembrance of the The honour of God. same death should not be most according to th'intent of Christ, and to our soul's health. And doubtless it is a more honourable and a more loving remembrance, where the true substance of Christ is made really present for the keeping of his death in memory, & we take more benefit by such a commemoration of his bloody The profit of the faithful. sacrifice: then if in stead of Christ's real body, a piece of bread and wine be left unto us with never so great a feeding by faith. For imagine ye the faith to be never so great, I am sure it will not be the less because Christ is taken into our hands, mouths, and breasts. The touching of his garment never hindered any Lucae. 6. good heart, much less can the taking of his whole body hurt our faith or devotion. And yet if corporal touching did not also help, the faithful woman troubled so long with a bloody flux, had not Lucae 8. been so miraculously cured by touching the hem of Christ's garment. Her faith touched his Godhead, and her soul was healed. Her body also touched his manhood, and her body was likewise cured. Seeing then it is written: This is my body, and all men believed it once as well as the other articles of our faith: Seing that be●…eif is so honourable unto God, so meet for Christ's coming and love toward us, and so profitable unto us, that the contrary assertion shall lack the like holy Scriptures, and the like belief of the Church, the like honour of God, the like love of Christ, and the like profit of our souls: There can be no reason alleged hereafter, why we should o●…ce give audience to him, that pretendeth to prove the body of Christ not to be really present under the forms of bread and wine. For what thing possibly can exceed these causes before alleged? Moreover, all ●…igures were invented partly for lack of proper Two cau ses of speaking figurati●…ly. words, partly for the pleasantness of speaking. Christ surely lacked not words to show, that he gave bread for a sign of his body, if in deed he had done so. For sith Zuinglius and Calvin had words to signify their opinion in this matter, it could not be but that Christ was able to have spoken that which they speak. If then he spoke not figuratively for necessity, our new brethren must prove, that he spoke figuratively for his only pleasure. but how can they know that? Aug. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. cap, 10. S. Augustine biddeth us nolesse beware, that we take not a proper speech for a figurative, then that we take not a figurative speech for a proper. The rule to know the one from the other is this: Vt quicquid in sermone divino etc. that what soever in the word of God can be properly referred neither to the honesty of manners, nor to the truth of faith, thou mayst know to be figurative. If now these words of Christ, this is my body and this is my blood, may be referred to the truth of faith (in so much as all men have believed the body of Christ to be given The proper sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither aga●… the 〈◊〉, nor good manners. in the Sacrament of the altar, not diminishing thereby their faith in any other article) by S. Augustins judgment these words be not figurative. For certainly they be not only nothing against the honesty of manners (as good men understand Christ's presence under the form of bread) but rather the strong belief of them maketh all men more honest in life, whiles they come with great fear to so dreadful mysteries. therefore it followeth that they be not of necessity figurative: of necessity, I say, because there is no repugnance in saith or good manners, why they may not be proper. which notwithstanding a man for his pleasure might use his words in a figurative sort, when he needed not▪ but who so affirmeth so much, beside that he breaketh S. Augustins rule, he casteth himself in great danger of proving the which hangeth of an other man's pleasure. What argument have our new brethren to prove, that it pleased We can never be sure that Christ spoke figuratively. Christ at this time to speak unproperly? what ground in the word of God can their opinion have? how can they be sure, that they err not in their judgement? when we read that God is angry or sorry, or that john Baptist is Elias, or that the rock is Christ, we say they are figurative speeches, because they can not be proper. Anger falleth not in God, nor sorrow. the rock for that reason is not Christ in person and nature, because it is a rock. for by nature they are several things, and such as do not stand together. the like might have been thought in this Sacrament, if Christ had said: this bread is my body, and this wine is my blood. but he foresaw great cause, why he would not say so. For he would by his word 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 beside the faith of the whole Church, the proper signification of the words enforceth so much, as now it shallbe declared. ¶ That as all other, so the words of Christ's supper The two. Chapter. ought to be taken properly, until the contrary doth evidently appear. WHat meaning words ought to have, we judge most directly by the proper signification and common use of them. For if the contrary do not appear, all words Words are to be taken as they do properly signify. must be taken in that meaning a●…d sense, which the usual custom of speaking and writing hath given them. Otherwise all things are confounded, and the profit, which cometh of words, is lost. Neither any man shall know what an other meaneth, neither how to make his own bargain, or last will and Testament. Certè perversissimum est (saith Tertullian) ut carnem nominantes, Tertull. de carne Christi. animam intelligamus, & animam significantes, carnem interpretemur. Omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quàmsunt, & amittere quod sunt, dum aliter accipiuntur, si aliter quàm sunt, cognoninantur. Fides nominum, salus est proprietatum. Truly it is a most overthwart thing, that naming the flesh we should understand the soul, and signifying the soul, we should Things must be believed a●… they are named. expound it the flesh. all things shall be in danger to be otherwise taken than they are, and whiles they are otherwise taken, to lose that they are, if they be named otherwise then they are. The faithful naming of things preserveth their proprieties. By these words of this ancient Doctor we may judge, how foul 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 sign of his blood. As well when he is named the Son of God, we may expound it, the image of the Son of God. And so we open a gate to all heresy, we take away all certainty of speech, and make the holy Scriptures subject to every man's filthy lust & pleasure. We must therefore keep every word in his own nature and in his known signification, except it be manifest unto us that the speaker meant otherwise. Doth not natural reason teach us so much? Saith not Marcellus the same, being taught only by common Li. 67. de leg. 3. wisdom and judgement? Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet, quàm cum manifestum est aliud sensisse testatorem. We must not otherwise departed from the signification of the words, but when it is manifest that the testator thought an other thing. In which rule if we rest, all the world well knoweth that when The names used at Christ's supper are to be kept. Christ said (This is my body) and (This is my blood) the words both by their proper signisication, and by the present use of all speakers and writers, do import the real presence of Christ's true body and blood. For neither the pronoun (This) pointeth to a thing absent, This is body. neither the verb (is) can be said of that, which presently hath no true being, neither the noun (body) useth to be verified of a shadow, figure or token of a body, neither when Christ sayeth: This is my body, any faithful man doubteth, but that both Christ had my. a true natural body which he might give, and is able to make his word true, & useth to utter no falsehood. And whereas Christ said after bread taken, This is my body, it is given us to understand, that by his word he maketh that particular substance of bread, which was taken into his hands, to be his own body. what cause can now be brought why we should forsake these known significations, and seek out other more strange? The law of nature would us to rest in the names which we find. Iradition also maketh for the same interpretation. And surely these are that chief rules to know that meanig which any words may have. Epiphanius in this matter hath a notable rule, saying: Omnia Epiphan. lib. 2. to. 1. haer. 61. divina verba non habent opus allegoria, sed prout se habent, accipienda sunt. Speculatione autem indigent & sensu, ad cognoscendam uniuscuiusque argumenti vim & facultatem. Oportet autem & traditione uti, non enim omnia a divina Scriptura accipi possunt. All the words of God need not an allegory (or a figurative Tradition is to be respected in exposiding holy scriptures. meaning) but they are to be taken as they be. They require in deed a diligent observation and understanding, that the strength and power of every matter proponed may be known. (wherein it behoveth to use tradition.) For all things can not be gathered out of the divine writing. Here is the first place given by Epiphanius to the natural taking of words, for all things be not figurative, though many be. To know which is figurative, and which is not, diligent consideration, and ancient tradition helpeth much. Well, of other helps hereafter. Now let this be granted, that the first rule of all maketh for the Catholics. Which is, that every word and speech, as long as the contrary is not manifestly proved, is to be taken, as it commonly doth signify. According to the which rule these words of Christ (This is my body) and (This is my blood) affirm the real presence of Christ's body and blood, as now it shallbe showed. ¶ The proper signification of these words This is my body, and This is my blood, is, that the substance The ii●…. Chapter. of Christ's body and blood is contain under the visible forms of bread and wine. WHen the paschal Lamb was eaten, and the Disciples joan. 13. feet washed, Christ by taking bread into his hands declared himself to be disposed, to use it for some one purpose or other: by blessing, and thanksgiving over it, we are informed he would make some divine mystery of that bread. And when he began to make the mystery, saying (this is) and ended it, adding thereto (my body) we learn by the two first words (this This, can be said but of one substance. is) that his mystery consisteth not of bread and of his body, but of one substance only, which was declared to be so really intended as well in his mind, as at his tongue's end, that having once named what it was, to wit (my body) no man alive might doubt, but either he both in word and deed made a false signification, (which is with all true Catholics a thing without all possibility) or else that it was in deed so, as his words of blessing, and of saying, This is my body, witnessed. And for as much as his word affirmed this to be his body, and his deed of taking bread, and of blessing showed his words to be Christ's words directed to the bread. directed unto the which was in his hand, or lay before him (which was bread before) it must needs be, that the pronoun (this) so showed to his Apostles the thing already subject unto their eyes, that much more it served to teach their understanding verily, this, which appeared to them bread, to be in substance, at the ending of the words, his own body. Therefore we teach the pronoun (this) to serve both to the The strength of the pronoun this. eyes and to the understanding of the Apostles. to their eyes, in pointing to the form of bread which they saw: to their understanding, in teaching that substance which was present under that they saw, to be his own body straight when it was so named. And in so much as the same form of bread tarrieth after consecration which was there before, the pronoun (this) doth always direct their eyes to one and the same form of wheaten bread, which was there when Christ took it first. and also it insinuateth to their understanding, that they must look (by the nonn that followeth the verb) to know what propriety or substance that visible thing hath. And seeing the noun which cometh after, is not the name of a q●…alitie or propriety, but the name of a substance, and of such a substance as before was not present: Without all question, these words (This is my body) have according The pr●…per sense of Christ's words. to the proper custom of speech, this meaning: The substance which is contained under this form of bread, and under the accidents the which I show you, is the substance of my body. Whereof it followeth, that the same thing is no longer the substance of bread, and consequently thereunto, that the substance of the bread is, by the word of Christ, changed into the substance Transubstantiation. of his body. And likewise when Christ said: This is my blood, the sense is: The substance which is contained unter the form of wine (which you sensibly perceive to be in this cup) is my blood, or is the substance of my blood. Which interpretation is so true, that Christ hath forced us to 1. Co. 11. Luc. 22. seek it out, in causing S. Luke, and S. Paul to write: This chalice is the new Testament in my blood. For of necessity we must interpret these words, This chalice, that is to say, the thing contained inthiss chalice, is my blood. As therefore (This) in naming the chalice doth serve to show the place & compass, within which I must look for that substance, which afterward is defined to be the blood of Christ: even so (this) being spoken of the bread which was taken into Christ's hands, doth first point unto the eye, within what circuit or quantity the mind shall seek for that substance or propriety, which afterward the mouth of Christ will declare. and when the name is once heard, it showeth it to be that substance of Christ's body. Out of which discourse we may gather two conclusions: The one, that (this) beginneth most naturally with the sense of man: The other, that it with the rest of that speech informeth the understanding of more than the eye saw. To the sense it showeth the outward forms, to the understanding it showeth pr●…cipally the inward substance under those forms. Now look by how many degrees the inward substance doth hoc, this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the noun (body.) pass the outward forms, and the end of the talk doth pass the beginning thereof: by so many the pronoun (this) rather appertaineth to the substantive (body) wherein it endeth, then to the forms, within the which it goeth about to show an invisible substance. Which being so, Hoc, (this) is in Latin of the neuter gender, because the noun substantive (corpus) body, whereunto it hasteneth) is of the neuter gender. And in the consecration of the blood Hic, (this) of certainty is the masculine gender, because sanguis blood, whereto it belongeth, is of the masculine gender. Thus the literal sense of Christ's words is declared, which ought to be taken for true, until the contrary be proved. But this propriety of words standing (as it ought to stand) mark that whensoever any Catholic saith, The substance of Christ's body and blood to be under the forms of bread and wine, he speaketh not any other thing, than the natural and proper signification of Christ's words doth give. For as he that pointing to that kind of beast (which an other cometh to learn) sayeth: This is an Oelephant, in effect saith: The substance of an Oelephant is contemned under this visible form: So Christ having taken bread, and saying, This is my body, sayeth in effect: the substance of my body is contained under the form of this bread. Only this odds is between Christ's naming and ours, that Christ's naming to making. we either must name the thing by his former substance or propriety, or else we make a lie: But Christ by 〈◊〉 one thing the name of an other, giveth it also the substance thereof whensoever Rom. 4. 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 themselves were. ¶ That the pronoun (this) in Christ's words can The 〈◊〉. Chapter. point neither to bread nor to wine. Sing Christ in his last supper assigneth none other substance to (this, and this) beside the substance of body and blood, and yet the Sacramentaries will not grant so much: I ask them (for as much as although it were so, that his words did mean an accidental token of his body and blood, that token must be grounded in some substance or other) I ask them what substance is pointed unto (as wherein the figure of Christ's body and blood may by their judgement consist) when Christ saith, this is my body and this is my blood? is any substance included in those words, or none at all? if none, (this) may not be said to be any particular nature at all. for if it be any certain thing consisting by itself, it is a substance: if it be in any other thing, it may be an accident and quality. but Christ saith not, this is in my body, but this is my body. Admit now that he meant, this doth signify my body. yet this that doth so signify, must be somewhat or other. I ask what this The optmon of the protestants. thing is, which you say doth signify or shadow Christ's body? you must needs 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) will not agree with bread or wine neither in greek, nor in latin. For hoc in latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek is of the neuter gender, but panis in latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek is of the masculine gender. therefore hoc, (this) doth neither in greek nor in latin agree with bread. likewise (hic) in latin is of the masculine gender, vinum, wine is of the neuter. and contrary wise in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the neuter gender, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine, is of the masculine gender, therefore (this) neither in greek nor in latin can be referred to wine. Now to say, hoc, this thing, (understanding, which is bread) is to correct the words of Christ, as though he had said: hoc quod est panis, est corpus meum, this which is bread is my body. & yet if it had been so said, the sense must have been thus: the substance of bread doth signify the body of Christ. for that thing which is bread, is to say, the substance of bread. which if it The substance of bread is not pomted unto. were so, every substance of bread should be the sign of Christ's body, because that which the substance of one loaf is, the substance of an other loaf is also in the same kind. & consequently whensoever any man eateth any substance of bread without examining 1. Co. 11. himself, he is guilty of the body of Christ. Again when it were said, hic est sanguis meus: hic, being of the masculine gender, could not be expounded by, hoc quod est vinum, (this thing which is wine) for it standeth not neutrally to signify this thing, but only agreeth with the noun blood, which followeth after, when it is said: this is my blood. The pronoun is put in the same case, gender, and number whereof the substance is, whereunto it pointeth. as when Christ Mat. 21. said: hic est haeres, this is the heir, hic, this, is of the masculine gender, aswell as the noun substantive, h●…res, an heir. h●…c est hora Luc. 22. vestra, this is your hour. As hour is of the femine gender, so is the pronoun haec, this. hoc est opus Dei, this is the work of joan. 6. God. as opus work is of the neuter gender, so is the pronoun, hoc, that. But when Christ took bread & blessed, he pointed not This, and bread be not of one gender. to bread by the pronoun (this) as to the substance which should remain at the end of his whole talk. for bread is of the masculine gender, both in greek and latin. Again let us consider, that it is all one to say, hoc est corpus Cyprian. de coena Domini not far from the beginning meum, and haec est caro mea. in so much that S. Cyprian rehearseth the words of Christ's 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 tha●… haec may be referred to it, but only of the masculine gender. Therefore if Christ had pointed finally to bread, he must have said, neither hoc est corpus, nor haec est caro, but hic est corpus meum, understanding to hic, the substantive (panis) and in Greek it This, in English is of all genders. should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In English (this) is of all genders, and therefore it can not be exemplified in our barbarous tongue, which thereby appeareth not so meet to have the word of God handled literally in it, as the learned tongues are, although it is able enough to receive an interpretation of God's 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 vinum, is good latin among the Sacramentaries. Thus make they the wisdom of God to speak at this time, who say that the pro noun (this) determineth and pointeth to bread, as to a thing that still remaineth in his old substance, whereas bread is of the masculine gender, and the pronoun hoc, (this) of the neuter gender. and God provided of purpose that the article (this) should neither agree with bread nor with wine, but only with body and blood, or with the chalice wherein the blood is contained. ¶ That the pronoun (this) can not point to any certain act, which is a doing about the bread and wine. The v. Chapter. Lest any man should think that in these words (this is (This) doth not stand to signify many things. my body) the prononu●… (this) doth stand to signify neither bread nor body, but only this thing which is a doing, whereby a certain taking, and breaking, and eating of bread in the remembrance of Christ should be meant: he must understand that every thing which is so distinctly showed, is a particular thing, and it is but one thing. otherwise it should have been said in the plural number, these things are the tokens of my body & of my blood. But now sith it is said in the singular number (this) it must needs be only one singular thing which is spoken of. Therefore if you will have (hoc) this thing, to appoint to a doing, name which doing it is. For Christ did many things in his supper. He took bread, he blessed, he broke, he gave. To which doth (hoc, this thing) point? To all it can not, for they all be not only this All the doings be not pointed unto. one thing in the singular number, but many things. If any one be named, I ask which of them? If breaking (which is one of the most like of all outward actions to signify the death of Christ) I ask how you are able to prove, that breaking is pointed unto? surely S. Paul saith, the bread which we break is the 1. Co. 10. communicating of our lords body. which could not be so, if the words of Christ, which make it the sign of his body, had not been first spoken over the bread. For (as justinus Martyr, Gregorius Nyssenus, S. Ambrose, 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 pointed unto. S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and briefly all the Fathers teach) the bread is consecrated by these words of Christ, This is my body. And surely before it be consecrated there unto, bread can not signify Christ's body, nor it can not be to us the communicating of Christ's body. Therefore seeing the bread which we break is the communicating of our Lord's body (as S. Paul sayeth) the words which were spoken over the bread before the breaking of it, can not presently point to that which is not yet done. And consequently (this) doth not point unto the act of breaking, nor unto the act either of giving or of eating, which followed after the breaking. If any man say, that Christ whiles he spoke these words, did break the bread, or eat it him self, or make his Apostles eat it: the vuiversall custom of the Church in all ages doth show the contrary. Which all, even from the Apo●…les time have used to consecrate and to say these words: this is my body, and this is my blood: over bread and wine at the holy altar and table, a good time before the breaking or eating and drinking of them, Of S. james. Of S. 〈◊〉. Of S. Chrysost. Of S. Chrysost. as the ancient Liturgies manifestly declare. Besides, if the act of breaking, whiles it is adding, did only betoken to us his body: when that act were passed, the sign of his body were ended. and so we should not eat the sign of Christ's body. Moreover, seeing neither the chalice nor the wine is broken, therein should be no sign of Christ's blood at all. On the other side, if eating or drinking only were the sign Eating or drinkig is not alone pointed unto. 1. Cor. 10 pointed unto, it should be no sign before the eating, and thereupon it would follow, that the bread which we break is not the communicating of Christ's body, sith no sign at all is made therein, if the whole sign depend upon the eating alone. For if the sign depended of both together, it could not be said, this, i●… the singular number as I said before, but it must have been said: these acts and these doings about these creatures do signify the body of Christ. But seeing it is said, this is my body, which (this) can point but to one thing, and seeing that one thing can be neither bread (wherewith it agreeth not in gender) nor any one act or doing (which alone doth not signify the body of Christ) doubtless (this) The body or blood is only pointed unto. can by no means be referred to any other word or deed, then to the true substance of Christ's body under the form of bread, and unto the true substance of his blood under the form of wine. The which thing once granted, after that Christ hath taken bread and blessed, and said, this is my body, whatsoever is done either in breaking or in eating, or in giving, and taking, doth siguifie the body of Christ, because it is done to that thing and about it, which is the true substance of his body. the breaking The brea king. of the form of bread, under which the body is, doth signify the body of Christ once to have been broken with scourging The taking. and nailing to the Cross, and now also to be impassable. The taking and touching signifieth the visible and palpable body, which walked upon the earth preaching visibly to his disciples. The eating signifieth it to be the true bread of life, which who so eateth The eating. Luc. 22. The giving. worthily, he shall live for ever, and shall eat it in heaven after a new manner. The giving of it doth signify, how Christ gave it ●…or us to death. To be short whatsoever is done about the which is the body o●… Christ, doth signify somewhat either passed or to come in that same body, & it doth signify it so much the more, because the presence of Christ's glorious substance is such, that nothing done to it can hurt it, or bring any detriment thereunto. For the breaking, taking, giving, and eating is done in a figure and mystery, the which figure is grounded in the real presence of Christ's body. which if it were not under the forms of bread & wine, the things said & done about the Sacrament should not be so mystical and miraculous, as they are. ¶ That the pronoun (this) pointeth finally to the body The vi. Chapter. and blood, and particularly sig●…fieth in Christ's supper one certain kind of fo●…e. seeing it is declared, that the pronoun (this) pointeth neither to bread & wine, nor to any act done about them, it remaineth that it pointeth only to the body and blood of Christ, and so long as the words of Christ are a speaking (which in so few words is not long) the pronoun s●…pendeth his last determination. And Theop. ●… Math. 26 when all the words are ended, his pointing is also ended. Theresore 〈◊〉 expounding what hoc, this, doth finally mean, writeth ●…us: Dicens hoc est corpus meum, ostendit quod ipsum corpus domini est panis qui sanctificatur in altario, & non respondens figura. Christ saying, this is my body, showeth that the bread which is consecrated on the altar, is the self body of Christ, & not a figure which answereth thereunto. And again in an other place he saith: hoc est corpus meum, hoc inquam, quod sumitur. This is In Marc. 14. my body, this I say, which you take. So that by his 〈◊〉 (this) pointeth not finally to that wheaten bread which Christ took, neither to any doing of his, but to the body of Christ which he made by his words at the holy altar and table, and which the Apostles took afterward at the hands of Christ. Howbeit if any man be so hasty, that he will not tarry the speaking of four words, to know what particular & final substance the pronoun, hoc (this) doth point unto, but will needs know what it meaneth as soon as it came out of Christ's mouth, until the last word be pronounced: I answer, that by the circumstances which are about and concern the deeds and words of Christ, it may be well said, that the pronoun (this) beside his general signisication This, doth mean particular lie this eatable thi●… (which is declared before) doth here also particularly betoken, even from the beginning of Christ's 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 chief use is to be eaten) as the progress which tendeth to a supper, the substance whereof is eating, & the end, which is the bod●… of Christ made present to be eaten. So (this) doth truly always signify this food or eateable substance, of which particular pointing and signification I shall have occasion to speak more at large hereafter, when I come to confer the holy scriptures together which belong to the supper of Christ. ¶ The naming of the chalice proveth not the rest of The seven. Chapter. Christ's words to be figurative. HEreof the Sacramentaries make no small boast, that Christ said: this chalice is the new Testament in my blood. 1. Cor. 11 It can not be denied (say they) but the name of chalice is figuratively put for that, which is in the chalice. Why may not The obietion. therefore other words in the supper be also figuratively taken? Masters, it followeth not, because one word is evidently figurative, The answer. that therefore another word must be also figurative, except one reason be in both words. Which in our case is clean contrary, and that for diverse causes. for all men, that is to say, as well catholics as Protestants and Sacramentaries confess the word 1. (chalice) to be figurative, and they are compelled so to do, because if we take the name of (chalice) properly, we must confess, sith Christ saith this chalice is the new Testament in my blood, that a material cup of wood, glass, or silver is the new Testament, or the cause of our sins to be forgiven, which no reasonable man will so much as dream of. Seeing then we are constrained by force The Cha louse. of reason to say the (chalice) to stand for that, which is in the chalice, and no like reason presseth us to think the like of the verb (est, is) or of the noun (corpus, body) or of the noun (sanguis, blood) the example which moveth us to grant a figure in the one word, keepeth us from suspecting any figure in the other words, which are nothing like. Secondly, whereas S. Luke and S. Paul named the chalice, 2. The chalice expoumded in holy scripture. S. Matthew and S. Mark speak not of it, giving us to understand, that the meaning of Christ was only to make and show the blood of the new Testament, which was in the chalice. As therefore the holy Ghost provided for a sufficient declaration of tha●… word which was in deed figurative: so leaving the verb (est, is) and the nouns (body and blood) still in they proper signification, without mention of sign or figure, it hath sufficiently witnessed that they were to be taken as they did naturally sound to the common ●…ares of men. Thirdly although the word (calix) a cup or chalice were at the 3. beginning appointed to signify chiefly that vessel, which holdeth liquor me●…e to be drunk: yet by common use of speaking (which The chalice by use of speakig signifieth the drink in it. is far the chief governor in the understanding of words) we being at the table mean by the cup that, which is in the cup. in so much that if a man sitting at the table, bid the cup be given to another, no servant is lightly so rude, as to give a stranger the cup without drink in it. now when words are as commonly used in their figurative sense as in their natural, than each way the sense is proper enough, in so much as the use of speaking is equal to the first propriety of the word. Fourthly, seeing Christ sitting at the table, & in the sight of his 4. Apostles, taking the cup of wine mingled with water, blessed, & This chalice where in liquor is known to be can not make the speech obscure. gave thanks, 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 doubt could rise to his Apostles through naming that chalice which the Apostles themselves knew to contain a certain liquor, but that notwithstanding marvelous great doubt would have risen to them and to all Christians, if he should have used (est for significat) and body & blood, for the sign of body & blood, for so much as they could not conjecture any other meaning of these words, than they did outwardly sound. For it is no common use of speaking, but only both seldom used and not understanded, but by great doctors and interpreters, who know and discern tokens of things to be called sometime by the names of the things themselves. Fifthly, when with a figurative word an other is immediately 5. joined, which doth expound the figure, the whole speech is rather to be accounted proper, then figurative: for so much as the weaker part yieldeth always to the stronger, even as in 〈◊〉 when one noun adjective serveth two substantives of diverse genders, we make it agree with the masculine as with the more worthy gender. When Christ said to S. Peter, I will give thee Matt. 16. the keys, he spoke figuratively (concerning the name of keys) but if we mark that he joined thereunto, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and yet again, what soever thou bindest or losest in earth, and so forth: by these words the former speech is made plain, as if it were not figurative at all: right so when he saith, The word io●…ned with the name of 〈◊〉, maketh a●… pla●…. this chalice is the new testament in my blood, the naning of the blood is so plain a declaration how the name of chalice is taken, that all is one as if it had been said, this is my blood of the new testament, which is in the chalice. See then for God's sake, how far the figurative naming of the 6. chalice is from any figurative naming of the body or blood. As to the chalice such words were joined which did show the name to b●… figurative: so to the body and blood such were joined, as forbid us to think the like of them, not only because Christ said: This is my body & my blood (which surely were enough to prove that I say, because the body and blood of Christ wa●… not figurative but true and natural) but also because to the naming of Christ's body it is joined in S. Luke: The which is given for you, Luc. 22. And to the name of the cup, the which is shed for you. Last of all the naming of the cup or chalice was provided of 7. God for a marvelous declaration and setting forth of the real blood of Christ made within it. For whereas the new preachers bid us list our minds to heaven to receive the blood of Christ by faith, spirit, and understanding (as though it were not present at Christ's own table) the holy Ghost knowing that afterward such false reachers should arise, provided that the words of Christ should not only be reported (This is my blood of the new testament 26. as S. Matthew & S. Mark write) but also (as S. Luke & S. Paul 14. have penned them) this chalice is the new testament in my blood, this cahlice, that is to say the thing c●…nteyned in this chalice, to 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 is ●…amed. the intent we should be sure, that the said blood was even within the compass of this chalice, and not only apprehended by saith and spirit. so that even the word (chalice) although by exact account of grammar it stand figuratively, yet by common use it signifieth the liquor in it, and that liquor is expressly named the blood of Christ, and that blood is declared to be present in the very chalice. ¶ That the words of Christ's supper be proper, The 〈◊〉. Chapter. though many other be figurative and unproper. VUhy these words of Christ (this is my body and this is my blood) can not be like the other, where Christ is said to be joan. 15. 1. Cor. 10 the door, the way, the true vive, and john Baptist to be Elias, or the rock to be Christ, it shallbe more particularly declared in the last chapter of the book. Now it shall suffice to say, that they were never taken to mean as they seem to stand, therefore the general consent of all Christians taking them for figurative, is an evident cause why they must be confessed to be figurative. Universal consent is a way to know figurative speeches. And that uninersail consent is of more importance, than the proper signification of the words. But on the other side the words of Christ in his last supper have not only no such universal judgement and consent against them, but rather they always have been taken to be meant of the presence of his own body & blood, accordingly as they do sound. Again none of all those propositions doth so much as seem to sound like the which Christ said in his supper: This is my body. For partly they do name two several natures, as Th●… Baptist & Elias, whereas these words (this is my body) name but one: partly they speak not of any certain thing (as Christ's body) or if they do so, yet they point not to it as to a thing present. A door and the door, is not (this door) this doth express a great deal 〈◊〉 door. The door. Chi●…ore more than a, or the. A door is meant generally of any door, the door of a certain door spoken of before, but this door pointeth presently to the door whereof he speaketh. Christ's words were directed to one thing only, which is made & showed together, when the Godhead maketh the which by his manhood he pointeth to, saying (this is my body) so that in deed in all scripture there is no like speech to that, which Christ used in his last supper, much less any like is figurative, and least of all that itself can be proved figurative, while it is compared with other speeches. Let all the Sacramentaries, show where that proposition is figurative, which first suiteth and maketh any thing and presently pointeth to the same, saying, this is this, or this is that, as it is said: this is my body, and this is my blood. For whereas it is said in Ezechiel: this Jerusalem, it is nothing like, because Ezec. c. 5 it was said rather by the occasion of expounding a parable, then at the doing or making of any thing by him that said, this is Jerusalem. But Christ when he made his supper and instituted his chief Sacrament, said of that which was in his hands, this is my body. What ignorance then is it, to say these words be unproper, because other words (from which they differ) be unproper? ¶ It is showed by the circumstances of Christ's supper, that he made his real flesh and blood present under the forms of bread and wine, and consequently that his words are proper. NExt unto the proper signification and common sense of The circum stance of the speech is to be considered. Aug. lib. quaest. 83 q. 69. speaking, the circumstances of the talk are to be considered, of which kind of handling matters belonging to divinity, S. Augustine giveth us a learned rule, writing thus: Solet circumstantia illuminare sententiam, cum ea quae circa scripturam sunt praesentem quaestionem contingentia, diligenti discussione tractantur. The circumstance of the scripture is wont to give light to the meaning thereof, when those things which are about the scripture (to wit, which go before and follow after) concerning that which is presently in question, are diligently examined. by this rule we have now to consider about the supper of Christ, and about the meaning of deeds & words there in, who spoke, or did, when, where, to whom, upon what occasion, how and in what manner, what were the words, for what cause, & to what effect or purpose he spoke or did, with such like respects. For I will at this time so examine the last supper, to prove The int●…t of the author in this chapter. thereby the real prensence of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, that I will show every part thereof, whether it consist in deed or in word, to help much rather, then to hinder any thing, the catholic belief of the said real presence, and consequently that no reason at all should either sufficiently or meanly move any man, to think the words of Christ to be figurative, or unproper. and truly whether the words be proper, the body and blood, which they signify as present, must needs be present, or else whether the body and blood be proved present, the words which signify so much, must needs be proper. ¶ The first circumstance of Christ's last supper is to consider who made it. THe maker of the supper is almighty, as being the natural joan. 1. & 14. God joan. 6. Sent 〈◊〉 flesh. son of God. so that no man may discredit his words for lack of power to bring them to pass. The same Son of God was sent of his Father to take man's flesh, to th'end he might in that flesh bring us the everlasting meat of the divine substance. Neither came he in flesh to bring us the meat of his Godhead To men that were flesh. in faith and spirit only. for so the Godhead was eaten ●…y Abraham, Moses, David and other 〈◊〉 men (〈◊〉 not so plentifully before the incarnation of Christ) but Christ ●…me not only to make us believe the better in God, but also to make our weak bodies and imprisoned sonles partakers of his Godhead by a better and higher mean, then by our faith alone. ●…or our faith is received Rom. 12. Col. 2. in measure, but the 〈◊〉 of Godhead dwellech corporally in Christ's flesh. & so his flesh r●…ally eaten of us, with due faith & charity, is a marvelous instrument to give us the everlasting meat, and to join us most 〈◊〉 to the spirit of God. Mark well, that concerning the eating God by saith and mind, we approve it as a special good thing, but we say farther, that God came in flesh, to be eaten in flesh of them, that consist of flesh. And therefore having said: my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven, and I am the bread of life (which hitherto is meant to be eaten by faith) he also goeth forward Promiseth flesh. promising an eating to come hereafter, that is to say, in his last supper, and thereof saith: the bread which I will give is my flesh, and he that eateth me tarrieth in me. The same Christ cometh in his own person to perform the giveth flesh. former promise, not saying only, believe ye in God and in me as I teach you, but saying and doing, that is to wit, taking, blessing, giving, and saying: take, eat, this is my body which is given for you. 〈◊〉 this only point were deeply pondered, it seemeth to me He is to be believed that the almighty speaker so sent, so promising, and so doing aught to be of such authority, that nothing should stay us to believe that external thing to be his body, whereof he said: this is my body. Let us now add hereunto the wisdom, the providence, the truth, and the goodues of the speaker, who would not of purpose blind his own spouse with figurative words both of promise and of performance: and yet the one joined with the other, and the person (who both speaketh and doth) well considered, make to men of reason such persuasion of a proper speech, that no sufficient cause is left, why to presume those words to be figurative. Of this first circumstance Eusebius Emissenus writeth: Euseb. homil. 5. in pasch. Ad cognoscendum & percipiendum sacrificium veri corporis, ipsa te roboret potentia consecrantis. Let the very power of him that consecrateth it strengthen thee, to know & to perceive the sacrifice of the true body. Again: recedat omne 〈◊〉 ambiguum. qui auctor est muneris, ipse etiam testis est veritatis. Let all doubtfulness of infidelity departed, he that is the author of the gift, is himself also the witness of the truth. ¶ The second circumstance may be, to consider the time when the supper was made. THe time of speaking was the night before Christ departed Men speak most aware lie toward their death. 1. Co. 11. out of this world, at what time men are wont to speak most plainly. And S. Paul himself noted that circumstance, saying: our lord in the night that he was betrayed took bread etc. For when the hour of death draweth near, men use manifestly to show their last will without all figures & tropes, as nigh as the matter will suffer. And how much more would the wisdom of God use words warily in this case? specially seeing S. Augustin witnesseth, that he gave this Sacrament after supper, Aug. ep. 118. ad ja nuar. when his passion was at hand, to th'intent the highness of the mystery might the better stick in the hearts and memory of the disciples. whereas otherwise the Church is taught by the holy ghost, to receive this Sacrament fasting, for the honour (saith S. Augustine) of so great a Sacrament. Let us now a little weigh with ourselves, whether any good Christ 〈◊〉 not bethought less discrete in his words then other men would 〈◊〉. and discrete man, knowing his parting hour out of this world to be at hand, will speak of purpose such words of ordaining matters to be done after his death, the which words he foreseeth will cause his heirs either to sin grievously, if they observe them plainly as they should, or else to have an inward dissension, if some affirm them to be plain, others denying and 〈◊〉 them ●…o be figurative. for if Christ's words be in dedt figurative, the catholics sin, both in teaching the contrary, and in adoring Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and 〈◊〉, which thing they are constrained to do by the force of the words. and then they are guilty of 〈◊〉, who possibly can find no cause, why they should not believe their master so speakig and doing as he spoke and did. and thus lieth the ●…ander upon Christ himself. but if the words be in deed plain, than Christ is purged, and the only salt is in them, who will not believe. I think it far the better to believe the wonderful discretion of Christ, ●… so 〈◊〉 him, to mistrust the infidelity of wicked men. ¶ The third circumstance concerning the persons, who were at the last supper. THe hearers were his twelve Apostles, who should instruct the whole world of that, which they learned of Christ, The Apostles have 〈◊〉 Christ's words to us without any mention of a figure. in this very business whereof we talk. and so they did, never leaving in any piece of all their writings or preachings, that Christ lest a figure of his body without the very truth thereof contained in the Sacrament of the altar. To the same Apostles it was given to know and understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. where●…ore it is very Math. 13. iveredible, that the greatest mystery of the whole Church was either hidden from them by Christ, or by them hidden from us. Parable●… hide the truth in part. Math. 13. Yet it can not be denied but it is in some part hidden, if that words which report it, be figurative and parabolical. for parables are spoken (as Christ himself witnesseth out of Esaias the Prophet) so, that men hearing do not understand in heart the things which are spoken. Thirdly, the Apostles were those who tarried with Christ at Capharnaum, where he promised his flesh and blood. therefore if joan. 6. Christ had then spoken figuratively to the people, yet now at the least he should and would have declared the matter more plainly. and so he did in deed, not verily adding any word, which might show his former talk to have bene figurative (concerning the substance of flesh to be eaten, & the substance of wine to be drunken) but only teaching the manner of giving them his flesh and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, to be figurative and mystical, because they are not given to fill the belly, but to feed the soul, & not so much for the flesh's sake, which we 〈◊〉, as for the spirit & Godhead which replenisheth that flesh of Christ. ¶ The fourth circumstance concerning the ending of the old passouer, and the making of a new. THe occasion moving Christ at his last supper, rather than at any other time to say over bread (This is my body) and over wine (This is my blood) was the setting and placing Leo in serm. de pass. do. of the new Paschal Lamb in stead of the old. For lest his Church should be without a mystical sacrifice (called according to the law of Moses a passouer, that is to say, a sacrifice betokening Exo. 12. our passing over the sea of sin, and our 〈◊〉 to the Land of grace and life which we look for) as soon as the old Lamb 1. Cor. 5. joan. 1. was eaten, and the time come that shadows and figures should be fultilled by the death of Christ the true passouer, and the true Lamb of God: Strait way he began to make this new Sacrament in stead of the old paschal Lamb, that the Church of Ireneus lib. 4. ca 32. Leo de pass. do. serm. 7. Christ might have a new oblation, which should contain really the true Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. For as Leo the great sayeth: Vetus Testamentum consummabat, & nowm Pascha condebat, he ended the old Testament, and made a new passouer. As therefore the old paschal Lamb was really present and really eaten: so much more the true passouer jesus Christ, in the banquet which himself instituted, is really present to be really eaten, except we shall say, that his ●…ew banquet is less true and really, than the old was, or that the old being an undoubted figure of the new, did not by the eating thereof declare, that the new paschal Lamb jesus Christ should be also eaten, not only by saith (which kind of eating Christ, both Moses and Phinees had) but even externally under the form of bread, the which kind of eating Christ's flesh, the old Fathers had not, Heb. 7. joan. 1. because the law brought nothing to perfection. but we have it, because the truth is made by jesus Christ, who delivered us his own flesh to be eaten really, and in deed. ¶ The fifth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper. AS the ending of the old ceremony moved Christ to institute a new, so the joy which he took of that change was Lucae. 22. so great, that he could not forbear, but said to his Apostles: Desy derio desyderavi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum, antéquam patiar, I have desired with desire to eat this passouer with you, before I suffer. And as S. Chrysostom witnesseth, he did really Chryso. in Math. ho. 83. receive the mysteries at his supper, to encourage his Disciples to receive them without all scruple or fear. Neither doth it skill to my purpose, whether the words be first referred to the old paschal Lamb, or to the n●…w. If they be referred to the new alone, Christ desireth only to eat his own body with his Apostles. But Christ could not eat it by faith & Christ did not ea●… his own flesh by faith but in deed. devotion, sith he had it present in a better manner than so. therefore by showing himself desirous of eating it, and by his own eating it, we learn that it is his own real substance, & not only an effectual sig●…e thereof. And it is not to be wondered, that he will gladly eat his own flesh (namely in such an unspeakable mystery, as himself hath prepared) because thereby (as S. Chry Hom. 83. sostom writeth) he encouraged his Apostles, not to be afeard ther●…of. And why should not Christ do that thing for our great profit, seeing that other men have often times eaten their own flesh even in a gross man●…r either for hunger, or for anger, or fancy, without doing so great good to themselves or to any other, as Christ in this fact hath done to all his Church? Or is it more strange to eat his own flesh in so miraculous a manner (as it is present in) then voluntarily to give the same flesh to shameful death for our sakes? Mark, that I say, Christ did eat his own flesh, not as butchers and cooks dress it, but in so pure a sort as Angels feed on it, by having it really present with them, and yet in so true a sort, as men receive meat into their bodies. For Psal. 77. herein man eateth Angel's food, in that he eateth the same spirit of God in Christ's flesh, the which feedeth the Angels really in heaven. Now for Christ to eat his own body in truth of substance after that Angelical manner, it is no absurdity at all. But for him to eat it by faith, it were a thing clean impossible. And to eat it in abare figure without saith, it were to lack the chief point that is requisite to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament. If the words be first referred to the old paschal Lamb, the 〈◊〉 yet is all one, because it is certain he desired not to eat the The old Lamb was not desired for his own sake. old Lamb, for the Lamb's sake, but only for that it was the last eating of the Lamb, as the which was out of hand to be taken away, and to have the flesh of the true Lamb of God given to the faithful in stead thereof. In either of ●…oth ways, the desire and joy of Christ was not finally for eating the paschal Lamb (wherein according to the Prophet's words he had no delight) Psal. 49. Malac. 1. but for the eating of his own passouer, which can be none other thing beside his own flesh. Therefore Tertullian expounding this matter, noteth well, Indignum esse, ut quid alienum concupisceret Tertul. l. 4. adver. Marcio. Deus: How it were unseemly, that God should desire any thing, which were other than his own. With whom S. Chrysostom agreeing, writeth: Non solummodo Pascha, sed ho, Chryso. in Ps. 37. in quo cum praeterijsset figura, peracta erat veritas. Christ desired not simply a passouer, but this passoner, wherein (the figure being passed over) the truth was celebrated. And as he sayeth in Chryso. in Math. hom. 82. & 83. an other place, Wherein he would deliu●…r the mysteries and new things unto us. Lo that which Christ desired was the truth itself, to wit, his own substance, because it being united to the Godhead was the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure, and that substance is the meat of Christ's supper, and not only the eating thereof by faith. ¶ The sixth circumstance concerning the love which moved Christ to institute this Sacrament. WHereas Christ through all his life had loved his joan. 13. In fine di lexit eos Church, he both continued that his love even to the last end of his life, and spent his own life for the same love, and most evidently showed that his love the night before his passion: first, by washing most humbly his Apostles feet, and then by giving his own body and blood unto them, in so much, that the said Sacrament is thereof called, Signum unitatis, & vinculum charitatis: The sign of unity, and the bond of charity, Chrys. hom. 61. ad Anti. Chrys. 1. Cor. homi. 24. Whereof S. Chrystom writeth thus: Christ hath mingled himself together with us, & hath tempered his body into us, to th'end we may be made one ●…rtein thing, as it were a body joined to the head: Ardenter enim amantium hoc est. For that is a point of them who love fervently. the like he saith also upon S. Paul. Seeing now love was one of the causes which moved Christ to institute this holy Sacrament, let us conjecture by that circumstance, whether it be more like that he left a piece of wheaten bread for a sign of his love, or else left the best & greatest jewel he had, great love calleth the greatest gif●…s. to wit, his own substance under the form of bread, to witness the same excessive love towards us. I think it more than probable, that sithence he was able to give the substance of his own body to us, by turning bread into it, and having taking bread, said after thanks given: this is my body, I think it more than probable, that his great love did rather give his real body under that blessed sign of bread, then that he would say he gave us his body, & yet in deed gave us wheaten bread, which were less than his body. Howsoever shamefast men are wont to speak modestly to them whom they love best, surely they will not blush to do most bo●…tifully for them: much less may we think that Christ, loving us so well, spoke more than he did perform. ¶ The seven. circumstance of washing the Apostles feet. THe Paschal lamb being eaten, Christ sat down at the table joan. 13. with his disciples, He arose again, laid his garments down, girded himself with a towel, poured water into the basin, and began to wash his Apostles feet, and to wipe them, showing thereby, both his own humility, & also of what a great mystery they should be made partakers. For the worthy coming whereunto, not only their mind should be tried and purified, but also their bodies, yea even the the uttermost parts of their affections should be purged and cleansed. For which cause ever sins the Apostles 〈◊〉 (as it may appear Dionys. de Eccl. Hierar. cap. 3. by the practice of the Church, and by S. ●…ionysius the Areopagite) the Catholic Bishops and Priests have used (before they come to consecrated the dreadful mysteries) to wash the very tops of their hands. What to do I pray you? w●…ether because they should come to handle bread and wine? then might Christ have washed his disciples hands, as he did their feet, before they had eaten the Paschal lamb: for it was not eaten without bread, neither without a cup of wine also, if we shall believe S. Hierom, S. Hieron. in Math. 26. Luc. 22. Bede, and Theophilact, who think such a cup of wine, as the jews drank of after the paschal lamb, to be mentioned in S. Luke. And why is not the bread & wine, which was joined with the flesh of the paschal lamb, it being set also to signify the same Christ, for which the bread and wine of the new testament is appointed (as the Protestants teach) why is not, I say, that bread & wine as good as this which we have? one God made both, and both be assigned to sh●…ow one Christ: both oblations, both Sacraments, both be 〈◊〉 of the same men in the same night and place. And yet so much 〈◊〉 is between the bread and wine of the old 〈◊〉 and that of the new, that it was sufficient for the one to be eaten with 〈◊〉 not unclean, but the other 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 the bodies purified for the more worthy receavig Why the bread of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that of 〈◊〉. thereof. 〈◊〉 not because it is bread and wine still, but because it is made the 〈◊〉 of life, the food of Angels, the body and blood of 〈◊〉. Hence cometh all this preparation, hence cometh the difference between the old & new 〈◊〉. For although they meet in one signification, yet in substance the one was earthly, the other in substance is heavenly: the one published by Moses, the other of Christ's own ins●…utiō: and for that cause y● one a bare shadow of the truth, the other a truth of the shadow, and also covering the ●…me truth in a mystery. ¶ The 〈◊〉. Circumstance, concerning the place of the last supper. THe place where Christ kept his supper, was chos●…n & appointed, not without a miracle, by giving his disciples a Luc, 22. strange sign how to go to an unknown house, by following him that should carry a pot of water into it. That house Nicephorus and Damascene writ to have been about the mount Siou, which standeth in holy scripture (even by Niceph. li. 1. 〈◊〉. Eccles. cap 28. Damasc. de orth. fi. lib. 4. cap 14. Gal. 4. Hebr. 11. the inrerpretation of S. Paul) to signify the City and Church o●… God: all which things do portend that some great and unaccustomed matter shallbe done in such a place so assigned. In the house a fair parlour was decked, and adorned, and therem a table at the which Christ sitting down made thereupon his maundy. Of which table (for the meats sake which should be given at it) the holy Ghost had before prophesied, by king David, saying: thou hast prepared a table in my sight. And by Solomon, wisdom hath set forth his table. Likewise the table whereupon the twelve Psal. 22. Prou. 9 levit. 24 loaves of the show bread stood in the tabernacle of the law before the face of God, shadowed this table of Christ's supper, whereat the twelve Apostles sat before the face of Christ our Lord, he being the bread of life, and giving to every of them a loaf under the form whereof his own substance was contained. Christ then making his supper upon this table, and thence distributing his meat unto the Apostles, doth us to understand, that whatsoever he feedeth us withal either in spirit or in body at his supper, is reall●… present upon the very board, whereupon Christos supper is upon the table itself. he did eat. For Christ at this time is not talking in parables, not disputing in the synagogue, not preaching in the temple▪ he is in a house, in a parlour, at a board, showing thereby where his banquet is exhibibed, where it is served, and whence it is received. We are not now occupied in spiritual praicr alone, but also in corporal eating and drinking. If the everlasting meat of Christ's supper be only spiritual, and only received in mind by faith, let the house be thought only to be spiritual, the parlour to be spiritual, and the board to be spiritual. Let us deny that any of If the table be r●…ll, much more the meat. these things were natural and real. but if all the rest be confessed real, seeing all they are provided for the meats sake which shallbe eaten from the table, what an impudent folly is it to say, the body and blood of Christ (which only is the everlasting meat of this banquet) are taken neither in hand, nor in mouth, nor be not at all upon the material board, whence Christ visibly delivered them to his Apostles own hands, bidding them take and eat. ¶ The nyntenth circumstance of the taking bread and wine. OUr saviour sitting down at the table took bread, and the cup of wine. and he took it, who never touched the thing Luc. 6. which he did not sanctify, because virtue went forth of him, even by touching his garments. Moreover it is to be thought he took such bread, as the pres●… The bread ●… Christ took was already hallowed. feast of Caster (which was begun) might suffer: Unleavened I mean, and such as presently was upon the table at the eating of the Paschal Lamb. The which surely was already figurative bread, it was already a token of Christ, and already was partaken of the disciples. Shall we think then that Christ goeth about to do that which was already done? No, no, this 〈◊〉 of his goeth to an other end, as we shall perceive anon. Thirdly, by taking bread and wine into his hands Christ The 〈◊〉 of Christ's supper is made in bread and wine. meaneth us to look for the mystery (that shallbe made) within the forms of those cratures, which he toucheth. He now pointeth not to his Apostles, as though he would only consecrate somewhat in their breasts (as Calvin dreameth). he taketh bread and wine. there we must seek the first work of his supper. Last of all, by this kind of taking bread & wine he putteth us in mind of that great Priest Melchisedech, who brought forth bread and wine, and blessed Abraham. As therefore Melchisedech took Gen. 14. bread and wine to offer them first unto God, next to communicate Abraham with them: so doth our true king of rightuousues intent to offer to God and his Father the present bread and wine which he taketh. And because the thing sacrificed is to be changed (one way or other) even in substance from the former nature which it had, as levit. 1. 2. etc. All things that be sacrificed be changed. being sometimes killed, sometimes burnt, and sometimes eaten, when Christ as the high Priest of God, for so it appeareth in the end, took bread & wine, he took them to offer, & consequently to thange them in the most perfect manner that ever could be devised, as who is the most perfect Priest. And into what substance shall Matth. 5. he change them, but into the seed of Abraham, his own body, who came to fulfil the law, and gather all things into himself, and so to bring them again unto his Father? For which cause S, Cyprian Cypr. ad Caecil. li. 2. epi. 3. showeth, that as Melchisedech first brought forth bread & wine, that so the blessing might duly be celebrated about Abraham: so Christ fulfilling the truth of the prefigured image offered bread & wine, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem, that is to say, offered his own body & blood, This great mystery could not be thoroughly handled in a whole book, much less I am able to conclude it within the compass of a circumstance. it is now s●…icient to touch the chief points of so long a matter. ¶ The tenth circumstance of blessing. OUr chief Bishop did not only take bread and wine, but he blessed also. Benedictio, blessing, is as it were a blessed Blessing. Psal. 148 saying: and because God saith, and it is done, in him blessing is doing. and in Christ who is both God man, blessing is most properly of all, a doing by the mean of saying or signifying. for not always when he blesseth, he needeth to speak: but joan. 6. if he bless as man, he maketh at the least some outward token Marc. 6. Luc. 24. of the good deed, which he is about, either by lifting up his eyes or hands to heaven, or by making the sign of the cross, or by speaking certain words. Howsoever it be, it can not be well imagined The blessing of god is a doing that blessing should be in God or in Christ without a doing, otherwise it should not differ from a simple saying, yea it should be the saying of m●…n, rather than of God. But now it is called the blessing, as if we should say, a beneficial saying, which in God always importeth a doing. In this place it showeth also, what intent and purpose Christ The word blessing showeth the intent of Christ. had. For whereas Christ might have spoken in the way of exhorting, or of prophesying, or of threatening, or of comforting, when it is written, he blessed and said: we may learn, that he speak in the way of doing, of working, of bestowing some real benefit, and of giving virtue and strength unto his word for that effect. which being so, we can not now with any pretence of honesty imagine. that those words are in the substantial parts of them 〈◊〉, at the prononcing whereof the Gospel hath rehearsed the word and virtue of blessing. For as a figurative saying is an imperfect speech, and therefore less than a common kind of speaking: so is blessing far more than any speaking, and therefore a true doing. What repugnance then were it to say, that Christ blessed at such time, as he not only did no great miracle, but also did less than the ordinary nature of speaking requireth? For ordinarily men use proper words. Well, that blessing in this place is to be referred to the words: Amb. de ijs qui init. miss. cap. 9 This is my body and this is my blood, it is the doctrine of the most ancient fathers. For S. Ambrose calleth this mystery benedictionem verborum coelestium, the blessing of the heavenvly words. and S. Cyrillus commonly nameth the blessed Eucharist, benedictionem Cyril. li. 4. in joan. c. 16. 17. 19 & lib. 11. ca 22. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24. Christi, or, mysticam benedictionem, the blessing of Christ, or the mystical blessing. The like doth S. Chrysostom writing upon S. Paul. Now for so much as blessing standeth here be●…wene taking of bread, and saying, this is my body, the which bread and body can not be truly verified of the same thing at once: the blessing so declareth the working and making present of Christ's body, that it doth intimate withal, the bread to be changed into his body. For as all blessing doth give some benefit, so when a creature taketh a benefit, it is ch●…ged into a better state. For which cause both, S. Gregory of Nyssa, and Nysse. in orat. cathechet. Amb. de ijs qui init. ca 9 S. Ambrose at●…ribute the changing of the nature of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, to the virtue of his blessing. It would pa●…e the describing of a circumstance and become a whole book, if I should prosecute any of these matters so largely as the thing would bear, which at this time I may not do. ¶ The eleventh circumstance, of gening thanks. GOd blesseth his creatures in bestowiing some benesite Blessing. upon them, and the creatures bless God by praising and rendering 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉. Blessing there●…ore in a diverse s●…se is common to God and man, but thanksgiving is the proper Thanks 〈◊〉. duty which man oweth to God. As Christ by blessing at his supper showed his intent of changing bread and wine to a better nature, than they before had: so by giving thanks, he declarerh his change to appertain to the honour of God, and that after such special sort in this Sacrament, that the whole mystery taking justin. in Apol. 2. Euchar. thereof his name, is called, as justinus the martyr doth witness, Eucharistia, that is to say, the giving of thanks. Whereas thanks be given by words alone, or deeds alone, or in both together: it can not be denied, but those are best thanks, The best kind of thanks. wherein most excellent deeds are joined with most true and real words. And who can doubt but it is a more worthy deed, to make present the body of Christ under the form of bread, that God may thence be glorified & thanked, then to make bread, still tarrying bread, to be an effectual sign of Christ's body? Who can doubt but the words of thanking are more true, which True words be most thank full. say, this is my body, and mean the same, than those which name the body of Christ, & mean the figure of his body? The Chatholiks believe that Christ gave thanks to his Father with most true words, and with most perfect deeds: in so much that we deny any perfecter work to be any where done upon any creature in the whole world, then that was, wherein Christ wrought his body present under the form of bread, to th'end it should be a sacrifice of ●…ren. lib. 4. ca 34, thanksgiving to God. And consequently we confess with S. Ireneus, eum panem, in quo gratiae actae sunt, corpus esse domini. that bread, wherein thanks were given, to be the body of our Lord. And therefore he addeth: iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia. it is not now common bread, but the Eucharist, or sacrifice of thanksgiving. The Sacramentaries on that other side make thanks to be given of Christ in bare wheaten bread and wine. They make also the words of thanksgiving figurative, and thereby untrue in their proper sense. The li●…e was done by their ancestors before, as S. Ignatius doth witness, whose words Theodorus allegeth Theod. Dial. 3. thus: Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem salvatoris nostri. They admit no sacrifices of thanksgiving nor oblations, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour. But hereof I shall speak again hereafter. ¶ The xii. Circumstance, of breaking. BY the fact of breaking the Protestants think themselves to have one circumstance making for their opinion. for what can be broken (say they) at Christ's supper, beside common bread? But if we take the bread to have been broken before the consecration thereof, they have no more advantage by the fact of breaking common bread, than they had by the fact of taking common bread. For we confess it to be still common bread, until Christ hath said of it, this is my body. After which words if we think the breaking to have been used (which is far the more probable opinion) we must needs confess the Evangelists not to have rehearsed The order of doing and speaking. all things in such order as they were done in, & we must construe the words in this wise: Christ took bread, blessed or gave thanks, and said, this is my body, and then broke, and gave 1. Cor. 10 to his disciples. the which interpretation is confirmed both by S. Paul, as I have showed in an other place, & by the daily practice of the universal church. neither have the Sacramentaries any just occasion to triumph hereof, that we grant a figure in changing the order of the words. for the figure is not in Christ's words (of which only we contend) but in the words of the Evangelists, who knowing that, before the time of their writing, the order of Christ's supper was taught & practised in a great number of Christian churches, did rather attend to write the 〈◊〉 of the matter (as in most other things they have done) then curiously to note the ceremony and order of the doing & speaking. And therefore he that will, may observe, that they ●…oyne together Christ's supper divided into 〈◊〉 and word●…. all the deeds of Christ's supper, belonging to each kind, and afterward place the words appertaining to the same, not because none of the words came not between some of the deeds, but to make short, and by division, made into deeds & words, to set like to his like. That is to wit, to join only deeds with deeds, and only words with words: the deeds were, taking bread, blessing, thanksgening, breaking, delivering, which stand together. the words are, take, eat, this is my body, do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. and those be placed altogether. Let it then go for a truth (howsoever our adversaries are now pleased withal) that Christ did break and geue after the words of consecration. yet shall it even so make more for the real presence of his body under the form of bread, them against it, because that very breaking doth show the substance of flesh (whereof Christ said this is my body) to be so really and miraculoush present, that it was contained whole under every piece and fragment of that which still appeared bread. otherwise every Apostle could not have saved one and the same whole substance (without more and less) which an other did ●…aue. but the contrary was figured in manna, of the which some gathered more and some less, but Manna. Exod. 16 neither he that gathered more had more, nor he that gathered less found less, when it came to the trial of measure. the which thing S. 〈◊〉 showeth to be verified of that Sacrament of Christ's Hieron. adversus jovinia. lib. 2. supper. and yet it were not so neither externally nor spiritually, if it were the substance of wheaten bread which the Apostles 〈◊〉 after the breaking. for then one should have the greater piece of bread, an other the less, neither could any balance or measure da●…y make them thoroughly equal. Again if (it being bread which was broken and taken) Christ be only eaten by faith and spirit, surely seeing the faith and devotion which every man hath, is in a 〈◊〉 measure from that which an other hath (according as Christ or the holy Ghost divideth Ephes. 4. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12 his 〈◊〉 to one after one sort, to an other otherwise, as he listeth to every man) neither by that meaves one should have as much as the other. And that especially, because some receive life everlasting by eating that, which was broken to them, and other eat their own damnation. And how is it (I pray you) all 1. Cor. 11 one measure to them? Or is it one, to be saved & to be damned: S. 〈◊〉 having spoken of the equal measure of Manna, sayeth: Et nos Christi corpus ●…qualiter accipimus una est in mysterijs Hieron. adversus jovinia. lib. 2. sanctificatio, Domini & servi, & 〈◊〉. Quanquàm pro accipientium meritis diversum fiat, quod unum est. And we also take the body of Christ equally. there is one sanctification in the mysteries as well of the servant as of the master. Albeit according to that merits of the 〈◊〉, that is made diverse, which is one. The meaning of which words must of necessity be, that one substance of Christ's body is received in the mysteries, to wit, under the form of bread, as well by the poor as by the rich: although the devotion be diverse, wherewith it is received. To one it is more meritorious in effect, and to an other less meritorious: but in substance it is one sanctification to all men. So that the breaking and the pieces, which are made, certify us of such a mystical presence, that (as Eusebius 〈◊〉 witnesseth) Corpus hoc sacerdote dispensante tantum est in exiguo, Homil. 〈◊〉 in Pasch. quantum esse constat in toto. And again: De hoc verò pane cum assumitur, nihilo minus habent singuli quam universi: totum unus, totum duo, totum plures sine diminutione percipiunt. This body (when the Priest 〈◊〉) is as great in the small piece, as it is great in the whole (loaf). of this bread when it is taken, every man hath no less, than altogether have. 〈◊〉 hath all, twain all, 〈◊〉 have all without diminishing. These words I say can be 〈◊〉 neither of material bread outwardly broken, and delivered, the pieces whereof are unequal: nor of inward grace and faith, the measure whereof is diverse▪ but only of the substance of Christ's body, which is con●… wholly under every fragment of that which is broken, having with it none other substance, which may cause any man to have more or less than his fellow. Of this kind of breaking S. Ignatius ad Phila delphien 〈◊〉. Ignatius sayeth: unus panis omnibus confractus est. One bread is broken to all, one bread of life he meaneth. As for material loans they wer●… diverse (even in the same Church) and not always one. But the bread of Christ's supper, to wit, the subs●… of his own body is one to all. But the eating by faith is not one In Theo 〈◊〉. Eccles. to all. It is the body which is one. Therefore 〈◊〉 the archbishop of Constantinople writeth: Post elevationem statim partitio divini corporis fit. Verum enim vero tametsi in parts dividitur, individuus & insectus in singulis partibus sectorum totus agnoscitur & invenitur. Aster the elevation (which among the Breaks was done immediately before the communion) by & by a partition of the divine body is made. But truly although he be divided into parts, yet he is acknowledged and found undivided, 〈◊〉, and whole in every part of the things, which are cut. what is this to say, but that the form of bread is only broken, and the substance of Christ's body 〈◊〉 whole under every piece of the said 〈◊〉? But what speak I of the Fathers? S. Paul sayeth: The 1. Cor 10 bread which we break is it not the communicating of our Lord's body? Because we being many, are one bread, one body. For so much as we all partake of the one bread. If the bread be broken, how partake we all of one bread? That which is broken, is not according to the course of nature one in number. And surely the Corinthians had more than one loaf, which was broken among them. And yet S. Paul having showed that we break a kind of bread, sayeth: Be we never so many we partake all of the one The one bread to Christ, who 〈◊〉 breaking 〈◊〉 whole. bread. How is that? but because the bread which we break, is no material bread, but how many loaves so ever there were before, after it is once said 〈◊〉 them, This is my body, every one of them is turned into that one bread, which is jesus Christ. And that bread is distributed under the forms of common bread, and so is the scripture justified, which sayeth: The bread which we break is the communicating of Christ's body. And therefore that body being one bread itself, maketh all us one bread, which partake of that one bread. ¶ The xiii. circumstance, of giving. It is not to be thought that Christ delivered first the fragments of bread unto his Apostles, and then said the words of consecration. for than he had not delivered them a Sacrament, but only had given them the matter and element whereof the Sacrament should be made. but seeing S. Paul saith, the bread which 1. Cor. 10 we break is the communicating of Christ's body, we must rather judge, that he had consecrated his body, before he broke: as who intended by breaking to distribute the Sacrament, which was already made. And consequently as the Sacrament was made being yet in Christ's own hands, or lying upon the table before him: so it was delivered with his own hands and by Christ gave with his hands none other way (that ever I can read of) unto his Apostles. but Christ had willed them before, not to work the perishing, but the everlasting meat, which the son of man should give them, & joan. 6. which he showed afterward to be his flesh, and now fulfilling his promise, he giveth the same everlasting meat with his own hands: which could not be so, except the said everlasting meat were under the form of bread or in the chalice, which only the Apostles do see in Christ's hands, therefore it is invincibly proved by the word of God, that Christ's body, which is the everlasting meat, was and is given to them, that communicate under the forms of bread and wine. What soever is said of spiritual meat coming down from The meat of Christ's supper came from his hands. heaven (as to be a part of Christ's supper) it is utterly void and without all ground of Christ's institution, wherein, that Apostles are bound to rest upon that only which Christ doth corporally give, and when he is readen to give (the which was done with his hands) for us at the same time to look beyond him, as if an other way more might be had then at his own hands, it is a horrible blasphemy and a reproving of his gift, as insufficient. He said, I will give you the everlasting meat: the Gospel saith, he gave at his supper saying, this is my body: the Catholics believe, that he then gave the same everlasting meat, which he had promised, to wit, his own flesh and blood: the Sacramentaries say, he gave it not with his own hands. I say there is none other way of giving mentioned in the supper, and yet there only was the flesh of Christ to be given, as the Sacrament itself declareth, being called the body and blood of Christ. I allege S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. Paul, where 26. 14. 22 1. Cor. 11 it is written, that Christ broke and gave. I think our 〈◊〉 will not defy, that gift of his to have been made with Christ's corporal hands▪ therein I believe his promiss to have been fulfilled, Christ's gift in S. 〈◊〉 is meant of an external gift. therein the spiritual and everlasting meat to have been delivered. S. john witnesseth, that Christ said: dabo, I will give. the which is not meant only of a giving by faith (for so Christ had already given his flesh to diverse men) but it was meant of giving by hands, after which sort he had not yet given, now the other four 〈◊〉 before, witness that our lord in his supper dedit: gave. I say, this later word fulfilled the former promise. I ask our Sacramentaries, what other Gospel they can bring forth, wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise of The Sacramentaries can not 〈◊〉 when Christ full filled his promise. giving the bread which was his flesh, and the meat which tarrieth to life everlasting? pardon me, good reader, if in so weighty a matter zeal force to 〈◊〉 out upon these false preachers of God's word. You cruel murderers of Christian souls, where is that everlasting meat given (by your false glozing) which Christ promised, and called it his flesh? is it not given at his own supper? where then? is it given at Christ's table? by which word show you that gift, if not by the word, dedit, he gave? if that word show it, that word signifieth a gift of that which was broken mystically, & delivered with Christ's hands, appearing still bread: therefore under the form of that bread Christ's flesh was given, which is the meat that tari●…th to life everlasting. I speak so earnestly, to th'end I might provoke you to come to the trial of these effectual points in God's word. ¶ The xiiii. Circumstance of saying. Word's be sometime applied to the decking and garnishing 1. The profit of words. of á matter, the which without them might do right well, albeit it doth the better through their help. But when the thing standeth so, that either nothing at all can be understanded without words, or the chief part of the business willbe hindered for lack of them: in that case they are by all means 2. The necessity of words. as most necessary, so most diligently to be observed, as for example: we could know nothing that belongeth to 〈◊〉 matters, if God revealed it not unto us by his only son, by Angels, Apostles, prophets, or other his servants. For this reason those words are most carefully to be weighed, which come from 3. The words of God. God, and belong to causes of religion. And yet in them as every thing is most obscure: so are words more necessary for the opening of it. All mysteries by their very name pretend a secret and an obscure knowledge. Among all the 4. Mysteries. mysteries which were lest unto the Church by Christ, none hath obtained that name so peculiarly, as the Sacrament of Christ's supper. whereupon it followeth, that words are most necessary of all for the declaration of that Sacrament. therefore noman 5. The mystery of Christ's supper. ought to wonder, that with so many deeds of sitting down at the table, of eating the paschal Lamb, of washing the Apostles feet, of raking bread and wine, of blessing, thanksgiving, breaking & giving, words at the length be joined, which may show plainly the meaning, whereunto all those deeds tend. Let us not therefore follow the Sacramentaries in this behalf, who look only to this, that Christ took bread, and will not consider his promise 6. The Sacramentaries trust not Christ's words. (going before his present performance in giving that, which he promised) his blessing, and his words, Wherein he plainly saith: This is my body. But because bread was taken and still bread is tasted and seen (do●… and say Christ what him list) they will trust their eyes, and not his word. But S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Paul 〈◊〉, that Christ did these things, & said. 26. 14. 1. Co. 11. 22. S. Luke writeth he did them, saying. All mean that saying is a principal part of the supper. And that not without a cause. For whereas deeds may have many and diverse interpretations 7. deeds be doubtful. (as it appeareth by the figures of the law) except words be joined withal to make them certain and plain, we shall not know how to understand the deeds, and therefore we can not tell how to believe them. For this cause S. Chrysostom said, Chryso. in Math. Hom. 83. that whereas Christ's words ought in all things to be more credited than our senses, yet he addeth: Quod praecipue in mysterijs faciamus, the which thing let us do specially in the mysteries. Ponder then, I pray you, whether Christ did expound one parable 8. The 〈◊〉 of the supper were para bless. by an other. For the deeds of his last supper 〈◊〉 to me undoubted parables. Who could tell what the taking of bread meant after supper, or to what end the blessing and giving of thanks would go, except Christ's own words had interpreted his mystical doings? For whereas all Christ's doings are our instruction, it can not be denied, but when he took bread, blessed, gave thanks, brake and gave, those deeds were a certain advertisement or dark lesson to his Disciples. Of the which some understood more, some less, according as they had grace and wit. Now the words of Christ come to these deeds, as it were a plain 9 The words of the supper expound the parable of the deeds. exposition added to an obscure parable. And yet shall we think, that the words also are para●…? Shall we say, the thing that is spoken to give more light, bringeth more darkness? Or did the comment of Christ need again an other comment? He did certain things, and to show what he did, He said: this 10 Mere 〈◊〉 words ex pound nothing. is my body. If these words be 〈◊〉, it had been better he had said nothing, but only, do●… this for the remembrance of me. For by that means we might have done as he did, and so have referred obediently the meaning of the deed to his wisdom. But he in words expounded the secret meaning of the deeds, & said: This is my body. What reason can now excuse us, why we should not rest in the authority of the speaker, sith he spoke as an expositor or interpreter of his own doings? This reason alone ought to persuade any man. But now I will bring a greater. Not only the interpretation of Christ's deeds dependeth upon 11. The words of the supper give 〈◊〉 to y● 〈◊〉 his words, but also the whole substance of them. For he being the word of God hath ordained, that no Sacrament shallbe made without words. Yea, that words shallbe the chief part of every Sacram●…t. This appeareth in baptism where the washing with joan 3. Matt. 28. water is the less part, and the pronouncing of the words is the chief part. Hereof I have spoken before, and have declared out of S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, & S. Augustine, that the Sacraments In the second book ca 〈◊〉. have their very cheese being through words. As therefore water, bread, wine and oil, which are the inferior elements, and the base part of the Sacraments, be most commonly known and most easily gotten: so the words (which are the higher part of the same Sacraments) must be such, as be most common & easy. 12. It is no sing●… 〈◊〉 che is not known. For every Sacrament is a sign, & every sign is to give knowledge of a thing which otherwise had been secret. Now if the token itself be secret, what knowledge can rise thereof? Seeing therefore Chri●… making a Sacrament, said, this is my body, we must think either no sign at all to have been made, or else we must believe the words as they sound outwardly. ¶ The fifteenth circumstance, of taking. Sing Christ willed all the twelve Apostles (among whom judas also was (to take that one thing which he gave: we must understand such a taking, as may agree to 〈◊〉 nolesse, then to the other Apostles. Again whatsoever taking be understanded, it must appertain to corporal apprehension whereof only Christ said: take. 〈◊〉 thing therefore which was taken either was 〈◊〉 bread being a bare figure of Christ, or the body of Christ under the form of bread. For in both these ways judas might take that, which all the other took. As for any effectual sign (whereof Calvin useth to brag) no man corporally took, sith it is clear that judas took none such, & yet it was said to him no less than to the other, take. N●…w if the Apostles took only a bare 〈◊〉 of Christ's body, Christ gave no more with his hands but a 〈◊〉 sign, 〈◊〉 they ●…oke that which he gave. but Christ was not sent to give bare signs (which thing was th●… 〈◊〉 of the old law) therefore it being false that he gave a bare sign, it must needs be true, that the Apostles took at his hands his own The 〈◊〉. body under the form of bread. Neither will it serve here, if a ●…cramentarie say that Christ gave spiritually more then bare signs, and likewise that the good Apostles took more spiritually: for if The aunswer●…. we speak of spiritual gifts, they wanted ●…ot in y● 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and of the old law. Abraham believed God, and it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to justice. Elizeus received the d●…bble spirit of 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beseeching God to restore him y● 〈◊〉 of his 〈◊〉, & to strengththen joan. 6. him with his chief spirit, doth 〈◊〉 that both he had once the holy Ghost, and looked again for greater comfort of him. Seig then the good men always received ●…pirituall 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between Christ and the old law doth not stand only in ●…all gifts received in the soul, but in this, that Christ in his manhood which he took for that purpose, left us such co●…poral means and instruments of grace, as might work also upon our souls. And therefore Christ denied 〈◊〉 to be the true bread, not because it was not a sign of true bread, neither because who so devoutly received it, should not be delivered from everlasting death, of God: but because itself had not in it any thing, which being cor●…ally taken ●…ight save a man (otherwise good) from everlasting d●…ath: whereas the true bread which the Apostles took into their hands (through Christ's gift) was that very flesh, which by the power of the Godhead whereunto it is annexed, keepeth our souls that they die not by sin, and r●…eth out bodies to live for ever. S. Augustine saith: Dominus sinit judam In Epi. 162. accipere inter innocentes disipulos, quod fideles noverunt, precium nostrum. Our Lord suffereth judas to take among the innocent disciples our price, which the faithful know. See what kind of taking S. Augustine speaketh of. surely of that which was common to judas, and which was made with hands. See what judas took, precium nostrum, our price. Is bread and wine our price? We are then dearly bought in deed. But if the real substance of Christ's body and blood be only our price, when Christ saith take, he meaneth, take the real substance of my flesh into your hands, that thence it may come afterward under your har●…s. ¶ The sixteenth circumstance, of eating. CHrist said: eat ye, once only, and he said it of that one thing only, which he delivered to his Apostles corporally, and they so took it. but Christ meant they should eat it as well in soul, as in body, as well by faith, as by mouth. For he had said before, work ye the everlasting meat which the son of man will give you, and he declared the work of God to be this, that they should believe in Christ, who is the bread of life, and who said his flesh to be meat in deed▪ therefore when Christ said, eat, this is my body, he meant eat bodily that I give you, and eat it also spiritually, because it is a heavenvly kind of bread, and a meat which never perisheth. Neither doth the verb, eat, by this mean stand unproperly, 〈◊〉 belongeth to the body ●… soul. because ●…ating belongeth naturally both to the soul and to the body. but yet, concerning the cause of eating, principally to the soul, as the which alone giveth power to the body to eat, and concerning the mean of eating, principally to the body, as the which only hath convenient instruments to receive corporal meat. For neither a dead body can eat at all, neither a soul which lacketh a body can eat properly. Now when the soul and body may both not only eat, but also be nourished by the eating, that is the truest eating which can be devised. Christ then in saying eat, meaneth, eat ye as ye are men, who consist of souls and of bodies, eat in both, and feed them both together. For this is my body, which hath in it the Godhead corporally dwelling. Eating this, you eat a food both spiritual and corporal. This feedeth the whole man, this is it which Tertul. de resur. carnis. Tertullian saith, Caro etc. The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may also be made fat of God. Note the perfect eating. the flesh is fed, and the soul is made fat. The catholics upon this ground believe, the flesh which must be eaten spiritually, to be under the form of bread, which is eaten really, and that Christ saying to a reasoable man: eat, this is my body, saith by the reason of that kind of meat which he nameth, eat in body and soul my body, The Sacramentaries teach a double substance to be eaten in a double manner; of which y● one is present corporally: that other absent, they teach bread & wine to be eaten & drunken corporally, as things present, but the flesh of Christ only to be eaten spiritually, as a thing absent in his own substance. they divide the work of our bodies from the work of our souls. But the word eat ye, can not be so meant, sith it only pointeth to the which the disciples had taken into their hands. none other literal meaning can be of this word, eat. eating by faith, hath no part in Christ's supper, neither is at all commanded, if the thing eaten be not in the hands of the Apostles. ¶ The 〈◊〉. circumstance, of these words, this is my body. I Will speak of these words, not all that may be said, but rather no more than the nature of one circumstance (among so many as Christ used in his supper) will conveniently bear. who taking bread after blessing and thanks giving, said: this is my body. If the meaning be, this bread is the sign of my body, he gave thanks for the institution of a bare sign: for so I must needs call it, seeing ●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. bread remaining still in his own nature, can never be any more than a bare sign, so long as it is not the body itself, which it doth signify. For every figure, image & token which differeth in substance from his original, is always bare and naked in respect of that truth, which it 〈◊〉, & hath not the same in itself. So was Christ a bare manto the Ebionites, because they denied the substance Epipha. haer. 30. of God to be in him, howsoever they extolled him otherwise. 〈◊〉 Christ come them to leave naked & bare signs to his Church: and is he so glad of that promotion, that he thanketh his father for it? was this the joy he had of eating the new passouer, wherein he would give us only bread and wine mixed with water, in ●…ede of bread, wine, herbs, and flesh, which were given under the law of M●…yses? is not his outward gift at the least desaced by this doctrine? verily seeing with thanks giving Christ joined, this is my body, presenting in effectual words that, which his heart intended before to consecrate unto God: we must no more say, that he instituted a bare figure of his body in these words, then that he presented a bare sign in his heart when he gauc thanks. For who can think that Christ, who had said by God and by his Prophet D●…uid, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but thou hast Hebr. 10 Christ pray scented no external sacrifice beside his own flesh Gen. 14. Exod. 16 framed me a body, meanig that none other sacrifice pleased God beside his unspotted flesh: who can think that he now expressly naming that his body, yet presenteth to his father bread & wine only, as figures & signs of his body and blood, and that he gave thanks for them▪ Melchisedech ended the mystery of his bread and wine in the blessing of Abraham himself: and doth Christ after bread & wine taken end his blessing only in a figure of the seed of Abraham: that, whereof Moses said, this is the bread which our Lord hath given you to eat, was in deed a more excellent bread than he could name, and ●…oth Christ name more than is really present? Surely the sign of Christ's supper is so bare, if that which he pointeth unto, be not in deed his body, that in words he giveth greater 〈◊〉 to God his Father, then in his deeds. For his word 〈◊〉 this (whereunto he pointeth) to be in substance his o●…n body, but his deeds perform only a sign of his own body, as the Sacramentaries teach. May I not now say to the Sacramentaries the like to that, which Malachi the Prophet said to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the jews, who offered in the temple of God ●…ind, lame, and faint, or sick oxen and sheep? Offer illud 〈◊〉, si placueret Malac. 1. ei, aut si susceperit faciem tuam. Offer such halting presents to thy Lord or captain, & tell me whether it will please him, or whether thou shalt be welcome to him, or no. If one should come to a great parsonage, and with solemn thanks make him a present in words of a fat ox, or of a courageous horse, and when the noble man were come forth to accept the present, he should give him a pe●…ce of paper wherein it were written, this is a fat ox, or a courageous horse, would the noble man take it well? Now come these new preachers, and whereas they confess that Christ gave thanks to his Father, and said in words: This is my body, yet they fear not to teach, that he offered more to him in words, than he performed in deeds. Yea they doubt not to teach, that the words wherewith he maketh his present, are utterly unproper and figurative, not withstanding that S. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 supper, saith: In consecratione divina verba ipsa domini salvatoris operantur. In the divine consecration the self words of our Lord and 〈◊〉 do work▪ The words do work how then are they 〈◊〉? A figurative word, is like a paited image, Working words can not be figurative. which may be somewhat, if the thing meant thereby be real and true, but otherwise it is an idol and nothing at all. But as an image of never so lively a truth, absent in substance from it, can not itself work or do any thing (because it is dead) no more can words grammatically figurative work of themselves, for that they are dead, as not having their meaning (which is their life) present with them. Chrys. homi. de prodit judae. S. Chrysostom likewise writeth: hoc est, ait, corpus meum: hoc verbo proposita consecrantur. This (saith he) is my body: with this word the things set forth are consecrated. And yet can this word, which doth so wonderful an act, can it be in the mean t●…me so weak, so feeble, so dead, that it hath not in itself so much as the natural propriety of common words? Commonly words do mean as they sound, and those which do not so, be, concerning the use and service of words (which is to utter a man's mind) of base condition, than other words are. But Christ's words be so lively, that they have power to work and make that which they sound, in so much that he called them in S. john, life joan. 6. and spirit. therefore it is unreasonably said, that they are figurative. Hoc est corpus meum, are but four words, of which four they leave never a one in his own signification, and some of them they pluck from his gender, other they pluck from their case, which they were put in. hoc, this, is the neuter gender with his noun How the Sacramen tarries 〈◊〉 Chri stes words. substantive, corpus: body. they draw it to the masculine gender, that it may agree with panis, bread. Est, is a verb substantive, signifying the substance of that noun substantive, with whom it is joined. They draw it from that signification to signify an accident in bread, which in these words is not named. They put corpus meum (which is by Christ's setting the nominative case) into sometime the accusative, sometime the genitive case. for they ●…ay this doth signify my body. & then is it in the accusative case: or this is the figure of my body, and then it is the genitive case. what miserable taking is this of so heavenvly words? but hereof I think to say more upon those words, this is my blood, lest I now exceed the measure of a circumstance. Yet this one thing I can not but warn y●●…eader of, although Chryso. in joan. Hom. 35. it may seem to some man of no great weight. But I think with S. Chrysostom, no syllable or prick in the word of God to be superfluously placed. S. Paul reciting the words of Christ's supper placeth them thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. hoc mei est corpus, this of me is the body. For where as the other Evangelist had written the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last place, as we likewise in latin put meum last, the holy Ghost foreseeing the heresy that now should rise, caused S. Paul to join that pro●…oun belonging to Christ's How S. 〈◊〉 placed 〈◊〉▪ words. person, unto that other pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc, this. For although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ruled of the noun body, and in sense must needs follow after it, yet it pleased God to place the same pronoun, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this: showing thereby that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must finally be referred unto the noun corpus, body, as well as the other pronoun meum mine. as if it were in latin, hoc mei est corpus, this of me is the body. That joining I say, of this, and of me together, doth give such conjecture (as in the order of words may be had) that as of me is the genitive case coming after the noun body, so this likewise appertaineth to the noun substantive body, and only resteth and endeth his signification in that word. Whereas on the other side if this were only referred unto bread, no reason could be brought, why S. Paul should join the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of me unto it. This bread of me is the sign of body, judge what a hard speech it were. Let noman wonder if I so narrowly scan every syllable. For you shall see before all is done, that God hath caused the word●… of his last supper by so many circumstances of writing and speaking to be opened unto us, that when the rest is all heard, it will seem probable enough, not so much as the setting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have been superfluous. ¶ The. 〈◊〉. circumstance, of these words: Which is given for you. ALthough S. Matthew, and S. Mark thought it sufficient to report that Christ said: This is my body, as the which words both were plain enough, & able to make the mystery of Christ's supper: yet the holy Ghost stirred up S. Luke, to add the other words which Christ had also used, to th●…ntene the literal meaning of Christ's words might be most c●…tainly confirmed, and therefore he writeth that Christ said: This is my There is but one noun substanti●… in Christ's 〈◊〉. body which is given for you. In all the which words there is none other noun substantive named, besides the only substance of Christ's body. With it agreeth Hoc, This, with it, quod, the which. It cometh after the verb est, is, and goeth before the verb, datur, is given. If now we interpret the noun corpus body, by figura corporis the ●…igure of the body: Look what place corpus did occupy, the same figura corporis must needs occupy. And thereupon it followeth, that the pronoun hoc must be ruled by the noun figura, By the Sacra●… doctr●…e a ●…gure was cru●… for us. likewise the relative quod: and it must follow the verb est, and go 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 given for you. Thus the Sacramentaries have brought us not only ●…o a figurative presence of Christ's body, but also to a figurative death and sacrifice thereof. The ob●…ction. I know they will say, that albeit by the noun corpus body, they undcrstand figura corporis, the figure of the body, 〈◊〉 they would not the relative quod, which, to be ruled by the noun figura, but by the genitive case corpus, body. As if it were said, this is the figure of my body, the which my body is given for you. This shift will not serve, because after that sort the noun substantive The answer. corpus, body, is taken two ways, that is to say, first unproperly, and then again properly. Unproperly, when it standeth for the figure of Christ's body: properly, when it is said to be given for us. Now seeing that noun substantive is but once named in all, how so ever it is taken at one time, it must be taken likewise at the other time, for so much as it is not twice repeated, but once only mentioned. This (sayeth Christ) is my body, which is given for you. I One word can not have at once a pro per & unproper meaning. ask, how ye take the word (body) which is but once named in the whole sentence? If ye take it to stand for the sign of Christ's body, mark well that you take it unproperly. And remember that you ever continue in taking it unproperly after the same sort. therefore if it be Christ's body unproperly, it is given for us unproperly. If it stand for the sign and figure of Christ's body, when it is joined with the verb est, is, how can it but stand for the same sign and figure, when it is joined with the verb datur, it is given? The rela tiue must repeat hi●… whole 〈◊〉. Can the relative, quod, take half of that signification, which was in his noun substantive, and lay aside the other half? You say, corpus doth signify two things, to wit, the figure of Christ's body. be it so. Then the one piece 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 o●…e half of the word, and neglect the other half. But howsoever the word is taken, so must the pronoun relative, quod, repeat him again. In, this is my body (say you) the body standeth for the sign of Christ's body: therefore (say I) in these words, which is given for you, it must needs be understanded, the which sign of my body By the sacramentary doctrine bread is sacrificed for us. is given for you. And seeing they say that this pointeth to bread, it followeth that bread is given for us. This later sense is so blasphemous, that the very Lutherans, zwinglians, Caluinists, and Anabaptists abhor from it, therefore they ought likewise to abhor from the former sense, where they take the noun body for a figure of Christ's body. For doubtless as they take the word in the one place, they must needs take it in the other, sith it is one simple proposition, having but once in it the word, body. This thing is yet more plainly seen in the Gr●…ke text, where S. Luke writeth thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which is to say word for word, as ●…igh as our tongue may attain to the phrase: This is the body of me given for you. Or rather, presently given for you. And yet more expressly, this is my body, the same body, I say, which is presently given for you. Two of the which Greek words can hardly be expressed in the Latin tongue. 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 given. The other is the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which repeateth again the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, body: giving an undoubted witness, that the thing given for us is the same body, which is pointed unto and affirmed to be present. This is my body. This is the same body, I say, which is even There is but one verb in the Greek text. presently delivered to be sacrificed for you. But in Greek all this sense is without any other verb, saving the verb substantive, est is. As if it were said in Latin, Hoc est corpus meum datum pro vobis, this is my body given for you. In which proposition corpus is the noun substantive to the participle datum. And therefore one and the same body is both pointed unto under the form of bread, and presently given, that is to say, offered to 〈◊〉 sacrificed on the Cross, and to be pierced and crucified the next day for us. I require and humbly beseech him that thinketh me to be deceived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉. in this point,▪ as he loveth God and his neighbour, to show me wherein I misconstrue these words, or by what means the argument, which I now make for the real presence of Christ's body, may be possibly avoided. For it seemeth to me that noman of good conscience, who will not wilfully be damned, is able to avoid, but that Christ affirmeth, this (which he pointeth to) really to be the same substance of his body, which was betrayed and offered upon the cross for us. He that saith, this is a figure of Christ's body, sayeth a figure of his body to have been given for us. I can devise no manner of escape beside wilful malice. It may be, some ignorant man will say, that the noun corpus The 〈◊〉. body standeth not for the sign of Christ's body, but that the verb est is, rather standeth for the verb, significat, doth signify. and so the sense to be, this doth signify my body. and so the noun body standeth still properly. who so maketh any such objection, understandeth not that it is all one to say, this doth signify my The answer. To signify and to be a sign ●…o all one. body, and this is the sign of my body. therefore either of both being confuted, both are confuted. for the cause why the verb est should be resolved into the verb significat, must needs come from the word corpus body: sithence, this, doth therefore signify the body, because it is made the sign of Christ's body. But if it be not the sign thereof, surely it doth not signify it, in so mun that Significat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this proposition, hoc significat corpus meum being resolved into this hoc est significans corpus meum (as the rules of good reason and of the art of logik require) the word, which appertained to the sign shallbe found a part praedicati, rather than à part copulae, that is to say, it shallbe found that the reason of signifying consist in the noun body, rather than in the verb est is. for which cause Oecolampadi●…s admitted aswell the one as the other, making no difference whether est is stand for significat, to signify, or corpus body, for signum corporis, the sign and figure of the body, so that the real presence might be taken away. But (as I have now proved out of the word of God) seeing the body is pointed unto which died, & the true substance itself died for us, the true substance is pointed unto under the form of bread, and so pointed unto, that none other construction of those words can be made. for if corpus body doth not stand properly, when it is joined with the verb est is, it is not possible that it standeth properly, as it is the noun substantive to the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, datum, given: or as it is antecedent to the relative quod, which. In deed if Christ had said expres●…ie, this is the figure of my body, it might well have followed, the which body is truly given for you. for of the two antecedents the relative might have been referred to the next. But now there is but one antecedent in all, and it is taken unproperly (as the Sacramentaries say) therefore in that unproper signification it must be antecedent to the relative following. all the grammarians in Christendom can find none other construction of these words. If the Sacramentaries can excuse the matter, let them bring it to light. ¶ The nineteen. Circumstance, of the verb facere, to do, or make, or to offer sacrifice. ALthough the verb facere doth signify most generally all making and doing, yet because the most excellent deed that can be made, is to offer a true internal and external sacrifice unto God: therefore it is come to pass, that facere in his most principal signification is used sometimes to signify the offering of a sacrifice, neither doth it skill, whether it stand alone, or be 3. Reg. 18 levit. 15 joined with an other word in the accusative, or in the ablative case. for it is the circumstance of deeds and words, which principally make it so to signify. That facere in this place doth betoken the offering of a sacrifice, it appeareth by all the circumstances of the supper. first, in that Exod. 12 Christ hath now in the fourteenth day of the first move at evening tide begonthe blessed sacrifice of his passion: next, he hath offered the old ●…aschal Lamb the chief sacrifice of the law: thirdly, he hath taken bread and wine the material part of the sacrifice of Melchisedech. four, he blesseth, & giveth thanks externally to God in a fact, wherein he consecrateth his own body the only Gen. 14. sacrifice of mankind. yea farther he so consecrateth it, that he doubted not to say, over the bread: this is my body which is given for you. strait upon which words, he addeth hoc facite, do ye, or, mak●… ye this thing. Wh●…t other sense now can this verb have, but do that I have done, who now have exercised my priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech? So did S. Cyprian take this verb facere, when he said of this Cypria. lib 2. Epist. 3. very matter: jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster, Ipse est sum mus sacerdos Dei patris, & sacrificium Deo patri ipse primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit. jesus Christ our Lord and our God, himself is the highhest priest of God the Father, and first hath offered sacrifice unto God the Father, and hath commanded the same to be done for the remembrance of him. If Christ offered sacri●…ice, and commanded the same to be done, he The 〈◊〉 were come 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 sacrifice. commanded sacrifice to be offered of his Apostles. and therefore it followeth in S. Cyprian co●…cerning a priest of the new Testament: & sacrificium verum & plenum tunc o●…ert in ecclesia Deo patri, si sic incipiat offer, secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse. & he than offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the Church, if he so begin to offer, according as he may see Christ himself to have offered. If now Christ hath willed his Apostles to offer that which he hath offered, it is most certain that Christ offered none other thing in the whole earth, beside his own body, the which he took to Psal. 39 Heb. 10. offer to God in stead of all other oblations, as David & S. Paul say. therefore that body of his he both offered himself, and willed his Apostles to offer it. but what soever he offered in his last supper he had it in his hands or upon the table before him, and gave The body o●…red was at Christ's ●…ble. it under the form of bread and wine to his Apostles: therefore the real substance of Christ's body and blood was under the said forms, that it might so be offered unto God, according as Melchisedech had before signified. This argument were able to recea●…e a great deal of matter, but it would be above the compass of a circumstance. ¶ The xx. Circumstance of the pronoun hoc, this thing. CHrist said not only facite, do ye or make ye, but, hoc facite do ye & make ye this thing. The which words as they command bread to be taken, blessing, breaking, giving, taking and eating to be used, and the words of Christ to be duly pronounced: so beyond all these things they command one special thing to be made, which is the body of Christ. for none other thing in all the supper can particularly discharge and fulfil those words beside the body of Christ. As for bread & wine they be not commanded to be made, ●…ith they were made before the supper began. taking, blessing, breaking, & eating partly are not this one thing, but many things: partly they be not such as may be in all degrees repeated & done so, as the precept of doing or making this thing requireth. For Thisthing is more than such an other thing. the taking and breaking of other bread, is the doing of a like thing to this, which Christ hath done, & not the doing or making this thing. But Christ said not, sic facite, do so as I have done, but hoc facite, do or make this thing. If we shall keep the propriety of Christ's words, the meaning must needs be, make this body of mine. For he said: this is my body, which is given for you, make this thing. which this thing, but that only thing which was named? for none other special thing or substance was named beside the body of Christ. Hoc, is the neuter gender, and either it must be referred to the noun cor pus, body, as to his substantive which went before (and the sense Haimo in 1 Cor. 11. is, facite corpus meum, make my body) and so doth Haimo construe it: or else it must stand substantively, and so it meaneth, this thing, that is to say, the thing which is the body of Christ. I do not without great cause stand so long about every little word. I know the tergiversation of them that missexpound the word of God, who alt●…ough they will so●…er be confounded, then amended, yet the more particular my reasoning is, the more it ought to move them earnestly to look to the word of God, and not to content themselves with the bare shows thereof. For my exposition, beside the very order and conference of Christ's justin. i●… Apol. 2. supper, hath for it as ancient a witness, as Iust●…s Martyr is, a man within the first two hundred, not only within the 600. years: whose works Robert Steuens printed in greek at Parise, An. Dom. 1551. Thus he writeth: The Apostles in their come mentaries, which are called gospels, have delivered, that jesus gave them thus in commandment, who when he had taken bread & given thanks, said: do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, corpus meum. That is to say, my body. Thus I read the words, & thus they are understanded, make this thing. That is to say, make my body. They that have translated justinus, have turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hoc est, which words may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be Englished, as if the cause had been, This is. But they also may signify, hoc est, that is to say. For so the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken in greek, in the way of interpretation or of exposition, when the words that went before are expounded by the words that follow. The same phrase is used in S. Matthew, where after the Matt. 27. Hebrew words were written, which Christ said upon the Cross Fli, Eli, Lamalabachtami, it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is to say: my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Therefore albeit the Latins can not distinct between, hoc est, which Hoc est. signifieth, this is, and hoc est, which signifieth, that is to say, yet the grecians writ the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which thing justinus also hath observed in the words belonging to the blood putting in every letter) The last they write leaving out the last letter of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by an Apostrophe, in pronountiation making one word of both. And this sense is proved true by the process of justinus, who after that he had said: we are taught, the meat which is consecrated by the prayer of the word (which we took of Christ) to be his body and blood, He would prove it to be still so, because the Apostles did witness, jesum sic sibi mandasse, Christ to have given them such a precept. Hoc facite, make this thing: what thing? my body. Now if this thing, were not meant to be the body of Christ, justinus had proved no commandment thereof, and consequently no flesh of Christ present, which yet he affirmeth most plainly. Therefore strait after he had rehearsed the commandment: Hoc facite, make this thing, he showeth what thing it is, ●…aiyng: that is to say, my body. whereunto we must needs understand (to make up 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 Gospel, as by the authority of S. justinus, these words can be verified of no sign or figure, nor by any other way, theu by that we make the selfbody of Christ, which always is, this thing, because it always tarrieth one and the same in number & person: whereas the taking of bread and breaking or eating it, is always such anotherthing, but never this thing. ¶ the xxi. Circumstance, of the words, in meam commemorationem, for the remembrance of me. THe final cause of instituting this new passouer was to 1. Cor. 11 make the remembrance of Christ's death, which so effectually and profitably for us could be made in nothing else, as in the same flesh, that died for us: and being made therein, it forceth us by all means through the presence thereof to remember him whose flesh it is. If now he that hath a business to do will those the beast means he can to bring it to pass, if Christ came into the world to redeem us by his death, and if in believing and following that death our life consist: seeing no mean possibly can be devised so effectual to make us remember and partake his death, as if the thing which died be itself made present with us, and itself delivered to us: a wise man may easibly judge, whether Christ hath not rather left his own body to us, for an undoubted token of his death (seeing his words do sound so) theu that he hath left a piece of bread and a little wine, which neither be spoken of in the delivery of the mystical tokens, nor be apt●… enough to work the matter, for which they are said to be least. Therefore S. Chrysostom showing the difference between A thing is the remembrance of itself. other figura●…iue remembrances and this truth, saith: Tibi quotidie, ipse ne obliviscaris proponitur. Christ is every day himself put before thee, lest thou shouldest forget him. Note, that Christ himself in this Sacrament is a remembrance of himself dying for us, even as Manna was kept in the taber●…le of God to be a remembrance of itself. Keep it, saith God: Vt noverint filii Israel Exo. 16. panem quo alui vos in solitudine. That the children of Israel may know the bread wherewith I fed ye in the desert. So likewise the self body of Christ is kept as it were, and preserved in the tabernacle of this blessed Sacrament, that we may know (by that knowledge which is meet for faithful men) that our Lord hath died for us. ¶ The xxij circumstance, of these words: Drink ye all of this. AFter the cup was taken and thanks given, Christ gave to Matt. 26. Luc. 22. his disciples and said, bibite ex hoc omnes, drink ye all of this. In S. Luke it is said, take and divide among you. By these words Christ meaneth literally, that all the twelve should drink of that one cup, and S. Mark witnesseth this precept Marc. 14 to have been f●…illed, saying, Et biberunt ex illo omnes, and all drank thereof. This interpretation S. Dionysi●…s the Areopagite De eccl. Hierar. cap. 3. In joan. li. 4. c. 14 confirmeth, saying, that one chalice was divided among them all. And as S. Lyrillus witnesseth, Circumtulit calicem, dicens, bibite ex hoc omnes. He carried about the chalice, saying, drink ye all of this. By carrying about, he meaneth all the twelve to have received the drink out of that one cup in order. Christ then would, that his twelve Apostles should all drink of the same cup. The reason, why he would have it so, followeth. For (saith he) this is my blood, as if he said, I have conserated this why althe Apostles drank of one cup. cup only, and none other, therefore drink y●… all of this. For if two or three of the twelve should have drunk up all that was in that cup, either Christ must have consecrated the cup again, or the rest must have received a drink not consecrated. But it is not the will of Christ, that one Priest should consecrated in one Mass any more than once each kind of the Sacrament, because Christ died but once, and then he ought to consecrate both kinds together, because Christ's blood and soul must be signified a part from his flesh and his bdoy. It is not therefore according to the mind of the Gospel, that (as now they do in England) when one cup is drunken up, an other should be filled out of a prophave pot that staudeth by, as Thea●…use 〈◊〉 the English ministers. though all were one, so that wine be drunken with a remembrance of Christ's death and resurrection. it is not so. All must drink of one chalice, that is to say, of y● one blood of Christ which is consecrated at one time, though the chalices which hold it were diverse, as sometimes they have been, when a great multitude of people did receive at once. This circumstance doth show, that it is more than wine which is drunk. This doth show 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 Calvin most ignorantly and impudently affirmeth. This is the cup whereof S. Ignat. in epist. ad. Phi. Ignatius writeth: unum poculum universis distributum est, one cup is distributed to the whole e●…mpanie. and he meaneth not so much one cup in number, as that the drink is all one in every cup, to wit, the blood of Christ. This cup was so thoroughly communicated to all the twelve, Matt. 10. judas drank. that judas one of the twelve drank thereof, and that to his own damnation, because he made no difference between the blood of Christ and other drinks. And now the Sacramentaries be in the same case, concerning that they teach the substance in Christ's chalice, to be the substance of common wine, and not the blood of Christ. As our Sacramentaries in England by giving the faithful people drink (they care not whence, so it be wine) do by that fac●…e show themselves to believe, 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, giveth us a great warning to beleuc that cup to have had really his own blood in it. For contrary doctrines have contrary usages. ¶ The xxiii circumstance of these words: This is my blood. I Must needs touch in this place somewhat spoken of before, but I will do it for a farther purpose and to an other effect. whereas the Sacramentaries teach, the wine to be made a ●…igure of Christ's blood, wine is neither named at the consecration time (as it is evident) nor pointed unto, because the article hic this (which only pointeth to all that is pointed unto) can not agree with wine, but diffe●…eth from it in gender, for so much as in Latin 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 pronoun hic this be not a noun substantive itself, but do point unto a certain substance, and yet that substance by the rules o●… The grammatical sense of Christ's words. grammar can not be wine, and withal it both may be blood, and of Chest is said to be his blood: there can be none other literal, proper, and historical sense of these words, but that, This which is showed by pointing unto it, is the substance of Christ's blood. I chose rather to say this much upon these words, then upon that other, This is my body. Because though in them also, that pronoun hoc this doth only agree with the noun body, & not with bread, yet I know that the Sacramentaries would strive therein, & say impudently that hoc standeth substantively, for this thing, and so would resolve it into this thing which is bread. But in the consecration of Christ's blood they can not pretend so much. for it is not said, hoc est sanguis meus in the neute●… gender, but, hic est sanguis meus in the masculine gender, where the pronoun hic may only agree with sanguis, blood. By the which words we are certified also, that in hoc est corpus meum, the pronoun hoc this, may only agree with the noun corpus body, and neither with bread, nor with any other act, which at the supper ty●… is a doing. It can not now be said that (est) doth stand for significat, seeing there is no nominative case at all to go before the verb significat. Est 〈◊〉 not stand for significat. for hic this can not stand neutrally, but is of the same case, gender, and number, that his substantive sanguis blood is of. It can not therefore be said, Hic significat sanguinem meum, this doth signify my blood, because in that speech (this) doth lack a noun substantive, to whom it may be referred, and consequently the verb significat lacketh a noun substantive to be the nominative Heretics build with out a foun dation. case unto it. By which means the Sacramentaries leave no congruity of speech at all. And so (as S. Hierom well noteth, of their forefathers) they build a roof without walls or foundation. For what sense can they make without congrue words? or what congruity of words, is, in hoc panis and hic vinum? what proposition will they have without a nominative case? or what nominati●…e case without a noun substantive, or without an other thing, which may stand substantively? Or how can hic this in the masculine gender stand substantively? The words of S. Hi●…rome are: Debemus scripturam sanctam Hieron. in Amos proh. c. 4 primûm secundum literam intelligere, facientes in ethica quaecunque praecepta sunt. Secundô juxta 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 understand Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of ho●… scriptu●…e. the holy scripture according to the letter, doing whatsoever things are commanded concerning moral virtues. Secondly according to the allegory, that is to say, according to the spirtual understanding. Thirdly according to the blessedues of the things to come. But you (saith God) contemning the first and the second The literal sense ●…s the fon d●…tion. day, do frame you certain spiritual imaginations, putting a roof thereupon, without a foundation and walls. Even so the Sacramentaries tell a goodly tale of eating and drinking by faith, and of spiritual feeding, but they take away the meat and drink whereupon we should ●…eed, they take away the literal sense of Christ's words, which being once gone, all that is builded upon the words, is the putting up of a roof without walls or foundation. These three propositions are found, hic est sanguis meus, haec est caro mea, hoc est corpus meum. In Cypr. de coena do haec est caro mea. all three it is evident, that the pronoun agreeth only with the noun following the verb. The Sacramentaries pull hic from sanguis, blood, & join it to vinum wine. They pull haec from caro flesh, and hoc from corpus body, and join haec and hoc to panis bread. Is not this to play with God's word, to elude the scriptures, and to destroy the whole written Gospel? ¶ What the new Testament is, whereof the holy Scripture speaketh. FOr as much as in consecrating of the blood, S. Matthew. S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. Paul make mention of the new Testament, it is necessary for the understanding of the circumstances which follow▪ to declare what the new Testament is. A Testament is the solemn ordaining of a thing by words, A testament. which is wont to be confirmed by natural or violeut death. For neither the last will of any man is of strength and force, until the Hebr. 9 Gene. 31 testator die: Nor any truce or 〈◊〉 is perfect, until it be dedicated with sacrifice, wherein some living creature is wont to be offered unto God bloodily. Of Testaments, one is old, an other new. For it was of old Galat. 4. time covenanted with the jews, that in case they kept the law of Moses, they should have a temporal inheritance for keeping it. Christ made a new truce, that if we kept his law, we should have forgiveness of sins, and enjoy the everlasting inheritance jerem. 31 of God. The old truce was dedicated (as S. Paul speaketh) Hebr. 9 by the blood of calves or oxen, which were offered for the confirmation thereof. The new truce is dedicated by Christ's own blood, which was shed for the confirmation of his new law and promise. The blood of the old truce was put into bas●…s, and so Exo. 24. sprinkled with hyssop upon the people. The blood of the new truce is put into a cup or chalice, and thence it is drunk by the people of God. They that kept the old truce enjoyed the land of promise: and they that keep the new truce, enjoy the kingdom of heaven. Now because there are many things requisite to a Testament, Three things in a solemn Testament first a law, covenant, or promise, next a bloodshedding to confirm the promise, thirdly an application of the blood that was shed, for to be as a witness and a remembrance to all them, who bound themselves to keep the conditions agreed upon: it may so be, that either all these things, or some one of them alone may be called the new Testament. When God sayeth by Jeremy: consummabo Testamentum jerem. 31 Hebr. 8. nowm, he meaneth all together. For he will as well publish his true law, as confirm it by blood, and distribute the blood wherewith it is confirmed, to the faithful, when Christ sayeth: This is my blood of the new Testament, he meaneth the first part of the new Testament, which is the law and promise itself of forgiving sy●…s. And therefore it followeth, the which shallbe Math. 26 shed for many, for the remission o●… sins. In which words he showeth, how this is the blood of the new Testament. verily because it is the blood, which shall obtain and merit the forgiveness jerem. 31 of those sins, which the new law promiseth to take away. ●…e called it (saith S. Chrysostom) the blood of the promise of Chryso. in Math. Hom. 83. the new law. And again: Testamentum nowm hoc ipso confirmatur. The new Testament is confirmed with this very blood. Tertullian sayeth of Chr●…: Testamentum constituens sanguine Li. 4. cont. Marci. suo obsignatum. He establisheth the Testament, that is to say, the law, sealed with his own blood. But when S. Luke and S. Paul report Christ to have said: This cup is the new Testament in my blood, they seem to take the word Testament for the substance of the thing, which doth confirm the new Testament, or witness it to be confirmed, and not properly for the new truce and promise thereof. For this that is in the chalice, is not the promise of remitting sins, but it is the new Testament in Christ's blood, that is to say, it is the thing that confirmeth the new law, or that witn●…h it to be confirmed. Sedulius in. 1. Co. 11. So doth Sedulius very well expound the words of S. Paul, saying: Ideo autem calix Testamentum vocatur (for so I think the true reading to be, and not Testamenti) quia testatus est pòst paululum passionem futuram, & nunc testificatur factam. The chalice is therefore called the new Testament, because it did The chalice beareth witness. bear witness (at Christ's supper) that the passion should be a little after, and now it doth bear witness, that the passion is made or done. Thus we see, that whereas a Testament hath a law, a confirmation, and a witness of the confirmation: the blood of Christ is not the law itself, but it is both the thing which confirmed the law, and the thing which doth witness it to be confirmed. The which if it be well remembered, I trust the circumstances of greatest importance, whereof I shall speak hereafter, willbe the better understanded. ¶ The. xxiv. circumstance, of the blood of the new Testament. THis is my blood of the new Testament, saith Christ, that is to say, the blood, wherewith the new Testament is con firmed and sealed, as S. Chrysostom, Tertullian, Theophilact, 1. 〈◊〉 Math. Hom. 83. 2. l. 4. con. Marci. 3. in Lucae. 22. and the other ancient Fathers declare. But the blood of Christ's new Testament was real and true: Therefore this which Christ doth point unto, is the true & real blood of Christ, and not the substance of wine, which the Sacramentaries imagine to be a figure of this blood: And so cons●… the words, this is the sign of my blood of the new Testament. But their interpretation is proved false by conferring the old Testament with the new. For as the old Testament had none other thing to signify the blood thereof beside the self same blood of the calves, which was shed to confirm the old covenant: so The same blood which con firmeth doth also witness y● 〈◊〉 much more the new Testament must have no●…e other thing to signify the blood thereof, beside the self same blood of Christ, which was shed to confirm the new law. For if it be a perfection not only to have the tru●…e and law confirmed by blood, but also to have the confirmation thereof witnessed by sprinkling the blood which was shed upon the people: it is not possible that the old law should in that point pass the new. For as S. Chrysostom Chryso. in joan. Hom. 13. saith, the figure neither is clean different from the truth, & yet if it keep the condition of a shadow, minor erat veritate, it was less than the truth. And yet the basin of calves blood were more than the truth, if the substance of common wine were set to show, that the new truce is confirmed. Again S. Paul and S. Luke so evidently expound these very words, by reciting them otherwise, that no reasonable man con●…ing the words together will say, that in these words, blood may stand for a figure of blood. They writ thus: Hic calix nowm Testamentum est in meo sanguine. This cup is the new Testament in my blood. but the new Testament is not in the figure of Christ's blood, but in his true blood. Therefore the name of blood, which Christ used in consecrating the liquor in the chalice, is not used figuratively. For the same blood, whereof S. Matthew, & S. Mark do speak, The blood is not meant the figure of blood. is also meant of S. Luke. and of S. Paul. but as S. Paul and S. Luke take the noun blood, it can not possibly be taken figuratively▪ except any man willbe so desperate, as to say, that the ●…w promise and Law of Christ is established in a figure of blood, or in the substance of common wine. Which if it were so, we are in worse case than the Patriar●…hes and jews, who at the least had true blood to confirm their temporal truces, Testaments, and promises (as it may be seen both Gene. 31. Exod. 24 Hebr. 9 in Genesis & Exodus) although it were the blood of beasts. & it must needs be, that the heavenly things themselves be cleansed with better sacrifices, saith S. Paul. If then the name of blood being put in these words, this cup is the new testament in my blood, be taken for the substance of Christ's blood, which is that better sacrifice whereof S. Paul speaketh, without all question, in these words, this is my blood of the new testament, it standeth likewise for the substance of Christ's blood. It is one supper, one Sacrament, one part of the supper, and one part of the Sacrament, yea one self same thing, whereof all four do speak. If new do answer to new, testament to testament, this to this, is to is: how can it be, that blood should not answer to blood? But, this cup is the new testament in my blood, can not be meant in the figure of my blood (lest the sign of blood, and not the truth thereof, be that which establisheth the new truce) therefore in these words, this is the blood of the new testament, the noun blood standeth not for a figure and sign of blood, but for the real substance thereof. ¶ The xxv. Circumstance, of these words: this cup or chalice. AS every Apostle or Evangelist wrote later than other, so Lucae. 22. 1. Cor. 11 he made the supper of Christ more plain, giving us evidently to understand, that the words of Christ's supper are so far of from figurative speeches, that rather the propriety of them is by all means fortified. I have showed before how the name of cup or chalice doth not hinder any whit, why all the rest of Christ's words may not be proper, and literally true: but Why the cup is named. now I affirm also, that it increaseth much the reason of their propriety. Why so? Because the cup is named to show the manner of fulfilling of the old figures. In the old Testament the blood of the oxen was put in crateras, Exod. 24 into great cups or basins, and so the people were sprinkled therewithal. Now to bring the Apostles and all us in mind thereof, Christ nameth the cup or chalice: Declaring thereby, that his own blood is now to us, as the blood of oxen was to the people of Israel: His in the chalice, as the blood of oxen was in the basi●…s: His presently drunk, as that other was presently Chryso. Hom. 27 in. 1. Co. sprinkled. Erat autem veteris Testamenti calix, & caet. There was a cup or chalice (saith S. Chrysostom) of the old Testament and sacrifices, and the blood of brute beasts. For after sacrifice (the blood being taken in a chalice and cup) they made after that sort libations (or offerings of that which was liquid and running.) Cum igitur pro sanguine brutorum sanguinem suum induxisset, ne quis his auditis perturbaretur, illius veteris sacrificij meminit. Seeing therefore he had brought in his own blood in stead of the blood of brute beasts, lest any man hearing of these things should be troubled, he maketh mention of the old sacrifice. Decumenius also Oecum. in. 1. Co. cap. 11. writeth thus concerning the naming of the chalice or cup: Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem. Et bene in poculo, ut ostendat vetus Testamentum anteà hoc delineasse. Our Lord giveth his own blood in stead of the blood of unreasonable creatures. And he doth well to give it in a cup, to show that the old Testament did shadow this thing before. Behold why the cup is mentioned. verily to show Christ's blood to be as really in the cup of his own supper, as ever the bru●…e beasts blood was in the cup of the old testament. yea much more also. For the blood of the oxen was really put into that old cup, to show that Christ's blood should be really present in the cup of his supper. the old blood did not show, that wine should be in Christ's cup (for that had been less than the old testament itself, because the blood of oxen is better than wine of the grape) but that blood in the basin did signify, that Christ's blood should Christ's blood real lie in the chalice. be in our chalice, not only as in a figure (for so it was in the basin also of the old testament) but even in very deed under the form of wine. It is not now sufficient to say, we drink Christ's blood in heart or by faith: it must be drunken really out of the chalice and cup of Christ's supper. thence the heart must take it at Christ's supper, thence it must be received both in faith and truth. ¶ The xxvi. Circumstance of the verb est, left out in S. Luke's words. IT is the custom of writers in the Hebrew tongue, to leave out many times the verb sum, es, fui, which is latin, to be: and The verb substantive left out. that, because common sense and use doth easily teach us to supply that verb, as being both most necessary of all other, and most frequent in common speech. S. Luke writeth thus: This cu●… is the new testament in my blood shed for you. this sentence is imperfect for lack of a verb which may knit the parts thereof together. I ask what verb we shall understand, to make it perfect. The Sacramontaries say, that Christ meaneth, this cup doth signify the new testament in my The verb significat can not be understanded. blood. will ye then understand the verb, significat, doth signify? if ye do so, I will show that as well the noun cup, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testamentum are both put in the nominative case. but if S. Luke had meant to understand the verb significat, he would have put one of them in, the accusative case. If ye supply the verb est is, to make the sentence perfect, that The verb est must needs be supplied. verb must needs be taken in the same sense, wherein it is wont to be supplied: but it is commonly supplied as a common verb whose nature is to declare the substance and not the figure of the thing, which is spoken of: therefore so it must be taken at this tyme. Otherwise, what a folly were it, when a verb is at the first left out, to call it of purpose into the speech, and as soon as it is placed there, to say it standeth not properly, but to remove it again, & put an other verb for it? What? was the verb est, being once left out, brought in for this intent only, y● as soon as it was in his place, it should be immediately cast out, & changed into the verb significat? If ye say ye were compelled to call it in, I agree with you, and The necessity of the verb est in Christ's words. say further, ye are to blame to cast it out. For the holy Ghost would not have compelled you in vain to call it in. God meant ye should call it in, and keep it in. For in that he left it out, he would show to your hard hearts, how that verb, which when ye had it present in other Evangelists ye disdanied, and scortiefully removed, that it was not only well placed, but it was so necessary to the meaning of his words, that when it was left out, ye should be forced to call it in. And will ye be so forgetful, as not to note these secret enforcements of God? Know ye not that one iota or one title of the law (and much less of the Gospel) passeth not away, Math. 5. until all things be fulfilled? And yet dare you take away the verb substantive itself from Christ's own words, the same verb, I say, which he compelled you to take in, when it was omitted by S. Luke? See how far Christ is from your mind. when it is but once left out, he will have it even then put in, and when it is expressed in the words of Christ's supper seven times, you will every time put it out. It is the custom of the Hebrew tongue to leave out the verb substantive sum, es, fui, when it signifieth properly. But how is it left out, when (if you say true) it was never meant to be in? Or how was it meant to be in, when being put in, it is by you removed as not meant properly by him that spoke? And yet it is so necessarily meant to be put in Christ's words, that when it is left out, the Sacramentaries can not chose but supply it and put it in. therefore Christ meant to have it stand in his proper and usual signification. For, seeing the verb est, is used to be left out, because it may easily be supplied, and may be taken as expressed (though it be not expressed in deed) than the use which maketh it to be left out, as a verb easily supplied, must by the same reason make it signify that thing, which it useth commonly to signify, sith it is supplied by the only force of the use of speaking. and surely the use of the verb est, is to signify the substance of that noun substantive which hath a peculiar substance, and consequently in the words of Christ's supper it must signify the substance of his body and of his blood really present. ¶ The xxvij. Circumstance, of these words: which is shed for you. THis cup is the new Testament in my blood (saith S. Luke) which is or shallbe shed for you. The relative, which, in Qui calix, The which cup these words is not ruled (as some perhaps would think) of the noun blood, which went last before: but of the noun, cup, or chalice. Which thing is most plain in the Greek text:. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hoc poculum nowm Testamentum in sanguine meo, quod pro vobis effunditur. This cup is the new Testament in my blood, the which cup is shed for you. For seeing the Greek participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth shedding, is in the nominative case with the noun cup, and not in the dative with the noun blood, no escape can be had, but it mu●…t be referred to that word, wherewith in grammar it may agree: otherwise, if we shall neglect the literal sense, which ariseth of the right construction of the words, we build a roof (as I alleged before out of S. Hier●…m) without In Amos cap. 4. walls or foundation. What meaning then have these words, the which cup is shed for you, or as the latin copies read, which shallbe shed? For it was both presently shed in a mystery at the holy table of Christ, & should the next day be naturally shed upon the cross. The substance of blood was one in both places, the manner of shedding only differing. But, as I said, how is the cup said to be shed for us? The word for us importeth a sacrifice made in the shedding: and therefore S. Matthew showeth it to be shed in redemptionem peccatorum, for the remission of sins. Mark, good Reader, the manner of speaking the cup is shed▪ that is to say, the thing contemed in the cup. For we all agree herein, that the name of, cup, standeth to mean the liquor in it, as continens is used to be put pro contento. the thing which holdeth a liquor is used to be put for the liquor itself, which it holdeth. We say, he drank up a great bowl, who drank the ale, bear, or wine that was in it: and that is a figurative speech by exact rules of Grammar, but a speech made as proper through use and custom. Therefore to say, the cup is shed for us, doth signify, that the liquor in it is shed for us, what liquor was that? It is the greatest mar●…eyle in the world, if any man be so impudent as to affirm, that material wine was shed for us, or that wine obtained us remission of oúr sins: and yet it can not be denied, but the liquor contained in the cup of Christ's supper was shed for us, as Christ saith. Therefore I say, the liquor contained in the cup of Christ's supper could be no wine, but only the blood of Christ. Is this a plain argument, or no? the liquor in the cup of Christ's banquet was shed for us to obtain A demonstration out of God's word. the forgiveness of sins: but only the real blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our sins: therefore the only real blood of Chest was contained in the cup of Christ's banquet. What answer can be framed to this argument, if Hell were let lose? what probable solution were it able to bring? The first part is in S. Luke, the second is in S. Paul: who affirmeth it to be Hebr. 9 the blood of Christ (who offered himself by the holy spirit vnsp●…d unto God) which cleanseth our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. After these two parts the conclusion 〈◊〉 follow, that Christ's real blood is in the cup of Christ's supper. in the cup, I say, which Christ showed & pointed unto saying: this cup, that is to say, the thing herein contained is the new Testament in my blood. the which thing con●…eiued in the cup is Euthy. in c. Luc. 22. shed for you. Euthymius well peceaving this to be the meaning of S. Luke's words, writeth thus: Quod verò dicitur, quod pro vobis effunditur, ad poculum referendum est: porrô poculum est saguis eius. Whereas it is said, the which is shed for you, it is to be referred unto the cup. Now the cup is Christ's blood. God grant our deceived brethren may once perceive this Grammatic●…ll & literal sen●…e of Christ's words. ¶ The last circumstance, of the Hymn said at Christ's supper. WHen Christ had ended his banquet, he renounced to ●…ate or drink any more with his Apostles, until the ki●…gdom of God came, giving them an evident watchword therein: that he would presently offer himself to death, and so departed from this world, until he should arise the third day. And strait he sang an hymn, and with his Apostles went forth of the parlour, where they had supped. Although the hymn or song of praise, whereof S. Matthew speaketh, do not alone Matt. 26. prove the real presence of Christ●…s body and blood: yet it helpeth thus far toward it, as to show and express a singular banquet to An hymn said only at Christ's supper. have been made: after which so rare and solemn a praise was given to God, as again is no where else mentioned. For albeit no man may doubt, but Chest did always give thanks unto God after his meat received: yet we never read of an hym●…e said or sung after any other Feast, beside this. And yet I doubt nothing joan. 12. at all, but that Christ gave himself by faith and spirit even at the supper time to some of his Disciples before this night, and namely to the blessed Mary, which at Betha●…y ointed his feet at supper tyme. but that giving of himself to Sain●…t M●…ry or any other to be eaten of by faith was not this dre●…ful gi●…t of Christ's supper. The hymn which was externally sung or said, was ●…ue to this external work of God, wherein he wit●… 〈◊〉 own hands gave his own body and blood to his disciples. To conclude at the length concerning all these circumstances of this heavenly supper: I beseech the Reader, to account & weigh them all together, and not only to consider them a part albeit many of them alone are not able to be answered. but a circumstance is not a perfect thing of itself, but is a part of that whole thing, about the which it hath his being and place. If all these circumstances joined together do prove the real presence of Christ's body and blood, under the forms of that bread and wine, which Christ took, and said thereof, this is my body, and this is my blood: I have my purpose and intent. but he dealeth unhonestly who dividing them a part, cavilleth at one or two, and will not look to all at once. If all these joined together prove not my purpose, let him who thinketh so, either show me so many & so strong for his contrary assertion, or let him yield to y● Catholi●… faith. ¶ The real presence of Christ's body and blood, and the The x. Chapter. proper meaning of his words, is proved by the conference of holy scriptures taken ou●… of the new Testament, and speaking of our ●…ords supper. Every place in holy scripture hath not another place like, or in appearance contrary to it, whereby the more light may be taken for the understanding thereof: but when there are any such places, they help marvelously toward the understanding of holy scripture. Christ one year before his last supper said at Capharna●…: The bread, which I will give, is my flesh: & my flesh is meat in deed. joan. 6. Math. 26 At his supper he took bread, and having blessed, said: Take eat, this is my body, and this cup is the new Testament in my blood: S. 〈◊〉 speaking of the self same mystery, writeth thus: The 1. Cor. 10 chalice of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communicating of The places which are to be confer●…ed. Christ's blood? And the bread which we break, is it not the come municating of the body of our Lord: Let us now confer every word together. That which was promised in S. john by these words: The joan. 6. bread which I will give, is described in the supper presently by Math. 26 these words: Take, eat (this) and this cup. not that I make (this) the accusative case to the verb eat, but only to show, that these three words agree with the first words in S. Ihon. And afterward in S. Paul it is called, The bread which we break: so that 1. Cor. 10 these four particles belong in effect to one thing: The bread, which I will give: The bread, which we break, and, take, eat, (this) or drink ye this cup. By which conference we learn, how the pronoun (this) may be particularly expounded in Christ's This. supper: for of his general signification, which is to show under a visible form an invisible substance, I have spoken before sufficiently. (This) then is as much to say, as: this meat, drink or food, which is now broken and given, and willed to be taken and eaten or drunken, is my body or blood. It hath been evidently proved upon the sixth of S. John, that the bread which he promised, was Thebre●…d promised is not m●… teriall bread. not meant of wheaten bread (whereof Christ spoke not in the place) but of the meat and food of everlasting life. Therefore, when Christ saith (this) in his last supper, he meaneth none otherwise, than this eatable thing, or this which is to be drunken, this kind of meat or drink and food, which I n●…w give, is my body or blo●…d: otherwise, i●… it were not his flesh and blood, but material bread and wine, it were not the everlasting meat, which Christ at Capha●…namn promised to give, and now at his supper doth give. So that whereas Christ both brake and gave, & after blessing said, take, eat (this) therewith beginning to consecrate the Sacrament of his last supper: we have it expounded what (this) This is 〈◊〉 by that other places. doth 〈◊〉, by three 〈◊〉 ways: by the time to come, when it is said: the brea●… that I will give, ●…hich out of question is understanded the food 〈◊〉 Christ will give. For Christ himself called it before the meat which tarrieth to life everlasting. Again, the pronoun (this) may be well expounded by the deed exercised about the Sacrament after cous●…ration, when it is said of S. Paul: The bread which we break. for the breaking is used after consecration in the sign and form of bread, to show the death of Christ, wherein his flesh was in deed broken, and to distribute the m●…rites thereof by the holy communion. The third way is, by conferring together the very words of the consecrating the two kinds. For as he said of the bread, this alone, so he said of the wine this cup. giving us to understand, that as this cup must of necessity be resolved into the thing within the cup: so in the other kind we should resolve the pronoun this into that, which is within this visible form. Thereby declaring that (this) generally meaneth, the substance under this: and particularly meaneth, the food under this. All is in effect to say, The meat that I will give, the eatable thing that we break at Mass, that, whereof Christ said, take and eat, that which is contained under the apparent forms: that is it, which in the supper is termed by the pronoun●… (●…his) The next word is the verb (is) which can very hardly be expounded The verb 〈◊〉. by any other word in any tongue: because it being the verb substa●…, is in all tongues set alone, to signify that being or substance that every thing hath, and no other one word is equal to it, which may expound it. Yet I may boldly say, the holy Ghost hath done so much to expound this verb, as may suffice What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean by 〈◊〉. to any reasonable creature. For Christ said, before any sign of his body was 〈◊〉: The bread which I will give, is my flesh. When Christ made that promise, there was nothing in the whole world, whereof the verb (is) might be verified in the present tense, but only that substance of Christ's flesh, which he had in his natural body. The outward gift of the supper was then to come, & yet Christ said of the substance of his gift, The bread which I will give, is my flesh. I say not only that it shallbe my flesh, but I say it is my flesh at this time: because the substance that I will give, is now present with you, although the manner of deliverance be to come. Let us therefore so expound the verbè (is) in the supper, that it may agree with the verb (is) in S. John: where it cannot be taken for a bare significative being, because then there was no sign of his body made. Moreover S. Paul writing after the supper was past, doth interpret the verb (is) as plainly, as can be devised: to signify a substantial, and not an accidental being. for he saith: The bread, The communicatig which we break, is the communicating of Christ's flesh. it is the communicating, as though he said: it is so truly Christ's flesh, that no difference is between it, and the being or substance of Christ's flesh. All thing is common between it, and Christ's flesh: no division, no separation, no distinction cometh between these two. All this the word communicating doth signify, and more to. For the bread, which we break, is so far Christ's body: that it maketh us also the body of Christ. The bread which 〈◊〉 break, is so 〈◊〉 distant from being a bare sign: that it hath Christ's body made common to it by consecration, and it maketh Christ's body common to us by communion: so that for est, is, S. Paul putteth, communicatio est, it is the communicating, or the having, or making common Christ's body and blood. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24. S. Chrysostom so vehemently presseth the word communicating & union, whereof the Apostle speaketh: that he saith, S. Paul would not leave so much as a little difference between the men, which do communicate, and that, which is communicated: and yet if that, which is communicated, were material bread, it would so much differ from Christ our head, and the mystical body, which we are in Christ, that it should be an other nature and substance clean diverse from it, not only not communicating in one and the same member of a mystical body, but neither in the whole kind of things, which the Logicians call speciem, or genus proximum. Let us add hereunto, that if we take, est, for significat, in these words, hic significat sanguinem meum: the verb shall lac●… a noun substantive to be his nominative case. And that S. Luke, by leaving est, to be understanded by common reason, doth show it signifieth properly, as men commonly are wont to use that verb. Thus much being said for (this) and (is), the word (body) remaineth, Body. Matt. 6. joan. 6. Matt. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 joan. 6. Matt. 26 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 1 Cor. 11 Matt. 26. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 to be declared by the conference of holy scripture. In S. Matthew it is called supersubstantial bread. In S. john it is called my flesh, which I will give for the light of the world. In S. Matthew and Mark my body. in S. Luke, my body which is given for you. in S. Paul, my body which is broken for you, or shallbe betrayed for you, the body of our Lord this bread, & the one bread. Likewise concerning the blood, it is called the blood of the son of man: my blood, the blood of the new Testament, the new testament in my blood. The chalice of blessing which we▪ bless, the blood of Christ, the blood of our Lord, and the chalice of our Lord. Of the body it is said take, eat: of the blood, take & divide among you, and drink ye all of this. Of both together it is said, to the Apostles, make, and do ye this thing. Of evil men it is said, that they eat this bread, and drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily, not judging rightly our lords body: And last of all, he that eateth me, shall live for me. If now we will expound joan. 6. body, for the sign of body, it will follow, that the sign of Christ's body was g●…n for us. And when it is said, He that eateth me shall live for me: it must be expounded: He that eateth the sign of me, shall live for the sign of me. To conclude, as (this) belongeth not to the substance either of bread or of wine, wherewith it can not agree in 〈◊〉: as the verb est, is, can not stand for significat to signify, lest it lack his nominative case: as the cup shed for us, can not stand for wine shed in sacrifice, or else for the sign of blood shed, but only for the substance of blood shed on the cross: so corpus body can not stand for a figure or a sign of the body, because hoc est corpu●… meum datum pro vobis (accordingly as the Greek hath) can not be interpreted, this is the figure of my body which is given for you▪ except with Ualentinus, Martion, Manicheus it shallbe said, the figure of Christ's body was given to death for us. Wherefore I may boldly conclude, that stubbornly to defend, that the words of Christ's supper are Grammatically or Rhetorically figurative (concerning the substantial parts of the chief propositions) is extreme ignorance in the rules of Grammar and of Logic, palpable blindness in the study of divinity, and a malice inexcusable at the day of judgement, if the party repent not. Now on the other side, confer Scriptures, whether John Baptist be Elias: it is evident, that it is not so. There was between them in time above five hundred years: John Baptist was killed, Elias liveth yet. The Angel said by John Baptist, Lucae. 1. He shall go before our Lord in the spirit and virtue of Elias: He said not, in truth and person. And John Baptist being asked, whether he were Elias or no, answered plainly: Non sum, joan. 1. I am not. It is plain enough, that John Baptist is not Elias in person: but only in like office and function. Thus you may see (good Reader) what odds is between those places, which our aduersa●…s would have like, and would make you believe that these words (This is my body) be no more properly spoken, than these (He is Elias.) The like may be said of the rock, which meaneth two diverse Exod. 17 Num. 20 natures, ●…se giving water: as it is described in the books of Moses, and well known to be neither Christ by nature, neither by cōne●…on of any rock into Christ. For neither Christ ever said of the rock (This is my body) neither did he command us, to say so. What shall I say of that unsensible objection, that God dwelleth Acto. 17. not in Temples made with man's hand? For we now speaking of the body of Christ, speak not of the dwelling, which belongeth to God: but of that, which belongeth to his human nature, which itself also is not a Temple made with the hand of man, or begotten by the seed of man, but form and conceived of the holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin, in the which Collos. 1. manhood of Christ, the fullness of Godhead dwelleth corporally. As for those places where Christ saith: Poor men shall ye Marc. 14 &. 16. Lucae. 24. Rom. 8. have with you always, but me ye shall no●… have: And, he is risen, he is not here: And, whiles Christ blessed his Disciples, he went from them, and was carried into heaven, there sitting at the right hand of his Father until the end of the world, with such like: they▪ are not to be conferred with these words (This is my body) because they speak of a natural being of Christ, and not of such a being, as is peculiar unto the Sacrament of Christ's supper. Neither is it possible, that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉 should impugn that other: sith Christ hath ord●…ed both, & the Church did 〈◊〉 always both together. Christ ascended into heaven there sitting at the right hand of Actor. 1. &. 2. his Father, and leaving us the belief thereof as a chief article of our faith, Christ made his own supper, saying: This is my body, and commanded his Apostles and their succ●…s to make L●…. 22. the same, saying: Do and make this thing, for the remembrance of me. Therefore neither the making of Christ's body, neither the belief thereof, can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father. Again, sith nothing is impossible to The presence of Christ's b●…dy is not impossible. God (albeit that which imploiet●… contradiction in itself, be therefore impossiple, because it repugneth to the truth itself which is in God) it is not possible to God, y● the body of Christ should both be in heaven after one visible sort, and in the Sacrament after a mystical sort. It were in deed impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heaven, and not to be in heaven. Or, to be in the Sacrament, and not to be there in the same respect: but to be in heaven and in the Sacrament, or to be in many places at once, that maketh no 〈◊〉, but only showeth an almighty and infinite power in him, who worketh it. Of this mind all the Church of God hath been hitherto, and therefore it hath believed as well the sitting of Christ at his Father's r●…ht hand in heaven: as the real presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar. Yea it hath believed the one, because of the other. For in so much as Christ is so almighty, as The sitting of 〈◊〉 in heaven 〈◊〉, a h●…p to his 〈◊〉 presence in the Sacra 〈◊〉. to sit at the right hand of God: he is able to perform his own word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar. And therefore in the sixth of S. John when he spoke of eating his flesh, and of drinking his blood, which he would give: he also declared, that he would go up into heaven in his manhood, where he was before in his Godhead. And that thing he spoke (as S. Cyrillus hath noted) to declare, that he was God, and therefore able to work that, which he spoke of, in so much as his words were spirit and life. For this cause Chrysostom crieth out: o miraculum, o Dei Chryso. de sacer. lib. 3. benignitatem. Qui cum Patre sursum sedet, in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur, ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti. O miracle, O goodness of God. He that sitteth above with the Father, in the same very momen●… of time is touched with the hands of all men, and delivereth himself to those, that will receive and embrace him. Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur? Seem these things to thee worthy to be despised & neglected? Sacra nostra non modò Christ's supper passeth all wondering mira esse videbis, sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia. Thou shalt perceive, our holy things not only to be wonderful: but also to exceed all wondringe, and astoning of the mind. If then we understand, that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lord's supper, and no contradiction at all to any other parts of our belief: we may be sure, that none other article of our creed doth drive us to miscredit the real presence of Christ's body and blood in his own supper. And therefore where we dispute of his last supper, we must examine the meaning of the words, which were spoken there, according to other places of the Scriptures, which belong unto the last supper. The places appertaining to Christ's last supper, according The places belonging to Christ's supper. to the interpretation of ancient doctors, are these: the later part of the 6. Chapter of S. john. the supersubstantial bread in the 6. of S. Matthew. and the supper itself in the 62. of S. Matthew, in the 14. of S. Mark, the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke. certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapter of the first epi●…le of S. Paul to the Corinthians: in the 5. to the Ephesians, in the 2. chapter of the first epistle to Timotheus. in the 13. to the Hebrews. in the 2. 13. and 20. chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In all which places & other (if there be any like) we find much to con●…e the real presence: but nothing to lead us to a figurative meaning. These words, which be in S. john: the flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit which quickeneth, my words be spirit and life, be declared in the former book, when we disputed of the sixth chapter of S. john. ¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after consecration. The 〈◊〉. Chapter. NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament, for that it seemeth in many places to be called bread even a●…ter consecration, and that aswell in S. john as in S. Paul, and in the Acts of the Apostles: noman (I say) ought upon this slender argument to change his belief otherwise grounded upon so plain scriptures, & the faith of the Church so generally received: but rather he ought to learn the cause, why the body of Christ is most justly called bread in this Sacrament. The custom of speaking in holy scriptures came chiefly from the Hebrew tongue, wherein the old Testament was written: as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews were. The residue of the Apostles and Evangelists, albeit they wrote in Greek, they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their words. Bread in the Hebrew tongue his called Lehem, and cometh of the verb Laham, which signifieth to All food 〈◊〉 in Hebrew called bread. ●…ate: so that all which man may eat, is meant by the Hebrew word Lehem, as well bread, as flesh or fruits, in so much that sometime it signifieth only flesh, as the Hebrew Doctors have Vide Pagninum in verbo Laham. noted out of the sixth and seventh chapter of job. Now the Apostles and Evangelists writing also in Greek have put for the Hebrew word Lehem, the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and they that translated the scriptures into latin, have turned it into panis, and we in our vulgar tongue name it bread: by which means it cometh to pass, that the Greek, Latin, and English word must be taken in holy scriptures according to the Hebrew word Lehem: which betokeneth all what soever is to be eaten of man, but especially bread, as being the chief fruit of the earth. After which sort when Christ saith in the gospel: man liveth Deut. 8. & Cath. 4. not by bread alone, but by every word, which proceedeth from the mouth of God, he meaneth by the name of bread, all kind of natural nourishment, which man taketh by mo●…th. without all which he may li●…e either by natural bread, as Manna was: or, if it so please God to say the word, without any meat at all, as Moses and Elias fasted forty days. according to which general Math. 6. Luc. 11. taking of bread, we ask in our lords prayer, our daily and supersubstantial bread: that is to say, all necessary sustenance for body and soul. It is further to be noted, that in holy scriptures, when one thing is converted into an other, the later thing is many times called by the name of the first thing: not because it is still the first, but because it was made from the first. As when it is said, Exod. 7. that the rod of Aron devoured the rods of the Conjurers of Pha rao: where that is called a rod, which was in deed a serpent, and not then a rod: but it is named a rod, because from a rod it was turned into a 〈◊〉. Likewise Adam is called earth, because Gen. 1. 3. he was made of earth. Thirdly a thing is call●…d in holy scripture not only as it is, but also as it seemeth outwardly to be. so the Angel, which the godly w●…men saw at the sepulchre of Christ, is called a young Marc. 16. man, because he appeared so, although in deed he were not so. Which things being well pond●…red, it is easy to satis●…ie them that say, the holy communion is bread still, because after consecration That 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 b●…ad w●…ch 〈◊〉 bread 〈◊〉 ●…et sem●…th br●…ad. it is called bread: To whom I answer, first that it is called bread, because it was bread, and still seemeth bread: but that notwithstanding, it is flesh and was made flesh from of the substa●…ce of bread, being converted into flesh by the almighty words of Christ: who taking bread, said in the way of blessing, & of thanks giving, this is my body. Secondly I answer, that in deed after consecration it is a kind of bread and food (not that which it was before) but ine●…ably bitter and of more price, and more worthy of that name of true bread, than it was before: that is to say, it is the true flesh of ●…hrist which nourisheth the bodies and souls of the faithful men to li●…e everlasting. And to prove this answer true, it may please the Reads to remember, that Christ called himself the bread of life: and named the gift of his supper the meat which joan. 6. tarrieth to life everlasting, & the lively bread which came down from heaven. After which meaning he saith, and the bread which I will geue is my flesh. Behold the kind of bread. Again S. Paul 1. Cor. 10 saith: The bread, which we break is it not the communicating of our Lord's body? For we being many are one bread, one body all we that partake of the one bread. all partake of the one bread, and it be the bread which we break, surely that, which is broken, can not be any material bread, but is only the body of Christ the bread of life. And lest any man should think, that in saying the name of bread in Christ's supper standeth for meat & for flesh, I speak without sufficient authority, beside the authority of the scriptures already alleged, which can not be otherwise taken: let him also weigh together with me, how conformably the ancient Fathers taught Ignatius in 2. epi. ad Rom. the same doctrine. S. Ignatius saith: Panem Dei volo, quod est caro Christi. I desire the bread of God, which thing is the flesh of Christ: Which thing in the nenter gender, is none other to say, than which substance. justinus in Apol. 2. justinus the Martyr affirmeth first that the Deacons give to every man the bread, wine, and water which are consecrated with First. Bread, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 water. giving of thanks. Where he calleth them by the ●…ames which they had before consecration: And s●…raight expounding the names of bread, wine, and water, which they have by consecration, he writeth thus: Hic cibus apud nos Eucharistia nominatur, This 2. Consecration. food is called with us the Eucharist, Wherefore for all three names, 3. Food. he putteth this one name of food, wherein they all meet. Neither so content, he saith yet again: For we take not these things as common bread and drink, but we have learned, the meat which is consecrated by the words of prayer taken of him, to be the flesh and blood of Christ. So that first, he declareth himself by bread, 4. Flesh and blood. wine, and water, to mean the matter of the Sacrament. Secondly, he confesseth the consecration, to make them a more heavenly food. Thirdly, he denieth them to be now common bread and drink. Fourthly, he affirmeth it to be that kind of food, which is the flesh and blood of Christ. Of the same very Sacrament S. Hilary saith: Nos vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus: We take the word truly flesh, in our Lord's meat. Where he calleth the thing, which is given at Christ's supper, cibum Dominicum, the meat which our Lord giveth, meaning it not to be any more common bread, but that kind of bread, which is also called meat or food. S. Cyprian Libro. 2. Epist. 3. ●…d Cecil. 2. Ireneus. ●…. 4. ca 34 saith, Christ offered bread and wine, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem: that is to say, his own body and blood. Mark the kind of bread. S. Ireneus saith: It is not now (to wit after consecration) common bread, but the Eucharist. S. Ambrose asketh, why after consecration we say in o●…r Lords Ambrose de Sacram. li. 5. ca 4. prayer: give us this day our daily bread? And himself answereth: He calleth it bread in deed, Sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est, supersubstantialem: That is to say, as S. Hierom expoundeth it, qui super omnes substantias sit, such a bread which is above all substances. And yet farther S. Hierom saith, Panem illum petimus, Hieron. in Math. cap. 6. qui dicit: Ego sum panis vivus, we ask that bread which said: I am the li●…ely bread. But to return again to S. Ambrose, he concludeth: Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus: sed ille panisvitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit. It is not that bread, which goeth into the body, but that bread of everlasting life, which holdeth up the substance of our soul, Gregorius of Ny●…a Nyssen. in vita Moysis. speaking of the Sacrament of the altar, saith: Panis est absque semine, absque aratione, absque alio humano opere nobis paratus. It is bread provided for us without seed, without ploughing, and Tract. 26 in joan. without any other work of man. S. Augustine saith: when would flesh understand this thing, that he called bread flesh? In levit. c. 22. l. 6. In oper●… Paschal. Isychi●…s nameth the bread, which S. Paul saith is eaten unworthily, nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis: the nourisher of our intelligible or spiri●…all substance. Sedulius speaking of the bread which Christ gave to judas, saith: Panem cui Thebr●… given to judas was betr●…●…ed for us. tradidit ipse, Qui panis tradendus erat. to whom Christ himself gave bread, the which bread was to be betrayed. See, the bread that Christ gave, it was not every bread, not the substance of common bread: but even that bread in substance, which was betrayed for us to death. For Christ is bread, & giving himself to judas, he gave the same bread that was betrayed, except any other thing was betrayed for us beside Christ. I might surely bring a marvelous number of such testimonies, all which declare the name of bread (which is attributed to the body of Christ after consecration) not to signify material 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 jesus Christ eaten under the form o●… common bread. And that kind of bread is never named without an article or pronoun joined with it: Whereby the excellency of the bread is witnessed, & the difference of it from common bread. Math. 6. joan. 6. 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 It is called in S. Matthew supersubstantial bread, & in S. john the bread which is flesh, and in S. Paul the bread, which who so eateth unworthily, he is guilty 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 The xii. Chapter. last supper is proved by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old Testament. FRom Adam to S. john Baptist, all the faithful people of God was both in continual expectation of the coming of Euseb. Emissen. Hom. 2. de Pasch. jesus Christ: & partly foreshowed in deeds by holy figures and pageants: partly foretold in words by the spirit of prophecy, what should afterward be done by Christ himself, and be observed in his kingdom the church. After which sort the brazen ser●…ent Num. 21. joan. 3. jonae 2. Math. 12. betokened the death of Christ, and jonas his resurrection. The figures by the way of doing, commended the same truth to the eyes, which the prophecies by the way of speaking did set forth to the ears. Which two senses are the chief means, whereby we attain to knowledge in this life. And because both figures and prophecies are obscure, dark, and unpleasant, until they be fulfilled: I thought best, not t●… speak of them, before I had declared the true meaning of that gift, which Christ made at his last supper. Now it remaineth, that we briefly confer the one, with the other, showing that sense of Christ's words, which the catholics defend, to be agreeable to such old shadows, figures & prophecies, as appertained to the Sacrament of the altar. For to the jews (as S. Paul affirmeth) 1. Co. 10. all things chanced in figures. And Christ saith, all things must Luc. 24. Gen. 4. needs be fulfilled which are spoken of him in the law, Psalms and Prophets. De mira bill. sacrae scripture. cap. 3. Hier. in quaest. He br. in goe. ¶ The figure of Abel. ABell the first shepherd, Priest, Martyr, and perpetual virgin, made a sacrifice of the first begotten of his flock, and of the fat of them: which God showed himself to accept by sending down fire from heaven. Abel then having first offered himself unto God under the shape of other things, afterward went forth to be offered in his own person and shape, being Didym. in epist. joan. 1. ●…aiterously put to death by his brother Cain, with a deadly ●…ripe of a wooden club or stake: whose blood the earth (opening her mouth) received into her bowels, and from thence it cried to God. The prince of shepherds, the chief Priest, great martyr and witensbea●… to all truth, the flower and garland of all virginity Ezech. cap. 24. is jesus Christ God and man. whose flock the faithful men are. The first bego●…ē and fat of them, is the flesh and blood, which jesus ●…oke of the virgin Marie: which flesh and blood he first offered to God by will and affection, when he took into his hands Math. 26 bread and wi●…e, within a certain parlour upon mount Sio●…, where he did eat the Paschal lamb with his Apostles. And God showed him sel●…o to accept that intent of the son of man, by working with the consuming fiex of his Divinity that marucilouse grace: which turned the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's own flesh and blood. And from that place joan. 18. Aug. ad quaest. Orosijs 4. 9 Prosper de promissis & prae dict. De●… Herald 11. 12 If any good man were able to offer 〈◊〉 to God his own body in his own hands, he would do Abel by slaying his L●…bs showed himself to have desired an other sacrifice. Christ went forth over the brook of Cedron, to be offered in his own person and shape, betrayed by judas, and put to death upon the wood of the cross by his own brethren the jews: whose blood the Church, called forth from among both jews and gentiles, with all due honour receiveth into her mouth, & bowels: whence it giveth a better cry, than the blood of Abel did from the earth, where it lay. Abel under the sig●…e of his Lambs did by will and affection consecrate the same truth of his body and soul to God, which at the time of his death he actually rendered and gave up into the hands of his maker. And surely if he had been able to have made the substance of his own body an●… soul present in his own hands, when he offered, he would much more 〈◊〉 have offered, it, than y● d●…ad flesh of lambs, which he used for a sign of 〈◊〉. For who would content himself with a bar●… sign, if he we●…e able to offer the truth itself? He was not of such power, as to change the lambs into himself, thereby working that in his haudes outwardly, which his heart inwardly offered. But yet he showed his desire to have a change made, in that he slew the lambs, taking from them their former substance, to thin●…t by consecration they might obtei●…e a more holy and sac●…ed being. God also looked upon his gifts, as well accepting the mind of his Priest, as the manner of his doing. But that which lacked in Abel (who was feign to show outwardly the consecration of his own heart by a thing of an other substance) that thing Christ fulfilled, making the same substance of his own flesh present in Marc. 14 his hands, which he dedicated to God in his heart: For taking bread and blessing he said, This is my body. Abel offered his gift, before he went forth into the field, where Gen. 4. he was ●…aine: The Sacramentaries de●…e Christ to have offered his gifts in his last supper, before h●… went forth to his passion. Abel contented not himself with the former substance, which his lambs naturally had: They teach, that Christ contented himself with the former substance of bread & wine. Fire ●…rom heaven in●…amed the external gifts of Abel: They deny the fire of the word of God to swallow up the substance of bread and wine which Christ took. Abel consecrated his own body and blood, as far as he was able, under the outward sign of his lambs: They deny Christ to have consecrated his own body and blood under the forms of the bread and wine which he took, although they must needs confess, that both Christ was able really to do it, and Aug de Trm. l. 3. by the way of blessing to have said, this is my body: which words all the Fathers have called the words of consecration. The real blood of Abel was taken into the mouth of the sensible earth: They deny the Church (which is the earth of God) to take the blood of Christ into her sensible mouth, whereas S. Augustine saith: Aug. in Psal. 39 Terra quae ore accepit sanguinem, Ecclesia est. The Church is the earth, which hath taken the blood in her mouth. The blood of Abel cried from the bowels of the earth to God: They deny the blood of Christ to cric to God out of our bowels. Abel figured both the supper and passion of Christ: They deny Christ to have fulfilled the figure concerning his supper. Abel offered himself two ways, once under a sign, and again in the visible truth of nature: They deny Christ to have offered himself under any sign, but only in the visible truth of his nature. The devil had the more power upon ●…ain, because he came to the high office of sa crificing unworthily: They granting that Satan entered into judas at the banquet of Christ, yet deny Christ to have made a sarifice there. And so confessing that judas did eat unworthily, they will not confess the worthiness of the thing eaten. To be ●…hort, the Sacramentaries (who teach bread and wine, which The Sacramentaries make the supper of Christ like to the doings of ●…ain. are fruits of the earth, to remain in their own earthly nature, not having the body and blood of Christ offered under the forms of them and accepted) make the supper of Christ to be like the earthly fruits of Cain: who neither himself went about to change them, neither obtained to have the earthly grossness of them p●…rged with fie●… from heaven, neither offered his own body and blood under the outward signs of them: but keeping back that, which was of most price, he offered only a few base fruits of the earth, giving an example for his part, what a base and ●…arthly Cain did bear a figure of the English communion communion heretics would set up directly against the blessed sacrifice of Abel: which in all points Christ fulfilled, & the Catholics do keep and follow. If I should have handled every member of this comparison at large, thou mayest judge, good Reader, how great a book it would have made. In matters of the old T●…stament I had rather be short, then tedious. which excuse I desire thee to accept throughout every part of all this whole chapter. ¶ The figure of Melchisedech. THe Sacramentaries deny, that Christ exercised any Priestly office after the order of Melchisedech in his last supper: As Gen. 14. though ●…elchisedech did not bring forth bread and wine, and Christ like wise did not take at his last supper bread & wine. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Maro. 14 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Galat. 3. Gen. 14. Melchisedech did bless, and Christ blessed. Melchisedech gave thanks to God, and Christ gave thanks. The thing blessed by Melchisedech was Abraham: And the thing made by Christ's blessing was his own body the seed of Abraham. Melchisedech gave thanks to God for the victory of Abraham, by consecrating the person himself, who was the conqueror, saying: Blessed be Abraham to the high God. So did Christ make his ●…charist, that is to say, he gave his thanks to God for the victory obtained at his death, by consecrating the self same body, which died, and wherein he won the field, saying: This is my body which is given Luc. 22. for you. And yet did not Christ at his supper fulfil the whole order of M●…lchisedech? The weakest and basest thing that Melchisedech had in all his Priesthood, was the bringing forth of bread and wine. At the which Gen. 14. he stayed not, but went forward to bless Abraham, the end of his sacrifice. And now the Sacramentaries make Christ to stay upon the substance of bread and wine, without going forward by blessing, to make there of his blessed body, the seed of Abraham, Melchisedech gave his bread to Abraham, to the end it, being Clemens Alexand. Stron. l. 4. Christ ●…as seth Melchisedech by turning the bread, which he brought forth, into his own body. eaten of him, might be made a better substance in his flesh, than it was in itself. But Christ giveth not us the natural substance of common bread (for common bread profiteth nothing) but Christ changeth it into a better substanc●…, verily into the substance of his own flesh: to the end we eating his flesh might be made a better and more holy substance, whiles we abide in Christ whom we eat, and to whom we are united. The Sacramentaries, who confess Melchisedech to have had Abraham really present, as it were, in his hands at the tune of blessing and consecrating him to God, deny Christ to have had his own body and blood present in his hands at the time of his blessing and consecrating, which he made in his last supper: Cypria. ad Caecil. li. 2. ep. 3. As though Melchisedech were the figure of Christ, because Christ, who is the truth, should have less, than he had. Melchisedech in the show of bread and wine, showed an image of the Euthy. in panoplia. supper of Christ. But under his image he had not present the real truth: because an image of a lively thing made in a dead kind of stuff or matter, differeth from the chief pattern in substance. But Christ acknowledging his own image in the sacrifice of Melchisedech, kept the forms of bread and wine (because Christ hath set his own true substence under those forms of burnt and wine, which Melchise dech used. they were images and forms of the priesthood, which he excersiced in his supper) but he changed the inward substance of them: for so much as the substance of bread and wine were not the substance of his priesthood. And in deed an artificial image of a liucly thing made by man, never can have the truth itself under it, whose image it beareth: but when Christ had put the substance of his own flesh under the forms of bread and wine, than was the image and shadow of Melchisedech fulfilled with the truth, which it signified. And so is the whole Tatholike faith perfectly shadowed, by conferring the figure of Melchisedech with the supper of Christ. ¶ The figure of the 〈◊〉 Lamb. THe paschal Lamb was taken up that tenth day of the first Exod. 12 Gregor. Nazian. in Pasch. orat. 4. Leo de pass. domin. se. 7 Theod. in 1. Co. 11. joan. 1. joan. 12. Luc. 22. moon, & that fourteenth day at night it was, after y● 〈◊〉 thereof, wholly offered and 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 bread, the blood being sprinkled over and upon both posts of the door. Christ is the Lamb of God, who in his own person came to 〈◊〉 the tenth day of the first month, being received with great triumph, in somuch that day took thereof the name of Palm sunday. The fourteenth day at night (which was 〈◊〉 thursday) he offered himself to God by consecrating his own body and blood, turning the substance of common bread & wine by the fire of his divine word, into the pure substance of his heavenly flesh, which himself took of his mother: and he gave the same self body of his to be eaten under the form of unleavened Gregor. Paschal. Hom. 22 bread, sprinkling with it as well the post of our mouth, as of our heart, in token that we receive the same self blood into our mouth, which our heart believeth. In which supper Christ must be understanded to be as truly offered, roasted, eaten, and his blood as really sprinkled (after a mystical sort) as all this was visibly done about the Lamb. The mystery, we speak of, taketh not away any truth from the ●… mystery containeth the truth, but it containeth it after a secret manner. thing: but showeth the manner of the doing to be spiritual. For the offering is made without slaughter, the roasting without operation of sensible fire, the eating without consuming of the meat, the sprinkling without division or loss of the blood. But as the incarnation being wrought without the seed of man, did not cause the 〈◊〉 of Christ to be the less true: even so the invisible changing of the substance of bread and wine into his body and blood, the unbloody offering, the Sacramental eating and drinking, doth rather show to all faithful people the worker of so high a mystery to be true God, than any why●… hinder the real presen●… of his flesh and blood under the forms of bread and wine. ¶ The Prophecy and figure of Manna. GOd said to Moses: Behold, I will rain bread to thee from Exo. 16. joan. 6. Exo. 16. joan. 6. Exo. 16. joan. 6. Matt. 26. Luc. 22. heaven. Christ said, work the meat abiding to life everlasting which the Son of man will give you. This is the bread, which came down from heaven: And the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. The Israelits said, Manhu, What is this? For they knew not, what is was. The Capharnaits strived, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Moses' pointing to Manna, saith, This is the bread, which See how the words of Moses and of Christ agree. our Lord hath given you to eat. Christ pointing to that true Manna coming down from heaven which himself made, sayeth: Take, and eat, this is my body, which is given for you. Moses' said, this: and Christ, this. Moses' said, is: & Christ, is. Moses, the bread. Christ, my body. Moses, which our Lord hath given: Christ, our Lord, saith, which is given. Moses, to you: Christ, for you. Moses, to eat: Christ said, take and eat. The Exo. 16. bread, which Moses showed, was not the substance of wheaten bread, but heavenly. Neither the bread, which Christ giveth, is the substance of wheaten bread: but the true bread, which by the mystery of the incarnation came from heaven. The bread, which joan. 6. Psal. 77 Moses showed, was made by Angels of such earthly stuff and vapours, as they found in the ●…ppermost part of the air: And the bread of Christ was made by the Angel of great Council, of Mala. 2. Luc. 22. such earthly stuff, as he found upon the table of the paschal Lamb, which was bread and wine, willing also his Priests (who are his Angels in earth) to do and make the same. The bread, which Moses showed, was truly eaten of the Israelites Exo. 16. Matt. 26. The bread which Christ goe veth is both a sign and a truth. Exo. 16. Luc. 22 Exo. 16. Hieron. adversus jovin. l. 2 The whole sub stance of Christ is under 〈◊〉 ry piece of the form of bread. The figure of Mamna is not fulfilled except the real flesh of Christ be given under the form of bread. 1. Cor. 12 Ephe. 4. All that come to the sacrament 〈◊〉 the body of Christ equally. Sap. 16. within the compass of that white and clear dew which they gathered: And how much more is the body of Christ eaten of the Apostles and of other Christians within the compass of the form of bread, which they receive from the altar of God? The bread, whereof Moses (him self bearing but a figure of the truth) at this time spoke, was a sign, & not the truth. The bread which Christ (being the truth itself) giveth, is both a sign & the truth. The bread which Moses showed was perfect in his own nature, before the Israelites did eat it: Even so the meat which Christ giveth is perfect in the Sacrament itself under the form of bread, before we do 〈◊〉 it. whether more or less were gathered of Manna, ove measure was always found in the end: to signify that, sith whole Christ is under every part of the form of bread, whether you take a greater piece of the form or a less, ever the same substance of Christ's body is wholly received of every Communicant. Neither is it sufficient to fulfil this figure if we say, that every man hath the virtue and grace of Christ's body given him by faith and spirit. for the measure of that grace is, as S. Paul teacheth, divers in divers men, according to the measure that Christ giveth it in. Some have greater gifts, and some less, and no one member is the whole body. But Manna was in one measure to all men. Even so the substance of Christ's body under the form of bread is given to all, that receive the said form, in one measure and equally concerning the body itself: For every man receiveth the whole. As well the good men, as the 〈◊〉 did eat Manna: But the evil did eat with 〈◊〉, but to the good it gave the taste of all sweetness. Right so the body and blood of Christ, which is under the form of bread and wine, is as really taken of the evil, as of the just: But they take it to their damnation, these to their salvation. He that marketh these comparisons shall easily perceive, that the holy Ghost both by the figure and by the truth, condemneth their false doctrine: who teach the real body of Christ not to be given under the form of bread and wine, after consecration is once made. ¶ The figure of the old Testament. Moyses' having offered oxen to God, powered one half of The figure of 〈◊〉 old Testa meant. Exo. 24. The 〈◊〉 of covenant Heb. 9 the blood upon the altar, the other half he powered into basins. And after he had readen the book of 〈◊〉 between God and the Israelites, and the people had promised to keep the conditions thereof: he sprinkled them with the blood saying: This is the blood of the Testament, which our Lord upon all this talk hath made with you. Christ intending to offer himself unto his Father, and certain years before publishing to his people the conditions of his new Testament, at the last, in his supper he giveth his own blood, the very same blood which con firmeth the new agreement made with us: And in stead of ●…ling us with it, he took the chalice and gave thanks, and gave to Matt 26. The blood of the new testament 〈◊〉 given in the chalice as the 〈◊〉 was given in 〈◊〉. his Disciples saying: Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament: Which shallbe shed for many for the remission of sins. The figure and the truth answer marvelously, as they may find, who will confer the parts. It is sufficient at this time to note, that as the blood of the old Testament was in the 〈◊〉 or cup really, whence it was sprinkled: so the blood of Christ, which is the blood of the new Testament, is really in the chalice, whence it is received. As the noun blood in the old Testament, which is but a figure of the new, yet was not taken figuratively but properly for true natural blood: so much more the noun blood in Christ's words, which appertain to the new Testament itself, may not be taken tropically, but even as the word most literally doth sound. As the substance of blood which Moses spoke of, was showed under the accidents of the natural blood of calves: so the substance of the blood, whereof Christ spoke, was showed under the accidents of wine. For (as jacob had Prophesied) Christ washed his garments and cote in Gen. 49. wine, because he took the ●…orme of wine to cover his own human nature: which was his garment, in respect of his Godhead, as S. Paul sayeth, Habitu inventus ut homo. Found in his Philip. 2. apparel as man. ¶ The prophecit and figure of job. THe men of the tabernacle of job said: Who might give The prophecy of job applied to Christ. job, 31. Hieron. in hunc locum. Greg. in job li. 22 cap. 11. Matt. 26. us of his flesh, to the intent we may be filled? The tabernacle or household of job (whom some of his servants hated, some loved) was the figure of the Church, wherein are good and bad. The bad wish for one that might give them Christ's flesh, to fill their hatred upon it: as the proud Pharisees bought Christ of judas, and now a days the jews will give any money for the blessed body of Christ in the form of bread: that thereupon they may show their malice against Christ, whom the Heretics of our age follow in that point. Therefore these soldiers of darkness, when they can find Christ visible or invisible, show all the spite they can against him. But on tother side good men that be in the tabernacle of job, Chrys. hom. 45. in joan. with love and reverence wish for his flesh, and desire to be filled with it, to their inestunable comfort. Christ gave his visible body to the hands of the Pharisees and jews: Wherein having their desires satisfied, they nailed it to the cross. And how much more is Christ to be thought, to have fulfilled really the desire of good men, who long for the invisible substance of his own body? Luc. 22. especially seeing his own desire was so vehement to eat this passouer of his own body with his Apostles, at which time Matt. 26. he said to them: Take and eat this is my body, which is given for you If we had not as really the flesh of Christ given to our hands and mouths, as the Pharisees had the same delivered to their cruel hands: it might seem, that the worse part of the tabernacle of job had obtined more truth, and more fulfilling of their desire, than the better. which is a thought unworthy of Christian men. The just men of the tabernacle of job loved him so well, that they desired to be filled with his flesh, even for the love they bore to him: which love the greater it is, the greater union it wisheth Love desireth as great a joining & union as may be had. and 〈◊〉. Christ fulfilled to his people that, which the sernantes of job figured in their vehenient affection, which they had to be filled with their masters flesh. They of the tabernacle of job wished not only to see him, or hear him speak, nor they wished not at all to f●…ede upon him in spirit and understanding (for they knew well he was not God) but they would fill their flesh with his flesh, and their so●…le with his soul, and so make a perfit union: for so much as themselves consisted as well of body, as of soul. This union Christ hath truly granted us, making us one joan. 6. with his very flesh, saying his flesh to be meat in deed: which who so eateth worthily, 〈◊〉 in Christ, and Christ in him for ever. That is the union of real flesh, which was prophesied of in job, and which is made betw●…e Christ and us, when we receive Chrys. hom. 83. in Matth. & 45. in joannem. worthily his natural flesh under form of bread, into our natural bodies and souls, and are made one with it re ipsa, in deed itself: as meat is made one substance with him, that eateth and digesteth it well. ¶ The prophecies of David and Solomon. THou hast prepared a table (sayeth David to God) in my Psal. 22. Prophecies taken out of the Psalms, and proverbs of Solomon. Prou. 9 What supper wisdom prepared. Cyp. lib. 2. epist. 3. sight, against them, who afflict me: And my chalice, which maketh me drunk, how excellent is it? Wisdom hath offered his sacrifices, set forth his table, and sayeth to the innocent and simple: Come, eat my bread and drink my wine, which I have mingled unto you. They falsyfie the holy Scriptures, who teach the substance of common bread and wine to be by Christ prepared at his last supper: But his preparing was to convert the substance of them into his flesh and blood. And those were the sacrifices, which wisdom made. That was his bread & his wine: which if it were only received by faith and spirit, how sayeth the Prophet, that the table was prepared in his sight? No man is able to see that, which is only spiritual: But, according to the word of God, the Catholics believe that their meat is The supper of Christ is set upon the table. prepared, set, and laid upon the table, before they receive it: and it is set forth in their sight in that visible form of bread, which is consecrated. Again the table is but one, come good, come bad: They eat Christ hath but one table. Aug. in joan. tractatu 50. the same meat, and surely none other at the supper of Christ, besides y●, which is upon his table. judas did eat the same meat that Peter and John did, although divers effects came of it: because themselves were not like affected. But the Sacramentaries make Christ to have two tables: one, where the good men receive Christ himself with bread and wine (as they ●…each) an The Sacramentaries assign two tables to Christ. 1. Cor. 10 other, where only common bread and wine is given to the wicked men. And yet David, Solomon, and S. Paul speak but of one table, and it is prepared and set forth not by faith and spirit, but in our sight. It is not only drunk of, by mind and understanding▪ but the very chalice of it is of strength, to make us drunk, because it containeth the blood of life and salvation. Psal. 21. another prophecy taken 〈◊〉 David. Only Christi●… adore that they eat, because they only eat the flesh of God. Bread not 〈◊〉 our Lord's table. Augu. in psal. 98. Coloss. 2 ¶ An other Prophecy of David. ALl that be fat upon earth have eaten and adored, which thing the Prophet spoke, thereby to show, as it may appear in the same place, that all the nations of the world were by faith subdued to Christ. And he bringeth a most vndou●…ed token thereof, in so much that they adore that, which they eat, which thing is peculiar to Christians, because none other people doth ●…ate the real flesh of God, which only may and must be adored. This property and token of the true faith they take away, who say, we eat in our Lord's supper the substance of common bread: forbidding us to adore the blessed Sacrament of the altar, the footstool, wherein the 〈◊〉 of Godhead corporally dwelleth. ¶ Many figures and prophecies joined together for brevities sake. WHat shall isaiah, that Noë being made drunk with the Gen. 9 Cypr. li. 3. epist. 3. ad Caecilium. wine of his own planting, lieth naked & is laughed to scorn of his own child, to show that Christ having drunk in his supper of the same blood, which he planted for himself in the virgins womb, hangeth afterward naked upon the cross, and is laughed to scorn, not only of the jews for his nakedness: but also of the Sacramentaries, for so gross a deed, as they repute it to be, that he drank his own blood under the form of wine. What shall I rehearse, that Abraham did set cakes made of ●…ine wheaten meal befo●… the Angels, & they allowed his deed: not Gen. 18. for the 〈◊〉, which they n●…ded not, but for t●…e excellenty of the mystical cake, which was come in Christ's supper? That Isaac Gen. 27. having established his son jacob with corn and wine, saith to Esau demanding his blessing: what more can I do now to thee? as who should say, all goodness is already figured in that, which I have assigned to thy younger brother: which betokeneth the faithful people of the Gentiles, whose greatest mysteries be made of corn and wine? That jacob prophesied of the fat bread of Aserwhich Gen. 49. should give spiritual delicates to the faithful kings of Christ's Church: and yet how can any bread be fat, except it be the bread of life, which is the flesh of Christ, which is made fat with the presence of his Godhead? Who seeth not, that God promiseth, as the highest reward in Exo. 22. earth, for keeping his commamdements, to bless the loaves of his people, and to give abundance of bread and wine? That wheaten levit. 2. justin. in Triph. Levi. 24. Levi. 21. meal is appointed for fit matter, to make a sacrifice of? that the show bread must stand continually in the temple before the face of God? That Priests shall offer the loaves of their God, & therefore shallbe holy? Or what is the loaf of God beside the flesh of Christ? And who would not wonder to consider, that even the chief 1. Reg. 2. Mala 2. Aug. de ciu●…. Dei li. 17. c. 5. Priests of the jews (whose lips kept once the law of God) after the coming of the faithful Priest jesus Christ (to whom God hath built a new Church, which shall never be unfaithful to him) are constrained to ask a morsel of mystical bread at the hands of those Priests, which God hath appointed over the faithful Gentiles, if they will have any part of the everlasting heritage in the house of God? so that all the sacrifices of the law must be supplied, fulfilled, and made perfect by the Priests of the new testament in that cake or piece of the lively bread, which is the body Luc. 22. 1. Reg. 21 secund. 70 of jesus Christ given for us. David flying from Saul king of the jews, to king Achis a Gentile, changeth his countenance, appearing like a fool or mad man to the unfaithful courtiers, drivelling on his beard, stumbling, and being carried in his own hands: to show that Christ should appear under an other form to the converted Gentiles, than he had commonly appeared in among the jews. For now he seemeth contemptibly under the f●…rme of bread add wine, who appeareth daily of great authority to the jews in the natural Aug. in Psal. 33. joan. 6. form of his true manhood: but at his last supper he driveled like a child to their seeming, that be wise in the world: he offended even his own Disciples at Capharnan●… with the promise of giving his flesh to eat: he changed his countenance, & carried himself after a sort in his own hands: when holding and giving to be eaten that which seemed bread, he by his almighty Godhead, Luc. 22. doubted not to say, as the thing was, This is my body which is given for you. The same kingly Prophet had great joy in his heart considering the increase, that came by the fruit of corn & wine: he praised Psal. 4. Psal. 103. Psal. 22. the bread that strengtheneth, and the wine that maketh merry the faithful heart of a spiritual man: The goodly chalice that maketh true Christians drunk: The remembrance which God hath Psal 110. made of his marvelous works, giving meat to them, that fear him. How can it be thought a small mystery, that Elias is fed from the air with bread and flesh? that he walketh forty days in the 3. Reg. 17 3. Reg. 19 inward strength of a piece of bread, very weak & feeble to see unto? that Esaias saith: the wheat corn of the Church of God shall Esaiae. 62 Hieron. ibidem. no more be given to her enemies: and that the vine, wherein she hath laboured, shall not be the drink of strange children? That ●…ieremie calleth the flesh of Christ, the bread, wherein the wood (of the Cross) is fastened? That Zacharie asked, what good thing jere. 11. Zach. 9 there is beside the corn of the elect, and the wine which engendereth virgins? That Malachi complaining how the jews had polluted Gods ●…ble with unclean bread, promiseth a pure and Mala. 1. clean oblation made to his name among the Gentiles▪ That God himself would be called the bread of Angels? That Christ having Psal. 77. taken ●…eshe, would be called through his divine nature, the joan. 6. tr●…e bread which came down from heaven? and through his human nature, wherein the Godhead dwelleth, mea●…e in deed and drink in deed? And last of all, that the holy Ghost would cause the preacher to say, and very oft to repeat, none other thing to be Eccl. c. 3. 5. 8. good under the son, besides eating and drinking with gladness and mirth. Which saying who so understandeth of the eating common bread or meat, and drinking common wine: he doth not well to think that the holy ghost commendeth 〈◊〉 living. Neither doth the Prophet mean such a kind of eating & drinking, Eccl. c. 7 Aug. de eivitate Dei li. 17 c. 20. 〈◊〉 the same book he saith: It is better to go to the house of morning, then to the house of feasting: for there a man is warned of the end, that all living things shall have, and in his life time thinketh what things are to come. On th'other side, he that so understandeth it only of spirit, faith, & virtuous meditation, that he leave no possible means to eat and drink bodily such a kind of bread and wine, in comparison The best thing under y● So●… may be eaten and drunken. whereof nothing may be judged good under the son: he seemeth without just cause to deny that Sacramental eating and drinking there to be mea●…, whereof the prophet may be right well thought co speak. For as the holy scriptures by the usual manner of attributing to God the passions, qualities and natures Origin. tractatu ●…o in c. Math. 22 partly of other creatures, but especially of man, did thereby give us warning, that one time or other God should become true man himself, after that sort fulfilling those prophetical phrases of speech: even so the ci●…toine of commending so much ●…orn, wheat, meal, bread and wine, and of eating and drinking, The custom of scriptures in commending so much bread and wine showeth that the body & blood of Christ should be given under their forms. Eph. 5. joan. 17. Now all things are one by the Sacrament of the altar. doth declare, that such a thing should at the last be eaten and drun ken under the forms of bread and wine, as might be called not only good: but even the best thing absolutely under the son, except any thing can be better than Christ, or any action more acceptable to God, than the receiving of that flesh and blood worthily which both maketh all just men to be one body among themselves: and to be one with Christ through eating his flesh, who is one with his Father in divine nature and substance. Whereby three persons in the holy Trinity and one God, two natures in Christ and one person, many persons in the Church and one nature, all be made one in a maru●…lous mystery. The Sacrament of which unity because our Lord's supper is, both in showing many grains to be actually moulded into one loaf, and in making many persons really to be members of y● one flesh, which every of them under the form of bread worthily receiveth, and is changed into it: therefore in comparison of this eating and drinking none other thing is good under the sun. And he well saith, under the son, for above the Son Eccles. 3. 5. 8. there is (I will not say more goodness) yet more fruition of the same goodness: when the form and cover of bread & wine being taken away, we shall see face to face, eating and drinking upon the Luc. 22. table of God in his kingdo●…. ¶ These words of Christ's supper hoc facite, do not The xi●…. Chapter. only signify do this: but much rather make this thing, whereof it followeth, that the body of Christ is commanded to be made. FAcere, doth more properly stand to make, then to do, specially Facere. when it hath an accusative case joined with it, whereupon somewhat is to be wrought: as, facere librum, navem, domum, is to make a book, a ship, a house. But when it Hoc facere. hath a general word joined with it, as hoc, this thing, is, than it may stand either to make, or to do, according as the matter spoken of doth require. For if I do a thing first, and afterward say to an other, hoc fac, do this thing: if my deed were also the making of a thing (as the making of a chair, or of a sword) than my word importeth, that he must by doing make this thing. But if my deed were only doing, & not making, as if I did only play upon a harp: in that case, hoc fac, doth not import make this, but only do as I have done. Christ in his supper both did, and made. His doing was to The supper had both doing & making. take bread, to break, to give: His making was to say (with the intent of blessing and of thanksgiving) This is my body: For the word so spoken made his body. Therefore when he sayeth afterward to his Apostles, hoc facite, he meaneth, do and make this thing: Or by doing the like to that, which I have done, make this thing, which I have made. That is to say, by taking bread, and by blessing, and saying: This is my body, make my body. Thus doth facere stand most properly and truly. For making doth first signify such a work as presupposeth a matter to work upon: Which is the difference between creare Creare. Facere. and facere, in that creare is to make a thing of nothing: Facere, is to make one thing of an other, according to which sense Christ Cont. Marc. l. 4 made bread his body, as Tertullian saith. And when one thing is made of an other, that, whereof it was made, may either keep his old substance (as it chanceth in artificial things which are made, and it is called facere quippiam ex aliquo, to make one Facere ex aliquo thing of an other, as a chair is made of wood) or else the substance may be changed, and it is more properly called facere aliquid de aliquo, to make one thing from an other thing, that is to Facere de aliquo De Sac●…. li. 4. c. 4. wit, so to make it, that the thing, whence it was made remaineth not in his former nature. And so S. Ambrose saith, De pane fit caro Christi, from of bread the flesh of Christ is made. Moreover facere (which is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) doth differ as S. Basilius' hom. 1. in hexame. specular. Agere. Basile noteth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speculari, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, agere. Speculari is an action of the mind, exercised by thinking or studying, without any outward working at all: Agere, is to work with the body, not leaving any work behind, as he that danceth can not show what part of his dancing remaineth, after that it is Facere. past. But facere, doth signify the doing of a work, which remaineth to be seen or understanded after the working of it. As God made heaven and earth, not only to tari●… for the time of working them, but also to remain still as a witness of his handy work. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (whereof S. Basile writeth) is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same, which S. Luke and S. Paul have used to express the commandment given in Christ's supper by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc facite. If the body of Christ were not meant to be made by this commandment: what thing is it, that Christ will have made? Will he have bread and wine to be taken, eaten, and drunken, for his remembrance? No surely. For he had said before, Take, and eat, and drink ye all of this, which notwithstanding, he said hoc facite, clearly certifying us, that he now commandeth an other thing beside eating and drinking. And that is verily the making of his own body and blood from of bread and wine, by blessing & speaking the words of consecration. Let us now consider also the persons, to whom this commandment Ireneus li. 4. c. 32. was given. They were those twelve Apostles, whom Christ at his last supper taught the new oblation of the new Testament, as S. Ireneus writeth, giving them authority The pricsthod of the new testament. by this precept, to consecrate, to make present, and to offer to God his body and blood. As for bringing of bread and wine to the table, it is a kind of doing, which may be performed by other as well, as by the Apostles. eating and drinking belongeth not necessarily to them alone, but to all that communicate with them. But when it is said namely to them, Make this thing, such a thing is commanded, which none other man may do beside them, and their successors. And that is not only to eat and to drink, but to make the body of Christ. That body is the only thing, which is so precisely appointed A●… saving the body of Christ is rather a like thing then this thing. joan. 13. unto in Christ's supper. For whatsoever else is done at the supper, which may consist in any action, whether it be taking, blessing, breaking, eating or drinking: it is rather the doing of a like thing to that, which Christ did, than the making of this thing. When Christ had washed his Apostles feet, he said not, ho facite, make this thing: But I have given you an example, that as I have done, Ita & vos faciatis, even so you also may do. In which place the word facere doth signify to do, & not to make. And therefore Christ doth not say, do you that thing, which I have done: but ita faciatis, do ye so, as I have done. But strait after that he had said: This is my body, he then said not, ita facite, do so as I have done: But hoc facite, make this thing, to wit, my body. Moreover as it is here said, Hoc facite in meam commerationem: Psal. 110. A memory is made. so in an other place David in the spirit of prophecy did say, concerning this very fact of Christ, Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors & miserator dominns, escam dedit timentibus se. Our merciful Lord and taker of pity hath made a memory of his marvelous works: he hath given meat to them, that fear him. Behold, as it is said in the Gospel, Make this thing for the remembrance of me: so it is said in the Psalm, He hath made a memory of his miracles. And even as he hath made a memory: so hath he willed this thing to be made for his memory. Making then can not 〈◊〉 excluded from these words, hoc facite: which hitherto being proved by the proper nature of the word facere, by the circumstance of the words, this is my body, & make this thing, joined together, by the word hoc this thing, which is joined with facere, by the conference of a like place in holy scripture, and by the condition of the persons to whom it was spoken: I will now prove the same truth more plainly out of the old Fathers. S. ●…ames (of whose Mass mention is made in the sixth General council) when he was effectually working and fulfilling the Can. 32. commandment of Christ, when he was doin●…, yea rather making ●…acobus in liturgia. that, which Christ bade him make, thus he prayeth unto God: Spiritum tuum & caet. Send down (o Lord) thy most holy spirit now also upon us, and upon these holy gifts put before us: that he coming thereupon, with his holy and good and glorious presence sanctificet & efficiat, may sanctfie and make this bread the holy body of thy 〈◊〉. Behold what is to be made. The bread is made the body of Christ. Can you say, that the holy Ghost doth this bread the body of Christ? No verily, that were Clemens li. 〈◊〉. const●…ut Apo●…ol. no English. The true English is, that the holy Ghost doth make this bread the body of Christ. Therefore facere in this place is not taken for to do, but for to make. The like may be noted in S. ●…lemēt, S. Basile, & S. Thrysostom: who all have written Masses and liturgies, wherein the like prayer is used. Which thing is co●…firmed yet more strongly by the authority Cyrillus in Ca●…a. myst. 5. of S. Cyrillus archbishop of Jerusalem, who expounding the order and mysterios of the Breeke Mass, hath these words: Deum benignissimum oramus, ut S. Spiritum super proposita emittat, we beseech God, to send his holy Ghost upon the things, which are set before us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ut panem quidem saciat corpus Chri sti, vinum verò sanguinem Christi. that he may make the bread (to be) the body of Christ, & the wine (to be) the blood of Christ. Lo, the holy Ghost is desired of the priest to make bread Christ's body, & he is desired so to do of the priest: who were not otherwise able to make so high a mystery, if Christ had not commanded him to make this thing. S. Dionysius ●…reopagita showeth, that the Priest purgeth Dionys. de eccle. hierar. cap. 3. and excuseth himself of this great office, saying: Tu dixisti, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Thou hast said, make this thing for the remembrance of me: after which excuse made, th●… Priest (sayeth Dionysius) desireth that he may be made worthy of this holy sacrificing, or of making these holy things. For so much the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify. It is worth the labour to mark, how S. Dionysius having declared, that the Priest maketh his excuse concerning the making of that thing which Christ bade him make, consequently showeth, what the Priest doth make, The most 〈◊〉 things be made. saying: The Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Divina perficit, divinissima consecrat, seu sacra operatur. He maketh the divine things, and worketh holy or consecrateth the most divine things. He saith not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est agit: sed perficit, opera tur, consecrat. He saith not, that the Priest, doth holy things: he saith, he maketh them, he worketh them, he consecrateth them. Manifestly witnessing, that facere in these words (hoc facite) is to make, to work, to consecrate, and not only to do. 〈◊〉 Martyr is of the same mind, who rehearsing Christ's ●…ustin. in Apol. 2. words, make this thing, consequently addeth, that is to say, my body. As if he said, make my body. 〈◊〉 I spoke before. Ireneus adversus 〈◊〉. l. 5 The 〈◊〉 is made. S. Ireneus hath these words, Quando mixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia corporis & sangui nis Christi. 〈◊〉 the chalice mixed with water, and the bread being broken taketh the word of God, than the Eucharist of them body & blood of Christ is made. Then it is made, saith 〈◊〉, it can not there be Englished, the Eucharist is done, but only is made. Likewise 〈◊〉 saith: Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, 〈◊〉. adversus Marcionem li. 4. To 〈◊〉 bread his body. Amb. de iis qui 〈◊〉 myst. c ●… The body is made. corpus suum illum fecit the bread taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his own body. fecit panem corpus suum, he made the bread his body. It were 〈◊〉 English to say, he did bread his body. S. Ambrose hath these words, Sacramentum istud, quod accipis, Christi sermone conficitur. And again, Hoc, quod 〈◊〉 corpus, ex virgine est. This Sacrament, which thou receivest is made by the word of Christ, and this body which we make, is of the virgin. The Sacrament 〈◊〉 is made, and we make the body of Christ. By what other 〈◊〉, then by the word of Christ, who said: make this thing▪ For if these words, hoc facite, We make Christ's ●…ody because he said: make this thing. do not contain facite corpus meum, make my body: S. Ambrose in 〈◊〉 saith conficimus corpus Christi: we make the body of Christ. But so wise a man saith not so 〈◊〉 vain, because he well knoweth, that hoc facite, doth signify thus 〈◊〉, make this Hoc. thing, to wit, make the body of Christ. See now what is facere, and see whatis hoc: Facere is to make, hoc is this thing, which is the body of Christ. According to the which meaning S. Hierom said: Absit, ut de 〈◊〉. in Epist. ad Heli. The body of Christ is made 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. in 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. lib. ●…. ijs quicquàm sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore consiciunt. God forbidden that I should speak any thing amiss of them, who coming in place of the Apostles degree, make the body of Christ with their holy mouth. If they make it with their mouths: surely it is because Christ after that he had made it with his own mouth, said unto them: hoc facite, make this thing. S, Chrysostom writeth thus: Sacra ipsa oblatio, sive illam Petrus, sine illam Paulus, sive cuiusuis m●…riti Sacerdos offerat, 〈◊〉, est, quá de●…it Christus ipse discipulis, quamque Sacerdotes modo quoque The priest maketh the holy oblation. conficiunt. That self holy oblation, it is the same, which Christ himself gave to his Disciples and which the Priests now also do make. Again in an ocher place: Operantibus Sacerdotibus, Sacramenta Chry. de sacerdotio. li. 3. haec quae dico initiantur perficiunturque▪ when the Priests work, the holy things, which I speak of, are begun & ended or made perfect. And showing that 〈◊〉 Priest doth not this in his Chrys. hom. de prodit. judae. own, but in Christ's person, he saith: Non homo est, qui corpus Christi facit & sanguinem, sed ille qui crucifixus est pro nobis Christus. Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur, & Dei virtute proposita consecrantur & gratia. Hoc est enim, ait, corpus meum. 〈◊〉 Man maketh not Christ's body by his own virtue. verbo proposita consecrantur. it is not a man which maketh the body and blood of Christ, but Christ who hath been crucified for us. the words are spoken by the Priest's mouth, & the things which are set before us are consecarted by the power & grace of God. for this, saith he, is my body. with this saying the things put before us, are consecrated. Thus much Chrysostom. S. Angustin affirm Aug. contra Faust. man.. lib. 20. ca 3. Ourbread is made unto us mystical. Theoph. in Math. 26. Damasc. de Orth. fide li. 4. ca 14. Psal. 113. & 134. Goe ca 1. Psal. 32. that our bread and chalice certa cosecratione mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur: is made mystical unto us by a certain consecration, & not born: is made, I say. Therefore hoc facite signifieth, make this thing. 〈◊〉 saith, Inefficabili operatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, transformatur, etiam si nobis videatur panis. although it seem bread to us it is made an other thing, or transformed by an unspeakable working. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after this sort. If the word of God be lively and of efficacy, and all things, what soever it would, it hath made: if it said, Let light be made, & it was made, let the firmament be made, and it was made: If the 〈◊〉 be established by the word of God, and all the virtue of them by the spirit of his mouth: if heaven and earth, water, fire, air, and all the decking of them, and man himself a living creature spread and made common every where, were made perfect with the word of God: If God was made man. God the word himself of his own will was made man, and hath upholden and stayed in his own person flesh without seed of man, out of the most pure and 〈◊〉 blood of the holy virgin: is he not able to make bread his own body, and wine and water his Christ maketh bread his 〈◊〉 body. Gen. 1. blood? He said in the beginning, let the earth bring forth 〈◊〉 spring, & to this day (rain being made) it bringeth forth springs helped and strengthened with the commandment of God. God hath said: 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. Euthy. in ca 26. Matt. Mark whether Damascene doth not ground all his authorities upon making, and the authority of Christ's supper upon these words, make this thing. 〈◊〉 expounding these words, Hoc facite, saith: Hoc, inquit, nowm mysterium, & non illud vetus make this new mystery (saith he) and not that old. Haymo Make this mystery. saith: Hoc facite, id est, hoc corpus sanctificate, sanctify this body: that is to say, make holy and consecrate this body. 〈◊〉 archbishop of Cantorbury, although he showeth Ansel. in epist. 1. Cor. c. 11 first that by this word (Hoc facite) eating and drinking for the remembrance of Christ's death is commamded to all Christians: yet declaring also a farther sense of the same words, he saith: Aut cord vos, qui Sacerdotes estis, hoc facite quod ego 〈◊〉 feci, id est, calicem vini consecrate, ut 〈◊〉 sanguismeus, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, ut in hoc facto sitis memores mei & eorum Make the which I have made quae pro vobis passus sum. Or else, ye that are Priests make that which I have 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 have suffered for you. 〈◊〉 the archbishop of Constantinople saith, that the holy Ghost maketh the mysteries by the hand of Priests Germ. in rerum Eccles. theoria in tract. ad eos qui haesi. and to●…g. Nicolaus Methonensis saith, the body and blood of Christ to be those things, quae hoc ritu perficiuntur, which are made pe●…fit with this rite. If sanctificare & efficere panem corpus Christi, panem facere corpus Christi & vinum sanguinem: if consecrare & operari divinissima, fieri eucharistiam, facere panem corpus Christi, conficere corpus Christi, ore conficere, oblationem Christi conficere, panem & calicem mysticum fieri, panem sui ipsius corpus facere, nowm mysterium sacere, corpus effici, corpus hoc sanctificare, consecrare calicem vini, ut fiat sanguis Christi: If all these phrases and kinds of speech can not be ●…nglished by doing, but only by making, and yet the authority and commandment, that any Priest hath to make the body and blood of Christ cometh only from these words Hoc facite: it must needs be confessed, that these words do A●… authority of ma king Chri stes body ●…ometh from these words: make th●… thing. signify much more make this thing, then do this. Otherwise, we should not make the body of Christ at all: whereas S. james Dionysius Areopagita, S. justinus, S. Ireneus, Tert●…llian, S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, Theophilaet, Euthymius, Haimo, Damascene, Germanus, Methonensis, yea all the whole Church doth say with one accord: that Priests do make, and are commanded to make the body of Christ. Is it now possible, that the body of Christ, which is thus made from of wheaten bread by the commandment of God himself, should not be for all the present with us under the form of the same bread? If when the word was made flesh in the virgin's womb, it was present with us not only by saith and spirit, but dwelled really in joan. 1. the world, being conversant among men, and was seen in earth: likewise when the body of Christ is made from of the creature of Bar●…. 3. bread, by the Priest's mouth in the virtue of Christ's word, it is present with us, not only by faith and spirit, but in deed and tr●…th itself, & it dwel●…eth not only among us, but even within us, as meat dwelleth in him who receiveth it weth a sound stomach, and digesteth it well. For seeing Christ having taken bread and blessed, said, this is my body, and ●…ad his Apostles make this thing: bread is in such sort made his body, that when y● 〈◊〉 of the words is passed, the body of Christ remaineth still (according to the distinction Basil ho. 1. in Hex. of S. basil, as the work which was wrought by the said words) and it is received of the faithful people under the form of bread, to nourish their souls and bodies to everlasting life. The 〈◊〉. Chapter. ¶ What these words do signify, For the remembrance of me: & that they much help, to prove Christ's real presence v●…der the forms of bread and wine. IT may be (some man will say) I deal not honestly▪ for Christ An ob●…tion. said not only, make this thing which I have most pressed upon, but he added other words thereunto: which declare, that a figure should be made, and not his true body. For he said, do this in the remembrance of me. If it be a remembrance of Christ, how is it Christ himself? The remembrance of a man differeth from the man himself. Thus much if any man say against me, I fear nothing, but The a●…swere. I shall satisfy him concerning my doing: if now I show, that the words of remembrance (whereof he taketh hold) doth much more help my saying, theu his. Which that I may the better perform, The words of Christ were not wet Englished by the Prote 〈◊〉. I beseech him to remember, that Chest said not, hoc agite in commemoratione mei, do this in my remembrance, or in remembrance of me, but hoc facite in meam commemorationem: which signifieth as well to make, as to do this thing, not only in, but rather for the remembrance o●… me: and yet so have these words been commonly englished and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉, as though he had said only, hoc agite, do this, & not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc facite, which is, both do this, and make this thing. Again as though he had said in mea commemoratione, in the ablative case, in the remembrance of me: and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in meam commemorationem, in the accusative case, the true English whereof must be, for the remembrance of me. Christ said, make this thing for the remembrance of me, that What the remembrance is whereof Christ spa●…e. is, make my body, which is given for you: to th'end my geviug of it for you upon the cross may through that your fact and doing be remembered. This is the true meaning of Christ's words. For so doth S. Paul expoimd them to the Corinthians: where after he had declared the history of Christ's supper, of purpose teachig us what is meant by the remembrance of him, thus he writeth: As oft as ye shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, ye shall 1. Cor. 11 show our lords death, until he come. Lo, the showing of our lords death is the kind of remembrance, for which Christ willeth his body to be made & eaten, his blood to be made and ●…runken. Wherefore saying, make or do this for the remembrance of me, he saith this much: Take bread, bless saying, this is my body break, give, eat, and all to this end, that my death may be remembered until my second coming. Here we learn, that the remembrance, whereof Christ speaketh, The remembrance of Christ is the showing of his death by fact. is the showing of his death, and that not by word only, but by deed and fact, and by making and doing. For the making of Christ's body, by changing the substance of the bread into the substance of his flesh, is a mar●…ilouse showing of his death. For as his death was the dissolution of the soul from the body: so his soul, which (as S. Ambrose noteth) is understanded by the Ambros. in ca 11. 1 ad Cor. blood, is showed under the form of wine, & his body is showed a part from it under an other form of bread. I do not say, that either the body is without soul and blood, or the blood without flesh and soul: but I say, the showing of the body under form of Christ's body and blood made under diverse kinds doth show and make us remember his death. bread, and of the blood under the form of wine (in ●…che of which whole Christ is contained) is the showing of his death, and also of his resurrection. For at the death in deed the soul and body were a sunder, and at the resurrection they came again together: Even as now in figure and show they are a sunder, not withstanding that in truth they are together. But if the bread and wine remained in their old nature still, taking only the name and sign of Christ's body & blood: Then should nothing be made for the remembrance, or to show our The real body with the signs of breakig is the remembrance that Christ spoke of. Lord's death, whereas he said: Make this thing for the remembrance of me: That is (sayeth S. Paul) for the showing of my death, the which death is yet f●…rther showed, when the same body in a sign is broken and given to be eaten, & the blood drunken. For then as Christ's flesh was in deed broken upon the Cross, so it is in show & sign broken, first in the Priest's hands under form of bread, and next in his or their mouths who communicate with him, by eating and chewing of it. And likewise the blood is powered or shed into his or their mouths under the form of wine, as it was in deed shed upon the Cross, and as in deed Christ there delivered his ghost into his Father's hands. But if the bread and wine were not changed into the body & blood of Christ: then that body, which at all were not so much as in sign and show broken (because it were not present) and that blood, which were not so much as in appearance apart from the flesh, or shed into the mouths of the receivers, could not show our Lord's death at all, whereas Christ would his own death to be showed by the making of his own body and blood, with the signs of breaking, shedding, parting and dissolving. Thou see●… now, good Reader, how the kind of remembrance, which Christ required to he had of him, is not only nothing at all against the real presence of his body and blood: yea rather it is so singularly set forth thereby, that without the presence of the body & bloo●… it shallbe somewhat hard to devise, what memory at all here can be of Christ's death. Most sure it is, that though man's wit may devise much, yet can it never invent so perfect a mean, to make the death of Christ be remembered, as if his own self be present to warn us thereof. If it hath chanted to any man, whiles by manly fight he hath delivered his friend from peril of death, to take some great wound in his own face: tell me on thy conscience, is there any The presence of the benefactor is the best mean to make his good deed 〈◊〉 bred. way more effectual for that wounded man, to put his friend in remembrance of that fight, then if himself come with the scar in his face to his frin●…s presence and sight? Is it not more, then if he sent an hundred letters, an hundred tokens and messengers to warn his friend thereof? Even so fareth it with Christ at this time, who fight for us upon the Cross, whiles he delivered mankind from the bond of death, took a wound which made him give up his ghost. Can therefore a more vehement remembrance be stirred up in our hearts, then if the same Christ offer himself present to us with ●…he scar upon his face? Thou wilt, I think, grant that nothing would move us, or make us more vehemently remember the death which he took for us. But thou wilt say, that Christ now The presence of a man hindereth not his 〈◊〉. cometh not before us, & that we see him not. Well Sir. First you grant that the remembrance of Christ's death is nothing at all hiudered by the presence of his body: why then said you before, if the Sacrament of the altar be a remembrance of Christ, it is not Christ himself? Why said you, that the remembrance of a thing must vedes differ from the thing itself? And now you see and confess, that Christ present with the resemblance of his wounds, should make you best remember his death. Beware hereafter of this kind of reasoning. Christ made a resemblance of his death at his supper, therefore it is not his own A perfect remembrance requireth the real presence of the thing remembered. body. That argument is not good, yea rather this is good: Christ made a perfect remembrance of his death, therefore his own body is given, to put us in mind, that he died for us. Now let us return to that you said, Christ was not seen of us. If he were seen, your faith should be of small merit, beside that you could not receive him into your body after that visible quantity, wherein he walked upon the earth. He therefore that died for you, hath now given you the substance of his natural flesh and blood under the forms of bread and wine: Where he is as verily present, as if you saw him or touched him. For (I A thing may be pre sent though it be not seen. trow) you understand that eye sight is not necessary, to make a thing present: Otherwise, blind men were in evil case, and to them nothing should be present: Which seeing it is not so, the body of Christ is not therefore the less present, because you see it not. But if it may please you to believe Christ, that said: This is my body, and, this is my blood, the remembrance of Christ's death shall no less work in your mind by reason of your faith, The faith of Christ his body is as much to us as the sight of it. them if you saw with your bodily eyes the self same body of Christ, which is under the form of bread. For faith is that to Christians, which eye sight is to infidels. You must consider, that Christ giveth this Sacrament only to them, that being already Christened, profess to believe him in all things. He now telleth that this is his body, and this is his blood: If you believe him not, you have denied your faith, and are become an infidel: But yet ye may repent & recover your old faith again. If then you believe him, now tell me, what his bodily presence doth hurt the remembrance of his death: or contrariwise, what hindrance cometh to the memory of his death by the bodily presence? Doth not one help the other, and so help, that no like help can be devised by all the world? Doth not his blessed body, as it were, cry unto thy heart: Behold, here it is that suffered all the scorues, scourges, nails, thorns, spear and death for thee? And yet come our new preachers and cry: O good people, The new preachers: Christ called bread his body by a figurative speech: and that appeareth, because he said, do this in my remembrance, In my remembrance, I say. It is therefore no body, but a remembrance of his body. Is not this gay divinity? Is not this true dealing 〈◊〉 God's people? Are not these preachers worthy of Bishoprics, and the contrary teachers worthy of chains? Have they not found a fresh remembrance, to put the fruit of Christ's death out of all remembrance? Whiles the faithful people believed, the body of Christ to be What kind of fruitful remembrance the belief of Christ's bodily pre sense did work. present: they came with that preparation, with that circumspection, with that humble and contrite heart unto this blessed Sacrament, that in all their life after, they were the better. They died unto sin, and mortified themselves, to come worthily to this high banquet: and by those means they so well remembered Christ's death, that they practised it in their own flesh, and printed it in their hearts. And this was a great cause, why Christ himself would put the nature and substance of his body under the form of bread: to the intent he might so be remembered of us, that for fear of coming to this dreadful Sacrament unworthily, we might conform ourselves to his death by contrition, confession, and satisfaction. For besides the pauges of bodily death, none other thing in the world maketh us so fruitfully mindful of Christ's death: as the Sacrament of the altar. And this to be one piece of the Basil. de baptis. li. 1. cap. 3. remembrance, which Christ would have to be made in our hearts, S. Basile doth witness: Oportet igitur accedentem ad corpus & sanguinem Christi, in commemorationem ipsius etc. He that cometh to the body and blood of Christ, must not only be clean from all filthy spot of flesh and soul (that he eat and drink not to his damnation) but also he must evidently show the remembrance of him (who died for us and rose again) in mortifying himself to sin, and to the world, and to himself, so that he may live to God in Christ jesus our Lord. This great learned and virtuous man putteth our mortification for a piece of the remembrance, which is made of Christ's death and resurrection. And in deed the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, & the belief thereof in us, causeth us to mortify How Christ is remembered in eating bread & in drinking wine. ourselves, lest we come unworthily to such high mysteries. But now Christ is so well remembered in bread and wine: that neither sins be confessed, neither amendment minded, neither faith exercised, neither charity used. Is this the remembrance, which Christ would have of his death? Men of worship and honour, when they see death at hand, provide to have a goodly tomb built: Whereby their memories may be preserved, as long as it is possible. And the Egyptians wisely considering how the life is very short, and the time of being in the grave ex●…eding long, did bestow much more cost The tumbs of the Egyptians. upon their tumbs, then upon their houses: Thinking it best, there to build most surely, where they should dwell longest. Christ for his part refused not an honourable burying, and a glorious sepulchre: Which to this day standeth at Dierusalem. But yet sith he took his body for men's sake only, he chose his The body of a faithful man is the tum●… of Christ. longer memory and perpetual sepulchre to be rather in the body & heart of man, then in the bowels of the earth. Rising therefore the third day from death, he left no more his body in the earthly sepulchre: But the night before he died, he had instituted such a memory of his death, as became the son of God. For such a one in deed no man were able to make. His memory is, to have bread turned into the substance of his body, and wine turned into the substance of his blood, and the The monument of Christ. same to be received of us: To th'intent we might be turned into Christ, dwelling in him for ever. Hereby his death is showed until he come to judgement at the end of the world. As the noble Acts, which other men have done, be written upon their sepulchres: so in this memory of Christ, his acts are daily showed and rehearsed. Then his incarnation is betokened most What remembrance is made of Christ at the mass tyme. mystically, when bread is made flesh: as the word was before made flesh, and that incarnation is represented in outward show also, by singing of the Angel's Hymn, Glory be to God in the highest. Then the going before of Iho●… Baptist is expressed, by reading of the Epistle. Then Christ's preaching is represented, by singing of the Gospel. Then the faith of his Apostles and Disciples is betokened, in pronouncing the Cr●…de or articles of the faith. Then the supper of Christ is made with no less authority, than himself instituted it. Then his Cross is showed, by making the sign thereof upon the holy mysteries. Then his death is invisibly wrought under the forms of bread & wine, by turning their substances into himself, and showing them, as if the body were divided from the blood. Then the fruit thereof is sown in the hearts of the faithful people, by giving them the grace to fear him, to love him, to come penitently unto him, and to be made one with him. Then the resurrection is outwardly showed, because the several forms of bread and wine each of them contain whole Christ under them. Then the body is adored, which suffered for us. Then Christ is glorified for the redemption of all mankind. Then thanks be given to God, blessing to the people, and prayer is made for all the world. This is the memory of Christ, whereby his name is great Malac. 1. Esaiae 11. Psal. 100 among the Gentiles, as Malachias did prophecy: And this is the glorious sepulchre, which Esay spoke of: this is the memory, whereof David saith, Our Lord hath made a memory of his maruailons doings. Now is it likely, that all this cost is bestowed upon a piece of bread and wine? Two kinds of sepulchres we read to have been always, & Two 〈◊〉 des of sepulchres. this day to be in use: the one is, where the body lieth present, and that is properly the place of burial: the other, when the body is absent, and only a token of it is erected, and this later kind is Caenota phium. called Caenotaphium, a void monument without having the body in it. judge, good Reader, whether it be more seemly, sith Christ Christ's remembrance is no void monument. would this Sacrament to be made for his remembrance, that it be a void monument, without having the body in it: or else a sepulchre truly containing his body within it, whose name it beareth. specially seeing himself said of this tumb and sepulchre: This is my body, and this is my blood. The body is named of the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The body is the tomb of the soul. that is to say, of the burial or sepulchre, as though the soul were buried therein, as the carcase is put in the sepulchre. And yet it is much more apt, to call the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar, the sepulchre of his passion: because in it is buried the whole virtue of that glorious sacrifice, and thence it is applied and dispensed to the faithful. S. Chrysostom also called the body of Christ in the Sacrament Chrys. in 1. Corin. Hom. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase: because it is present after the same rate, as it was dead in the sepulchre. not in deed without soul and life, but yet without sensible moving, as Epiphanius also hath noted. Epipha. in Ancorato. Psal. 115. The holy Martyrs (whose death was of great price in the sight of God) have left their bodies behind them to our comfort: neither have they yet recea●…d the second rob of their flesh, Deo pro nobis melius aliquid providente, ut non sine nobis consummarentur, Heb. 11. God providing some ●…etter thing for us, to the intent they should not be made thoroughly perfect without us. even as Abdias historiae Apostol. li. 5. the Fathers of the old Testament (of whom S. Paul speaketh) had not the reward of their faith, until some of the new Testament were joined to them. S. John the E●…angelist, although his carcase appeared not, yet he was not unremembered, because manna flowed out of his monument abundantly, as Abdias hath witnessed. And now shall Christ leave a void memory without his body, or without Manna in it? Are the relics of the blessed Martyrs profitable unto us, and is not the flesh of Christ, who is Lord of all Martyrs, more than necessary for us? It was meet that Christ should arise with body and soul, because he is the first fruits of 1. Co. 15. all them that arise from death. But he now sitting at the right hand of his Father, had before instituted a memory, wherein bread and wine should be converted into the substance of his body and blood: that thereby we might both have his body, & himself not lack it. For so it becomed all justice to be perfectly fulfilled Math. 3. in his person. I trust, by this time it appeareth, that the remembrance of Christ's death is marvelously set forth by the real presence of The body of Christ is the best mean to remember his death. his body and blood. Seeing then the said remembrance is the end, why the Sacrament is made: it is a better kind of reasoning to affirm that so profitable a mean, as the body & blood of Christ is for the remembrance of his death, was not omitted by Christ: then to teach, that because it is a remembrance, therefore it is The intent of Christ is furthered by taking the words 〈◊〉. not the body of Christ. Specially sith Christ said, This is my body. For when the thing, which is intended, is the more furthered by taking the words properly, then figuratinely: as well the proper nature of the words, as the scope of the whole matter compelleth Origen. Hom. 13. in levit. us, to take them as they naturally and usually sound, without any ●…arther circuition or seeking of figures. Si res●… icias (saith Origenes) ad illam commemorationem, de qua dicit Dominus, A propitiatory remembrance. Hoc facite in meam commemoratio nem: invenies, quod ista est commemoratio sola, quae propitium faciat hominibus Deum. If thou look to that remembrance, whereof our Lord said: Do and make this thing, for the remembrance of me: Thou shalt find, that this is the only remembrance, which may make God merciful to men. Mark this propitiatory kind of remembrance. Aug. de fide ad Petrum cap. 19 S. Augustine also declareth by conferring the Sacrament of the altar with the facrifices of the law: how it is the remembrance of Christ, saying: In isto sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit, In this sacrifice a thanksgiving and a remembrance is of the flesh of Christ, which he offered for us, and of the blood which the same God did shed evidenter osten ditur. for us. Therefore in those (old) sacrifices, it was figuratively signified, what should be given us: But in this sacrifice it is evidently showed, what hath now been given us. In those sacrifices it was before hand showed, that the son of God should be afterward killed for wicked men: But in this he is showed to have been already killed for wicked men. By this writer (whether it were S. Augustine, or as others think, Fulgentius) the whole nature of the remembrance, which we keep of Christ's death, is showed: wherein the death is in Mark the difference between a figurawe signifying & an evident showing. deed past and absent, but the body of him, that died, is present. But in the old sacrifices, neither the death neither the body was pre●…ent, but only a shadow of both. Therefore those sacrifices are a figurative signification, as Fulgentius sayeth: But the Sacrament of the altar is an evident showing. Mark the words of Fulgentius, and you shall see two words of the old law, answer unto other two of the new law. By the old sacrifices, he sayeth, siguratè significabatur, it was figuratively signified: By the new sacrifice, evidenter ostenditur, it is evidently showed. Look how much difference is between showing & signifying, between evidence and figures: so much is between the old sacrifices, and the new. Yet if under form of bread the body were not, and the blood under the form of wine: surely the old did better show Christ's death, than this. for there was flesh to show flesh, and blood If we had not Christ's body present, the old shadows would show 〈◊〉, is death better, than bread and wine. to show blood. The blood was both in deed and in show also shed, and in deed separated from the flesh, and poured upon the altar: and the flesh in deed eaten by them, that made the offering. Therefore our sacrifice doth not pass that in showing outwardly the manner of Christ's death, but in evident showing that which died. In evident showing, I say, under the form of bread and wine, which showing is called evident, not for the seeing, but for the certainty of the place and circiut: within the which we know by God's word the flesh and blood of Christ to be under the same form, because Christ himself showing to us the form of bread, said, This is my body. What need I to bring the Father's one by one, sith the whole Concil. Nicenum secundum second Council of Nice doubted not to say: Nemo sanctorum Apostolorum, qui tuba sunt Spiritus sancti, aut gloriosorum Patrum nostrorum incruentum nostrum sacrificium in memoriam passionis Christi Domini Dei nostri, & totius suae dispensationis factum, imaginem corporis illius dixerit: None of the holy Apostles (who are the trumpet of the holy Ghost) either of our glorious In unbloody sacrifice in the remembrance of Christ. Fathers, hath said our unbloody sacrifice, which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion, and of his whole conversation, to be a●… image of that body. No Apostle, no Father hath called this remembrance an image of the body so, as it should be denied to be the body itself. An unage of the death it might have been called, but an image of Christ's body no Doctor ever called it. because it is the truth itself. It is the body of Christ made for the remembrance of his death, accordingly Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 as Christ said: This is my body, which is given for you, make this for the remembrance of me, Showing my death until I come. ¶ Answer is made to the challenge of M. Nowell concer●…ng the difference between, I am the true vine, and, This is my body. MAster Nowell (in his reproof of M. 〈◊〉 proof) Fol. 102. having occasion ministered to speak of these words, This is my body, (about the which M. Dorman had said, that Luther and Calvin did not agree) he answereth first: they agree both in this, that the Papists ex●…ound them ●…alsely: Next he affirmeth, that M. Dorman, nor all Papists with him, shall M. Nowel's words. never be able to show cause, why these words, Ego sum vitis vera I am the true vine, do not prove as well a transubstantiaton, as hoc est corpus meum, this is my body. I am, M. Nowell, one of those catholics, whom you call Papists, The answer to M. Nowell. who by God's grace will show sufficient cause, why these words, I am the true vine, do not prove as well a transubstatiation, as, This is my body, In these words, I am the true vine, I say not only, that there is no transubstantiation: but I affirine also, that in them there can be no transubstantion at all. Whereas in the words, This is my body, a transubstantiation both may be, and is. To make the What transubstantiation, meaneth. proof where of plain, it is to be known, that by the word, transubstantiation the change or passing of one substance into an other is meant. To have one substance go and pass into an other, it requireth that two seu●…rall substances be first or last really found: of which 〈◊〉 real substances be requisite to a transub●…. two, the one must be extant, before it be changed: the other must at the least be extant when the change is made, though it were not extant before. As for example. The bread, which at his supper Christ took into his hands, was one certain substance: the other was his own body, which he had taken of the virgin Mary. Now when Christ said over the bread, which he had taken, This is my body: we believe, that he changed the bread into his body, and we call the passing of the substance of bread, into the substance of Christ's body, transubstantiation. This 〈◊〉 we build upon the deeds and words of Christ. Two grounds of transubstantiation. Upon his deeds, that he took bread, and blessed or gave thanks: Upon his words, in that he said, This is my body. we believe his words to be proper, because (beside that he spoke them in the way of blessing, of 〈◊〉 a Sacrament, and of commanding his Apostles to make this th●…g) he also expo●…ded them himself, as not being only contented to say, This is my body, but adding thereunto, which is given for you. Upon these unfallible grounds, we say that the thing pointed unto, is Christ's own substance really present at the speaking of the words. And seeing we know the same to have been bread before, and that it can not be at once both material bread, and withal Christ's body (for that the substance of bread is not united Bread is not ●…ited to Christ. to the person of Christ) we are constrained to believe, that the bread was changed or 〈◊〉 into Christ's body. Such a change is not only possible, became bread is a creat●… able to be changed into Christ's own body: but it is also most Leu. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 bread is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ●…s body. Gen. 14. conuenie●…t, as well to make the external sacrifice of the new testament (for no external sacrifice is made without a change) as 〈◊〉 to make it according to the order of Melchisedch: whose oblation began in bread and wine, but was ended in blessing Abraham, Psal. 109. Cyp ep. 3. lib. 2. and in pronouncing him blessed to the high God●… the which prophetical figure the true Melchisedech jesus Christ fulfilling, took bread and wine, to begiune his new sacrifice withal: but by blessing & pronouncing this is my body, he 〈◊〉 his ●…nblody sacrifice, in that blessed seed of Abraham's owu body and blood. Thus we 〈◊〉 touching these words, this is my body, both a sufficient cause, why transubstantiation may be in them believed: and an undoubted possibility of the same. But concerning the other words, I am the true wine, alleged by M. Nowell: the very first ground of all transubstantiation lacketh in them. For whereas in every transubstantiation two particular and several substances are to be granted, one which may be changed, an other into which the change may be made: in these words, I am the true vine, here is but one particular substance, which is Christ himself. As for the true vine, ●…ither it is Christ himself, The true vine is no particular substance. distincted from Christ (and so it is no several substance from him, whereunto he may be changed) or else it is no particular substance at all: but only a general ●…ame of a kind of substance, which hath in itself no dotermined and proper being. For as, before Christ spoke, there was no such vine extant, which might be pointed unto: so 〈◊〉 speaking he made no such true vine any where, he brought forth no such material thing, nay, he meant not of any vine or of any other creature under the son: but only meant himself to be that in his How Christ i●… the true vine. own person towards us his members, which the natural vine is towards his branches. And therein himself to be so much the ●…uer kind of vine, them y● natural vine is: because the juice, which uniteth his members to him the head of his mystical body, is more true and more nigh to the spirit of God (which is the truth ●…t self) than any material vine can be nigh to his own branches. Seeing then transubstantiation can not be made otherwise, then by turning o●…e material substance into an other: where one material substance only was found, there possibly could no transubstantiation be made. Christ in deed is one substance, but the vine, he spoke of, was no one particular substance at all. It was therefore a great oversight to compare these words, I am the true vine, to these, This is my body: which words were so spoken, that by the circumstance of the supper they are understanded to pertain after a sort to two substances, to the one, as taken before the begnining of Christ's words, which was bread: to the other, as made present at the end of them, which is the body of Christ. For this which is bread, when Christ taketh it into his hands, afterward when he saith of it, This is my body (by changing of the former substance) is made from bread the substance of Christ's own body. Here are two paticular substances, of the which o●…e both may be right well changed into the other, & so much is signified by Christ's deed & word: but in these words, I am that true vine, sithence two particular substances are not, but only onen: the like change could neither be meant, nor be made by any means. Again in every transubstantiation as two substances are presupposed first or last really extant: so when the change is made, one of the twain must cease to be: for so much as it is changed into that other substance. as, when water was made wine, the water was no joan. 2. more extant: but the wine only was extant, into which the water was changed. If in these words, I am the true vine, any change In these words either christ is changed or nothing. at all might be, Christ were the thing that should be changed. for he is personally affirmed to be the true vine, in whose person two natures are believed. Seeing therefore in the proposition he occupieth the inferior place (which thing is cl●…rely signified in that he is constrned before the verb, and (as it were) is made to serve & to be subject unto the true vine) either nothing is meant ●…o be changed, or else Christ himself is the thing. Now it is clearly impossible, the Christ's person should change C●…rist con 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mala. 3. his own substance, because he is God. Who saith of himself by the Prophet, Ego Dominus, & non mutor. I am the Lord, and am not changed. Therefore Christ can be changed into no substance at all, much less he may be changed into the true vine: which itself is no determined or peculiar substance 〈◊〉 from Christ's person. But when after bread taken it is said: This is my body, the bread may be right well changed, because it is a mere creature The bred is 〈◊〉 to change. subject by nature to mutation. So that look how much odds there is between God, who is immutable, and his creatures, which are always changed: so much sooner may the bread be made Christ's body, than Christ can be made the true vine. Whereupon it ensueth that M. Nowell avouched that, which was utterly false: & he said it marvelous ●…gnorātly, when he affirmed these words, M. nowel's 〈◊〉 assertion. I am the true vine, to prove a transubstantiation as well, as, this is my body. What M. Nowell? take you upon you, to challenge all the Papists in so weak a matter: wherein a young Logician would not only be able to answer you, but also to drive you out of the schools? You bring forth a proposition, which importeth two substances: the one signified by the pronoun, ego, I, the other by the noun vitis, a vine. in which proposition each word doth so Each part of M. N. proposition is against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. violently withstand all manner of substantial change: that the one can not suffer it through the excellency thereof (which is the substance of Christ) the other can not bear it, for lack of the existence thereof, because the true vine, whereof Christ spoke, is no peculiar nature at all distincted from Christ: but only showeth the similitude of a truth, which truth is found no where else beside in Christ himself. in so much that if Christ should be changed into the true vine, he should be changed into a property of his own: howbeit that could be no change from one substance to another, sith it is only one substance in all. But is it like in that supper of Christ, where he saith, This is my Each part in this pro position beareth a transubstan tiation. body? Is the bread, over which these words were spoken, a substance, which can not be changed? Is it any more than a creature without reason and se●…se? On the other side, is not the body of Christ a real substance, into which a change may be really made? Is it not a substance different from the substance of bread both in number and in the kind of nature? Perhaps M. Nowell will say, that albeit so great a difference be found between I am the tr●… vine, and, This is my body, concerning The obietion. the two extreme and uttermost parts, which are Christ, and the vine: bread, & Christ's body: yet at the least the verb, which doth couple them together, is like in both propositions. For as in the first person Christ saith, I am the 〈◊〉: so it is said in the third, This is my body. Now M. Nowell meant by like, that the verb est, is, doth signify no otherwise in this is my body: them the verb sum I am, doth mean in these words, I am the true vine. As though the matter, & things themselves, which are signified The answer. by the two uttermost parts of a proposition, were not of more importance: then the verb alone, which serveth to couple them, and to show the agreement of y● one toward the other. But what if the verb also be otherwise put in, this is my body: than it is in, I am the true vine? Then surely, these two propositions, which M. Nowell compareth together as in all points like (touching transubstantiation) shallbe found in every point diverse, touching the same 〈◊〉. The words, sum, es, fui, doth serve to signify the kind of being▪ The signification of the verb, Sum, es, fui. which every thing hath, according to the matter & case wherein it is used. Sometime it signifieth th●… general, or special, or personal & proper nature of a thing▪ sometime that difference thereof, sometime the proper or the common accidents belonging to it. Yea sometime it only meaneth such a being, as is in the mind or understanding, without any real existence at all, as when we say, sin is nothing: or, sin is evil: the verb, is, doth s●…rue to show how s●…nne is said to be. after what ma●…ner the reasonable mind conceaneth sin: the which concey●…th it as being inde●…de nothing, because it is no creature made by God: but y●…t the mind speaketh of it and considereth i●…, as somewhat. Uexily as the lack of a perfection, which should have been really, where sin is now said to be. Among all these 〈◊〉 of being, the verb 〈◊〉, fur, doth most God is most properly. Exo. 3. prop●…ly serve to ●…ignifie God himself: who (as he said to Moses) is he, that is by nature, & therefore he named himself, Ego sum qui sum, I am who 〈◊〉. Next unto God it signifieth every substance most principally, as every one partaketh of God a most excellent and p●…fit being. And as among all substances they are most principally such Particular ●…ces have their being next unto God. which are most r●…ally de●…rmined, and limited by nature, as this man, that bread, this body, and such like peculiar substances, which are 〈◊〉 named them 〈◊〉 and chief substances, and can not be 〈◊〉 into a●…y creatures more particular, then themselves are: even so they are most specially meant by the verb sum, es, ●…ui, 〈◊〉 they may be so 〈◊〉. They need have no reason brought for proof, that th●…y are really meant to be that, which they are called, when they are named together with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 if there be not evident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the●… proper mea●…ing, naturally they are joan 1. joan 6. Matt. 12. 〈◊〉 1. Ma●…. 16. Matt. 21. included. Thus when it is said: The word was G●…d, the word was made flesh, there was much grass in that place, the ●…onne of man shallbe three days in the ha●…t of the earth, John was in 〈◊〉 those particular substances really, to be that which they are named: but if it chance otherwise, we ask, why it doth not signify▪ as it should chief do. Which being so, we must seek the reason why these words, I am the true vine, do not signify Christ 〈◊〉 self to be the substance of the true vine which, thing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some to import. But, as the truth is, when Christ saith, I am the Why, the verb Sum, ●…th not ●…gnifie Christ to b●… the substan●…e of a 〈◊〉. true vine, he can not mean, I am the substance of a vine: for if he were so, he were not Christ. Because the substance of Christ, who is God and man, differeth wholly 〈◊〉 the substance of a vine. But Christ pr●…eth of himself, I am this, or that: ●…fore we are compelled so to expound his words, that his 〈◊〉 may still be saved. He saith not, I am changed into a vine: or I am made a vine, the which words 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ of being with the loss of the former Being: but 〈◊〉 saith, I am the true 〈◊〉, wherein somewhat is rather attributed or given to his former substance▪ then any thing taken from it, and much less the former substance itself is wholly taken away. If then it repugn to the nature of Christ●… words, that he It is against reason, to take away Christ's sub●… by words, which signify a virtue thereof. should in thē●…e thought to 〈◊〉 spoiled of his 〈◊〉, by which words his substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉: we 〈◊〉 needs find o●…t some other way of expounding those words, than ●…o a●…e that▪ Christ is the substance of any material vine. Seig then these two subst●…es (for so in word they seem to 〈◊〉, although in de●… they can not so be ment) seeing (I say) these two 〈◊〉 substances▪ Christ & a vine can not either be wholly one, whiles they be divers, or be whol●… 〈◊〉, whil●… 〈◊〉 be said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise man avoiding (as nigh as may be) all absurdity, seeketh out such a meaning: that both natures may remain still 〈◊〉 concerning their different substances, and that they may co●…municat and agree in some▪ ●…uality, which is common to ●…th. The which consideration made all the learned Fathers in these phrases of speech, I am the door, I am the way, I am the true joan. 10. 14. 15. 1 Co 10. Math. 11. vine, the rock is Christ, ●…on Baptist is Elias, and in such like, to show what condition quality or property was common between these natures, without any surmise at all that any transubstantiation could be meant in those words: in all which propositions the verb sum, es, fui, doth stand to signify an accidental, and not a substantial agreement between diverse natures & substances. But it is far otherwise, when Christ having taken bread, saith Two sub stances be neither named nor meant in This is my body after blessing, This is my body: for in those words two several natures are not joined together, and thereby aff●…ed still to be the substances they were before. It is not said, This bread is my body. No Enangelist, no Apostle, no Disciple reporteth Christ's words in that sort: such additions come from Luther, from zwinglius, from Decolampadius, from Calvin: but not from S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke or S. Paul. The true Apostles of God by the in●…inct of the holy ghost were so far This, can not be referred to bread or wine. from the mind of saying this bread, or this wine: that they did put the pronoun this, in such a gender: as neither could agree to bread nor to wine, whereof I have spoken sufficiently before. The proposition then being such, as nameth one substance only, and that most particular: there is no cause, why the verb, est, is, ought not to stand in his most proper and usual signification, verily to signify this one thing, which was known to have been bread, by Christ's word to be the substance of Christ's The body of Christ is not common bread. own body. which if it be once granted, it will necessarily follow: that this, which is the substance of Christ's body, is not also common bread, because those natures were not at any time appointed to be together in any one propriety of person. If it be not common bread, and yet it doth seem so: it will ensue, that the substance of the bread is changed into Christ's own substance, which is really present under the form of common bread. Thus I have showed cause, why the verb est, is, doth signify otherwise in, this is my body, then in these words, I am the true vine: by reason of which proper understanding of the verb substantive, transubstantiation is of necessity inferred. For as when I hear it reported for certain, that Peter, who was in the morning at Dover, was seen the same night at Calis, I do thereby understand, that Peter passed over the sea, not because so much was spoken, but because it followeth upon that, which was done: Even so, when I read, that Christ in his supper The consequent whereby ●…substan station is gathered. took bread, and said after blessing: Take, eat, this is my body: I understand the bread, which by nature is not Christ's body, by blessing and speaking to be made his body, and consequently to be changed from his own substance into the substance of Christ's body. None of all which things can be reasonably applied to the other words, I am the true vine. For which reason I conclude, that whereas in every proposition three parts are either expressed, or employed: the one which goeth before the verb, the other which followeth after, and the verb itself: every one helpeth to prove transubstantiation in these Every ●…ord of y● 〈◊〉 ●…ropo ●…tions is against 〈◊〉. No●…. words, This is my body: and every one hindereth the proof of the same transubstantiation in the other words, I am the true vine. So discrete a challenge M. Nowell made in comparing these two sayings together. But who can look for better stuff at his hands, sith he hath forsaken the notable wisdom of the Church of God, and taketh Caluins' dream to be God's word? Hitherto, M. Nowell, I have showed the true meaning of every word of the two propositions by you alleged. But now I have such confidence in the cause of those Catholics, whom you 〈◊〉 Papists: that I will grant you for farther disputations ●…ake, every thing to be otherwise, than it is in deed. Let us imagine, that Christ were not God, and therefore might be changed That is grated for arguments sake, which is not true. in substance: that the true vine were a certain particular vine ●…eueral from Christ, into the which a real change might be made: that the verb sum, I am, did stand to signify a being in substance, and not in quality alone: yet these words, I am the true vine, The more seemly tran substantiation would be the ●…ter proved would not prove as well a transubstantiation, as, This is my body: for that transubstantiation would be better proved in all doubts moved thereupon, which were the more seemly for Christ to work. But it is a great deal more seemly for him, to turn bread into his body: then to turn himself into a vine. Because it is to be thought, he being the wisdom of God changeth always for the best. Which were not so, if in stead of himself he should leave us a material 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 all other things were equal) could never prove that unwise change so well: as, This is my body will prove a most wise & happy change of common bread into the bread of life. moreover, these words, the vine, albeit they were meant of a certain vine: yet there is no necessity, that they should show it The, both not show a thing present. present. Sith those words may be verified of a vine, which being a hundred mile thence, were known to Christ alone: as likewise, when S. Paul said, The rock was Christ, the rock whereof he spoke was not present 〈◊〉 him: but in his mind he noted a certain 1. Co. 10. rock, which yet in truth itself was not very certain (touching any one material rock) because two diverse rocks were Exo. 17. Num. 20 The true vine might be 〈◊〉 to the ●…posties. stricken, out of which water flowed at diverse times. But (as I was about to say) the true vine, being only described by those terms, might be uncertain to the Apostles and to the hearers of Christ, either because they never knew it, or because they have forgotten it. So that these words, I am the true vine, will not as well prove a transubstantiation, as the other words, This is my body. For both the bread, which was changed, was first present, and the body, whereunto the change is made, is presently showed, taken, and eaten under the form of the same bread. It is doubtless a great help in proving transubstantiation, to know both the uttermost parts, and to be able to bring that forth, into the which the other is changed. For the nature of proof among men consisteth in making a thing plain to reason, proof. by the mean of senses: and among faithful men, it consisteth in making it plain to faith, by the mean of the same senses. If one should ask where the vine is, whereof Christ said, I am the true vine, and ye could not bring it forth: and on the other side, if I could bring forth the body of Christ, into which the bread were changed: although you might as well believe the transubstantiation of Christ into the vine through the word of Christ, as I do believe the transubstantiation of bread into his body: yet you could not so well prove it, because you could not show it so well. The vine, is less then, this vine, and the proof that (this) maketh, He proveth best who showeth the thing most really present. doth far exceed the proof that (the) can make. If an inquisition were made, who had done a certain murder, and you said the man hath done it, but I could say, this man hath done it: I suppose, all the judges in the world would say, that I proved the murder done better, than you. When it is said, the man hath done such a murder, albeit the judge believe the saying: yet his understanding 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 can be asked more plain. Which being so, albeit I granted a transubstantiation in each saying: yet M. Nowell had not said truly in affirming, that these words, I am the true vine, do prove as well a transubstantiation, as, This is my body. By how much (this) in making proof doth pass (the) by so much the later words would better prove a transubstantiation, than the first. Besides this, when two transubstantiations are affirmed, of the which one hath been in some like sort practised before, but the other hath not been likewise practised: those words which affirm such a transubstantiation, the like whereof hath been before done, do prove the said transubstantiation better: then those that speak of a thing, that never was done. Bread was usually turned into Christ's body, whiles he lined Bread was turned into Christ's body whiles he lived. In orat. Catech. 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 believe well (sayeth Nyssenus brother to S. Basile) the bread, which is sanctified with the word of God, to be changed into the body of God the word. This argument also Damascene, Theophylact, and Euthymius Li. 4. ca 14. in joan. 6. in Math. 26 do make. So that it is no news for bread to become Chri stes body: but for Christ to become a vine, that, as it is thoroughly impossible, because Christ is God and unable to be changed: so albeit we did grant it possible, yet it were the harder to prove it, because it had not ben●… done before. Last of all, there was never any ancient Father, or General Council, nay there was never no learned man, were he Catholic or otherwise, there was never none of the lay people, no woman, no child, no natural fool: which took or thought any vine or rock in the whole world to be the natural substance Noman ever tok●… any vine or 〈◊〉 to be Christ. Transubstantiation 〈◊〉. of Christ: Notwithstanding that Christ had said, I am the true vine, and S. Paul, 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 shall find, not only thousand millions of faithful people to have believed the bread, over which those words are spoken, to be changed into Christ's body: but also whole General Counsels, wherein many hundred of Bishops and of great clerks have been gathered together, to have taught and decreed Transubstantiation decreed & taught. directly or by manifest sequel the doctrine of transubstantiation: as the Counsels of Lateran, of Basile, of Constance, of Florence, of Trent. Which all are known to have agreed in this behalf. Besides many ancient Fathers have most constantly written In Apo. 2 2. li. 4. ca 34. 3. l. 4. cont. Marc. 4. de caen. Dom. 5 de ijs qui init. cap. 9 6. hom. 60. ad P. Antio. the same: as S. justinus the Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, with all the rest. The prosecuting of which argument were at this present to far distant from my principal intent: but in case I may understand, that these few reasons do not satisfy M. Nowell, or any other man to whom my labour may do good, I will prove most fully the doctrine of transubstantiation both out of the holy scriptures, and out of the holy Fathers. Now for M. Nowell, not withstanding all these s●…uen differences, to affirm that no Papist shall ever be able to show cause, why I am the true vine: doth not prove 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 stay upon the last The faith 〈◊〉 doctri ne of the Church is a reason of the thing taught. argument, wherein all Christendom is showed to have believed transubstantiation through these words, This is my body, and that as well before in deed, as by confession of our adversaries, ever sense the great Council of Lateran (which was kept above three hundred years past) seeing M. Nowell for his part could not bring forth one reasonable creature, that ever surmised any transubstantiation in these words, I am the true vine: were not cause showed, why these words, I am the true vine: did not as well prove a transubstantiation, 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 vain. But that can not be so (as S. Paul concludeth) therefore likewise 1. Co. 15. the faith of all Christendom these three hundred years together was a cause, why a transubstantiation should be proved by the one words much rather, then by the other. M. Nowell. M. Nowell. ¶ Is not this as plainly 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 impugn your words, against whose person I have no quarrel: were it not, that Act. 15. Galat. 1. you are & would be accounted a teacher in the realm of England, which kind of men as it is most necessary, when by lawful commission it preacheth the Gospel, which it hath taken of the Apostles and their successors: so is the same most pernicious, when it preacheth a Gospel of his own framing, otherwise understanded, than they took it of their Prelates, under whom joan. 21. Chryso. ibidem. they lived, before they departed from the fold of Christ: who appointed S. Peter to be the general shepherd of his whole flock in earth, in whose chair the Bishops of Rome sit by lawful 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 These words be more pithy, which inst●…uted a Sacrament. true vine, or a very vine, be as pithy, as those of Christ's supper: without controversy 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 own body and blood. For words a like pithy, must work an effect of like pith: otherwise, if the words of the supper do work that, which the words of a true and very vine do not work: you have spoken falsely, in affirming that it is as pithily said, I am the true vine, as, this is my body. Before Christ came in to the world, he made diverse figures of his last supper: as that of Melchisedech, of the paschal lamb, of Gen. 14. Exod. 12 & 16. levit. 2. & 22. manna, of show br●…d, of wheaten meal, & of such like. was there likewise so many figures made, to prefigure that he would be a very vine? When he was come into the world, he promised at Capharnaum that, the bread which he would give was his flesh. Made he the like 3. of giving any vine to us? or of making himself a very vine? joan. 6. When the hour of sacrificing the Passover was come, he sent 4. S. Peter before, to prepare the passoner, which was but the shadow of his supper. Did he likewise make a certain banquet, 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 eat the 5. passouer with all the twelve, a mystical number, as it may well Math. 10 26. Act. 1 joán. 13. appear in the holy 〈◊〉: one of the which was departed ●…rom him, before that he said: I am the true vine. He protested his desire to eat this passouer, but not so to eat, 6. or to be made any vine. Luc. 22. He washed his Apostles feet immediately▪ before his supper: wherein he said, This is my body: but not immediately before that 7. he said, I am the true vine. joan. 13. He sat at the table, when he said, This is my body, which was 8. the place, whereupon he wrought his mystery: but he rose and joan. 14. went out of the place, before he said, I am the true vine. And so Psal 22. lacked the circumstance of that table, whereof David and Solomon Prou. 9 had prophesied. To make his supper, he took bread: but he took nothing at all, to make thereof a vine. Therefore there is a 9 more real ground of the one, then of the other. He blessed at his supper: he did not so, when he said, I am the 10. true vine: and yet surely the words, wherewith blessing is joined, are thereby the plainer. He gave thanks there, but not here: which is a token, that 11. the myst●…rie of his body was the greater. He broke there, but not here: whereby the very vine lacked a 12. notable ceremony concer●…ing the representation of Christ's death. He gave there, but not here: because in his supper the chief gift 13. was external, and given by Christ's hands to their bodies and hearts. He said there, and also he did those other things, as S. Luke 14. r●…orteth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saying: wherein he doth us to understand, that Luc. 22. Christ at his supper as well did, as said: for he took, he blessed, he broke, he gave saying, to wit, his saying and doing went together & one made the other plain: but when he said, I am the true joan. 15. vine, he did nothing else, whereunto his words could appertain, so that the deed might give light to the word. At his supper he bade his Apostles, take▪ not so in speaking of 15. the true vine, because they had already the gift of being the branches of him, the true vine. At his supper he bade them eat▪ not so in the other place. for that 16. he provided no external meat under the form of any vine, as he had prepared his own flesh under the form of bread. At his supper he said, This is my body, where one substance 17. only is named: and yet that by Christ's doing and speaking is understanded to be verified within the compass and form of that, which once was known to have been the substance of bread: but in these words, I am the true vine, two substances are named: of the which one is only a proper and peculiar substance, the other is taken unproperly, and is no real substance distincted from Christ. There the words pass from the worse to the better, from that 18. which was bread to the body of Christ: here they pass 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 19 this thing really present: here it is only described to be the true vine, but no such creature is showed or brought forth There such words are added, which restrain the name body 20. to that true body of Christ, which died for us: here such words be Luc. 22. 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 joan. 15. branch can not bear fruit of itself, unless it tarry in the vine: so The circum stance of the words in both pla●…s. neither ye, except ye tarry in me. See the odds, M. Nowell, This is my body. Which body? which is delivered for you. to say, this is mine own substance, the very same, that is put to death for you. but concerning the true vine he saith, As the branch can not bear fruit, unless it be in the vine: so can not we bear fruit, except we tarry in him. The particles as and so, be words of similitude, and not of substance. Behold how he is a vine, by a similitude, and by a metaphor, by an example, by having a like propriety towards us: as the vine hath towards his own branches. These be other manner of circumstances, for the pithy and plain setting forth of his real body under the form of bread: them you can bring any to make so much as an appearance, that Christ should be a vine. And is yet the one with you so plain & so pithy, 21. as the other? To what case would you bring the words, this is In Apol. 2. my body: if your power were to your will? S. justinus the Martyr calleth them words of prayer, because 22. they were spoken with thanksgiving. Deprod. jud. S. Chrysostom, words which consecrate the things set forth: because 23. they make a Sacrament of the bread and wine. S. Ambrose De ijs qui init. cap. 9 calleth them words of blessing, and a speech which worketh: because they are spoken with the intent of working that they sound. 24. S. Augustine nameth them a mystical prayer, of consecrating, of In epi. 59 & li. 3. de Trin. c. 4 vowing, or offering, because they consecrate, vow and offer unto God the substance of bread and wine: to the●…d it being accepted of him, may be made the body of Christ our only sacrifice, wherein the oblations of the new law must end. You making these words no more pithy, then, I am the true vine, would have them work no more: then metaphorical words do work. which is to say, that they teach only a comfortable doctrine: but work no essential thing in the substance of bread, which is set forth to be consecrated. Christ after his body was consecrated, said to his Apostles, 25. Make this thing for the remembrance of me: but after the words of the true vine were spoken, he bade no thing to be do●… or made for any purpose or effect. The making of Christ's body was e●…r accounted a great 26. sacrifice, as the greek Liturgies and latin ●…bookes delare: S. james. but there never was hard of any vine, that was in that opinion S. Basil. among the faithful. S. Chry. The words, which consecrate Christ's blood, show likewise, 27. what is to be thought of, this is my body: but the true vine is not so con●…d by any other like consecration annexed. The blood is pointed unto within a cup or chalice, declaring 28. the body also to have been pointed unto under the form of bread: but the vine was not so limited within a certain place, where it might appear to any sense of the Apostles. It is called the blood of the new tostament, or the new testament 29. in Christ's blood: the like addition is not made to the true vine. The very cup of Christ's supper is said to be shed for us, because 30. the blood is contained in it, which was only shed for us: that like is not said of any thing, wherein the vine might be contained. The words of Christ's supper be so plain and so pithy, that 31. if we take them not as they sound: the prono●…nes hoc and hic shall lack their noun substantive. The verb est, is being once taken for significat, shall have no 32. substantive at all, to be his nominative case. The noun corpus, body, being expounded for the figure of 33. Christ's body, shall not agree with his participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, datum, given: or else the relative quod, which, shall not agree with his antecedent corpus, body: except we defend a figure of Christ to have been crucified for us. None of all these things compel us, to take these words, I am the true vine, in such sort. There is no pronoun, no Relative or Participle, which may so restrain the nature of the words: but that we may take Christ's kind of being the true vine, for having the quality of a true vine, and not being any vine in a several substance. Three Evangelists have written, This is my body, one after an 34. other, confirming the propriety of the words: but only S. John wrote, that Christ said, I am the true vine. Now that is not so plainly said, whereof four men writ conformably, as that, which one writeth alone. For if an other had written the parable of the vine, perhaps he would have added other words to have made it plainer, although it be plain enough already. For the honour of these words, This is my body, Churches 35. and Altars have been builded: where that blessed body might be consecrated under the form of bread. For any vine I never think the like to have been done. You yourselves allow at the least a square table, where this 36. is my body, may be solemnly pronounced: but not so for these words, I am the true vine. 37. The body whereof Christ spoke, hath been taught to be adored 1. de spir. sanct. l. 3. cap. 12. 1. under the form of bread by S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, & all the Fathers. You are the first M. Nowell, who Cor. ho. 24. 3. in Psal. 98. would either a vine to be adored equally with Christ's body: or else his body to be no more adored in the Sacrament of the altar then a parabolical vine. For to that end your words run, that M. No●… scope as well Christ should be a vine: as that whereof he spoke in his supper, should be his body. to say, that his body is only present in a parable at Christ's supper. S. Chrysostom calleth these words, I am the true vine, a parable, 38. and therefore saith: Quid vult haec parabola significare, what In joan. hom. 75. will this parable mean? And again: Vide, quàm diligenter hanc parabolom exequitur. See, how diligently he prosecuteth this parable. But thought he, trow you, that: This is my body, was likewise a parable? No, no, it never was his mind. For writing Chrys. in Matth. hom. 83. upon these words, Take, eat: this is my body, and having asked, why the disciples were not troubled hearing that thing, he answereth: Quia multa iam, & magna de hoc anteà disseruit, because Christ hath disputed of this thing, many and great things before. Where no doubt at all can be, but that S. Chrysostom meaneth the the disputation kept at Capharnaum: where Christ promised the joan. 6. Chrys. in joan. bread which is his flesh, affirming his flesh to be not only true meat, but to be meat truly, therein showing: that it is meat not hom. 46. only concerning the truth of nourishing, but also concerning the manc●… of ca●…ing it. upon which place S. Chrysostom writeth, that Christ called his flesh truly meat, either because it is the true meat which saveth the soul, or to confirm them in his former sayings: ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur, sed sc●…rent omnino necessarium esse, ut corpus comederent: lest they should think him to have spoken darkly in parables, but should know it to be by all mean●…s necessary, tha●… they should eat his There is no parable in the words belonging to the gift of Chr●…stes flesh. body. Behold, in promising his flesh, and in affirming it to be meat in deed Christ spoke not in parables: much less could he do so in performing his promise, and in saying, Take, eat: this is my body. Yet M. Nowell thinketh a parable as plain, as that speech which is no parable: Forgetting that Christ said himself to speak Matt. 13. in parables to the multitude, so that the hearers did not understand him. Yet M. Nowell will have, I am the true vine, which is a parable, to be as plain, as, this is my body. S. Augustine saith, Christ is called a vine by a Similitude or 39 Metaphor: but he never taught the like, of, this is my body. For Trac. 80 in joan. he saith, Noster panis & calix certa consecratione mystious fit nobis, Contra Faust. li. 20. ca 13: non nascitur: Our bread and chalice is not borne, but is made mystical to us by a certain consecration. That, which is consecrated, is in deed made somewhat, which it was not before, & not only showed to be a thing by a similitude. A parable or similitude (as I am the true vine is) hath no consecration belonging to it: but our bread hath a certain consecration, which worketh some mystery: and what consecration is that, beside the effectual operation of these words, this is my body? Christ was the true vine, before he said, I am the true vine: but 40. the thing pointed unto at his supper was not his body, before it was said, This is my body. Therefore these words, which make a new thing, when they are spoken, are more pithy: then those, which only show a thing already extant. But are metaphors used to be really made after a certeine maver of consecration, Master Nowell? They be named and written many times, but they be never co●…secrated 〈◊〉 made really. S. Cyrillus 〈◊〉, that he called himself a vine exempli ratione: 41. by the way of example. But what? said he likewise, this is my In joan. li. 10. c. 13 The useof ●…n example. body, as it were for examples sake? when we bring an example, we bring it to prove some other thing, which is more principal, than the example was. Christ intending to teach in what sort his disciples depended upon him for their spiritnal life, showeth it by an example of the vine: but in his supper his own body consecrated, made, and eaten was not an example brought to declare an other thing: but it was the principal thing itself, which was intended. Therefore, this is my body, was more pithily said: then, I am the true vine. For the principal is always more pithy, then that, which is alleged for to serve an other purpose: in so much that Ibidem. S. cyril saith, Long ab omni ratione remotum est, ad naturae substantiaeque rationem illud traducere, quod per similitudinem dictum est. It is far distant from all reason, to apply that, which The ar●…ans reason. was spoken by a similitude, to a comparison of nature and substance. Which words, S. cyril spoke of the Arrians, who denying these words to be meant of Christ's human nature, by the similitude went about to pro●…e: that as the vine, and the husbandman be not of one nature, so God the father, who is, as it were, the husbandman, and Christ, who is the vine, were not of one nature. And as the Arians did amiss, to apply the words spoken by a A similitude must not be applied to disprove 〈◊〉 substance. similitude, to the denying of Christ's own divine substance: right so M. Nowell doth apply the same similitude evil, to disprove by the example thereof the substantial presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament. But as S. Cyrillus doth return the argument of the Arians upon their heads, by showing how Christ is the vine, and we I am the true vine, serveth to show the real presence of Christ's body. the branches according to his humanity: so may we show to M. Nowell, that these words of Christ, I am the true vine, serve to show the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament of the altar. S. Augustine sayeth, Christ was made man, to th'end the nature Aug. in joan. of man might be the vine in him: of which human nature we men might be the branches. S. cyril affirmeth likewise, Tract. 80 Cyr. l. 10 in joan. 13. Christ to be the vine even according to the flesh: and us to be branches both spiritually and corporally. He proveth it, for so Thempst●… call blessig. much as the mystical blessing maketh Christ to dwell corporally also in us, by the communicating of the flesh of Christ. What meaneth he by dwelling corporally? Himself showeth saying, Non habitudine solum, quae per charitatem intelligitur: verum etiá & naturali participatione. Not only by habit, by power, by effect, or by the state and condition of charity alone: but also by natural participation. ●…o, he placeth natural participation, as a farther degree beyond that dwelling of Christ in us, which is by faith or charity. M. Nowell will say pe●…haps, that the natural participation An obiec●…. of Christ's flesh is to believe, that he is true man and true God: and so to feed upon him by faith at the time of eating bread and of drinking wine. Such cursed interpretations now adays they The a●…nswere. bring: as though he, that doth not believe Christ to be in deed true man and true God, can be joined to Christ at all▪ by faith and charity. But S. cyril speaketh of that participation, which is made not only by faith and charity: but also by natural partaking his body and blood. We must put a certain just man to believe most p●…y, who yet hath not received the mystical blessing or communion of Christ's flesh. That just man is joined to God by faith and charity, but not yet corporally. He is a branch of the Godhead (which is principally the true vine) and a branch of the manhood in that he believeth in Christ, who is true God and man: but he is not yet corporally a branch of the manhood (which is also the true vine) except he 〈◊〉 worthily the mystical blessing, which is the Sacrament of Christ's supper: the which maketh Christ to dwell in us corporally also. Note the word quoque, also. For Christ dwelled in his Apostles hearts before the last supper 〈◊〉. by right faith and charity, and therefore he said they were all clean saving judas: but this mystery maketh him dwell in them joan. 13. corporllay also. And S. cyril expoundeth farther, how Christ by the Sacrament dwelleth in us. For whereas Christ had said, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, Life. ye shall not have life in yourselves: He interpreteth life, the flesh of life, in yourselves, in your body. That is to say: except ye eat my flesh, ye shall not have the flesh of life in your body. Vita autem iure ipsa vitae caro intelligi potest. The life may well be understanded the self flesh of life. In vobis ipsis dicit, id est, in corpore vestro. Christ saith, except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, ye shall not have life in yourselves: that is to say, in your body. Is not this plain enough? Then hear yet a plainer similitude, which fully doth open his mind. S. Cyrillus expressly affirmeth A ●…tude made by S. Cy rill. Christ to be in us, and us to be in him, by the communicating of his body and blood, even after that sort: as if a man taking wax (which is melted by the fire) do so mingle it with other melted wax, that one manner of thing seemeth to be made of both. How think you, M. Nowell? Is one wax mingled with an other by faith and spirit alone? or is it mingled by signs and tokens 〈◊〉 the one part, without the real presence of both waxes. What wicked men are ye, who will make us believe, y● S. cyril did not mean the real substance of Christ's flesh to be really and corporally in us, by communicating his body & blood? If you believe him not, why do ye not deny his authority? If ye believe his doctrine, why teach you not the same? These be The points to be noted in this place o●… S. cyril. the points, M. Nowell, which you must a●…swer unto. For every word, that followeth, is in S. cyril even in that place, where he disputeth of the true vine: though not in such order, as I now put them. Which thing I do, to make his whole mind appear at once. Thus he saith. * 1. The mystical blessing, or the communicating of Christ's body and blood▪ * 2. maketh. * 3. Christ, or the life, or the flesh of life. * 4. to be, or to be made, or to be joined, or to dwell. * 5. in us, or with us, and us to have it in ourselves, or in our bodies. * 6. according to the flesh, or corporally. * 7. and not only by habit, or power, or by ●…aith, or charity, or spiritually. * 8. but also, by natural partaking. * 9 even so as one melted wax is mingled to an other melted wax, and in manner made one therewith. * 10. By this means we are both corporally and spiritually branches of Christ's flesh, which is also the true vine. See now, M. Nowell, how the parable of the true vine rightly expounded, maketh altogether for our purpose. As Christ is the true vine according to his flesh, so are we the branches according The vine. to his flesh. He is the vine, by having his flesh really present and united to himself: therefore we be the branches by The branches. having the same flesh really present in us, and by being really united unto it, as the branch is united to his root. As Christ is the true vine two ways, by his Godhead and by his manhood: so a man may two ways live by Christ, by partaking of his Godhead and manhood: by habit only, if he have a good faith: and by partaking his manhood corporally also, if he receive worthily the Sacrament of the altar. But that Sacrament could no more make us be branches according to the flesh of Christ, than our faith and charity doth make us to be branches thereof: except it had his flesh really present. For otherwise our faith itself is a better mean to gra●… us into Christ, than bread and wine is: because it is a joining of us to God in a higher degree. But the mystical blessing in S. Cyril is made the mean to join us to God in a higher degree, than faith or charity. Therefore S. cyril and all the Fathers before him, (whose mind he professeth himself to follow) believed the real presence of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament of the altar: And that by the way of turning the bread into his flesh. For the flesh of Christ could not be really present, to dwell corporally with us and in our bodies, except it were corporally received of us. And other way, how to receive it corporally, I see not: except the bread be changed into it. Thus you see, what advantage, I am the true vine, doth bring to the Catholic faith: but no hindrance in the world can be thence deduced against the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar. M. Nowell. ¶ Nay, if Christ had said likewise, this is my true & very body, as he said, I am a true or very vine what a rule had we then had? I Marvel, if M. Nowell think more strength to be in these The answer. words, my true or very body: them in these, My body which is given for you. as though the true & very body were not given for us. But if the true body were given for us, Christ saying, This is my body, which is given for you, said also: This is my true and very body. And therein M. Nowell shall have a rule, to know that Christ spoke not metaphorically: for the relative quod, which, can not agree with any other word, then with the noun substantive corpus, body. which noun corpus, body, if it stand unproperly, the relative must needs repeat it so, as it standeth: and then, if this be the figure of Christ's body, which is given at his supper, the figure of his body is given for us upon the cross. I confess M. Nowell, I could be content to go to school, & to ●…rne of so ancient a schoolmaster as you are: how a word which is but once named (as y● noun corpus, body, in Christ's supper) may be antecedent to the relative, quod, which, (as the Latins read) or noun substantive to the participle datum, given, (as the Greeks read) and yet be otherwise meant in his relative and participle, than it was being the antecedent or the noun substantive. Christ said, This is my body given for you. will you divide the participle given, from his noun substantive body? If you will not, as the body given for us was the substance of Christ's body: so this is the self same substance of Christ's body, which the Apostles are commanded to take, to eat, and to make. In that you turn the words vitis vera, not only a true, but also a very vine, you are much deceived. The word vera, is not now to be pressed, as if it were set to signify a natural vine (where unto your words run) but to signify a perfect vine, in respect of an imperfect: for so we say, he is a true man, meaning a truth in his words and deeds, but not in nature. for a liar and falsifier is also a true man in nature. Even so Christ meaneth himself to be a most true and perfect vine concerning the sweet fruit, which a vine ought to bring forth and to communicate unto his branches. For the jews being a vine well planted by God, became through sin a ●…oure vine, and brought forth none other but wild grapes: but Christ is a true, a perfect, a most excellent vine, which bringeth forth sweet grapes in his faithful members of the Church. Thus doth S. Augustine expound the word vera, true, Tractat. 80. in Io ann. saying: that when Christ calleth himself a true vine, he maketh a difference between himself, and that vine, to which it is said: isaiah, 5. How art thou turned into the bitterness of a strange vine? Euthymius declareth the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify In cap. joan. 15. either an excellent, an incorruptible, a spiritual vine: or else a vine, which for his fruit bringeth forth verity and truth. Now such an addition doth rather detract sum what from the natural and very vine, whereof M. Nowell speaketh: then help it any thing. For which cause he should not have had such a rule with us, as he thinketh, if it were said, This is my true body: sith the word true might have been taken for the effect or fruit proceeding from his body, which would not have been so much for our purpose, as when it is said, This is my body which is given for you. Thus every way M. Nowell is deceived in his construction. And no wonder, sith he buildeth not upon the rock planted by Christ in the Catholic Church: but upon Caluins new inventions, which are more feeble, than the sands themselves. M. Nowell. ¶ Christ saith, Ego sum panis, I am bread: and yet no transubstantiation of his body into bread. Why should these words, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, more transubstantiate bread into his body? HOw long will you continue in falsifying the holy Scriptures, M. Nowell? When shall a man find you to deal uprightly? Where is it written, I am bread? Where sayeth Christ those words? verily if he had said them, yet you may know, he meant himself to be bread only by a similitude or Metaphor: as it was expounded before in the words, I am the true vine. And therefore, I am bread, could import no transubstantiation for seven causes. * 1. The bread, he speaketh of, is no certain or limited substance. The causes, why Christ can not be ma teriall bread. * 2. Christ can not be personally changed, for that he is God. * 3. The verb sum, I am, being joined with two natures clean distant doth always signify a like condition or property, and no identity of substance. * 4. It were a change made for the worse, such as Christ useth not to make. * 5. It would be the harder to be proved, because the thing, whereinto the change should be made, is not pointed unto, as present. * 6. It had been a change, the like whereof had not been used before. * 7. It was ne●…r ta●…ght nor believed in the Church. But in these words, This is my body. * 1. The body is certain. This is my body may work ●… change. * 2. The bread taken is a creature made to be changed. * 3. The verb est, is, doth not stand between two diverse substances: but between the pronoun and his only noun substantive. * 4. The change is for the better. * 5. It is better to be pro●…ed, because it pointeth presently to the thing made. * 6. Bread was before changed into Christ's flesh, whiles he eating bread lived thereby. * 7. The Church believed, the Fathers taught, and the General Counsels decreed the change of the bread into Christ's body. It had not been ha●…d, to have answered thus: if Christ had said, I am bread. But fie upon that impiety of yours, M. M. Nowell hath falsified the word of God. Nowell, who in so few words commit so many faults? You report, that Christ said, I am bread: and therein you falsify the word of God. It is not said any where, I am bread. For what call you the saying of Christ? It is written, Odivi omnem viam iniquitatis: And again, Omnem viam iniquam odio habui. I have Psal. 118. vers. 104 & 128. hated every way of iniquity, I have hated every unjust way. Were it now truly reported, that God had said: I have hated every way? And thereof to conclude, that noman may either walk by the high way, or walk in the path of God: because God hath hated every way? After the like manner doth M. Nowell report the words of joan. 6. Christ: who said twice, I am the bread of life. And once he said, I am the living bread. Now cometh M. Nowell and leaveth out The geni 〈◊〉 ●…afe l●…ft out. the genitive case in the two first sayings, and the participle in the last, and the article in both, and affirmeth that Christ said, I am bread. In deed M. Nowell, these words be found, as likewise we find, I have hated every way: but it is no small sacrilege, to allege God's word, leaving out any essential part thereof. And specially when the word left out is so joined with the rest: as the genitive case is joined to the noun, which it followeth, or as the participle is joined to his noun substantive. It had been bad enough, to have said in our tongue, which hath The article left out articles: I am bread of life. for even so the article (●…) the, had been left out: because it is written, I am the bread of life, or, I am the living bread: And not, I am bread. But to leave out both the article (the) and the genitive case (of life) or the participle (living) and to argue upon that false ground, that Christ is not transubstantiated into bread: it is so dissolutely done, that it may warn you, M. Nowell, of your ow●… blindness of heart, and of the blindness of all such other fal●…e preachers as you are. Who through (what other great sins I can not tell) but certainly The blindness of Schisma t●…ks. through schism are so wonderfully forsaken of God: that you see not now, not only what his true meaning, what his word and Gospel▪ what the most sy●…cere faith of his Church is, but you see not that, which natural Philosophers, which men of common reason, which children in the Catholic Church see. You see not the dependence between the pronoun adjective, and his noun substantive: but refer hoc to panis, and hic to Hoc panis. vinum: you see not, how the nominative case agreeth with his verb: but in expounding Hic est sanguis meus, for hic significat sanguinem meum you leave the verb without a noun substantive Hic signi ficat. to go before him: which is not so, when we say, Hic est sanguis meus, this is my blood, taking the verb substantive est, is, properly. For s●…ing here is in all but one substance named, the pronoun hic, this, is so referred finally to the blood alone, that yet we do not construe the words saying, this blood is my blood: The catholics fall not into the like er rour. but we make the last determination of the pronoun (this) to rest only in the substance following. And so as long as the substance is unnamed, the noun substantine to the pronoun is unknown, as in, Hic est filius meus, haec vidua erat, hoc est verbum fidei: but Math. 3. straight upon the naming thereof, the pro●…oune is ruled in case, Luc. 7. 20. 10. gender, and number, of his noun substantive, which co●…eth after the verb. But when you have expounded the words of Christ by hic sinificat Significat never hath a noun to be his nominative case. sanguinem meum, when all the speech is fully ended: your pronoun of the masculine gender & of the nominative case findeth no noun substantine at all, with whom he may rest, but still is without his due construction. You turn the nouns corpus, and sanguis, from the nominative Corpus. case into the accusative. You divide the relative quod, which, Quod. from his antecedent corpus, body, in that you make him repeat but half the signification of his antecedent. You divide the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, given, from the signification of his noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, body. You supply in S. Luks Greek words the verb est, is, by common use: & when you have it present, you cast it out again, Est sup●…d. or expound it not according to the common use of speaking: which forced you to supply it, but according to an unproper meaning very seldom used, & not understanded of any mean learned man. You teach by necessary & inevitable sequel of your doctrine, 〈◊〉 figure offered for us. Wine shed for us. a figure of Christ's body, that is to say, material bread to be sacri ficed for us. You teach, the wine to be in the cup: and yet Christ saith, the cup, to wit, that which is in the cup, to be shed for us. You divide the noun substautine from his genitine case: sanguis from testamenti, vitae from panis. you cut of the article. you myssenglish many things, as I have noted before. These be faults, into which a Grammarian should not fall: & yet you are so blind, that you see them not. For so I rather think of you: than that you of purpose chose to be Heretics, and to be damned persons. What might a man do, to bring you home? You wrote not passing twenty lines together of this blessed Sacrament in this place: and yet s●… into what gross 〈◊〉 you be fallen. If your whole book were so particularly scanned, every leaf is full of such like faults. But because it would pass all measure of writing, if in a great volume every line should be thus stayed upon: therefore all things every where be not, nor can not be so particularly examined. but surely all be as fond, as vain, as false. How Christ is the bread of life. To return to my chief purpose, Christ is the bread of life, according to his Godhead and manhood: and is to be eaten of by faith, as it is often times said in S. 〈◊〉. But he is also to be eaten i●… his human flesh, and to be drunken in the substance of his natural blood not only by faith, but verè, truly▪ that is to say: he is to be taken at the mouth, and so cometh to our hearts and minds, which is the wa●… of eating him at his last supper. The which way (by that mean of eating) fulfilleth the figure Mamna. In respect whereof Christ calleth himself not dead food, as that was: but the living bread, not without power to quicken (as that was) 〈◊〉 the bread of life: which can give life to him, that Bread of life. worthily 〈◊〉 it. Not a 〈◊〉 bread, as Manna was: but the true bread▪ not given from the 〈◊〉, as Manna, but from True bread. Bread from heaven. The everlasting in eat. heaven. and the bread saith Christ, which I will give, is my flesh. This bread of life, M. Nowell, is the everlasting meat, which the son of man promised to give: and at his supper he doth give it, even as he is the son of man, to wit, by the instrument of his manhood verily by his own hands, and by his corporal delivery made to the twelve at his last supper. The preface of the fift Book. ALmighty God knowing the real presence of his sons flesh under the form of bread, to be a thing so far above the whole course of nature, that no understanding of man was able to attain unto it, did at the least so fortify the same by his holy words put in writing, and by the continual practice of the Church: that who so listeth to believe, may have more than sufficient gr●…nd, to b●…ld his faith upon. That I may now omit other pro●…es, how plainly doth S. Paul speak in this matter? whose words are the more earnestly Aug. de opere Monachor. c. 2 to be weighed: for so much as S. Augustine, a man much ●…nuersant in the Epistles of this chosen 〈◊〉, affirmeth him, to dispute (according to the Apostolic manner) more plainly. Et magis proprie quam figurate 〈◊〉 qui, and rather to speak properly, then figuratively. Which thing I wish the Reader to have always in his mind, deeply considering, that if Chr●…s body. 〈◊〉 not really present, ●…o 〈◊〉 hath spo●… more ●…ely, 〈◊〉 S. Paul: be▪ cause he alone hath written more of the last 〈◊〉 itself, than any other holy writer. But 〈◊〉 he useth for the most part to speak properly, we must not in this my●…y alone take his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The chapters of the fifth Book. 1. The real presence of Christ is proved by the blessing of the cup of his blood. 2. Item by the name of breaking and communicating. 3. Item by the one bread, which maketh us all one body. 4. Item by the conference of all those words together. 5. It is showed how we are one body in Christ. 6. The real presence is proved by the like example, which S. Paul used concerning the jews and Gentiles. 7. Item by the kind of showing Christ's death. 8. Item because evil men eat this bread unworthily. 9 Item because evil men are guilty of Christ's body and blood, by eating and drinking it. 10. Item because they discern it not in their doings from other meats. 11. Item because no figure can make a man guilty of Christ's body without special conempt, except it be the truth and the figure together. 12. Last of all, the real presence is confirmed by the frequent repetition of the body and blood of Christ. ¶ The real presence of Christ's body and blood is proved The first Chapter. by the blessing and communicating of Christ's blood, where of S. Paul speaketh. S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians of the Sacrament of the 1. Cor. 10 altar in this manner: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communicating of the blood of Christ? as though he said: there is no doubt, but that the chalice, which we bless, maketh us partake the blood of Christ. This advantage we have by conference of those holy scriptures, which speak of one Matt. 26. matter: that one place giveth light to the other. S. matthew rehearseth, how Christ taking the chalice, said: This is my blood of the new testament. S. Luke showeth, that he said: This chalice is Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 the new testament in my blood. S. Paul addeth thereunto: The chalice of blessing, which we bless, is the communicating of Christ's blood. A blessing in holy scripture is either a praising of a thing, or What blessing is. it is the giving of a benefit thereunto. It is certain, that the chalice, as long as it hath nothing but wine in it, can not deserve any praise, because a thing without life is not apt to receive praise. It remaineth then to 〈◊〉, what benefit is bestowed upon the liquor in the chalice. The Sacramentaries will say, that it is made holy wine of common An obi●…tion. wine, and sanctified bread of common bread, which sanctisying is a blessed action: and by that holy signification, whereunto it is appointed, a certain holiness is given to it, which may be called a blessing. This were very well said, if it had been only said generally of the The answer. chalice, that it is the chalice of blessing which we bless: but the blessing, that S. Paul speaketh of, is named specially also the communicating of Christ's blood. A general blessing giveth a general benefit, as when we say: our Lord bless you, God send you good speed, the right hand of God bless this meat, the holy Ghost sanctify this wine, and make it to be a remembrance of Christ's bloodsheading. These & like words be blessings, & hollow or sanctify the thing blessed: 1. Timo. cap. 4. as S. Paul saith, the creatures to be sanctified by the word of God and prayer. But when a special blessing is given, a special sanctifying must follow: As when God blessed the 〈◊〉, Benedixitque eis dicens, Crescite & multiplicamini, & replete aquas Gen. 1. maris: and God blessed them saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: this special kind of blessing worketh a A blessing made by words, worketh y●, which the words 〈◊〉 signify. special benefit unto the creature, which is blessed▪ and it worketh even that which the word signifieth▪ who doubteth, but by these words of God's blessing (increase and multiply) the fishes took the virtue of increasing and multiplying, which before these words they had not? for this kind of blessing gave them this kind of benefit. Seeing then Christ blessed the chalice, saying: This is my blood of the new testament out of doubt he gave it really this virtue, to be the blood of the new testament. Tell me no more, that Christ willed it to signify his blood: for I tell you out of the word of God, what soever words have b●… spoken belonging to any creature by the way of blessing, they have wrought that, which they did signify. But Christ said in the way of blessing▪ 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 door, I Christ is not called a door, vine, or rock by 〈◊〉 way of 〈◊〉. am a vine, the rock is Christ, john Baptist is Elias, the holy Ghost is a dove, & a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that sort. I 〈◊〉 in one word to all, that none of these were spoken by God in the way of blessing. The 〈◊〉 saith not, that Christ blessed any certain vine, saying this is Christ, or: This is my body▪ He said many things without blessing, and he bl●…ed sometimes without speaking. But when blessing & words are ●…oyned, we are certified, that those words are not figurative, nor only tokens and bare sig●…s: but working and making that, which is said. For if they promise Gen. 8. Rom. 9 a thing to come, they work by the way of causing the promise in due time to be fulfilled: as when a so●…e was promised to Abraham by the Angel of God. If they be spoken, as betokening a present verb, they presently work the thing betokened. Let no 〈◊〉 deceive thee, good Reader. There is a double blessing spoken of in S. Paul: there is the chalice of blessing, and the chalice, which we bless. The chalice of blessing, as S. Chrysostom In. 1. cor. cap. 10. saith, is that: which when we have before us, we praise God with admiration and horror of the unspeakable gift: but it is not the chalice of blessing, until we have blessed it. The blessing, which maketh it the chalice of blessing, is that we speak of: and that is the blessing, which is made by the words of consecration, as I have said before. Therefore S. Chrysostom writeth thus upon Chrys. 1. Cor. hom. 24. this place of S. Paul: 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 treasure of the goodness of God, and I make rehearsal of those great gifts. But least any cavil should be made, as though the words of Amb. d●… ijs qui init. miss. cap. 9 〈◊〉 were not the words of blessing: hear what S. Ambrose a●…th of this Sacrament: Quantis utimur exemplis, ut probemus, non hoc esse, quod natura formavit? How many 〈◊〉 use we to prove, that it is not the thing, which nature made: but that, which blessing consecrated? Lo, that, which con●…eth, is blessing. But what blessing? After y● S. Ambrose had brongh●… many examples, to show what strength blessing had: at the last he concludeth: Quòd si tantùm valuit humana benedictio, ut naturam converteret: quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini salvatoris 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 & Saniou●… Blessing. Cōsecrat●…ng. working. words. do work? Mark good Read oer: blessing, consecrating, and the words of our Saviour working, is all one matter. And yet again, to make it plainer, S. Ambrose saith: Nam Sacramentum istud quod ac cipis, Christi sermone conficitur, for this Sacrament which thou receivest, is made with the words of Christ: & what the words be, he telleth himself: Vide, omnia De Sacr. li. 4. c. 5. illa verba Euangelistae sunt, usque ad: accipite, sive corpus, sive sanguinem: inde verba sunt Christi. Behold all those are the words of the En●…ngelist, until we come to this word, take, either body or blood: from thence they are the words of Christ. If blessing be that which consecrateth, & both blessing & consecration be made with the words o●… Christ, & his words he those, which follow the word take, & the words which follow be these, This is my body, and This is my blood: who perceiveth not, that these only are the words of blessing? Then we bless the chalice, when we consecrate, when we say: This is my blood of the new testament: & when we bless saying the words of blessing in Christ's mysteries, than we make so much as our words do signify. For which cause S. 〈◊〉 concludeth, that the cha●…ce, which we bless, is the communicating of the blood of Christ. In saying, which we bless, he showeth the cause, why it is Christ's blood: In saying, it is the communicating of Christ's blood: he showeth both the effect wrought by blessing (which is the presence of the blood of Christ) and the cause final, why it is made, verily to communicate unto us the merits of Christ's death, where the said blood was shed for the remission of sins. If the ●…halice after blessing had no blood in it, how did it communicate Chrys. in 1. Cor. 10 to us the blood of Christ? S. Chrysostom giving the literal sense of these words, writeth thus: Eorun autem huiusmodi est sententia. Quod est in chalice, id est quod a latere fluxit, et illius sumus participes. of these words this is the meaning. The same which is in the chalice, is that, which flowed from the side, a●…d thereof we are pàrtakers. He affirmeth S. Paul to say, that both the blood, which flowed from Christ's side, is in the chalice, & also that we are thereof partakers. But the blood, whereof we are partakers, by the confession of the Sacramentaries is the natural blood of Christ, therefore the natural blood of Christ is contained within the chalice. And consequently they are deceived, in tea●…hing that we partake it only by faith: for so much as we drink really y●, which is in the chalice. ¶ The real presence is proved by the name of breaking The second 〈◊〉 piter. and communicating. CHrist taking bread and blessing, said: This is my body. S. Paul showeth those words to have been spoken, not (as ●…arolostadius said) of his body sitting visibly at the table: not (as ●…aluin said) of the body feeding us by faith from heaven: but of that very body, which was made under the form of bread. And how showeth S. Paul thus much? By the word Breaking breaking: for when he saith: The bread, which we break, is the communicating of our Lord's body: he determineth the presence and the distribution of the body to that, which is broken. As though he said, there we must believe the body of Christ to be, and thence to be distributed, where we see breaking used at the Mass tyme. For not every bread, that is broken, is the communicating of Christ's body: but the bread, which we break after blessing and thanksgiving. The two Disciples knew Christ in the breaking Luc. 24. Ex ●…erm. de verb. evang. apud Be dam. of the bread. Noverunt fideles (sayeth S. Augustine) 〈◊〉 quid dicam: noverunt Christum in fractione panis. Non enim omnis panis, sed accipiens benedictionem Christi fit corpus Christi. The faithful have known, they can tell, what I mean: they have 1. Co. 10. known our Lord in breaking of the bread. For not every bread, but the bread, which taketh the blessing, is made the body of Christ. If the bread, which once was common, be made the body of Christ by blessing, and in breaking of that bread the faithful do know our Lord: that bread can not be still the substance of common bread, for than it were not made the body of Christ, as S. Augustin saith it is. Again if Christ were not under the form of that bread, the faithful knew not our Lord in the breaking of The knowing of our Lord in bread. that bread: for if the substance of Christ be absent, no sign or token is sufficient, to make us know our Lord more at the breaking of bread in the Church, then at our own houses. If one substance be in both places, and it be broken in both: what odds is it, whether it be broken here or there? in this place, or in that? But to say, that the bread broken at our common tables is the body of Christ because it may signify his body: it were to say, that who soever eateth common bread in mortal sin should be 1. Co. 11. damned for eating it. when S. Paul saith: The bread, which we break, is: do not all men perceive, that he goeth about to sh●…w, what the bread is, which we break? If it be common bread, it is a fondness, to show what it is: for he hath already named it and who knoweth not, what common bread is? But he meaneth not so. He goeth not about to teach, what bread is: but what that bread is, which we break: whereof it followeth, that we have a ●…eculiar kind of bread, which we break. What bread is that? He answereth, It is the communicating of The communicating. Christ's body. Why doth he not say, it is Christ's body? Forsooth because the holy 〈◊〉 foresaw, that 〈◊〉 should rise, who would say: the verb est, is, to mean significat, it doth signify, or else the noun corp●…s, body, to mean the sign of Christ's body. Therefore S. Paul being the instrument and Secretary of God was made to put in such a word between the verb, est, is, and the noun corpus, body: that every man might know, no figurative being of Christ's body, but his real and substantial being to be meant. For S. Paul speaketh, as though Christ had said: this is the communicating of my body. For of that, which Christ broke and said thereof: This is my body: of the very same S. Paul sayeth, The bread, which we break, is it not the communicating of our Lord's body? Now say I, that which is the communicating of Christ's body, can not be a figure of his body still remaining in the former substance of bread. For a communicating, which the 〈◊〉 name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a giving? that the whole is made common. Otherwise, as S. Chrysostom sayeth, it should have been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a participation: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but now as well in speaking of the chalice, as of the body, S. Paul used the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is communicatio in Latin, communicating in English, or having and making common: alb●…it the common Latin translation readeth participatio, partaking, in respect that every man for his own part receiveth that bread, which in substance is the body of Christ. But when the one word or the other standeth properly, therein we must be judged by wise men: among whom S. Chrysostom Chryso. is worthy of a special place. who having rehearsed these words of 1. Corin. the Apostle, the bread which we break, is it not the communicating Hom. 24 of our Lord's body? asketh: Quare non dixit participatio? Quia amplius quiddam significare voluit, & multan inter haec convenientiam ostendere Non enim participatione tant●…m & acceptione, sed unitate communicamus. Quemadmodum enim corpus illud unitum est Christo, ita & nos per hunc panem unione coniungimur. Why said not S. Paul: The bread, which we break, is the partaking of our Lord's body? Because he would signify a greater thing, and show the great affinity which is between these things: that is to say, between them that receive, and the thing that is received. For we communicate not only by participation and partaking, but in unity: for as that body is united to Christ, so we also are joined in union with him by this bread. S. Paul then by the judgement of S. Chrysostom chose that word, which might express a most inward communicating and joining between us in this Sacrament. But if this Sacrament were a figure of Christ, without the substance of his body: S. Partaking were to goo●… a wor●… to ex press a figure of Christ's body. Paul hath not done well, to use the word of communicating. for partaking were to good a word to express so slender a gift, as the Sacramentaries talk of. But S. Paul said: The bread which we break, that is to say, the mystical bread of our Lord's supper is not only a partaking, but a communicating. and yet no figure can make us one with Christ in unity of nature. Therefore this mystery, which giveth more than a figurative union, is the very true body of our Saviour: for it maketh common with us all, that is in Christ. The bread (I say) which we break maketh the body of Christ and all things in it common with us. No bare figure can do so. Therefore the bread, which we break, is the true body, and not There is no less partaking then to have the 〈◊〉 only common. only a figure. Tell me, good Reader, he that receiveth a figure of a thing, doth he not rather take a part, than the whole? Yea doth he not take a very slender part? Or can there be any less part of a thing, than the image and figure of it? When we will show how far a thing is from that, which it is called, do we not say: Hoc nomine tenus tale est, & non re ipsa? This is such a thing in name, and not in deed? So that the naming of a thing without being the true thing itself, is the nakedest and barest thing, that can be▪ Our adversaries would the bread after consecration to be the body and blood of Christ in name only, & not in truth: which being so, the chalice of blessing, & bread which is broken, should rather be called partaking (because a final part of the truth is taken) then communicating, where all is made common. But S. Paul said, it is a communicating, and S. Chrysostom sayeth, he did it to show that it was more than partaking: therefore it is a false doctrine, to say that the true body and blood of Christ is not really under the form of bread which is broken, and within the chalice which we bless. Let us confer the scriptures, and seek the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, communicare, in other places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the new Testament: we shall find, that it standeth to give and make common the thing itself, rather than the shadow or name thereof. S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles sayeth: Multitudinis credentium Actor. 4. erat corunum & animauna, nec quisquàm eorum, quae possidebat, aliquid suum esse dicebat: sed erant illis omnia communia. Of the multitude of believers there was one heart and one soul, neither any man said any thing of that he possessed, to be his own: but all things were common to them. In which place we have it defined what communicating is: truly it is such a giving, that all is made common, and nothing challenged as his Where a communicating of the body is, the whole bo●…y is come mon. own. If then the chalice of blessing, which we bless, be the communicating of Christ's blood, and the bread which we break the communicating of his body: all the blood and all the body is made common to them, that recea●…e that chalice and that bread. If all be common, than we do not receive only a spiritual remembrance of Christ's body, or a figure and sign of his blood. For in so doing we had not all, but rather the smallest part. In so doing Christ kept the best back, and challenged somewhat, yea far the best part to his own self, and we should not have it. Likewise when S. Paul sayeth, that the Gentiles did communicate Rom. 15. with the spiritual goods of the jews (for his word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) he meaneth not a joining in name, in show, in figure, in signs: but in the truth of faith, and in the grace of God, and in the redemption of jesus Christ, Last of all S. Paul showing, Christ to call the faithful people of God his brethren and children, reasoneth thus: Quia ergo pueri communicaverunt earni ●…eb. 2. & sanguini, & ipse similiter participavit ijsdem. Because therefore the children did communicate flesh and blood, himself likewise took part with them. In which place, communicating is the natural knitting and uniting, which men have to flesh and blood: so that whether communicating be spoken by flesh and blood, or by the goods of the world, the communicating of them is the having of them common, or making them common. Every where communicating importeth a great and liberal giving or taking, which can not be fulfilled with the only figure and bare name of body and blood: but requireth the things themselves in truth of nature, as holy Ireneus a disciple of the Apostles scholars writeth against those, that taught that our flesh Irenaeus lib. 5. adverius haeres. could not arise again to glory: Vani sunt omnes, etc. They are all vain, that denied the salvation of the flesh, and despise the regeneration of it, saying: that it is not able to receive the state of incorruptibility. So in deed, to wit, according to those sayings, neither our Lord hath redeemed us with his blood, neither the chalice of thanks giving is the communicating of his blood, neither the bread, which we break, is the communicating of his body. For blood is not but from the veins and flesh, and from the other substance, which is belonging to man: in the which substance the word of God truly made, redeemed us with his blood. S. Ireneus accompt●…th it a great absurdity, that the bread, which we break, should not be the communicating of Christ his true body, & the chalice of the Encharist the communicating of his blood. Of what blood? of the same, which 〈◊〉 from veins, from flesh, and from the rest of our substance. And S. Ireneus bringeth this interpretation, to prove that we, that receive the said body, and blood, receive therein a gift sufficient A figure of Christ's body can not raise out flesh. to raise our flesh at the later day. But surely signs and figures of Christ will not raise our flesh, for so much as they are perceived only by understanding: and be not of the same nature and kind whereof our flesh is. And S. Ireneus never dreamed of blood, that should be received from heaven: but only of that blood, which is in the chalice and cup of Christ's supper. ¶ The presence of Christ in his supper is proved by The iij. Chapter. the one bread, which being received of us maketh all us one body. VNuspanis & unum corpus multi sumus, omnes qui de uno 1. Co. 10. pane participamus. we being many are one bread and one body, all we that partake of the one bread. He that listeth only to mark the order of S. Paul's words, may quickly perceive what his meaning is, concerning the true doctrine of the Sacrament of the altar. First he described our lords supper by the name of the chalice of blessing, which we bless, and of the bread which we break. Secondly he saith, that each of them is the communicating, the one of Christ his body, the other of his Blessing. Breaking Communicating. ●…niting. blood. Last of all, he feareth not to say, that the partakers of that bread, all are one bread and one body. Who seeth not, that he is come from blessing and breaking to communicating, and from communicating to uniting & making one? so that, use we what words we please in uttering the matter, call we it partaking, eating, drinking, or communicating: certainly it is so nigh a joining, that a very union, which is to say, one thing is made of What union is. that, which is received in this blessed Sacrament, and of those that receive the same. one thing, I say, is made of both, yea one of all: not only he that receiveth this one bread, is made one with the bread, but he is one also with all them, that any where within the Church worthily receive of the same bread. for when two things me●…e in a third, they meet also between themselves. Whence this great union cometh. The reason of this great joining is the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament: for seeing the bread received is Christ, he is so strong a bread and food, that he can be overcomed of no stomach, but overcometh all their natures that touch him. By that means it is brought to pass, that as 〈◊〉 approaching nigh to any thing ●…urneth all, that is apt to be burned into itself, making it of his own condition and quality, yea Deut. 4. rather of his own nature: so Christ, who is consuming fire, turneth into his mystical body, all that worthily eat and drink his natural body in the Sacrament of the altar. If we did eat common bread & drink common wine, out of all question both the bread and wine would be overcomed of our stomach, and by little and little would be converted into our flesh and blood, to The union can not be made by wheaten bread. norrish them corporally: by which means neither we should by eating wheaten bread at any time be made one bread, neither any of us should become one with an other. For they that differ by reason of divers persons, as diverse men do: can never in any kind of meat be made one, whiles they eat that, which is digested into their veins, and made part of their persons: but only they are able to be made one, who eat that, which tarrieth still whole and sound in his own nature, still common to all, & never appropriated to any one, but gathereth all them into itself as making one spiritual & mystical body of all faithful men. If then we eat a kind of bread in the holy mysteries, and are one bread because we eat of the one bread, surely it is no common bread, but such a food and meat, as being eaten is not consumed of us, but rather consuming our weakness maketh all us, that eat it, of the same immortal nature with it: which none other meat doth absolutely, besides the real body and blood of jesus Christ: and it so mightily worketh our spiritual union, that Christ would his own body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, to be the Sacrament of that self unity, which it In serm. ad infants. worketh. Nothing is more common in S. Augustine, then to say, that we take in the Sacrament, the body of Christ, which we are. Vos estis in mensa, vos estis in chalice. ye are in the meat, ye Ex serm. de sacrafidel. ser. 2. paschae. & in 6. ca joan. are in the cup: but we are not in the substance of wheaten bread (albeit we are after consecration signified by that form of bread, which bread itself was from many grains of corn, made one loaf) but we are not at all signified by the substance of the bread. For so every bread in the world were the holy sign of the Church of God, & by that means it were much more the body of Christ, Contra Faustunli. 20. ca 13. which thing S. Augustine denieth, saying: that every bread and cup is not borne mystical to us, but it is made mystical by a certain consecration. If then the natural substance of bread suffice not to signify the body of Christ, and the fellowship of the elect, and yet they be manifestly signified to be one in the Sacrament of Christ's supper: what other ground must concur, to show them to be in the meat which they receane, & in the cup whereof Hilar. 〈◊〉. 8. de Tri. cyril. in joan. lib. 10. ca 13. they drink? The Catholics have learned of the ancient Fathers, that it is the real body and blood of Christ, which only (being under the form of bread and wine) can make us to be showed in the meat & in the chalice. For we are showed in them, because our head jesus Christ is there within the form of bread and wine: now where the head is, there also the members be signified to be. specially seeing the head is there, to gather his members Chrys. in Matth. hom. 83. near unto him, and (as S. Chrysostom speaketh) to make them, as it were, one lump with him. For, as many grains of corn are made into one loaf, and that loaf by consecration is turned into Christ's body, the form of bread still remaining: so, many persons are in Baptism made one mystical body, and that body at Christ's supper is again naturally joined to Christ's own flesh, and by that corporal union is mingled & wholly tempered with him, so that one thing is made of Christ and of his Church. ¶ The real presence is proved by joining together all The iiij. Chapter. the former words. Having particularly declared, how breaking, communicating, & uniting, make for the real presence of Christ's body and blood, I thought good now to confer all these things together: The bread which we break, is the communicating of 1. Cor. 10 Christ's body, because we being many are one bread, and one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Here bread is thrice named, and four things are affirmed of it. 1. We break bread, 2. bread is the communicating of Christ's body, 3. we are one bread. 4. we partake of the one bread. Seeing in all these places the name of bread is put to express one and the same mysteri●…: it must needs be meant so that all these sayings may be verified, without 〈◊〉 of the one to the other: which can be done by no means, except we take the substance The bred 〈◊〉 S. Paul spe●…keth. of Christ's body, under the form of bread, to be called bread. By that means the body, in respect of the form of bread, is convenieiuly said to be broken. By that means the substance of the body is the thing communicated unto us under the form of bread. By the communicating of that substance we are united to the one bread, and be made one body, not only by faith and will, as in baptism: but by the corporal coninnction of Christ's flesh, because we partake of that one bread in his own substance: whereof we did partake before in certain effects of grace proceeding from it. 〈◊〉. Com●…unicating. 〈◊〉. Partakig Thus the breaking & distributing of such a bread is the cause of the communicating of Christ's body, and such a communicating is the cause of joining us corporally in one body, and such an union proceedeth of the partaking of that one bread in his own substance. And consequently all things agree well together. But if we once take the sub stance of common bread, to be the thing, which is broken: neither that substance is the communicating of Christ's body (because every bread in the world should by like reason be the communicating thereof, for so much as that, which is the substance of any thing, is in every particular propriety of the same kind) nor we are not all one material bread, as it is evident: nor we all partake not of one wheaten bread, either in baptism, or after. Again if the wheaten bread, which is said to be the communicating To be. To signify. of Christ's body, be interpreted to signify the communicating between us and Christ: when it is likewise said of the Apostle, we are one bread and one body: for it is one verb and ove noun in both places, est, there: & sumus here: communicating of one body there: one bread and one body here: If the bread, which is the communicating of Christ's body, be the bread, which is the figure of the communicating: we that are said to be one bread, are said to be the figure of one bread. Likewise, seeing we partake of the bread, which is broken: if the Break●…g. bread broken ●…e material, we partake of the material bread, and yet the bread, whereof we partake, is by S. Paul named one bread. Therefore we partake of one material bread, which can not be so. For seeing the bread is broken, it is not still one. These and many like absurdities can never be escaped, except we say (as the truth is) that the bread broken is the flesh of Christ under the Partakig form of bread: for our partaking is named of taking part of that, which is broken: but we all that are one patake only of Christ himself, and be one in him alone, and be not one in any material bread. Therefore Christ is the bread broken (by the reason of the form of bread under the which he is) and the bread communicated, and the bread which we are: for that he is the cause of our mystical conjunction. For albeit the mystical bread and body, which we are, be in several persons and di●…tinct proprieties of men: yet the substantial cause of that bread, which we are, is only found in the person and substance of Christ: who is the beginner, maintainer, and the end of that our mystical body. from Christ, as from the cause of our v●…itie, the same unity proceedeth to us in an effect wrought by him. But either to make us one material bread, or to make it, being still bread in substance, to be notwithstanding the communicating of Christ's body to us, or to be the bond, which holdeth us together by partaking thereof: it is a doctrine which can not hang together. And because the matter is of great importauce, I will yet entreat farther of this our union. ¶ Now we are one mystical body in Christ. The fifth Chapter. THe Church is one body more than one w●… First, because Ephes. 4. it is called and holden together with one s●…ite of God. Rom. 10. Next, because it is grounded in one faith, 〈◊〉 ●…reaching of Gal. 1. Phil. 2. one true Gospel, maintained with one hope, perfected ●…th one charitic, 1. Tim. 2. watered with one baptism of spiritual regene●…ation, redeemed Ephe. 〈◊〉. by one Mediator, ruled by one head, 〈◊〉 to one husband, 2. Cor. 11 joined in marriage to one flesh of Christ, & rewarded with Ephes. 5. one essential fruition of one everlasting God. The first foundation of this one company, which is the house, the tabernacle, the temple of God, is the blessed Trinity: of whom, Rom. 11. by whom, and in whom all things are. In his divine spirit 1. Cor. 12 we meet, and be one not only with the patriarchs & Prophets: but also we therein be one with the Angels, Thrones and Seraphins, Hebr. in so much that he useth them for our ministry: who never sinned or swerved from the way of truth & righteousness. Next after God, all mankind putteth his everlasting confidence Ephes. 3. in the flesh of jesus Christ: who is the only Mediator of 1. Tim. 2. all men, that fell by sin either actual or else original, & there is no salvation in any other man. Christ took really our flesh, to Act. 4. make it an iustrument: whereby we might be brought again to God. Therefore he both offered the same flesh unto God even to Heb. 10. death: and gave the same flesh to be partaken of us, for the obtaining of everlasting life. The partaking whereof is called in holy scripture by the name of eating & drinking, because although it be granted to us by divers means: yet the chief mean of all is, when we eat his flesh, and drink his blood. The first and most necessary mean of all is faith, without Hebr. 11. which itself (in men of lawful age) or without the Sacrament thereof (in children) none other 〈◊〉 can serve. But faith alone joan. 3. Gal. 5. (though it work by charity) doth not always ●…uffise: because it is conveaient for a corporal substance (such as the flesh of Christ is) to be partaken by corporal means also. For seeing the corruption Sap. 9 of our flesh was the thing, which did most incline us to Heb. 4. sin: as the son of God took our true flesh without sin, to th'end by it he might purge our sins: so he instituted diverse Sacraments in certain corporal things, and in mystical words: joan. 3. 6, 20. whereby the grace of his flesh might ●…e applied to our flesh, and by that mean also to come to our so●…es. Against the corrup●…ion of our birth he would us to be washed Matt. 28. & 3. in water, which element his own flesh had sanctified in the flood jordan: against the tentation of the devil, he confirmeth us with Act. 2. & 8. the holy Ghost. In stead of the custom of sinning, he giveth us joan. 6. heavenly nourishment, as well in body as in soul. By these means (I say) we are one body in Christ, of the which, faith and charitic are means only spiritual: the Sacraments are both spiritual means through the inward grace, & corporal, through 1. Cor. 10 the visible forms of them. The means only spiritual be never Heb. 10. changed, sith our faith is all one with that of the patriarchs: but our Sacraments differ from theirs, as which contain the truth, whereof the old Sacraments were only the shadow. Hitherto it hath been said, that we can not be of the mystical body of Christ: unless we partake his flesh, either by faith or by Aug ad Simplic. quaest. 2. the Sacraments. For (as S. Augustine writeth) Albeit in some the grace of faith be so great, that they are now assigned to the body of Christ, and to the holy temple of God: yet in some it is such, as doth not suffice, to obtain the kingdom of heaven: as in the Cathecumenis, as in Cornelius, antequàm Sacramentorum participatione incorporaretur Ecclesiae, before that he was incorporated to the Church ●…y paraking of the Sacraments. The Sacrament, joan. 3. wherein we are first incorporated to Christ, is well known to be Baptim: which seeing it consisteth of speaking holy words, and of Matt. 28. washing with the element of water, it is not to be denied, but that God worketh our incorporation by corporal means also, and not by faith alone. And as it is not enough for having the nature of a man, to be conceived only, except he be also borne: so if, when he is borne, he be not fed, he can not long continue a man. Therefore as the Sacrament of baptim beginneth the incorporation (specially now, when we all are baptised in our infancy) even so after the we are come to the years of discretion, an other Sacrament is requisite, to maintain us in the body of Christ: which is called the Sacrament joan. 6. of his body and blood, whereof Christ said: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, tarrieth in me, and I in him. Now, s●…ing the sacrament, which maketh us tarry in the body of Christ, must ●…edes be a corporal thing, as baptism was, and yet it hath none other nature, then that which Christ giveth it, & he nameth it his own body and blood: we ought to confess, that the Sacrament, which nourisheth the state of life everlasting in us, is the body and blood of Christ corporally present: that is to say, that it so feedeth us, as the water in baptism doth wash us: and that as water toucheth our body, so it entereth into our body. Which thing is so true, that Christ having taken bread & blessed, Matt. 26. stretching forth his hand, said: Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you. Where (not without a great mystery) Christ gave his body under the form of bread, not only to feed us presently through the grace, which proceedeth from his flesh by touching & eating the same: but also to show us, that this is the same body, which before had incorporated us into itself. For, as of many grains of wheat, one loaf, & of many persons one Mystical body of Christ was made: so when Christ turne●…h the substance of bread into his own substance, and so maketh himself present under the form of bread: he both feedeth many persons, who partake of that one bread, and by the form of bread showeth, how they being never so many, are yet one in him, because they are all incorporated into him. Of this Sacrament S. Paul entreating, said: The bread which we break is the communicating of Christ's body: because through it we both partake of the one bread, which is Christ, and 1. Cor. 10 are ourselves showed to be one bread and one body. What are we in mystery, but only members of Christ? And for as much as Christ is himself present under the form of this bread, and is the very substance, which is received there: we are no less named one mystical bread of this one bread, than we are named one mystical One bread One body body of Christ's true body: out of which discourse it is undoubtedly proved, that the bread, which we break, is the body of Christ. How could we otherwise be called thereof one bread. How could one bread and one body be put to signify one thing, but that in deed bread and body are here in substance the same self thing? we are named the mystical body in respect of the The mystical body Ephe. 4. union, which we have with the natural body of Christ, and among ourselves. But we are also called one bread in S. Paul. Therefore out of doubt S. Paul meaneth that one bread, which is Christ, in respect whereof we are named to be the mystical body of Christ. The Church taketh her names from Christ: that, which Christ is The proportion of Christ & the Church. in truth, the Church is in mystery, so that nothing can be verified of the Church, which was not true before in Christ: for the members follow the state of their head. But the members are called one bread, one body, for mysteries sake: therefore the head is in truth one body. & he is the one bread whereof we partake, and we partake of that which is broken (by mean●… of the form of bread) therefore Christ is really present under that form of bread, which at his supper we break and partake. We are members of this bread, before we take it in the Sacrament of the altar: because this bread is that substance of Christ under the form of bread, to whose mystical body we were joined in baptis●…e: whereof S. Augustine writeth thus. Aug. in serm. ad infantes apud Bedam. Nulli est aliqu●…tenus ambigend●…, & cae. No man ought by any means to doubt, but that he is then made partaker of the body & blood of our Lord: when he is made a member of Christ in baptim, neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and 1. Cor. 10 that cup: although before he eat that bread, and drink that cup (being placed in the unity of Christ's body) he depart out of this world. For he is not deprived of the partaking and benefit of joan. 6. that Sacrament: for so much as himself hath found that thing, which that Sacrament doth signify. Whereas Christ said, Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have life in you: a man would have thought, that every person were bound to receive actually the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood: but S. Augustine showeth, that thing not to be after that source necessary to all men. For he that is made a member of Christ in Baptism, is therein made partaker of the body & blood of Christ. How so? Because he receiveth that thing, which the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood signifieth. What doth it signify? The mystical body of Christ. By what means? S. Augustine expounded the mean a little before, saying: Bread In serm. ad infantes. is not made of one grain, but of many: likewise one liquor is made of many grapes. Thus our Lord jesus signified us. he would us to appertain to himself. Mysterium panis & unitatis nostrae in sua mensa consecravit. he hath consecrated the mystery of our peace and unity in his table. Note, that our mystery was not made by the baker, but consecrated by Christ: the consecration was, to turn the substance of the bread into his own flesh, keeping still the old form of the same bread. But if the body of Christ were not really under the form of bread: how could he, that is baptised, be partaker of the benefit of this Sacrament? Was he made partaker of bread and wine? The sign of the mystical body. No verily, but of the mystical body. What hath the mystical body to do in this Sacrament? For ●…oth so much, that here is both the thing, which maketh us all one, which is Christ: and he is so present, that he showeth himself to have joined all us to him, as he hath joined the grains of wheat unto his flesh. For as the bread, which we break, hath none other substance beside the substance of Christ, and yet it hath an outward appareuce of an other thing: so the mystical body of Christ hath none other substance, through which it is one body, besides the body of Christ: although it have an o●…tward appearance of an other thing. For be we never so many in number & persons, we are one body 1. Co. 12. in Christ. How so ever we appear mortal men, as we once were. Ephel. 5. yet in truth we are joined to the body of Christ, and are members of him our only head. Take away that body of Christ from the form of bread, and here is no sign of unity in Christ. A sign of unity here is, but The unity must be signified in Christ. not in Christ. Every loaf 〈◊〉 unity, but none other betokeneth our unity in Christ, but that bread, the substance whereof is Christ, & the form whereof is the form of common bread. If the natural substance of Christ be absent from the bread, which we consecrate, and so be signified without the real presence thereof: if again the natural substance of bread remain and signify the mystical body of Christ, who is absent himself in What sign the substance of common bread maketh. substance: no sign is by that mean more effectually made, then that Christ and his members are as far a sunder, as heaven is distant from the earth: and that as Christ is signified present being in deed not present: so his members be signified to be joined to him, and in truth be not joined to him. These are the mystical signs, which do follow necessarily upon the Sacramentaric doctrine: whereof I have the gladlier written, to th'intent S. Augustine's doctrine might be opened: who always noteth this Sacrament to be the sign of the unity, which is made by Christ in baptism among the faithful: but he meaneth such a sign, as Christ himself maketh under the form of bread, when he affirmeth him to consecrate herein the mystery of unity. Is it not an extreme madness, to affirm, that wheaten bread keeping his own earthly nature, should be the mystery of unity? Christ is that mystery, first, because he is both God, who alone Christ is the mystery of vuitie. made all things to serve him: and man, in whom all things are a new collected, which where before made. Secondly, because Christ maketh us one with God, reconciling us to him, by the Colos. 1. blood of his cross. Thirdly, because he maketh us one among ourselves by his one spirit and Baptism. Last of all, because he showeth and giveth himself really present under the form of bread: wherein he would us to understand the unity, which is really made between us, and him, and God. Of this unity S. Hilary writeth: If Christ assumpted truly Hilar. l. 8 de Tri●…. the flesh of our body, and we take truly, under a mystery, the flesh of his body, and by this thing we shallbe one, because the Father is in him, and he in us: quomodo voluntatisunitas asseritur, cùm naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacracramentum sit unitatis? How is the unity of will affirmed, whereas the natural propriety through the Sacrament, is the holy sign of a perfit unity? This place, good Reader, openeth all the hard points of the mystery of unity. First, Christ took truly flesh. Next, we take truly the same flesh under a mystery. By his taking, God and man were made one, concerning the whole nature of man. By our taking, we and Christ are made one concerning every particular man, who receiveth worthily his body. And that is not only done so, but withal it is showed so: for the thing, which we receive, is the flesh of Christ under the form of bread. The flesh, that is there being received, maketh us in deed to be one with Christ. The form of bread showeth not only them to be one, that receive this food: but those also, who now do not receive it (if yet they be, or shallbe baptised) to be one in Christ. And sayeth S. Hilary so much? Ye doubtless, and that he twice repeateth. For when he saith: Verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, we take truly under a mystery the flesh of his body: then Under a mystery. he meaneth, that under the form of bread we take Christ's flesh. Under what other mystery can it be said, we take it? Or seeing he speaketh of the last supper, doth he not mean the sign of the same supper, which was bread? But yet let us hear more plain words. Naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est unitatis. The natural propriety through the Sacrament, is the Proprietas. Sacrament of a perfit unity. The word proprietas meaneth one particular substance proper to one thing, which in men is commonly called a person. S. Augustine witnesseth, that Christ is In joan. 〈◊〉. 80 called the true vine, Per similitudinem, non per proprietatem, by likeness, not by propriety: that is to say, Christ is the true vine by like condition, and not by the self substance of a true vine. S. Hilary then sayeth: The natural propriety of Christ by a Sacrament, is a Sacrament of perfit unity. Here is the word Sacrament twice iterated: the propriety of Christ is a Sacrament, and it is a Sacrament by a Sacrament. A Sacrament is a holy sign. Therefore the propriety or substance of Christ is a holy sign. But how? Every substance is the truth. How is it then a sign? It is not barely and absolutely called a sign, but a sign A sign by a sign. by a sign: that is to say, the true substance of Christ put under the form of bread, by that sign of bread, is se●… to signify a most perfit unity made between God and us. The natural propriety of Christ by the sign of bread maketh and signifieth a perfit unity. It maketh it, whiles we receive Christ into us, who is one with his Father in nature: as we naturally have him in our bodies and souls. It signifieth the same unity, because the substance of Christ (who is one nature with his Father in Godhead, & one with us in manhood) being now under the sign of bread showeth himself (as it were) with all his faithful members about him, offering them all to God, as if he said: Ecce ego & pueri mei mecum. Behold Father, I am here, Heb. 2. and my servants or children with me. Aug. de civitate Dei li. 10 cap. 5. This (sayeth S. Augustine) is the sacrifice of the Christians, we being many are one body in Christ: Quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia: ubi ei demonstratur, qu●…od in ea oblatione, quam offered, ipsa offeratur. The which thing also The Sacrament of the altar. the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of the altar known to the faithful. Where it is showed to the Church, that in that sacrifice which she offereth, herself is offered. It is well known, that the Priests of the Church taking bread and wine, according to the institution of Christ, consecrate them saying in Christ's name: This is my body, and this is my blood. If by those words the body and blood of Christ be not made pray sent under the form of bread and wine: how is the Church offered in the offering, which she maketh? Who doth make an oblation of her to God? Will ye say, that Christ sitting in heaven presenteth A goodly mystical body. to his Father the bread & wine which is in earth, saying: Father, look upon my faithful members? See what a mystical body I have gotten to me in the earth. Might not God answer? Why son, is the substance of your mystical body, bread and wine? Have you coupled my servants your brethren, whom I created reasonable, to those vnse●…sible creatures? Or is the handy work of the baker your oblation, or The oblation of the Church. the oblation of your mystical body? But if Christ be under the form of bread, and thence make an oblation to his Father of all his obedient members, which are there signified by the form of bread: then is none other substance of those mystical members presented, beside the true substance and head of the mystical body: to wit, the flesh of Christ, which worketh & gathereth a body to itself through out the whole world. Then the Church offereth none other substance beside the one oblation, which died for Heb. 10. us. The same real conjunction of the faithful to Christ's flesh may be declared also by the example of building a house. For as every house is in the foundation most large, and afterward it is drawn always so much the nigher together, by how much it approacheth to the top or end thereof: even so the Church being 1. Tim. 3. the house of God must be one, so that it may in some parts thereof be joined together in the top itself, which is the flesh of Christ. For they that are one mystical house by faith and charity alone, they are one in the foundation through the spirit of God: but not yet one in the top. And the unity of that foundation would 1. Cor. 6. not cause them to be a perfit house, if some stones being raised thereon, did not at the length meet really together in the top of Ephes. 4. the building, which is the flesh of Christ: through the connexion of which stones, those also which lay in the lowest place, may be said to meet in the top: for that they are necessary and substantial parts of that house, which is builded from the lowest part of the ground up to the very highest top. Faith is the foundation and ground of the things, which are Heb. 11. hoped for. Baptism goeth nearer the top, because beside the grace of faith, it partaketh some other grace proceeding not only from Chrysos. the spirit of Christ, but also from his flesh: in that the water, according Hom. 16 ad Rom. to the mind of S. Chrysostom & of Leo, is, as it were, the womb wherein, and the word is the seed, wherewith man Leo de nativit. is regenerated, as well in body as in soul. Confirmation giveth strength to the new building, wherein the stones are, as it were, Domin. ser. 5. & 4 with strong bars of iron holden together. Acto. 8. But when Christ giveth himself to us under the form of bread, then are we come to the top of the building, and are joined really to him, that is the end of the law. For which cause this Sacrament of Christ's body & blood, is called of the Grecians, Cone. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectio, the end or perfectness of our heavenly Ancyr. can. 6. building. This flesh is also in the foundation, but by spiritual efficacy, not by real union. It is in Baptism by the use of corporal instruments of water and the word: and so by spiritual efficacy, and also by mean of bodily instruments proceeding from the flesh by that Sacrament of Baptism, which he constituted Math. 3. in his body, and sanctified the element thereof with his body. In the Sacrament of perfection this flesh itself is present, to Faith. Baptism. Christ's flesh. make a most perfit end of the whole spiritual building. Thus are the baptised Christians built upon the faith of the Patriarches and Prophets: and the faithful, who receive Christ's body in his last supper, are built in a higher degree above the faith of the Fathers, and above the Baptism of those, who died before they partaked Sacramentally Christ's flesh. And seeing all these concur to make up one house, the top whereof may touch Christ's natural body, which he took to make the real coni●…nction with us, who consist of bodies: all the mystical body of Christ is perfectly one through them, who being one with the rest in faith, spirit and baptism, be also one with Christ's flesh in truth of natural and corporal union to Christ's flesh really partaken at his holy table. Let us once deny the flesh of Christ to be really in the blessed Sacrament of the altar: and here is no perfit building toward the flesh of Christ, and consequently no reason, why we should be Ephes. 4 & 5. called his mystical body, or flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones. For as if Eve had not been taken really out of the natural body of Adam, she should not have been in truth bone of his bones: so we are not flesh of Christ's flesh in truth itself, except the flesh of Christ in the natural substance thereof be the mean by our natural co●…ction to it: that we are framed & wrought into a spiritual man. These last words of S. Paul, where he toucheth how we are Ephes. 5. flesh of Christ's flesh, do also lead us to an other notable example of our natural union which is to be made to that flesh of Christ. For when S, Paul had said, that the husband is head of the woman, as Christ is head of the Church: he provoketh the husbands to love their wives, as Christ hath loved his Church. Who have loved it so entirely: that he hath cleansed it in the washing of water and the word, to th'end he might make himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle. Behold, baptism is a token of Christ's love, but to what end? That he might have a clean spouse. To what purpose? Will he then come near to his wife: and, as it were, be cloupled with her? Yea verily, not for any fleshly pleasure: but to nourish her by his real flesh. And therefore S. Paul goeth forward, saying: Husbands ought to love their wives, as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. And surely noman ever hated his own flesh, but he nourisheth and cherisheth it, as Christ doth his Church. What mean you S. Paul? Is then the Church the flesh of Christ? For your words import so much. He answereth, it is so. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause the man shall forsake Father and mother, and shallbe joined to his own wife, and they shallbe two in one flesh. This Genes. 2. is a great Sacrament or mystery, but I mean in Christ and the Church. Hitherto S. Paul hath provoked the husbands, to love and to cherish their wives, as Christ hath loved his Church in cleansing it through baptism, and as he cherisheth it, as being members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Note, that as the love of husbands toward their wives is compared to baptis●…: so the cherishing of them is compared to the cherishing & nourishing, which Christ useth toward his Chur●…▪ which is know to be done after baptism. for no man cherisheth that, which is not yet borne. When we are borne again in Christ, we are made members of Christ's body: and therefore those words, Membra sumus corporis eius, we are members of his body, may be meant of baptism▪ where we are made members of his mystical body, according as S. Paul had said before: Sumus inu icem membra, we are members Ephes. 4. one of an other. But when he addeth, de carne eius & de ossibus eius, of his flesh, and of his bones: he than speaketh not of any mystical flesh and blood, but even of the natural flesh and bones of Christ: whereof we are made members, not by faith and mystery alone (as in baptism) but by natural participation of them in the last supper. So doth S. Ireneus take these words. For S. Paul, spoke Irenens advers. haeres. l. 5 Luc. 24. not (saith he) of any spiritual or invisible man (sith a spirit hath neither bones nor flesh) but of that disposition which is agreeable to man, the which consisteth of flesh, of sinews, of bones. the which disposition is nourished of the chalice which is his blood, and is increased of the bread which is his body. So doth S. Chrysostom also take these words, saying: we are Hom. 45 in joan. members of his flesh and bones. And again, he hath mingled himself with us, and brought himself into one with us. Vt corpus cum Ephes. 5. corpore uniretur. That the body might be united to the head. Behold, we that by baptism were the body, must yet be united with our head. what? by only unity of w●…l, or faith, and love? all that we had before, but we must be united now in nature, in real conjunction of body and blood. Cyril. in joan. li. 11. c. 26 S Cyr●…l writeth thus: If we all eat one bread, we are all made one body. For Christ suffereth not himself to be divided or separated. Therefore the Church also is made the body of Christ, and ●…uery one of us, according to S. Paul, the members of Christ. For Ephe. 5. we being joined to Christ alone through his body, because we have received him in us who can not be divided, our members are rather applied to him then to us. Theodoritus toucheth as well the union of baptism as of the 〈◊〉. Cor. 11 Eucharist, saying: As Eve was form out of Adam, so we out of Christ our Lord. For we are buried together with him in baptism. and we rise together with him, and we eat his body and drink his blood. Thus we are members of Christ either by faith and mystery (which is done in baptism) or by ●…is body & blood, which is done in the Eucharist. That is the beginning of our uniting, this is the end: that is the foundation of the house, this is the top: that is in spirit chiefly, this in chiefly in flesh. But now let us grant that when S. Paul saith, we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones, that he meant, we in baptism are members of Christ's mystical body, and we are members as it were, taken out, or proceeding from his flesh & bones, that is to say, we are one mystical body, because the flesh & bones of Christ have given virtue to the font of baptism, whence we are regenerated. Let us admit S. Paul had meant so (the Ephes. 5. contrary whereof all the ancient fathers teach) yet the words which follow in S. Paul, can by no means 〈◊〉 avoided. For he useth the example of Adam and Eve, showing it to be a great mystery in Ch●…ist and the Church. and that mystical example may be applied to the unity which is between Christ and us, either in baptism, or in the supper of our Lord. For concerning baptism: as Eve was not corporally begotten of Adam, but Aug. de civit. lib. 22. ca 17. was taken out of his side whiles he slept: so our regeneration is made by the water which flowed from Christ's side whiles he slept upon the Cross, without the personal begetting of Christ himself in his own substance. But what▪ stayeth S. Paul in this part of the similitude? Goeth he not forward to a grea●… mystery? Saith he not, for this cause, the man (which is Christ) shall forsake Father and mother, and shall cleave to his own wife (which is the Church) and they shallbe two in one flesh? Eve was taken out Gen. 2. of Adam, and was flesh of his flesh. but as the spirit of God and not Adam wrought that birth: so the union of baptism is wrought rather by the spirit of Christ, then by his flesh, Albeit his 〈◊〉 flesh is the material pattern according to which God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flesh in baptism, even as Adam was the material pattern according to which God formed Eue. But Eve was borne beside the customable course of nature, to betoken that the Church should be born of the virtue of Christ's flesh, not by company of two sexes, but by the working of God, without the natural seed of man. But when Adam knew his wife carnally, than the flesh taken Gen. 4. before out of him by God, was not only joined again to his flesh by God, but also by the actual cooperation of Adam himself▪ them two were made not only out of one flesh (which was the miraculous work of God in forming Eve out of Adam) but also two diverse persons already made by God, are by natural conjunction of both their bodies, made really one flesh, even as man and wife when they beget children, are not now two (as Christ himself Matt. 19 testifieth) but one flesh. This is a great mystery, I mean (saith S. Paul) that it is great in Christ and the Church. For when the faithful members, who were incorporated to Christ in baptism by the virtue of his flesh really absent in substance, 〈◊〉. but present in efficacy, when those members come again to Christ in the sacrament of his last supper, they then find not his The supper. flesh absent in substance (as before) but two (that is to say, Christ and his spouse the Church) are in deed one flesh, they are in deed soyned together in truth of substance on each part. Christ by his power and virtue prepared our flesh in baptism, and by cleausing it there, he made it a meet spouse to receive his natural flesh in his own real substance. But in the supper we are The union of Christ's flesh is temporal. not only of him, but we are himself. For we two are one flesh for the time that the conjunction dureth. for as the man and wife be not always joined in the act of begetting children, no more is the real flesh of Christ always joined in his own substance with our joan. 6. flesh, albeit his spirit and the virtue of his flesh tarry still with us, and make us tarry in him. but when we come to the Sacrament whereof he said: take, eat, this is my body, than we really have the substance of Christ's flesh in our mouths and body. In marriage there are diverse degrees of coupling, the first is by Three degrees in marriage words of promise for marriage to ensue. The second is by words of present bargaining. the third is when the man & wife deliver their bodies each to other for begetting of children. Christ was made one with his Church in the way of spousage from the beginning, when he promised that the seed of the woman should tread down the serpent's head. The which promise the patriarchs believing, were even then joined by faith and love unto God. The sign whereof Abraham and his seed carried in their flesh, and it was renewed to David, and denounced by many Prophets as by the lawful proctors of God. At the length Christ by taking flesh came to the house of his Gen. 17. Faith. spouse to see whether she would go forward in marriage or no. Gen. 17. And although the unfaithful Jews forgetting the covenants Psal. 131. of spousage, played the harlot's part with Christ (whereof he Oseae. 2. grievously complaineth in his Prophets) yet Christ keeping his Exo. 24. joshua 24 promise, went forward in marriage with them who would jere. 3. receive him. Who consenting to his conditions by the answer Baptism. of a good conscience in baptism, were by present words made sur●… ●…. Pet. 3. unto him for ever renouncing all other ●…orain husbands, a●…ter which consent each part hath right upon the others body. new 1. Cor. 7. may the party baptised call for the Sacrament of Christ's body, if he be of the years of discretion. And likewise him 〈◊〉 is on the Ephes. 5. other side bo●…nd to obey the voice and command●…ment of Christ, and to be subject to him, as the wife is to her husband. As therefore the parties married come to the third unity of being made both one flesh, is no lawful imp●…diment stay them: so doth Christ present himself in the Sacrament of his body and blood, to make perfit and to cōs●…ate his marriage in the last degree. And as in adultery S. Paul granteth a place of reconciliation 1. Cor. 7. be●…wene the man and wife: so if any man, after he is married to Christ, follow the world, the flesh or the devil, he may be absolved by the Priests, and so come to be joined with the body joan. 20. and blood of Christ in union of true flesh. If now the natural and the whole mystical body of Christ have so great affinity with the state of marriage, that in all degrees they be described by like terms in the word of God, seeing The bodies joined must be presen●… the last and chief conjunction, which is in marriage, can not be made without the real presence of the two bodies, which are joined: no more can the last union of Christ and of his Church be made in his last supper unless both his and our bodies come really together. If Christ sit only in heaven not having his body made present at his holy table, and our bodies be yet still in the earth: what conjunction of bodies is made between Christ & us? If the unity, which is between two persons in marriage, be a sign of the unity, which is between Christ and the Church, as S. Paul pro●…eth: it is not possible, that the unity can be less real Eph●…s. ●… in the truth, than it is in the sign. But in marriage (which is the sign) the persons married are one flesh (during the tym●… of their being together) and they are both present bodily: Thersore Christ is present in his own substance, to be joined in that most cha●…e and unspotted bed of matrimony with his own spouse: which Hebr. 13. ioyving is made in a Sacrament, the which Sacrament is ministered in those known forms of bread & wine. Therefore underthose forms, the substance of Christ's body and blood is really present. This is that, which S. Hilary saith: Verè verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus. We take truly the word (made) flesh, in the ●…ila. lib. S. de Tri. meat of our ●…ord▪ we take the word made flesh, that is to say, the whole substance of Christ: & we take it truly, & that in the meat which our Lord giveth. It is written, that he gave saying: Take, eat: Therefore in that meat we take truly the word made flesh: but Matt. 26. seeing that meat seemeth bread: under that, which seemeth bread, we take the whole substance of Christ. Again he saith, Naturam carnis suae sub sactamento nobis admiscuit, he hath mixed the nature of his flesh to us under a sacrament. That same word sub under, showeth, what he meaneth: for the form of bread is called a sign Sub. or sacrament alone, as the body under it is called a sacrament or sign, and also the thing or substance of the Sacrament. S. Chriostom saith: ut non solum per dilectionem, sed reipsa in illam carnem convertamur, per cibum id efficitur, quem nobis largitus Chrys. in joan. hom. 45. est. It is brought to pass by the meat which Christ hath given us: that we may be converted into that flesh not only by love, but in the thing itself. If bread and wine be not the thing itself, but only Christ's own flesh, and yet we are connerted in very deed into y●●…lesh of Christ through the meat which he gave, seeing he gave all that he gave under the form of bread and wine: under those forms we receive in deed and truth that flesh, according to which we are reform. Which place of many shall I bring out of S. cyril? He saith one where, Cûm mystica benedictio in nobis fiat, nónne corporaliter Cyr. l. 10 ca 15. quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi? For as much as the mystical blessing is made in us, doth it not make Christ to ●…wel in us corporally also, through the communicating of Christ's flesh? Can the mystical blessing make Christ dwell corporally in us, if itself have not Christ's flesh corporally in it? Cur membra fidelium, membra Christi sunt? Nescitis (inquit) quia membra vestra membra sunt Christi? Membra igitur Christi, cyril. 〈◊〉. 10. cap. 15. meretricis faciam membra? Absit. Why are the members of the faithful the members of Christ? Know ye not (saith S. Paul) that 1. Cor. 6. your members are the members of Christ? Shall I then make the members of Christ, the members of a harlot? God forbidden. Here S. Cyril doth manifestly allude to the kind of unity, which is between man and wife in lawful marriage: and between foruicatours in unlawful conjunction. In e●…he place two are made one: but in marriage lawfully, in whoredom unlawfully. The Sacrament of Christ's supper is like to lawful marriage. And therefore S. cyril concludeth, Non habitudine solum, quae per charitatem intelligitur, Christum in nobis hab●…are: sed participatione naturali. That Christ dwelleth in us not only by affection, or devotion, or efficacy which is understanded Habitudo. by charity, but by natural partaking. It is therefore an heresy: to defend (as the Sacramentaries do) that we are joined to Nataralis participatio. Christ's flesh in his supper, by faith and spirit only: as though Christ being so long married never came bodily to make up that most chaste knot of union between him and his Church. But if the sacramentary doctrine were true, it should have less: for as much as it should not be present really with us, it should not be offered externally unto God by the Pri●…ts of the new law, it should not be upon the table, it should not be in the mouths of them, who receive the same, it should not be made naturally one with our bodies, nor we one with it. S. Paul by the real unity, which is made between the meat of Christ and of his faithful people, doth prove an unity in less degree: but yet an unity between those who did eat together of meats offered to idols. But the meat of Christ's supper, whereby we should be joined as well to it, as among ourselves, our new brethren take clean away from the visible table and altar. S. Paul sayeth: Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord, and of the devils table. Our new brethren granting the devils a real table, will not allow any such to Christ. They must con●…esse a table as well invisible as corporal of the jews and Gentiles, for each of them had their faith and their God, albeit not good and true: but to Christ's body and blood, which is the altar and table of the new Testament, they will not allow any external or visible altar or table. I need not insult at them for it, ●…●…ithens the day will come when Christ will not allow them any table to eat or drink with him in the kingdom of heaven. They that have brought all his mysteries to naked names, shall enjoy his glory no more really, than they allow him a real truth in his blessed Sacraments. ¶ The real presence is proved by the example, which S. Paul useth concerning the jews and Gentiles. The vi. Chap●…ter. SAint Paul intending to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking with the Gentiles at their false and vain sacrifices, useth in that behalf, this kind of argument. Whosoever doth eat or drink that, which is offered up in sacrifice, he is made one with the oblation itself, and with it, to whom the things eaten and drunken are offered. This proposition The Christians. he proveth by example of the Christians, who by partaking of the bread which we break, and of the chalice which we bless (which are the communicating of Christ's body and blood) are made one bread, one body: because they partake all of the one The jews. bread. The like is seen also in the carnal jews, among whom they that eat the oblations or things offered, thereby were partakers of the altar: to wit, of the sacrifice, and of the worshipping of God, to whom it was offered. Therefore if the Corinthians The Ge●… tills. would also partake of the meat offered to idols, it must follow, that they should be partakers of the idolatry. For although the dead idol be no true God, nor any thing at all, wherewith they may communicate: yet a society is joined thereby with the devils, who reign in those idols. Therefore as idolatry itself: so the eating of the meats offered to idols is to be avoided. Out of this discourse it is proved, that the Christians, jews & Gentiles, each of them have a God, true, or false: each of them offereth an external sacrifice to him: each of them use to partake of the things offered: and each of them communicated among themselves. The sacri fice of the jews. The meat offered and eaten of the jews was the flesh of such clean beasts, or such other oblations as were allowed by the law of Moses. The meat offered and eaten of the Gentiles, was Of the Gentiles. such, as their superstition had received. To one idol a sheep was offered, to another an ox. The meat offered and eaten of the Of the Christians Christians is described of S. Paul, to be the bread which we break, which is the communicating of Christ's body: and the chalice of blessing which we bless, which is the communicating ●…f Christ's blood. The unity rising thereof is to be one bread, one body, because all partake of the one bread. Upon which ground it may be well built, that the meat partaken at Christ's supper is the body and blood of Christ: wherein we pass and overcome the jews & Gentiles, who had other earthly oblations, but none of them had this food, which came down from heaven. For as S. Paul sayeth: We have an altar, Heb. 13. whereof they have no power to eat, who serve the tabernacle. But surely they might eat bread and wine, who served the tabernacle: therefore the meat of Christ's supper is not bread and wine, but the bread of life, and the blood of Christ. And whereas the jews had certain observances of eating this, and of leaving that meat: or that the Levites should eat this, and the Priest that, and the lay people an other meat: S. Paul counseleth them to establish their heart with grace, and not so carefully to observe the old law, which commanded so many differences of meat. Howbeit if it be a good thing to have some meats reserved for the Priests, which the common people may not eat (as the jews think) then sayeth S. Paul: we Christians also have an Our altar. altar, to wit, a thing offered unto God, and that so precious, that the very Priests and Bishops, who serve in the tabernacle may not eat thereof. That meat is as Theodorite saith: Hostia rationalis In 13. ad Heb. & divina. A reasonable and divine sacrifice: as Sedulius writeth, the altar whence we partake the body and blood of Christ: as Theophtlact witnesseth, the unbloody sacrifice of the body, which quickeneth. This then being the meat of our altar, it followeth, that this The agreement of the holy meats. meat is no less present upon his holy table: then that, which the jews or idolaters did eat, was present at their sacrifices. But that, which they did partake, was really present, an●… received into their mouths: therefore likewise 〈◊〉 flesh is really present, and is received into our mouths. The meat of the jews and of the Gentiles was made one natural flesh with the partakers thereof: therefore we likewise are made one natural flesh with the meat of Christ's tab●…e. But herein is the odds, that their meat was turned into their flesh, because it was weaker than their own nature: but our flesh The difference of the meats. is turned without loss of his own substance or propriety, into the nature of Christ's flesh: because it being the flesh, which is dwelled in by the Godhead, is stronger than our nature. Again, as the jews and Gentiles by eating meats offered up, are made one body among themselves, by conformity of will and mind alone: (because the meat was not able to tarry in his own nature, and to draw them unto it) so contrariwise we that eat Christ's body, are made really one flesh with Christ & among ourselves: because (as S. cyril declareth) Christ suffereth him Li. 11. in joan. ca 26. self to be no more divided, but k●…ping his own flesh whole, he gathereth all us into it. And seeing we all, that eat Christ, are made naturally one with Christ: we are also one among our selves. For they, who are one in any third, are withal one among themselves. Thus the meat of Christ's table hath more truth in it, than the meat of the jews or Gentiles had, according to the Catholic doctrine. The seven. Chapter. ¶ The real presence is proved by the kind of showing Christ's death. QVotiescunque manducabitis panem hunc & calicem (hunc) 1. Co. 11. bibetis: mortem Domini annunciabitis, donec veniat. How often so ever ye shall eat this bread, and shall drink this chalice: ye shall show the death of our Lord until he come. Showing may be either in word alone, or in deed alone, or in both together. S. Paul speaketh in this place, of that showing, Showing by deed. which is by deed alone: for eating and drinking is a kind of doing. But not the eating of every bread, and the drinking of every chalice doth show Christ's death: except it be this bread eaten, & that chalice drunken, whereof S. Paul had said in Christ's person a little before: This is my body, which is broken for you, and, this cup is the new Testament in my blood. The eating and drinking of ●… sacri●…iced body and blood doth evidently show the death thereof: as the which should not be eaten A thing ●…s not eaten whiles it ●…ueth. and drunken, if it were not already consecrated by death unto God. For who doth eat the flesh of any creature, whiles it yet liveth and hath blood in it? Or how can blood be drunken in a cup, if it be yet in the veins of the body? The nature of the fact is such, that it presupposeth the immolation, and sacrifice, and death of that holy thing, which is eaten: for a living and sensible creature is not used to be eaten, without it be deprived first of his life. Therefore Theophilact saith: Quinta vesperi fecit Dominus Theoph. in 28. coenam, & caet. Nemo enim quicquàm edit, nisi prius mactatum fuerit. The fift evening (which was on Maundy Thursday night) Math. our Lord made a supper, and ●…ayd to his Disciples: Take and eat, for this is my body. And so, because he was of power to lay down his soul: it is evident, that he then sacrificed himself from that time, wherein he delivered the Disciples his body. For no man eateth any thing, unless it be first killed. Thus we see, that the real presence of Christ's flesh, to th'end it may be eaten, is the consequent, whereby S. Paul proveth the showing of Christ's real death. Who perceaneth not, that it is a good argument, to say: I eat in a Sacrament Christ's real flesh, there●…ore he is 〈◊〉 dead? Doth it not follow well in the discourse of reason, I drink the true blood of Christ: therefore Christ hath truly shed his blood? The figure of Christ's bo●…y eaten, doth but show a figurative death passed Or doth any faithful man at the table of God eat the flesh and drink the blood of that thing, which is not yet dead and offered in a sacrifice? This argument of S. Paul they make utterly void, who say: that we eat a figure, and not the truth of Christ's substance: for than should Christ be showed figuratively dead, as he should be figuratively eaten. Neither could it follow, that because Christ is eaten by faith in a figure: therefore he is already dead in truth itself, but only that he is dead in a figure or in bare name, without the truth of death as yet presently showed. When the paschal Lamb was eaten, the Lamb was truly dead: but as the Lamb was the figure of Christ, and not Christ: did it thereof follow, that it was only showed in a figure that Christ sometime should die, and not that in deed he was dead? But now that he is dead in deed, and so dead, that his death is showed true by the eating of his own body, and by the drinking of his own blood: undoubtedly, as truly as ●…uer that same paschal Lamb was killed, which was eaten, so truly is the same body of Christ dead, which is eaten: and thereupon it will follow, that by eating the flesh of the man that died, that man is showed to be dead in ded●…. Wherefore S. Ambrose saith, upon this place: Quia enim mor Ambros. in 1. Cor. cap. 11. te Domini liberati sumus: huius rei memores, in edendo & potando carnem & sanguinem, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus. Because we are made free through the death of our Lord, being mindful thereof, we in eating and in drinking flesh & blood signify those things, which were offered for us. Lo the very fact of eating flesh and of drinking blood show the things, that were offered to death for us: That is to say, show the flesh and blood of Christ as dead. Damascene in that pleasant history of josaphat, maketh the Damascenus in historia Barlaam & Io●…aphat. King Auenite to demand of certain Eremites: why they carried about them that bones of dead men, to whom they answered: Ossa ista munda & caet. we carry about with us o King, these clean and holy bones, representing the death of these maruelousemen whose they are: and bringing ourselves in mind of their exercise and of their conversation beloved of God, and flyring ourselves to the like zeal. And afterward, the bones of dead men cause the remembrance of death to them that are a line. Here we see many commodities, which the blessed relics The Come modity of Relics. of Saints do bring to good men. Among other things they cause us to remember the virtues of them, whose bones we re●…erently kept. And for as much as Christ did show his charity Rom 5. chiefly, in dying for his enemies: we have no greater thing to remember by the presence of his body, them the same loving death Rasil. de Bapt. li. 1. cap. 3. of that body. But if the bare presence of dead bones make us remember that Saints that be with God, whose bones they were: how mun more doth the eating of Christ's body both make us remember his death, and show it to our eyes being eaten after such sort, as this body is eaten. This kind of reasoning, which S. Paul useth, is called of The reason of S. Paul in this place. the logicians, A consequentibus: when by those things that are put for true and follow, an other thing is proved to have necessarily gone before. As, for example, we may reason thus: This woman is brought a bed, therefore she hath companied with a man: in so much that reason declareth that no woman by the course of nature can have a child, except she lie before with a man. Now, as if the bringing a bed be but in a shadow, thereof no true company with a man may directly be inferred: even so at this time, if by eating the body of Christ, we show Christ's death, and yet we do eat the body of Christ only in a shadow: then may it not be inferred hereof, that Christ is showed to have died Such as the Conse quent to, such ●…nte 〈◊〉 may b●… proved ther●…by. truly & in deed, but only in a shadow. Such as the Consequent is, where upon we reason: such antecedent may be inferred thereof. If the Consequent be real, true, perfit: the Antecedent is showed to have been like. If the Consequent be imperfyt, figurative, or feigned: the Antecedent is not thereby showed to be true. If two persons are married together, it may be well inferred, that they consented together: but if their marriage be ●…ained, to say, made upon a s●…afold in the way of playing some Comedy or interlude: then is the consent also feigned. If the marriage were true, the consent was true. Christ made his last supper chiefly Luc. 22. to have it a remembrance of his death, and therefore he said: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, do and make this thing, for the remembrance of me. S. Paul having before declared, how this thing may be made by the priests of the new Testament, for the remembrance of Christ, in declaring that Christ took bread, brake, and said: this is my body: he showeth afterward how the s●…me body may be eaten by the common people for the remembrance of Christ's death, saying: As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, ye shall show our Lord's death, until he come. so that the consecrating of Christ's body by priests, and the eating thereof by all Christian men, is the showing of Christ's death. Here I would know, whether Christ instituted this Sacrament, y●… the death of Christ shallbe she wed passed in deed the body must be eaten in deed. to show his death as past in deed: or else past in a bare shadow. If to show it in a bare shadow, them two absurd sequels may seem to be employed. One is, that it may show Christ's death as well to come, as already past. An other is, that if it be passed: it is rather showed to have been a figurative death, them a true death, For as the eating of unleavened bread under the law, were the faith of that eater never so great, did not show Christ's death past, but only to come: so this eating of common bread in our Lord's The figure ceaseth to be only a figure, when the truth of it is come. supper doth not by the eating infer the death of Christ to be past, but rather as being to come. For every shadow belongeth to a truth, whereof it is the shadow, and is 〈◊〉, until the truth itself come: but when the truth is one's present, the shadow is no more a bare shadow, but a shadow filled with the truth. But by the Zwi●…glians opinion the Sacrament of Christ's supper is common bread without any real truth made or wrought about it: therefore it is a figure, a shadow, and an imperfyt work, whereas if the truth of it were come, it should not ●…. Co. 11. be only a shadow: but should have a truth under the shadow. Thus we may perceive, that the eating of common bread for a figure of Christ's death with never so great a faith, doth not so much by the eating show his death past, as to come herea●…ter. Again, were it granted, that by reason of the faith of the eater, it showed the death past: yet because it showeth it in a simple figure, it may seem, that it is passed in a simple figure: whereby this Sacrament, a●…ter the interpretation of our new preachers, is no sufficient mean by the deed itself: to show that true death, which Christ suffered for us upon the cross. and yet S. Paul saith, that by eating this bread we show the death of Christ: that is to say, we show him to have died. by eating it, I say. For now we speak not of preaching the Gospel, not of remembering the articles of our creed, nor of other undoubted witnesses: whereby it is proved, that Christ hath died for us. We speak of S Paul's argument, who ●…aith: by eating this bread we show, Christ to have died for us. which argument is none, is vain, is rather against the faith, then with it: if the bread, that we eat, be not the real flesh, of Christ. But if we once confess, that we eat the subs●…ance of Christ's natural body, & drink the substance of his natural blood, then doth it follow invincibly, that Christ is dead for us. It followeth, I say, by the order of God's words: for no flesh is eaten whiles the beast liveth, whose flesh it is, as it is written: Carnem cum sanguine Gen 9 non comedetis, ye shall not eat the flesh with the blood in it, or any member cut from the live beast: whiles the blood yet remayveth in it. Again the order of religion, as well under the patriarchs as under the law of Moses showeth: that no beast was eaten Sacramentally, before it was killed and offered. From the sacrifice of Ab●…lto to the coming of Christ, certainly Christ is really dead for us: and being his true flesh that we eat, we show his true death▪ and we show it past, and not to come. Neither let any man say, that Christ in his last supper gave his Why Christ gave his flesh before he died. flesh before he died: for he did not that, before his death was at the very point to be fulfilled. The jews began their feasts on the evening tide, counting the day from Son set, to the next Son set. according as it is written: A vespera in vesperam celebrabitis levit. 23 Sabbata vestra, from evening to evening ye shall keep your holy days. Christ therefore kept his supper the maundy thursday at night, after Son set, when the goodfryday (whereon he died) was now begun, when he was already sold unto the jews, and all things prepared for his death: so that he came to the giving of his flesh, as men do come in their death bed to dispose what shallbe done after their death. willing this mystery to be made for the remembrance of him. And (as it may appear in the acts of the Apostles) after the Act. 2. 〈◊〉 of Christ and coming down of the holy Ghost, the Christian m●…n beganfirst to keep & continued this: at which time they sh●…wed him both dead & risen, & sitting at his Father's right hand in heaven. And surely, as well S. james in his liturgy, as Damascen jacobus in Liturgia. expounding these words of S. Paul, whereof we speak ●…aieth: Mortem filii hominis annunciatis, & resurrectionem eius Damasc. de Orth. fid. lib. 4. cap. 14. con●…itemini, ●…onec veniat, ye show the death of the son of man and conf●…sse his resurrection until he come. Thus by eating this body we show Christ's true death, & by eating it, being in itself alive, we show also the which followed his death, which was his resurrection and ascension. B●…t by a figurative eating we should not show his true death, and much less his true resurrection: for as the death is showed by eating the body which died, so the resurrection of the said body is showed, by, eating the body, which died & now is a live: the death is showed, whiles the body is under the form of bread, and the blood a part under the form of wine, as though they were still a sunder. The resurrection is showed, whiles under each form whole Christ is contained. Therefore we eat Christ more than in a figure, and more than by faith and spirit. we eat him in deed: whereby it followeth, that he is dead for us in deed. we eat him alive, without impairing or diminishing any part of him: whereby it followeth, he is risen from death and remaineth immortal. Now let us hear, how S. Chrisostom alludeth to the same reason: who speaking os Christ's last supper, writeth in this manner: Quando id propositum videris, dic tecum: Hoc corpus, & cae. When Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24. thou seest that body set before thee, say with thyself: This body nailed and beaten, was not overcomed with death. This body the ●…onne seeing crucified, turned away his beams: Through it also the vele of the temple was torn, and the rocks, and the whole earth shaken. The self same body made bloody, & wounded with a spear, gushed out in fountains of blood & water healthsome to the whole world. Seest thou, after what sort Chrysostom talketh of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar▪ Seest thou, by what means he there showeth the death of Christ? This (body saith he) was nailed, wounded, pierced with a spear. It is then the real body, that showeth the real death of Christ, and that showeth it not only, when we remember, that Christ died, when we think of his res●…rrection and ascension: but though no man think of his death, yet the very eating of this very real body showeth his death to men, to Angels, to God. The deed (I say) and fact of eating showeth him to be dead, whose flesh is eaten: even as the blood Gen. 4. of Abel cried to God from the earth, where it lay: and as the body of Christ in heaven by his only presence maketh continual intercession to God the Father for us, always putting God in mind of his death and of our salvation. ¶ The real presence is proved by the illation, which S. The 〈◊〉. Chapter. Paul maketh concerning the unworthy eating and drinking of evil men. WHen S. Paul had said, As oft as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup of our Lord: ye shall show our lords death, until he come: he goeth forward, saying. Therefore, who so eateth this bread & drinketh the chalice of our Lord unworthily: he shallbe guilty of our lords body and blood. How doth this sentence hang upon the former? how cometh it in with ●… Therefore? but because in the former sentence S. Paul Therefore. said, by eating this bread we show Christ's death. And for as much as we show it in that self thing, which died for us: therefore he that eateth unworthily such a meat (wherein by the substance which died, he showeth Christ's death) he is guilty of our lords body. none otherwise, then if he had betrayed it as judas did. For the same body that judas did by a false kiss give to death we eat under the form of bread, to show the same death. If then judas were guilty of Christ's natural body for giving it unworthily to death: we are guilty of the same natural body, when by eating it we show unworthily the same death. But if we had not present the same real flesh, which judas hetraied: our unworthy showing could not be like his unworthy doing. all the strength of S. Paul's reasoning is only grounded upon the real presence of Christ's body: the unworthy showing, whereof he Unworthy ●…ating now speaketh, is the unworthy ●…ating. And for so much as eating is a corporal action, which is done by the instruments of teeth and mouth: S. Paul doth us to understand, that evil men might touch and have in their mouths the bread and drink of our Lord. But his bread and his drink is of himself affirmed to be his body and blood: therefore S. Paul confesseth, that evil men may have the body and blood of Christ in their mouths. But that they could not do, except the body and blood were under the forms of bread and wine: therefore he teacheth, the body and blood of Christ to be really present under the forms of bread and wine. Saith not S. Paul: whosoever eateth this bread, and drinketh the cup of our Lord unworthily? Then this bread and the cup of our Lord may be eaten and drunken unworthily. But what? Speaketh he of eating by faith, or of drinking by spirit? No verily, for such eating and drinking can not be unworthily made. You will say, it is bread and wine whereof he speaketh. If it were so, why doth S. Paul name it, this bread▪ For 〈◊〉 the This 〈◊〉. pronoun (this) doth show a thing present to some sense or other: and seeing when S. Paul wrote these words, he being absent in body from the Corinthians, could not show them any thing by any corporal action of his: it remaineth, that the thing whereunto (this) doth point, was named in the epistle of S. Paul, which he wort to those faithful men: and also, that it went not long before, as the which otherwese might be of uncertain understanding. What is it then, which went before? Christ took bread, and after thanks given said: Take, eat, this is my body. whosoever eateth this bread unworthily, he is guilty of the body of our Lord. If this bread point unto that, whereof Christ said, This is my body: S. Paul meaneth to show his fault, whosoever eateth the body of our Lord unworthily. and thereby he granteth evil men to eat Christ's body: which they can do by no means, except that be Christ's body, which they take into their ●…outhes. An ●…tion. The Sacramentaries will object against me, that Christ The ●…swere. meant the sign of his body: which truly can not be so. For seeing S. Paul named no sign, 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 us: therefore this bread meaneth that body of Christ, and none other substance. ¶ The real presence is proved, because unworthy The ix. Chapter. receivers are guilty of Christ's body and blood. WHo soe●…er eateth this bread, or drinketh the cup of our Lord unwortehly: he shallbe gily of the body & blood of our Lord. A man may be guilty, either for doing an evil Doing. deed: or for leaving a good deed clean undone: or else for doing a good deed in an evil manner. Here S. Paul maketh the unworthy receiver guilty, for eating this bread, and drinking the cup of our Lord unworthily. which is to say, for doing a good deed after an evil manner. his deed is eating, which thing he so rea●…ly doth: that S. Paul affirmeth him to eat and drink damnation to himself. But no man is guilty of doing more, than he actually doth: therefore the unworthy receiver, who for eating and drinking is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, doth eat and drink in deed the same body and blood of Christ, whereof he is guilty. The Sacramentaries imagine S. Paul to have said: He that The ●…meles interpretations of Heretik●…. eating by mouth material bread at Christ's supper, refuseth to eat by faith the body of Christ sitting in heaven, is guilty of not eating Christ's body. Who ever heard of such a toy? what jot of all the scriptures, which appertain to Christ's supper, have they left unwrested, untorn, or undefiled? what sentence, clause, or word have they left in his natural meaning? If S. Paul and the four Evangelists were not themselves men of sufficient discretion, who might consider how needful it were to understand well the mysteries of Christ: yet surely in repeating one matter oft, it would at the least chance unto them, that they should have told us some one syllable: which might have made for the Sacramentary doct●…ine, if it had been true. But now whatsoever they speak, doth destroy utterly and overthrow their fond assertion. And that I may for this time go no farther, what can be answered to this place of S. Paul? he that eateth a very good thing unworthily, is pronounced guilty: therefore his present fault consisteth in the evil manner of his eating. For to eat unworthily is to eat in deed, but not to eat after a good manner. No man, by eating in an evil manner, can be guilty of that, which he doth not eat in that evil manner: and yet the unworthy receiver of this bread is pronounced guilty of Christ's body, and it is meant of his natural body. Therefore this bread, which he doth eat unworthily, is the real and natural body of Christ. If a man had done never so heinous a robbery, yet thereby to condemn him of adultery, it were an evident 〈◊〉: although the pain due to adultery be less than that, which is due to robbery. But now to condemn a man for eating the body of Christ, who did eat only the figure of it: that were much more unjust, Deut. 25 for that his pain increased above the measure of his fault. Let it be never so great a fault, to eat the holy bread unworthily: yet if that holy bread be not in deed a man, it shall never be the fault of eating man's flesh, to eat that bread unworthily. S. Paul saith not only, he is guilty, who eateth this bread: but he is guilty of the body of Christ. How can that be, except this bread, which he eateth, be the body of Christ▪ If this bread be his body, seeing it st●…ll appeareth bread, we must confess: that the body of Christ is really present under the form of bread. And truly, that is the cause, why S. Paul nameth it this bread: This bread. for the word showeth him to mean the bread consecrated at the altar: that bread, which that Priest from thence delivereth: the bread, which that people receiveth at the Priest's hand. Whosoever eateth this bread unworthily, he is guilty of Christ's body: because that substance of this bread is that substance of Christ's natural body made & given under that form of bread. If it were not so, the eater of this bread could not by his eating be guilty of Christ s body. Otherwise, the talk of S. Paul would no more hang together, then if it were said: he that toucheth unworthily the king's garment, is guilty of murdering his person. I am loath to heap up in this place the manifold witnesses of the ancient Fathers (whose words I have partly touched also * In the third chap▪ of the second book. before) concerning that evil men eat Christ's body. Now it shall suffice to show, that they make the same sequel of S. Paul's words, which I do: for they show, the unworthy receiver to be guilty of Christ's body: because he invadeth the body of Christ, and not because he eateth wheaten bread. Theodoritus expoundeth these words, whereupon we dispute, Theodo. in 1. Cor. cap. 11. after this sort: Illud autem: & cae●…. These words, he shallbe guilty of the body and blood of our Lord, signify this much: That, as judas betrayed him, and the jews themselves insulted, and railed shamefully and sclanderously at him: so these shame & defile him, who take his most holy body with unclean hands, & put it into a polluted and unchaste mouth. Lo, the taking, touching, and eating unworthily Christ's body Haymo▪ 1, Cor. 11. maketh them guilty: as judas and the jews were guilty of Christ's death. Yea Haymo saith: It were better for him, who cometh with mortal sins to this Sacrament, never to have known the way of truth, then to go backward and to do worse than an infidel: Primasius faith. He despiseth Christ and his body Primasius. as the jews did: who comet●… to it without trying of his own conscience. Sedulius, besides that common similitude of judas Sedulius and the jews, useth another saying: If no man dare put it into a filthy cloth or vessel, how much more ought he not to put it into an unclean heart? Note, good Reader, that the self same Sacrament is put in the cloth or vessel: which is put in the heart. It is not therefore, as the Sacramentaries blaspheme, bread and wine, that is put into a cloth and vessel after consecration, and body and blood, that (whiles the body eateth bread and wine) is in heart received. The same thing is in the heart, which is put in the vessel, wherein the Sacra ment is kept. S. Jerome using the same similitude of a cloth or unclean Hiero. in 1. Cor. 11 vessel, declareth farther, that as joseph did fold the body o●… our Lord in a clean sheet, so must we receive him with a clean conscience. D●…u menius declareth the fault of the evil men to be, in that they touch the body of Christ with unclean mouth and impure hands, saying that as judas betrayed Christ, and the jews did violently run upon him: even so they do shame to him, Quòd sanctissimum ipsius corpus manibus impuris suscipiunt, veluti tunc eum judaei tenuerunt, & execrando admovent ori: Who do take with impure hands his most holy body, none otherwise then the jews at that time held him, and do put it to their cursed mouth. Theophylact saith of the blood of Christ: Theoph. in ca 11. 1. Cor. Qui indignè hunc hauserit nullum ex eo fructum adeptus, frustra ac temerè Christi sanguinem fudit: He that drinketh the blood unworthily, he hath shed in vain & rashly the blood of Christ. taking thereof no fruit. And again, The cause why evil men take no fruit (saith Theophylact) is not through the nature of that mysteries (as the which both have life in them and give life) but it chanceth through the unworthiness of them, that come to them: who take hurt by them nonc other wise, than as the son is wont to hurt them, who have sore eyes: Theophylacte meaneth, that as it is ove son, which shineth to whole and to sore eyes, but yet the sore eyes through their own defect take hurt thereof, and the whole eyes take good: so the mysteries are one to the good and to the bad concerning their own nature, being (as he saith) always of that nature both to contain life and to geue life. But the fault why life is not taken, cometh of the unworthy receiver. We have now hard, that evil men receive the same true body of Christ, which the good men do receive: but not to the same profit, because they have not well prepared themselves. We must not then think, that ever any ancient Father was of this mind: to say, that evil men have in their mouths only bread and wine, and the good men eat only the true body of Christ. That heresi●… is as far from the opinion of the Fathers, as it is far from the truth of the Scriptures. S. Chrysostom saith, he will suffer his own blood to be shed: In Math. Hom. 8. rather than he will grant the most holy blood of our Lord to an unworthy man. Doth not he mean, that he hath our Lord's blood in his own hand at the time of celebrating the mysteries: and that he will not deliver the same to a known evil man? In joan. li. 9 c. 19 S. cyril noteth, that it is not said in vain of judas, Exivit continuò, he went forth by and by: Timet diabolus benedictionis virtutem, ne sintillam in animo eius accenderit. The devil feareth the virtue of the consecration or blessing, lest perhaps it might have kindled a spark (of grace or of repentance) in his mind. S. Augustine having spoken of judas, who gave him De Bap. cont. donatist. self to the devil, Non malum accipiendo, sed male accipiendo, not by taking an evil thing, but by taking it in an evil manner, 5. cap. 8. concludeth generally of all evil men: Corpus enim & sanguis domini erat etiam illis, quibus dicebat Apostolus: Qui manducat indignè, judicium sibi manducat & bibit. for it was the body and blood of our Lord even to those, to whom S. Paul said▪ he that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. It were easy after this sort to allege a very great number of the old Father's: but our adversaries well knowing that we ourselves believe, that the evil men, albeit they receive the substance of Christ's body, yet they do not receive the grace and unity, for which it is given: abuse maliciously the words which S. Augustine speaketh of the effect of Christ's body, against the real substance thereof. But what speak I of the injury done to S. Augustine, sith they have done so great and manifold injuries to the word of God itself. ¶ The real presence is proved, by the kind of discerning The x. Chapter. our Lord's body. LEt a man examine himself, and so eat of that bread and drink of the chalice: for he that eateth and ●…nketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning our Lord's body: That is to say, not putting a difference between it and other meats. The not making of this difference may rise upon mysbele●…e, misbelief as when a man thinketh, that Christ was not able to make the bread his body: or, that his flesh is under the form of bread apart from his blood. another sort of men may so contenme Christ's Contempt. body, that he will not worship it, although he believe it to be present. But S. Paul speak●…th not of those desperate men, who through their special malice be guilty of Christ's body before they Aug. in 〈◊〉. tract. 62. come unto it: 〈◊〉 they are the more guilty for touching it really: He speaketh of them, who o●…it to examine themselves, in so much that S. Augustine writeth thus of this very matter. De his erat sermo, & caet▪ when the Apostle said this thing, the talk was of them: who did receive the body of our Lord indiscretely and negligently, as if it were any other meat. And again, Negl●…gence. If the negligence of the guest be touched with reproof: with what punishment is he vexed, who sold the maker of the feast? Here S. Augustine doth witness, that S. Paul speaking of unworthy receivers did mean them: who for negligence omitted to prove and examine themselves, coming to the supper of our Lord, as if they came to a profane supper. S. Chrysostom, and after him Decumenius account the fault Chrys. i●… 1. Cor. of the Corinthians to have been the despising of the poor men: Hom. 28 because S. Paul said in the same Chapter, Ye put those to shame who have not goods of their own. Theodoretus sayeth besides, 1. Co. 11. that some of them were ambitious: others also did eat the things offered up to idols, one had married his own mother in law, these 1. Co. 11. were the faults of the Corinthians, and not any special contempt of heart, namely against these holy mysteries. According to which sense the Prophet Malachi doth say, that Mala. 10. the offering of polluted bread upon the altar of God, was the despising of him: and S. Hi●…rome there sayeth, Opera peccatorum Hieron. in Malach. despiciunt mensam Dei, the works of sinners despise the table of God. Seeing then, S. Paul speaketh of such fault and contempt of the Corinthians, as riseth of their negligence and for the lack of discretion: this kind of guiltiness can not come only of the mind itself (whose judgement is rather upright) but it cometh, for so much as the fault is committed about that thing, wherein the body and blood of Christ is really contained. For whereas an injury done may either touch our body, or Alpian. de iniur. lib. 1. c. 7. estimation: and when we will persecute the same, reason and law would we should specially describe the kind of injury, lest we do wrong to him, whom we burden falsely with a more grievous kind of fault, than he hath done: seeing S. Paul doth by name burden the unworthy rec●…auer of this Sacrament with being guilty not only of Christ's worship or name, (wherewith in other Rom. 2. places he burdeneth other great sinners) but with being guilty 1. Co. 11. Heb. 10. of his own body and blood, with which fault he never 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 2. any other than the unworthy receivers of this blessed Sacrament, or the Jews, who laid 〈◊〉 hands upon Christ at his death: it must needs be, that such a communicant recea●…eth Christ's own natural body, & so offendeth Christ not only in his name or in his estimation, but also in his natural flesh & blood. Moreover, seeing when he warneth him to beware of doing this evil deed, he biddeth him only put a 〈◊〉 between Christ's body, and all other meats: it is evident, that none other meat is here present beside the body of Christ. Otherwise, he should have said, Non dijudicans panem & vinum, figuram corporis Domini. Not discerning bread and wine, the sign of Christ's body. But now he only sayeth, not discerning the body of our Lord. And yet it is much more to be noted, that S. Paul nameth not any other meats: but only he nameth the body of our Lord, showing thereby, that we must discern it not only from other meats, but from all other creatures in the world. As if he said, he that eateth unworthily, considereth not whose body he cometh unto. For as S. Chrysostom sayeth, The receiver needeth to consider In 1. Co. Hom. 28 nothing else: but only, qui sit propositus, who is set forth. Et magnitudinem propositorum, and the greatness of the things set ●…oorth. If the body were not present, we ought rather to consider, who is in heaven, and where the truth of this image is: then who, and what is set before us. Which (as the Sacramentaries falsely teach) is bread and wine: but (as the holy Scriptures and Fathers affirm) it is the substance of Christ's body. ¶ No ●…igure, which is not in substance Christ's The xi. Chapter. body, can make any man, by eating it negligently guilty of Christ's natural body. IN all this question of unworthy recea●…ing the holy mysteries the chief refuge of the Sacramentaries is to say: that seeing the An ●…ction. bread eaten, and the wine drunken are the figures of Christ's body and blood, who so taketh them unworthily, he is guilty of the body and blood themselves, which those figures do signify. This pretenced excuse of theirs, I will now cons●…te God willing. When a man by wilful contempt doth break or defile the image The answer. of a great Prince, it is reputed all one, as if he had stricken the Prince himself: not because the deed is one, but for that his will is thought to be no less uttered against the Prince by his demeanour toward the sign: then if he had 〈◊〉 touched the Prince himself. But S. Paul speaketh not of any such matter in this place, as who maketh his argument rather upon the real fact itself: ●…hen upon the will or mind of the doer. Neither doth he reason upon presumption, surmise, or any like far fet interpretation: but absolutely pronounceth him to be guilty of Christ's body, who eateth this bread unworthily. Therefore he meant not, that the image or figure of Christ's body was eaten: but the true substance thereof. He spoke not now only of wilful contempt, but of negligent doing. of not examining a man's self▪ and of despising the poor. Secondarily, they that say the sign, image, or figure of Christ's body is abused, must show wherein that figure doth consist. Figures. Figures and images be either external or internal. Those be judged by the eye, these by the understanding. Those are most commonly made by act, these by nature or grace. No manifest external sign is made in Christ's supper sufficient, to show or to express his body and blood outwardly unto our eyes: albeit some likeness and similitude be kept outwardly between the figures and the things figured. otherwise (as S. Augustine reasoneth) they should not be Sacraments or holy Epist. 23. signs. But (as Epiphanius well noteth of this Sacrament) Videmus, quòd non aequale est, neque simile, non imagini in carne, In Anco rato. non invisibli deitati, non lineamientis membrorum: hoc enim est rotundae formae, & insensibile quantum ad potentiam. We see, that this thing (he meaneth the Sacrament of Christ's supper) is not equal nor like, either to the shape in flesh, or to the invisible Godhead, or to the proportion of his members. for this thing is of a round form, and unsensible concerning the power of feeling or moving. Seeing then the things consecrated upon the 〈◊〉, be not so like Christ's nature, & person, that thereby they may be in deed his image in any part of their outward shape: it appeareth, that the figure made in them, is not so much seen in the outward form: as it is to be sought for in some inward virtue of them. Internal figures be either natural, or typical. The Son Internal figures. is a natural image or figure of his Father: and the serpent lifted Num. 21. up in the desert, was a mystical image of Christ. joan. 3. There is likewise no mere natural image of Christ in his last supper, because there is nothing, which proceedeth from him by the way of birth or of generation: and yet a certain proportion is kept in the Sacrament of Christ's supper with this kind of figure also. Typical signs be double, some of the old law, which did Typical images. signify (as it were in a shadow) the truth absent in substance, which was to come in Christ: others of the new Testament, which do evidently give us the truth itself, which they by visible ●…ormes both signify and contain. Those of the old law are called in Heb. 10. Theodo retus in 10. Heb. S. Paul, umbra futurorum bonorum: the shadow of the good things to come: these of the new law are named ipsa imago rerum, the self image of the things. of which matter I have spoken before Shadows. Self images. at large. The supper of Christ belongeth to the new Testament, the chalice whereof is the new Testament in his blood. Therefore In the 〈◊〉. book the x. Chap. the figure which is made in Christ's supper, is ipsa imago rerum, The self image of the things: as also Baptism containeth really 1. Co. 11. Leo de nat. Do. ser. 4. 5. the grace of regeneration, which it giveth to him, that is worthily baptised. There is an image, and a self image. The image may be of a thing, whose substance is absent, as it chanceth in all artificial images. The self image is it, which hath the truth joined with the Ipsa ima go. image: or else, which is an image rather through that self substance which it hath common with the truth, then in his outward resemblance. Heb. 1. Colos. 1. Such an image is Christ of his Father, and Christ's Artificial figures. Natural figures. supper of himself: Having after the rate of artificial and external figures, (by breaking of the bread) a resemblance of the natural flesh broken with nails and scourges: but much more having the propriety of a natural image in being that substance, whereof it is the figure. And whereas it hath the properties of ●…the kind of images or figures, yet it is neither of both, but far passeth both: & therefore is called not only a typical figure (such Typical figures. as those of the old law were) nor only a mystical figure of the new Mystical figures. Testament (as other Sacraments of Christ's Church are) but it is called singularly the Sacrament of Sacraments, the perfection, Sacrifice and the unbloody sacrifice: which who so receiveth unworthily, he is worthy to be guilty of no less punishment, than the thing is great, which he 〈◊〉. He is guilty of the sacri●…iced body of Christ, because he really eateth it. But if it were the image of a truth absent in substance (as the figures of the old Testament were) the negligent eating thereof could by no means make a man guilty of violating Christ's body: partly because no image of the old law did by eating it make any man guilty of laying 〈◊〉 hands upon Christ's body, and yet they were all figures of his body: partly because any Heb. 10. other Satrament of the new law should likewise make us guilty of missordering his body. For as bread and wine do signify the spiritual nourishment, which Christ giveth to our souls: right so Baptism doth signify the spiritual birth, which we receive of Christ in our souls. But seeing it is a thing never heard of, that either Manna or the show bread unworthily eaten, or baptism unworthily taken, made any man guilty of Christ's own body and blood: certainly there is some other heavenly substance under the form of bread and wine, than either Manna or the show bread had, or baptism now hath. He that did eat Manna unworthily might Num. 21. be guilty of contempt, disdain, loathsomeness, or negligence, according as his fault was, wherewith he did eat it: but the thing eaten made him not guilty of Christ's body and blood. Otherwise the jews must have prepared and examined themselves every day: lest they should have committed a new sin against the body of our Saviour: which as it is a thing not readen of, so it had required more perfection in the law, than now is used: for so much as we receive our maker perhaps but once a year, & surely at the most but once a day, whereas they did feed upon Exod. 16 Manna so oft, as hunger or custom provoked them by the space of forty years. What shall I say more? As the Sacrament of Christ's body & blood is really and in deed itself the bread, which (through the substance thereof united to God) is able to make the worthy eaters live for ever: so it is the body, which through the substance thereof (whereunto power of judging and condemning is given) joan. 5. doth make the unworthy receivers thereof to be damned, even for the only negligence used in eating it. Death and life come from the substance of that, which is eaten: and therein it differeth cyril. in joan. c. 19 from Manna, exceeding it so far, as the body itself is more worth, than the shadow thereof: whereas otherwise one flesh and blood of Christ were signified by both, but not really present in both. ¶ The real presence of Christ's body is confirmed by the oft rep●…rting of the name of flesh, body, blood, eating, drinking and such like words. THat, which joseph said unto Pharaoh concerning that his Gen. 41. dream seen the second time, was an assured token of Gods will in bringing the matter to pass, I may much more ●…ustly allege at this time: sith (touching the real pres●…ce of his body & blood) Christ was not content to say it the second or third time, but he hath by himself or his Apostles, and Evangelists, repeated it above twenty times: to the intent it might at the least wise sink at the length into some of his disciples mind. And how much less should I either think it long, to dilate this argument, either the Reader be weary thereof? S. Paul saith, eadem Ad Phil. cap. 3. vobis scribere, mihi quidem non pigrum, vobis autem necessarium. To write the same things unto you it is not loathsome unto me, but truly necessary unto you. Even so Christ for our great profit always repeated, that he joan. 6. would give meat which should not perish, a bread which was his flesh. And that we should eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, that who so did eat his flesh and drink his blood should have life everlasting. for his flesh is meat in deed and his blood is drink in deed, who so doth eat his flesh and drink his blood doth tarry in Christ and Christ in him, and he that doth eat him should live for him, and that this is the bread which came down from heaven, an other manner of bread than Mamna was. He that doth eat this bread shall live for ever. Thus about ten times we find, that in S. John he said one thing, though not in one words: Sometime calling it flesh, sometime blood, sometime himself, sometime this bread, sometime meat. Put now here unto that he took bread and wine, blessed, gave Matt. 26. thanks, brake and gave, and said, take and eat, this is my body, and drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, and make or do this thing for the remembrance of me. Remember farther that three Evangelists wrote the history of the supper in diverse years 1. Cor. 10 & 11. all after one sort, that S. Paul wrote the same adding more terror to it, by showing that some died at Corinth for the unworthy receiving the body and blood of Christ, with all the rest which the Apostle saith in that epistle, and we shall find, that the holy ghost hath confirmed and verified the known and literal understanding of the words, flesh, blood, body, meat, without any figurative speech or meaning. Albeit God meant not his body and blood to be eaten and drunken after the common & usual manner of eating roasted flesh, or drinking raw blood, but that we should eat it & drink it under the forms of bread & wine. For which cause he also used the name of a certain kind of bread. A bread, I say, which came done from heaven, because it is united unto the son of God, who was for ever equal with his Father in glory, nature, & honour. This repeating of one thing so many times is a great argument of speaking plainly without all figures or parables. This argument (to begin with the weaker) the greek author Euthy. in6. c. Io. Euthymius maketh. who upon those words: my flesh is truly meat, saith: hoc dixit confirmans quòd non aenigmaticè, neque parabolic●… loqueretur. This he hath said, confirming that he spoke not 〈◊〉, either else in the manner of a parable. Which observation Euthymius borrowed of S. Chrysostom, who saith that S. Chry. in joan. hom. 48. Christ affirmed his flesh to be meat in deed, to confirm his disciples lest they should think him to have spoken obscurely in parables. But the oft repeating is of itself the confirming and assuring us, that he spoke not so. Oecumenius also use th' the same reason in a like matter. Per O●…cum. in Epi. 1. hoc quod frequenter ait, (corporis & sanguinis domini) manifestat, ad Cor. cap. 11. quòd non sit nudus homo qui immolatur, sed ipse dominus & factor omnium: ut videlicet per haec iplos exterreat. in that he many times nameth the body and blood of our Lord, he showeth, that he which is offered is not a bare man (as the Nestorians did falsely teach) but the Lord himself and maker of all things. to th'end he might verily put them in a terror by these words. if the oft naming of (Lord) did show it to be the body not of a bare man, but also of God, how much more doth it show, that it is not the bare substance of bread, but the body itself of Christ who is our maker? S. Basile noteth in the Apostle S. Paul concerning this very Basil. de baptis. li. 2. cap. 3. matter: Vehementius simulque horribilius proponit ac declarat condemnationem per repetitionem. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently, & to the more terror of the unworthy receivers, the condemnation by repeating it. S. Augustine in his book which he made concerning the working of muncks, perceiving that some thought the Apostle to speak figuratinely, when he requireth that all men should labour and work who would eat: among other arguments, wherewith he disproveth these figurantive Aug. de 〈◊〉 workers, useth this also. Neque enim aut uno loco, aut breviter dictum est, ut possit cuiusuis Monachorum cap. 13. astutissimi tergiversatione in aliam traduci pervertique sententiam. ●…t is not said in one place, or in short words, so that it may be 〈◊〉 and perverted into an other meaning, by the overthwarting of never so subtle a sophist. Thus reasoneth S. Augustine upon the oft repeating of work, of labour, of mini●…ring with hands, proving thereby that the Apostle meant in deed bodily work, and not only working with mind, or tongue. But I am assured there is not more in the new testament concerning the precept of working with hands, then is of the body joan. 6. Math. 6. and blood of Christ, of his flesh, of the meat which perisheth not, Matt. 26. of such substantial bread: of taking, eating, drinking, communicating, Marc. 14 & partaking the body and blood of Christ, of making the Luc. 22. same, of giving, breaking and distributing, of not discerning it, 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 of being guilty for unworthy eating: of true meat, true drink, o●… Ephes. 5. raising up him that eateth it, of his abiding in Christ, and living for Christ, of the Church and Christ being twain in one flesh, of being one bread, one body all that partake of the one bread: of living for ever, if any man worthily eat this bread which is the flesh of Christ, which he will give for the life of that world. it is not said in one place, neither in short or few words. therefore it ought not be drawn into an other meaning, than the words do sound, ●…y the overthwarting of never so subtle a sophist. To conclude S. cyril. in joan. lib. 4. cap. 11. Cyrillus writeth in the same sense: Non obdurescamus toties a Christo veritatem audientes. non est enim ambigendum quin summa supplicia subituri sunt, qui saepius haec a Chisto iterata non capiunt. Let us not harden ourselves hearing the truth so oft of Christ. for it is not to be doubted, but they shall suffer most ●…reme pains, who receive not these things which are so many times repeated of Christ. The preface of the sixth book. BEcause the adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar is a matter, which most manifestly convinceth the real presence of Christ under the form of bread: I thought it best to handle it a part by itself, a●… also being one of those things, which doth principally declare the saith of the whole Church in this behalf. For no man would adore the body of Christ in the priests hands or upon the altar, if it were not really present there. The chapters of the sixth Book. 1. The adoration of Christ's body is proved out of the Prophet David in the Psalm 21. 2. Item of the Psalm 98. 3. It is proved out of the Prophets, that it can be no idolatry, to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar. 4. The adoration of Christ's body is proved out of the new Testament. 5. That the Fathers of the first six hundred years after Christ, did honour the body & blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar. 6. The adoration of the body & blood of Christ is proved by the custom of the Priests and people of the first six hundred years. 7. The real presence is proved by the doctrine & consent of the ancient Fathers. 8. Item by the faith of the people. 9 That no man can be condemned for believing the real presence of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. ¶ The adoration of Christ's body is proved out of The first Chapter. the Prophet David. OF this adoration due to the body of Christ the holy ghost Ambros. ●…erm. 3. forewarned us by the Prophet David in that psalm, which Christ himself hanging upon the Cross declared to be literally meant of himself: and that as well concerning his Matt. 27. death, which he suffered for us, as also concerning the memory of the same death, which he instituted in the night wherein he was betrayed. Christ therefore having she wed in that psalm the cruelty Psal. 21. of jews in killing him, most humbly asketh of his Father through his manhood: that his soul may be delivered by resurrection from the mouth of the lion, promising or vowing therewithal, The 〈◊〉. that he will open the name of God unto his brethren, and praise him in the midst of the congregation: And when I cried unto him, he heard me. If God hath favourably heard Christ, as there can be no doubt but he hath: Christ is bound by his own promise, to praise his Father in a great Church, & therefore saith, he will do so, adding thereunto: I will render (or perform) my vows in The performance. the sight of them that fear him. By what mean will he perform them? It followeth immediately, Edent pauperes & caet. The poor The mean of performing the vow. shall eat, & be filled: and they that seek him, shall praise the Lord: their hearts shall live for ever, all the ends of the earth shall remember and be turned to the Lord. All the families of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight. Because the kingdom is the Lords, and The kingdom of the Lord. himself shall bear rule among the nations. All that be fat on the earth, have eaten and adored: all they that go down into the earth Adoration. shall fall down before him. 1. Christ then ●…or his resurrections sake, 2. made a vow, to praise God, 3. in the great Church of all nations: 4. the performance whereof should be established by the means of eating, filling, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, and worshipping. ●…ose, that after baptism by the grace of God are preserved from 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar, 〈◊〉 be filled, 〈◊〉 praise God for ever. Eating is the act of the Eating. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, spiritual 〈◊〉 is the heavenly effect thereof, the praising of God is the fruit of the 〈◊〉. For we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. to be 〈◊〉, & are filled to the end we should praise God for ever. 〈◊〉 that after 〈◊〉 fall into great 〈◊〉, partly they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. so fall, that they rise 〈◊〉, and then they remember in the memory Remini●…. of Christ's 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 his last supper is) that Christ died for them, and so the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 forceth & presseth them by penance 1. Cor. 11 to return: Partly they so fall, that they care not to return to 2. Cor. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God, but lie wallowing still in their sins: & yet they depart not by 〈◊〉 or infidelity out of the Church, but keep still the bare belief of God's truth, without performing his ●…dementes. Such men eat & worship, but because they will not remember & be 〈◊〉 to God, but come to the table of Christ unworthily, they are not filled by their eating. But there are two other kinds of men, who sometime have been of Christ's church, but now are not of it: of which two the one doth eat and not worship, because it beleu●…th not the thing eaten to be the flesh of God (such are the Sacra●… 〈◊〉. Unf●…ithfull Zinglians) the other doth neither worship, nor eat, which are the unfaithful jews: who are not only departed from the Catholic Church, but also from the confession of Christ our true Messiah, of whom S. P●…ule saith: we have an altar whereof they have jews. no power to eat, who serve the tabernacle. Christ being absent in the visible form of his body, & sitting Hebr. 〈◊〉. therein at the right hand of his father, ruleth his Church & reig●…eth Domini est regnum in it, not as the unfaithful jews thought he would have done, by ex●…ising violent in●…isdiction and subduing the bodies joan. 8. of men by force: but he reigneth in the hearts through faith & charity, Luc. 17. which he giveth us. This invisible reigning among visible men requireth for convenient ma●…tenance thereof, an invisible The king don●…e of God in his Church. kind of presence (concerning the person of the king) b●…t yet visible concerning the for●…ies of bread and wine, to the●…d his members may know, where to worship him. For as his Church is visible through the bodies of them, whose souls do invisibly serve him: so his body is visible through the forms of bread & wine, under the which it lieth invisibly, distributing the fruits of his death and resurrection All this eating, adoring, filling, reigning, and praising, doth chie●…ly belong (in this place) to the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. Through those mysteries Christ the bread of life is joan 6. really eaten, we are filled with grace, God is praised in good works, reigneth in our hearts, we bow down to his body, and Math. 5. worship him for our maker, our King, and our Lord. And that this interpretation is not of mine own making, it shall now appear. S. Jerome upon those words, vota mea reddam, I will render my vows, (which I promised) saith. Vota Christi, nativitas vel passio, vota Ecclesiae, opera bona: vel, Hiero●…. in Ps. 21. mysterium corporis & sanguinis mei offeram cum his, qui in eius timore haec celebrant. The vows of Christ are, his birth or passion: the vows of the Church are good works: or else, I will offer (saith Christ) the mystery of my body and blood with them, who celebrate these things in his fear. First S. Jerome taketh the vows of Christ to have been the promises, that he The ●…owes of Christ. made to be borne or to die: but afterward he giveth an other sense, which is more agreeable to the letter. For Christ had spoken before of his passion, and had made petition for his resurrection, and saith: he will now perform the vows which he made for the obtaining of his resurrection. Those vows were to have God's name told, and his 〈◊〉 published. To that end serveth the mystery and sacrifice of his body & blood: for God is thanked in the Eucharist, and praised 1. Co. 10 in the cup of blessing, as in the public sacrifice instituted by Christ 1. Co. 11. to remain in his Church, until his second coming. Therefore, when he saith, I will perform my vows, he meaneth: I will offer the sacrifice of my body and blood, as S. Jerome expoundeth it. And therein S. Augustine fully agreeth with him saying: Quae Aug. comment. 2. in Ps. 21. sunt vota sua? Sacrificium, quod obtulit deo. Nostis quale sacrificium? Norunt fideles vota quae reddit coram timentibus eum. Sacrificium. And afore. Sacramenta corporis & sanguinis mei reddam coram timentibus eum. What are his vows? The sacrifice which he In comment. hath offered to God. Know ye what manner of sacrifice? The Sacrifice vows. faithful know the vows which he rendereth before them, that Sacraments. fear him. I will render the Sacraments of my body & blood before them, that fear him. Cassiodorus consent●…th, saying: Vota mawlt intelligi Sacramenta Cassiod. in Ps. 21. corporis & sanguinis sui, & caet. He rather would, the vowe●… vows. be understanded the Sacraments of his body and blood, the Sacraments. which are rendered those being present, which are subject to him in holy fear. To be short, see what followeth: the poor shall eat Eating. and be filled. These are the vows whereof he spoke before. ●…eda in Psal. 21. S. Bede also writeth: Vota quae feci, cum meipsum in ara crucis obtuli, illa reddam in Ecclesia magna, id est, iterum per quotidiana sacrificia meorum in sacramentis offeram. vota dico eadem verè, in conspectu timentium eum, id ist, quantum ad intellectum bonorum: etsi non sint eadem in conspectu malorum, qui nihil in Sacramentis, nisi quod exterius apparet, intelligunt. The vows 〈◊〉. which I made, when I offered myself on the altar of the cross, those I will render in the great Church: That is to say, I will Sacraments. offer them again in the Sacraments, by the daily sacrifices of my (ministers.) I mean the same vows in deed, in the sight of Sacri●…ices. them that fear him, to wit, concerning the understanding of the good men: albeit they be not the same in the sight of evil men, Understanding. who understand nothing in the Sacraments, but that which Appearing appeareth outwardly. Here S. Bede expoundeth the rendering of the vows of Christ to be the offering of the very same body & blood, which was offered upon the cross: And that the good see by faith, and understand by believing more, than the eye seeth. But the evil men will understand no more, than they see: judging that which The subgement of evil men. seemeth bread and wine, to be still in deed bread and wine. But the truth is, the same substance of Christ's flesh and blood is offered in the Sacraments: which was offered on the cross. Concerning my purpose S. Jerome, S. Augustine, Cassiodorus, Bedafull well agree, this place to appertain literally to Arnob. in Ps. 21. the Sacrament of the altar. Yea Arnobius, who was elder than all they, saith: that Christ being upon the Cross prayeth for them that crucify him, that his praise may be in the great Church, and that he may render his vows before them which fear him. Dum edunt corpus eius pauperes Spiritu, whiles the poor in spirit shall eat his body. Neither do the Latins only expound this place a●…ter that sort, but also the Grecians. Euthym●…s having expounded the vows to be the promises Euthy. in Ps. 21. of praising God's name, and the eating of the poor men to be their feeding upon the doctrine of the Apostles, addeth also the other interpretation, saying: Vel aliter, comedent fideles salvatoris corpus cum quo & sanguinem eius bibent, etc. Or else, according to an other meaving, the faithful shall eat the body of our Saviour, wherewith they shall drink also his blood. And shall be filled, verily filled with the holy Ghost, and shall extol God with hymns and praises in that table. So that the former versicle may contain not only a prophecy of the Gospel, but also the mystical Sacrament of that table. In which interpretation the Fathers agree so thoroughly, that they confer those words of the p●…alme, their hearts shall live for ever, with those of Christ, I am the bread of life, and, if any man Psal. 21. eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. Now if this psalm do literally joan. 6. speak of the offering and eating of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of his supper, (as ye see plainly it doth) it can not be avoided, but the same place shall prove, that the body & blood of Christ must be adored in the Sacrament. For the same that is eaten is here prophesied also as a thing to be adored. It is said manducaverunt & adoraverunt, they have eaten & have adored. Both be referred to one thing. But they have eaten is referred to the Sacrament of the altar, therefore they have adored, is referred to the same Sacrament. Apostoli vel caeteri sancti (sayeth S. Hi●…rome) manducaverunt corpus Christi. The Hieron. in Ps. 21. Apostles and other saiutes have eaten the body of Christ: whereupon it followeth that they have adored it also. S. Augustine expresseth it more plainly: Manducaverunt corpus, & caet. Even the rich of the earth have eaten the body of the lowliness of their Lord. They are not filled so, that they will follow (as the poor men were) but yet they have adored. Behold three verbs, which all belong to the very body of Christ, eating, adoring, The verbs. filling. The poor in spirit have eaten and adored (because all nations have adored before him) and they are filled. The rich have eaten and are not ●…illed, but yet they have adored. What have they both eaten? The body of Christ Wherewith The cases belonging to the verbs are the poor filled? With the body of Christ. What have that rich adored? The body of Christ, but yet they are not filled therewith because they will not follow the humility of Christ. And seeing this eating p●…rteyneth to the Sacrament of Christ's supper (as it was before prourd) the adoring also appertaineth to the same Sacrament. That is eaten which appeareth to be bread, therefore that self substance is adored, which appearing bread is in deed the truth of Christ's own body. S. Bede expoundeth the adoring thus: Adorabunt, quia cum 〈◊〉. quadam exteriori veneratione accident. They shall adore, because they shall come with a certain outward worshipping. Behold, the worshipping of the rich is outward and not from the heart, whereas it ought to have been both outward and inward, both in spirit and in truth. But through their hypocrisy it consisteth only in bowing their bodies, because other men do so, and not in true and perfit charity of God. Moreover S. Augustin speaketh in an other place of the same Aug. in ep. 120. matter: Suprà dictum est, edent pauperes & saturabuntur, hîc verò, ad Hon●… ratum c. 27 manducaverunt & adoraverunt, & caet. It was said before, the poor shall eat and shall be filled. But here it is said, all the rich The table of Christ. of the earth have eaten & have adored. For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his body and blood. But Adoration. they adore only, and be not filled also, because they follow not. For although they eat (Christ the poor man) yet they disdain to be poor. And again, quia Deus excitavit eum a mortuis, etc. Because God hath raised him from the dead, and hath given him a name the which is above every name, that in the name of jesus every knee should be bowed of heavenly, earthly, and of What bringeth the rich or the earth to adore. things under the earth. They also moved with the fame of his highness, and with the glory of his name (which glory is spread round about in the Church) they come themselves to the table, they eat and adore, but yet they are not filled, because they do not hunger and thirst righteousness. Hitherto S. Augustine, who speaketh of eating the body of Christ from the table. The rich men come to the table of Christ thence to eat his From the table they eat and adore. body. There also they adore that which they take from the table, and that which they eat. And how is it possible, but that this worshipping and adoring (whereof S. Augustine speaketh) must belong to the table of Christ, that is to say, to his body and blood which is eaten from his table, when the Priest giveth it to us? And yet it might not there be rightly adored, if it were not rea●…ly present upon the table. And there it can not be present, unless it ve under the forms of bread and wine, which only stand upon the table. Therefore this prophecy as well proveth the adoration, as the real presence of Christ's body and blood. Is it not a great blindness in our new preachers, that whereas the word of God sayeth even the rich of the earth have eaten and have adored, or shall eat and shall adore, (for so one tense doth stand for an other in the holy Scripture) yet they will have ye eat, and not adore, to th'intent ye should be more unkind, th●…n those earthly rich men were? ¶ The adoration of Christ's body is proved again The second Chapter. out of the Prophet David. THe Prophet David speaking of the Kingdom of Christ, which he exercised upon the cross by conquering the devil In Ps. 98 and sin, requireth us, to gene praise to him for it: and not only to him, but even to his footstool, writing thus: Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum, & adorate scabellum pedum eius quoniam sanctum est. exalt the Lord our God, and worship his footstool, because it is holy. The Hebrew readeth, because he is holy. It is to be understanded, that Christ in one person hath two natures: to wit, the nature of God and the nature of man. David willeth both to be adored, and first he speaketh of the Godhead, God is to be adored absolutely Adoration is dew to that manhood through the union. saying: exalt the Lord our God. Next after of his human nature, in those words: Adorate scabellum pedum eius, worship his footstool, for Godly honour is due to his flesh also, because he is holy: That is to say, because his person is the second person in the Trinity: where unto the manhood is united. And through that union, the nature of man is worthy of Godly honour. The jews accounted the footstool of God to be the Ark The footstool. and temple of Jerusalem: toward which they bowed and adored God in their time of prayers. But aswell the Ark, as the The Ark. Temple were the shadows of Christ's flesh, and that not only as he was in the visible form of man: but even as he is mystically under the form of bread. For the Ark did foreshadow the Angelo. in 2. Re▪ cap. 6. Sacrament of Christ's body & blood, as Angelomus hath noted. Sacerdos qui Arcam, & caet. The Priest (Oza) who touched that Ark with unadvised rashness, purged the fault of his bold enterprise with death before his time: wherein we must needs consider, how much he sinneth, The body The Ark was the figure of our Lord's body. who cometh guilty to the body of our Lord, seeing that devout Priest is punished with death: who with less reverence than he ought, hastily handled that Ark, which was the figure of our Lord's body. Again the Ark contained Manna in it, which was an express figure of the flesh of Christ in that respect, as it is to Heb. 9 joan. 6. be eaten of us: as both Christ himself hath declared in S. John, Cyril. li. 4. cap. 19 and S. Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Likewise the Temple was a figure of Christ's body, according 1. Co. 10. as himself said: Dissolve ye this Temple (of my body) and The Temple. and in three days I will raise it up again. The Ark therefore and joan. 2. the Temple being the footstool of God, toward which the Jews prayed, did signify: that the flesh of Christ should be adored not only in heaven, whether Christ is entered as into the everlasting Heb. 9 〈◊〉, and most holy of holies: but also in the Sacrament of the altar, which is the Ark, Temple, and ●…essell, containing the self same substance of Manna, which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father. The holy Prophet David requiring us to adore the footstool of God, requireth us to adore the flesh of Christ, as well in the Ark of the new Testament (which is the Sacrament of Christ's body) as in heaven itself, because he that hath ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, said also in his last supper: Take and eat, this is my body: Do and make 〈◊〉. 22. this thing for the remembrance of me. Neither do I make, or first invent such interpretation: but the Fathers of the first six hundred years left it unto me, saving that they expound the footstool to be, not only the Ark and Temple of ●…ierusalem: but The ●…arth is y● 〈◊〉. also the whole ●…arth in respect of the Godhead, because Esate sayeth: Heaven is my seat, the ●…arth is the settle of my feet. But E●…ai. 66. herein we may rest in S. Hieromes authority, who upon this place writeth thus. Multae de scabello opiniones sunt, & caet. There are many opinions Hieron. in Ps 98. concerning the ●…orestole, what it should be. But here the Prophet meaneth our Lord's body, wherein the majesty of the The body of Christ is the 〈◊〉. divine nature standeth as it were on a 〈◊〉. How so ever then we interpret the footstool, concerning the literal and firs●… meaning: yet the natural flesh of Christ, which he assumpted of the virgin, is the spiritual truth, whereunto the Prophet directed his words. That flesh, where so ever it be, is the footstool of God, and therefore it is every where to be adored. But as the ark deserved a special reverence among the jews, although it was the bare figure of Christ's flesh, in so much that Oza, who touched it rashly, died for it: even so the Sacrament 2. Reg. 6 of the altar, which is both the truth a●…d the figure of Christ's visible body, must by the force of this Prophe●…y be adored De spiritu sancto li 3. ca 13 among all faithful Christians. Therefore S. Ambrose disputing of this footstool saith: Per scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi: quam hodieque in mysterijs adoramus. By the footstool the earth is footstool, by the earth the flesh of Christ, which this day also we adore in the mysteries. Adoration of Christed flesh in the mysteries. When he saith, we adore the flesh of Christ even at his day in the mysteries: what other thing saith he, then, we adore the flesh of Christ at mass, or in the supper of Christ, or upon the altar, or upon the holy table? For all these names mean●…, that the flesh of Christ is worshipped after consecration under the forms of bread and wine. S. Augustine likewise considering that David willeth us to adore Aug. in Psal. 98. the footstool of our Lord, and that 〈◊〉 saith in the person of E●…a. 66. God, heaven is to me a seat, the earth is my footstool, & doubting how we, that profess to adore one God, may worship earth, findeth at the last, that Christ took earth of earth, to wit, flesh of the took. walked. virgin's flesh: and because Christ walked in the very same flesh here, and gave us the very same flesh to be eaten to salvation, and Gave. no man eateth that flesh, except he first hath adored: it is found how such a footstool of our Lords may be adored, and how we may not only not sin by adoring: but how we may sin by not adoring. Behold, the flesh which Christ took of that virgin, in the same he walked, and the same he gave to be eaten. He took true flesh and real flesh, he walked in the substance of natural flesh: therefore he gave us the substance of the same flesh to be first adored, and then to be eaten. If you say, he gave it in a figure: then he walked in flesh in a figure, he took flesh in a figure, For the same substance, which he took and walked in, he gave us: albeit he gave it so, as it might be most conveniently eaten under the form of bread, whereunto all men are most used. S. Augustine considering the foolish understanding of the In Psal. 98. Capharnaits worthily saith (as it were to them) in Christ's person: ye shall not eat this body, which you see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed who shall crucify me. Sacramentum aliquod A Sacrament. commendavi vobis, I have commended a certain Sacrament to you▪ spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos, being spiritually understanded it will make you live. Et si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportettamen invisibiliter intelligi. Although it must needs be celebrated visibly, yet it must be understanded invisibly. The last words of S. Augustine must agree with the first, We must eat the bodytaken, but not the body seen. and then it shal●…e true, both that we must eat the self same flesh, which Christ took of the virgin: and yet not that body, which the Capharnaits saw. why? Did not the 〈◊〉 see the body, which Christ took of the virgin? How then must we eat the flesh which he took, and not that body which they saw? If men will not affect blindness, it is easy to understand: that all corporal natures consist of an invisible substance, and of a visible form. The form of Christ's body was that, which the Capharnaites The body seen. saw: but the substance o●… Christ's body is that, which we must eat. Christ took not that greatness and quantity of flesh of his mother, wherein he walked: for his greatness increased The body taken. from the state of an infant to the state of a per●…ite man. That Lucae 1. increased quantity the Capharnaites saw, but the substance of his flesh was neither increased nor diminished. That same standing The body taken, walked in and eaten. substance Christ took of his mother, in that he walked, and that he gave us to eat unto salvation. That substance we how unto before we eat it. But the form & shape of that substance we eat not: for Christ hath given it us under the form of bread, & his blood under the form of wine. Now this gift, wherein the truth of substance is really given without the visible form of flesh and blood, is the gift of he Sacrament: that is it, which being spiritually understanded Spiritual understanding. will quicken us to life everlasting. That was the understanding, which being denied to the proud & stubborn Chapharnaits (who joan. 6. would not believe) was revealed to the humble Apostles, who tarried cyril. li. 4. in joan. cap. 14. with him until his last supper. There they learned, how the same body was given them to be eaten: which was taken of the virgin, and which was betrayed for us: And yet not that, which the Capharnites saw: the same in The same & not the same. substance, but not the same in appearance. For Christ taking bread said, This is my body, which is given for you: take & eat. There Luc. 22. the Apostles saw that, which seemed still bread: but under the form of the bread Christ gave the self same flesh, wherein he walked in this life: and he so gave it, that it might be adored not only whiles it was eaten, but before: for no man eateth it, nisi prius adoraverit, except he adore it before. That word, before, showeth, Before. that it is the flesh of Christ before we eat it, and consequently that it is consecrated by the Priest speaking the words of Christ over the bread and wine. S. Augustine was so fully persuaded, that the flesh of Christ was to be adored under the form of bread after consecration: that he teacheth the Christian people to adore it, not as common flesh, but as the flesh of God, for whose sake we adore it▪ therefore Earth, that is to say Christ's flesh. he saith: Cùm ad terram quamlibet, etc. When thou bowest thyself, or fallest down before any earth, look not upon it as earth: but look upon that holy one, whose footstool it is which thou adorest. for thou adorest for his sake. S. Augustin calleth the flesh of Christ earth, because flesh was made of earth. And Christ took flesh of our Lady's flesh. This flesh he calleth earth. And for as much as he had said, that no man did eat that flesh, except he had adored before: he showeth, how we must adore, verily not resting upon the earth, to wit, upon the flesh of Christ: but looking to his person, in whom that earth resteth, as if he said: the footstool is to be adored for his sake, that sitteth on that stool. But now, good Reader, I beseech thee, as thou hast care of thy salvation, and dost desire to be informed of the truth concerning the adoration of this Sacrament, to ponder well these words, Ad terram quamlibet cum te inclinas atque prosternis. when thou bowest or layest thyself prostrate before any earth. What mean these Terra quaelibet. words, Ad terram quamlibet, before any earth? Hath Christ more fleshes then one? For by earth, thou knowest, he meaneth Christ's flesh. What is it then to say, before any earth? Doubtless before any host consecrated. Doubtless before any flesh of Christ, made under the form of bread and wine. that is called any earth, not because Christ hath any more than only one body and one blood and The only one flesh of Christ is under many forms of bread. one earth, which is to be adored: but because that one earth is in many places, after the sort I said before: to wit, under many forms of bread. That is it, which S. Augustine saith: when thou bowest thee, or dost cast thyself prostrate before any flesh of Christ, in what soever Church, house, or place, in what soever altar, pix or table, where soever thou fallest down prostrate before the Sacrament of the altar: adore it, so that thou remember the flesh is to be adored for the persons sake, whose flesh it is. By this place it is invincibly proved, that it was the custom The only sense of S. of all Catholic people in S. Augustine's time to be prostrate, to August. words. bow down, and to adore the blessed Sacrament of the altar. But Prosternere. that should never have been suffered in Africa no more than now it is suffered in England: except the real substance of Christ's flesh Inclina●…. had been certainly believed of all men, to be present under the forms of bread and wine. Therefore be thou assured, as those, that now sorbid thee to adore the Sacrament of Christ's supper, do not believe the flesh of Christ to be really present under the form of bread & wine: so they, who willed all Christians under pain of sin to adore the earth & flesh which they received, before that they rec●…aued it, did undoubtedly believe the real presence of Christ's flesh under the visible forms of bread and wine. This was the faith of the first six hundred years, which dured from the Apostles time till this our days, and yet dureth in all Catholic countries. ¶ It is proved out of the Prophets, that it can be no The third Chap●…ter. idolatry to worship the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar. MAny things are to be abhorred, which are in these our days taught against the truth of the Gospel: yet never was any thing so maliciously invented, so blasphemously uttered, so foolishly maintained, as to say, that it is idolatry to worship with godly honour the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar. Idols not taken away For that saying presupposeth, external idols not to have been taken away by the coming of Christ: which is against the express word of God. It presupposeth also, that idolatry should be Idolatry maintained. maintained among Christians themselves, not only in gro●…es, hills, and corners: but even openly, in the midst of the whole Church by public doctrine, and universal practice, which never chanced, no not among the jews. And (which is most abominable of all) it presupposeth, that Christ, who came to end and overthrow all idols, and specially Christ giveth the occasion o●… id●…try. those, which were made by hand of man, now himself should give occasion, why his own people should worship bakers bread and wine of the grape, and that this idolatry should be committed by pretence of his own word: yea that it should be done unto himself in his own mysteries falsely and wickedly, if by any means Christ may be falsely adored. Can there yet a more lewd and foolish point be added to this opinion? Yea verily. They that teach the worshipping of the Sacrament of the altar to be idolatry, say: the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping, they teach also the Bishop of Rome to be Antichrist: which Antichrist is well known to impugn by all means the honour of Christ. And yet they confess, that 2. Thes. 2 both only Christ made and instituted the same Sacrament, and that the Bishop of Rome himself worshippeth the same. Thus at the length it cometh about, that Antichrist finding this great mystery made by Christ, setteth it up to be worshipped of others, and himself worshippeth the same, all together pretending the honour of Christ, and yet intending thereby (as they say) to debate his honour. Who ever saw a doctrine so evil hanging together? Antichrist (as S. Paul saith) adversatur, is an adversary, that 2. Thes. 2 Antichrist is to say, he is one that setteth himself against Christ, and advanceth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he doth sit in the temple of God, showing (or boasting) himself, as if he were God. Behold, Antichrist setteth himself The pope is not like Antichrist against Christ, and much less would he be content (as the Pope is) to call himself the vicar of Christ, or servant of his servants. Again, Antichrist is advanced above all that either by nature or by deceit of the Devil is worshipped. His pride is so great, that he will not only disdain to bow to any external idol (for that cometh of a superstitious fear and pusillanimity) but also he will not yield to God himself. When S. Paul saith, he is advanced 2. Thes. 2 above all that is called God: He meaneth above all false Gods, who are Gods by name and not in truth: As jupiter, Mars, Uenns, Minerva were. So that we are assured by the express word of God, that Antichrist shall set up no idol besides his own self. He shall say himself to be God, and shall show false signs & miracles able to deceive those wicked me●…: who disdaining the Who sh●…be deceived by An tichrist. fellowship of the known Church, and the saith of their fathers, think themselves able to plant a new faith according to the understanding which they conceive of God's word. That is the chief way for Antichrist to preua●…le, if the preaching of nine hundred years, and the saith of so many Christian countries may be despised, and consequently a new religion sought out: at the devising whereof, ye may be sure, the devil is precedent of the counsel. To come to our purpose, Antichrist is advanced by himself above all idols: therefore he shall set up no idol besides himself. And consequently if the Pope be Antichrist, he setteth not up any idol besides himself. But our adversaries confess, the Pope to The pope adoreth y● Eucharis●… set up the body and blood of Christ to be adored of all men, and himself to adore the same: herefore the Pope is not Antichrist. You will say, he may be a limb of Antichrist, although he be An objection. not Antichrist, himself. I answer, every limb of Antichrist The ●…swere. is like his head and the rest of the body, whereof he is a limb: Antichrist is he, that professeth himself an adversary to Christ, and goeth about to diminish his honour. But the Pope professeth himself to have all his whole honour of Christ, and giveth all the whole honour he can devise, to Christ. He worshippeth the Sacrament of the altar, because it is the body of Christ. He reverenceth the sign of the Cross, because it is sign of Christ. He prayeth to the Saints, which are now in heaven, because they are 1. ●…or. 12 members of Christ, being assigned, they hear his prayer in Christ their head, with whom they make one body. The limbs of An tichrist. Those are the limbs of Antichrist, who can abide neither the godly worshipping of Christ's body, nor the reverent using of his holy Cross, nor the invocation of his dear friends and members. For if that, which is done to the lest of Christ's ●…ocke, be done to himself: how much more is that honour, which is done to the Sacrament of his own body and blood; most directly done to himself? wherefore it is out of all peradventure, that to honour the Sacrament of the altar, it can be no idolatry, except Christ himself be an idol. But if Christ be God (as S. Paul saith) blessed for ever above Rom. 9 all things: then surely the honouring of his body is the worshipping of God, to whom that body is joined in o●…e person. And unreasonable is it to think, that, whereas Christ hath by the taking of his body, delivered the earth from idols, now the Sacrament of the same body should become itself the greatest idol that ever was? The kingdom of God, for the coming of the which we daily make petition in our lords prayer, is perfitly come when it is Matt. 6. The king doen of God. evident to all men, that there is but one God: who both made and ruleth all things, and who by the incarnation and passion Deut. 6. of his only begotten son redeined and saved all the elect, which 1. Tim. 2. shall be most perfitly seen at the day of general judgement. And therefore Esaias speaking of that day saith: Elevabitur dominus solus in die illa, & idola penitus conterentur. The Lord alone Esa. 2. shallbe advanced in that day, and idols shall be utterly destroyed. In the mean time they are so in part destroyed, as the kingdom of God is begun in part. For john Baptist said, the Matt. 3. Kingdom of heaven is drawn near: and Christ expressly telleth Luc. 17. the Pharisees, Ecce enim regnum Dei intra vos est. For behold the Kingdom of God is within you. And in S. Matthew Matt. 13. in main parables he showeth, the present Church gathered in his name to be the Kingdom of heaven. Contrari●…wise Babylon, The king doom of darkness. Samaria, Egypt, Edom, Tyrus, and Sydon stand in holy scripture to betoken the Kingdom of the devil, of the world, of Darkness, of heresy. Now when the Prophets will show, that the idols and false religion, which the Devil hath procured to be set up, shall be destroyed by Christ: they use to say, the idols of Babylon, or of jere. 50. Egypt shall be overthrown. In which fort jeremy saith: Tell tidings among the Gentiles, and make your voice heard: lift up a sign, cry out, cease not, but say: Babylon is taken, Bell is confounded, Merodach is overcome, His graven Gods are confounded, their i●…ls are overcome. Ezec. 30. ezechiel writeth in the person of God: I will destroy the counterfeit images, and make the idols of Memphis to cease. Micheas Mich. 1. useth the same phrase concerning Samaria: All the graven images thereof shallbe broken, And all the rewards of it shallbe Soph. 2. burned with fire. And I will bring destruction to all the idols thereof. In Sophonias it is written, that God shall bring down all the Gods of the earth. Zach. 13. Zacharie also witnesseth, that when the font (of Baptism) shallbe open to wash away the sins of juda and Jerusalem: it shall come to pass in that day (saith the Lord of hosts) I will destroy the names of idols from the earth, and they shall ●…omore be had in remembrance: and I will take away from the earth false Prophets and the unclean spirit. Psal. 9 Last of all David saith to Christ, thou haste sitten upon the D●… Devil is perished throne, who judgest righteousness: thou haste reproved the Gentiles, and the wicked is perished thou haste blotted out their Idols are the sword of the names for ever and ever, the sword of the enemy have failed, thou hast destroyed their Cities, the memory of them is lost De●…l. with the sound, and our Lord tarrieth for ever. Thus much may 〈◊〉 for showing the destruction of idols and of the power of the Devil. howbeit a great book might be made out of the holy scripture of that argument. S. Augustine confesseth: praedictum esse a Prophetis, quòd unum August. in lib. de divinatione daemonum. Deum essent culturae gentes, exterminatis dijs falsis, quos anteà colebant. That it was forspoken of the Prophets, that the nations should worship one God, the false Gods, whom they worshipped before, being cast out. Athanasius writeth thus: Vbi nominatur vel Christus vel fides Athanasius de In carnatio neverbi. eius, inde omnis idololatria depellitur, & daemonum insidiae patefiunt. Where either Christ or his faith is named, thence all idolatry is driven: and the deceitful guiles of the devils are detected and made open. Lo, the name of Christ putteth away all idolatry. I am sure, it can not be denied, but the name of Christ is and The Pap●…ts be no idolaters ever hath been among the Papists: how then are they burdened with so foul a kind of idolatry, as to worship bread & wine in stead of our maker's body and blood? S. Jerome affirmeth, Hieron. in li. 2. in Esaiam. cap. 41. Post adventum Christi omnia idola conticuisse, all idols to have holden their peace, after the coming of Christ. It is therefore so true, that all idolatry hath by the coming of Christ been removed from his Church: that lightly not so much as any heretic (how so ever he devised new spiritual fornications and idolatry) Spiritual idolatry. yet hath professed to worship any artificial idol made with the hands of man. The Manichees in deed adored the visible Son, which The Majesty's nichees idolaters we see shine, as a part of the light, wherein God dwelled: but yet it were more gross, to adore bread: sithence the Son is at the least a heavenly creature, above the reach of men, and in great admiration. But the husband man first soweth the corn, and repeth, putteth it in his 〈◊〉, the ●…llet grindeth it, & the baker Bread is not the God of the Papists. maketh it into a loaf. And is this at the length our God? Are we become so insensible, after the light of the Gospel: as to adore the work of bakers hands? Did not S. Augustine see at the least Psal. 98. the danger of this idolatry, when under pain of sinning he pronounced: that en●…ry man ought to adore any earth or flesh of Chr●…, before he did eat? Did not S. Ambrose understand this De spiri. sancto. li. 3. ca 12 idolatry, when he said: to this day we adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries? But we so many hundred years brought up in the faith of Christ are so foolish, as to adore a dead piece of bread, as our adversaries bely us. S. Chrysostom writeth, that in his time very In li. contra Gentiles. few Cities were left, where idolatry was used. And yet do all the Cities not only of Mahomete, of the Tartarians, of the ●…ores, but do all the Cities of Christendom still commit open idolatry? For, I am sure, no Protestant alive can devise any City of the Christians under the Son: where Christ's body & blood was not worshipped (as it shall appear also hereafter) under the forms of bread & wine, openly, as well in the Greek as in the Latin Churches these many hundred years together. Where was then the Church of Christ? Was our Saviour, who was promised to inherit all nations, brought to that straights: Psalm. 〈◊〉. that he had not one chapel reserved to him in all the world, where idolatry was not outwardly committed? And how committed? by pretence of his own Gospel, of his own word, of his own deed. It was Christ, that said: This is my body. It was Math. 26 he, that said: Ye believe in God, believe also in me. I and my Father joan. 14. are one thing or substance. If it be so, we must worship him: as joan. 10. we adore his Father. And his body is united to his divine person. Yea, say you, but it is not his body: but bread still, appointed An objection. to figure his body. Well Sir, he said, it is his body, and all the The answer. Church hath so far believed him: that all Christians have worshipped it for ever, as being his true body. That faith of theirs 1. Co. 15. joined with those words of Christ prove to me, that it is his body, and therefore no idol. Moreover, I think myself bound, to believe the Prophets: who said, Christ should destroy the idols of the earth, which literally is by S. Athanasius, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine, and by many others expounded of external idolatry: whereby men fell down giving Godly honour to creatures. Such a worshipping, after the iucarnation external idols be destroyed. of Christ, is decayed in the whole world even among infidels: much more it ought to be decayed among the faithful. And yet, if our idolatry be any, it is external. What say we then? Is there now a days no idolatry in Christendom? Are there no false Gods worshipped? yes doubtless Outward idolatry. to many. But idolatry partly is outward, partly is inward. The outward idolatry is decayed by the outward and visible coming of Christ into the world: The inward is decayed by the faith and charity of good people. But because not all, that be outward Christians, Inward idolatry. be the true servants of God: therefore they still worship idols in their hearts. They adore money, for the desire where of Gal. 5. they sell benefices and cure of souls without fear, and are content Eph. 5. to rob even Churches and monasteries: although they think well enough both of Priests and Monks, as they use to say. These inward idols be not taken away, but where Christ is inwardly professed. And for as much as likewise the outward idols be taken away, where Christ is outwardly professed: it can not be, that those, who bear the name of Catholics and Christians, should adore by common consent any outward idol. Is there then no outward idol at all? Nove surely made with the hands of men among Christians. But yet there lack not invisible idols made by the wit of men, whereof S. Cyprian speaketh in this wise. Christi adventu detectus ac prostratus inimicus, videns idola Cypria. de unitate Ecclesiae. derelicta, & caet. The enemy detected and thrown down by the coming of Christ, seeing the idols forsaken, and his seats and Temples left void through the great multitude of believers, devised Idols forsaken. a new guile: that under the very title of Christ's name he may deceive the unwary. He hath found heresies and schisms: Heresies and schisms are the idols after Christ's coming. whereby he might overthrow faith, corrupt truth, and cut of unity. Lo, the heresies and the schisms are the idols, that be invented since the coming of Christ. If you will know a true mark of an idolater: note him that divideth unity, that maketh parts, that goeth from agreement. Fifty years passed there was but one body of the whole West Church. All worshipped one God, one Christ, one body and one The vn●…tie of our fore Fathers. blood of his. All were under one shepherd the Bishop of Rome. All spoke one tongue in public service of the West Church, all kept Luther the first idola tour of our age ann. 1517. one faith, acknowledged one truth. Luther arose, and said: The Pope was not our head. Strait unity was divided. For one withdrew himself from the rest. Ergo Luther was the first idolater. Anon after he had fellows, & a pretty flock of idolaters very visibly seen and known to dwell at Wittenberg. Within Ann. 1522 four years zuinglius divided himself, not now from the Pope, but even from Luther, and made two idols of one. After which Two idols. time the idols have been multiplied to the number of above three Three score idols score that canbe named in Germany: as it may appear in Fridericus Staphylus. And as for the Sacramentaries in England, although they The Sacramentary English idol. have received into the number of their Gods, the chief idols both Author and zuingli●…s: yet they worship the idol of Taluine above them both. For as S. Jerome saith. Sicut idola fiunt manu Hierom. in Zacha riam. ca 13. artificis: ita Haereticorum perversa doctrina, quodcunque simulaverit, vertit in idolum: & facit pro Christo adorari Antichristum. As idols be made with the hand of the craftsman, so what so ever the overthwart doctrine of Heretics cloaketh: it turneth it into an idol, and causeth antichrist to be adored in stead of Christ. As for example. Martin Luther, or john Caluine being fully determined to The framing of an Idol. break of from the rest of the Church, sit a devising, sith they are at a point, not to teach the old doctrine, what new doctrine they may teach. Then hath the Devil power upon them, for so much as they are finally agr●…ed, not to be subject to any master or preacher in the whole Church of God: no, though it were a whole general Council gathered out of all the men in the earth. For that intolerable arrogancy the Devil may rule them, as he ●…. Tim. cap. 2. list: & therefore sendeth some wicked opinion into their minds, such as he hath plenty of. They a little while pondering it, perhaps i●…dge it impossible to be admitted of men: as Luther In Epist. ad Argen toratenses. judged of the denial of the real presence, wherein he laboured a certain time, and in that case the Devil inspireth a new devise. But when they are once agreed upon that they will go forward withal: they have a strong imagination how certain that opinion is, and with an excessive pride acknowledge themselves the Prophets of God, and imagine, what glory they shall come unto among fools and mad men. Albeit they must take them for The followers of heretics. no fools, who soever will forsake the faith approved fifteen hundred years together, and follow the new blast of their trumpet. But are they, trow ye, no fools, because they think themselves none? Thus, when they have gotten a sufficient school and audience, they publish their doctrine under the name of God's word, and so er●…ct a fantastical idol. But to say that the blessed Sacrament of Christ is an idol, The Eucharist set forth only by Christ can be no Idol. seemeth necessarily to employ: that Christ iustituted an idol. which to think, it were no small idolatry. For he and noman else made or published this Sacrament, to th'end idolatry should cease: whiles we did only adore that body and blood, which is united to the Godhead in one person. But yet if our Fathers did, and we do worship wheaten bread and wine: our idolatry were more gross not only then that of the heretics, but also then that of the Gentiles. But that is utterly against the word of God, therefore we do not worship any creature at all, as wherein the honour may rest: for the honour that we give to the body and blood of Christ, which was taken of the virgin, is according to the doctrine of S. Augustine given to his holy person: In Ps. 98 who is the natural Son of God, and one substance with his Father; true God and true man. Thus we save the truth of the old Prophe●…ies, the faith of our forefathers, the propriety of Christ's words in his supper, the honour of his Church, the glory of his name: who gave no occasion of idolatry neither in word, nor in deed. ¶ The adoration of Christ's body in the Sacrament is proved out of the new Testament. The iiij. Chapter. S. Paul speaking of Sacramtal eating, saith: he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning our Lord's body. that is to say, August. in joan. tracta. 62 not putting a difference between it, and other meats. For S. Jerome, S. Augustiue, Sedulius, and Primasius expound The others in 1. Cor. 11 those words in that meaning. The difference, which is to be made between the meat of Two differences. Christ's supper, and other meats, consisteth in two points: in one, that the receiver of Christ's Sacrament must prepare him The first. self before hand, to be apt to receive the grace of God in which point Baptism, penance, holy orders and other Sacraments agree with the supper of Christ. For we may not come (being of lawful age) to any of those or such like holy mysteries, without due disposing ourselves to repentance for our sins, and to amendment of our life. The second point of the difference between Christ's supper & The second. other things is: that in the Sacrament of his supper we must examine ourselves, even for the respect of the substance of that meat, which we receive. In baptism we try ourselves not for any honour, which is due to the water: but for the obtaining of the grace, which is given in that Sacrament. But in the supper a farther difference is to be made. What is that? The very substance, which is taken, is to be honoured and adored. That is it, which S. Chryso●…ome saith: Non considerans (ut In 1. Co. Hom. 28 oportet) magnitudinem propositorum, non reputans muneris magnitudinem. He eateth unworthily, sayeth S. Chrysostom: Who considereth not, as it behoveth, the greatness of the things set forth, not weighing diligently the greatness of the gift. He speaketh not of the effect, which cometh by the Sacrament: but of the substance of the things set forth. What are they, but such as appear Bread and wine, and yet in deed be Christ himself. There fore it followeth in S. Chrysostom. If thou dost learn diligently, who is set worth. qui sit propositus, who is set before thee: thou needest to account nothing else. Behold, the person and substance set forth is to be considered only, Nullius alterius indigebis ratione: Thou shalt need make no account of any thing else. For out of that substance, which standeth before thee, cometh the grace and all other effects of worthy eating: as if he said, provide to receive worthily the person set forth to thee under the forms of bread: and thou mayest be secure. So that the difference properly belonging to Christ's supper is, to make a difference of this substance from all other substances. That is the difference, whereof S. Ambrose saith: He that will receive worthily this meat, must judge, that he Ambros. is the Lord whose blood he drinketh in a mystery. What other 1. Cor. 11 meaning can these words have, but that he must judge himself to drink not wine, but blood: not the blood of an earthly man, but his blood, who is God also. and that he drinketh his blood in a mystery, to wit, not in his own form: but under the form of wine, for he speaketh of Sacramental drinking, & of that which is taken by mouth. Therefore the very substance, which he drinketh, must be dissevered from all other creatures. Now, I say, he that is willed so to judge of the substance of this Sacrament, as the substance of him, who is God, aught to be judged of: he is willed to adore the substance of this Sacrament, 〈◊〉. sith his substance ought to be adored, who is God. For, as In 1. cor. hom. 24▪ Ipsa mē●…a. S. Chrysostom saith: the very table (to wit, the very meat standing upon the table) is the strength o●… our soul●…, the sinews of the mind, the bond of confidence, our foundation, hope, health, light, life Thus to judge o●… this Sacrament, & by adoring it with true love, in it to adore God, that is to adore not only in spirit & figures, as the Jews did adore: but also to 〈◊〉 in spirit and truth, as Christ joan. 4. said we should do, because our Sacraments conteme the truth, which they signi●…ied: ●…ot only signifying our Saviour (as the old Sacraments did) but also giving salvation, as S. Augusti doth witness. And for as much as the Sacrament of the body and blood of In Psal. 7●…. Christ is the Sacrifice of the new ●…aw, willed by him to be made Luc. 22. for the rem●…brance of his death: we must both in our spirit and in the truth of natural conjunction be v●…ted and made one with the substance thereof, and also in the truth of Christ's flesh externally cons●…crated adore God, offering him that reasonable and divine sacrifice: to the end we may render and pay the worship of thanksgiving due for our redemption, in none other substance then in the same, which redeemed us. For as it is nostrum holocaustum, Cypr. de coena do min. our sacrifice wholly burnt by death of the Cross: so is it nostra hostia pacifica, our sacrifice, wherewith we both give thanks for peace made between God and us, and also apply to ourselves the fruits of that one burnt offerin●… & truce made Heb. 10. upon the Cross: which was & is the propitiation for our sins, 1. joan. 2. and for the sins of the whole world. This kind of adoration proper to the new testament, is due to God of our behalf, by the Sacrament and sacrifice of Christ's body and blood. And herein stan●…eth all that, which the Apostle 1. Cor. 11 speaketh of worthy or unworthy receiving: if the true substance of this Sacrament be uprightly esteemed, and both outwardly and inwardly honoured. And so doth S. Augustine expound the Apostles mind, as now it shall appear. januarius had asked, what S. Augustine thought concerning holy days, fasting days, or such like customs of the Church: which are diversly kept in diverse countries. Among other questions it was also moved, what were to be more approved: whether to receive daily the Sacrament of the altar, or else to abstain Aug. in epist. 118 Sacramen tum honorare. sometimes? To this question S. Augustine maketh answer, that neither of them both depriveth the body and blood of our Lord of honour: if each of them strive, who may honour best the most healthful Sacrament. For as well the Centurion, as Zacheus did honour our Saviour in manner by contrary means: the one by receiving Luc. 19 him with joy into his house the other by saying▪ Lord I Matth. 8. am not worthy, that thou shouldest enter under my roof. And as among the jews 〈◊〉 tasted to every man, according Sapi. 26. l. 2. Retr. cap. 20. to his own will, in the mouth of the faithful: even so it is to be judged conce●…ing the receiving that Sacrament (of the altar) into every Christians mouth. For both one man for honour's sake, dareth not take it every day: an other, for honour's sake, dareth not once to take it in any day. As Manna would no loathsomeness, so this meat will no contempt. For the Apostle for that cause saith, it to have been unworthily received of them: Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis, vendratione singulariter A worshipping singularly 〈◊〉. debita. Who did not discern this thing, or make a difference of this thing, from other meats by a worshipping singularly 〈◊〉. For strait, when he had said, he eateth and drinketh damnation to himself: he said moreover, Non diiudicans corpus domini, not discerning our Lord's body. the which appeareth suf●…iently in all that place in the first epistle to the Cori●…thians, if it be diligently marked. Thus far S. Augustine, whose words I have rehearsed the more fully: to th'intent by the whole argument the Reader might the better judge his mind. His answer in effect is: the honour of Honour●… the Sacrament is the thing chiefly to be attended: which sith it is honoured both of him, that for honour's sake doth receive, and of him, who for honour's sake doth not receive: each of them avoideth the contempt thereof, and sufficiently putteth a difference Making a 〈◊〉. between it and other meats: which difference being not put, was the cause, that some Corinthians did eat this meat unworthily. Note well, good Reader, what I shall say: for this place is marvelous notable. First S. Augustine speaketh evidently of the Sacrament of Sacrament. Christ's supper, and of Sacramental receiving. 2. He signifieth that this Sacrament must not be dishonoured No dishonouring. by any means, nor despised in mind or fact. 3. By dishonouring or despising he meaneth the omitting to give it due honour in thought or deed, so that by all means the honour thereof must not be neglected, or left undone. 〈◊〉 4. We must strive, to honour this Sacrament: but whether it be done by this or by that mean, it skilleth not, so it be honoured. 5. It is a kind of honour done to it, sometime to receive it into our mouths for honour's sake: sometime, for the same honour's sake, not to receive it. Put these two notes together, and it must needs be: that he meaneth the honouring of that thing, which is The thing in the mouth is honoured. received into our mouths. Then the honouring of the Sacrament is the honouring of that, which seemeth bread and wine. but if it were in deed the substance of bread and wine, he would never exhort us to be so careful, how to honour a mere creature, were it never so great a sign. But let us yet go forward. 6. The Sacrament, which is taken into our mouths, is also 〈◊〉 That meat. called a kind of meat, cibus ille, that meat. 7. It is that kind of meat, which the Apostle would to be separated, for honour's sake, from other meats. Diiudicare. 8. What call ye separating for honour's sake? He answereth, it was a fault, not to separate it, veneratione singulariter debita, with a worship singularly due. 9 what is a worshipping singularly due, but such a worshipping: Singular ●…orship. of which sort there is but one? For that is singular, which is alone, and which hath no fellow. 10. Such a worshipping that only is, which is due to God: for as he hath no fellow in nature, so he hath no partaker in honour and worship. Therefore the Sacrament, or that meat, which sometimes Godly ho●…our. for honour's sake we receive into our mouths, and sometimes for honour's sake we abstain from: that self same substance is to be honoured of us with a singular duty of worshipping, or with a worshipping due in a singular manner. that is to say, with godly honour. I seek not hereby to declare only, that S. Augustine is of the mind to have the Sacrament and the meat received into our mouths to be worshipped with a singular duty: but much more to show, that he affirmeth S. Paul to mean so. For the fault of the Corinthians was not, to discern this meat with a worshipping singularly due. For if they had worshipped it, as it ought to be worshipped: they would not have taken it in their mouths without they had first prepared themselves for the receiving of such a meat, so singularly to be worshipped. What figurative interpretation will now serve? Is not Sacramentum honorare, good latin? Is not the English of it, to honour the Sacrament? Is it not plainly said, cibum illum discernere à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita, to discern that meat from other meats by a worshipping singularly due? Is that a worship, which may be given to any creature, which is not united to God? The meat in the mouth must be so honoured, therefore that in the mouth is the real, substantial, natural body of Christ. The Sacrament must be honoured, therefore the substance therein contained is the body of Christ. Otherwise, shall we think, that S. Augustine, who so diligently Aug. de civi. Dei li. 10. c. 1. always disce●…eth the kind of worshipping God, shall we think: that he will have material bread to be discerned and separated from meats, by a worshipping singularly due? Did that great Clerk so little understand, what singular worship was: that he gave that name not only to holy men, or to the just Angels, but even to the unsensible creatures of bread and wine? No, no. S. Augustin never doubted, nor none of all the faithful: but that the Sacrament of the altar was to be adored with godly honour, even by the doctrine of S. Paul: because it containeth, under the forms of bread and wine, the natural substance of Christ's body and blood. It is worthy to be remembered, that S. Augustine useth in this 〈◊〉 tum. place the word Sacramentum, for the substance of Christ's flesh 〈◊〉 under the sign of bread: otherwise he would never have taught, that either the substance of material bread, or the form thereof, aught to be honoured. For honour can be given to no unreasonable creatures. If this kind of understanding the word Sacrament, be well considered: many places in S, Augustine, otherwise very hard, willbe much the easier to perceive. Last of all, what should it mean y● S. Augustine saith: the Sacrament may be honoured by our abstaining sometimes from receiving it into our mouths? It Were surely no honour done to God, if we should at any moment abstain to feed upon him in faith or spirit. Why is it then some honour to his Sacrament, not to be received in certain cases? Was it not counted a virtue in the Centurion, Matth. 8. when he said himself to be unworthy, that Christ should enter under the roof of his house? And yet the same Centurion did not refuse, to receive the effect & grace of Christ's word into his house. There is therefore a difference between the corporal coming of Christ into our house or body: and between the coming of his grace into our hearts. His grace can not come, except we first be made meet to receive it: but his body may come to our bodies, & so may condemn our souls, before that we are made meet to receive it. His grace therefore must come first to us by faith and charity, that we may thereby have power to receive worthily afterward his blessed body: lest if we receive it unworthily, we take it to our damnation. But so great preparation should not be requisite, if our bodies received none other substance beside bread and wine: for they are of base degree, then eating by faith is. But now we may sometime abstain from the Sacrament even for honour and reverence, which we bear to it: and yet we may not abstain from eating by faith or spirit. Therefore it is a worthier kind of substance, which is received in the Sacrament: then the grace is, which is the effect of spiritual eating. And seeing it should not be a worthier thing, if it were the substance of bread and wine: we may be assured, the substance of the Sacrament to be that self body, whereof the Centurion said: Lord, I am not worthy, that thou shouldest enter under my roof. It is the honour of that body, which S. Paul and S. Augustine Origen. hom. 5. in diversos evang. respect, and not the honour of bread and wine: in so much, that the faithful as well in the Greek as in the Latin Church have used alwa●…s the very same words in adoring the Sacracrament: In liturg. which the Centurion used to Christ. one prayer to one Chrys. & missal. Lord, the same reverence to the same God and man. Roman. ¶ That the Fathers of the first six hundred years after The fifth Chap●…. Christ did adore the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar. DIonysius Areopagita, scholar to S, Paul, made a prayer to the Sacrament of the Altar in these words: Sed ô tu De eccl, Hierar. cap. 3. divinum sanctumque Sacramentum, etc. but o thou divine and holy Sacrament, open and display clearly to us, as it were the veils and cloaks, wherewith through the signs of obscurities thou art covered: and fill the eyes of our understanding with such clear light, as may no more be dimmed. Thus did that ancient Father pray, not to bread and wine, ye may be sure: but to that blessed body of our Lord, which is present in the mysteries. Upon which place Pachymeres noteth, Pachyme res in his gre●…e paraphrasis. that S. Dionysius speaketh unto the Sacrament, as being a thing which hath sense and life. and that worthily. For so the great divine Gregory saith: But o passouer, that great (I say) and holy passouer. For, that our passouer, and this self holy Sacrament, our Lord jesus Christ himself is, to whom the holy man sp●…aketh. Lo, this self holy Sacrament is Christ. And as nothing in the world is our great and holy passouer, beside Christ himself: so The substance of our passo●…er & Sacram●…t is on●…o this holy Sacrament hath none other substance at all, beside the substance of jesus Christ: who covereth himself, as it were, with the veils of bread and wine. As you have heard the most direct words of S. Dionysius Christ. adoring this blessed mystery, and of Pachymeres giving the reason why he did speak unto it, as the which is Christ himself: now you shall perceive, that all the other Fathers did believe the same: in so much as all men will grant, that they must needs adore that thing, which they confessed to be either Christ, or God, or one in person with the son of God. Cyp. li. 2 epist. 3. S. ●…yprian writing of the Sacrament of Christ's supper saith: In sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est. In the sacrifice, which is Christ, only Christ must be followed. It is know●…ll well, what sacrifice we offer: how we take bread and wine, consecrating them by the words of the last supper, wherein it was said: This is my body, and this is my blood: do and make Luc. 22. this thing for the remembrance of me. This consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is our sacrifice, and Our Sacrifice. because Christ is not divided nor dieth any more, but where his body and blood is, there himself is: therefore S. Cyprian saith: Our sac●…ifice is Christ. Rom. 6. Neither doth he speak of the death and passion, where Christ was our sacrifice bloodily: but he speaketh of the s●…pper of our Lord, where we daily sacrifice Christ unbloodily. For he speaketh of the matter of consecration, which (he saith) must be wine mingled with water, and not water alone: because Christ made his own blood of wine mingled with water. Now saith S. Cyprian, In the sacrifice, which is Christ, none must be followed, but Christ. If our sacrifice be Christ, because of bread and wine which we bring forth the body and blood of Christ is made by his word: is it possible, that Christ should not be worshipped of S. ●…yprian 〈◊〉 is to be 〈◊〉. with godly honour? If Christ be so worshipped, and our sacrifice be Christ: our sacrifice must be worshipped with Godly honour. our sacrifice (I say) because the thing, that is made by consecration, is none other beside that body of Christ: which is the price of the world, and the only sacrifice for mankind. The same thing S. Ambrose De ijs qui mit. mist. c. 9 saith, even as expressie of the Sacrament, which S. Cyprian speaketh of the sacrifice. In illo Sacramento Christus est, quia corpus Christi: in that Sacrament Christ is, because it is the body Ignat. in epist. ad Rom. of Christ. To the same purpose appertain the words of S. Ignatius calling this Sacrament, the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life: which thing (saith he) is the flesh Amb. li. 6. de Sacram. c. ●… Euseb. li. 10. ca 10. of Christ the Son of God. And of S. Ambrose, calling it the nourishment of the divine substance, And of Eusebius Pamphili calling it Sacrificium Deo plenum. And again, horrorem afferentia mensae Christi sacrificia. a sacrifice full of God: and the sacrifices of the table of Christ making men to tremble and quake. Cyril. li. 3. in joan. ca 37. And of Cyrillus saying, those that receive those mysteries, to be made divinae naturae participes. Partakers of the divine nature. And again, corporaliter in nobis Christum habitare, & participatione Lib. 4. cap. 18. naturali, that by these mysteries Christ dwelleth in us corporally, and by natural partaking. And of Isychius, calling the Isych. l. 6 in cap. 22 Levit. same mysteries the bread of life, & panes mysticos & vivificantes, and mystical loaves, and those which quicken us to life everlasting. And is it to be thought, that Christ, that the bread of God, of life, the divine substance, the sacrifice full of God, which maketh men tremble & quake, that the mysteries, which cause Christ corporally to dwell in us, that the nature of God, whereof we are partakers by eating, that the Sacrament of Christ's supper, being all this: yet should not have godly honour done to it? Did all the Fathers, who wrote thus of that mystery, honour and worship it according to their own doctrine and writings? If all they and all the rest did profess that, which was upon the table of Christ, which was received at the holy communion, which dwelleth bodily in us, to be not only the flesh and blood of Christ (for those words should be eluded with figures and signs) but The God head can not be corporally ●…aten but in the Sacrament. to be the substance and nature of God (which nature is not possible to be eaten of us corporally, otherwise then as it dwelleth 〈◊〉 in the flesh of Christ, which we eat corporally in the Sacramen●…) seeing the nature and substance of God must be adored: it is not possible to imagine, but all the Father's gave Godly honour to the mysteries of Christ's holy table. But yet let us Chrys. in 1. Cor. hear a more full witness. S. Chrysostom exhorting his people to come to this Sacrament with zeal and most vehement love, Hom. 24 Hoc. writeth thus: Hoc corpus in praesepe reveriti sunt Magi, etc. The wise men (commonly called the three kings) reverenced this body in the manger, and being men without good religion, & barbarous, they worshipped it with fear and much trembling, after a long journey taken. Let us therefore, who are the citizens of heaven, at the least wise follow those barbarous men. For when they saw the manger and cottage only, and not any of those things, which thou now Id. In the altar. The Christian is better instructed. seest: they came with most great reverence & quaking. But thou seest that thing, not in the manger, but in the altar: not a woman, which might hold it in her arms: but the Priest present, and the holy Ghost copiously spread upon the sacrifice, which is set forth. Neither thou lookest barely upon the body, as they did: but thou knowest the power of it, and all the order of dispensing things. And thou art ignorant of none of those things, which were done by him: and thou hast been diligently instructed in all things. Let us be stirred up therefore, let us quake, and let us prose●…e openly a greater denotion, than those barbarous 〈◊〉 if we come barely and coldly, we jeopard our head into a more ●…ehement fire. Hitherto S. Chrysostom. If there were any other refuge left for our adversaries, they would never admit this place: they would say in words y●, which the masters of them must needs sometime think in heart. They The Sacramentaties' refuge. would say, what care we for Chrysostom? He was a man, he might err, he did err in this matter. But now they may not flee to this miserable refuge. for seeing they lack the Gospel, and the faith of Christian people for nine hundred years together, (as themselves confess: there is no place for them, to hide their head in, but only among the Fathers of the first six hundred years. For this cause they can not reject S. Chrysostom, who is one of the chief lights of the East Church. His books also they can not deny, and least of all his commentaries upon the blessed Apostle. What shift then find they to avoid this place? In truth they can find none, but they must needs pretend to say somewhat out of their common places of rhetorical figures: the use whereof they can father upon whom they list. S. Chrysostom in these words expressy teacheth as well the Note those come parisons. real presence, as the adoration of Christ upon the altar. He compareth the holy mysteries with Christ in the form and truth of a child. He compareth the altar, where upon the mysteries stand, with the manger, wherein Christ lay. He compareth our blessed Lady (which sometime held Christ in her arms) with the Priest present at the altar, who sometime handleth the holy mysteries. He compareth the three wise men (who came out of the East) with the Christian people, who come to hear Mass. He compareth the adoration and worshipping, which those three wise men used, with the adoration and worshipping, which faithful men ought to use at the time of o●…r Lords supper. He sayeth, the body of Christ to be the same in both places: but the cause of worshipping to be greater in them, who come to the holy mysteries. He saith by the body, Hoc corpus in 〈◊〉 sunt Magi, This body the wise men worshipped in the manger. which this body? surely, whereof he said before: Quando id propositum videris, dic tecum: The body set forth. propter hoc corpus non amplius terra & cinis ego sum. When thou seest it, set before (thee) say with thyself: for this body's sake I am no longer earth and ashes. Behold, he speaketh of the body, which is set before us. verily of that, which at Mass time all men see upon the altar. And again he said of the same, The body holden & ●…ten. Quod etiam nobis exhibuit, ut teneremus & manducaremus. The which also he hath given to us, that we should hold (it) and eat (it). This body then, which is put before us in the Church, which is holden and eaten, This body the wise men worshipped in the manger. If our figurative divines expound, this body, for the sign or the representing of this body, as they are wont to do: then the wise men adored in the manger the sign of Christ's body. But if they adored not the sign, but the truth: then, this body is meant (〈◊〉) this true body of Christ. And seeing S. Chrysostom sayeth, that the wise men adored this body, meaning by the pronoun (this) that, which we have in the holy mysteries: it is clear, that he putteth it for a most known and certain verity: that, we have present before the time of receiving, the real body of Christ vp●… the altar: And so have it present: that we are bound to adore it being upon the altar. Tu verò non in praesepe, sed in altari vides. Thou seest (this body) Vides. not in the manger, but on the altar. Lo, it is upon the altar, and not only comprehended by faith, but by the mean of the form of bread it is seen. 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostom bringeth four reasons, why Christian people should rather worship the body of Christ at Mass: then those wise men did worship it in that homely cottage. First, because they were not Godly men, for so S. Chrysostom doth call them, because they had not the knowledge of all true devotion and Godliness: although in that act they showed themselves Godly. But we are instructed in all true religion, & therefore should sooner worship this body of Christ, than they did. Secondly, they were Barbarous men: but S. Chrysostom spoke to 〈◊〉, who were most civil & lest Barbarous of all people in the world. So much the rather they ought to know it to be their duty, to worship the body of their maker. Thirdly the wise men saw Christ in a manger, where such things are not wont to lie, as must be reverenced & worshipped: but thou seest this body upon the altar, which is a place made for holy things to stand on. And so much the more ought we Christians, to adore the body of Christ being set before us upon the altar: then those wise men did adore it in a manger. They saw it also in the mother's arms, which was a woman: neither is any thing, which a woman holdeth & bringeth forth, wont to be worshipped with Godly honour. Seeing therefore, thou seest the priest present, who is wont to handle Godly things: it were a far more impiety for thee, not to adore Christ's body at the time of mass, when thou art assured by the word of God Luc. 22. (who said to his Apostles, & in them to all priests) do and make this thing, that the holy ghost faileth not at the consecration to work the body of Christ really present. All this considered, it is not possible for any man, that lieth not wittingly and willingly, to say, but that S. Chrysostom ●…aught and believed, the body of Christ to be really present, and that it ought to be really adored upon the altar itself, or in the In 1. Co. Hom. 24 priests hands. And therefore he saith afterward, Quod summo honore dignum est, id tibi in terra ostendam. I will show thee that in the earth, which is worthy of the highest honour. How can S. Chrysostom show any thing in earth worthy of the highest honour, beside the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine? For by that, which is worthy of highest honour, he mea●…eth expressly Christ's body: because it is The showing of Christ. the body of the Son of God. And in saying, he will show it thee, he can possibly mean none other thing, but that showing, which is by the forms of bread and wine. For if any man should require him, to show that most high thing, which he promised to show: questionless he would lead him to the altar, & there would show him, that which had been consecrated by the Priest, and he would say unto him, pointing to the mysteries: this is the body of Christ, and this is his blood. For by that means only were he able, to perform his promise of showing that thing, which is worthy of the highest honour. It followeth yet more plainly in S. Chrysostom by an other similitude. As in the palaces of kings (saith he) not the walls, not the golden roof, but the king's body sitting in the seat of majesty, is the worthiest thing of all: so is the body of Christ the The body of Che●…ste in earth. worthiest thing in heaven. quod nunc in terra videndum tibi proponitur. the which (body of Christ) is now set forth to thee in earth to be seen. Good Lord, what can be required more of the greatest papist in Europe, then S. Chrysostom saith? Again yet it followeth: I show thee not Angels, not Archangels, not the heavens, not the heavens of the heavens: but I The Lord she 〈◊〉. show thee, the Lord of all these things. S. Chrysostom saith, he showeth the Lord, & that in earth, & upon the altar: & yet is there a figure to escape his most evident words? In faith & truth by such figures they may defend, that I also am of their opinion: but 〈◊〉 wise men such wily shifts will not prevail. There is noman alive, but 〈◊〉 he will cō●…ue the words of S. Chrysostom, as they stand in order: he must co●…se, that both he speaketh of the body of Christ really present in the Sacrament of the altar: and also teacheth, that upon the very al●…ar it ought to be adored, much more justly of us Christians: than it was once adored in the manger or stable, of the three kings. Here will I detect an other shift of our Adversaries, who perceiving S. Dionysius, S. Ambrose. S. Augustme and S. Chrysostom with diverse other ancient Fathers, to be so plain in the matter of adoration, have devised to say: that those Father's A shift of the Sacr●… m●…s. attribute that unto the signs of Christ's body, which is proper to the body itself: and therefore when they speak of adoring that upon the altar, they mean, that we should adore the truth of that thing: the sign whereof standeth upon the altar. This interpretation is in deed necessarily to be made of them, who have determined not to believe the word of God, where in it is said: ●…his is my body. But I say, that interpretation is foolish, The Father's guilty of ●…dolatry. and should make all the Father's guilty of idolatry: for they preaching to the common people teach them expressly, that, which standeth after consecration upon the altar, to be the true body & blood of Christ: and therefore that it must be adored much more of us, than the visible body was adored of the wise men. If the interpretation of the Heretics should be admitted, Theodo retus dia log. 2. they might say the very same of Christ's incarnation: and so expound, what so ever is said in the Bible or in the Father's touching his flesh, to be meant of a fantastical appearing of flesh, but not of true flesh. But now let us bring against these Signifiers an other plain authority, which was by the providence of God written (as it were of purpose) to destroy this imagined and figurative adoration of the Sacrament, whereof they speak. Theodoretus disputing with an Eutychian, who would Christ Theodo retus dia log. 2. now to consist of the only nature of his deity, and not any more of the human nature, which he took of the virgin, doth reprove him by the example of the Sacrament of Christ's supper, in the which Sacrament two things are found: one, which is seen, and that is the sign of bread and wine: the other is not seen, but understanded and believed, and that is the true body and blood In substance. of Christ. That which is seen, is said to remain in his former substance, nature, and figure, and kind. In his substance, because the forms of bread and wine subsist by the power of God, and have their being now by themselves, as they had it before, in the nature of bread and wine. The same forms remain in their In nature. former nature, because they nourish no less, than the substance of the bread itself would have done, if it had remained. They remain In shape. in their former shape and kind, as being things that may be seen and touched, as they might before. Theodoretus then having said thus much for the one part of the Sacrament, cometh also to show the other part thereof. For his mind is to declare, y● as there be two kinds of things in one Encharist: so the two natures of God and man are in one person of Christ. Therefore the other nature (beside the forms of bread & wine) is the real substance of Christ's body & blood. Dial. 2. of which part thus he speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. intelliguntur autem (esse) quae facta sunt, & creduntur & adorantur, ut pote quae illa sunt, quae creduntur. The mystical signs are understanded to be those things, which they were made, and they are believed and they are adored: as being those things, which they are believed to be. Note, good Reader, that the mystical signs (which Theodoretus calleth mystica symbola) are understanded to be 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that they were made. But what? are they 〈◊〉 ●…o be that, which they are not? Nay Sy●…, that were false understanding, which falsehood can not be in the mysteries of Christ. they are then in deed that, which they are understanded to be. What is that? Theodore●…us showed a little before, that they were after consecration the body and blood of Christ. Therefore the mystical signs are understanded Made. 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 believed to be, and are adored, or ●…neled & bowed unto. But how? percase as bearing the image and signs of the body and blood of Christ? No Syr. but as being in deed the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being those things, which they are understanded and believed to be. They are adored, because they are the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being: and the word (as) meaneth As. in that place a truth of being (as if it were, verè existentia quae creduntur, being in deed things, which they are believed to be. So speaketh S. John saying of Christ, vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam joan. 1. quasi unigeniti 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 deed the only begotten of his Father. Upon which place Theophylact saith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. This Theoph. in 1. cap. joan. particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in English (as) is not a word that betokeneth a similitude or likeness: but that confirmeth and betokeneth an undoubted determination, as when we see a king coming forth with great glory, we say, that he came forth as a king: that is to say, he came forth as being in deed a king. So that by the judgement of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theophylact, that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Thedorite useth, doth betoken an undoubted being and determinate truth of that thing, whereof we speak. The holy mysteries are adored, as being those things in deed, which they are believed to be. This place is such, as can not be reasonably answered unto. For the reason of adoring or giving godly honour to the Sacrament of the altar is, because it is in deed the body of Christ, as it is believed to be. But it is believed to be the body of Christ after consecration, therefore it is adored as being the true body of Christ. For Theodorete before having confessed the mysteries to be called Dial. 2. after consecration the body and blood of Christ, when it was demanded farther: dost thou believe? that thou receivest the body and blood of Christ: he answered to that question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ita credo. I do believe so. Now therefore he affirmeth those mystical The be●…. signs to be in deed, after consecration, the body and b●…ood of Christ: which they are believed to be, and so believed, that they are received of us. Every word must be weighed, because we have to do with Heretics, who must find shifts, or else their deceit will appear to all the world. First therefore let it be marked, that after consecration the mysteries are called the body and blood. Secondly, that the mysteries are understanded to be the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly, that they are made so. Fourthly, they are believed to be so. Fi●…tly, they are adored, for that they are in deed those things, which they are believed to be. And last of all they are received. The first saying, the second, and the last, the Sacramentaries can bear ●…ithall: to wit, that they are called the body and blood, and are understanded to be the body and blood, and that the body and blood are receaned. For they would have them called so, and not be so: thereby making the namer of them a myssecaller, as one that calleth them by a wrong name. Secondly, they would have them understanded to be the body and blood, and yet not to be so: thereby showing, that they delight in false understandings: for no good men would have a thing understanded to be that, which in deed it is not. Again they would, the body & blood to be received. How trow you? In the faith of the man, but not in the truth of the body, thereby declaring: that they divide faith from truth, as men that have a presuasion of things, that in deed be not so. But to calling, understanding and receiving Theodoret joineth also believing, adoring and being. And the bele●…e which he speaketh of, is not referred to heaven: but unto the holy mysteries. They are believed, they are adored: as being those things which they are believed to be. The thing that is called or named Christ's body & blood, is in deed that thing which it is called. Christ can missename nothing at al. For if he should call that, which were before air, water, or earth, by the names, of fire, stones, or bread: air, earth and water would sooner cease to be, & fire, bread, stones, would come in their place, then God should call any creature by a wrong name. He called bread his body, therefore bread is understanded to be made the body of Christ. You say, the understanding of man taketh his beginning UnderstāDing. of senses., which tell me, it is bread. I say, in matters Se●…ses. belonging to faith, my understanding is informed by God's Faith. word: which telleth me, it is the body of Christ: and Theodorete God's word. saith, it is believed so to be, and it is worshipped, for that it is so. And he giveth the same very word of worshipping to the holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. mysteries, the which in the same sentence he giveth to the immortal body of Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father. And no wonder. For seeing it is one body, whether it be worshipped in heaven, or upon the altar: one worship is always due to it. Thus we have witnessed by Theodoretus, that the holy mysteries of Christ are worshipped and adored: not as the signs of his body and blood, but as being in deed his body and blood. Therefore worship is not given to them, as to images which represent a thing absent: but as to mystical signs, which really contain the truth represented by them. ¶ The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is The sixth Chapter. proved by the custom of the Priests and people of the first six hundred years. FRom the Apostles time to this day, the very same holy mysteries, which were consecrated by the Priest upon the altar, were adored of the saithful people: which thing is evidently proved out of the mass-book of the primitive Church. For the Liturgies or Massesbookes of S. james the Apostle, of james. S, Clement Bishop of Rome, of S. basil Bishop of Caesarea, of Clement. S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople, and the exposition Basil. which both S. Dionysius Bishop of Athens & of Paris, Cyrillus Chrysostom. Bishop of Jerusalem, Germanus Bishop of Constantinopl●…, Dionysius. Maximus the monk, and divers others have made upon the holy mysteries, do all with one accord teach and confirm: that first Cyrillus Germanus. the Deacon said, Let us be attended with the fear of God and with reverence. And strait thereupon (even before the time of receiving Maximus. the body and blood of Christ) the Bishop or Priest, who said Mass, holding and lifting up the consecrated host, said with a loud voice: Sancta sanctis. the holy things for holy men. The quere and people answered, unus sanctus, unus dominus, unus jesus Christus in gloria dei patris cum Spiritu sancto, Amen. one holy, one Lord, one jesus Christ in the glory o●… God the Father with the holy Ghost, Amen. The Priest by lifting up the holy consecrated host, pro●…oketh the people to adore and receive the body of Christ under the form of bread, saying (as it were) cyril li. 12. in joan. cap. 50. These holy things are not for profane sinners, or those, who are not baptised, but for holy Christians: whereby the Priest meaneth, aswell to show, where the holy things be that he speaketh of, as for whom they be. verily they are those, which he hath in his hands, which he lifteth up, and showeth to them. Which I do so much the more earnestly press upon, because now a days the Sacramentaries would make us believe: that the holy things, which must be adored to sanctisy us, and which must be adored, be still in heaven, and not upon the altar under the form of bread. Why doth then the Priest hold up the sanctified host, & cry, holy Sancta. things: if those▪ which he showeth, be not the holy things? Why doth he add, holy things for holy men: if those men, that be holy, shall not content themselves with those holy things: but must look for a new supper from heaven at the same time? But the people of the primative Church well knowing the things that were showed to be the most holy of all holies (because they are the body & blood of Christ) yet will not acknowledge themselves to be holy: and therefore do answer, that there is one holy, and he their Lord jesus: which words Cyrillus of Jerusalem expoundeth thus: Sacerdos dicit, Sancta sanctis. Sancta scilicet ea, quae in ara proposita cyril. in catech. mystag. sunt, adventu Spiritus sancti sanctificata: Sancti & vos cum sitis, sancto spiritu donati, atque ita sancta sanctis conveniunt. Vos deinde respondetis, unus sanctus, etc. 5. The Priest saith: holy things for holy men. verily the holy The holy things. things are those, which are set forth in the altar, consecrated by the coming of the holy Ghost. And seeing ye are holy endued with the holy Ghost: by that means holy things are meet for holy men. But afterward ye answer, one holy, one Lord jesus Christ. In deed he al●…ne is holy, as who is holy by nature. For although ye are holy, yet ye are not holy by nature: but by partaking, by exercise and by prayer. Behold, the holy things ●…re not only in heaven, but also upon the altar. S. Chrysostom saith: Cûm dicit Sancta sanctis, hoc dicit: Ad pop. Antioch. 51. Si quis non est sanctus, non accedat. When he saith, holy things for the holy, he meaneth this thing: If any man be not holy, let him not come. And in an other place, Consydera quaeso. Mensa regalis est apposita, Angeli mensae ministrantes, ipse rex adest, & cae. 61. ad po. Antioch. Mark, I pray you, the kingly table is set before thee, Angels minister at the table, the king himself is present: and thou standest Adora, & communica. by idle, thy garments are foul, and thou carest not. But if they are clean, then adore and receive. By conference of these places we understand, that the Priest by saying, holy things for holy men, warned: that none should come, but those, that were clean from sin. And yet those, that were holy, might not receive: before they had acknowledged and confessed by their fact and word the king to be present. The confession by words, was to answer the Priest: one holy, one Lord, jesus Christ. The confession in fact & deed, was, to bow down bodily, and to adore the holy things: which are the body and blood of Christ, and Christ himself. Adore (saith Chrysostom) and communicate: worship, and receive. The elevation of the consecrated host was made for these two purposes: that the king of glory should be worshipped under the form of bread, & received of holy men. By worshipping we con●…esse, him to be holy by nature in his Godhead and person: by communicating, we partake the fruits of his passion. Of this lifting up of the holy host Dionysius writeth: Pontifex laudatis De eccl. sacris dei operibus, ea quae divinissima suut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sacrificat vel Hierar. cap. 3. consecrat & laudata oculis subiicit per symbola quae ritè proponuntur. The Bishop having praised the holy works of God, doth offer up in sacrifice, or consecrate the most divine things: and after praise given to them, he showeth them to the eyes by means of the signs, which are duly set forth. The consecrating or offering up in sacrifice of the most divine things, doth show the real presence of the body and blood: which Consecra thing. only are the divine things, and only may be consecrated, or finally offered in the state of the new testament. The praising of them, Praising. which is made of the Bishop, doth witness: that they are not creatures without life, as they were before consecration: but such as may receive of a reasonable man praise and thanksgiving offered up to them. The showing of them declareth, that other men are provoked Showing to the like praising and honouring of them. The showing of them by means of the signs, declareth their presence not to be intellectual Signs. only, albeit the manner thereof be spiritual: but their presence to be real under the forms of bread and wine. For those are the signs, whereof Dionysius speaketh. Neither must one of these things be considered alone, without the other, as some men consider them: who suppose, they are lifted up to be only, as it were, a watcheword of lifting up our hearts to heaven: whereas they are first said to be consecrated, and then to be lifted up. If the divine things, that were consecrated, be lifted up, they be not now a sign only: but they are made the divine things themselves, and those divine things are showed to us by the signs. Things, & signs. Lo, there are divine things showed, & signs also: but the divine things being praised are showed by the signs. What is that to say, but under the signs of bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ are showed: to be praised and honoured of other men, as the Priest himself hath already praised and honoured them? The word signifying the praise of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. things Hymns. praised with an hymn: which word (hymn) is most peculiar to the things of God: for hymns are specially dedicated to God in the praise of his works. S. Basil speaking of the same matter saith: Inuocationis verba, dum ostenditur panis Eucharistiae & poculum benedictionis, quis De spiritu sancto cap. 27. sanctorum scripto nobis reliquit? which of the Saints hath left in writing to us, the words of Invocation: whiles the bread of thanks giving and the cup of blessing is sh●…wed? The word, which S. Basile useth, is such, as betokeneth showing and lifting up, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth properly betoken such a showing, as is made by listing up. It is much to be noted, y● S. Basil asketh what Saint, to wit, what Apostle or Evangelist hath left in writing to us the order of saying Mass, and the prayers, which therein we use? Non enim iis contenti sumus, quorum & caet. For we are not content with those things, whereof the Apostle or Gospel hath made mention: but both before and after we say certain other things, as having 〈◊〉. great strength about the mysteries: which are taken out of the doctrine, which is delivered without writing. The Apostle and Gospel hath only told the substantial points of the Mass: but the rest hath been left unto us (as S. Basil saith) by secret doctrine: yet by the same authority which gave us the substantial points. Well, seeing that S. basil speaking of the whole Mass, yet nameth it, ostentionem Eucharistiae, the elevation and sheing of the Ele●…ation. 〈◊〉: he giveth us to understand, the elevation to be (next unto the consecration) a most principal part of the Mass: in so much as the whole may be named by it. While the bread of the Eucharist was showed, these were and, among the Breeches, are the words of invocation: unus sanctus, The words of In●…ocation. etc. one holy, one Lord in the glory of God the Father, Amen. These words, if they did not belong to the holy things which are showed: why are they spoken at that time? why are they called the words of invocation? the words that acknowledge, so holy things to be showed and holden up, that they are the only holy, and one Lord jesus, who is in equal deity and glory with his Father. Maximus in his notes upon S. Dionysius, after some other Maxim. in scholijs Graecis in iij. places. interpretations made upon the showing of the divine mysteries resteth in this: that Dionysius meaneth, the lifting up and elevation of the one blessing (which is that of the divine bread) which the Priest lifteth up, saying: Holy things for holy men. And as it may appear by Maximus, in the primative Church the mysteries were twice showed: at the first time the divine bread alone was listed up, and before the communion, as well that divine bread as also therewithal the chalice. Germanus writeth thus, Elatio autem in altum divini corporis, In Theoria rer. repraesentatcrucis elationem & mortem in ea, & ipsam resurrectionem. The lifting up a high of the divine body, doth represent Eccles. the lifting v●… on the cross, and the death in it, and the very resurrection. After the lifting up of Christ's body and the adoration thereof, Emissen. the holy communion followed: of the which Eusebius Emissenus Hom. 5. in Pasch. writeth in this manner: Cum ad reverendum altare salutari cibo potuque reficiendus accedis, sacrum Dei tui corpus & sanguinem fide respice, honora, mirare, mente continge, cordis manu suscipe, & maximè haustu interiore assume: when thou comest to the reverend altar, to be refreshed with the healthful meat and drink: look with faith upon the holy body and blood of thy God, honour it, wonder at it, touch it with thy mind, receive it with an inward swallowing. The first thing to be noted in these words is, that he, which is desirous to receive the blessed Sacrament of Christ's body, must know where to have it. The second, how to take it: and last of all, Altar. how to use it profitably. Concerning the place Eusebius saith, when thou comest to the reverend altar, to be fed with the healthful meat and drink: Doing us to understand, that the body & blood Honour. of Christ (which only is our healthful meat and drink) standeth Hart. upon the altar, thence to be distributed to the faithful people. Concerning the manner of taking the said body, Eusebius biddeth us honour it, and wonder at it. Concerning the profitable use thereof, he biddeth us take it with our heart and mind: for if we took it with our bodies alone, we should rather take it to our damnation, then to our profit. The English homilies rehearsing this place in the second tome, have translated altar the communion: and, salutari cibo potuque Fol. 217. spiritual meats. whereas, altar is an altar: and salutare is Altar, a communion. healthful. But the brethren, who 〈◊〉 overthrown altars, were loath by naming them, to recite their own damnation. Eusebius beginneth with the altar, as the which is the ground of all the rest. Upon the altar the healthful meat is consecrated, & made ready for the faithful people. There it is looked on, not by the bodily eye (which seeth nothing beside the outward forms) but by faith: which is taught, the body and blood of Christ to be present upon the altar under those forms. There that meat is honoured, thence that is taken, which refresheth us. To that meat the receiver said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. For he that seeth the divine food lifted up unto him, and afterward speaketh these words: seeing he taketh corporally that bread into his mouth, and only in respect of that corporal receiving, saith: I am not worthy that thou should est enter: Doubtless he speaketh to the bread itself, & calleth it his Lord. For none other Lord entereth under the roof of his mouth, beside that bread. It is lifted up, to receive it, he cometh, to it he speaketh, it entereth under his roof. It is therefore a fond pretence, to say: those words were spoken to God in heaven, & not unto the holy Sacrament. Cyrillus of H●…erusalem describing yet more particularly the Catech. mystago 5. gesiures of them, who receive the holy communion, biddeth them to take the King and the body of Christ in the hollow of the right hand, saying, Amen. And to sanctify their eyes withal, using all The hand taketh the King. diligence: that no crumb thereof perish or fall away. But what needed that precept, if it were the substance of common bread? Surely, Amen. seeing no such diligence was used in Baptism, we may well No crumb may perish. perceive: that as, because that substance of water doth still remain it skilleth not where it fall: so for so much as no crumb of bread must be lost, it is not the substance of wheaten bread, which is so carefully kept. After the communion of the body Cyrillus biddeth the people Bowing. Adoring. come to the chalice of Christ's blood, bowing down, & saying in the manner of adoring and worshipping, Amen. Here the right hand receiveth the King, surely not by faith, which the hand hath not: therefore the King of glory was meant to be taken in the hand by mean of the form of bread, under which our King jesus Christ is really present. Here is bowing down and adoring at the very instant, when the holy communion is received. As therefore when we read, that the Disciples went back from the place of Christ's ascension adorantes adoring: we may well conclude, Luc. 24. that they adored Christ himself, and not only God the Father in him or by him: As again, when the Centurion said of Christ, who was coming to his house, Lord, I am not worthy, that thou should est enter under my roof, we thereby know that he spoke to Christ and called Christ his Lord, and not only God in heaven: so when we read, that the receivers of the holy communion Math. 8. did say at the time of receiving the Sacrament, Lord, I am not worthy, that thou should est enter under my roof, and that they did bow down, adore & worship at the same time: we must undoubtedly conclude, that both the Sacrament was spoken unto, and called Lord, and also bowed to, and adored. Thus I have proved the adoration of Christ's body & blood, even as it is a Sacrament, out of the Prophets, out of S. Paul, Ps. 21. 98 1. Co. 11. out of the ancient Fathers, out of the public servire of the primitive Church, and out of the custom of the faithful people. All which proofs I have applied to this end: that the body & blood of Christ should be known thereby, to be really present in that self Sacrament, which we take into our mouths. And for so much as that is so, every faithful man ought to believe most constantly the said real presence: and to detest the contrary doctrine as a most pernicious heresy. ¶ The real presence of Christ's body and blood under The seven. Chapter. the forms of bread and wine, is proved by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers. IF every man is to be credited, and aught to have authority in Every man to be left in his own 〈◊〉. his own art & faculty, if when we build, we call a Carpenter to counsel, and when we make gardens, a gardener: how much more must we esteem the holy Doctors of the Church, who are not only cunning by long labour bestowed ●…pon the science of divinity: but also have so virtuously used themselves, that they have been abundantly instructed in all knowledge, by marnailons inspirations of the holy Ghost. whose names are so great, that the very Heretics can not deny them to be holy Saints in heaven: and therefore they pretend to have the first six hundred years on their side. It is then a good sure way, to work with the advise of those ancient Fathers: whose sayings because I have particularly alleged and examined in every article and chapter of my former books (as occasion suffered) I thought good not to prosec●… them now again at large: but rather to show briefly, by what general chapters a man may be undoubtedly assured of their belief and doctrine. First, very many Fathers speaking of Christ's words or deeds, when a●…ter bread taken and thanks given, he said this is my body, allege the almighty power of God to defend the verity 〈◊〉. of those deeds and words. Therefore the same Fathers believed those words, this is my body, to be true in so wonderful a manner, as they sound at the first sight. And seeing they mean according to their most usual sound, that (this which is pointed unto (though it seem still bread) is notwithstanding the substance of Christ's body: we ought to think, that those Fathers believed the real presence of Christ's body. Otherwise, they would never have alleged his Godhead, or almighty power and omnipotency for the instituting of a figure and sign of his own body: sith for the institution of signs and figures such an authority Heb. 3. might have served, as God gave to Moses: who yet was but the servant of jesus Christ, and not almighty God. S. Ireneus: How can they be sure, the bread, whereon thanks Lib. 5. cap. 34. are given, to be the body of their Lord, & the chalice of his blood: if they say not him to be the Son of the maker of the world? S. Ireneus was so sure, that Christ through his divine power made the bread, wherein thanks were given, his own body: that if the Godhead were denied which should work that presence, no man could be sure of the presence of Christ's body: and yet he might have been sure of a figurative presence, though Moses had been the minister of the Sacrament, and not Christ. S. Cyprian: That bread which our Lord gave to the Disciples, In serm. de coena Domin. by the omnipotency of the word was made flesh. What needed omnipotency be alleged for a fact, that were not supernatural? S. Hilary speaking of the Sacrament saith: By the profession Li. 8. de Trinitat. of our Lord it is truly flesh, and truly blood. Is not this thing the truth▪ It may in deed chance not to be true to them, who deny Icsus Christ to be true God. As who should say, if his Godhead may stand, his flesh must needs be truly present. S. Basilius, to show that these words, This is my body, make In Rog. bre. quae. 172. full persuasion, allegeth out of S. john the glory or Godhead, and also the incarnation of Christ: because, except he were both true God and true man, this is my body, should not make full joan. 1. persuasion: sith, if he were not man, he should not have a body whereof those words might be verified. If he were not God, we might doubt, how he were able to make his word true: but seeing he is God and man, and said, this is my body, there is no doubt of the presence of his body. De ijs qui init. cap. 9 & lib. 4. de Sacra. c. 4. & 5. S. Ambrose: Our Lord jesus himself crieth, This is my body. he hath said, and it is made. S. Chrysostom: O miracle. He hath sitteth above & caet. And again: Let us every where give credit unto his words, specially in the mysteries. Eusebius Emissenus: Let the very power De Sace, lib. 3. of him that consecrateth, strengthen thee. S. Cyrillus of Alexandria: Seing God worketh, let us not ask Hom. 5. in Pasch. how. Damascene: We know no more, but that the word of God In joan. li. 4. ca 13 is true, strengthfull, almighty: but the manner is inscrutable. No wise man requireth us earnestly to believe the words, Lib. 4. which himself doth think to be figurative and parabolical: but cap. 14. he rather should bid us beware, that we mistake them not, as In Gen. S. Chrysostom upon those words (God repent) crieth out: Hom. 22. See a gross word. not that God repented. God forbidden: but God speaketh to us according to the custom of man. Likewise S. In joan. tractat. 4 Augustine saith in respect of those words, (john Baptist is Elias) Our Lord spoke figuratively. but S. John, saying (I Math. 17 am not Elias) answered properly. joan. 1. If now these words, This is my body, were figurative: we should have ben'e warned by the watchmen of God, to beware of them, and not require d to believe them, as now we are required. yea we are so required to believe them, that it is wonderful In Reg. brevior. q. 172. fides. to see and to consider: how earnestly the Doctors speak in that behalf. S Basilius: The certainty of our Lords words who said, This is my body, which is geu en for you: make this thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for the remembrance of me engender full persuasion. Surely figurative words can not make full persuasion. because themselves are imperfect, as lackin g their proper signification: which is the chief virtue of words, whereby they should fully inform us. for no figurative speech is so plain as a proper speech is. Epiphanius: Who so believeth not the saying to be true, as In Anco rat. sermon. himself spoke it, is fallen from grace and salvation. Cyrillus Hierosolymitatus: Seing Christ himself affirmeth so, and saith of the bread, This is my body: Who hereafter may be so Catech. bold, as to doubt? Mysta. 4 S. Ambrose: Our Lord jesus himself giveth witness unto De Sacr. lib. 4. c. 5 us, that we take his body and blood. Ought we any thing, to doubt of his fidelity and witnesbearing? S. Chrysostom: Because our Lord said, This is my body, let In Math. Hom. 83 us be entangled with no doubtfulness: but let us believe and see it with the eyes of understanding. Eusebins Emissenns: Let all doubtfulness of infidelity departed, Hom. 5. in Pasch. for so much as the author of the gift, himself also is witness of the truth. S. Cyrillus of Alexandria: Doubt not whether it be true, sith Ad Calo syrium. Christ saith manifestly, This is my body: But rather take the word of our Saviour in faith: for seeing he is the truth, he lieth not. And In joan. li. 4. c. 13. again, Let us take great advantage by the sins of other men: giving steadfast faith unto the mysteries. Let us never in so high How. matters either think or speak that word, Quomodo? How? S. Gregorius Nazianzenus: Eat the body and drink the blood ●…n orat. 4, in. Pascha. without confusion or doubt, if at the least thou art desirous of life: Neither do thou withdraw faith from the sayings, which concern the flesh. The same thing S. Hilary, Leo, Isychius, Theophylact, Paschasius and diverse others have spoken, requiring us not to doubt of the truth of this mystery, and that specially: because Christ's words make full persuasion, and take away all occasion of doubting. But if they be figurative, it is not so: for then one The doubts of Christ's words, if they be figurative. may understand this kind of figure, an other that kind. One may think it to be a Metaphor. An other, that it is Synecdoche. The third, that it is Metonymia. The fourth, that it is altogether an Allegory or parable, and without all ground of History. Others doubt not to expound, This is my body, as if it were said: in this, with this, or under this, or about this my body is. Yea from that day, wherein the proper and natural sense of those words was denied, I think never any words have been more uncertain, and more doubted of then, This is my body. Yet the Fathers were so far from this uncertainty, that they counted him an infidel and ●…allen from grace and salvation: who so did not believe them, even as Christ spoke them: To wit, even so as they sound at the first sight. If the truth of Christ's body be the real substance thereof, they that entreating of the Eucharist, affirm the truth of his flesh, must needs mean: that his substance is really present in that Sacrament, whereof they speak. S. Hilarius speaking of the holy mysteries saith: There is left Lib. 8. de Trinit. 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. Ambrose: It is the true flesh of Christ which we take. Doubt ye nothing at all (sayeth Leo) concerning the truth of De Sacr. li. 6. ca 1. Christ's body. By like he spoke to Catholics, for doubtless the De jeiunio mensis 7. serm. 6 Sacramentaries doubt so vehemently thereof: that they believe the truth of Christ's body to be only at the right hand of his Father. Isychius: He receiveth by ignorance, who knoweth not this In levit. li. 6. c. 22. to be the body and blood, according to the truth. Damascenus: The bread and wine is not the figure of Christ's De Orthod. fide. lib. 4. cap. 4. body and blood. God forbidden. But it is the self deified body of our Lord. The like assertion Theophylact, Euthymius and diverse other In. 6. Io●… In. 26. Fathers have. They that name the supper of Christ a figure, a Sacrament, or Matth. a remembrance, do not thereby exclude the true substance of Christ's flesh: but they mean to show, that it is present under the sign of an other thing, after a mystical and secret manner. S. Cyprian: The divine substance hath unspeakably infused it In serm. de coena Domini. self in the visible Sacrament. S. Hilarius: We take in deed the flesh of his body under a Lib. 8. de Trinitat. mystery. Lo, the flesh, the substance of God is present in truth, but under a sign. Ty●…illus Hierosolymitanus: Under the figure of bread the body Cateche si mystago. is given to thee. Who now knowing the Sacrament to consist of two parts, will wonder: that sometime it is named of the one, and sometime of the other. S. Augustine: The body and blood of Christ shall then be life De verbis Apost. serm. 2. to every man: if that thing, which is visibly received in the Sacrament, be in the truth itself eaten spiritually. B●…holde, there is a Uisiblye rec●…aued, spiritually e●…ten. thing in the Sacrament, and so really it is there: that it is visibly received. Therefore it is not a spiritual thing only, for no such matter is visibly received: but it is there, and thence it must be eaten spiritually, and in the truth itself: That is to say, it must not only be taken into the mouth, but into the heart also, & then it shallbe life unto the receiver. This thing so received in the Sacrament must needs be the body of Christ under the form of bread: for nothing else is to be eaten spiritually. It were to rediouse to allege all, that S. Augustine hath written in this behalf: but his other words being conferred with these, will make it plain, that whensoever he nameth it a figure: he meaneth the truth hidden under a figure, which is more shortly named a mystical figure. He that allegeth cause, why the flesh and blood of Christ is not seen in the mysteries, presupposeth (albeit an unvisible) yet a most real presence thereof. S. Ambrose saith, it is not seen in his own form: Vt nullus De Sacr. li. 4. c. 4. horror cruoris sit, & precium tamen operetur redemptionis. To th'end there may be no loathsome abhorring of raw blood, and yet that the price of our redemption may work. So that by his judgement the truth of blood is present, to work in us the effect of Christ's death: and yet the form of blood is not seen, because we should not abhor to drink it. Theophylact: Although it seem bread to us, it is changed by In 2. 6. Matth. unspeakable operation. Because we are weak, and abhor to eat raw flesh (specially the flesh of a man) and therefore it seemeth bread, but in deed it is flesh. If these words can be glossed with a figure, than I know not, what shall escape the hands of these figure Figure makers. makers. They that acknowledge a change of the substance of bread into Christ's body, must needs mean a real presence of that body, whereinto the change is made. When justinus Martyr denieth us to take the things consecrated as common bread and drink, showing also that we have In Apol. ●…. learned them to be not only sanctified in quality, but to be the flesh and blood of Christ, which is an other substance: he doth us to understand, that he meaneth them not to be after consecration the substance of common bread and wine: but to be that substance, which Christ took of his mother, when the word was made flesh. S. Cyprian showeth the bread, which our Lord gave to the De coen. Dom. Disciples, to be changed not in shape, but in nature: Therefore as the form remaineth, so the substance is changed. S. Ambrose: It is not that, which nature formed: but that, De ijs qui initiantur cap. 9 which the blessing hath consecrated. If nature formed the substance of common bread, and the words of blessing pronounced, This is my body: It is not afterward any more the substance of bread, but of Christ's body. Grace is affirmed with the denial of nature. This argument is in manner as large, as that of the real presence: but who so listeth to see more therein, let him read Gregorius Nyssenus in Oratione Catechetica, Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus in Catechesi mystagogica 4. Eusebius Emissenus, in Oratione 5. in Pascha. Isychius, in ca 6. Levitici, Theophylact, Euthymius in evangelia, Damascene li. 4. cap. 14. All that affirm the external sacrifice of Christ's body & blood, must needs teach the real presence thereof: sith that thing, which is absent, can not be externally sacrificed. S. Dionysius Areopagita saith: The Bishop excuseth himself De Eccles. Hi●… rar. ca 3. Luc. 22. for that he offereth a sacrifice above his worthiness or power, crying out decently: Thou (o Lord) sayedst, Make this thing for the remembrance of me. Heretics admit no Eucharists or offerings, saith S. Ignatius Dialo. 3. in Theodorete: because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Saviour. A man would have thought, this had been made in our time against the Sacramentaries. It agreeth to them so well: or rather they agree with the old Heretics so Libro. 1. daemon. much. Euagel. cap. 10. Eusebius Pamphili: We offer a sacrifice full of God, and dreadsull, Can. 18. and most holy. We sacrifice after a new manner, according to Li. 4. c. 32 the new Testament, a clean sacrifice or host. Li. 2 ep. 3 Concilium Nicaenum: Let us understand by faith that Lamb De civit. of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, being situated Dei. li. 17 cap. 20. in that holy table to be offered unbloodely of the Priests: and 8. that we take in deed his precious body and blood. And again: In the. 6. book. 8. the. 4. 5. 6. chap. Neither rule nor custom hath delivered: that they who have no power to offer sacrifice, should deliver the body of Christ to them 9 who offer. Hereof S. Ireneus, S. Cyprian, S. Augustine and all In the. 2. book the. 7 chap. the. 5. book the. 9 chap the rest may be readen: for it is a known matter, handled of the Father's most frequently. What shall I say, that the Fathers teach, that the Sacrament ought to be adored with Godly honour, 10 as I showed before? the. 2. book C. 5. &. the 3. book. 15. 〈◊〉. chap. That they teach, evil men to receive and to touch the body & blood of Christ, & thereby to be guilty of them, as judas was? ▪ 11. That they teach, our bodies to be nourished with Christ's Th●…. 5. b. 5. chap. flesh and blood: which can not be nourished with a thing absent? .12. That they teach, us to be naturally united to Christ: whiles The. 2. b. the. 5. chap he dwelleth corporally in us? 13. That they affirm, Christ's body to be upon the altar, upon the Chryso. holy table, in the hands, in the mouths, and the blood to be in Hom. 24 in. 1. Co. the Cup? That they give it such names, as only may agree: o the substance Cypria. de coena Domini. of Christ: calling it, salvation, light, life, Lord, Christ, an offering wholly burnt, a Sacrament which qui●…keneth and maketh 14. us live for ever? The. 1. b. c. what is the 〈◊〉 the 4. c. 12 That they teach, every man to receive the same substance, one measure, equal portion: which is true neither of spiritual nor of corporal gifts, but only of the flesh of Christ really present under 15. Cypr. de coena. the form of bread. Hieron. in. 26. That they use in showing, how it is sanctified, the verbs: creating, making, working, consecrating, representing or making Matth. 16. present, and such like: which are not verified of a matter only Augu. de civit. l. 10 cap 5. & in Ps. 39 spiritual, or absent in substance? That they speak of it covertly, saying: Norunt fideles, the faithful know, because if they should plainly declare the truth Chryso. thereof, the infidels would mock at it, as now the heretics doc. Hom. de prodit. For it is a mystery above all reason of man. which scoffing were not to be feared: if it were a mere figure. for all kinds of religion judae. have ceremonies and figures? 17. Augu. li. confess. 9 cap. 13. That they have applied it to the helping of souls departed, as being the very self substance, which ransacked hell? That they have taught, it to be the truth which hath succeeded Cyp. li. 1. in place of the old figures? Epist. 9 18. That they have used by the known truth thereof to prove, Augu. de civit. l. 17 cap. 20. that Christ had true flesh and true blood in a visible manner, & two natures in one person. against all the old Heretics? That they have so far preferred it before Baptism, and the 19 Ireneus li. 4. c. 34 other Socraments: that no crumb might be suffered to fall down, or to be lost? which was not so in the water of Baptism: Theodo retus in Dialo. for men were baptised in the running water of the flood. That the Catechumeni, who were admitted to the preaching 20. of the Ghospel (which is an excellent sign of Christ's flesh and Cyri●…us blood) yet might not see the Eucharist: because it was also the Catech. mysta. 4. truth it sel. under a sign? that no man might eat it, except he Actor. 8. were first baptised, and kept the commandments: and yet the 21. Cathechumeni had a sanctified bread also given to them, which Dionys. ●…e Eccl. was a sign of Christ, as S. Augustine doth witness. Let now Hierar. cap. 3. the discrete Reader weigh uprightly this doctrine so grounded in holy scriptures, and ancient Fathers, and he shall perceive: L. 2. c. 26 de pecc. mer. & remiss. that what soever our adversaries bring for the other side, it may prove the Sacrament to be a figure, which we deny not: but it can not disprove the real presence of Christ's body and blood under that figure, which is the thing that we stand in against them. ¶ The real presence of Christ's body is proved by the The seven. faith of the whole Church of God in all times and Chapter. ages. S. Paul disputing against them, who said that our bodies 1. Co. 15. should not arise again, hath these words: Si Christus non resurrexit, inanis est praedicatio nostra, inanis est & fides vestra. The faith of the Church can not be in vain. If Christ be not risen, our preaching is void, and your faith is in vain. The like may be said concerning the Sacrament of the altar, in which if the true substance of Christ's body be not contained, the Apostles preaching is in vain, and our faith is nothing worth. But S. Paul acccompteth it a great absurdity, that either of them both should be void or in vain: and yet prosecuting farther that argument he addeth, that if Christ be not risen, Qui domierunt in Christo, perierunt. those that have slept ●…. Co. 15. in Christ, are perished. Those I say, that have slept in Christ, that have believed in him, loved him, suffered martyrdom for him, those are perished. Right so it is, if Christ's body be not under the form of bread, all our forefathers that have slept in Christ are perished. All their faith, watching, prayer, almose deeds, all their charity, and their conslict against the devil, the world, and the flesh is lost. They were more miserable than any men. For they lived more hardly in this life, than any of our age doth, and yet all is lost. They were idolaters, they worshipped a false God, they are conde●…ned for ever. This could not S. Paul abide, this he accounted for wonderful absurd: that a man who is called to the faith and baptised in Christ, who doth his best to serve God with all his heart and thought, that he should be condemned for believing that: which all men preached, all taught, all professed. For surely the real presence All the Church believed the real presence. of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine was believed through out all the Church: in so much that Calvin, Decolampadius, Zuinglius, Luther, Wyelefe, yea Berengarius did once every of them with all their scholars believe the said real presence. For they were baptised and christened all, to be made members of that member of faithful men, all which did believe, that Christ in the Sacrament of his last supper had left to them under the forms of bread and wine his own body and blood. Whiles then they were made by baptism of that Catholic company, themselves also had the same Catholic belief. and no marnayle: sith all they being baptised when they were infants, and therefore having no actual faith of their own, must needs have only that faith which the Church had, whereof by baptism they were made members. but the whole Church East and West belened the real presence of Christ's body, so that when Beringarius Berengarius. began to say otherwise, he was reproved of all the Preachers of the age, he was condemned by three Counsels of Bishops kept at Rome and Uercels in Italy, and at Tours in France. He was impugned by Algerus, Laufrancus, Gui●…undus, and afterward Mark that Berenga rius had none to be leave his doctrine, except he changed his ol●… faith. by Rupertus, Petrus Cluniacensis, and other excellent Clerks of that tyme. The faithful Princes and people abhorred him, and to be short, no man believed his doctrine, except that he changed his old faith to take a new of Berengarius. For if any other man in the whole Church before Berengarius had openly taught or believed, that Christ was ●…ly by a figure in the Sacrament: then could not he only have been made r●…cant, nor had not been accounted the father and first open preacher of that faith. Again, if the Princes and people had been of his belief, they had surely done, as the princes and people of our time (who believe the doctrine of Berengarius) daily do. They had thrown down altars, overthrown Churches, denied all outward Priesthood, changed Bishops into superintendents, Priests into ministers, altars into tables, the chaste clergy into the vnlau●…ul marriage of ●…otaries, they had not preserved the Sacrament of the altar for sudden necessities, they had not adored the flesh of God and man under the form of bread and wine, they had not been content with one kind at the holy Like doctrine like fruits. communion, one 〈◊〉 should not have said Mass without an other to receive the communion with him, the sacrifice of the Mass had not been applied to the live and dead, monasteries, chantries chapels had not been so fast erected, and to speak briefly, all that now is misliked had been then misliked, if the princes and people of that age had thought, as Princes and people (such as now follow 〈◊〉 his doctrine) do think. For it can not be otherwise, but that the same faith will bring forth the same works: as one manner of tree bringeth forth alwaise the same manner of fruit. But if it be euident to all men, Matth. 7 that five hundred years past and upward, even to the days of Constantine the great (under whom Christ was openly worshipped) Niceph. li. 8. c. 13. Churches, monasteries, altars, chapp●…lles were built, if Priests were esteemed, the body of Christ reserved, and adored, it Masses were in use and in price every where, and said for the living and the dead: out of all controversy neither Bishops (who kept Counsels against Berengarius) neither preachers and doctors (who taught and wrote against him) neither princes and people (who did and followed the contrary effect to his doctrine) none▪ I say, of all the Christian men a●…●…ublikely professed B●…rengarius opinion: which was, to deny the real ●…ce of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar. So that only those, whom Berengarius seduced, began then B●… rius ●…cached his doctrine, not being sent of any successo●… of the A●…o stl●…s. first to think as he did. wher●…by two things are manifest, the one that Beringari●…s went from the doctrine of all the Church, and from that faith wherein he was baptised: An other, that for so doing he was a seducer and false teacher, to whom none of the Apostles successors (who for that time ruled the Church) gave any commission to preach such doctrine. And yet how could he Rom. 10. preach, if he were not sent? or how could he be sent, sith no man would authorize him to preach that doctrine, the con●…rary whereof himself believed? Therefore of such false preachers as Berengarius was, God said by the Prophet jeremy: I sent them not, jere. 23. and they ran. For if God se●…t him, he can show his commission: he can name the mean, whereby he was sent: he can bring forth, what successor of the Apostles willed him to preach that doctrine. But if he can not do so, he cometh of himself, he preacheth without authority, and consequently he is a thief, a robber, a murderer: joan. 10. and so are all those, that follow him. ●…owbeit for so much as he recanted, it may be well thought: that by penance he was reconciled to God again. And so may his followers be reconciled, if Berenga rius recanted. according to the example of their master they will repent. It was then the vni●…ersall faith of the Church before the ti●…e of Berengari●…s, that Christ's body and blood waspresent really under the forms of bread and wine. which being so, if that faith came not to them from the Apostles: who taught it them▪ If faith Rom. 10 ●…ome of hearing the word of God preached: the whole Church could not believe that, which was not preached. If it were so preached, either that preaching came by lawful co●…ission, and then joan. 20. it was of God, and the doctrine good: or else it came of private Acto. 15. 〈◊〉, and it must be showed who were those vs●…pers, that preached otherwise t●…●…ey had received. Or how is it possible, t●…t it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a private usurping, which was generally received every where? Or if those that preached the real presence, were men that went by schism or hereseie out of the Church: let the Church 1. joan. 2. and faithful company be named, whence they went. Let us go from step to step. First, six hundred years past all the known faithful on the ●…arth believed the real presence, as it appeared evidently, when Berengarius afterward began to teach otherwise. For then all preachers, & prelate's and people resisted him both in word and deed, as I showed before. Well then, those doc●…ours and preachers of six hundred years old, how came they by their belief? Had they it not of those, who were above seven hundred years past? And they again of their forefathers? May we not by that means go upward until we come to Christ▪ or where shall we stay? whether in the ninth hundred year numbering upward? how then came that self hundred age by this faith? If it had it not of the tenth hundred age, it must make a new faith: and than it must have new preachers and Apostles. But what? Did they of the tenth hundred age send any man to preach or no? If they sent none, all the faith must needs cease at once, when all preaching ceased. But if they sent also preachers, and made Bishops and consecrated Priests, as before time had been used (as it can not be denied but they did) I suppose they sent men of their own faith, and not of a contrary belief. It they did so, the preachers of the ninth hundred age must needs preach the same: that they took of their ancestors, which was the tenth hundred age. And that, which I say of the tenth hundred age, I mean likewise of the eleventh, and so upward until we come to Christ. For in every age the Bishops, who ruled the Church, sent forth preathers, and willed them always to preach the same Gospel: Galat. 1. which they had received, and in case they did otherwise, they corrected Acto. 15. them, excommunicated, and deposed them. Thus hath always the faith been preserved from hand to hand, until these our days: in so much that never no heresy was begun, but y● man was known who began it, and much more they were known, who impugned the heresy, and defended the truth. For as it may appear by S. Paul, heresies must be, to th'end those that are tried 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 and perfit, may be known. For in all divisions and schisms the one part beginneth a new trouble, the other maintaineth the old order & custom, & he that tarrieth in vuitie is a tried faithful man. But, as I said, he that beginneth the heresy, is known, and the place where he preached it, and the Bishop or Patriarch is known who reproved it, and the assemble known, where it was cons●…ted, and the scholars known, who ●…ainteined the heresy. And above all the Churches are most openly known, from which ●…he heret●…ke departed. When Val●…ntinus began, it could be said to him: thou goest from the known doctrine of the Roman Ireneus de haeres. lib. 3. c. 3. Church, of the Corinthian Church, of the Ephesian Church, and so forth. Let it then be showed of the Sacramentaries, when that heresy of the real presence began: which was so rive a hundr●…d years before Berengari●…s published his new doctrine. Let them show, where those Churches remained, from which they depar●…d: who taught the real presence▪ Let one Bishop be named in the A large scope to detect an heresy. whole earth, who before that time reproved the teachers of the real presence as heretics, in the seventh, eight, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth hundred age▪ The teachers of the real presence can not be schis●…atiks. What shall I say more i●… so plain a matter▪ They have lost their faith, their memory, their understanding, their common sense: that will have the teachers of the real presence to be schisma tiks, or false preachers, or misbelievers: who can neither show when they began, nor whence they departed, nor where, nor of whom they were reproved. If we be no schisinatikes, who teach and believe the real presence: they must needs be schismatics & misbelievers, who teach the contrary. Yea but, say they, ye are gone from the Apostles, & An objection. from the ancient Fathers. For thus generally they would entangle the matter. But seeing to be accused of the schism, it is more The answer. grievous, then to be accused of treason: let us sce, whether it were An exam●…. enough in a judgement of treason, to say to a man of our age: you have denied your obedience to the king, and yet could name no king, whom the pa●…ie had disobeyed. Would not the party accused say: name the king whom I have disobeyed? Marry (saith the accuser) you have disobeyed William Conqueror, & Const●… tine the great. Would not the party accused answer▪ Why sir, I lived not with them, nor under them: and therefore I could not departed from their obedience. No but (saith the accuser) thou art the son of him, that disobeyed William Conquero●…. The other answereth: No sir not so. My fathers also were obedient always to the kings, under whom they lived, and kept their laws from time to tyme. If now the accuser could go no farther, what should the judges do, I pray you? should they condemn the party accused of treason? ●…ight so we are accused of schism. but from whom did we We are neither heretics nor the sons of heretics. departed? from the Apostles? Ue live not under them. Well, but we are the sons of them, who departed from the Apostles. May surely. For all our fathers obeyed always the successors of the Apostles, and kept all their laws, and traditions. What say ye now? 〈◊〉 ye bring forth any of our forefathers, who disobeyed the prelates, which lived in their time? Yea but you go from the doctrine, from the writings, from the preaching of the Apostles, If we do so, either we now first begin to do so: or else it must be showed, when our forefathers began to do so. For we keep the preaching, the doctrine, the Gospel, which we received: and we preach it as we received it. We 1. Tim. 6. find, that S. Paul said to Timothe: Depositum custodi, keep that which was committed to thee. We find, This is my body, four times written, with many circumstances, which import a real prosence. Beside, we have always from the Apostles time taken the understanding of those words to be: that, this is the very substance of my body. In so much that our forefathers have always adored it, and called it a sacrifice for the living and for the dead. In this faith we were borne, in this we live, and exc●…pt ye show when and how we went from an other Gospel, or an other faith: we can be no schismatics. Yea but S. Augustine, say you, and men of his time did otherwi●… S. Augustine is not agai●… us. ex●…ound the Gospel. No sir. that can not be so: for then the preachers whom S. Augu●…ine and other 〈◊〉 fellow bishops sent forth; would not have deliuer●…d to our ancestors this belief. Either show, when we or our forefathers renosiced the communion of S. Augustine: or believe no longer that blessed man, who teacheth even as we believe: And so he delivered to his successors, and they to us. Yea but his books have contrary doctrine. No verily nor his, nor any man's else, that is elder the●… Berengarius: al●…eit Bertram perhaps disposed himself to miscredit Bertra●… suspect●…d. somewhat, which yet he could not determine, nor hath not plainly uttered. But as we keep the faith preached by S. Augustine, so we keep and reverence his books, and know what they mean. But if they did speak any thing against the univer In epist. fundamenti. c. 5. 〈◊〉. 19 ●…all saith, himself hath in many places declared, that he would us not to believe them. Therefore in this behalf, we are clear, as who never departed from the Apostles, nor from their 〈◊〉▪ But your departing is known. I 〈◊〉 that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berengarius about the year of our Lord. 1000 I can tell when 1000 〈◊〉 renewed the same heresy, when Luther, when Zwinglius 1400. began. Who knoweth not where the Churches are, whence they 1517. 1522. dep●…rted? To wit, in Italy, in France, in Spain, in Germany, & so forth. I can tell the Counsels wherein it hath been condemned. At 〈◊〉, at Uercels, at Tours, in the great Council of Lateran, at ●…iemia in Feance, at basil, at Constance, at Florence, at Trent. All things are known so manifestly concerning the begiuning and proceeding of the Sacramentaries, that they can not be denied. To couclude, our faith is 〈◊〉 by the testimony of the Church, which in all ages hath believed the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, in so much that S. Hilary saith: there is no place left of Hila. li. 8 de Trin. doubting of the verity of Christ's flesh & blood. why so? nun●… enim & ipsius Domini professione, & fide nostra, verè 〈◊〉 est; 〈◊〉 The faith of the 〈◊〉 Church. verè sanguis est▪ for now both by the profession of our Lord himself, & by our faith, it is flesh in deed and blood in deed. Lo, By our lords profession and by our faith. S. Hilary confesseth that all Christians believed, that the Sacrament of Cjro●…tes body and blood (whereof he there spoke) was his flesh in deed, and his blood in deed. for he had spoken before of the Sacrament, which be called also a mystcrie, and our Lord's meat, and the Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated to us: which Sacrament is Christ's flesh in deed, and being received maketh the same flesh naturally and corporally to dwell in us. This was not only the mind of S. Hilary, but he saith, it was Two chef 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 truth. the profession of our Lord, and the faith of the Church: which two gro●…ids are so sure, that no place of doubting is left. For the faith of the ●…hurch doth expound, declare, & witness, how Christ our Lord meant: when he said, my flesh is meat in deed. This faith can not be vain or void: for by it we overcome the world, the devil, and hell gates. By it we know the difference 1. joan. 5. between these words, This is my body: and these, I am the door, Matt. 16. the vine, the way. the rock is Christ, john Baptist is Elias, and The faith full never believed these figurative speeches. such like. For no man taught in any age, neither Christian people did at time believe: that Christ was a material door, vine or way, neither that any rock was turned into Christ, neither that John Baptist was Elias in person. Faith always did understand these propositions and such like, to be a phrase of speaking without any effect of working any farther thing. But when a lawful Priest saith upon bread at the altar, This is my body: then no faith●…ul man ever doubted, but there was wrought the body and blood of Christ. and so our fathers and great grandfathers delivered to us that belief. Certainly a surer rule to understand the word of jere. 13. God than faith is, never was heard of: for it is the life and gra●… Heb. 8 of the new testament, which the holy Ghost hath given into the whole Church of God. It is the gift of knowledge to every good believer, which directeth him to all truth. S. Augustine showing that the Manichees thought the visible Aug. in joan. tra●…. 34. son to be Christ, although he might by many means have impugned that error: yet he specially chose to say, Catholicae Ecclesiae recta fides improbat tale commentum, diabolicam doctrinam esse cognoscit credendo. The right faith of the Catholic Church disproved that fable, and knoweth it by believing to be a devilish doctrine. Even so by believing the Sacrament of the altar to be Christ's true flesh, we know the doctrine of the Sacramentaries to be a fable and an heresy. Epiphanius writing of purpose against figurative and allegorical interpretatious, giveth likewise a most clear witness of In Anco. the belief of all the Church in his time, and before him. For disputing what it is, for man to be made according to the image of God, He showeth at the last: whatsoever it be, once it is true, because God through grace hath given man that image: Though we can not tell, wherein it standeth. And for example he bringeth how Christ took at his last supper bread and wine, and when he had given thanks he said: This is my body, and this is my blood. 〈◊〉 Epiphanius nameth not these things, because the 〈◊〉 should not by his books understand our mysteries: & consequently he showeth, that the thing consecrated is not like neither to the manhood of Christ, nor to his Godhead. For it is of a shape, and (to look unto) a dead or unsensible thing: yet Christ by grace hath said, This is my body, and This is my blood. Et nemo non fidem habet sermoni. Qui ●…nim non credit esse ipsum verum, sicut Every 〈◊〉 believeth. ipse dixit: is excidit à gratia & salute. and every man believeth the saying. For who so doth not believe the saying, as himself said it: he is fallen from grace and salvation. If the word & saying be, this is my body, & this is my blood: If every man believe the saying: if he that believeth not the saying to be true, and so to be true, even as Christ spoke it, as he sounded it, as he uttered it, if he that believeth not these things, be fallen from grace and salvation: who will now believe, that this is the sign of my body, and not the truth thereof? and than he must say likewise, that in deed we are not made according to the image of God. Every man in the time of Epiphanius did believe not only the truth of Christ's body & blood in heaven, nor only the dwelling thereof in us by faith: but every man did bele●…e this self saying, this speech, and this proposition, This is my body. The saying itself is believed If this saying must be believed, it must be true: if the speech itself be true, the thing thereby signified is true. But the words do signify the substance of Christ's body (for his body is a substance) therefore it is true, that this is the substance of Christ's body. But if it be still bread, it is not so. for material bread is not the body of Christ: therefore it is so the substance of his body, that it is not bread or wine, which is the sign of his body, as the Sacramentaries teach. In this saying, This is my body, no bread is named, no sign, no figure: ●…ut only the self body of Christ which is one certain substance. Therefore all the Church in the time of Epiphanius, and always before, did believe: the thing pointed unto in those words, to be the substance of Christ's body. For how so ever it seemed unsensible (as also it is not seen, how we are made according to the image of God) yet the saying was believed, even as Christ said it, sicut ipse dixit, as himself said it, As Christ●… said it. without glozing, without additions, without figures, orparables: even as Christ spoke it, so it was believed, and believed of every man. And who so did not believe it, was reckoned a damned person, without grace, without salvation, without life everlasting. Thus have we heard two notable witnesses of the faith of the whole Church, the one a Latin, S. Hilarius: the other a Graecian, Epiphanius. But now I will bring forth not (as before) the old Fathers bearing witness of the belief of the people: but I will bring forth the whole people itself, yea the people of the primatine Church. You shall hear all the citizens of the house of God through out the world witnessing with one voice, in one word, their most constant faith touching the Sacrament of the altar. Amen is an hebrew word, which partly wisheth, and partly affirmeth, signifying as it were at once, be it so, and it is so. It Amen. signifieth be it so, when it is joined with prayers and petitions: It signifieth it is so, when it followeth any part of Christ's doctrine, which is already pronounced or affirmed. Thence we read so oft in holy scripture: Amen, amen I say unto you: which is to In the ●…iturgies. say, verily, verily. S. James the Apostle, S. justin the martyr, S. Clement, S. cyril of Hicrusalem, S. Basil, S. Ambrose, and S. Chrysostom do witness: that the people used at Mass time to answer: Amen. Which thing they did specially twice, once at the consecration as well of the body as of the blood: and again at the time of communion. At the consecration the Priest in the person of Christ pronounceth most determinately over bread: This is my body, and over wine, This is my blood. Therefore when the people answer to those blessed sayings, Amen: they affirm the same, that is affirmed, as though they said with one voice: It is verily the body of Christ, and, it is verily the blood of Christ, whereof you speak. And lest you should think this comment to be of mine making, S. Ambrose expounded the same word before me, saying: Ipse clamat Ambros. de ijs qui init. mysterijs cap. 9 dominus jesus, hoc est corpus meum, our Lord jesus himself crieth, this is my body. He calleeh the crying of our Lord, when his minister crieth so in his name. For of that crying he speaketh, as it may appear by the word following. Well: Our Lord jesus himself crieth out, this is my body. before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is named another kind, after consecration that body is signified. himself calleth it his own blood. before consecration, it is called an other thing, after consecration it is called blood. and thou sayest Amen: that is to say Amen. (as S. Ambrose himself expoundeth it) verum est, it is true. The sound of the speech is to be believed. That the mouth speaketh, let the inward mind confelse: that the speech soundeth, let the heart think. Hitherto, S. Ambrose, who would not bid the people think that, which the speech soundeth: if the speech were figurative. for a figurative speech soundeth otherwise, than we ought to think thereof: as when we say, God is sorry, Christ is made sin, the rock is Christ. As it was the custom of the primative Church for the people to say Amen, strait upon the consecration of the body and blood, whereby they showed themselves to believe the words of Christ, and the work of the Priest: even so was it also the custom, Clemens Apostol. that when the time of communion came (as S. Clement, and di●…erse others do witness) the Bishop should give the oblation cons ●… 8. cap. 20. to the people, saying▪ Corpus Christi, the body of Christ: and he that took it, should say, Amen, it is true, And the Deacon when he delivered Cyrillus Catech. the chalice, did say: sanguis Christi, calix vitae▪ the blood of Christ, 4. Ambr. the chalice of life, & he that drank said Amen, so it is, or that is true. de Sacr. li. 4. ca 5 To which custom, being in use at his time, S. Ambrose alluding writeth thus: Dicit tibi Sacerdos; corpus Christi, & tu dicis De Sa●…r. li. 4. ca 5 amen, hoc est verum: quod confitetur lingua, teneat affectus. The Priest saith to thee, the body of Christ, and thou sayest Amen, that is true: that which thy tongue confesseth, let thy heart keep. But what speak I of S. Ambrose? Would the Apostles have made all the people to cry amen to that, which had not been so, as the word did sound? Would they have made the simple men to wit●…esse their belief to such words, as needed a farther comment or interpretation? It is rather to be thought, yea to be most assuredly believed, that they ordained that custom: to th'end all men might know, that the thing consecrated upon the altar was in deed the body of Christ? S. Augustine beareth witness to the same custom saying: Aug. contra Faust. Habet magnam vocem Christi sanguis in terra, cùm eo accepto ab man.. li. 12. ca 10. omnibus gentibus respondetur, Amen. the blood of Christ hath a great voice in earth, when after it is taken, all nations answer amen. Haec est clara vox sanguinis, quam sauguis ipse exprimit ex ore fidelium eodem sanguine redemptorum. This is the clear voice of the blood, the which voice the blood itself forceth out of the mouth of the faithful being redeemed with the same blood. Leo ser. 6. de jejune. 7. mensis. Pope Leo the great agreeth with S. Clement, S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine. Sic sacrae mensae communicare debetis, & cae●…. Ye ought so to communicate of the holy table, that ye doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and blood of Christ: for the thing is taken in the mouth, which is believed in faith. And Amen, is in vain answered of them, who dispute against that The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disputed in which is received. This place declareth that some disputation was moved by some of the heresy of Manicheus (who lived in Rome against the Sacrament. Rome under Leo) against the real presence of Christ's body and blood under the form of bread. For seeing the Manichees believed not Christ to have a true body at all, they might well doubt of the truth of his body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar. But that holy Bishop biddeth the people not doubt thereof, showing that we do not eat the body of Christ only by faith, but also by mouth. Now because Leo setteth the receiving of the truth of Christ's body by mouth, against the receiving thereof Heretics are ever ready, to deny an external truth in Christ's works. by faith only: we may conjecture, that heretics even in those days were of the mind, that their offspring is now of. verily to draw as much truth from Christ's works, as may be, and to set all things upon faith, spirit, and understanding. But Leo proveth his doctrine by the general custom of the whole Church▪ wherein the people answering Amen, did in open words witness themselves to believe, that it was true, which the Priest said, concerning the body of Christ. Now because some of them, who used to say Amen, disputed whether the substance and truth of Christ's body were present in the mouths of the receivers, or no: that Shepherd of Christ's o'er su●…itur. flock saith, that if it were not his true body, and received in the mouth: it were in vain to say Amen: It is true. For seeing the Priest bringing meat unto their mouths, did say: The body of Christ: if notwithstanding it were only to be received in heart, & not in mouth also, it were in vain to say, Amen, or to answer, it is so, it is true, and yet to think in heart otherwise. To end this matter at the length: The whole Church before Berengarius believed the real presence: and they took that their belief of their ancestors from hand to hand even until we come to the Apostles, and by them to Christ. In the primative Church the Priest cried out at the altar, This is my body, and this is my blood: All the people answered, it is so: It is true. S. Ambrose biddeth them think as they speak: yea even as the word soundeth. S. Leo saith they say in vain, it is true: if they dispute against the truth thereof. And he teacheth the truth to be, that the same thing is received in the mouth, which is believed in faith. S. Hilary sayeth, No place of doubting is left, sith both by our Lord's profession, and by our faith it is verily flesh and verily blood. Epiphanius witnesseth, that every man believeth our Lords saying, wherein he said, This is my body: And who so doth not believe it even as himself spoke it, he is fallen from grac●… and salvation. Seeing all these things do evidently prove the faith of the whole Church to have been, that Christ's body and blood was really present in the Sacrament of the altar, and really received into the mouths of the faithful people: it remaineth that thos●…, who have been deceived in this behalf, do return agai●…e to their former belief: and that, as well in all other points as i●… this, 1. Tim. 3. they do for ever believe the Catholic Church, the pillar of truth: Knowing for surety, that it can not be a Catholi●…e doctrine, which is begun in our age, or any time after th●… preaching of the Apostles, and that specially, when it is con●…rary to the faith always preached and believed. ¶ That no man possibly can be condemned, for believing The ix. the body of Christ to be really present in the Sacrament Chapter. of the altar. WHen Christ had almost ended his talk at Capharnaum, and showed his words to be spirit and life, perceiving all the fault, why the jews thought his sayings so absurd, to be, for so much as they esteemed him no more than a natural man, weighing his doctrine by their senses & earthily reason: he for declaration of their incurable disease, & joan. 6. for the detection of the cause thereof, said: Sed sunt quidam ex vobis, qui non credunt. But there are some of you, who believe not. belief is the chief thing. For jesus knew from the beginning, who they where which believed not. Here we may see the chief fault in all matter and question of the supper of Christ to consist in not believing. He that believeth, is safe: but woe to him, that believeth not. S. Peter believeth, and confesseth Christ to have the words of everlasting life. judas believeth not, and therefore he is called a The almighty power of Christ. devil. The chief point of Christian belief is, to acknowledge Christ to be God, to be almighty, to be able to make and to do what soever pleaseth him. This point he lacketh, who so denieth Christ to be able to make the substance of his own body present in diverse places at once, under diverse forms of bread and wine. If ●…herefore any man will not believe this, he may be assured his portio●… De pass. is rekned with judas, who (as Leo hath witnessed) believed Domin. serm. 1. not th●… almighty power and Godhead of Christ. But if all men agree 〈◊〉 this point, it is very well: then let us pass to the next. Christ said▪ The bread which I will give, is my flesh the which The will of Christ I will give for t●…e life of the world. Now are we come from the power of Chest, to the will of Christ. We all were agreed, that he was able to make the substance of his body present under diverse forms of bread, and wine. Now these words affirm, that he will give a kind of bread: the substance whereo●… is his own flesh, even that flesh, the which he will give for the life of the world. And if we go to his last supper, we see bread taken, and after blessing and thanks given, he said, This is my body which is given for you. And he gave his twelve disciples twelve fragments or pieces bidding every one of them, take, and eat: in which The deed of Christ deed he showeth himself to make the substance of his body present under the forms of bread in diverse places at one time, although not after the manner of local situation: because his body hath not in the Sacrament actually that natural dimention and occupying of place, which it hath otherwise. But as he hath ordained it to be: so is it under twelve diverse forms of bread. Here I am sure many will stand with me and say they believe The 〈◊〉 of belief. not so, to whom I answer: that by so saying they have condemned themselves to be of those, of whom Christ said, there are some of you who believe not. For if Christ said by the which was bread before his blessing, which still seemed bread, if Christ said thereof this is my body, & gave it under twelve pieces or forms: seeing they confess him to be able to make his body present under diverse forms, and to have promised to give his flesh, and to have said, this is my body, and to have given it to twelve: how can they deny that his body was present at that supper under twelve diverse forms of bread, being whole and all under each form? The confessing of that which Christ said, is a thing that appertaineth unto faith, because the speaker is God, to whom all faith joan. 14. belongeth. To believe this that God saith, must needs be a virtue: An objection. and to discredit it, is a great vice. You will perhaps allege, that flesh profiteth nothing, the words of Christ are spirit and life▪ The answer. that is true, & therefore I believe, that when he said: take, eat this Gen. 1. is my body, he gave his body not without life & spirit: but yet as really, as ever, by saying, Let the light be made, he made the light. for his words be not dead flesh (which profiteth nothing) but quicken and give life, how, and when so ever it pleaseth him, much better: then the spirit and soul of man is able to quicken & make lively the body wherein it is. These two sayings, this is my body, and, my words are spirit and life, stand so well together, that I believe the one for the others sake. Christ's words never lack spirit and life and power to quicken other things, even as his flesh never lacked all kind of spirit in itself: for when the soul was out of it, yet the godhead remained & corporally Colos. 2. dwelled in it, and the soul returned to it again the third day. Therefore when Christ saith, This is my body which is given for you, I am bound to believe, that his body is neither without soul, nor godhead: for else it were not truly said, it is given for us, if it were not profitable to us. Thus you see, that I believe all that words of Christ together, and that you not doing so, are (without ye do repeut) certain to be condemned, for not believing these words: take, eat, This is my body. You will say, ye believe these An objection. words, yet not carnally, but spiritually: as it is meet for Christ's words to be believed. O sir, he that assigneth a mean, how he The aun●…wer. will believe Christ's words, in that very fault showeth himself not to believe them: for belief inventeth nothing of his own, but followeth the authority of God that speaketh. I believe in deed, that Christ's words can not be carnal, as you take carnal words for foul and gross meanings. But I see it to be a very clean and pure meaning, that the most pure substance of the flesh of Christ, should he given under the form of bread, to th'end it may be eaten of us: and the chief and cleanest thing that we use to eat, is bread. To give therefore the chief and most healthful flesh in the world, to be eaten under the form of the purest eatable thing, is a very pure and clean work far from all carnality. You will say, it is more pure, if it be rather believed to be eaten An objection. only of the heart of man by faith & spirit, then by mouth and body. I answer, that is no pure eating of a corporal thing, which taketh away the truth of corporal eating. Again both ways The answer. of eating are better, than one of them alone. I believe his real flesh to be eaten with heart and mouth, to be eaten with body & mind, to be eaten in deed, and in faith. Here faileth your belief, because of two true things you believe but one, the other you discredit. To be short, let us imagine him that believeth the real presence of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, to stand before the seat of Christ's judgement, and that Christ asketh him, why he did believe and worship his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. May he not well answer in this wise? I believed so and did so, 1. The belief of a Catholic. because your majesty taking bread and having blessed, doubted not so say, This is my body: which words all my forefathers understood to be spoken properly, and to be true as they sounded: & therefore at the commandment of my prelates I adored your body under the form of bread. If Christ reply that he had preachers 2. who taught him otherwise, and cried to him to beware, lest he committed idolatry: first that obiecti●… might not be made to any man that died above fifty years past, because no preacher taught publicly any such doctrine. Secondly, if so much were said to one of our time, he might answer that he had 〈◊〉 forefathers, 3. and more preachers, and those much more ancient, and more honest men: who required him to believe Christ's words, and to worship the body of his maker. Well, now we are come to the point: all the Catholics have prea●…hed with one accord, that it is the true body of Christ, and the Gospel witnesseth that Christ 〈◊〉, This is my body. Here is the word of God, and the tradition, and preaching of man joined together. I ask whether it be possible for Christ, who requireth nothing Marc. 16 so earnestly of us, as brief●…, to 〈◊〉 that simple man: who (being otherwise of good 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 his word and his forefa●…, and the preachers agreeable with both, or not Answer me, for what fault shall this poor man be condemned? First, to believe Christ, it is no fault. Secondly, Christ said: this 1. is my body. Thirdly, he, being yet an infant, was of his parents 2. taught: that to be the body of Christ, which was holden over 3. the Priest's head. Fourthly, as many and more preach unto him 4. when he cometh to lawful age, and say this is the body of Christ, as there are that a●…terward preach the contrary. Tell me then, what was his fault, for which he may be condemned? If you say, his eyes told him, it was not the body of Christ: he will answer, that for the reverence he bore to the word of God, he denied the Chrys. ●…om. 83. in Matt. fensible instruction of his eyes, as giving more credit to Christ, then to himself. Is that a fault? If you reply, that by that mea●…es he might have worshipped the ro●… in ste●…de of Christ: he will answer, he knoweth not what you mean, he never had any rock showed him by most grave authority, which was said to be Christ. If any such thing had been taught him, he for his part was so obedient to believe, so willing to adore Christ: that he would have done any thing, which had been commanded to him under the name of Christ, or of his religion. Is this a fault, why the poor man should be condemned? No surely, seeing the Prophet David saith, Vt iumentum factus sum apud te: I am become as it were Psal. 72. a beast before thee. It is ●…andable (saith Euthymius) that in the sight of God, we Euthy. in Psal. take ourselves as beasts: which being so, I can devise no fault in this poor and simple man. who if he be deceived, he is deceived by Christ, by his forefathers, by diverse Catholic and virtuous Preachers, by the virtue of humility, of obedience, & of pure love towards God. But on the other side, if Christ call one of them before him, who denieth his real presence, & ask him why he did not believe the Sacrament of the altar to be the body of Christ: what will he answer for himself▪ Will he say? Sir I bele●…ed your body to sit at the right hand The protestants 〈◊〉. of God, the Father, and therefore that your body was not in the priests hand? Why then thinkest thou, that I am not able to make the same, which is at the right hand of my father, to be als●… present under the form of bread? Sir whether you be able or no, I can not say, but I have hard many preachers tell, that one body can not be at one time in diverse places. O how dreadfully would Christ answer in this case? Did not those preachers, whom thou pretendest to follow, say always: they preached to thee the sincere word of God? Did they not by that colour overthrow monasteries, Churches, altars, images of Saints, and mine own image and cros●…e? Did they not deny the sacrifice of the Mass, praying for the dead, and such like ancient usages, only for pretence of the word of God? And now see, how inexcusable they & thou art. I said, Take, eat, this is my body. I said this to twelve men, I gave each of them my body, & ●…ad them make that thing, as it is written in the Gospel. I showed at 〈◊〉, that I was signed of my Father, and equal with him in power. they joan. 6. themselves believe that I made all creatures, places, times, of nothing: and now is it doubted how I am able to make my body present under the ●…orm of bread in diverse places? Yea to maintain the better that argument against my almighty power, they say, I entered not into my disciples, the doors being joan. 20. shut: But either prevented the shutting of them contrary to the words of my Gospel, or came in by the window (as thieves do) or by some hole (as creepers do) yea any thing is sooner believed then my divine strength and working. Thou hypocrite, seeing the word of God hath it written four times in the new testament, This is my body: how comest thou to talk with me of my 〈◊〉 in heaven, as though one of my works were contrary to the other. If in deed thou hadst been humbly persuaded, that I were God, thou wouldst not measure my almighty power by thy simple wit. Thou art twice condemned: first, for denial of a truth, and again for denying it against my express word: which thou pretendest to es●…e, and yet pronouncest it false. If the poor m●…n say, he knew not so much, nor saw not the falsehood of that argument, and begin to accuse the false preachers who deceiu●…d him: Christ may well say, that he was not deceived. for before those false preachers began their false doctrine, he had said, This is my body, and this is my blood, and all the world believed, and taught the r●…all presence of Christ's body & blood fourteen hundred years together. What cause now hadst thou, to believe a new Gospel, and new preachers thereof? Forsooth Sir, they said the Bishop of Rome had deceived us, and we hear say, he is a very evil man: therefore we thought he had deceived us. If in this case Christ tell him, that the Bishop of Rome were the successor of S. Luc. 22. Peter, and so his vicar, having promise by him not to err in faith: and yet that he alone taught not that doctrine, but that all the Bishops, doctors, & p●…ers of the whole Church taught the same from the beginning: and that Christ himself had say●… the same: that all the 〈◊〉, and the Apostle S. Paul had written the same: that all faithful 〈◊〉 believed the same: what excuse can he have, who 〈◊〉 Christ, the Apostles, the Bishops, the Fathers, the preachers, and the whole Church, to follow an vp●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who began his doctrine so amhitiously, and proudly, who ●…ed so evil, & died so terribly: that his very ●…ominable dealing with great Princes, his shameful 〈◊〉 and horrible death might make any good man weary to think upon him, much less should so many have followed him. To 〈◊〉 shor ●…wer the poor man for himself▪ what he may, yet he can not deny, but that both Christ said this is my body, & the Church taught the same: and yet he believed not this to be the body of Christ, and therefore is one of them, who believe not: & Hebr. 11. without faith (which is but one) there is no salvation, no pleasing of God, no part in the kingdom of heaven. Which thing if they that be alive will consider, they may return again to the Catholic Church, and so be made lively members of that body, whereof Christ is the Saviour. Hereunto is added the seventh book, containing a con▪ ●…utation of the fifth article of M. jewels Reply against D. Harding, concerning the real presence of Christ's body in the supper of our Lord. The preface of the seventh book. I●…d thought to have ended my treatise of our Lord's supper, with such matter as had b●…ne set forth in my former six books. But when I had seen M. jewels ●…eply against D. Harding, and had 〈◊〉 not only contrary doctrine to that which the Catholic Church believeth, uttered therein: but also the same uttered with such enormous misconstruing of the word of God, and with such abusing of ancient writers, that it seemed expedient to detect the falsehood thereof: I took upon me to answer specially to that article, which did unpugne the real presence of Christ's body▪ whereof I had entreated. And because I could neither well confute M. jewels ●…ply without some respect had to D. Harding'S answer, nor conveniently put both D. Hardings and M. jewels whole words in ●…ny book (which already was great enough) I was constrained to take such order, that neither all their words might be at large laid forth, nor the pith of them in any part dissembled. Wherein I have so behaved myself, that M. jewel shall have no 〈◊〉 cause to complain of me. For I have to my knowledge omitted no scripture, no authority, no argument of any force, whereunto I have not answered. As for the books of D. Harding & of M. jewel, they being extant in most men's hands, need not to be printed again by me. How fully M. jewel is answered, the discrete Reader shall judge, when he cometh to the matter. This much I will say, it was more pain to stay my pen in such abundance of stuff as the good●…es of the cause, and evil dealing of M. jewel gave me, then to 〈◊〉 at any time, what might be 〈◊〉 answered. One thing I be●…che the Reader to note most diligently, that in all this treatise M. jewel useth none other mean so co●…on to prove his intent, as to set one truth against an other: As though Christ's body could not both be in heaven visibly, and in the Sacrament miraculously: or as though because the Sa●…rament is a figure, it could not also contain the truth which it sigureth: Or because Christ is eaten by faith, his body might not be eaten also really in the Sacrament. But this thing is common to M. jewel with other of his faction. Marry to leave on't the true nominative ca●…e, and to put in a false, to leave out the 〈◊〉 word which is the key of all disputation, to convey words of his own, which the author never thought of, to mispoint & mis-english the testimonies of the fathers, to 〈◊〉 their meaning: that I can not tell whether any man hath used so much in so little a treatise, as in this one article of the real ●…sence ●…e is ●…ound to have done. Neither is it unknown to the learned, who hath seen his book, y● h●… hath used the like falsehood in that other articles also, 〈◊〉 by God's grace the world shall see or it be long. In the mean time judge. the rest by this which I shall set before thi●…e eyes. And pray unto God, that either M. jewel may see his unhonest dealing & 〈◊〉 himself, or else that his folly may be 〈◊〉 to all men, to th'intent none may perish, beside those, who will not ●…denour by all means to learn, 〈◊〉 follow and to embrace the true doctrine of Christ's Gospel and of the 〈◊〉▪ tholike Church. The chapters of the seventh Book. 1. Master jewel hath not answered D. H●…rding well, touching the words of Christ's supper. 2. That the supper of Christ is a naked & bare figure according to the Doctrine of the Sacramentaries. 3. That Christ's body is received by mouth, & not by faith only. 4. M. jewel hath not replied well, touching the sixth Chapter of S. john, But hath abused as well the gospel, as diverse authorities of the fathers. 5. Item he hath not replied well, touching the Carpharnaites. 6. Neither conferred the supper with the sixth of jolm, as it ought to be. 7. Neither disputed well, touching the omnipoten●…ie of Christ in promising the gift of his flesh. 8. Whether the 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 exponnd more unpropertie or inconveniently the words belonging to Christ's supper. 9 A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by M. jewel. 10. Of the signification of adverbs. 11. Of the first author of the sacramentary heresy. 12. Of Christ's glorified body, and the place of S. Hierom expounded. 13. A place of S. Chrysostom examined. 14. The difference between baptism and our lords supper. 15. The answer to M. jewel concerning the Nicene Council, S. Augstine & caet. 16. Whether Christ's body dwelleth really in our bodies by his nativity. 17. Item, whether by faith. 18. The contradictions of M. jewel in this article. 19 Whether by baptism Christ dwelleth really in our bodies. 20. Item, Whether by the Sacrament of the altar, or no. 21. Christ's body is proved really present by S. Chrysostoms' words. 22. Item, by the words of S. Hilary. 23. Item, of S. Gregorius Nyssenus. 24. Item, of S. cyril. ¶ Master jewel hath not answered D. Harding well, touching the words of Christ's supper. IVel. fo. 316. The people was not taught in the first 600. years to The first Chapter. believe, that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally in the Sacrament. Harding. Of the terms really, substantially, corporally & coet. found in the doctors. jewel. His answer is, that Christ's body is corporally united to § 1. us: but whether it be corporally in the Sacrament, he answereth not one word. Harding. The terms are found in the doctors treating of the true being of Christ's body in the Sacrament. Saunder. Ergo M. jewel said not truly. For as D. Harding now The first untruth of M. saith it, so he proveth afterward, Christ's body to be really in the Sacrament. jewel. jewel. In this matter he is able to allege nothing for direct prouf. § 2. Harding. Christian people hath ever been taught, that the body of Christ is present verily in the Sacrament, which doctrine is founded upon Christ's plain words. Saunder. Ergo, M. jewel▪ he was able to allege some what. The second untruth. jewel. It is marvel, the people should be taught without a teacher, § 3. or without▪ words▪ or those not written. Harding. Christ's words are expressed by three Evangelists and S. Paul, Take, eat, this is my body & this is my blood & coet. San. Ergo M. jewel hath 〈◊〉 plainly 〈◊〉 whereby direct proof The third untruth of M. jewel. of Christ's real presence is 〈◊〉▪ Harding. Neither saith our Lord only, This is my body, but to put the matter out of doubt, he addeth, which is given for you. jewel. 317. Hereup●… M. Harding foundeth his carnal presence. 318. The iii●…. untruth. in such gross sort really and fleshly in the Sacrament etc. San. It is no gross sort of presence which is real, true, and miraculous, as being of Christ's own institution. Martion and Apelles (herein your ancestors M. jewel) thought it a carnal, a gross, a fleshly thing for Christ to lie nine months in his mother's belly. to be nourished there with blood and humours. to be borne naked, to be wrapped in clouts. For a remedy of which absurdities, the one of them devised that Christ was not really borne: but that which Tertullian saith against Martion shallbe Tertul. de carne Christi. my answer to you. First God (saith he) hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound men that are wise (in their own conceit) 2. Whatsoever is unworthy of God, is expedient for man. 3. Be thou assured, Christ had rather be borne then in any part to make a lie. Now if we apply all these sayings to Christ's presence in the Sacrament, it shallbe less carnal, less gross, less fleshly to have the substance of Christ's corporal flesh in a spiritual manner really present under the form of bread, then either to be corporally in his mother's womb, or to think that he made a lie, when he said: take eat this is my body. jewel. Christ useth not any of these words. San. I will say with S. Augustine, although the word be not Epi. 174. 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. jewel. Christ useth no leading thereunto. The fifth untruth. Saunder. The word (〈◊〉) ●…id lead the Apostles to that which was in Christ's hands, or which lay before him: the words (is my body) showed the substance thereof, as if I showing to a man that kind of beast, should say, this is a lion: the word (this) leadeth him to that beast which he seeth and whereunto I point. is a lion, showeth the substance of the thing pointed unto. This odds only there is, that a man by pointing & speaking can show only that which was before: but God, who spoke & it was made, Psal. 148 by pointing and speaking doth make that to be the substance of his body, which was not so before. Now, as when it is truly said this is a lion, it will follow thereof, under this visible form which I show, a lion is substantially contained: so seeing Christ pointeth to the Sacrament, saying, This is my body, it will follow thereof: in this Sacrament my body is contained substantially, corporally &c. Thus Chris●…es words lead us to his body substantially present in the Sacrament: ergo M. jewel must subscribe by his own promise. jewel. 317. D. Fisher saith: this sense can not in any wise be gathered The sixth untruth & a forged 〈◊〉. of the bare words of Christ. Saunder. Well fished I promise you, if he fish well, that catcheth a lie. 1. The blessed B. of Rochester had said, that the understanding Contra Capt●…it. of the Gospel is more certainly obtained by the interpretation of the Fathers and by the practice left by them, then by the bare Babyl. cap. 10. words of the Gospel. For example hereof, he saith, no man shall prone by the bare words of the Gospel, that any Priest in these § ij. In these da●…es. days doth consecrated the true body and blood of Christ. (Mark good Reader whereof he speaketh) For although (saith he) Christ A●…l these are the words of D. F●…sher. himself did in deed make his body and blood of bread and wine, yet except the like be promised and granted to us, we can not be sure we do it. but no such thing is promised. For in S. Matthew § iij. (now followeth one of the places alleged by M. jewel) § iiij. No word is put, whereby it may be proved, that in our Mass the In our Mass. very presence of Christ's body and blood is made. S. Matthew § v. then proveth it not, neither S. Mark. And whereas S. Luke and S. Paul witness that Christ said, make this thing for the remembrance of me: albeit that was spoken to the Apostles, yet it is not thereby proved, that the successors of the Apostles may do it. Then cometh he to the later words, which M. jewel citeth. § vj. Non potest igitur per ullam scripturam probari, quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentaverit, pari modo conficiet ex pane vinoque Christi corpus & sanguinem, atque Christus ipse conficit, cum nec istud in scriptures contineatur. It can not therefore be proved by any scripture. what can not be proved M. jewel: g●…ue me the nominative case to the verb non potest, it can not. What can not? jewel. D. Fisher saith, the carnal presence can not be proved The seven. untruth. neither by these words (this is my body) nor by any other. San. Then you make carnal presence the nomninative case to the verb, Potest. but D. fisher spoke not thereof. The whole speech which followeth 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 proved, for as much as it is not contained in the scriptures. But it followeth after, that by the interpretation and practice of so long time, the holy ghost hath expounded to us these words: Hoc facite make this thing, in such wise, that Luc. 22. the successors of the Apostles may consecrate Christ's body and blood. How many enormous faults have you committed here in, M. jewel? first D. Harding affirmed these words: This is my body to teach a real presence. But B. Fisher spoke of these words Make this thing, and not of the words This is my body. 2. D. Harding spoke of the real presence which will manifestly be proved, if any sacrament at all be commanded to be made by Christ. D. Fisher spoke of this point, whether any man had authority by the scripture to make any sacrament at all, or no. 3. D. Harding spoke of Christ's words. B. Fisher of our doings. 4. B. Fisher never doubted but that these words, This is my body, when they were spoken by christ or his Apostles, made and proved the real presence of his body and blood. But he asketh of heretics, how they can prove by only scriptures, that any man after the Apostles is able to make the supper of Christ, (not that he doubted of the thing itself) but he asketh for the prouf thereof out of the new testament. Now for M. jewel to cite B. Fisher's M. jewels faleshod. words leaving out the nominative case which immediately followed, and to supply a false nominative case never thought of by B. fisher: it is a figure of a man that hath repelled all good conscience, 1. Tim. 1. and therefore it is no wonder if he have erred in faith, not caring what he writeth, so he may be counted learned in their eyes that know neither greek nor latin, neither verb, nor nominative case. jewel. M. Harding'S friends. D. Smith. D. Stephen Gardener, etc. § 4. can not agree upon the terms naturally or sensually etc. San. Where is the word of god, M. jewel, whereof you boast so M. jewels Evangelists. much? are B. fisher, and D. Smith, and D. Gardener your Evangelists? to them now you fly to answer S. Matthew, S. Mark. S. Luke, and S. Paul, you have forbidden us all the fathers of these nine hundred years, and shall it be lawful for you to answer the words of the blessed Evangelists by a cavil moved upon men of our age? all who are well known to have condemned your opinion for heresy, and all thes believe that natural presence which you impugn. And that which you bring concerning the sense of the terms naturally, sensually, or so forth, is 〈◊〉ke moved only concerning the manner of signifying Christ's real presence, which is no weighty matter when the real presence itself is once agreed upon. jewel. This article cannot be proved by the old doctors, as M. § 5. The viii. untruth. Harding granteth by his silence. Saunder. If it be proved by Christ, whom D. harding citeth, what need a better doctor? and yet he briugeth also more doctors than you have answered to, as it shall appear afterward. jewel. The question is not of Christ's words, but of his meaning § 6. which must be considered chiefly, as the Lawyers and S. Augustine The ix. 〈◊〉. say. Christ meant not this to be his body really. Saunder. S. Hilary disputing against the Arrians, whom he intended to confute by the natural presence of Christ's body taken by us really in the sacrament, made this preface to his talk, joan. 17. concerning the words wherein Christ prayed that the faithful might Lib. 8 de Trinit. be one, as God the Father is in Christ, and Christ in him. Aut fortè qui verbum est, significationem verbi ignoravit? et qui veritas est loqui vera nescivit? et qui sapientia est, in stultiloquio erravit? et qui virtus est, in ea fuit infirmitate; ne posset eloqui, quae vellet intelligi? locutus planè ille est vera & syncera fidei evangelicae Sacramenta. neque solum locutus est ad significationem, sed etiam ad fidem docuit, ita dlcens: ut omnes unum sint, sicut tu pater in me, et ego in te, ut et ipsi unum 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 truth know to speak true things? hath he, which is the wisdom, erred in foolish speaking? and is he which is the power, of such 〈◊〉, that he can not utter those things, which he would have understanded? he hath spokeu plainly the true and sincere mys●…eries of the faith of the gospel. N●…ither hath he spoken only for significations sake, but also he hath taught for faith's sake: saying thus, that all may be one, as The application of S. ●…ilaries words unto the supper. thou O Father art in me, and I in thee, they also may be one in us. If then Christ much more in his last supper spoke in such sort, that he did not only signify his mind, but also taught us the faith of the Sacrament: what a folly is it, to pretend that he spoke otherwise then he meant? Specially sith in this place we are so far from any circumstance, which may hinder the proper meaning of Christ's speech, that these words: which is given for you, do put the matter out of all doubt, as D. Harding hath told you before. and that is further proved invincibly after this sort: This is my Luc. 22. body which is given for you: but my body given for you is real, substantial, natural, therefore this is so. This argument can not be answered, except ye say the sign of Christ's body was given to death for us. For the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek, in english give, & the relative quod in latin, in english, which, doth so restrain the noun corpus body unto that only meaning, wherein it is said the true body is given for us, that no escape may be had beside infidelity and heresy, whereof I have spoken at large in my fourth book, the 6. chapter. the 18. circumstance. If now this which is pointed unto, be the real, natural, and s●…bstantial body of Christ which died for us, seeing this that he pointeth unto, is meant of the Sacrament, Christ meant, that in this Sacrament his body is really, naturally, & substantially present. And therefore M. jewel must subscribe. § seven. jewel. Christ was the rock, but yet not really. 1. Cor. 10. Saunder. First these words were not spoken of S. Paul with Aug. leu. 9 57 the intent to make any Sacrament, or any other thing. 2. Two The differences betwenethiss is my body, & the rock was Christ. diverse natures are named in them, which can never be one i●… substance, but only in quality, or in similitude, but this is my body nameth one substance only, and signifieth it alone really present. 3. It was not any one certain rock in number, whereof S. Paul spoke. for the water flowed out of two rocks, in two diverse Exo. 17. parts of the wilderness. Either of which did signify Christ, Num. 20 and they both are only one rock in meaning, and in the substance figured. 4. Therefore S. Pa●…le meant only by the name of the rock, the spiritual rock which in substance was Christ himself. They drank (saith he) of the spiritual rock. But, this is my body, 1. Cor. 10 is spoken of a real truth made present at Christ's supper, and showed outwardly apart from Christ's own visible body. 5. He said not this rock pointing to it, but the rock. 6. Not, is Christ, but was Christ. 7. Such effectua! words followed not to show, that any real rock was meant: as these words are, which Luc. 22. is given for you: which follow and expound the other words, This is my body. jewel. D. Harding must seek help of 16 or more sundry figures The x. untruth. not known to the old Fathers. § Vi●…. Saunder. 1. You seek one figure for all, which taketh away the substance of Christ's supper from his external table, from his hand, from his word, and from the Apostles bodies. 2. D. Harding'S figures be to defend Christ's words, yours to destroy them. 3. It is not true that he is constrained to seek either sixten, or six figures, as it shall appear in due place. § jx. jewel. the old Fathers thought it no heresy to expound Christ's The xi. untruth. words by a figure. Saunder. They thought it here●…ie to expound these words, This is my body by a rhetorical or grammatical figure, as by Synecdoche or Metonymia, or any other which may exclude the substantial presence of the thing figured. jewel. Christ gave his disciples (as S. Augustine saith) the figure In Psal. ●… of his body and blood. Saunder. He did so. 1. but he gave such a figure of his own body, which is also the substance of his body, as himself being a figure of his Father's substance, is also the self same substance with his joan. 10. Father. 2. He gave a true and not a false sign. And yet it were false, if this which he pointeth to and affirmeth to be his body, These things are handled before. were not in deed his body, seeing the words signify so much, as I have declared in my second book, xii. chapter. 3. He gave a miraculous, & not a common figure, in the second book xiii. chapter. 4. A divine, & not a rhetorical figure, in the second book xiv. chapter. 5. A mystical, & not an artificial or natural figure, in the fifth book sixteenth chapter. 6. He gave at his supper a figure of the new, and not of the old testament, that is to yas, a figure which hath the truth in it, and not of that kind which only both betoken the truth Aug. in Psal. 39 absent from it, which thing S. Augustine declareth most evidently, saying: The old Fathers did celebrate the figure of the thing to come; when as yet the true sacrifice (which the faithful know) was The true sacrifice. foretold in figures. these sacrifices (being as words that promise a thing) are taken away. Quid est quod datum est completiwm? What is it which is given as accomplishing or performing the old figurative sacrifices, which promised a true sacrifice? S. Augustine The body which ye know is the Sacrament. answereth, Corpus quod nostis, quod utinam non ad iuditium noveritis. The body which ye know is the accomplishment of the old figures, the which body I would ye might not know to your damnation. And again, exhibita est veritas promissa, the promised truth is presently brought forth. In this body we are, of this body we are partakers, we know what we receive. Here M. jewels abusing of S. Aug. S. Augustine manifestly calleth the body, which we receive in the Sacrament, the very truth promised, which accomplished the the old figures. 7. He gave a figure, but he spoke not a figure. You bring this authority to prove that Christ's words be expounded by a figure, as though S. Augustine thought the speech to be figurative. For so your word, expounded by a figure, must import, but this authority proveth not your intent. For S. Augustine speaketh of In Psal. ●… Christ's deed, and not of his words. 8. The names of body and blood (as they are usually taken of men) do signify such a visible a corruptible, and mortal nature as all we have, which thing S. Augustine well knowing, and of Aug. de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. all men most deeply po●…dering the same, in so much that he was afeard, least children would think, that Christ had walked none otherwise upon the earth, then in the shape of bread: for that respect he always teacheth, that the body of Christ in the Sacrament is the sign and figure of Christ's visible body. After such sort S. Paul speaketh of Christ's flesh, saying: Although we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet we 2. Cor. ●…. know him not. In which words he meaneth not that Christ now lacketh his flesh, but that he now is no more visibly seen in his former mortal shape. These answers must be noted as the which serve through a●… the article of this treatise. 9 Your abusing of S. Augustine in this behalf, if it come of ignorance, ye are not worthy to be a preacher, as who understand not your book: if it come of malice, you are not worthy to be a man, as who delighteth in leading souls to damnation. jewel. Tertullian saith: This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body. Lib. 4. contra Marc. Saunder. He meaneth so, as I said before S. Augustine did mean. which solution might serve all this whole article of the real presence. but the truth is so well armed, that every word you bring may be turned upon your own head. Tertullian doth Lib. 5. contra witness, that the Marcionites brought forth a place of S. Paul Marc. where it was written of Christ's manhood, accepta effigie servi Phil. 2. (non veritate) the shape of a servant being taken, not the truth (said the Marcionite) & in similitudine hominis, non in homine, and in the likeness of a man, not a man. & figura inventus homo, non substantia, id est, non carne, and found a man in figure not in substance, that is to say not in flesh. Thus did the Marcionite reason out of the word of God itself, to prove that Christ was M. jewel like a Mar 〈◊〉 in his reasoning. not true man, as M. jewel now, because the Father's name the figure of the body, would disprove the true body of Christ in the Sacrament. But what answereth ●…rtullian? Quasi non & figura & caet. as though the figure, and likeness and shape be not also joined to the substance. So say we, the figure whereof we dispute is joined to the substance of Christ's body so, that the body & sign of the bread make both but one perfit Sacrament or mystical figure. And that I will prove yet more plainly out of this very Libr. 4. contra Marc. place of Tertullian, who speaketh most literally of bread as it was an old figure of Christ's body, whereof in Hieremie it was said, let us put the word (of the ●…rosse) into his bread, to wit, upon jere. 11. his body. Christ then fulfilling the old figures, fecit panem corpus Christ made the bread his body. suum. made the bread his body, as Tertullian saith. If he did so, it could not tarry bread any longer. For as air being once made fire, tarrieth no more air, so can not the bread, which is made Christ's body, be any longer the substance of bread. This ground being put (which is most true, and it is expressed in Tertullian Note that the self substance of Christ secretly present is the figure. himself) go you forward and say, this is the figure of my body, as long as you will, yet the ground of that figure can not be the substance of bread (sith it is made already the body of Christ) and consequently the substance of Christ itself being made of the substance of bread, and mystically contained under the form of bread, is that figure (of Christ himself walking visibly and suffering death) where of Tertullian speaketh. By this mean the word is fastened into his bread, as Hieremie said, because his bread and his body is all one. jewel. After consecration (saith S. Ambrose) the body of Christ Demyst. cap. 9 is signified. San. S. Ambrose doth speak of that signification, which is 〈◊〉. made whiles the Priest pronounceth, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body. Our Lord jesus himself, saith S. Ambrose, crieth out, this is my body. Before the blessing of the heavenly words it is named an other kind, after consecration the body is signified. The which place well understanded doth utterly overthrow your figuratine opimon. For S. Ambrose presseth upon the signification of these words, this is my body, and this is my blood. The Núcup●… tur. body saith he is signified, the blood is named by mouth. and this signification is made, when Christ or his minister doth consecrate by these heavenly words. Now immediately before he said, Quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione divina, ubi verba ipsa domini salvatoris operantur? What say we of the self consecration of God, where the self words of the Lord our Saviour do work? Now put together M. jewel. The words of our Saviour do signify his body & blood, and the self words do work, & verily themselves can work none other thing than they signify: therefore the words of our Saviour, which do signify Christ's body and blood, do work and make the same body and blood. That is the signification, M. jewel a dissembler. whereof S. Ambrose speaketh. The which his meaning when you dissemble, you show yourself to be an enemy of the truth. Iu. I am oppressed with the multitude of witnesses. The xii. untruth. San. As for these witnesses that say the Sacrament is a figure, M. jewels witnesses. be no witnesses to your belief, because they prove your intent as well, as if a man would prove by solen●…e witnesses that I had no soul, because I have a body. For whereas a Sacrament consisteth August. epist. 23. of two parts: of an ●…uisible grace and of a visible sign, & whereas the invisible grace of the Sacrament of Christ's supper is the substance of his body made present to unite us to him, and the visible sign thereof, is the form of bread: whosoever nameth that Sacrament a sign or a figure, whether he mean both the grace and the sign, or the sign alone, certainly he n●…er meaneth to deny the substa●…ciall presence of Christ's body, which is the chief part of the same Sacrament. Iu. It is a bondage and death of the soul (saith S. Augustine) to take the sign in steed of the things signified. San. It is more a miserable bondage and death to exponud the things themselves for the signs, as you do. S. Augustine meaneth De doct. of such a kind of signs, when ●…ither the thing that appeareth Christ. li. 3. ca 5. to be signified is not at all true according to the letter (as when God is said to be angry, or to repent) or else when the thing signified is absent in substance, as it was in the old sacrifices August. in Psa. 39 (which yet the jews esteemed, as if they had been the truth) As therefore he that being athirst if he come to the ivy bush itself & go no further, he should thereby never the more be filled with drink: so if a man come to an unproper or to a bare sign, he is miserably deceived (as those are who come to you for holy orders who were not yourselves lawfully ordained bishops) But as if a glass of wine stand in the window to signify what kind of wine is to be sold, he that cometh to that sign, may quench his thirst, because the substance which is signified to be sold is also there contained: so he that cometh to the holy signs instituted by Christ, he shall have the truth of the sign really present and really given to him. He that cometh to baptism is in deed borne by the virtue of that Sacrament, and ●…e that cometh to our lords table shall ●…ate by his mouth therein the bread of life really present. ¶ That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure, according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries. HArding. The Sacramentaries hold opinion, that The second Chapter. the body of Christ is in the Sacrament, but in a figure, sign or token only. jewel. M. Harding unjustly reporteth of us. San. I must say to you in this case M. jewel, as S. 〈◊〉 said § 10. to the Arrians, who called Christ, Dominum, the Lord, but yet The xiii. untruth. denied him to be God: Dominum licet nuncupes, dominum tamen esse non dicis, quia tibi ex communi genere potius, & familiari Hilar li. 8. de Tri. nomine, quâm ex natura sit Dominus. Albeit you name him Lord, yet you mean him not to be the Lord. Because he is a Lord to you rather by a common kind and a familiar name, then by nature. Even so, pretend what honourable opinion or doctrine you list of Christ's supper, as long as by nature and substance you think not that external gift to be his body, which himself called so: you rather 〈◊〉 it by a better name, then mean it to be any better thing, than a bare sign and figure. Ebion although he denied Christ's Godhead, yet (as Epiphanius 〈◊〉. haeres. 30 telleth) he affirmed him to rule Angels, and all that ever was made by God. and his scholars called him a Prophet and the son of God. which notwithstanding, for so much as they believed 〈◊〉 not to be God by nature, the catholics never doubted A bar●… man. to say, that they taught him to be nudum hominem, a naked and bare man. Right so whatsoever holiness be annexed to bread and wine, be it the sign of never so great a virtue and efficacy, be it called never so much the body and blood of Christ: yet if it remain still in the former substance, if the truth which it is appointed to signify, be absent, it is bare bread and bare wine, A bare token. & a bare token of Christ's body and blood. Amend your belief M. jewel, if you will have us to amend our terms. jewel. We feed not the people with bare figures. San. The question is not how ye feed the people by your doctrine, The xiv. untruth. but what sign you teach the Sacrament itself 〈◊〉 be: whether it be such a sign as hath present in a secret manner the truth signified thereby, or else whether it be the sign of a truth absent in substance. For two kind of signs there are: one which Two 〈◊〉 of signs. by the truth of his own substance considered and well understanded, doth signify an other manner of truth belonging to itself, rich signs. as when a loaf of bread being true bread in substance is set to signify true bread also, but yet in that respect as bread is there to be bought & sold: An other sign there is, where the truth signified is absent in substance: As when an ivy bush doth signify wine to be sold. This later kind of signs or figures is utterly Bare signs. naked, bare, and without the truth which is signified. The question is, whether of these two kinds of signs is in the Sacrament of Christ's supper. The Catholics say the best and richest kind of signs is there, because there is Christ's body 1. Cor. 11 really present to signify, and as it were by seal to witness his own death and passion. You teach the substance of the Sacrament to be still bread and wine, but our sign is more worthy of Christ's Godhead, and more properly a sign or a seal in truth of nature, then yours. For as S. Hilary and S. cyril teach, Signaculorum ea natura Hilarius li●… 8. de Trinit. est & caet. Such is the nature of signs or of seals, that they set forth the whole form of the kind of thing printed in them, cyril. in joan. lib. 3. cap. 29. and have no less in themselves, than those things have whence they are sealed. After this sort God the Father signed Christ, and Christ thereby was the form, the print, the sign, the figure, the joan. 6. image of his Father. But as S. Hilary showeth, Imago authoris Lib. 9 de Trinit. & veritas. He was the image of him whom he represented, & also the truth. I warrant you, M. jewel, you feed the people with no doctrine of any such sign or seal present in Christ's supper. For you say afterward, that the bread is an erathly thing, & therefore a figure. I pray you can bread be other than a bare figure, if it ●…il remain earthly and corruptible? I say further to you, M. Juel, and ye●… bear no false witness at all, that your 〈◊〉 be more bare, The signs of the Sacramentaries are more bare than the old shadows then everwere any even in the old testament. For they at the least wise did in appearance of true flesh and in true blood shedding, foreshow the flesh and blood of Christ which should die for us. Melchisedech likewise had beside his bread and wine the real body of Abraham present, whom he offered to God, and in him Gen. 14. Gal. 3. Jesus Christ his seed. But you having bare bread and bare wine without any real flesh at all either present or offered, must needs Gen. 4. have a naked sign and a bare figure, such as only Cain had and his brood. Iu. We teach that in the ministration of the Sacraments Christ is set before us even as he was crucified upon the cross, and that therein we may behold remission of sins. San. Admit ye ●…ache so. then is your sermon better than your Sacrament. For a man may look long enough upon the substance of bread & wine, before he can pick out of their earthly nature The 〈◊〉 of the catholics not bare. Christ crucified. But if that blessed belief were maintained according to the truth of the Gospel, which after consecration worshipped the real body of Christ under the form of bread: them the token (which containeth the true body that di●…d for us in it) is no bare token, but the truth itself in substance, and a token of the visible manner thereof. Iu. We teach that Christ's body is verily given to us, and that The 〈◊〉. untruth. we verily eat it, and live by it, and are flesh of his flesh. San. How well you teach it, the thing itself will try▪ but all this proveth not, that your Sacrament hath ever the more in it, unless you say, that you receive all this under the forms of bread and wine. A goodly matter: your words in preaching (to hear 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 the which infidels may be admitted) shallbe better than the Sacraments instituted by Christ. How we are flesh of Christ's flesh, I have showed in the fifth book, the fifth chapter. Iu. Yet we ●…av not the substance of bread and wine is done ●…way, or that Christ's body is let down from h●…uen, or made really present. San. That is the cause why your Sacraments are still bare & naked. For all the rest which you talk o●…, is told to men's ears, but nothing is wrought in the S●…ents. As for your nick naming of things, as of doing away bread in steed of changing, & of letting down Christ's body from hea●…en, we must pardon you therein. It is your grace to rail, or rather the lack of grace in you. We teach bread to be changed into Christ's body through his power. Iu. He must mount on high (saith Chrysostom) who so will The xvi. 〈◊〉. reach to that body. 1. Cor. hom. 24. San. You overreached yourself, when you turned accedere to reach▪ it is to come unto, & not to reach. For S. Chrysostom spoke of coming to the holy visible table which stood in the visible Church, and meant that who so cometh to receive then●… the holy meat, he must in good faith & life climme up to heaven, and not that he should go thither to receive the mysteries. Ipsa Chrys. namque mensa. For the very table, that is to say, the meat upon 1. Cor. hom. 24. the table, is our salvation and life. And again: This 〈◊〉 maketh, that whiles we be in this life, earth may us heaven to us. Iu. Send up thy faith (saith Augustine) and thou hast taken him. In joan. tract. 50. San. The place is by you abused, and drawn from a misbelieving jew (to whom it was spoken) to the Christian 〈◊〉 See, good Reader, my second book, xxix. chapter. Iu. In deed the bread tha●… we receive with our bodily mouths The xvij. 〈◊〉. is an earthly thing, & therefore a figure, as the water in 〈◊〉. San. The water in baptism is no figure, but the 〈◊〉 is the word coming to the 〈◊〉. Those ●…wo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figure: and 〈◊〉 no words 〈◊〉 spoken whereby the 〈◊〉 should c●…ase to be that it was, yea because it is said, I baptize or Matt. 28. wash thee (which is not done without water) we are forced to believe, that the substance of water remaineth. But it is said Matt. 26. over the bread, This is my body. And after that words spoken & fully passed, that which seemeth bread, is yet still a mystical figure, as it may well appear, in that, a good time after consecration the holy figure of Christ's body being reserved upon the altar, hath been received of the Christian people always in the Church of God at the end of the service. Therefore the figure which is made in the supper, must be so made, that it must remain when the words are past. Now that remanent substance is the body of Christ under the form of 〈◊〉. But if the earthly substance of bread did ●…ill remain (as M. jewel sa●…eth) there is nothing at all which Bread i●… not the figure of Christ. may be a figure. For as the water is no figure when the words are absent: so the bread could not be a figure any longer, when the words were fully passed. Iu. The body of Christ is the thing itself, and no figure. The xviij. untruth. San. You know not what you say. The body of Christ under the form of bread is itself both the thing, and also a figure of the mystical unity of the Church. SoS. Hilary teacheth, saying: Lib. 8. de Trinit. Naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae Sacramentum est unitatis. The natural propriety (or, which is all one, the personal substance or the proper nature of Christ) by the Sacrament (or sign of bread) is the Sacrament of a perfit unity. The body of Christ itself is a sign as well as the truth, but yet a sign, not only by itself, but by the sign under which it is. Hereof I beseech thee, good Reader, to see my fi●…t book the fift chapter. The thing itself which is no figure, is the grace of corporal union, which is wrought in this Sacrament with Christ himself. Iu. In respect of the body we have no regard to the figure▪ wher●…nto The nineteen. untruth. S. Bernard alluding saith: The sealing ring is nothing worth, it is the inheritance I sought for. San. What a desperate custom is it for you, to 〈◊〉 always the Fathers of these last nine hundred years, whom you have already condemned? If they be idolaters or false preachers, why bring you their witnesses, as to build any thing upon them? either you will ●…and to S. Bernard, or else you in vain allege him. If you stand to him even in those words which you take out of him, you are utterly overthrown. He saith: Many things be done for The doctrine of. S Bernard. themselves only, as if I give a ring to a man only to give it without any farther meaning. other things be done to signify, & those are De coena Domini. called signs, and be so: As when a ring is given to put a man in possession of an heritage, in this case the ring is not respected for it 〈◊〉, but for the heritage's sake. So, saith S. Bernard, our Lord drawing near to his passion provided to adorn his disciples with grace. Thus by him grace is the end or effect of the sign: but The grace The 〈◊〉 what is the sign itself? M. jewel saith, bread. But I pray you, saith S. Beruard so? No verily. what saith he then? Vt securi sitis, Sacramenti dominici corporis & sanguinis pretiosi investituram habetis. That ye may be without fear, ye have the investiture of our Lord's Sacrament his precious body and blood. Behold, the body and blood of Christ is the sign itself wherewith we are invested, or put in possession of grace. As therefore the ring or the book is present whereby we are put in possession of the heritage or of the preb●…ed: so the body of Christ is really present wherewith M. jewel t●…keth the bread doth put us in possession of grace. we are put in possession of grace. It is not bread, that is the sign of grace: it is the substance of Christ's body and blood, which is the holy sign, whereof S. Bernard speaketh. and therefore he maketh not the body of Christ the thing itself, as M. jewel corruptly allegeth. The thing is the grace of God the substance of Christ under the form of bread is the sign. For Christ cometh in his own corporal presence to seize & to endue us with grace. Hence it cometh, M. jewel, that S. Augustine so oft calleth this Sacrament a figure, because the body itself is here not for itself, but to put us in possession of so great a grace, as the union with God is. ¶ That Christ's body is received by mouth, and The third Chapter. not by faith only. IVel. We put a difference between the sign, and the thing itself § 11. that is signified. Saunder. In the consideration of a reasonable understanding there is always a differnce between the sign and the thing, but Heb. 1. not always in substance. For Christ is the figure of his Father's joan. 10. substance, and withal the same substance. but not called a figure in the same respect or consideration. For as he is the figure, so he differeth in person from his Father: but in truth of nature he is also one substance with him. Even so the body of Christ, as it is under the form of bread, differeth in the manner of being from the body of Christ, which died for us in form of man. But in substance it is all one. Even as Christ being transfigurated had an Matt. 17. other manner of being then he had before, his own substance tarrying still one and the same. Iu. We seek Christ in heaven. § xj. San. So do we to, and yet believe him also to be with us until Matt. 28. the world's end. jewel. And imagine not, him to be present bodily upon the earth. San. Neither do we imagine him present in his bodily shape, but we believe and by assured faith know, him to be present in bodily substance, whent the bread and wine are consecrated. Our affirmative belief is grounded upon the express word of God, and upon the continual practice of the Church. Your negative Matt, 26. ●…gination is an ●…ool, ●…ormed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 idolaters 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, Calvin, 〈◊〉 Martyr 〈◊〉. Iu. The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only, and none The xx. untruth. other wise. San. In so saying (if you will also defe●…d it) you are the maintainer of a blasphemous heresy, and 〈◊〉 otherwise. and that I will prove, because your words are directly against the Gospel, & the ancient fathers, and affirm the same which the Arrians did affirm being condemned for it of old tyme. Christ after bread taken and thanks given, said: take, eat, this is my body. But Matt. 26. Christ spoke of eating by mouth, and not by faith alone, and he saith the thing eaten to be his own body: therefore his body is not eaten by faith only, but by mouth also, I go farther with you. All that was eaten by mouth or by faith at Christ's supper, came from Christ. how could else any man have it? and it is described in the Gospel: how could we else know it? But all that he is written to have given came from his hands, when he said, take, eat: therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all (as by his gift there made, and by the Evangelists rehearsed) or his body came then from his own hands. Can you prove that he gave his body at his supper, otherwise then by his own hands? where is that written: For though he ●…wel in us by Ephes. 3. faith, yet no such thing was spoken of at his last supper. Answer the Gospel, M. jewel, or else blaspheine no more. What soever was given at Christ's supper came from the hands of Christ. show me else an other gift, and show me where it is witnessed. He gave (saith the 〈◊〉) & said, take, eat. nothing was eaten at his table, but that which was there taken. Nothing was there taken, but that which was there given: nothi●… was there given, but that which Christ prepared and gave. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Christ can be known to have given nothing, but that which the Evangelists tell & have w●…ten. They witness that he gave such a t●…ing, which at the least he called his body. Now if in that external food he gave not his own real body (as you say) his body was not eaten at all by the gift of his last joan. 13. supper, not so much as by faith. If it be so, where or when shall his body be eaten by faith? but if it was eaten by faith (as undoubtedly it was by the eleven Apostles. who were all clean as Christ said) if that eating of theirs can be proved by the gospel, it must be proved by these words, take, eat: but these words were spoken of that visible thing, which Christ gave to their mouths: therefore all the eating by faith, that can be showed to ha●…e been made at Christ's supper, depended at that time upon the eating by mouth. Therefore the body of Christ which at Christ's supper Cypria. serm 5. de lapsis. must needs be eaten by faith (if it shall be eaten worthily as it ought to be) was in the hands of Christ, and thence came to the mouths of the Apostles. and so M. jewel hath affirmed a proposition directly 〈◊〉 the verity of the gospel. Sec●…dly the 〈◊〉 teach that we eat Christ's body by our ●…thes, & no●… by 〈◊〉 only. ●…. 〈◊〉 speaking of evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ve denied Christ, yet came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meats 〈◊〉 up to 〈◊〉, unto o●…r Lords table, faith: 〈◊〉 mod●… in dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, quàm cum dominum negaverunt, they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more again●… our lord with their hands and mouth, 〈◊〉 when they denied our Lord. Consider well this saying. An 〈◊〉 man 〈◊〉 Christ with his tongue before the tyrant for fear of death, & eateth of things offered to idols. The same man without 〈◊〉 cometh to Christ's ●…able. he sinneth in both places, and that with his mouth: 〈◊〉, by denying Christ, and by 〈◊〉 polluted meats: here by touching and eating ●…ur lords b●…die. S. 〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 committed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the more 〈◊〉▪ Why so? Is there a●…ie 〈◊〉 more 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 to deny Christ, & to communicate with idols? How is it then a more gr●…uouse fault to come without repentance to Christ's supper, then to deny him both in word & deed? Study M. jewel as long as you will, you shall never find any solution wherein you may 〈◊〉, but only this, because he that cometh unworthily to Christ's table toucheth the real and substantial body of Christ, invading De lap●…s ●…erm. 5. and doing violence (as S. Cyprian there saith) to our Lord's body & blood. So that the only cause why it is more heinous to communicate unworthily, then to commit idolatry, or to deny Christ, is the substance of Christ, which is unworthily touched. Take away the real substance from the hands or mouth of the receiver, and it is not possible that it should be a greater sin to receive unworthily a piece of bread, them to deny Christ in word, and to commit idolatry in deed. But as the treason that is committed against the kings own person is the greatest of all: so the greatest sin that can be bodily committed against Christ, is the touching of his own substance with a polluted mou●…h. therefore S. Cyprian believed our Lord himself and the substance of his body to be received into the mouth of the communicant. S. Chrysostom likewise witnesseth us to take in our hands, Hom. 82 & 83. in Matt. & 24. in 1. in our mouths, to touch, to eat, to receive into us Christ's flesh. Is all this done by faith only? Pope Leo writeth thus of this matter: Ye ought so to communicate of the holy table, that ye ad Cor. & 60. add pop. Ant. Leo. de jeiunio 7. mens. serm. 6. doubt nothing at all of the truth of Christ's body and blood. Ho●… enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur. For that thing is received in mouth, which is believed in faith: but the true substance of Christ is believed in faith, therefore the true substance of Christ is received in mouth. Whereupon it followeth, that M. jewel falsely affirmeth Christ to be eaten by faith only, & none otherwise. diverse other testimonies I will bring hereafter, as occasion shall serve. cyril. li. 10. ca 13. Last of all S. cyril reporteth, that a certain Arrian said: Patet quia corpora nostra non dependent ●… carne Christi, & 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 is evident, that our bodies hang not of the flesh of Christ, as branches of the vine. Neither is the fruit of the Saints bodily▪ but rather spirit●…all: therefore the Godhead of the son is the vine whereon we depend by faith. Thus said the heretic. To whom S. Cyrillus making answer, saith: because he thinketh us to be joined with Christ by faith and love, and not in flesh, let us say somewhat herein. Doth he think us not to know the virtue of the mystical blessing? The which when it is in us, doth it not make Christ to dwell corporally also in us, by communicating of his flesh? Here, S. cyril placeth corporal being, against being by faith and love. Christ by communicating of his flesh dwelleth corporally in us, and not by faith and charity alone: and yet our communicating is made by mouth. Therefore M. jewel doth communicate with the Arrian, in saying that we eat Christ's body by ●…aith only, and none otherwise. For S. cyril of purpose to destroy that heresi●…, showeth us to 〈◊〉 Christ corporally also. § Xij Iu. We place Christ in the heart: M. Harding placeth him in the The xxi. untruth. mouth. San. D. Harding placeth him in the h●…rt and mouth: you place 1. him, touching his corporal presence, neither in heart nor in mouth. And touching faith, in heart only, and not in mouth. D Harding 2. teacheth the flesh of Christ to be joined to our flesh for the increasing of spiritual grace: You teach bread to be united to our flesh, affirming (beside the word of God) that our bodies eat bread, as our souls are fed with Christ. D. Harding teacheth the meat 3. of Angels, which is the Godhead, to be eaten of man really, whiles man eateth that flesh, wherein the Godhead corporally dwelleth. You teach the Godhead to be eaten by faith alone, as it was eaten before the incarnation of Christ, and none otherwise. Colos. 2. jewel. Christ's body is meat of the mind, not of the 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. S. Cyprian. San. I find no such words in S. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 it who soever doth speak these words of the Sacrament, it will follow that the meat he speaketh of is not material bread (for then it should be meat of the belly) but it is only the bread of God, and flesh of Christ. Which in 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 to fill the belly, but rather to tame it, and to make us more temperate and chaste. T●…e 23. ●…truth. Iu. Believe and thou hast eaten, saith S. Augustine, of Christ's blessed body. San. Thou hast eaten by faith: but not yet in Sacrament. Those words were spoken of spiritual and nor of Sacramental eating. Therefore do you 〈◊〉 to apply them to the Sacrament, albeit faith is necessary also to receive the Sacrament worthily. § 13. jewel. It is better to use the word figure, than the words really, The 24. 〈◊〉. corporally. San. It is better to use the word body, flesh, blood, which are the words of scripture than the word figure, which is used of the father's only to show, in what sort the body and blood of Christ is present under the forms of bread and wine: b●…t not to change the words of scripture, flesh, body, blood, into other words, figure, sign, token (God forebid that men should unplace God's words) but they added unto the words of scripture other words to expound, that this is not Christ's visible body, but the 〈◊〉 thereof, because it is the substance thereof under an other form▪ but you M. jewel, are co●…tent to forget the word of God at this time, and to name the Fathers. Are they then above the word of God? How long will you halt? Come home to the word of God, to the Gospel, to the holy scripture, which M. Harding alleged out of the evangelists, and out of S. Paul: and you wandering in 〈◊〉 and seeking phrases of speech have not alleged out of the word of God 〈◊〉 that effect of the Sacramental presence, not so much as one syllable. So well you love the Gospel, whereof you talk so much. The 25. untruth. Iu. The old Fathers used not these words corporally, substantially, in case of being really in the Sacrament. San. It is an impudent mouth which so speaketh. I will construe the Father's words to you in due place. ¶ M. jewel hath not replied well touching the 6. Chapter The 〈◊〉. of S. john, but hath abused as well the Ghospel, as diverse Chapter. authorities of the Fathers. HArding. The promise of giving the flesh which The 〈◊〉 division. Christ would give for the life of the world, being only performed in the supper, proveth the same very substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper, which was offered upon the Cross for the life of the world. § 1. jewel. This principle is false in itself. The 26. untruth. San. It is a true principle, as it shall appear afterward. jewel. It is full of dangerous doctrine, and may lead to despe●…tion. The 27. untruth. Saunder. It is dangerous to you, because it showeth that you must either sub●…cribe, or despair: but otherwise it is not dangerous. The 28. untruth. jewel. M. Harding supposeth no man may eat the flesh of Christ, but only in the Sacrament. San. You misr●…port the meaning of D. Harding, who denieth not but that Christ's flesh may be eaten spiritually, both by faith (as the just patriarchs and Proph●…s had already eaten it) and also by baptism, according to the which way those had eaten it, joan. 6. whom Christ before this talk (made at Capharnaum) had baptised joan. 4. by the mean of his disciples. Which two way●…s notwiths●…anding, Dabo, I will ●…ue. for so much as Christ prom●…h at Caphar●…m to g●…ne his ●…she afterward to be eaten, that giste must differ both from eating by faith and by baptism. And therefore D. Harding worthily saith, it was only performed in the last supper, the which way of giving his flesh was only to come. and it is not only spiritual, but also real. jewel. The words be plain and general: Unless ye eat the flesh The xxix. untruth. of the son of man, ye shall have no life in you. San. It is not said in S. john, habebitis nullam vitam, ye shall have no life, but, non habebitis vitam, ye shall not have life in you. I think it escaped you without malice, but yet it chanced not well, to put the negative to the noun, which should have been joined to the verb. Christ meaneth, that no man shall have life, who being of discretion to prove himself, refuseth to 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of Christ's supper. Iu. Seing Christian children receive not the Sacrament, by M. The thirty. untruth. Harding it will follow, they have no life. San. It will follow, that they have not in themselves the flesh of life, as S. Cyrillus expoundeth these words, non ●…bitis vitam, Lib. 10. cap. 13. id est, carnem vitae, ye shall not have life, that is to say, the flesh of life, in vobis, id est, in corpore vestro, in you, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in your body. But you make an untrue sequel thereof, to say, they shall have no life at all. For he that is borne again in baptism, hath the life of spiritual birth, which sufficeth him if he die before the years of discretion. but afterward he is ●…und to com●… for the maintenance of his spiritual li●…e to the Sacrament of life, which is the supper of Christ. The xxxi. untruth. jewel. Christ giveth his body not only in the Sacrament, as M. Harding imagineth, but at all times to the faithful. San. You 〈◊〉 a pleasure to 〈◊〉 upon D. Harding without a plain song D. Harding granteth, that Christ g●…th himself by faith and 〈◊〉, but giveth not his flesh by sacram●…nt and Cyril. li. 10. cap. 13 natural participation, which (as S. cyril saith) is obtained by partaking the mystical blessing: but only in the supper. jewel. S. Ambrose saith: Christ giveth this br●…ade to all men, In Psal. 118. daily, and at all times. San. S. Ambrose may well mean either of the gift, which is made in spirit to them that believe & love god, or in sacrament to them that come to the holy table, which is always 〈◊〉 for good men. For he teacheth the Sacrament of Christ's supper to be our Ambr. de Sacra. li. 〈◊〉. cap. 4. supersubstancial and daily bread, And would men daily to come unto it. jewel. Then it is false that Christ perfor●… 〈◊〉 promise, and The 〈◊〉. untruth. giveth his body only at the ministrat●… of the Sacrament. Saunder. It is an unhonest thing, thus to misreport D. Harding'S meaning. You mingle the performing of one certain promise of Christ made in S. John, with ge●…g his body any way at al. D. Harding spoke not of every giving his body, but of the giving wherein he performed only that promise made in. S. Ihon. Whereafter the promise of giving, he saith, his flesh is verily meat, joan. 6. & his blood verily drink: therefore the substance of Christ's flesh is promised to be eaten verily, and not only by faith, but also in a sacrament. That kind of promise was only performed in the last supper, when he said: Take, eat, this is my body which is given Matt. 26. for you. There was every word literally performed. For the particular declaration whereof I beseech the reader to consider that which I have written upon. S. John in the 3. book the 2. Chap. jewel. S. Augustine saith: They eat Christ's body not only in the The 33. untruth. Sacrament, but also in very deed. Behold, not only in the Sacra●…ente. De civit. li. 2. c. 20. 〈◊〉. San. To 〈◊〉 out a piece of the sentence of. S. Augustine, and such a piece as utterly changeth the ●…eaning of his words, is it not the sign of one that hath cast of all fear either of god or of De civit. lib. 21. cap. 20. man? S. Augustine saith thus: some men promise pardon to catholics (though they live noughtily) because they have eaten the body of Christ not only in the Sacrament, but in very d●…de. But how the body of Christ is 〈◊〉 in very deed, that M. Iu●…l would not write. and yet it is a piece of the very same clause. The rest of the words are, in ipso eius corpore constituti, de quo Apostolus dicit. unus panis unum corpus multi sumus. Being established in the 〈◊〉▪ Cor. 10 self body of his, of the which. S. Paul said: we being many are one bread, one body. which yet is again expounded afterward: 〈◊〉 i●… co●…pore Christi, id est, Ecclesia Catholica sumpserunt baptismum Christi, & manducaverunt corpus Christi. Evil catholics 〈◊〉 not coudemned (as some men said) because they have received the baptism of Christ, and have eaten Christ's body in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the Catholic Church. This false opinion proponed in the xx. chapter, is impugned Lib. 21. ca 20. 25 by S. Augustine in the xxv. of the same book. Where he showeth that none other are to be accounted the members of Christ, beside those, that tarry even to yt●…d in the unity and charity of his mystical body the Church. But M. jewel playeth the Sophist by taking the word (body) otherwise then S. Augustine meant it. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 body. as the company of Merchants in London make a certain fellowship among themselves, & therefore may right well be called a collegiate body: even so the company of faithful men who believe and live well, make a certain body of Christ, which is called his flock, his elect, his fold, & most often of all, his mystical body▪ Now M. Iu●… taketh the word body (which signifieth both Christ's natural & mystical body) as if it signified only his natural body. He will prove the body of Christ to be eaten without the Sacrament, and therein he taketh it for the natural body which 〈◊〉 at the right hand of God. He proveth it by S. Augustine, who speaketh of the mystical body, which is the company of the elect, and the holy Church of God. Is not this man worthy to be a preacher▪ Iu. S. Augustine contrary to M. Harding'S doctrine, so far forceth The 34. 〈◊〉. this difference, that he maketh the eating of Christ's body in the Sacrament, to be one thing, and the very true eating thereof in deed, to be an other thing. San. Why then do you mingle the one with the other? Why The contr●…y o●… 〈◊〉. jewel. 〈◊〉 you against D. Harding (who speaketh of the Sacrament ●…ly) that place which sp●…th o●… an another thing, that is to say, of the mystical body? You 〈◊〉 him unjustly, and condemn yourself most ●…ly, He denieth not the mystical body, and therefore is not contrary to S. Augustine: but he showeth that Christ promised a real eating beside all other kinds of eating. The promise of that real eating you would exclude, by showing that Christ may be eaten by other wa●…s, then by the Sa●…ment▪ as if when you had d●…d a ●…an to have in his house the armour which he is bound by law to have ready, you would afterward acquit yourself, if you proved that he had hors●…s in his stable, and oxen in his pasture: As though the having of the o●… proved the lacking of the other. For how many ways o●…●…ating Christ so●…r there are, yet the ●…ating of his real flesh which was promised at Capharnaum, is thereby rather co●…ed then ●…isproued. Iu. S. Augustine saith▪ the Fathers of the old law received the The 35. untruth. 〈◊〉 same body, that is now received o●… the faithful. Saunder. You leave out some words of S. Augustine, you add De util. pen. ca 〈◊〉. other of your own. S. Augustine saith: the old Father's di●… eat Spiritual▪ left out by M. jewel. the same spiritual meat which we eat: & you leave out the wor●… spiritual wherein he chiefly 〈◊〉. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 10. upon S. Paul's words is, that the ol●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eat the 〈◊〉 spiritual meat. the same (saith he) I can not find how I may understand, but, the meat which we also eat. Some man then will say, was this which I now take manna? is there nothing then at this time come, if it was before? is then the slander of the cross made void? How else did the Fathers eat the same meat, but that the Apostle added spiritalem? the same spiritual meat? Again: Eundem ergo potum quem nos, sed spiritalem, Spiritalem id est, qui fide capiebatur, non qui corpore hauriebatur. The old Fathers drunk the same drink which we do, but, the same spiritual drink. that is to say, which was taken by faith, not which was drunk by body. Is it plain enough, M. ●…uel, that S. Augustine speaketh not generally of the same meat, but of the same spiritual meat? why left yo●… that word out? why said you in stead thereof, that the old Fathers did eat the self same Words falsely put in by M. jewel. body, that is now received of the faithful? What delight have you to misreport the ancient Fathers? where is it written, the self same body? saith not S. Augustine eundem potum quem nos, sed spiritalem? they drank the same drink which we do, but spiritual? did he not expound the word spiritual, saying the which was taken by faith, and not drunk by body? Note well those words, M. jewel, non qui corpore hauriebatur, they drank not that which we do, concerning the drink which is taken into the body. that is to say, they took not the blood of Christ into their bodies, as we now do. they took a sign of Christ's blood, as we do, and among other figures, they had also bread & wine. 〈◊〉. evit. 2. At the time of which figurative banquets the just men did feed in Exod. 29 spirit upon Christ: but we feed upon him also in body. we eat Num. 15. the same in spirit, and also in body, which they did eat in spirit only. We meet with them in the meat as it is spiritual: but we differ in the same and far pass them, as it is corporal. Therefore Tract 26 in joan. S. Augustine saith upon S. John: Spiritalem utique eandem, 〈◊〉 corporalem ●…lteram, quia illi manna, nos aliud▪ they did eat the same spiritual meat, but an other corporal meat they did Our ●…ly meat differeth ●…rom the m●…at of the old Fathers. eat manna, we ●…ate an other thing. What is that other thing? where might we learn the name or nature of it? let us not go●… to any other man, but to the same blessed S. Augustine, who never had any fellow in the Church of God for his 〈◊〉 knowledge in holy scripture. but the more profound he is, the less he is able to be understanded at the first sight, of those who read him not ●…o great diligē●…e. Thus he writeth: Quid est manna? etc. Tract. 〈◊〉 in joan. what is manna? I am, saith Christ, the living bread which came down from heaven. and again: It is known what God had rayray●…ed Exod. 16 from heaven. And know not the Catechumeni what the Christians take? let them blush then, because they know it not. let them pass over by the read sea. Let them eat manna, that jesus is eaten bodily of us after Baptism. even as they have believed in the name of jesus, so jesus may commit himself to them. Thus S. Augustine doth teach, that jesus himself is our corporal meat in the manna of the new Testament. For of corporal meat▪ now he speaketh, of that I say, wherein we differ from the old fathers, and not of that wherein we communicate with them. Christ eaten by faith, is their and our meat all in common. yea the Catechumeni may so eat of him. But Christ neither being received into the bodies of the old Fa there's, nor now of that Catechumeni who learn their faith, is only the corporal meat or true manna of the faithful baptised. which is Exod. 16 no less really taken into our mouths under the form of bread, than the jews did really eat manna forty years together in the desert. jewel. Every faithful man is made partaker of the body and Apud Be dam 1. Cor. 10. 〈◊〉. blood of Christ in Baptism, whiles he findeth that unity which is signified by the Sacrament. therefore the faithful eat Christ's body otherwise then in the Sacrament. Sand. Who denieth but that Christ's body may be otherwise ●…aten, then in the Sacrament? But it is not therefore eaten there really? That only D. Harding. affirmed, & you prove that he is otherwise eaten. but yet that other eating (whereof S. Augustine & Beda spoke) proveth the real eating, which D. Harding defendeth. For if the body of Christ itself were not under the form of bread, he that is baptised should not partake at all of the Sacrament of Christ's supper▪ because he neither partaketh in Baptism of bread nor of wine, but is only made a member of that mystical body, which in the Sacrament is signified. And how is it signified? let us hear S. Augustine expounding that unto us: who speaking of heretics and schismatics (which are out of the Church) saith: Non sunt in eo vinculo pacis, quod in illo exprimitur De civit. l. 21. c. 25 Sacramento: they are not in that bond of peace, which is expressed in that Sacrament. The bond of peace expressed in the Expressed Sacrament, is not only the wheaten corns moulded into one loaf (for that bond is in every loaf, and not only in that of Christ's supper) but the bond of peace is the body of Christ present under the forms of bread and wine: whereof I have spoken at large in my v. book in the v. chapter. ¶ M. jewel hath not replied well touching the Capharnaites. The v. Chapter. HArding. If Christ in S. John had spoken tropically, The 3. division. the jews and disciples who were used to figures, would not have said: this is a hard saying. jewel. His reason hangeth thus: The Capharnaites understood The 36. untruth. not Christ: ergo his body is really in the Sacrament. Saunder. No sir. but thus: They understood Christ to speak without parables, and Christ's words appertin to the Sacrament (as it was said before) therefore his body is really in the Sacrament. ●…ark the words of the Capharnaites, and you shall find by their answers and by their demands, that they understood what Christ promised, but believed it to be a thing either not possible, or not convenient. Therefore Christ said: there be some of you who believe not. He said not (saith S. Augustine) Tract. 27 in joan. there be some among you, who understand not, but he told the cause why they understood not: there be some among you who believe not, & therefore they understand not, because they believe not. jewel. He said▪ The bread which I will give, & caet. of spiritual § iij. eating. It is the spirit that quickeneth. Understand ye my words The 37. untruth. spiritually, saith S. Augustine. San. There is a spiritual eating without the Sacrament of Christ's supper, either by faith, or by Baptism. Of that Christ spoke not now, because it was not to come: but was already given (at the least concerning faith) to all the just men from the beginning of the world. There is an other both spiritual or worthy, and also real eating of the Sacrament of Christ's supper itself. Thereof he now speaketh, promising to ge●…e it, and at his supper he gave it both really and spiritually, that is to say, not in a gross manner, but divinely and miraculously: whereof ye may see in my third book, the. nineteen. and. xx. Chapter. jewel. Ye shall not eat, sayeth S. Augustine (with your bodily The 38. untruth. In Ps. 98 mouth) this body that you see, & caet. I give you a certain Sacrament. San. Of this place I have spoken at large in my vi. b. the. i●…. Chapter, and in my. 3. b. the. xiv, Chapter. I will now briefly note the chief points. First M. jewel doth abuse this place, because S. Augustine had said before, that Christ gave that same flesh to be eaten, wherein he walked, and which he took of the virgin. Whereunto M. juel hath no regard at all. Secondly he taught, that it ought to be adored before it was eaten. Thirdly he nameth it the Sacrament, willing us to consider it spiritually. Fourthly he nameth it quamlibet terram, any earth, calling▪ the ●…sh of Christ earth. now in saying that we adore any earth, he manisesily declareth that he speaketh of the adoration which is made in diverse places or altars. Whereas otherwise the flesh o●… Christ in heaven is but one earth in one place. These things presupposed (all which are in the place of S. Augustine which M. jewel now allegeth) it will ●…olow that S. Augustine meant, both that Christ's flesh is eaten with our bodily mouth in the Sacra ment, and also adored. Therefore when he saith ye shall not eat this body that you see, he meaneth ye shall not eat it in such form as you see it, in such mortal quantity, or in such a corruptible sort. But if it should be meant, ye shall not eat the substance of my body (as M. jewel taketh it) S. Augustine's own words were clean contrary to themselves for the causes alleged before. Beside this great dissembling of M. jewel (who knew the other words of S. Augustine, and yet only would have these to be 〈◊〉 tran 〈◊〉. considered) he hath also misordered and misenglished diverse words. 1. He hath translated commendavi, I give. Whereas the Sacrament was not yet delivered, but was only commended, and set forth in words unto the jews, when Christ said: the bread which I will give is my flesh. 2. I●… commendare were Latin to give, yet it should have been translated, I have given. 3. For vivificabit, M. jewel readeth, vivificat, it doth give life, for it shall give life. He was ●…oth to have any commendation past, or any giving of life to come. For he would so understand Christ's words, that the gift & the quickening might be present, lest it should apperteyn to the supper: Whereas the commendation of the gift was past, in those words (I will give, and the giving of life to come) verily, because the Sacrament should then give life when it should be received. These are miserable shifts to save yourself from subscribing. Iu. We have a spiritual mouth, a spiritual taste, eyes, ears, as The 39 untruth. basil, Leo, Origen, Tertulliá say, Christ is to be digested by faith, he is the bread of the mind, not of the belli. to believe in him, that is to eat the living bread: therefore Christ's meaning is spiritual, and not real. San. What gross ignorance is this, to think that the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament hindereth my spiritual mouth, A false reasoning. taste, ears, eyes, faith, or mind? All these must go together. Christ took his body to bring to our bodies the meat whereof our soul might spiritually eat. It is the fondest kind of reasoning in the world by one truth to deny an other, seeing both stand together. Is my faith the less because Christ was bodily seen in earth? How is then my spiritual feeding the worse, because the food of life is in my mouth? Doth not Tertullian say, the flesh De resur rect. car. is fed with the body & blood of Christ, to th'end the soul may be made fat of God? § 4. Iu. M. Harding will say, eating with mouth and grinding with The 40. untruth. teeth, is a work spiritual. And so he is a good proctor for the Capharnaites. San No that h●… will not say, except the meat be so eaten, that the manner of eating it be so clean and spiritual, that although it enter into the mouth, yet the ●…aith both may and do work upon it, by adoration, and participation, as it chanceth in Christ's supper. And therefore Christ said: work the meat which perisheth joan. 6. not which the son of man will give you. And he meaneth work it by soul by believing, and in body by eating. And the Prophet David saith: They have eaten and worshipped. This Psal. 21. understanding neither the Capharnaites had, nor the Sacrmentaries have, & therefore they grind now common bread with their teeth, where●… they shall bitterly gnash, if they repent not the sooner. jewel. Chrysostom will not suffer this evasion, who saith to understand In joan. carnally is to understand plainly as the things be uttered, Hom. 47 The 41. 〈◊〉. and to think upon nothing else. San. We understand not so. For we seeing the form of bread, think upon the body of Christ which is under it. Therefore S. Chrysostom is not against our evasion. jewel. S. Augustine sayeth, the saying of Christ is a figure or manner De doct. of speech. Christ. li. 3. ca 16 San. What you mean by your manner of speech, I can not The 4●…. 〈◊〉. tell. S. Augustine useth not those words. But except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, is in deed a figure, and the speaking thereof is figurative, because it was not meant that a man should be visibly eaten, as flesh is eaten at common tables. But yet that he should be really eaten. Albeit the manner of eating be figurative as we know. And therefore when Christ had consecrated the bread into his body and said, this is my body, that speech was not figurative, because as the truth of the body was to be eaten, so the manner of the eating it, was determined. And the●… all was plain to good believers, but not to judas and his companions, who believe no more than they see bodily. S. Augustine then calling those words, except ye eat my flesh figurative, referreth the figure to the manner of eating. But not to the substance which is to be eaten. For else if by no mean the flesh of Christ might be eaten, it should not be eaten by faith. But if it may be so eaten, it may be eaten by mouth also in that pure manner as it is given us. jewel. The figure commandeth us to be partakers of Christ's The 4●…. untruth in translating. passion. San. It had been more truly translated, that we ought to communicate with Christ's passion. Communicare is to partake in the fullest manner that may be. And how can you possibly communicate better or more fully with Christ's passion, then to eat worthily the self body that suffered? Whereof S. Paul sayeth: 1. Co. 11. How oft so ever ye eat this bread, and drink the chalice of our Lord, ye shall show his death until he come. That is the communicating, whereof S. Augustine speaketh. jewel. And with comfort and profit lay up in our memory, that Christ hath suffered death for us. San. The perfect laying of this matter in our memory, is with Luc. 22. Penance & love to eat the thing which is made for the remembrance of Christ. Thence cometh power to live through, or for Christ so really, as he liveth through or for his Father, with whom he is one thing and nature. Of this whole saying of S. Augustine I have entreated more fully in my 3. b. the. xiv. Chapter. jewel. This therefore is Christ's meaning and the very eating The 44. untruth. of his flesh. San. Not this which you mean. But this it is, M. jewel, as I have told you. The whole, man must eat, as well in body as in soul, because the whole is taken and assumpted of Christ, the whole is incorporated by Baptism, the whole redeemed by death, and the whole shallbe crowned with glory: therefore the true eating is to eat that meat, which of itself consists of body, soul, and Godhead, to eat it, I say, in body, soul, and spirit, and not by faith only. jewel. The Capharnaites understood Christ grossly of éating § 5. with teeth that which Christ spoke spiritually: and so would M. The 45. untruth. Harding teach the people. San. D. Harding 〈◊〉 no more than he took of Christ and of the Evangelists. It is no grosie thing under the form of bread to eat the bread of life. The Capharnaites went no farther than to their teeth and belly. But we make the teeth to serve the mind also. That of Origenes, S. Dierom, S. Augustine maketh not against us. Iu. Tertullian saith the Capharnaites thought his speach●… was § 6. hard and intolerable, as though he had determined to give them De resur rect. car. The 46. untruth. his flesh verily and in deed to be eaten (with their mouths) therein, saith Tertullian, stood their error. San. You know they thought not of eating it under the form of bread. For S. Augustine saith in Christ's person: Quis modus Tract. 26 in joan▪ Cypria. sit manducandi istum panem, ignoratis. Ye know not what way there is of eating this bread. Therefore the word vere, verily▪ doth not show that they took it to be eaten in substance, without all gross humours or carnal division of his members, but that they thought they should eat it carnally, as the flesh of oxen is eaten, with the destruction of Christ's flesh. Tertullian did not refer the error to the mouth (as you say) but unto the manner of taking into De resur rect. car. the mouth. For himself teacheth in the same book, that our flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ. Iu. Nicolas de Lyra saith: these words of Christ in the sixth The 47. untruth. in Ps. 110 of S. John pertain not unto the Sacrament. Sam. Ye shall never have honesty by alleging the gloss, which yourself have condemned. But I know your disease: sane you would M. jewel is a glosser have a witness that the 6. of S. john pertaineth not to the supper. I will give you in the third chapter of my third book above twenty honest witnesses to prove, that Christ in S. john spoke of his last supper, and all they shallbe elder then Nicolas of Lyra. M. jewel belieth Nicolas of Lyra. But what? saith he as you report? He never in his life thought upon that which you attribute unto him. What seek you to know his mind upon the 110. psalm, sith he hath written upon the whole sixth chapter of S. john? Perhaps he speaketh not of the matter upon the psalms, or if he do, it is but by the way, and not of purpose. Well, it will serve you, whatsoever it be, your hunger and need is such. Let us then here Nicolas de Lyra, upon those words, Memoriam fecit: Our Lord hath made a memory Lyra in Psal. 110. of his marvelous things. Thus he writeth: Eucharistiae cibus sapidus est gustui spirituali, propter quod dicit salvator: Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane vivet in aeternum. The meat of the Eucharist is a savoury meat to the spiritual taste. Wherefore our joan. 6. Saviour saith, if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever. Is Eucharistia the Sacrament, or no? Are the other words in S. john, or no? It is then perceived by his comments upon that psalm, that you speak falsely of him, and in very deed so falsely, that he is wonderful plain i●… all his works, concerning that the sixth of S. John pertaineth to the last supper. As for the Replica which of late is printed with Nicolas of Lyra, remember that it is no part of Lyra, and that you are conversant in gloss neither with truth, nor with diligence. ¶ M. jewel hath not conferred the supper with the sixth The vi. Chapter. of S. John as it ought to be. § 7. IVel. Christ in S. John speaking of spiritual eating by faith of the iij. division. The 48. untruth. made no mention of any figure. but in his supper he added an outward sacrament to the same spiritual eating, which the Fathers oft call a figure. San. You can not tell what you say. For if in S. John spiritual eating by faith, be only spoken of, why is it said, dabo I will give? joan. 6. Whereas spiritual eating was already given to all that ever believed, and therefore it was not to come. But the bread which Christ will give is his flesh, and the gift thereof is to come: therefore it is more than a spiritual eating by faith, which was both M. jewel is cast by his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. past and present. but there is no mention of any figure (say you) in S. john. Therefor●… (say I) seeing the promise of his flesh which is to come, is not a promise concerning the figure thereof, it is surely a promise concerning the substance thereof. If it be so, and yet it must needs be more than a promise of eating by faith (which was not come) it will follow, that it was a promise of a bodily eating, aswell as by faith: As if Christ said, the bread which I will give to be received bodily at my last supper (as I have and presently do give the same to your souls that do believe in me) that bread is my flesh. But lest I should leave this matter only in confuting your surmise, it is to be known, that when a promise, and a performance The performance doth expound the promise. of God belong to one thing, the promise is made plain by the performance thereof: and seeing this word, dabo, I will give is a word of promise (concerning Christ's flesh) we must seek the performance of it, which will never be found to be fulfilled any where, but only in the last supper: and there the old Fathers sought the performance of it, as in my third book I have declared. Therefore as all the promises made before Christ's coming, were plain, when he had taken flesh, and when God from heaven said of him, This is my dear-beloved son: so is the promise made Matt. 3. in S. John very plain, when Christ having taken bread and Matt. 26. given thanks broke and gave, saying: take, eat, This is my body. The words this is, doth answer the word dabo, I will give: for as Tertullian well noteth, this is, are words of performing & of fulfilling the promise. Thus he writeth of God the Father, who having promised his son, did also perform his promise in giving Tertul. l. 4. cont. him really: Itaque iam representans ●…um: Hic est filius 〈◊〉, utique subadditur, quem repromisi. Si enim repromisi aliquando, Marcio●…em. & poste●… dicit, hic est, eius est exhib●…ntis voce uti in demonstratione promiss●…, qut aliquando promisit. God therefore making him present (saith) this is my son. surely it is to be supplied, whom This is. I have promised. For if he promised him at any time, and afterward saith, hic est, this is he, it belongeth to him who sometime made the promise, to use the word of bringing forth really Exhibēti●…. or of deliverance, in showing the thing promised. Apply this now to our purpose. Christ said, the bread which joan. 6. I will give, is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. At his supper after bread taken and blessing used, he saith, take, Matt. 2●…. e●…te, This is my body which is given for you. This is, are words, This is. which show present and bring ●…oorth really, and deliver the flesh before promised. But these words: take, eat, this is my body, make present, and show, and deliver Christ's body to us bodily: therefore the promise wherein Christ said, I will give, was also meant, I will give to you bodily, even by the ministery of my hands, and you shall receive it with your hands or mouths, or with both together. Which being so, the Fathers who call Christ's supper a figure, must needs mean such a figure as was promised. But when the promise was made at Tapharnaum, M. jewel confesseth (as the truth is) that no mention was made either of bread, or of wine, but only of Christ's own flesh: therefore in the last supper, the self same substance of Christ is called of the Fathers a figure, because it is in such sort present. Origen. in canti. jewel. M. Harding putteth no difference between things pertaining severally to the body and the spirit. The 49▪ untruth. Saunder. Origines doth speak of them, who reading the book of Canticles (which you against his judgement there set out in the vulgar tongue to be readen of every wanton boy or girl) would perhaps apply the names of love (there used) carnally. But that it should be any carnal thing to eat Christ's flesh either by ●…aith, or (as we do it) by mo●…th, that was never thought a wanton or fleshly thing, as the practice of the catholics can witness, who never came so wanton to any ca●…nal banquet, as they came devoutly to receive Christ's body into their mouths, preparing themselves with contrition, confession and satisfaction. The spiritual deeds of them show, that they understood Chri●… stes supper most spiritually. Therefore D. Harding hath not erred in saying, that Christ's body is to be ●…ceaued into our bodies. jewel. The bread is a figure. The 50. 〈◊〉. San. Before consecration S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure, but not after the words (this is my body) are said ovevit. Vbi verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi, when the words of Christ are come thereunto, it is the body of Christ. Again Damascene expre●…y saith: Non est figura panis & vinum corpori●… De orth. fi. lib. 4. cap. 14. & sanguinis Christi. absit enim hoc. The bread and wine is not a figure of the body and blood of Christ. God forbidden that thing. sed est ipsum corpus domini Deificatum, but is the self Deified body of our Lord. Deified is to say, made glorio●…se and immortal as God is by nature. M. jewel never brought nor can bring any Doctor who said, that bread tarrying in his old substance is after consecration the body of Christ. and yet he teacheth that doctrine, as bold therein as blind bayard. jewel. The bread is subject to corruption, Christ's body is immortal, The 51. untruth. Lib. 1. cap. 31. therefore Rabanus Maurus saith: The Sacrament is received with the mouth, with the virtue of the Sacrament the inner man is repaired. The Sacrament is turned into the nourishing of the body, by the virtue of the Sacrament we get everlasting life. San. This place is alleged that noman is the near where to 1. find it. For 〈◊〉 hath written more books than one or two. Again he is no Doctor to be alleged of M. jewel. Who esteemeth 2. ●…one of them, which have written these last nine hundred years. and yet seeing he bringeth them for himself, wheusoever he is able to make any colour to pe●…ade his own doctrine thereby, he doth us to understand, that his resolution is, that no writer of these last nine hundred years should be brought against him, but yet that he may bring what him list against us. Think you, M. jewel, that this 〈◊〉 condition shallbe taken at your hands? 3. are you not ashamed to cite them, whom you have 〈◊〉? if you did cite them to mock at them only, or to show their folly & 4. errors, it were tolerable in a man of your profession. But to 5. allege them in earnest, to build upon their words, and to prove your doctrine by some one of them, and that where he disagreeth 6. perhaps from his sellowes, & yet not to admit them where they all agree together, it is (to speak all in brief) the very point of an heretic, who seeketh singularity wheresoever he can find it, and leaveth always universal and Catholic consent. But these words we must take as you give them us. be it so, 7. Rabanus saith: The Sacrament is taken with the mouth. is not that against your doctrine M. jewel, who said the body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only, & none otherwise? did you not speak of the body of Christ, as it is eaten in the Sacrament? But your own Doctor saith, the Sacrament is taken with the mouth. therefore the body of Christ is so taken. and that is expressly proved by the words which follow in Rabanus. With the virtue of the Sacrament 8. Faise ●…slation. the inner man is filled. For so you should have translated satiatur, is filled, and not, is repaired, as you have done. But how is the inner man filled with the virtue of the Sacrament, if wheaten bread be the Sacrament? doth wheaten bread fill the soul of man? moreover is the virtue of any thing absent from it? is not that 9 virtue in the Sacrament, whereby the inner man is filled, sith it is called of Rabanus the virtue of the Sacrament? but the only 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 is the virtue which in this 〈◊〉 filleth 〈◊〉 souls. Therefore the body of Christ is in the 〈◊〉: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the body of Christ is 〈◊〉 with our mouths. Yea but (say you) the Sacrament is turned into the 〈◊〉 of the body. I answer, that the Sacrament is necessarily there 10 meant to be the form of bread or of wine. which in deed nonrisheth our bodies by the power of God, but under those forms the virtue lieth, whereby (as 〈◊〉 saith) we get everlasting life. What have you won now by your Doctor? truly nothing else but your own confusion. For he saith not, that the bread remaineth still, as you do falsely teach. Iu. The Sacrament (saith S. Augustine) is received from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 14. Lordstable. Of some unto life of some unto destruction: the thing itself whereof it is a Sacrament (that is the body of Christ) is received of every man to life, and of no man unto destruction, whoso●… be partaker of it. San. Here is a heap of falsehoods and lies. To disprove the which, I must first open the Catholic faith which teacheth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the Sacrament of Christ's supper is our Lords own body under the form of bread. The thing of the Sacrament is not the body 〈◊〉 Christ, as your words put in among those of S. Augustins do False 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. falsely 〈◊〉, but the thing here meant by S. Augustine, is the 〈◊〉 of the Church of God and the mystical body of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉. which he knitteth together into one lump by unspeakable meaves of 〈◊〉, love, 〈◊〉, flesh and blood. And that is so plain in S. Augustin, that I can not sufficiently wonder at your enormous either blindues, or 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉. jewel. Thus he writeth in the August. tract. in 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. self place where you cite him: Hunc cibum & caet. Christ willeth this meat and 〈◊〉 to be understanded the fellowship of his body & of his 〈◊〉. And again, Huius rei Sacramentum, id est, 〈◊〉 corporis & sanguinis Christi. 〈◊〉 sacrament of this thing, that is to 〈◊〉, the Sacrament of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, 〈◊〉 where every day, somewhere certain days coming between, is prepared in our Lord's table, and is received 〈◊〉 our lords table to some men unto life, to other unto destruction. But the thing itself (whereof also it is a holy sign or Sacrament) is received of every man to life, of no man to destruction, who soever be partaker of it. Hitherto S. Augustine. M. jewel saith, the thing itself is the body of Christ: but if he had not falsely and miserably divided S. Augustine's words, the very contrary would have appeared to the eyes of the Reader. The 〈◊〉 case left out. M. jewel left out two genitive cases, unitatis and huius rei, which being repeated in S. Augustine maketh all the matter exceeding clear. S. Augustine affirmeth the fellowship of the saints to be the body of Christ, whereof S. Paul saith, we being many are 1. Cor. 10 one bread one body. The Sacrament, saith he, of this body (which body is the company of the elect) is received from our lords table. Huius rei Sacramentum: The Sacrament of this thing. Of which 〈◊〉. M. jewel saith, of the body of Christ, and meaneth the natural body which sitteth in heaven: for M. jewel said before in the same very paragraph, Christ's body is the thing itself. Christ's body is in heaven, & glorious & subject to no corruption. And he made the bread which is in earth, a figure of that body. But saith S. Augustin so? No douttesse. His words be: Sacramentum huius rei, 〈◊〉 est, unitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi etc. The Sacrament of this thing, that is to say, of the unity of Christ's The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of Christ's 〈◊〉. body and blood, is prepared in our lords table, and thence received. The unity of Christ's body is not his natural body, but his 〈◊〉 body the Church, which before S. Augustine called Societatem Sanctorum, the fellowship of the holy men. Now the Sacrament of this fellowship and of this union is received from our Lord's table. Therefore we see two things noted of S. A●…gustine, the one is the Sacrament itself: The other is that thing whereof it is the Sacrament. The Sacrament is such a substance which may be either life or destruction to us, because it is the natural and true body of Christ, which being united to God can make us li●…e, if it be worthily received: and that by his own virtue (which thing joan. 6. manna the Sacrament of the jews could not do) and the same being unworthily received, destroyeth us, for that we touch and violate the real substance of our maker. But the thing, whereof that Sacrament is the sig●…e, is hurtful to no man. Why so? Because it is the ●…nioying or fruition of that fellowship, which being not entered into but by virtue and grace, can not possibly make any man to be destroyed. For we can not abuse the virtues themselves. All substances we may abuse, and God we may offend▪ but we can not take hurt by faith being faithful, chaste, humble, charitable, temperate, modest, by which virtues we are incorporated to the mystical body of Christ. This thing therefore which is the ●…ffect of the Sacrament being wrought in faithful men, is called in S. Augustine res ipsa, the thing itself. And was called The 〈◊〉 of the Sacrament. before, societas Sanctorum, the fellowship of the saints, and strait after, haec res, this thing, and again, unitas corporis & sanguinis Christi, the unity of Christ's body and blood. This thing is destruction to no man, whosoever be partaker of it. M. jewel doth most ignorantly, & I can not tell with what greater Fine words left out. malice, leave out, huius rei, and, unitatis, and saith, Sacramentum de mensa dominica sumitur. The Sacrament is received from our Lord's table. But S. Augustine said, the Sacrament of this thing, that is to say, of unity is received. All those words huius rei, id est, unitatis, were left out of M. jewel. The which thing doth clean alter the whole sense of S. Augustine. Again, whereas S. Augustine said: the Sacrament of this 〈◊〉 is prepared in our Lords ●…able, 〈◊〉 jewel left it 〈◊〉. But Other words left out. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much for me to show to the reader, that Christ's Sacra ment is not only received from his table, but also prepared in his table, and first prepared before it be received. Prepared by consecration, received by communion. It is not common bread as ●…, I●…el, wickedly preacheth. For that was prepared before we came to our lords table: but Christ's Sacrament is prepared in his table: it is there first made & thence it is received. Well if the Sacrament be one thing, and the thing of the Sacrament (whereof S. Augustine speaketh) be the company of good men, what will follow hereof? Surely, that the Sacrament is the substance of Christ's body under the form of bread. How so? It is not possible, that the body of Christ should be excluded 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his holy table: but all that is there prepared, or else received, Note. either it is the Sacrament itself, or the thing of the Sacrament: but Christ's body is not now called of S. Augustin the thing of the Sacrament, as it hath been proved: therefore it is called the Sacrament itself. But the Sacrament is prepared in Christ's table, & received thence, therefore Chr●…stes body is prepared there & received thence. That which is received thence appeareth bread, & that only is prepared by consecration, and received by communion: Therefore under that visible form the body is made present by consecration, and received into our mouths by communion. Was there not cause trow you, why M. jewel should leave out the genitine case i●…yned with Sacramentum, and take it absolutely for a sacrament, that is to say, for bread? And so to make the thing of the Sacrament to be the body of Christ in heaven? By such falsehoods maintained must be maintained, otherwise it would fall to the ground. ¶ M. jewel hath not disputed well touching the omnipotency of Christ, in promising the gift of his The vi●…. Chapter. flesh. HArding. Christ by showing his divine power, The 4. division. whereby he will ascend into heaven confoundeth the unbelief of the Capharnaits, touching the promised substance of his body. jewel. Christ maketh mention of his ascension into heaven, ergo The 55. untruth. (sayeth M. Harding) his body is really in the Sacrament. San. You leave out the omnipotency of Christ, where upon D. Harding grounded his whole reason, and so you play with him the pelting Sophist. jewel. If he conclude not thus, he concludeth nothing. The 56. 〈◊〉. San. He concludeth that the Capharnaites be confounded for their unbelief, as you also be. For seeing Christ said of his flesh I will give: And the whole stay why the Capharnaites believed him not, was because they knew not his Godhead, which was able to do it by so excellent a means (as now we Catholics know that he hath done it, and ye will not know) when both they and you here that Chris●… is God and will ascend where he was before, you are both confounded, as who measure his works by your own 〈◊〉 reason, and not by his almighty word. For his words are spirit and life: and therefore do work joan. 6. really whatsoever they speak. jewel. When ye see Christ ascend whole, ye shall see that he giveth Aug. in Ioa●…n. tract. 28. not his body in such ●…ort as you imagine. His grace is not wasted by morsels, sayeth S. Augustine, using Christ's ascension, The 57 〈◊〉. to prove that there is no such gross presence in the Sacrament. San. True it is that Christ is not present to be wasted by eating, but yet he is really eaten. And that is clearly meant of S. Augustine, when he sayeth, He will not give his body in that manner as you think. As who should say he will give it one way, but not that way as you Capharnaites imagine. He will not give a shoulder to one, and a leg to an other. But the supper Math. 26 showeth the manner of the giving: Where bread was taken and § 〈◊〉. after blessing and the words pronounced, Christ's body was in 1. Co. Home 24 given to the mouths of the Apostles. jewel. This is the table for Eagles, and not for jays, saith Chrysostom. San. I have answered your jangling talk of jays in my. i●…. book the. xxvi●…. Chapter. And have tur●…ed it upon your own head. jewel. S. 〈◊〉, let us go up with the Lord (into heaven) The 58. & 59 60. untruth. into that greatparlar, and receive of him above the cup of the new ●…estament▪ San. Certain men had imagined that Christ should reign corporally in earth a thousand years together, & drink a new kind of wine, who grounded their heresy upon these words of Christ: I say unto you I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day, when I will drink it new with you in the Hieron. ad Hedi. quaest. 2. Kingdom of my Father. S. Hierom calling that 〈◊〉 judaicas fabulas, jewish tales, therewith declareth what kind of wine we must drink in the Kingdom of God, which is the Church, saying: Si ergo panis qui de coelo, & caet. If then the bread which came down from heaven be the body of our Lord, and the wine which he gave to the Disciples be his blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, let us repel jewish fables, let us ascend with our Lord unto the great parlar spread and made clean, and let us take of him above the cup of the new Testament. Hitherto S. Hierom. whose authority M. jewel hath abused diverse ways. First you add to S. Words falsely added. Hierom these two words (into heaven) without cause. For it followed in S. Hierom, whither we should ascend, coenaculum magnum, unto the great parlar, there to take of Christ the bloo●… of the new Testament, above, that is to say, not in the staleness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit, as it followeth afterward. And yet again more plainly, in regno Ecclesiae, in the Kingdom of the Church. And last of all: Impleamus opus eius, & Christus nobiscum bibet in regno Ecclesiae sanguinem suum. Let us fulfil his work, and Christ will drink with us in the Kingdom of the Church his blood. Thus it is plaive that S. Jerome spoke not of going into heaven by faith to drink the cup of the new Testament, but o●… going up into the great parlar, which is the Church and Kingdom of God. S. Hierom alluded to the History of Christ's last supper, which was kept in a parlar spread and strawed (as it is Dama sc. li. 4. c. 14 thought) in the mount Zion. Let us go thither, saith S. Hierom, & there let us receane the new wine whereof Christ spoke. S. Chrysostom also alluded to the same parlar saying, that Christ Hom. 38 in Math. maketh this supper, (which now his Priests do consecrate) as well as he made that, wherein he delivered his own banquet. Hoc est illud coenaculum, & caet. This is that parlar wherein Christ was then with his Disciples. Hence he went to the mount of Olives▪ which sith it is so, it was very evil done of M. jewel to divide the verb from his accusative case, and to put an other ●…oun between, against all reason, grammar, and honesty. S. Hierom said, ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum. 〈◊〉 us go up with our Lord to the parlar. M. jewel putteth the noun (in coelum) into heaven, between. As if when a man said, let us go up to the chamber, he would put an other word be●… and say, let us go up into the sliple into (that) chamber. For after he had conveyed into S. Hierom his words (into he●… That ●…sely added by M. ven) he secondly turned coenaculum, that parlar. where is (that) in S. Hierom, M. jewel? (That) was of your putting in, to jewel. make us believe that heaven is the parlar, whereof S. Hierom spoke. Thirdly M. jewel left out these▪ words which went immediately Other words of importance left out. before and show in what respect S. Hierom spoke of going up: judaicas fabulas repellamus. Let us put away jewish fables, and so let us goc up with our Lord to the great parlar, by keeping that which Christ instituted, and by leaving other fables. Fourthly whereas in the same very question it followeth, that Christ gave the true broad not Moses but our Lord jesus gave us the true bread, himself eating, and being he that is eaten: How can M. jewel find in his heart to allege this place of S. Hierom against the real presence? For how is our bread more true than the bread of Moses, if at Christ's supper we must go up into heaven to eat it? Might not Moses eating Manna do the same? How is Christ the Conuina & co●… vium. maker of the feast and the meat itself, if common bread be eaten and not his flesh? Is common bread the maker of the feast? If not the maker of the seast, neither is it the meat: for all is one, saith S. Hierom. jewel. Cyrillus saith: our Sacrament avoucheth not the eating The 61. untruth. of a man, leaving the minds of the unfaithful in ungodly manner to gross (or flesh) cogitations. Sand. A man would scant believe how wickedly this place is abused. First these are not the words of S. cyril▪ next, he never meant not so much as by dream any such thing, as M. jewel doth father upon him. His own words are spoken upon such occasion: Nestorius the Heretic said that Christ had two persons, Nestor. and that his ●…hod was not ●…nited 〈◊〉 one person to the son Cyril. ad Enopt. of God. Against whom S. cyril saith in that place: proprium ●…orpus dicimus factum esse verbi, & non hominis alicuius seorsum Anathe. 11. & separatim, we say the body of Christ to be made proper of the word, that is to say, to be the words own body. and not to be the body of any man apart or separated. Nestorius' replied out of Christ's words: He that eateth my flesh tarrieth in me. what eat we (said the heretic) the Godhead or the flesh? meaning thereby to conclude, that seeing the Godhead can not be eaten with our mouth, & yet the flesh was really eaten, that there was one person of the Godhead, an other of the flesh. Cyrillus answereth: Dost thou then affirm, that there is an other son and Christ, beside the word (coming) from God, the which hath appeared, & to whom alone the matter of Apostleship may be committed? Now follow the words corrupted by M. jewel. Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc sacramentum pronuncias? dost thou pronounce Homo in S. cyril doth signi fie a man that is not God. this our Sacrament (to be) the eating of a man? M. jewel turneth these words, as though S. Cyrillus had set forth a doctrine of his own, without any respect to the heresy of Nestorius. but the words of S. cyril mean, dost not thou affirm that in the Sacrament (where we eat real and natural flesh) that therein we eat a bare man's flesh, a●…d not also his flesh that is God? Et irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem? and dost thou undenoutly press the mind of the faithful to gross cogitations? And the words which follow M. jewel thought good to omit, because they would have showed high to be a corruptour of good authors. It followeth. & attentas etc. Ibidem. & dost thou attempt to handle those things with man's thoughts, which are understanded by only pure and simple faith? whether The nature of the Godhead is not ●…atē because the nature of the Godhead is not eaten, therefore should a man say, the holy body of our Lord to be a common body? Quoniam autem est corpus vitae, but because it is the body of life, it doth g●…e life. for thereby it giveth life to our mortal bodies. hitherto S. Cyrillus, who by all means a●…irmeth the Note. real body of Christ to be eaten, and so to be eaten, as the nature of the Godhead is not eaten. Therefore S. Cyrillus speaketh of eating Christ's body by mouth, and not by faith only: but the fault which he found with Nestorius was, for that Nestorius would have it to be the body of a man only, and not the proper & peculiar body of God the word. Now M. jewel worse in that behalf than Nestorius, would have our Sacrament to be no flesh or body at all. Nestorius' plucked the nature of God from o●… Sacrament, leaving us yet the flesh of a bare man. But M. jewel Bare man bare bread de●…ieth any flesh at all to be present, leaving us only bread and wine, which thing Nestorius durst not say. Nor the devil durst not then utter such blasphemy by him: because the scriptures were so plain, and the faith of the whole Church was so much addicted to Christ's real presence, and the practice thereof so general, that it might by no means be openly oppugned. I have spoken more of this matter in my ij. b. in the xxv. chap. Hereof I must needs warn M. jewel: As he would persuade that we eat not Christ's flesh because S. cyril saith, we do not eat the flesh of a man: so he might say Christ was not born of the virgin, because a man was not born. For S. cyril will not Cyril. ad Theod. de recta fide per totum lib. grant him, that according to proper speech a man was born. for he was God & man, but the person was the person of God, and not the person of a man. O the great ●…ty of M. jewel so abusing S. Cyril, and not caring what he saith. S. Cyril plainly affirmeth these four things. 1. That Christ is not born a pure and bare man. 2. That Christ is not adored as a bare man. 3. That we do not believe in Christ as in a bare man. 4, That we do not eat Christ as a bare man. If now 〈◊〉. jewel will conclude, that we eat him not therefore 〈◊〉 all really & corporally in the Sacrament, he may by the same force conclude, that he was not really borne at all, nor is to be really adored nor to be really believed in. This extreme blasphemy of M. jewel requireth alone a whole book to be made against it, as the which piketh ou●… of the Fathers (opp●…gning the Nestorian heresy) such conclusio●…s, which take away the whole incarnation of Christ and th●… belief thereof. we eat not a man, saith M. jewel, therefore we eat not Christ, we adore not a man, saith S. Cyril: therefore saith M. jewel we adore not Christ. O pestilent instrument of Satan born Ad Theod. de rect. fid. coll. 278. in our days, to deny Christ to establish Antichrist. Christ (saith S. cyril) doth give us life as God, Sed & manducabilem app●… nens assumptam carnem filii hominis, but (he giveth us life also) putting before us the flesh of the son of man assumpted, made apt to be eaten. Is it not plain here, that we eat the flesh assumpted? but in deed it is no man's flesh, but the flesh of God. for De rect. ●…id. ad re ginas our lady is thereof called, not hominipara, the bringer forth of ●… man, but Deipara, the bringer forth of God, who had assumpted Deipara. man's nature. And that S. cyril, when he said the flesh of the son of man to be set before us apt to be eaten, meant of eating by mouth and not by faith alone, it is clear by that which followeth, Colum. 279. ubi supra. non est autem esibile verbum. the word (that is to say, the son of God as God) is not able to be eaten. what M. jewel? is it not able to be eaten by ●…aith? yes verily. But God the word is not able to be eaten by mouth of itself. How then is it eaten? secundum dispensativam unionem. according to the dispensation of the union, wherein the word is made flesh: and so whiles we take the flesh into our mouth which is able to be eaten, we take also the word into our mouth, because it dwelleth in that flesh. and so we eat not the flesh of a man in our Sacrament, but the flesh of God. jewel. D. Harding will say Christ made mention of his omnipotent The 61. untruth. power, and therefore in the Sacrament there must needs be a fleshly presence. San. What unhonesty is this to reason all this while against A vile custom of M. jewel. D. Harding upon a false ground, and now to conjecture (as it were) what he will say? as though his words lay not before you, as though he made not mention five times of Christ's divine power. Yet come you again to frame his argument, as if you were a ●…ester or scoffer, whose office it is captiously to suap at words. The 63. untruth. jewel. Nycola●… de Lyra saith: Christ's words pertain nothing to the Sacrament. San. That lie is answered before to your shame, who delight so in abusing authors. jewel. If Christ's body be not in the Sacrament, is not God omnipotent? The 64. untruth. San. If D. Harding make no such argument, be not you a good reporter? He sayeth Christ's plain promise joined with his omnipotent power, and with the offence of the Capharnaits, doth show his words to have been proper: and consequently doth prove his real presence. You divide them apart, and so play your part in i●…sting. jewel. The old Fathers, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo, acknowledge The 65. untruth. God's omnipotency in Baptism, yet is not Christ really there. Therefore it was vain labour to allege his omnipotency for the real presence. San. But Baptism had no promise to be the flesh of Christ: Therefore you have lost your labour in all that you allege in that behalf. For D. Harding said not, wheresoever God's omuipotencie is spoken of, that there his real presence is proved, except joan. 5. the promise be joined withal. Christ said, the bread which Math. 26 I will ge●… is my flesh, and after bread taken and blessing made he said: This is my body. And being omnipotent he was able to perfoorm his word: therefore his will and word joined make his real presence, and not his omnipotency alone, as you ca●…ill. ¶ Whether the catholics or Sacramentaries expound The viii. Chapter. more unproperly or inconveniently the words belonging to Christ's supper. The v. division. HArding. Because these places report that Christ gave at his supper his very body, the Fathers say it is really in the Sacrament. The 66. vntruth●…. jewel. A thing is taken to make proof which is doubtful, and the antecedent is unproved. Sand. Said not Christ: take, eat, this is my body? Say not the Evangelists, that he gave unto his Apostles? How then is the antecedent unproved? jewel. The Fathers call the Sacrament a figure, a token, a sign, § ij. The 67. untruth. an image, & caet. Therefore Christ's words may be taken with a Metaphor, trope, or figure. San. It standeth well together to be a sign and the truth: As Christ is the image of God, and yet also God. The higher Colos. 2. every sign or image is, the less it differeth from the truth: and therefore the figure of Christ's body and blood differeth in form, but not in substance from Christ himself, and so albeit the Sacra meant be a figure, yet the words (this is my body) be not tropical or unproper. jewel. Even Duns saw that following the bare letter we must Doubtful. needs say, that the bread itself is Christ's body. San. Think you any man doth believe you (without allegi●…g the place) who have abused so many Fathers already? Or ●…row you we spend so much time in reading Duns, that we know all that is in him? jewel. So the words stand. This (bread) is my body. The 68 untruth. San. Where stand they so? Is it written in any place of the Gospel, this bread is my body? And yet you say the words stand so. I think it be so in your Gospel: but surely it is not so in ours. jewel. They sa●… (this) meant not, this bread, but one certain The 69. untruth. thing in general. San. I have showed how it is taken in my. 4. book in the 4. 5. and. 6. Chapter. it can not signify bread by any means. Neither doth it only signify in general as you say, but it signifieth that which is contained under the form of bread. jewel. Est, they expound, erit, it shallbe. The 70. untruth. San. It is a shameful pleasure that this man hath in falsehood. For we believe that Christ took this word est, is, to consecrate his Chryso. body withal, because of all words it signifieth a most present Hom. 60 ad pop. being of a thing. And for as much ●…s God worketh in a moment, Antioc. or at the instant of his word, he chose to say this is my body: Nysse. in orat. Ca thec. forth with making it so, as S. Chrysostom & Gregory Nyssen affirm. But he would not say, this shallbe my body, which had been a promise only, and not the working or making of the mystery. Hoc. jewel. Erit, they expound: the substance of this uncertain general The 71. untruth. one thing shallbe changed. San. These interpretations be false, neither is the substance uncertain which is changed. For the substance of the bread is changed: and that because Christ affirmeth that, which was bread before he spoke, at the end of his speech to be his body, to whose voice the substance of bread giveth place to what him list. jewel. Is given, they expound, shallbe given. The 〈◊〉. unt 〈◊〉. San. What a vain tale is this? seeing we upon the present gist sh●…w an unbloody sacrifice even pre●…ently made, and therefore we urge always: this is my body which is given for you. Although it be also true that it shallbe given, and both are true together, the one in the supper, concerning the unbloody sacrifice, the other on the cross, concerning the bloody sacrifice, but yet against heretics we urge most the present gift. This man by mocking us seemeth to say, that Christ's body was not given at all. For at the supper he will not grant a sacrifice. And he mocketh at datur for dabitur. Yet if it be meant of the cross, it must be so expounded of himself, it is given, that is to say, it shall be given. it is broken, is in the same condition with, is given. jewel. Do ye this, they expound, sacrifice ye this. The 73. untruth. San. Nay Sir. They having first controlled your English as imperfect (though not false) afterward will have hoc facite, also to signify make this thing, to wit, make my body. The making of which sacrificed substance must needs be always a sacrifice. I have spoken hereof in my. iiij. book the. xiii. Chapter. jewel. This bread, they expound, this that was bread. doubtful. San. You should name the place where we so expound it. For according to the circumstance it may be so taken. But much rather we take it for this food, which is the body of Christ after consecration. jewel. These verbs he took, he blessed, he broke, he gave, stand The 74. 〈◊〉. together and rule one case. San. They stand together in order of writing, but not in order of doing. For if Christ had not said: this is my body, before he had broken, S. Paul would not have said: the bread which we break is the communicating of Christ's body. For it cometh 1. Co. 10. of the word of God (this is my body) that it is the communicating of Christ's body. If then the words of 〈◊〉 were spoken before the breaking, what wonder you, 〈◊〉 the thing that was taken being changed, we change the construction of those verbs which follow the change? jewel. He took bread, he blessed it away. The 75▪ untruth. San. You jest: But in deed we teach not the bread to be annihilated or done away, but to be changed into a better substance. Blessing. For blessing bestowed upon a creature is the abettering of it. Which is not done without some change. Now if the thing pronounced at the time of blessing by God, be an other substance, the former nature by blessing is then changed in substance. God bless me from such a man, who sco●…th at the holy mysteries. jewel. He broke the accidents. San. That is true, because there was none other thing left after consecration to be broken. And that you would confess, if you thought Christ to have used a proper kind of speech, which always you ought to think, if it may possibly be defended as it may and must in the words of the supper. So that the chief question is of those words, this is my body: The rest must be ruled by them. jewel. He gave his body. San. We believe it a meeter gift for Christ, then to give common bread. jewel. Upon these few words of Christ thus many figures and The 76. untruth. more they have imagined. Sand. Is it not 〈◊〉 said of you, upon these few words of Christ? as though all these were Christ's own words. whereas the four verbs be all written of the Evangelists, but never a one of them spoken by Christ. which thing S. Ambrose also hath noted. but D. Harding spoke only of Christ's words, wherein he 〈◊〉 his body. in all which you have yet found never a figure. for this is my body, which is given for you, make this thing: are all proper words and signify most properly. jewel. busy de these figures they have imagined many more. The 77. untruth. Sand. We have imagined none, but we teach as we received. But will you give me leave, M. jewel, to repeat a few of your figures, Here begin the false figures of the Sacramen tarries. or of your absurd doctrines in this behalf? and than let the discrete reader judge, who doth more contumely to God's words, you, or we. 1. First ye join together, this, bread, otherwise then the Gospel hath done: where it is not said, this bread is my body, Hoc. this. but this is my body. 2. Ye have done it cleave against the Gospel. for hoc (this) is of the neuter gender, but panis bread is of the masculine gender. 3. You have iterated the same fault in joining hic (this) being of the masculine gender, to vinum, wine, being of the ●…ter gender. 4. You have divided the pronoun (this) both 〈◊〉 the body and blood of Christ, with which substantives only it may agree in right construction. 5. You expound the same pronoun sometime for bread, sometime for the body, when ye say, this is my body, are words of promise. For I In the 2. come of the homilies the leaf 213. dare say you mean not, that bread is promised to any man. If then the body be promised by these words, this is my body (as Calvin & your homilies say) doubtless in that interpretation (this) doth appertain to the body, and not to bread. 6. Est, is, you expound Est. is. for significat, it doth signify. and that without any example. For that verb (In this is my body) standeth not between two several natures, as in these words (the rock was Christ) but it only 〈◊〉 1. Co. 10. m one substance of Christ's body. 7. You take the very same verb est is properly, referring it to the body of Christ, which 〈◊〉 every man's heart you consecrate by preaching these words, this is my body, as Calvin teacheth. 8. Some other of you will have the verb est always to stand properly even in respect of the bread, because it is a sign of Christ's body. and in deed it must needs stand so. for you know that the verb substantive is n●…cessarily either expressed or supplied in every proposition, in so much that these words, this doth signify my body, must be resolved, this is signifying my body. 9 When the verb est, is, in greek is left Luc. 22. out by S. Luke, ye supply it by force of common use, which leaveth In the words of the 〈◊〉. out that verb as being easy to be understanded: and when you have supplied it, you cast it out again, as though it were superfluous. 10. The ●…oun (body) you take properly, when you Corpus. Body. have taken, est, for significat. 11. The same noun you take unproperly, for the figure of Christ's body, when (est) is taken properly. 12. You expound the relative quoth which so, as it Quod. which. can not agree with his antecedent, and with the verb solowing together. for when body is taken for the sign or figure of body (as you take it most commonly, and therein pretend to follow Tertullian & S. 〈◊〉) than the relative (which) must needs repeat his antecedent in his whole sense. and so the sense is: This is the figure of my body, the which figure of my body is given for you. Now as you will say: this is the figure of Christ's body. whereof he said, this is my body: so you can not say, that the s●…gure of Christ's body is given for us. Thus, quoth the which, standeth between corpus body and datur, is given, in such sort, that it can not agree with both: except ye say with Martion, that a figure is given or offered up to God for us. 13. Datur, is given, you expound dabitur, it shall be given, denying Datur. is given. that it is presently true, that it is given at the supper. We say it is given at the supper, & shall be given also upon the cross, Facite. do and make. not denying one truth by an other. 14. You expound facite, ●…oe ye only, whereas it is also, make ye. we grant both, ye deny the one sense. 15. Hoc, ye English, this, & expound it in your Hoc. this thing homilies, thus do ye: as if it were said sic, or ità, do ye so, or do ye thus. whereas the true English is, this thing. 〈◊〉. In meam In 〈◊〉 for the re●…. commemorationem, ye english in the remembrance of me, whereas in with an accusative case, doth signify rather, for the remembrance of me. as we say, in meam gratiam fac hoc: do this thing for my sake, and n●…t in my sake. 17. When you have expounded est, is, for significat to signify, Hic. this. then remaineth the pronoun hic, this in the confecration of the blood without a noun substantine. For Hic significat sanguinem meum, can have at all no substantive with whom it may agree in case and gender. sanguinem is the accusative case, and vinum is the neuter gender. 18. If in these words, this cup is the new In my blood. Testament in my blood, ye take the noun blood, for the sign of my blood, the new Testament is established in a figure of blood: and so is worse than the old, which was established in true blood Exo. 24. of oxen. 19 If there you take the name of blood properly and without a figure, likewise in these words, this is my blood of the new Testament, it must stand properly, which is against your doctrine. 20. The construction of these words, this cup is shed for you, in S. Luke's words, doth import this sense, The thing with in this cup is shed for you. but you say, the thing within the cup is win●…: therefore you teach wine to be shed for us. but we teach the thing in the cup to be real blood: therefore we teach blood to be shed for us. 21. When Christ said, the bread which I will give is my flesh: You so expound (I will give) that it meaneth also I have given, and I do give. For you take it spoken only of a spiritual giving which was both past and present, and therein ye break the nature of the word. 22. In S. Paul (the bread which we break is the communicating of Christ's body) you expound, signifieth the communicating: As though the jews figures did not the same. and yet there S. Paul distin●…eth our Sacra●…ent from theirs. 23. The cup of blessing which we bless, you will have to be a 23. blessing. cup of wine still, as though the blessing wrought nothing in it. For if it work any thing, it worketh the blood which at the consecration is affirmed present. 24. You make Christ give thanks to his Father in beginning 24. thanksgeu●…g. the state of the new Testament, in better words, than deeds: for his words be, this is my body. Yet you will have him in deed to offer no body at all to his Father in that thanksgiving, but bare bread and wine still to remain. 25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadows, and to 25. Bread worse: them Manna. give externally, that is to say, to our mouths & bodies less than Moses. For Manna was better than common bread, and a gist more miraculous. 26. Ye expound, to be guilty of Christ's body and blood for eating, 26. that is to say, for not eating or resusing to eat. For you 1. Cor. 1●… teach evil men not to eat the body of Christ, which is against S. Paul. 27. Ye will not have Christ's supper to be an external sacrifice, 27. A Sacrifice. but to be worse in that point then the jewish or idolators altars and tables, who both did sacrifice, and also S. Paul compareth 1. Cor. 10 Christ's table with theirs. 28. Ye so expound the showing of Christ's death, by eating 28. The showing of Christe●… death. bread a figure of him, that you rather show him not to be truly dead, because your figure is yet empty & void, which can never prove Christ's death truly passed. 29. Ye expound the not making a difference between Christ's 29. body eaten, and other meats, in such sort, that ye will not have 〈◊〉 ●…ting. the body present, wherein the difference is to be made. 30. Ye deny our union with Christ's flesh by corporal participation, 30. Union. which S. Paul teacheth by the example of Adam & Eve Ephes. 〈◊〉. being two in one flesh. 31. Whereas S. Pavia saith Christ to be so much better than 31. Heb. 1 The name of body & blood. Angels, by how much he had a more excellent name than they: you regard not the name body & blood given to the mysteries of Christ, but affirm 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 32. The promise made to body & blood. Christ's supper as there is, yet no promise can be found made to him who eateth material bread and drinketh wine. But all the promise is made for eating Christ's flesh and drinking worthily his blood. Therefore you affirm bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken in Christ's supper beside the word of God. 33. Although David prophesied of eating and adoring, yet you 33. Psal. 21. will grant no such meat to be given to us which may be external lie adored. 34. Notwithstanding that the prophets teach, that by Christ's 34. Psal. 9 coming all external idolatry shallbe taken away, yet you fear Zach. 13. not to say, that Christ's own Sacrament bearing the name of his own body and blood, is itself an idol, which was left with us to keep us from all idolatry. 35. The son of man came as to save, so to feed the whole man: 35. why then deny you the food of life to our bodies, affirming them to eat common bread, and to drink common wine, whiles the soul is fed by faith with the body and blood of Christ? 36. If in the Sacrament of the altar we feed upon Christ by faith 36. alone, why is that Sacrament called a supper more than baptism, where also we must feed on Christ by faith? 37. Seeing a figure may also be the truth itself whereof it is the 37. Heb. 1. figure, as Christ is the figure of his Father and yet the same substance, what reason have you, why you would rather detract this ho●…our from Christ's Sacrament, then give the same unto it? 38. 38. Christ being equal with his Father made promise to us of his ●…oan. 6. ●…ne flesh, which his Father had ge●…en. Why then deny you the gift of Christ to be as real to us, as his Father gave him real flesh? 39 How teach you the words of Christ, which are spirit & life, 39 joan. 6. to be notwithstanding figurative, and consequently dead and void of all life or strength? 40. Because the word of God (who was only able to be fed upon 40. Psal. 77. by faith, and so was the food of Angels or souls) would be also the meat of man (in respect of the body) it took flesh a●…d at his supper said to us: take, eat, this is my body. And yet you make him still to be only the meat of the mind, whereby we are excluded from having God corporally in us through the flesh of Christ. 41. To conclude, whereas ye find flesh, body, blood joined with 〈◊〉. eating, drinking, taking, partaking, giving, breaking, distributing, communicating, d●…udicating: ye expound all those words figuratively, as though God by so many ways repeating those words had not strengthened the common and proper significations of them. Let this suffice for this time to show, that you observe nor gender, nor number, nor nominative case, nor verb, nor antecedent, nor relative, 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 prophets, nor the ●…ulfilling of the old law, nor the oft repeating of the matters belonging to Christ's supper: but only to serve the eye and the senses deny all the marvelous Psal. 110. works of the new testament, the remembrance of all which this one mystery is affirmed to be. ●…rag no more, M. jewel, of our figurative expositions: sith you have thus erred in grammar, in Logic, in Divinity, in truth, in faith, in common sense. Iu. If in these words: except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, Origen. hom. 7. in levit. ye follow the letter, it killeth. San. To follow the letter is to take words as they sound to an in●…del, as to have flesh torn in to pieces and so eaten: but he that taketh them as Christ in his supper by his fact did expound them, doth follow the spirit and not the letter. ¶ A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by The ix. Chapter. M. jewel. IVel. S. Augustine saith The Sacrament of Christ's body after § iij. a certain phrase, or manner, or trope, or ●…igure of speech is the Epi. 23. body of Christ. The 78. untruth. Saunder. This place is wickedly abused, because it is nakedly alleged, and falsely englished, whereas it dependeth wholly upon the words going before, which are these: Nónne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso? & tamen in Sacramento & caet. Was not ●…mmola ri populis, id est, ●…d vtili●…atem populorum Christ once offered up in himself? and yet in the Sacrament he is offered up for the people not only at every feast of Easter, but every day. Neither surely doth he lie, who being demanded, Eum responderit immolari. Doth answer that he is offered up. For if the Sacraments had not a certain likeness of those things whereof they are the Sacraments, they were not at all Sacraments. Out of this likeness, they take also for the most part the names of the things themselves. As therefore according to a certain ●…anner the Sacrament of Christ's body is the body of Christ, the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ: so the Sacrament of faith, is faith. In these words of S. Augustine it is to be seen evidently, that he putteth a difference between the thing, and the Sacrament of that thing. The thing therefore itself must be first knowe●…, and then we shall see how the Sacrament thereof is both like vn●… it, and taketh the name thereof. The thing itself (in ou●… question) is jesus Christ, & not only The thing. so, but the true body of jesus Christ: neither only true in substance, but even true in shape, in form, in quantity, and quality. Christ was made man in deed, borne in deed, he grew and walked upon the earth in deed, according to the true and visible nature and form of man. He suffered death in the same form, and did shed his blood apart from his flesh. Now mark, when it pleased him to departed out of this world, he would have all these things believed of us, remembered of us, and followed, as our weakness through his grace might suffer. In consideration whereof he iustituted a Sacrament of his own The Sacrament. body and blood. Of which body? Of that which he had taken, & which was but one. The first point of this Sacrament must be (saith S. Augustine) that it have a certain likeness or similitude with Christ's own body and blood. and consequently that likeness shall make it to have the name itself. What is the likeness (in the sacrament of Christ's supper) between The likeness of both things it and the natural body of Christ? Seek as long as you are able M. jewel, pry, and search never so entirely, you shall find the likeness to be in this point specially, that the substance of Christ's body & blood not having any outward image made of them, are made present under the form of an other thing: & are so made present, that thereby all the high mysteries of Christ's visible body are mystically set before the faith of the true believer. Christ being the son of God was made man by turning The inc●… nation. some of the purest blood of the virgin Marie into his own flesh justin. in Apol. 2. and blood, and that was done without the seed of man, by the Damas●…. li. 4. c. 14. virtue of the word and power of the whole Trinity, through the ministry of the Archangel Gabriel: even so the purest creatures of bread and wine are made the body and blood of Christ, and turned into the substance of them, not by generation & corruption, but by the virtue of these words, This is my body. Which thing the whole Trinity worketh by the ministery of the Priest, who is the Angel of Christ. Mala. 2. Christ thus borne and having walked in his flesh, came to die The passion. upon the cross, where his blood was divided from his flesh, the Amb. in 1. Cor. 11 soul from the body: but the Godhead tarried still with both. right so this sacrament hath the body consecrated under one kind, the blood under an other kind, and they are adored of the faithful a part: yet the person which is one whereunto they are united, and the Godhead in that person causeth the two parts to make but Euseb. one Sacrament, and the whole to be under each kind. Emis. 5. Thus the likeness which is not in form, but in substance and Pascha. in the consecration of true faith between Christ himself and this The name given to the Sacrament. sacrament, maketh this sacrament to be called his body & blood, although in all respects it be not so. Upon which ground, S. Hierom saith: Dupliciter sanguis Christi & caro intelligitur etc. Ephes. The flesh and blood of Christ is understanded two ways. either Capi. 1. that spiritual and divine, whereof himself said, my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink, and except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye shall not have everlasting life: or else the flesh which was cru cified, and the blood which was shed with the spear of the soldier. Thus have we one flesh and blood in substance considered & Two considerations of one flesh understanded two ways. and that not falsely understanded (as the Sacramentaries imagine) but truly and in deed. For a false understanding is hated of God. This difference and this likeness is also noted in the present words of S. Augustin, when he saith: Christ was once offered in himself. Note the word in himself, to wit, in his visible shape, form and truth as well of substance as of quantity. the same Christ is daily offered in a sacrament. Are not these S. Augustine's words▪ Christ is offered in himself, & Christ is offered in a Sacrament. is it not all one Christ? or is Christ divided? No, no, all is one substance, but the m●…ner is not all one. And farther note very diligently, good Reader, that of the One only chief & body ●…lation. two immolations or offerings, the one is referred to the other: The one is the sign, token, figure, Sacrament of the other. And therefore the one is but once done, because it was the great immolation Heb. 10. which absolutely fulfilled all the law & prophets, and it was made upon the Crosse. The other being made in the Sacrament 1. Cor. 10 & 11. showeth, keepeth, preserveth and applieth daily the fruits of that one oblation: but Christ is always one in both. Now this likeness of the Incarnation and passion of Christ made and represented to the faithful by the Sacrament of the altar causeth it to be called the body & blood of Christ. And therefore S. Augustine concludeth: The Sacrament of Christ's body according to a certain Epist. 23. manner, is the body of Christ. M. jewel englisheth these words (according to his manner) falsely, corruptly, and ignorantly. he turneth, Secundum quendam modum, after a certain Phrase, or Modu●…. manner, or trope, or figure of speech. True it is that modus doth signify a manner or mean. Again it may be sometime that the manner is tropical or figurative: but now it is not so meant. And that is proved two ways. First because S. Augustine saith: the Sacrament of the body of Christ according to a certain manner est, Est corpus Chri sti. is the body of Christ. he saith not only it is called the body after a certain manner, but it is the body. Therefore the manner that that he speaketh of, is in the Sacrament, in the thing itself, in the substance thereof, and not only in the phrase, or trope, or figure of speech, as M. jewel would have it. Again, the name which the Sacrament taketh, is given (as S. Augustine saith) according to a likeness, which is between the 〈◊〉 followeth 〈◊〉 thing. Sacrament and the thing itself. That likeness than must be first in the Sacrament really, and afterward (in respect of priority of nature, though not in respect of time) the name is given. Seeing then the likeness of things goeth before the likeness of names: When S. Augustine saith: the Sacrament of Christ's body is the body of Christ according to a certain manner, that manner must respect the likeness of the things, before it respect the likeness of names. Therefore M. jewel hath erred altogether in translating False translation. modum, a phrase or manner of speech. But first he should have sought wherein the things were like. for in deed the likeness in divers things is diverse: In one thing it is in substance, as God the Father and his son are like equal, and one in substance: Yet because there is some difference in that they are diverse persons, joan. 10. the son is the figure of his Father's substance according Heb. 1. to a certain manner, to wit, as he is a diverse person, but not as a diverse substance. In other things the substance may differ also, 1. Cor. 10 as the rock and Christ, and the quality alone may be like. As when Christ is called the vine, the door, the way. But to conclude joan. 15 with this place of S. Augustine, he saith the holy signs which are like unto the truth take also the name of the truth, & he bringeth that rule to show, that a child baptised may well be called ●…aithfull, because although he believe not actually, yet he hath faith in that he hath baptism, which i●… the Sacrament of faith. For saith S. Augustine: Sacramentum fidei quodammodo fides est. The Sacrament of faith after a certain manner is faith. He saith not only it is called faith after a certain phrase of speech (as M. jewel would have it) but it is faith after a certain manner of being, and not only of speaking. and that being or truth which the infant hath ●…eceaued is so great, that (as it followeth in S. Augustine) Epist. 23. the Sacrament shallbe of strength to defend him from the power of the devil, and from everlasting damnation. And judge you, M. jewel, that to be only a name & not a truth, which is able to bring the child to salvation? It is faith, and it is not faith, as the Sacrament of the altar is Christ's body, and not Christ's ●…ody. It is not faith in actual consent of the will: It is faith in the virtue of that power which the Sacrament printeth in the Habitus fidei. soul of the iufant. it is the habit of faith, and not the act. even so the Sacrament of the altar is the substance of Christ's body, & not the outward form thereof, the thing itself, and not the shape thereof. The name therefore of faith is given to the child in respect of a truth which by baptism is wrought in the child, although it be not all the truth which is requisite to actual believing. And the Sacrament of Christ's supper is called the body of Christ for the substance of the body which is present, although it be not visibly present according to all the manner of a true natural man's body. ¶ Of the signification of adverbs. The x. Chapter. HArding. By these words, really, substantially, & cae. The Fathers meant only a truth of being, & § iiij. not a mean of being after carnal or natural wise. jewel. All adverbs taken of nouns signify ever more a quality, The 79. untruth. and never the substance. Saunder. An adverb hath his name because it is joined to the Aduerbium. verb, and it doth make plain and fill up the signification thereof: so that if the verb, whereunto it is joined, do signify the substance Aug. de grámat. lib. 1. of a thing, the adverb maketh it to signify the same substance more perfectly: as when the king Nabuchodonosor said to Daniel: Dan. 2. Verè deus vester, deus deorum est. Your God is verily the God of Gods: The adverb verily doth not signify a quality (as M. jewel reporteth) but it doth affirm most vehemently the substance of one God above all other Gods, or judges & rulers. And when the Centurion said, this man was verily the son of Matt. 27. God, it is not to be meant, that Christ was the son of God in ●…alitie at all, but only in substance. Now concerning that some adverbs be taken of nouns, it ●…uerbs taken o●… nouns. is to be known, that if they be taken of such nouns as import rather a similitude of a substance, than a real truth thereof. in that case M. jewels resolution will serve, that they shall signify the manner and quality of the thing, as virilter, doth signify manly, because it cometh of virilis, which signifieth manlike, and it cometh of vir, which doth signify rather the sex than the substance of a man. But when the nouns do signify the substance itself, the adverbs derived of them must needs draw with th●… the signification of the same substance: as corporalis, carnalis, substantialis, and naturalis, be nouns which signify a thing that belongeth to the body, the flesh, the substance, the nature of that whereof we speak: and the adverbs coming of them of necessiti●… must signify the truth of that nature whereof we entreat. But whether it shall signify the quality also with the truth: that dependeth of the circumstance of the thing which is in hand. For example: Christ walked corporally upon the water. that saying must be understanded, in the truth of a man's body, but not in any such accustomed manner, as other men's bodies are wont to walk upon the water. For there is no such manner of walking at all. And whereas the adverb must be referred wholly to the verb whose signification it maketh perfit, that saying must be this resolved: Christ's bodily walking upon the water, was a Cyril. ad Theod. de rect. fide. ambulabat mirè ut Deus. true walking concerning the truth of the flesh which did walk: notwithstanding the manner of the walking did exceed the quality of a mere ●…atural body. Thus the adverbs shall signify the truth of the substance of a body walking, and yet not the manner of walking belonging to a natural and true body. Even so when Syrill writeth, that Christ dwelleth corporally Lib. 10. cap. 13. also in us, and not only by right faith and charity, the meaning of him shallbe, that Christ in the true substance of his body dwelleth in us, although he dwell not in us after such manner, as other natural bodies of men dwell in the places where they are. Thus M. jewel is cast in his grammar also, whereof he i●…iteth D. Harding. But to th'end his ignorance or malice may appear the better, I beseech the discrete Reader to consider the odds between D. Harding and M. jewel. D. Harding saith: when the Fathers teach Christ to be in us carnally, corporally, or naturally (for all these terms S. Hilary & S. cyril have) than they mean that Christ is in us by the true substance of his flesh, and not in such manner as common flesh is wont to be any where. This saying of D. Harding is so true, that he never thought it needful to pro●…e it: yet M. jewel saith that the Fathers must mean, that Christ is in us after a corporal, carnal, & natural manner, & not in substance. For he saith adverbs taken of nouns signify evermore the quality, & never the substance. M. jewel excludeth y● signification of sub stance from adverbs. Well how think you then M. jewel? is Christ after a carnal sort in us or no? It is well seen by your work that you think nothing less. For he that gra●…teth the manner of body or flesh, much more should grant, if he were wise, the nature & substance thereof. because it is not possible, that the quality or manner of flesh should be without the truth of flesh: Sith no quality ordinarily consisteth qualities can not be ordinarily without substance. of itself, but only resteth in the substance of that thing, whose quality it is. But a substance may be without qualities, as the substance of God is without all manner of accidents. Now D. Harding affirmeth at the lest wise, the truth of body and of flesh to be meant by the Fathers without the common Substanc●… may be without qualities. quality thereof: Which thing may right well be so. M. jewel will have their sayings meant so, that the substance of flesh and blood shallbe excluded by all means. And as for the quality of Christ's flesh, he will have it corporally in our bodies without any substance thereof wherein that quality may rest. which his opinion is against all the course of nature. Again, when S. Hilary saith that Christ tarrieth naturally in Lib. 8. de Trinit. us, what quality will M. jewel assign to that adverb? shall he tarry in us in the manner of a natural tarrying, and yet shall not his true nature be in us? let us go a little farther. S. Hilary saith: Christus natualiter secundum spiritum in se patrem habet, Christ hath the father in him according to the spirit naturally. How will M. jewel expound the word, naturally? whether, that C●…riste hath a quality of his father's nature in him, & not the whole true substance? Last of all S. Hilary expoundeth his own words even as D. Harding hath done. For as he saith in one place: Ipso in nobis naturalitr permanente, he tarrying in us naturally: so he saith in an other place a little before, Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem. Therefore he is in us himself by flesh. A●…d again: Naturaliter secundum carnem per eum vivimus, id est, naturam carnis suae Naturaliter is resolved by S. Hilary 〈◊〉 self. adepti. We live by him according to the flesh naturally, that is to say, having obtained the nature of his flesh. Consider good Reader that naturaliter vivere, to live naturally is by S. Hilary thus resolved, to live by having the nature. And to li●…e naturally according to the flesh, is to live by having the nature of Christ's flesh. Who is now the more ignorant in grammar, D. Harding, or M. jewel? And yet M. jewel, in that childish eloquence of his, triumpheth upon D. Harding, & saith children are taught these things. Iu. God regardeth not the doing of any thing, but the manner The 80. ●…ntruth. of doing. But M. Harding will overlook the grammar rules. San. That rule is to be understand in matters belonging to manners. But now we dispute of substances, and not of doings. We say Christ's body is in our bodies naturally. this truth is to be discussed, and not any moral action of ours. The 81. untruth. jewel. Our children must learn a new grammar for th●…se men's pleasure: otherwise these men's d●…initie can not stand. San. priests children may 〈◊〉 a new grammar, but as the old faith, so the old grammar will serve other men's childen. It is verily a very new grā●…r to say, that adverbs taken of nouns never signify the substance. Good Scholmasters will not adm●…e such rules. Iu. Have these old Fathers nor names nor words? The 8●…. untruth. San. As though you know that they follow hereafter. when you are come to them, you willbe quickly weary of them. ¶ Of the first Author of the sacramentary he●…sie. HArding. Berengarius first began openly to show The 6. 〈◊〉. the sacramentary heresy touching the verity of Christ's body in the Sacrament. Iu. Before M. Harding said, the Messalians were the first fathers § 2. of this heresy. and so his tales hang not together. The 83. untruth. Harding. The Messalians opinion Was, the Sacrament of the altar did nor good, nor evil. And therein they Were the first parents of the sacramentary heresy. San. That which the Messalians did begin privily by general disgracing the Sacrament, Berengarius began openly by denying this special virtue thereof, which is the real presence. and so there is no contradiction at all, and you are found but a caviller. Iu. joannes Scotus and Bertram maintein●…d the same doctrine The 84. untruth. before Berengarius. Saunder. If these men did bark in privy corners at any ceremony (which thing yet is not evident to us) but if it were so, yet th●…y maintained it not. For than they had been condemned of heresy: But if that also were true, you have gained little more than two hundred years, and those but by surmise without knowledge thereof left in any good history. And what is that to 〈◊〉 hundred years of continual practice, and open doctrine, such as we catholics have had? jewel. For farther declaration hereof, it shallbe necessary to open Berengarius judgement. San. Nay Sir, it is enough to us, that you are at a stay, & can De consecra. dis. 2. ca ego Bereng. bring your faith no higher then to John Scote, and Bertram. If your faith began privily almost eight hundred years after Christ, shall we here the declaration thereof? if that may be permitted, the heresy of the Arrians may be heard again, who was before Bertram. jewel. Thus Berengarius wrote. San. I care not what he wrote, sith he recanted the same. The 〈◊〉 will standeth in his force, and no wise man knowing that he repeuted his folly, will afterward allege his authority for that, which he recalled. jewel. But his judgement is confirmed by the Fathers. The 85. untruth. San. It is not possible, that the Fathers should confirm his judgement, who impugned their universal tradition, in so much that he himself 〈◊〉 his own judgement. For seeing he recanted his whole opinion, he recanted also that very error, which he had conceived as by pretence of the father's words. What a mad●…es is it for you, to allege any of both in his name? for he in his recanting hath answered his own authorities alleged before out of the Fathers. jewel. Let us see the confutation hereof. San. Seing Berengarius is the confutour, his own true word is enough to undo as much as his word had falsely established before. jewel. Berengarius was forced to recant in this wise. The 86. 〈◊〉. San. Force is not done to the free 〈◊〉 of man. jewel. I believe that the body of our Lord jesus Christ sensibly The 87. untruth. and in very deed is touched with the hand of the Priest, & broken and rend, and ground with the teeth of the faithful. San. You have englished the words very spitefully. you have added (rent) of your own head. and atteri, doth signify to be broken in pieces, or to be wasted, which may be done without grinding. You are so accustomed to falsify things, that no man's words may escape your poison. jewel. The very gloze saith: unless you warily understand these words of Berengarius, you will fall into a greater heresy, than ever he healed any. San. The gloss warneth us, that all the touching, breaking and wasting or consuming is to be referred to the forms of bread and wine: the which thing if you had not left out, you had alleged some one gloss without falsifying the same. Iu. These Father's redress the less error by the greater. The 88 untruth. San. The cause why Berengarius recanted by those words (rather than by any other) were two: the one, for that he had taught in the time of his error, the body of Christ not to be before our eyes. Against which words he now saith, it is sensibly handled. The second was, for that the body being under the form of bread, and touched by the priests hands, and broken by reason of the same form, is thereby showed most really present. to witness the which real presence, S. Chrysostame had used the same kind of In joan. hom. 45. speech before, saying: Non se tantum videri permittens desyderantibus, sed & tangi, & manducari, & dentes carni suae infigi, & desyderio sui omnes impleri. Christ permitteth himself not only to be seen of them that long after him, but also to be touched, & eaten, & the teeth to be fastened to his flesh, and all men to be filled with the desire of him. Which notwithstanding M. jewel writeth in the The 89. untruth. margin of Berengarius his cons●…on: This is an horrible blasphemy, not knowing that the denying of this real presence v●…der those forms of bread and wine, is that horrible blasphemy, whereof he speaketh: And not to speak as S. Chrysostom and other holy Fathers have spoken. jewel. Bertram and John Scotus wrote openly against it with The 90. v●…truth. the contentation of the world. San. Against which it did they write? jewel. Against this, if it be the Catholic faith. Saunder. Which this? Whether against the confession of Bereugarius? You say the●… were two hundred years before him what then? wrote they against the Catholic faith? if they did so, how could the Catholic world be content therewith? again, where are the words which the world was contented withal? think you it lawful to feign or gloze what you list? jewel. That M. Harding calleth the Catholic faith, is in deed aCatholike The 91. untruth. error. Saunder. No error can be Catholic, because Christ said hell Matt 19 & 15. gates should not prevail against his Church. And it is a city built upon a hill, which can not be hidden. The rest of your words shall hereafter be proved vain. ¶ Of Christ's glorified body, and the place of S. The 〈◊〉. Hierom expounded. Chapter. HArding. The body which was before the death The 7. 〈◊〉. thereof thrall and frail, is now spiritual. Iu. M. Harding in the end concludeth against himself. The 〈◊〉. untruth. San. You say so, but you prove it not. Iu. Only Stephen Gardener giveth the world to understand, that The 93. untruth. Christ is not yet fully possessed in this glory. thus he saith: the time of the despensation or service of his h●…militie remaineth still, until 〈◊〉 deliver up the Kingdom unto God his Father. Sand. B. Gardi●…er dot noth say, that Christ is not fully possessed in his glory for his own part. that is your addition. Again the word (service) was of your putting in, lest any authority might escape you uncorrupted. How be it B. Gardiner seemeth to mean no more therein, then S. Paul said before him, witnessing Heb. 〈◊〉. that Christ sitteth at the right hand of the majesty in heaven, minister sanctorum, the minister of holy things. for he is yet a minister still by reason of his mystical body. If it were any part of our principal purpose to stand upon that matter, I would show you what holy things they were, and how he ministered them by dispensation of his humility during the time of the peregtination of his members, notwithstanding his own glory at the right hand of his Father, wherein he is fully possessed. jewel. To what end allegeth M. Harding the spiritual state of The 94. untruth. Christ's body? Eutiches said it is changed into the very substance of God: which heresy is like M. Harding'S, if it be not the same. Sand. I know not what you mean by burdening D. Harding with the heresy of Eutiches: sith the defence of the real presence is as directly against that heresy, as may be. for how can the natural and substantial flesh of Christ be present in the Sacrament, if his flesh were turned into the substance of the Godhead, as E●…tiches said? could that be in the Sacrament, which were not in itself? Therefore the places alleged out of S. Augustine, S. Dionysi●…s, S. Cyprian and other holy Fathers, concerning the truth of Christ's human substance and nature ●…ill remaining and not changed into the divine substance, or else concerning our ●…mitation or likeness of God, is wholly confessed of us. neither doth D. Harding mean by the body dei●…ed, other than the body immortal & spiritual: yet so far above our bodies, as the v●…ion in the person of the natural son of God, exceedeth our adoption by grace. But for so much as you doubted not, M. jewel, to burden D. Harding with the Eutychian heresy, I will briefly show, that your opinion is far more like unto it, then D. Harding'S belief. As Eutiches destroyed the truth of human flesh in the person of Christ, so the Sacramentaries destroy the truth and real presence of the same flesh in the Sacrament of the altar. And yet the old Fathers proved, that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted Cypria. de coena Dom. & de cons. dist. 2. c. of two things, of the sign or form of bread, and of the body of Christ: so Christ consisteth of two natures, the one divine, the other human. But seeing the Sacramentaries take away the real presence from the visible sign of bread, they falsify the argument Hoc est quod dicimus. of the old Fathers, and further the cause of the Eutychians. For as the Eutychians turned the natural flesh of Christ into the Theod. in dialo. Godhead: so the Sacramentaries turn the Sacramental eating of natural flesh into mere divine and spiritual eating, which is made by faith alone. But as the old Fathers proved against the Eutychian, that Christ who truly suffered death could not suffer it in his divine nature: so I tell the Sacramentaries, that Christ who ●…aid, take, eat, this is my body, can not be taken into our Math. 26 hands, or eaten with our mouths, by faith and spirit alone. We must have such an eating, as may prove Christ to have had real flesh, because we eat by mouth his real flesh. So S. Hilary Lib. 8. de Trin. proved our natural union with Christ's flesh against the Arrians: S. Gregory Ny●…sen, that Christ had taken true flesh of the In vita Moysis. Virgin. For how can a thing (saith he) which hath no body, be made meat unto the body? So S. cyril proveth, that there is but one person, because the flesh which we receive doth give lif●… to our souls and bodies: which it could not do, except it were Ad Euo. the proper flesh of God, who only giveth life. Thus M. jewel Anath. 11 may perceive, that his opinion agreeth with the Arrians, Ualenti●…ians, Ne●…orians, Eutychians, And the like might be said of the Marcionites, Manichees, Apellians, & briefly of all those heretics, who denying a real truth of Christ's di●…ine or human nature, were always confuted by the Fathers by the real truth of Christ's manhood and Godhead confessed of the Catholics in this blessed Sacrament. Harding, S. Hierom showing two ways of understanding Christ's flesh, one spiritual (as it is verily meat) an other, as it was crucified, declareth the manner of eating it only to differ from the manner of it being crucified, the substance being all one. § 5. jewel. He speaketh neither of the Sacrament, nor of any real The 95. untruth. presence. San. He meaneth both. jewel. S. Hierom speaking of the double understanding of Christ's The 96. untruth. flesh, meaneth that we have our salvation in Christ eating him and living by him, not for that his flesh was mortal only and crucified upon the cross, but for that it was spiritual and divine, ●…hat is to say, the flesh of the Son of God. San. Your gloze, M. jewel, is stark nought. For whereas S. Hierom reckoneth up two ways of understanding one and the same flesh, you make such an interpretation, which doth confounded those 〈◊〉 understandings. For if Christ's flesh be called of S. Hiero●… di●…ine and spiritual, because it is the flesh of the Son of God, the●… his flesh was divine and spiritual upon the cross also. For even there it was the flesh of the Son of God. But he calleth it spiritual one way, and crucified an other way: therefore his meaning is, that it is spiritual and divine flesh, not only for respect of the union, but under the form of bread, where it is present to be eaten in a divine manner, and, as if it were a spirit, utterly invisible, and able to be perceived by no 〈◊〉: a●…d yet for all t●…at true and real flesh, even the same substance which was crucified. Any other sense you can not apply to the distinction of S. Hierom: and whatsoever else you bring out of S. Augustine or Angelomus, it is not to the purpo●…. jewel. S. Hieroms' meaning is, that the same flesh being thus divine The 97. untruth. and spiritual, must also spiritually be received, and not fleshly, as M. Harding imagineth. San. As though D. Harding brought not the distinction of S. Hierom, to prove that his assertion is not carnal and fleshly, but spiritual and divine. And yet you still call it as you list, and huddle up places of the Manichees and Messalians nothing to the purpose. jewel. S. Hierom himself saith: Of this oblation which is marvelously De▪ consecrat. dist. 2. c. de Sac. made in the remembrance of Christ, it is lawful to eat: but of that oblation which Christ offered upon the altar of the cross according to itself, it is lawful ●…or noman to eat: That is to say, in gross and fleshly manner. San. Who could speak more against yourself, than you do now? The fleshly manner of eating is to eat flesh visible, palpable, and corruptible, and in that manner as it was upon the cross. This place brought by you (although it be thought to be the saying of Origenes, and not of S. Hierom) yet confirmeth exceedingly the former distinction. For the same substance is eaten which was crucified, even as the Host or thing offered is one in both oblations, but the manner is diverse. Both these places are in deed very like. Both name the cross, both name eating. Both make a difference between the thing crucified and eaten, but yet not in substance, but in the manner of the presence thereof. jewel. By these words S. Hierom ●…weth a great difference between the sacrifice that is made in the remembrance of Christ, and the very sacrifice in deed that Christ made upon the cross. San. The difference is so great, that the thing offered is all one in substance, but upon the cross it is offered as an oblation wholly burnt, and therefore not eaten. In the supper it is offered, as an oblation to keep the redemption of the cross in continual remembrance, and to thank God for the redemption purchased, and to make us partake the fruits of Christ's death by eating worthily the body which died. But if the thing or substance offered be not one & the same, what oblation is that, M. jewel, which Quae 〈◊〉 rabiliter fit. is marvelously made in the supper? What is that wherein we remember and show Christ's death? Is bread and wine the marvelous oblation? 〈◊〉 they made 〈◊〉 in the remembrance of Christ? What marvelous making can you find in them? Except (which is the very truth) they be made the body & blood of Christ? That is in deed a marvelous making, a marvelous sacrifice, a marvelous showing of Christ's death? You had lost your wits when you brought forth this place, which maketh so fore all against you. jewel. If a man take it fleshly (saith S. Chrysostom) he gaineth In joan. nothing. Hom. 47 San. It followeth in S. Chrysostom immediately: what say we then? is not flesh, flesh? yes doubtless. And again these words (the flesh profiteth nothing) were not spoken of the flesh itself, but of fleshly understanding. Whereby it is clear, that he understandeth fleshly, who deviseth a gross & fleshly manner of eating Christ's flesh: but not he, who saith the flesh itself must be eaten in his true substance, if the manner be divine and spiritual, as in our Sacrament it is. De doct. jewel. It is a figure or foorm of speech (saith S. Augustine) Christ l. 3. cap. 16. ●…illing us to be partakers of Christ's passion. San. You are taken M. jewel. If you had not brought this place, I would have brought it. for if Christ in S. John willeth 〈◊〉 to be partakers of Christ's passion, seeing that partaking mu●… be at the lest by faith (for it may also be in a more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by faith and Sacrament) but seeing we must partake of the passion at the least by faith, and you say we eat Christ's body none otherwise in the supper, but only by faith: how then can you avoid the place brought by your●…lf ou●… of S. Hierom, where it was said, it is not lawful to eat of that oblation according to itself which Christ offered upon the altar of the cross? Is it not lawful to eat of Christ by faith even as he hung crucified▪ will you not then believe upon him, as he hangeth in that base & humble condition? I know you will. but your eating is believing: therefore you eat that oblation according to itself, even according as it is there spread & contumeliously handled. But S. Hierom saith: noman may eat it so, therefore he meaneth eating by mouth, and not by faith. go on with me, M. jewel: but of that oblation which is made marvelously in the remembrance of Christ, it is lawful to eat▪ and how to eat, but by mouth? for as lawful eating standeth against unlawful eating: so in the one place it is unlawful to eat by mo●…th, in the other it is lawful to eat by mouth. Therefore S. Hierom speaketh not only of eating Christ's divine and spiritual flesh by faith, but even by mouth also in the Sacrament. jewel. S. Hierom calleth the eating of the divine and spiritual The 98. 〈◊〉. flesh of Christ the remembering that he died for us. Sand. If that be so, than the oblation itself is eaten of, which Christ offered upon the cross, & that secundum se, that is to say, according to itself. How is it possible sweetly to remember that Christ died for us, and not to eat by faith his very death, and the sensible manner thereof? but his flesh offered ou the cross though it may be eaten by faith, yet according to itself it may not be eaten in that corruptible form and shape. And contrary wise the divine & spiritual flesh is so 〈◊〉 appointed to be 〈◊〉, that the 〈◊〉 Christ said, my flesh is verily meat: therefore S. The di●… flesh is eaten by mouth. Hierom speaketh of eating the divine & spiritual flesh by mouth, and not only by faith. eating by faith is rather more due to the flesh of Christ as it hangeth crucified, then to any other manner of the same flesh. For we must sweetly remember his death, and be partakers of his passion by faith: but not by mouth. On the other side we must eat Christ's divine and spiritual flesh, as it is understanded in another way distinct in manner from his cross and passion: therefore that other eating is an eating by mouth, and not only by faith. jewel. Clemens Alexandrinus saith: there is a fleshly blood wherewith In paeda. 〈◊〉. 2. ca 2. we are redeemed, and a spiritual wherewith we are anointed. and this is to drink the blood of Christ, to be partaker of his immortality. As Christ's blood is not really present to anoint us, The 99 untruth. ●…o it is not really present to nourish us. San. Clemens Alexandrinus dividing Christ's blood into carnal & spiritual, agreeth with S. Hierom in the former part of the division, that is to say, in carnal blood, but in the later part he speaketh of an other thing. For whereas S. Hierom took spiritual flesh and blood for the substance of them, as they are eaten and drunken in the Sacrament (which thing may appear, for that he citeth these wdrds of Christ: my flesh is verily meat, and except you eat my flesh, ye shall not have life euerla●…ing, which words are meant of the Sacramental eating) Cle●…ens joan. 9 doth not respect so much the Sacrament of the altar itself, as the effect and fruit of Christ's carnal blood, how soever it be partaken. and that is evident by his own words where he saith, this is to drink the blood of jesus, to be partaker of his immortality. To partake the immortality of Christ, is an effect which may rise of faith, of Baptism, of penance, of the Sacrament of the altar, and of all other means or instruments, whereby the salvation of Christ may be derived unto us. Cleme●…s therefore speaking of an effect which may ●…e wrought by one meritorious cause only (that is to say, by the death of Christ) but understanding the means to apply that cause unto us to be diverse, he spoke not directly of these m●…anes, but of that spiritual fruit, which either one or more of them do bring forth in us. For the ointing, whereof Clemens doth speak, is to be referred to the unctio. 1. joan. 2. spiritual grace which is g●…en to the soul, and not to the substance of the Sacrament whereof we dispute. It will not therefore follow, that because the blood whereof Clemens doth speak sometime, is not really present when through grace we are ointed with it, that the blood also whereof S. Hierom speaketh should not be really present: sith they two speak not of one kind of spiritual blood. jewel. This nouris hang and this anointing are both spiritual. San. That is true, but not both after one sort. For S. Hiero●… speaketh of the spiritual blood in the substance thereof, as it is verily drink in the Sacrament: Clemens, as it is fruitfully partaken of us, and not as it is considered in his own substance. S. Jerome speaketh of the Sacrament, Clemens of the end and fruit of all our belief. That S. Jerome speaketh of the Sacrament it is proved, because he citeth such words out of S. john, joan. 6. as all the Father's and manifest reasons & conference of the scriptures prove to appertain, by the way of promise, to the Sacrament of Christ's supper. Which thing I have proved in twenty chapters together in my third book. to which reasons until M. jewel hath answered, he shall give me leave to put it for an undoubted truth, that Christ in the later part of the sixth chapter of S. John speaketh most literally of the gift of his flesh & blood to be made at his last supper. But Clemens doth speak of that spiritual drinking Christ's blood, whereof S. Augustin saith: Hunc cibum & potum societatem vult intelligi corporis & membrorum suorum, Tract. 〈◊〉 in joan. quod est sancta Ecclesia. This meat and drink Christ willeth to be understanded the fellowship of his body and members, which body the holy Church is. Now to be partaker of the unity and spirit which is made in Christ's my●…ical body, that is to be partaker of the immortality and glory of our Lord. For as Ephes' 5. S. Paul saith, he is the Saviour of his body. Cont. li●…. Petil li. ●…▪ cap. 8. Iu. S. Augustine saith, judas betrayed Christ carnal, thou hast●… betrayed Christ spiritual. For in thy fury thou betrayd'st the holy Gospel to be burnt with wicked fire. These words of Clement The 100 〈◊〉. and Augustine agreeing so near in 〈◊〉 ●…nd phrase with the words of Hierom may stand for sufficient exposition to the same. San. These words go so near y● one to the other, th●…t in sense they differ exceeding much. For now S. Augustine taketh Christ spiritual an other way cleave diverse from Clement or S. Hieron. and that may be easily seen, if a man will read the line which followeth next in S. Augustine. For he saith: judas betrayed the lawmaker v●…to the perfidious jews: thou hast betrayed to men Christ's relics are the holy Bib●…. as it were reliquias eius, his relics, to wit, the law of God to be destroyed. S. Augustin then taketh Christ spiritual, for certain relics of Christ, which although they be no parts of his corporal body, yet they belong to him, for that of his great providence toward us he lest them to be devoutly readen & kept. what mean you, M. jewel, to mi●…gle things impertinent together? Think you, wheresoever you find the word spiritual, that by & by it pertaineth to your purpose? or do you only intent to abuse that not learned reader? The word, spiritual, being named of spiritus, a spirit, m●…ste joan. 4. needs be taken ●…s many ways, as the word spirit is taken which Matt. 4. doth signify God, that is to say, the whole Trinity. For God is Rom. 8. a spirit. 2. The holy Ghost of whom Christ was lead into the desert. Heb. 1. 3. Christ himself, as S. Cyrillus hath noted. 4. Angels. 5. Psal. 47 〈◊〉 6. Spiritual gifts. 7. The soul. 8. The imagination. 9 ●…. Cor. 14 The breath of man's ●…outh. 1●…. Anger or punishment. and many joan. 19 other things. By which diverse taking of this one word, a●… of ●…. Cor. 14 diverse others in the holy scripture, such difficulty riseth to a man Gen. 6. (though not unlearned) that without the help of vni●…sal tradition he can not understand them. That which you bring out of Athanas●…s appertemeth to the Capharnaites, & to no man else. Iu. Thus M. Harding reasoneth we eat not the flesh of Christ, The 101. ●…truth. that was crucified, ergo Christ's flesh is really in the Sacrament. Saunder. You leave out the chief part of the argument. We eat Christ's divine and spirtual flesh, and yet we eat it not so as it was crucified: therefore S. ●…icrom spoke of that eating, which is not only made by faith (for so the crucified flesh may be eaten) but of that, which is made by mouth also. Iu. We can notthen eat the flesh that was crucified: ergo we The 102. ●…truth. can not really eat●… Christ's flesh, ergo Christ's body is not really in the Sacrament. San. Your argument is like to that sophis●…: You eat not raw ●…sh, but you bought raw flew, ergo you do not eat that which you bought. S. 〈◊〉 saith: we do not ●…ate the flesh crucified, ●…o wit, as it was crucified, ●…en as he that eateth flesh doth not 〈◊〉 it as it was raw. but as he doth ●…ate that in substance which was in quality raw: so we eat really the same substance that was crucifi●…d, but not in the same sort, but in a spiritual and in a divine mauner. not by faith only, but also by mouth. Harding. The Fathers used the words really, substantially The 8. di●…ision. & caet. to put away all doubt of the being of Christ's very body in the holy mysteries. Iu. He divineth what they mean, before they speak. The 103. ●…ntruth. San. Nay, because he is sure of their words, he 〈◊〉 their mind. ¶ A place of S. Chryso●…ome expo●…nded. The xii●…. Ch●…piter. HArding. The Sacramentaries teach our lords body to be represented only in figure, sign, and token, being absent in deed. Iu. All the holy Fathers have used those terms. The 1●…4▪ 〈◊〉. San. It is a vain ●…ster of names without truth. They ne●…er v●…ed the term●… of only figure, nor said not, that the truth was absent. Harding. Under visible signs invisible things be delivered. Iu. Ergo Christ's body is really in the Sacrament. The 10●…▪ untruth. Saunder. You lea●…e out one pe●…ce. For in deed so it must needs be in that Sacrament, where it is signified really present: otherwise the sign should be false. For after it is once said over bread▪ this is my body, that sign of bread during, the body therein 〈◊〉 present, doth dure. jewel. Chrysostom saith, in the same homily: if Christ died not, The 10●…▪ ●…ntruth. whose sign and token is this sacrifice? therefore he may be also charged with the Sacramentary quarrel. San. You prove it a sign hereby, but not that the truth is abse●…t from the sign, which thing you should have proved. But I will prove hereby, that the thing or truth signi●…d is really present: otherwise this sign could not be a sacrifice. ●…rsed might ●…e be, that defendeth bread and wine to be the final sacrificed s●…bstance of the new Testament. But this that S. Chrysostom demandeth of, is a sacrifice▪ and that of the new Testament, & used in Christ's Church: therefore it is the real body of Christ, & yet withal a sign, because it is given invisibly present, to make us 〈◊〉 the visible sacrificing thereof upon the Cross▪ 2. It is said there 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostom, ●…at Martion, Valētin●…s, Ma●…ichens 〈◊〉. (w●… de●…ied Christ's real flesh an●… 〈◊〉) are confounded by these mysteries. How can that be, if the true flesh of Christ be not really contained in them? For a figure of flesh without the truth doth rather help those h●…iks, then confound them. 3. S. Chrysostom s●…ith e●…en there, that it is evident by these 3. mysteries, that Christ hath been already sacrificed. which saying can not be true, if his real flesh be not pr●…sent. For as a figure of Christ's flesh offered up in all the sacrifices of the old law, did not prove that Christ was already off●…red, but that a●…terwarde he should be offered: so a figure of Chris●…es sl●…sh now of●…red, can not prove that Ch●…ist hath been offered, but only that he shallbe O●…li Chri st●…s real flesh proveth his death to be past. offered hereafter. But his real flesh being eaten under the form of bread proveth i●…incibly, that he hath been already o●…ered, because no flesh is eaten in any holy sacrifice, before it hath been offered to God: of which point I have spoken in my fifth book the first Chapter. Iu. How light occasions these men take to deceive the simple? The 107. untruth. San. What a light occasion took you even presently, to deceive the simple by the name of token? which yet so proveth against you in that place, that it is not possible for you to avoid it. Iu. M. Harding knoweth, that Chrysostom speaketh generally The 108. ●…ntruth. of all other mysteries. for it followeth: even so ●…n baptism the water is a thing sensible, the regeneration is a thing spiritual. Wherefore if M. Harding upon the occasion of these wo●…ds will force his real presence in the one Sacrament, he must likewise force th●… same in the other. San. D. Harding brought that place only to show, that the body of Christ is not visibly present. But oth●…rwise baptis●…e and the Eucharist agree herein, that in sensible things other things invisible and spiritual are given. And the things given, are given in both, but they are in themselves diverse. In baptism the grace of regeneration which is given, is contained and given, when the word cometh to the water. For the water & the word hath the grace of Christ working by it. but in the Sacrament of the altar, the grace contained is the natural body of Christ, which ly●…th hidden under the form of bread. Thus each Sacrament hath the gift pre●…nt, but not each r●…all presence of flesh: for as flesh belongeth only to the supper of Christ: so regeneration belongeth only to baptism. & each grace is present in the visible sign, but af●…er a diverse manner, because those Sacraments are of a 〈◊〉 nature, as now I will declare. ¶ The difference between Baptism and our The xii●…. Lord's supper. Chapter. jewel. For as much as these two Sacraments be both of force like, The 109. untruth. I will touch what the fathers think of gods working in baptism, The fathers in the Council of Nice bid us think, that the water is De san●…. baptis. full of heavenvly fire, & cae. Basil, the kingdom of heaven is set open. In Matt. hom. 51. Chrysostom: God himself in baptism by his invisible power holdeth thy head. Ambrose: in the water is the grace of Christ and the De sacr. li. 1. ca 5. presence of the Trinity. Bernard: let us be washed in his blood, Serm. 3. supper missusest. & caet▪ By force of which words M. Harding may prove, that the power of God, the heavenly f●…er, the grace and the blood of Christ is really present in baptism. Saunder. Many of these things and other ●…oe are in deed said of baptism, but yet the real presence of them all, is not proved thereby. And note, good reader, the cause thereof which is very 〈◊〉 table, an●… shall bring great shame of ignorance to M. jewel. When a thing is affir●…ed of a Sacrament, it is not by and by present really therein, except it be signified present in the words ●…ituted by Christ which ●…ake the Sacrament, or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferred upon them: as when it is said, I baptize and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 28. thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost: none other thing is signified really present besides th●… eff●…ctuall washing. For thereof it is sai●…d in the present tense: I baptize thee, that is to say, I wash thee: Therefore real baptizing or washing as well of the soul as of the body is made in those words. The Trinity is named, but not signified as really present in the water (otherwise than as it is present in all places) but only as working by his power. For in the name of the father is to say, in the power & strength of the father. Thus the power & virtue of god is really present, & 〈◊〉 or renewig is really made. But if it were said at the time of washing by the institution of Christ: This is Christ who baptizeth or washeth thee, the●… doubtless Christ should be believed really present. Albeit therefore some Fathers say, God holdeth thy head at the font, and other say, the water is full of heavenly fire, and so forth: yet these are manners of speech without real or natural operation according to the letter, because they be not words instituted of purpose by Christ to work a special effect in the Sacraments: Although they show by similitudes, that a real working of diverse graces is made in the Sacraments. But Christ say●… in his Matt. 26. supper, this is my body. In which words the body is affirmed present under that sign of bread, whereunto Christ pointeth. If M. jewel knew not this odds, he may be ashamed to teach that he knoweth not. If he knew it, why doth he lead men to hell willingly? But because this man goeth about every where to abuse the holy communion, by showing like phrases used sometimes of, Baptism, as are used of Christ's supper: I will give him a copy of certain phrases, which either he must find in the holy Scri●…tures and in the holy Fathers, or else he shallbe co●…rayned to confess a more corporal and real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar, then in Baptism. First the name of Baptism differeth from the name of Christ's The di●…e rences between baptism & the E●…charist. body and blood. Baptism signifieth an action of a washing, and therefore it is no work tarrying or during in his own substance, but only the effect thereof remaineth. But the name of Christ's body & blood is the name not only of making a work, but even of a substantial work itself: as when we say, a house, a pillar, a tree. Whereof it followeth, that when Christ hath done washing, baptism is past. But when Christ pointing to a visible thing hath said: this is my body: The body tarrieth still after the speaking is done, so long as the visible form dureth, which is to Heb. 1. us the sign of the body present. Now as S. Paul noteth that Christ so far pass●…th the Angels, by how much his name is more excellent than theirs: right so the Sacrament of the altar so far passeth baptism, as Christ's own body is a name of more excellency, than the name of washing or cleansing. 2. Baptism must go before the Eucharist, as justinus the mar●…yr 2. saith, which thing is done to th'end we may come clean and pure to the blessed body of Christ. Therefore the Eucharist passeth In Apol. 2. it as far as baptism passeth the virtue of penance, which prepareth m●…n of discretion to be baptised. 3. Baptism may be ministered of d●…ōs, of lay men, yea of women 3. in the time of necessity. The Eucharist is consecrated only of priests, who have special power given them to make Christ's body, accordingly as himself said: make this thing for the remem In Epist. branch of me. And S. Jerome excludeth Deacons ●…rom this ad evag. high office. 4. Baptism may be ●…inistred at any time of the day, but S. 4. Augustine showeth, that the holy Ghost hath taught the who●… In epi. ad 〈◊〉 Church (for the honour of so great a Sacrament) to receive it only fasting, without a case of necessity. 5. In Baptism the water must be of necessity believed to remain, 5. because washing is not made without water: nor it shall never be found, that it was taught to be changed. but in the eucharist no bread or wine remaineth, because no such thing is signified at the time of consecration: and the Fathers teach ●…oncil. them to be changed into Christ's body and blood. Lateran. 6. Baptism was administered in the running water, and no 6. regard had of the material water, when the act of washing was Lib. 6. Cate. my stag. 4. in martyro logio done. But the Eucharist was ever so warily administered, that no crumb thereof was suffered to fall, as Optatus, Cyrillus of Hicrusalem, S. Bede, and others do witness. 7. Baptism was never adored, though it were reverenced: Tarsi. 7. the Sacrament of the altar was always adored with the highest Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24. honour due to God alone, as I have showed at large in my sixth book. 8. As Baptism is the first Sacrament and most necessary, 8. so the Eucharist is the last, and most honourable. That to cleuse us, this to feed us. That to marry us, by consent of minds to Christ, this to join us to his flesh and blood by real copula●…iō of bodies. That prepareth to this, & this maketh that in all degrees perfect. That without this is a true marriage, but yet it is without the last end of marriage which is carnal copulation. This coming to that, and to all the other Sacraments, maketh us to be most perfectly v●…ted with Christ. For this cause S. Dionysius Areopagita sayeth: Dicimus ergo, De eccl. Hierar. cap. 3. & caet. We say therefore other (Sacraments) or signs of holy things (whose communion is granted to us) to be finished ●…y the divine and perfiting gifts of the Eucharist. And holy Ephren also writeth thus of the most per●…ite and consummated Li. 4. de similitudine platat●… arbo ris etc. union which is made in the same Eucharist, saying: Anima nostra sponsa estimmortalis sponsi, copula autem nuptiarum coelestia Sacramenta sunt: quia cum manducamus corpus eius & sanguinem bibimus, & ipse in nobis est, & nos in ipso. Our soul is the spouse of the immortal Bridegroom: that which coupleth them in marriage are the cele●…iall Sacraments, for that, when we eat his body and drink his blood, he is in us and we in him. 9 Moreover we are by Baptism united to Christ, and not at 9 Union. all to Baptism. But by the Eucharist we are said to be united to the very body which is in the Sacrament, becaus●… it is all one with Christ himself. Of which difference I will speak more hereafter. 10. Last of all, the perpetual custom of the people of God, 10. and the universal tradition hath always observed great difference between these two Sacraments. And thereby any wise man may know what belongeth to the one, and what to the other. If now M. jewel will prove Baptism and the Eucharist to be of like force, concerning the mean of uniting us to Christ, he must bring forth such phrases, where Baptism may be called of 1. Christ himself the body of Christ. Where the Eucharist may be 2. said to prepare us to Baptism, as well as Baptism to it. Where 3. Baptism is said to be worthy the highest honour, as it is said of Christ's body in the Sacrament. Where the last and highest 4. cop●…latiō is assigned to Baptism, as it is to the Eucharist. Where special consecration of Priests, special prerogative of time, special warmesse in using the matter is no less required to the substance of Baptism, then of the Eucharist. But when some things be like, and some things be different in two Sacraments, it is great ignorance to reason from the similitude which one way is between them, to destroy an other way those points, wherein they differ. After which sort M. jewel doth reason. ¶ M. jewel replieth not well, touching the authority The xv. Chapter. alléged out of the Nicene Council. HArding. We behold (saith the Council of Nice) Division 〈◊〉. the Lamb of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, put or laid on that holy table, and we receive his precious body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, verily and in deed. Which is to say really. § 5. jewel. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greek nor in Tunstal. But devised The 110. 〈◊〉. by M. Harding. San. It will not follow that because the common Greek edition or B. ●…unstall hath it not, that therefore D. Harding feigneth that Greek word. It is found in the acts of the Council Gaspar of Nice, which are not yet all printed, but they are extant in diverse Cassalius libraries. And this place is in many print books, where Lusitan. commonly they have the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated into decalice. Garet. in centen. 4 situm, situate or put. Yourself also in the Apology did allege certain words out of the same acts of the Council of Nice. Yea you have done the like even in this very article: therefore you ought not to be angry with D. Harding for doing the same. The 111. untruth. jewel. Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to be set or placed, needs sound a real presence? San. It must needs prove a real presence of that thing, which if it were not present, it could not be set upon the table. Or can you have a capon set and placed upon your table, which is not really present? Ephes. 3. jewel. Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith, and yet not really. San. No wonder, sith a thing may dwell somewhere by faith, Apoc. 5. where yet it is not in deed. As Christ was killed (in the saith of iust men) from the beginning of the world, yet not in deed, until he was nailed to the cross. A being by faith is a l●…sse p●…ite being, than a being really. And therefore the fewer and the less doth not infer the more and the greater. But the Lamb of God is not said to be upon the holy table by faith, but to be s●…t or laid there. jewel. S. Hierom saith, as often as we enter into the sepulchre, Ad Marc●…llam. we see our Saviour lying in his shroud. Yet he lay not there really. San. Not then truly when S. Hierom entered: but he spoke in respect of that true place, which Christ's body had sometime occupied. But if the things upon the holy table neither be now, nor at any time were the body of Christ, how said the Council we behold the Lamb placed upon the holy table? jewel. In the Council of Chalcedon it is demanded, in what Act. 1. Scripture lie these two natures of Christ. it is the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet they lie not really in the scriptures. San. The heretic Eutiches, who asked for those two natures in the Scripture, asked for very material and real words, which being seen and readen might lead him to these two natures. De recta fide. For the words which signify two natures have a real place in holy Scripture, and they have been at large declared by S. Cyrillus. But I pray you sir: If a man should ask you where you find that Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, could you show a sufficient discharge thereof? I think scaut so good as D. Harding can bring for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Once it is not extant in the common book of the Counsels. jewel. That word signifieth a natural situation of place and order The 〈◊〉. untruth. of parts, such as D. Harding in the next article saith Christ's body hath not in the Sacrament. San. Although Christ's body in itself hath not any such extensive 〈◊〉 locally in the Sacrament, yet it hath such Op. de coena Do mini. loan. 14. a situation as the form of bread requireth, which sufficeth to declare a real presence. For as his Godhead might be showed in his manhood (he that seeth me, seeth my Father) so his body is placed under the form of bread, and there may be showed to a faithful man. jewel. The Council is plain, that we consider not basely the bread and the wine that are set before us. San. He considereth them basely who saith they remain still in their earthly substance, notwithstanding that Christ after blessing Rom. 4. & 9 hath called them by greater names, whose calling is the making the thing to be that, which it is called. jewel. It is said: lift up your hearts, so that there is nothing in The 113. 〈◊〉. the action to be considered, but only Christ. San. It is meant, not only to lift them up to God, but also to lift them from earthly thoughts of infidelity, and to believe that, which Christ sayeth and doth in his holy mysteries, as S. De Dei na●…ura. Chrysostom noteth. I have spoken of this matter at large in my Hom. 4. second book, the. xxvi●…. Chapter. Of Eagles I have spoken, the second book, the. xxvij. Chapter. verily the thing made, (whereof Christ said, make this thing) is to be considered in the my●…ries, and not only Christ in heaven. jewel. S. Ambrose saith, it is better seen that is not seen. De mist. cap. 3. San. Therefore the body of Christ which Christ pointeth unto saying, this is my body, is better seve to a faith●…ull Catholic, than bread and wine, which the unfaithful sacramentary saith he s●…th. jewel. For the same cause S. Augustine saith: In Sacraments we The 114. 〈◊〉. must consider not what they be, but what they represent. for they Cont. Ma xim. li. 3. cap. 22. are tokens of things, being one thing, and signifying an other, as S. Augustine saith. San. As they be tokens, they be one thing & signify an other: and therefore the substance of Christ's body is not his death, or passion, or the unity of his Church (which things under the form of bread it doth signify) but it is an other manner of thing, to wit, a body immortal, impassable, and out of all danger of corruption. how be it S. Augustine disputeth not there, of those which are the peculiar Sacraments of the Church (as your words, for the same cause, would seem to signify) but generally of all sigues, which commonly differ in substance from the things signified by them. But (as S. Chrysostom well noteth) we must believe In Math. God in all things, yet specially in the mysteries. As therefore Hom. 83 when God maketh a sign by water or oil, or any other creature, we ought to mark, not what substance that thing is, but what it is set to signify: so when Christ took bread, and after blessing said, this is my body, which is given for you, make this Luc. 22. thing for the remembrance of me, we must note, that he did not appoint any creature to signify his body, but made a new sign. he made, I say, a sign which might signify his death. & he said to his Apostles, hoc facite, make this thing. Thus we see good cause, why this sign should differ from all other signs: because a natural thing was not appointed at the supper to signify Christ, but a supernatural thing was prepared and made there a new, to signify his wonderful death and resurrection. The 115. untruth. jewel. Touching our beholding Christ in the Sacrament S. Augustine saith: it wo●…keth such motions in us, as if we saw our Lord himself present upon the cross. San. You care not what you heap up together, so it may make a show. S. Augustine there speaking properly of the solemnity Easter kept in S. of Easter (which now in England is wholly taken away) 〈◊〉 age with 〈◊〉. saith, although death shall no more bear rule over Christ, yet Anniversaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est. the yearly remembrance doth represent that which was done in old time, and it worketh such motions in us, as if we saw our Lord present upon the cross. those signs were external, and (as it may appear) were made to the senses by preaching and showing some image of Christ, and by creeping to the cross, and by such like godly ceremonies as the Church of God hath always used at Easter. but in our Sacraments (as S. Chrysostom saith) Omnia quae tradidit insensibilia sunt, all things which Christ hat●… delivered are without the cumpasse of the senses. S. Augustine therefore spoke not of the Sacrament, but of other external ceremonies. De cons. dist. 2. c. quia cor pus. jewel. This is it that Eusebius writeth, that the body might be worshipped by a mystery. and that everlasting sacrifice should live in remembrance and be present in grace for ever, in this spiritual The 116. untruth. sort, and not fleshly, Christ is laid present upon the table. San. Beside that you omit the beginning of this sentence, you have also left out four lines even in the midst thereof, which do show, that because a daily redemption & such as never fainteth did still run on for the salvation of men, the oblation of the redemption should be everlasting. By which words Eusebius The mystery. declareth, what kind of mystery the Sacrament of Christ's body is: verily such as offereth up that continual redemption which Christ hath purchased for us. For as Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father in heaven by his real presence there, maketh continual intercession in his manhood for us, and causeth the redemption of mankind to be always in his force and strength before God: so the mystery which is consecrated according to his institution in earth, doth from hence offer and present unto God the same self redemption by the very same substance of flesh, which is in heaven. To this end Eusebius saith: the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood is consecrated. and in Transubsta●…ation. what sort consecrated? The invisible priest (saith Eusebius) by secret power turneth the visible creatures with his word into the substance of his body & blood. and again, before the creatures be consecrated by the invocation of the highest name (or power) the substance of bread and wine is there: but after the words of Christ, it is the body and blood of Christ. This was the homily which M. jewel thought good to allege, that all men might think, that there was nothing written that made not for his purpose. joan. 2. Is that no real presence, where consecration is so made, that the creatures be changed into the substance of Christ's body & blood? was not the wine really present at Cana, into which the water was changed? Well, consecration is made, the creatures of bread and wine are thanged into the substance of Christ's body and blood. and in that body & blood, the redemption of mankind is offered to God, and is preserved in the remembrance of men: and yet all this while that body and blood by M. jewels verdict is not present. The change is made by the word of God, & yet that word is figurative, if we may believe M. jewel. yea but In serm. ad infan. he hath a phrase in store, I warrant, you to plai●…er this wound. jewel. S. Augustine saith: you are upon the table, you are in 1. Cor. 10 apud Be dam. the cup. as the people is laid upon the table, so and none otherwise, the Council of Nice saith, the Lamb of God is laid upon The 117. untruth. the table. Sand. What, M. jewel, is the table turned into us, as Eusebius saith the visible creatures are turned into the substance of Christ's body and blood? I have showed an other where, in my v. book, the v. chapter, that even that our being on the table and in the cup doth prove Christ's real presence. For we should not be there, if our head jesus Christ were not under that form of bread and of wine, wherein we are signified. jewel. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, verily, by D. Harding'S judgement soundeth no less then really; but these two words truly and fleshly have sundry meanings: and in the sense that Christ The 118. untruth. spoke unto, the one doth utterly exclude the other. San. If you take fleshly for the substance of flesh, it is all one in speaking of flesh to say truly, and fleshly. but as concerning the corruplible qualities of flesh, so it is not all one. If it had pleased your malice to have denied Christ's presence in heaven (as you deny it in the Sacrament) you might as well have mocked all the places brought against you for his real presence there. M. jewel ●…eth to a term ●…or lack of a good answer. with this word, fleshly, as now thereby you mock at his presence in the Sacrament. This licentious wantonness in taking advantage by a fleshly term, when soever you be pressed with a good argument, shall get you never the more credit among wise men. The real presence which we defend in the Sacrament, is not carnal and fleshly, but clean and pure. in so much that Angels wonder at the marue●…lous & unspeakable mystery of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. Yea S. Chrysostom saith: Quod angeli videntes, etc. That thing at the sight whereof Angels quake because of the brigthnes which shineth out of it, therewith we are fed, thereunto we are united, and we are made one body of Christ and one flesh. And yet is this a ●…eshly kind of presence, M. jewel? jewel. He that eateth most spiritually, eareth most truly: as The 119. untruth. Christ is the true vine, the true manna. and we are ve●…ily one bread, and the Apostles verily the heavens, and these are the paschal feast wherein verily the Lamb is slain. San. In comparison of bodily eating alone spiritual eating is more true, and of a better sort. But a thing both eaten in body & in spirit (as the Sacrament is eaten) is far more truly eaten both ways, then by one wa●…e alone. Again, when the name of any thing affirmed of Christ, appertaineth to the true nature of his manhad which he hath assumpted, it is to he verified of him, not only by a metaphor, but in very deed. Christ is no natural The 〈◊〉 rinse between Christ being a true ●…ine and truly 〈◊〉. ●…ine, because he assumpted not that substance to him. Likewise he is not Manna: Albeit he be spiritually the true vine, and the true Manna. For seeing he was not these things really, they can not be said of him really. But he is man in deed, and therefore offered in deed, killed in deed, buried in deed, and eaten in deed. For now as we believe the real death of him: so must we believe the real ●…ting of him, because the truth belonging to each of them is to be taken according to the true nature of man, which he took. And as it was meet for him to be killed in the shape of man, so he would be eaten in the shape of bread. The 12●…. untruth. in joan. tract. 26. Iu. S. Augustine utterly removeth the natural office of the body: What preparest thou thy teeth? Believe and thou hast eaten. believing in him, is the eating of the bread of life. San. You are one of the most impudent men that ever any creature had to do withal. S. Augustine spoke these words to the faithless jews, with whom Christ talked at Capharnaum, who gaped for bodily meat and belly cheer. Now when Christ had said, work the meat which tarrieth to life everlasting, S. Augustine joan. 6. saith to the jew, who sought to have his belly filled, what preparest thou thy teeth? M. jewel knoweth, that when Catholics come to the Sacrament of the altar, they whet not their teeth, as if they came to a carnal banquet: but they believe, & eat first by believing, to th'end they may afterward eat by mouth worthily. And therefore S. Augustine confesseth us to receive Christ by mouth also: but by a faithful mouth, & not by a gloto●…ouse mouth. His words are: Hominem Christum jesum & caet. Aug. cont. adversarium legis & prophetarum. fideli cord atque ore suscipimus. We do receive with a faithful heart and mouth the man jesus Christ giving his flesh unto us to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk, although it may seem more horri●…le to eat man's flesh, than to kill it, & drink man's blood, then to shed it. When S. Augustine saith: we receive Christ with a faithful mouth, he showeth that ●…his meaning is not to remove utterly the natural office of the body (as M. jewel most impudently saith) but he meaneth we should not come to the Sacrament for to satisfy our bodily hunger, but with a faithful heart and mouth. Where if he spoke not of real drinking by mouth, he would never have said, it is more horrible to drink man's blood then to shed it: but now although it be so horrible to drink man's blood in that corruptible sort which mortal blood hath, yet Christ's blood is given to us in a miraculonse manner without corruption, or loathsomeness, and is received even in the mouths of the faithful. But I can not so leave you, M. jewel. Did S. Augustine utterly remove the office of the mouth? Said he not, that for the honour of so great a Sacrament it pleased the holy Ghost, Vt prius in os christiani corpus dominicum intraret, quàm caeteri Epi. 118. cibi, that our Lord's body should enter into the mouth of a christian man before other meats. and yet is the office of the body removed, and that utterly removed? Where is, M. jewel, your mind, your wit, your sense? Where is your care of God, regard to your good name, or the fear to abuse the holy mysteries? Harding. Buce●… taught the body of Christ to be The 9 division. truly and substantially present, exhibited and taken. Iu. Hitherto M. Harding hath alleged nor ancient doctor, The 121. untruth. nor old Council. San. As though we had not disputed this long time of the Nicene Counc●…l, where 318. ancient Fathers were gathered together. Iu. What reasons lead him to yield to the other side for quietnessake, Galat. 2. I remit unto God. De prescript. adversus Haeret. San. In a matter of such weight he ought not to have yielded for quictnes sake, sith S. Paul resisted S. Peter for a matter of much less importance, as wherein they rather disagreed in fact, then in doctrine, as Tertullian witnesseth. Iu. If M. Harding had found any other doctor, he would not The 122. 〈◊〉. have made his entry with Bucer. San. Beside the Nicene council which you have heard already, ye shall hear other doctors anon. Iu. The council of the eight Cardinals at Rome might rather The 123. ●…ntruth. have been scoffed at, than this brotherly conference. San. The Cardinals sought not a new faith (as Bucer and Luther did) but the purging of old faults. they came not together to set forth a new doctrine, but to amend the life of evil men. Tertullian saith well: hllic & scripturarum & expositionum adulteratio De prescript. deputanda est, ubi diversitas invenitur doctrinae. There the counterfeiting both of the scriptures & of the expositions is to be assigned, where the diversity of doctrine is found. such diversity is between the Lutherans and zwinglians, but not between the catholics. The 124. untruth. jewel. If we compare voices, they of wittemberge were more in number. Saunder. Nay sir, all the Catholic nations of Christendom communicated with the Cardinals. but your doctrine was then scant sixteen years old, and had never a city, town or village in the world that wholly communicated with it at that day. The 1. Tim. 〈◊〉. number must not be tried by the men gathered in a house together, but by the men agreeing in the church together. For the whole Church is one house o●… god. jewel. If we compare knowledge, they were better learned. The 125. untruth. San. Of new sprung teachers 〈◊〉 said: Omnes tument, De prescript. ●…mnes scientiam pollicentur. Al of them do swell (with pride) and every one doth promise knowledge. But on the other side, Nemo sapiens nisi fidelis, No man is wise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithful. The Cardinals therefore being faithful were also ●…etter learned, than your men of wittemberge. Again, Tertullian showeth that certain men are wont to say: why did this woman, or that man being most faithful, most wise, most practised in the Church, go into tha●… side? that is to say, hold this or that new opinion? But he answereth: they are neither to be counted wise, nor faithful, nor men of practice, whom heresies can change. Therefore those that cam●… together at wittemberge, seeing they changed their old faith, & sough●… out a new, they could not be learned as they ought to have been. But otherwise also, think you, M. jewel, that any wise man will grant you, that Luther and Bucer with their companions were better learned, them Contarenus, Sadoletus, Polus, and Theatinus with their fellows? Is it enough for you to have said it in bare words, without any proof at all? jewel. If we compare purposes, they sought peace in truth and ●…he 126. ●…utruth. the glory of god. Saunder. Call you that peace, when they divided Germany from the rest of Christendom? You are of those who would cure the sores jere. 6. of the people by v●…ine words, saying to them, peace, peace, when as in deed there was no peace. jewel. If we compare issue, god hath blessed their doings, and The 127. untruth. given force unto his word. Saunder. Touching your case Tertullian saith: Deverbi administratione. De prescript. etc. What shall I speak of the administration of the word, sith their whole endeavour is, not to convert ethnics, b●…t to pervert our men? they rather covet after this glory to overthrow those that stand, then to raise up those that are fallen: because the very work of theirs cometh not of their building, but of the destruction of the truth. They undermine our works, that they may build up their own. Thus Tertullian said of you, before you were borne. It is then small issue that you have hitherto obtained, by overthrowing as outwardy monasteries, Churches, altars, schools, hospitals: so inwardly faith, hum●…tie, cha●…tie, obedience, & all 〈◊〉 love of God or of our neighbours. jewel. These Cardinals espied such faults as every child might The 128. untruth. have found. San. Never a priests child in England is able to understand in iij. tomo conciliorum Anno D. 1538. them now that they are found, much less every child would find them, if they were to be sought out. Iu. They never redressed any of the same. San. You say not truly. which thing as it might be declared in The 129. untruth. many other points, as well of making Priests & of giving bevefices, as also in other faults there named: so is it most evident to the eye concerning the harlats, which neither rid in coach, nor dwelled in any palace since that time, nor went in the tire of any honest matron. jewel. If M. Harding had been in the Apostles times, he would The 130. untruth. h●…ue made some sport at their Counc●…. 〈◊〉 where or in what house assembled they together? San. They assembled in the house of S. john, as Nicephorus L. 2. 〈◊〉. hist. ca 1. Act. ca 1. Act. 15. thinketh, when they chose Mathias into the number of the Apostles. Again, they assembled to decide the controversy risen concerning the observances of the law of Moses, & in diverse other places. Whereat D. Harding will make no sport, because wheresoever Matt. 28. joan. 20. they assembled, they were lawfully assembled, being sent to the whole world by jesus Christ. But any such cou●…sion Luther and Bucer can not show. Iu. What Bishop or Pharisee was among th●…m? The 131. untruth. San. They had one Bishop 〈◊〉 the lest among 〈◊〉, and him joan. 〈◊〉 appointed by Christ, to whom he committed both his sheep and lambs. But in deed all the Apostles were also bishops, as it may apere, in that S. Mathias took the Bishopric of judas, Psal. 〈◊〉 ●…ccording to the Prophecy of David. Were Luther, Bucer and Act. 〈◊〉. Melancthon so made bishops? Or will you have the Church begin again in our time, as it began or rather took his perfection in Christ? Shall Luther be Christ, & will you be new Apostles to us? Hear what Tertul●…an saith hereof also: Probent se novos Dé prescript. Apostolos, etc. Let them prove themselves to be new Apostles: Let them say that Christ hath descended again, & that he hath taught again, been crucified again, dird again, risen again: for so he was wo●…t to make Apostles, & more over to give than power to do those things, which he himself did. I would therefore declare their power & virtues, but that I know their chief power to be in that they do follow the Apostles perversely. For they did make those that were dead, to live: but these do make those that live, to die. Hitherto Tertullian. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lacked Bishops in their assembles (as being all sent with full authority into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) ●…or your assemble had 〈◊〉 Bishop at all: Because since Christ's ascension 〈◊〉 had authority to Rom. 10 preach or to call ass●…bles, must needs 〈◊〉 of them, or of their successors to whom Christ gave such authority. But Luther being sent of no man who 〈◊〉 ordinarily to the Apostles, must needs be a false Pr●…, as who ran before he was sent. jor. 23 And truly sith Christ 〈◊〉 no●… himself to the authority of Apostleship, but was called of God thereunto, and proved his commission by his manifold wor●…es and miracles: it is an intolerable Heb. 5. pride for Martin Luther at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word without any joan. 10. other miracle (〈◊〉 that he was the most fyithiest man both of mouth and life there lightly was in ●…he earth) to require all the world to to believe his new 〈◊〉. Iu. S. Augustine 〈◊〉 conference and disputation with ●…tius 〈◊〉. 178. the Arrian at Hippo, in a private house of one Anitius. San. But I 〈◊〉 you it was kept of S. Augustine's part to maintain the known 〈◊〉 faith, and not to overthrow if. Yea it was kept to maintain the word homusion, which the heretic Pascentius alleged, not to be in the holy scripture: and therefore that it ought not to be admitted. Iu. There be ever some, that laugh at the repairing of Jerusalem, The. 13●…. untruth. as Origen saith. San. You are of that sum: for you laugh at S. Augustine, who brought the faith into England, and at the eight Cardinals, who went about to repair the walls of the Church. But Origenes In Cantica Can. 4, speaketh of idolaters and Gentiles, who ewied at the rising and not at the repairing of the walls of the Gospel, because it grieved them to see more new Christians daily made of infidels. ¶ Whether Christ's body dwell really in our bodies The xv●…. by his nativity. Chapter. jewel. The old Fathers speak not any one word, that serveth to M The 133. untruth. Harding'S purpose. San. This lying brag can not face the matter, as it shall appear hereafter. Iu. M, Harding proveth Christ's body to be really in us, and The 134. untruth. not in the Sacrament, thereby altering the question. Harding. Christ dwelleth in us truly, because of our receiving his body in this Sacrament. San. Ergo M. jewel said not truly, that D. Harding hath altered the question. For that which he now saith, he also proveth. Iu. Four special means there be, by every of which Christ's body The 135. untruth. dwelleth in our bodies, not by imagination, bu●…●…ally, substantially, naturally, fleshly and in deed. San. You had been better to have subscribed sour 〈◊〉, M. jewel, than for greediness of denying the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, to have made an assertion so vain as this is. Iu. Christ's body by his nativity whereby he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The 136. 〈◊〉. dwelleth in our bodies really, substantially. & caet. San. If you had only said, that Christ by his incarnation dwelleth naturally in us, or we naturally in him, that saying might have had a true sense: for that Christ by taking the nature which we are, might have been said to dwell among us, and to be 〈◊〉 of us. But to say not only that Christ, but that his body, not only dwelleth in us, but in our bodies, and that not only naturally, but also really, substantially & in deed, to affirm constantly so much it seemeth to me very hard. First Christ's nativity no more caused his body to dwell really in our bodies, than his incarnation. For when the word was 〈◊〉. 1. made flesh, even than it dwelled in us. Secondly his incarnation 〈◊〉. may be considered three wa●…es: one way, as if he had taken 〈◊〉 by thought or imagination only, and not in very deed, of which opinion you are not, as it may appear by diverse places of your 2. book. Another way the incarnation may be considered according Damasc. de orth. fi. li. 3. c. 6. & 11. to that nature, which is generally common to all men: As that they consist of bodies, of souls, of reason, and of certain accidents. The question is, whether Christ at his incarnation took all man kind after such sort, that he is now the common substance of us all, or no. Here I know not what M. jewel would answer, if he were namely put in mind thereof. But his words draw to the affirmatine sense altogether. For he saith Christ's body dwelleth in our bodies by his nativity. which saying seemeth to have no real truth in it: except Christ be common man kind which is in 〈◊〉 man. If he be that universal substance: then I see that as reason, as life, as sense, as flesh and blood are no less in one man, then in an other: so Christ who is supposed to be that general reason, life, sense, flesh and blood, is supposed likewise to be really in every man's own body. But this kind of opinion is foolish and vain, as it shall appear anon. The third way of considering the incarnation is, to say, that Christ took not the common substance of all mankind, but only the whole particular nature of man: so that the 〈◊〉 of God hath assumpted so much into his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as any other 〈◊〉 ever had in his 〈◊〉 and corruptible 〈◊〉. to wit, he hath assumpted the mind, the 〈◊〉, the body and the 〈◊〉 shape of a true man. According to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 only is true) S. Paul saith: that he is not 〈◊〉 to call us his brethren, Heb. 2. and that because the children (whom God 〈◊〉 to him) had 〈◊〉 and blood common among them, & ipse similiter participavit eisdem, and he also likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉, he took part, that is to say, he took to himself flesh and blood for his own part, as they had the same for their parts. And therefore as they had a particular 〈◊〉 and generation, so Christ was not gathered or taken generally out of the bodies & souls 〈◊〉 4. of all men, 〈◊〉 he was born of the virgin Marie alone, the son 〈◊〉. h. 1. of David and of Abraham according to the flesh. which being so, his body was no more really in our bodies by his nativity, than one of our bodies is in the body of an other man. For when we speak of our bodies, we speak of that, which is particularly proper to every man in his own perso●…: and not of that which is common to all mankind. But yet certain general benefits are deri●…ed out of Christ's 〈◊〉 even to every man. Due is, that our nature is in him marucilously honoured and advanced, in so much that it is truly said, man is God, and God is man. Moreover S. Cyrillus affirmeth, that every particular man In joan. li 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 12. shall rise in his own body at the later day, because of the mystery of Christ's resurrect●…on, who as man contained all men in himself. But seeing they that have done evil shall rise to be punishe●…, and that more grievously than death itself is (as there Rom. 8. S. ●…llus witnesseth) and yet sith no damnation is unto them who are in Christ jesus, we may well say, that Christ doth not only not dwell in every, man's body by his nativity, but also that he dwelleth not in their bodies or souls, who either did not partake of his flesh at all by faith, or else did unworthily partake thereof either by Baptism, or by the Eucharist, or any other way. All this notwithstanding, M. jewel will prove that Christ's body dwelleth even really in our bodies by his nativity. And when all is done it will prove either an heresy, or no●…ing, or a dwelling rather in the whole truth of man's nature assumpted, then in any man's body after that sort of dwelling, which is properly called real or substantial. But let us hear his proof. The 113. uniruthe. jewel. S. Bernard saith: the body of Christ is of my body, and is now become mine. San. S. Bernard saith: Corpus Christi de meo est, the body Serm. 〈◊〉. de Epip. of Christ is of mine. He saith not of my body, as you trā●…ate it. But of mine, that is to say, of the same kind of stuff whereof I am. Of the same stock and 〈◊〉, of like flesh & blood, but not of my proper flesh & of my proper blood: not really dwelling in my bowels, or in the parts of ●…y body. Again when he saith, & 〈◊〉 est, and the body of Christ is mine, he meaneth, it is mino to take commodity thereof, mine to use, mine to 〈◊〉, mine to offer, to enjoy: but not mine through this only condition, because it is born, but because I am joined to it by faith, by Baptism, by Penance, and by r●…auing it into my body at Christ's holy table, and by such like means. jewel. A babe is born to us. San. That is to say, to th'end we should take 〈◊〉 by the birth of it. But by the only birth it is not really in our bodies. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not only to us, or for us. jewel. A Son is given unto us. 〈◊〉. Unto 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 in him, but not to them who received joan. 1. him not. For he came into his own, and his own received him not. jewel. S. basil: We are partakers of the word by his incarnanation, Ad Caesa rienses. and 〈◊〉 called all his mystical conversation flesh and blood. San. We partake him in his nature coming to ours, and in ours communicated to him, but not yet in our bodies co●…ing to his body, except we also be joined to him by some other mean beside his nativity. The 138. untruth. jewel. Nyssenus saith: His body is all mankind, whereunto he is mingled. San. You have abused this testimony, turning the due construction M. jewel hath erred in constru ction. of the words▪ and have put that before the verb, which should have come after the verb. The true construction is: The whole nature of man, whereunto he is mingled, is the body of In dictum Apostol. tunc & filius sub ijcietur. Christ. And he meaneth not the natural body of Christ, which he took of the virgin by his nativity (whereof you entreat) but he meaneth the mystical body of Christ, whereof he said before: The subjection of the body of the Church, is referred to him, He speaketh still of the mystical body which doth inhabitie the body. And immediately before the words 〈◊〉 out by you: Our Lord is the life, by whom it doth happen to all his body, that it is brought to the Father. Again: Si Pater diligit ●…lium, & caet. If the Father do love Note. the Son, and we all (that through faith, whereby we believe in him, are made his body) be in the Son: consequen●…e he that loveth his own Son, loveth also the body of his so●…e, even as he loveth his Son himself. And we are that body. Lo, we are that body. He spoke not therefore of Christ's natural body. jewel. Christ being in the womb of the blessed virgin, be●… The 〈◊〉. untruth. flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bones. San. Of the same kind of ●…sh and bone: but not thereby really dwelling in our bodies which belong to our persons. jewel. In that sense S. John saith: the word was made flesh, and The 140. 〈◊〉. dwelled in us. San. In what sense? Whether that Christ's body by his nativity dwelleth substantially in our bodies? for so you said. but S. joan. 1. John said not so. God gave men power to be made the sons of God, to such as believe in his name, & to such as are borne of God. and when S. john had said, we had power to be the sons of God, if we were borne of God, he consirmeth that power given to us, saying: And the word is made flesh & hath dwelled 〈◊〉 us. Therefore Hom. 11. in ●…oan. saith S. Chrysostom, he hath dwelled in us, that it might be lawful to come to himself, & to speak & to be c●…uersant boldly with him. He was not in our bodies really strait upon the incarnation, but when he dwelled 〈◊〉 our nature, when he was a trúe man as we are, then might we come to him. Priusipsu verbum voluit Aug. tractat. 2. in joan. nasci ex homine, ut tu securius nascereris ex deo. The word would first be born of a woman, to th●…d 〈◊〉 mightest be born of God without fear. jewel. Therefore Christ calleth himself the vine, and us the The 141. untruth. branches. San. It is untruly said, 〈◊〉. jewel. For albeit Christ by his human birth be as it were the 〈◊〉 of the vine for his own part, yet he is not to us the vine, nor we be not the branches, 〈◊〉 joan. 15. we are graffed into Christ, which is done by saith and Baptism. S. Augustine saith, he is made man, that the nature of man should In joan. tract. 80. be a vine in him, whereof we that are men might be also the branches. If his only birth had made us branches, what needed a new birth in Baptism? When S. ●…yrill would show, that Christ according to his human Lib. 10. cap. 13. nature was the vine (which thing the Arrians denied) he went not for the matter to Christ's birth only, (for then judas and ●…ain had been branches) but he went to the Sacrament of Christ's supper, to prove that we depend of Christ's flesh, as branches do of the vine. The 〈◊〉. untruth. Ephes. 4. jewel. S. Paul calleth Christ the head, and us the body. San. S. Paul speaketh of Christ's mystical body: and you should prove that his natural body is really in our bodies. Now if to make his body to dwell really in our bodies, more than his birth be necessary: it is not true, that M. jewel with such vain brags hath hitherto said, that his body by ●…is nativity dwelleth really, or substantially, or naturally in our bodies. But only that he dwelleth in us, to wit, in our nature: being made Emanuel, nobiscum Deus, God with men. But thereby Christ dwelleth Math. 1. 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: Prou. 9 In joan. li. 1. ca 〈◊〉 Habitavit in nobis Dei verbum in templo uno, quod propter nos & de nobis sibi condidit, ut omnes in seipso habens in uno corpore patri reconciliaret: The word of God hath dwelled in us or among One temple natural. us in one temple, the which he made to himself for our sakes, and out of us: that having all in himself, he might reconcile them One body Ephes. 2. to the Fath●… in one body. One thing, M. jewel, I must put you in mind of. You 〈◊〉 that Christ's body may not be in many places at once. which doubtless you mean of his natural body. and his body is by no means more natural, then by the nativity thereof. But you say now, that Christ's body by his nativity dwelleth really, substantially, and fleshly in our bodies. and certainly our bodies dwell M. jewels contrary doctrine. in many places: therefore you are against your own doctrine, as who confess Christ's body by his nativity to dwell naturally in all our bodies, which are not only in many places of the earth, but a great number also are under the earth: in all which Christ's body, according to your doctrine, must dwell corporally. and therefore it must be in many places together. ¶ Whether Christ's body dwell in our bodies by faith The xvij. really, or no. Chapter. IVel. touching faith, S. Paul saith: Christ by faith dwelleth in Ephes. 3. our hearts. San. The word (heart) in holy scripture doth not always signify that fleshly part of a man's body commonly so called, but S. Paul meaneth, that Christ dwelleth in our minds and wills by faith and charity: which is made very plain by the words Ephes. 3. going before secundum interiorem hominem, according to the inner man. Therefore no dwelling of Christ's body really or substantially in our bodies is proved by this place of S. Paul, except we shall say, that Christ hath no real and substantial body of his own. For if is be a real substance, what meaneth M. jewel to affirm it dwelleth really and substantially, where the real substance thereof it not? if it be a real dwelling of Christ's body in M jewels phrase defendeth joan of kents heresy. our bodies in that we believe in Christ, and yet Christ have but one real and substantial body: by M. jewels phrase of speech that body may be said to have dwelled really in the virgin's ●…omb, in that she only believed in Christ. and by such worthy interpretation the truth of the incarnation is utterly taken away. jewel. S. Peter saith: Hereby we are made partakers of the divine Petr. 1. nature. San. Those words generally pertain to all the gifts of God, and specially to the incarnation of Christ, whereby we communicate most perfectly (if yet we be faithful) with the nature of God. For when we believe in Christ, who is man with us, and God, with his Father, than we communicating with his manhood communicate also with the Godhead, which dwelleth corporally in Christ. But that communicating may be made, either by faith, or baptism, and other Sacraments. And as the Godhead dwel●…eth incomparably more excellently in Christ's own body ●…then it doth in any other thing which dependeth thereof: so the union with his nature is made far better by the mean of the Eucharist (with faith and Baptism joined together) then by one or two of them alone. And that this place of S. Peter doth pertain to the communicating of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament also, Cyrillus of ●…ierusalem doth witness, writing thus: Under the Catech. mystic. 4 form of bread the body is given, and under the form of wine the blood is given, etc. And so we shallbe made partakers of the 2. Pet. 1. divine nature, as S. Peter saith. Now M. jewel hath most improperly placed this Testimony in the second kind of Christ's dwelling in us, sith it appertaineth to all four ways generally, but most especially to that communion or joining, which is made by the holy Eucharist. Ad Tral. jewel. So saith Ignatius: By his passion and resurrection (that The 143. untruth. is, by our faith in the same) we are made the members of his body. San. S. Ignatius in two places o●… that Epistle speaketh of Ad T●…allianos. such a matter as M. jewel would have, but because his words did not serve the turn, it pleased this corruptour of all good authors to give him new words. The first place in S. Ignatius is, ut credentes in mortem eius per Baptismun, participes resurrectionis eius efficiamini. To th'intent ye believing in his death through Baptism, should be made partakers of his resurrection. Here is not that for which M. jewel seeketh, because Baptism is also named, whereof as yet it is not his course to speak. Again, here is no real or substantial dwelling spoken of. The other place is: Vos ver●… invitat Christus ad suam incorruptibilitatem per passionem suam ac resurrectionem, qui estis membra eius. Christ inviteth you, who are his members, to his immortality, by his passion and resurrection. But this place w●… not serve M. jewels 〈◊〉 ●…ying. purpose. For it is not said, we are made the members of his body: which is the thing that M. jewel must prove. That word, body, was not in S. Ignatius, but is cast in by M. jewel. 2. Moreover though it had been expressed: it had been meant of Christ's mystical body (●…oncerning faith) and not of his natural body, whereof we now dispute. 3. S. Ignatius speaketh not of our incorporating to be now first made by faith in Christ's passion, but he saith Christ inviteth us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being his members: he speaketh not of that (we are made) his members. that word (made) M. jewel 〈◊〉 ●…ying. made of his own head. 4. S. Ignatius spoke of this point, how those that are already the members of Christ (which thing they were not by faith alone, but by Baptism and the Eucharist) how those, I say, were invited not now to be made members, but to be made immortal with Christ their head. Thus M. jewel doth order the holy Father's words. ¶ The contradiction of M. jewel concerning Christ The 〈◊〉 Chapter. really dwelling in us by fai●…, & not really dwelling in us by faith etc. WHat shall we say of M. jewel, who in one and the self Contradi ction in M. jewel. same division affirmeth two propositions clean contrary? For as here he saith, Christ's body dwelleth in our bodies by every of the four means (of which one is a dwelling 341. lin. 4 〈◊〉. & 10. by faith) so afterward expounding out of S. Augustine the very same words of S. Paul, which he now bringeth for the dwelling of 〈◊〉 body in our bod●…es really: Thus he ●…aith. 341. lin. 26. 344. lin. 24. & 25. Christ is in thee (not really or bodily, but) because his ●…aith is within thee. And those words, not really or bodily, are not the words of S. 〈◊〉, but the words of M. jewel. Who within the c●…mpasse of two leaves affirmeth more contradictions never able to be rec●…ciled. The one place saith Christ's body is in our bodies by faith. The other saith, Christ is not really in us, but by faith. If there be any odds between Christ and his body, it maketh altogether against M. jewel. For whereas Christ may be said to be where his body is not, and may be said to be in us, when his body is not in our bodies: M. jewel 〈◊〉 in the one place, not only the body of Christ to be really in us, but also he denieth that Christ is really i●… us. and in the other he affirmeth not only Christ to be really in us by faith, but also his body to be really not only in us, but even in our bodies by faith. You pretend some contradiction, M. jewel, here and there between D. Harding'S own words, but I 〈◊〉 you no such is to be found as this is. You note in this article, that D. Harding is contrary to himself, because he sai●…th in one place, Ber●…ngarius first begun 317. 81. openly to sow the sacramentary heresy, & in an other he said, the Messalians were the first parents of this heresy. But what a poor contradiction is that, sith one may be the first parent of an heresy in giving secret occasion thereof, the other may begin it first in professing it openly and publicly, as D. Harding'S own words expressly say. But if D. Harding's contradiction were like yours, it should say, Berengarius began this heresy first openly, and Berengarius began it not first openly. The same terms being kept, the one should have affirmed the same thing, which the other had denied. No no, it is for M. jewel to have such contradictions, and for no man else. But what credit shall any man give to your words, sith yo●… do not only say these two contradictiones, but you teach them both? You hold that Christ is in us by faith, and therefore that his body is really in our bodies. You set it forth as a doctrine of yours, you make a preface to it solemnly, & say: for answer hereunto it shallbe M. jewels ●…oroes. necessary first to understand how many ways Christ's body dwelleth in our bodies, and thereby afterward to view M. Harding's reason. Four special means there be, whereby Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him. His nativity, whereby he embraced us. Our faith, whereby we embrace him. The Sacrament of baptism, and the Sacrament of his body. By every of these means Christ's body dwelleth in our bodies, and that not by way of imagination, or by figure or fantasy, but really, naturally, substantially, fleshly and in deed. Are not these your own words, M. jewel? Are they not spoken of you, not only in the wai of answering (wherein sometime a man useth some shift) but are they not your own words setting forth a doctrine, which you would have believed and embraced? Well. Why then say you afterward the contrary, and that not only once, but in diverse places? For again in an other place before, 336. lin. 10. you said, Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith: must he needs mean, that Christ is really and fleshly placed within our hearts? Mean you not there to say, that though Christ dwell in us by faith, yet he is not really placed in us? What meaneth this contrary doctrine? Surely thus it meaneth, that you know not what you say, you understand not whereof you dispute. You provide only to contrary D. Harding, and through him the Catholic Church, and that by all means possible to be devised, by phrases of speech, by the authorities of school men, by falsifying the ancient Fathers. And now through vehement bending yourself against our real receiving of Christ's body into our bodies (which the Catholics believe) you have invented three other yourself, in the mean time assuredly believing, that there is never a corporal conjunction at all with Christ's natural body. Of other petty contradictions I speak in other places. ¶ Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by The 〈◊〉. baptism, or no? Chapter. IVel. To increase this union God hath specially appointed his holy Sacraments. San. Not only to increase it, but also to make it. For partly August. now all men be baptised being yet infants (when they do not Epi. 2●…. actually believe) partly though they did believe, their saith may be to weak to work the incorporation, as S. Augustine saeith, Aug. ad Simplic. quaest. 2. and specially of all Christ hath appointed baptism to be (after his coming) so necessary a mean for our incorporation to his mystical body (whereof he is the Saviour) that except a man be born again of Ephes. 5. the water and of the holy ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom joan. 3. of heaven. Again, some Sacraments are appointed to reconcile us to god, joan. 20. if we sin after baptism. For except we do penance, we shall Luc. 13. perish all together. jewel. They that are baptised are planted into Christ. Impertinent. San. You should show, that Christ's body is planted into their bodies, and that really and substantially. 〈◊〉. Have you forgotten your promise? jewel. They have put Christ upon them. Impertinent. San. You should show, that Christ's body is put within their bodies even fleshly. jewel. By one spirit they are baptised into one body. Impertinent. San. You should show, that the natural body of Christ is by baptizing really in their bodies. For the body, whereof S. Paul speaketh, is the mystical body. Iu. S. Augustine saith: This is the use of baptizing, that they that be baptized, may be incorporate into Christ. False 〈◊〉. San. It would have been englished, hereunto baptizing is available, that is to say, this is the strength and the force of baptism. But you believe baptism to be only a seal of an incorporation already made, and not in deed to incorporate us into Christ: and therefore you falsified S. Augustine, according to your sham●…ul custom. Well: we are incorporated by baptism, yet the body of Christ is not thereby showed to dwell really in our bodies. A man may Incorporation. be incorporated to the company of Merchants in the city of London, & yet the cumpanie of Merchants shall not dwell really in his body. All this doth not prove your principal proposition, that by baptism the body of Christ dwelleth really in our bodies. jewel. Being baptized we are turned into God, saith Dionysius. Saunder. The word that he useth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which importeth a participation of divine nature howsoever it be brought to pass, insomuch that the Angels may so be made (as it were) gods, or be made like to his nature: Therefore it is not proved by the words of Dionysius, that Christ's body dwelleth in our bodies really or substantially by baptism: nor he nameth not turning, but rather a False translation. deification, or a coming to be like unto god. Iu. Pachimeres saith, we are grafted into Christ, and made one nature The 144 untruth. with him by holy baptism. Saunder. You have turned him falsely. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not False translation. signify one nature, but diverse men of one nature, kinsmen, as it were, and men of the same stock, or of the same rout or graffing. It is not all one to be made one flesh, & of one flesh. In baptism ●…sticall ●…eshe. we are all made of one flesh, and we all are grafted into one mystical flesh of Christ: but by the Sacrament of the altar we are (during the time of the conjunction) one self flesh with Christ's natural flesh. There we are two in one flesh, as I have showed, in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. book, y● v. Chapter. But seeing you crane aid of Pachimeres, you Ephes. 5. shall hear his mind concerning the blessed sacrament of the altar, & then In eccl. judge you, whether he say or mean the like of baptism. The bishop Il●…er. c. ●… (saith he) believeth, that even the things which are set forth Par. 2. (he meaneth the bread and wine) were changed into the precious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. body & blood of Christ, by the holy ghost who worketh all. If then the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of Christ, yea and that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the first patterns (for so he called them before, & the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh relation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to all that went before) if then the bread and wine be changed into those first examples of flesh and blood, which were taken by Christ of his mother: seeing we partake those holy mysteries aster the change, it is easy io judge, that Pachymeres taught otherwise of one union to god concerning the mean of Christ's supper, than ever he taught concerning baptism. ¶ Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the The xx. Chapter. Sacrament of the altar, or no. IVel. Thus much may sufsice to descry M. Harding'S slender argument. The 145 untruth. San. Not so, M. jewel: you must expound the fourth member of your division. You have told that Christ's body dwelleth really in our bodies by his nativity, our faith, and by baptism: come now and show how it dwelleth in our bodies really by the Sacrament of the altar. Was not all the other talk made for that M. jewel breaketh promise. end? why fly you, when you are come to the very point? but who would not laugh to see this man's doing. He saith Christ's body dwelleth really in our bodies, and that four ways. And when he hath endeavoured to show, that it is so in three of the first (in the which in deed it is not so) then cometh he to declare in the fourth way (by which only Christ's body dwelleth really in us, when we receau●… the Sacrament of his body) there he spendeth M. jewel. 〈◊〉 against himself. all his strength to declare, that Christ's body is not really dwelling in our bodies. Why Sir? Did you so forget yourself, that you have ●…mitted your principal part? You will say perhaps, that D. Harding hath done that for you, and that the places which he bringeth, do show so much. be it so. At the lest then, you should not impugn D. Harding as you do. If his places prove not the Christ's body dwelleth really in our bodies (as you say they do not prove it) than it is your part to prove so much. for you a●…cmed it before. jewel Notwithstanding by the Sacrament of baptism Christ be The. 146 untruth. naturally in us, yet M. Harding may not therefore conclude, that Christ is naturally in the Sacrament of baptism. San. It is false, that Christ by the Sacrament of baptism is naturally in us. For as the father who begetteth a child, is not thereby naturally dwelling in the child (albeit an effect of his nature was one of the causes of the child's nature) so Christ by regenerating us in baptism by his word (which is in place of Chry. ad Ro. Ho. 16. the seed) and by water (which is as it were the womb of the mother) doth not thereby dwell naturally in us, albeit we ha●…e an effect of spiritual grace, which came to us by means of his flesh. jewel. Bonauentu●…a saith: well, we may not in any wise say, that 〈◊〉 place falsified. T●…e 147. untruth. the grace of god is contained in the Sacraments as water in a vessel. For so to say it were an error. But th●… are said to 〈◊〉 gods grace, because they signify gods grace. Sam. Bonauētn●…a was a Cardinal of Rome, a scholastical writer, a man less than three hundred years old, one that said mass: and yet with M. jewel now he is a good author, & saith well. But yet 〈◊〉 word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 〈◊〉 you in englishing his words to leave the adverb essentialiter, essentially unenglished: in which word the greatest weight of his iudge●…ent resteth. For he intendeth not to deny, but that the sacraments of the new law contain and give grace, but he saith: They contain it not ess●…ntially as a ve●…el containeth water, or as a box holdeth a medicine. Which notwithstanding he showeth two other ways how they contain grace. But I pray you to what end allege you Bonaventure, if not to disprove the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament? For (say you) though Christ's body were in our bodies really, it would not therefore be concluded, that it is really in the Sacrament. & how is t●…at proved? forsooth by S. Bonaventure. did he then say, that Christ's body though it be really in us, yet it is not r●…allie in the Sacrament? Did he mean any such thing? You shall now in 4. sent. dist. 1. hear his own words in the same very place concer●…ing the conference of the Eucharist with other Sacraments: In illo Sacramento quaest. 3. est transubstantiatio. unde 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 itself. ¶ That Christ's body is proved to be really in the The xxi. Sacrament by S. Chrysostoms' words. Chapter. HArding. By this Sacrament (saith Chrysostom) Christ reduceth us, as it were, into one lump with himself. And that not by faith only, but he maketh us his own body in very deed, Re ipsa. Which is no other to say, then really. the 148. untruth. For it could ●…ot 〈◊〉 said so. jewel. This place would have stand M. Harding in better stead, if Chrysostom had said, Christ mingleth his body with the Sacrament, and driveth himself and it into one lump. San. If the Sac●…ament of Christ's supper were a thing so distinct from Christ's body, as Christ's body is distinct from us: S. Chrysostom might have said perhaps, that Christ mingleth himself with the Sacrament. But now it is a great ignorance, that M. jewel marketh not, the Sacrament of Christ's supper to be of itself the real body of Christ under the forms of bread and wine: therefore to say, Christ is mingled with the Sacrament, were to say, that Christ is mingled with himself. S. Chrysostom was wiser than to say so. but speaking of the Sacrament he saith, that Christ mingleth himself really with us, who worthily receive that Sacrament. jewel. Neither will M. Harding say, that Christ mingleth himself The 149. untruth. with us simply, and without figure. Whereof it followeth, that much less it is so in the Sacrament. San. This is a fine kind of Rhetoric, to make D. Harding believe he will not say that, which he doth say. He meaneth, that Christ's own real body is joined to our bodies, and that simply (concerning the substance thereof) and without any figure of Rhetoric, or of grammar. but not without a mystical figure, because it is given under the forms of bread and wine. The (whereof) that you infer upon your false surmise is ●…louse unsensible and fond. jewel. It is a vehement and a hot kind of speech, such as Chrysostom The 150. untruth. was most delighted with. San. To speak 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 calm saying. jewel. It is a speech far passing the common sense, and course The 151. untruth. of truth. San. I thought you would bring it to a phrase or figure of speech. But he 〈◊〉 it for a truth, as we shall see anon. The 152. 〈◊〉. jewel. Himself thought it necessary to correct and qualify the rigour of the same speech, by these words, ut ita dicam, which is, 〈◊〉 it were, or, if I may be bold so to say. San. You stand altogether upon phrases and 〈◊〉: but S. Chrysostom meant not to correct or qualify the doctrine, which he taught concerning Christ's real joining with us. But only he showed himself in teaching it, to 〈◊〉 or rather to allude to a similitude What cor●… S. and Metaphor, at the use whereof he stayed somewhat: As if he had said at large, even as many grains of corn are by 〈◊〉 used. the baker brought into one lump of dough: right so Christ and they that do communicate are made all one with Christ, and 〈◊〉 with him in this Sacrament. Now because this similitude is not set forth at large, but briefly alluded unto, therefore S. Chrysostom saith (ut ita dicam) that I may so say, to wit, that I may at this time use 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 which is maintained both by S. Chrysostom and others, without any correction or qualifying. He writeth upon S. John, that Christ said, he that eateth my Hom. 46 flesh, and drinketh my blood tarrieth in me, to show, cum ipso se admisceri: That himself is mingled with him. Again he sayeth: In joan. It is brought to pass by the meat which he hath given us, Hom. 45 that we should be turned into that flesh not only by love, but by the thing itself. Again: Cum suum, & caet. When Christ would show In the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. his love toward us, he mingled himself with us through his body. And he brought (himself) into one with us, to th' end the body should be united with the head. Many like words he hath in his sermons to the people of Antioch, in the which he never Hom. 60 & 61. useth the phrase (ut ita dicam, that I may so say) because he used not the similitude of the lump of dough, whereunto that correction pertaineth. Yea what shall we say, if even in this place Vt ita dicam▪ is no●… in the greek. S. Chrysostom use no such qualifying, nor say not (ut ita dicam) for albeit the Latin text read so: yet the edition of Parise doth wi●…nesse, that his Greek words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seipsum miscet nobis, he mingleth himself with us. Where is now M. jewels discrete phrase? Where is his corr●…ction? His qualifying of the rigour of the speech? To be short, where is his answer? jewel. In such phrase Anacletus sayeth, the power of the holy The 153. untruth. Ghost is mingled with the oil. San. Merciful God, whither will not this man run for phrases? He now appealeth to a Pope, whose Epistle he esteemeth as much as his show sole: only meaning to make some (not of the wis●… sort) to believe, that he hath answered well, when he hath written somewhat, although himself believe not that which he writeth. Do you believe this very sentence, M. jewel, which you allege? How say you? Is the i●…isible power of the holy Oil. Ghost mingled with the oil? If you thought so, you would use holy oil more than you do. One thing I must tell you, which I had almost forgotten, it is not in Anacletus, in oleo, in the oil, as you name it, but sancto Chrismati, to the holy Chrism. It Chāging●… 〈◊〉 words of the Fathers. was not for nought that you talked of a phrase. His phrase was such, that you were afeard to use it. The Chrism had such virtue of the holy Ghost mingled in it, that one who was not of the holy Ghost could not abide to name it. No not so much as when he had ●…ede to use the words of the same sentence to serve his turn. jewel. Alexander sayeth, the passion of Christ must be mingled The 154 untruth. with the oblations of the Sacraments. San. Yet shall we have an other Pope? I fear me this man willbe come Popish shortly. The world goeth hard with his note book, when he fleeth to these Decretal Epistles for the proof of any thing, and specially for ●…atine phrases. But one thing I promise you, M. jewel. You may better prove Masses o●…t of that Epistle, yea (I go near you) out of that self sentence which you allege, than you may pro●…e any other phrase which shall presently serve your purpose. But if you had not lest out the middle words (which he speaketh of Mass) your brethren would have been so angry with you for bringing this testimony, that they would altogether have misliked your phrase. The words of Pope Alexander be these: In Sacramentorum quoque oblationibus, word●…s left out in the midst of the sentence. quae inter missarum solennia Domino offeruntur, passio Domini miscenda est. In the oblations also of the Sacraments which are offered unto God at the solemnities of masses, the passion of our Lord is to be mingled. And farther expounding his own meaning, he saith, that his passion may be celebrated, whose body and blood is made. If now as the passion of Christ being absent in quality (concerning that Christ's body s●…ffereth nothing at this present) is yet present in his whole value (concerning that the self same substance is here, which suffered death for our sakes) if, I say, as the passion is in this wise presently mingled with the Sacraments and offered unto God: so M. jewel The applying of Alexander his words. w●… grant, that Christ's body being absent in shape and quality (concerning that it is not seen presently in his own form) is yet present in his whole valu●… (●…oncerning that the self same substance is under the form of bread, which walked visibly upon the earth) if, I say, M. jewel will grant such a presence of Christ's body, through which it may be mingled and really joined to us: then the phrases of S. Chrysostom & of Alexander shallbe somewhat like, and he shall gain nothing at all. jewel. Nyssenus saith, S. Stephen was mingled with the grace of Against 〈◊〉. the holy Ghost. San. Which saying of his doth right well pro●…e, that the grac●… of the holy Ghost was really in S. Stephen, and not only imputed unto him, even as Christ's body is really mingled with our bodies. The 155. untruth. jewel. Chrysostom meant, that we should consider that wonderful conjunction, which is between Christ and us, even in one person. San. This man den●…ed hitherto, that Christ is really mingled with us by the real presence of his body: and now he confesseth Contrariety. more than we ask. For the conjunction which is made in on●… person, is much greater than ever any other could be. in so much that the ioyni●…g of our nature to the Godhead in the person of the son of God, is the highest mystery that ever was heard of. 1. Cor. 12 I am not ignorant, that S. Paul calleth as well the head of the Church, as all the members, by the only name of Christ: nor that S. cyril saith, we are all in Christ, and that the common In joan. li. 1. ca 16 Ephe. 5. person of mankind was re●…ed in Christ: nor that S. Paul saith of Christ and the Church, two shallbe in one flesh: nor that Christ concludeth thereof, therefore they be not now twain but Math. 19 one flesh: but all this doth not import that Christ is in us, & we in him, even in one person. For S. Cyprian saith, our conjunction De coena Domini. with Christ doth neither mingle the persons, nor unite the substances. Therefore seeing we stand now upon precise truth of doctrine, not writing at pleasure, but disputing of a matter in controversy, in this case you might have forborn this your more bold than wise phrase of speech. For as Damascene hath well Damasc. de Orth. 〈◊〉. li. 2. c. 3 noted, whereas the blessed Trinity is one substance, and we of one substance, and Christ one with God, & one with us through his double nature: yet according to his person (which he calleth Hypostasim) differt & a patre & a spiritu, & a master & ●… nobis, Christ in his person, differeth from the Father, from the holy Ghost, from his mother, and from us. And yet M. jewel will bring us even into one person. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 d●… pa●…. jewel. Leo saith▪ the body of him that is regenerate, is made the flesh of him that was crucified. San. Here is the thitd Pope, in whose phrase M. jewel doth solace himself. He saith that by Baptism we are made the flesh of Christ: and I believe the same. But he speaketh of his mystical flesh, whereof no question is between us, and M. jewel. For we only dispute now of Christ's natural flesh which is not in Baptism, but only in the Sacrament of the altar. In Io●…. tracta. 〈◊〉 jewel. S. Augustine saith▪ we are made Christ etc. and both he and we are one who●…e man. San. Albeit the matter be not great, yet S. Augustine saith One is not there. not one whole man (as M. jewel doth ●…nglish it) but the whole man. for he now speaketh not of any one manin number nor of any one singular person: but of a mystical body, which consisting of divers persons as of diverse members is made up & perfected into a whole collegiate body. but S. Chrysostom speaketh of Christ's joining himself to every faithful man one by one at the time of receiving his body into our hands and mouths, as I will show anon. jewel. As we are by baptism made Christ's flesh and Christ, in The 1●…. untruth. the same sense Chrysostom saith, we are made one lump with Christ, and Christ hath tempered and mingled himself with us. San. If we will without fraud understand the mind o●… S. Augustine, of Leo, and of S. Chrysostom, we must not only consider, that they speak of our union and joining to Christ, but also by what means they utter that their mind. S. Augustine speaketh generally of every kind of uniting us In Ioa●…. tracta▪ 〈◊〉. to Christ. Leo doth not only say we are made the flesh of Christ, but showing the mean, he saith: 〈◊〉. The body of him that is regenerated is made the flesh of Christ. The name of regeneration importeth the mean of Baptism, by which we are grafted into Christ. S. Chrysos●…ome speaketh of an other mean, which is the Eucharist. But what is that mean? Baptism Mat▪ 28. all men confess to be the washing with water in the name of the Trinity. What is then the Eucharist? What is the substance, I sa●…e, which in the Sacrament of the a●…ltar worketh our union with Christ? Is it water? No. Is it bread and wine? Yea, saith M. jewel. No, sae●… we. Now then let us mark the point, & consider 〈◊〉. the whole discourse of S. Chryso●…, who writeth thus: Because Christ hath said, this is 〈◊〉 body, let us be ●…gled with 2. no doubt. Thou (saith Chrysostom) desirest to see his garments, but he delivereth himself to thee: Vt tangas, & in te habeas, so 3. that thou mayest touch him, and have him in thee. Beware therefore 4. lest after so great benefits, thou begiltie of his body and blood, by receiving with an unclean soul. For it su●…ed him 5. not to be made man, to be scourged & crucified, but he mingleth himself with us (or bringeth us into one lump with him) and ●…hat not by faith alone, but he maketh us his own body, by the thing itself. This is the true discourse of S. Chrysostom in that Reipsa. place, as it may appear to any man who shall read it. We are then made one with Christ: to work the which thing, it is common to faith, and to baptism, or to the Sacrament of ●…ance. But S. Chrysostom saith farther, that the mean of this making us one, is, in that Christ deli●…eth himself to us. Ipse se ipsum 〈◊〉 self. tibi tradidit, he delivereth his own self to thee. And by that means he is mingled with thee: not by faith alone, but by the thing itself. By which thing? By himself, or by his own body: so that the excellency of Christ's love consisteth as much in the 〈◊〉 of the vnio●…▪ ●…s in the union itself. God might have saved us without sending his son to take flesh: but when he sent his only begotten, and made him in his own human nature (which he assumpted) the mean to save us, joan. 3. than his love appeared most singularly. Even so at this time, the Note not only the union, but the mean th●…of. mean of the union is that, whereof S. Carysostome speaketh. For whereas there is a mean by faith to unite us to God, he saith, Christ was not content to be made man, neither to die for us, by which points the faith of the old Fathers was fulfilled: and therefore it might have sufficed for Christ to have rested in his na●…tie and in his death, letting our faith through his grace to make up the knot of union without going any farther: but that mean sufficed not. He hath brought us into one lump with him, not by faith alone, to wit, not by the mean of faith alone (after his nativity & Cross) he was not content with the mean of his birth, death & faith, but he mingleth himself with us by the thing itself. Faith The construction of the place. is one word, the thing is an other. Fide, is the same case, y● re ipsa is: one verb doth serve both. As therefore it must of necessity beenglished, efficit he maketh, nos, us, suum corpus, his own body, non solum not only, fide, by saith: so must it be englished, sed, but, re ipsa, by the thing itself. The union therefore is made by faith, and by the thing itself. I come near you, M. jewel. I say the thing itself is neither water, nor bread and wine, nor ●…th, nor any other creature, but only the real substance of Christ's body & blood. The which Thethin●… itself. ●…bstance is the mean whereby we are united: yet the same substance is not the mean except 〈◊〉 be delivered in the Sacrament of the altar. for of that Sacrament, and of the worthy communicating, and of the 〈◊〉 thereof, S. Chrysostom now speaketh: it is called not only the body of Christ, but Christ himself. and Being. touch●…. 〈◊〉. therefore Christ is said not only to be seen, but to be touched, eaten, and to be within us. That body and blood of Chri●…, being consecrated 〈◊〉 the holy table, and so seen under the form of bread, being delivered by the priest's hand to us, and so touched, eaten, and being within us, that is the thing itself, whereby we are now made the mystical body of Christ. That body and blood was made present by changing the bread and wine into them. And therefore S. Chrysostom In Matt. Hom. 83 saith in the same homily: Qui haec sanctificat & transmutat, ipse est. It is Christ himself, who maketh holy and changeth The change. these things. That body and blood is offered and partaken. and therefore it followeth immediately after the words whereof we now chiefly dispute, that he ought to be cleaner than any thing, Qui hoc sacrificio participaturus est, who will partake this sacrifice. The sacrifice. That hand which breaketh in pieces this flesh, the mouth Hand. which is filled with spiritual fire, the tongue which is made red Mouth. tongue. with this wonderful blood, aught to exceed the son beams.▪ What can be devised of man more plain, then to name changing, sacrifice, hand, mouth, tongue, seeing, touching, eating, having within us? All these words are affirmed of these marvelous gifts of Christ's supper. It is not therefore bread and wine, which is res ipsa, the thing itself, but it is the body of Christ: and that body being made in the Sacrament of Christ's supper, is the mean to make us one mystical body. therefore that body is really present in the Sacrament of the supper. How could it otherwise be seen, touched, taken into the hand, into the mouth, & be received with the tongue, and be in us, and (which is the chief of all) how could it be the mean to make us one body? Note the mean of the unton. For as when by faith or Baptism we are incorporated, faith is present really with us, and Baptism is really present: so when we are united by the body of Christ, it must needs be really present. Hom. 60 ad pop. 〈◊〉. And how present? If thou wert without a body (saith S. Chrysostom) God had given thee his gifts naked and without bodies. But because the soul is knit unto the body: In sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi praebet. In things that are s●…sible, he giveth thee things which are intelligible, or such as may be attained only by understanding. The body of Christ therefore as it is the thing itself which uniteth us in his Sacrament: so is it given us in sensibilibus, in things which may be seen, felt and touched. And to speak all in one, the real body is given really to us under the forms of bread and wine. Moreover when we are united by faith & Baptism, we are not united unto faith, or unto Baptism, but by them unto the flesh of Christ. But of this Sacrament it is said, not only that we are united by it, but also unto it, in so much that S. Chrysostom Home 60 add pop. Antioch. saith: That thing at the sight whereof the Angels quake, neither dare boldly behold it, for the brightness which shineth out of it, therewith we are fed, thereunto we are united. Lo, we are united to the thing wherewith we are fed▪ and strait S. Chrysostom showeth, that whereas no shepherd feedeth his sheep 60. Home with his own blood, yea whereas some mothers give out their children to be nourished: Christ doth not so, but he feedeth us with his own blood, and by all means he joineth us to himself. If by faith & Baptism only Christ joined us to himself, then as it were he should put us forth to nurse: for neither faith nor baptism is Christ himself. But when he feedeth us with the real substance of his own body, and with it not only apprehended by faith, but received by mouth: then he feedeth us by his own self, and by himself uniteth us to himself. To conclude, S. Chrysostom saith writing upon S. john, Hom. 45 Cum suum, etc. Christ intending to show his love towards 〈◊〉, hath mingled himself with us, by his body, and hath brought Per corpus suum. himself into one with us, to th'end the body should be united to the head. Here are four things to be noted. First that Christ worketh the union. Secondly, that love causeth him to wor●… it. Thirdly, that the mean whereby he worketh it is affirmed to be his own body. Fourthly, that so the body, which is the Church, is united to the head, who is Christ. In which consideration Christ as sitting in the glory of his father, is the worker of the union: His body as present in the Sacrament, is the instrument 1. Cor. 10 whereby he worketh. Christ as the Saviour of his body, which is the Church, is the end whereunto the union doth Ephes. 5 bring us. And herein appeareth his love, that he himself in his own substance is the beginning, the middle, the end of the union. The foundation, the wall, the top of the spiritual building. The carpenter, the instrument, the dweller in the house of his own●… handy working. Now, M. jewel, I will give you certain phrases to pick out, whereof you shall never be able to rid your hands. 1. You prove 1. right well, that by faith we are dwelled in of Christ: prove now that such dwelling is made by the thing itself, and not by faith only▪ for else, Christ's dwelling in us by faith is not so real a dwelling, as that whereof S. Chrysostom speaketh, which is not by faith only, but by the thing itself, to wit, by the real body of Christ. 2. You say in Baptism we are made Christ's flesh, and so we 2. are made in deed his mystical flesh: prove now that we are made also his flesh in baptism per corpus Christi, by the body of Christ▪ for else the union of the Sacrament will be more real, because the mean is more real and more excellent. 3. You prove that we are united to Christ by faith and Baptism: 3. prove now either that we are united unto faith itself, and unto Baptism itself, or else the union made in this Sacrament, will far pass the joining which is made in the other. For here we are united to the same body, wherewith we are fed, & which we see & touch: but there we be not united to the water wherewith we are washed. 4. You say we are made Christ by Baptism: but prove now 4. that Christ is there delivered in sensible things to your hand, to your mouth, to your tongue, so, that you may have him within you, as it is done in Christ's supper. These phrases you must prove to be verified by faith and Baptism, if you will have as real a joining made by faith, or by Baptism, as is made by the Sacrament of the altar. jewel. As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the body The 157. untruth. of our Lord, even so the bread of idols is the partaking of Primas. in 1. Co. 10. devils: and if we eat one bread with idolaters, we are made one body with them. San. You falsify the words of S. Paul, who is not reported by Primasius to say, that the breaking of this bread is the partaking 1. Cor. 1●… of the body of our Lord, but the bread which we break is the partaking of the body of our Lord. That which S. Paul spoke of the substance of the bread, which is the communicating of Fals●…●…ying. our Lord's body, that thing you assign to the action of breaking. And whereas Primasius saith, the bread of Idols is also the partaking of devils, as the bread which we break, is the partaking of our Lord's body: it showeth that he took not the name of bread materially, for wheaten bread, but for all kind of mere & drink which the idolaters used. And therefore he meant likewise, that the bread Brea●…. which we break is no material bread, but a kind of meat which Christ hath prepared specially for us. Again, as the idolaters did offer their meat unto devils, so much more the Christians did offer theirs unto god. And seeing the idolaters did in will and consent of mind partake with the devils, to whom they offered: the Christians did partake with God not only in will & mind (those I mean that were faithful) but also in body and mouth, by receiving the natural flesh of Christ into their bodies. For Christ herein specially had honoured his Church, to th'end the external sacrifice thereof should be no more any earthli creature, but 〈◊〉 his own body & blood, the only propitiatory sacrifice for all mankind. ¶ It is proved that S. Hilary taught the body of The xxij. Christ to be really in the Sacrament. HArding. If the word be verily made flesh, and we receive verily the word being flesh in our Hilar. de Trini. l. 8 Lord's meat, how is he to be thought not to devil in us naturally, who both hath taken the nature of our flesh now inseparable to himself, in that he is born man, and also hath mingled the nature of his own flesh to the nature of everlastingness, under the Sacrament of his flesh, to be received of us in the communion. jewel. M. Harding hath not hitherto found, that Christ's body The 158. untruth. is naturally or corporally in the Sacrament. San. You found such a devise, M. jewel, to call for Fathers, for their names, and their words before their place was come, that M jewels dissembling. a man would have thought, when they were once come, you would have examined their sayings most diligently. But now, your first shift is, to heap them up altogether. And whereas in matters 1. of less weight you did di●…ide D. Harding'S words into a competent number of lines, here you will not answer to the testimonies one by one, lest your nakedness appear, but lay them all in one, so to hide your ignorance in answering. Your second shift is to entreat of things out of order, speaking now 2. of one, now of an other confusely. But I will bring your words to their due order, as nigh as I can. Your third shift is, to let go S. cyril and S. Hilary, and to 3. r●…ne to i●…pertinent sayings of S. Augustine, of S. Bernard, and of Cyrillus, which are already answered. The fourth shift is, to say ●…alsely that M. Harding findeth not 4. Christ's body to be naturally or corporally in the Sacrament. The which point, God willing, I will now declare against your dissembling assertion. 1. S. Hilary disputeth against the Arrians, which thing also 1. M. jewel in this article confesseth. 2. The Arrians alleged against the Godhead of Christ diverse 2. arguments, the which I must needs repeat and set forth, with the co●…tation of them used by S. Hilary, because M. jewel taketh part with the Arrians against S. Hilary (not in deed concerning the profession of their heresy) but in that he taketh away the strength of S. Hilaries answer: And applieth that answer to one part of the Arrians argument, which S. Hilary did use to a●… other. 3. S. Hilary first professeth, that he will refel them ex his 3. Lib. 8. de Trinit. ipsis quibus utuntur, out of the very same things which they use. 4. The first argument of the Arrians, is this: Of the multitude 4. of the believers there was one soul, and one heart. Lo, said Act. 4. they, this is the unity of will, and not of nature. 5. S. Hilary answereth two ways. the first answer is, that 5. even this unity which is by faith, cometh not only of the will, but also it hath an unity of nature joined withal. what nature is that? Forsooth the nature of faith. For the faith is one, as S. Ephes. 4. Paul saith. And therefore it is one certain nature: which being promised, S. Hilary concludeth thus: Si ergo per fidem, id est, per unius fidei naturam, & caet. If all they were one by faith, that is to say, by the nature of one faith, how is it that thou understandest 〈◊〉 not a natural unity in them, who are one by the nature of one faith? 6. Now for God's sake, good Reader, see how M. jewel applieth this gear unto his purpose, and know him to be a very desperate man. jewel. Against the Arrians Hilarius reasoned thus. 1. Christ is Pag. 346 as really joined unto the Father, as unto us. 2. But Christ is joined unto us by nature. 3. Therefore Christ is joined to God the Father by nature. San. In deed S. Hilary maketh such an argument. But how 8. doth he prove, that Christ is joined unto us by nature? Iu. He proveth it thus: We are joined unto Christ by faith, that 9 is, by the nature of one faith, and that is to say, naturally. San. If ever any man spoke ignorantly, falsely, impudently: 10. this man is guilty thereof at this tyme. Note, I beseech you, the number of faults committed by him. First he maketh S. Hilary to bring such kind of proof, as 11. The 159. ●…ntruthe. he doth not bring for proof of that proposition, which M. jewel hath set forth. For S. Hilary did bring that, which is said of the nature of faith, to answer the argument taken out of the Acts Actor. 4. of the Apostles, which I now have proponed. Secondly, M. jewel omitted the true and only argument which 12. S. Hilary bringeth in deed to prove, that Christ is joined unto The 160 untruth. us by nature. The which proof of his I will hereafter prosecute at large. Thirdly, M. jewel doth make S. Hilary a very fool in the 13. The 161. untruth. kind of proof which M. jewel assigneth him. For whereas by M. jewels confession he should have proved, that Christ is joined unto us by nature: M. jewel maketh him to say, that we are joined unto Christ by faith, and so that we are naturally joined to him. Where is your memory, M. jewel? It is to be proved, that Christ is joined to us, and not only that we are joined to him. And that he is joined to us by his nature, and not only that we are joined to him by a nature of faith, which is not in him. For Christ hath no faith, because from the instant of his incarnation Christ had not faith but more than faith. his soul and understanding was illuminated with the vision of God, to whose nature it was joined in one person. and where clear vision is, there is no faith: in so much that faith shall cease when we come to see God in his glory. And how is Christ joined 1. Cor. 13 to us by that faith, which he hath not at all? fourthly M, jewel overthroweth wholly the true argument 14. of S. Hilary, whose intent is only as yet to show, that faithful The 162. vntrut●…. men are one among themselves by the nature of faith also, and not only by will and consent, as I have declared before. He speaketh I say, of our joining one to an other, & not as yet of Christ's joining to us, or of ours to Christ. fifthly M. jewel falsifieth the words of S. Hilary. for he maketh 15. The 163. untruth. Falsifying. him to say, that we are joined to Christ by faith naturaliter, naturally. & he writeth that word in such letters, as he is wont to write the words of the fathers in. But S. Hilary saith not, nor never meant, that we are joined to Christ by faith naturally. There is no such word in him. What honest nature though heretofore 16. he did believe M. jewel, will now any longer stick unto him, sith he is found to be without all wit or conscience? Truly Simon Magus was no more filthy in his juggling knacks, than this man is. But let us go forward in S. Hilary. The second answer of S. Hilary to the first arg●…ment of the 17. Arrians is, that the Christians are one also by the nature of one baptism, and not by Will only. jewel. Likewise he saith, we are joined unto Christ by the regeneration 18. of one nature. and again: we are joined to Christ by the nature of one baptism. hereof he concludeth: therefore are we naturally joined unto him. Sand. In so few words it is hard for a man ●…udued with reason, to make so many faults, as M. jewel hath now committed. First he will make S. Hilary prove, that Christ is joined unto 19 us by nature, because we are joined to him by regeneration of The 164 untruth. one nature: Which argument will not hold. for it will not follow that because we are joined to an other by some inferior means, that he therefore is joined to us by a higher mean. To be joined to 20. us in nature is a higher thing, then for us to be joined to Christ in Baptism. How can then the base conjunction infer of necessity a higher kind of joining? Secondly, M. jewel doth falsify S. Hilaries words, reporting 21. that he saith we are joined to Christ by the nature of one Baptism. S. Hilary saith it not, but only that all the Christians are one among themselves by these things, and not one naturally with Christ. His own words are: Whereas in so great diversity of nations, of conditions, of sexes (the faithful) are one, Lib. 8. de Trinit. cometh it of the assent of will, or rather of the unity of the Sacrament, because both Baptism is one unto them, and all they have put on them one Christ? Therefore what shall the concord of minds do here, for as much as they are one thereby, because they are clothed with one Christ by the nature of one Baptism? 22. Thirdly, it is most impudently affirmed of M. jewel, that S. The 166. untruth. Hilary concludeth hereof: therefore we are naturally joined unto Christ. S. Hilary hath no such conclusion, neither could he have any such, because it is not yet his purpose to open, how Christ is joined unto us by nature. You will say, is it not then true, that we are joined to Christ Note well. by faith and by Baptism? yes Sir, and by will also. But note the point we stand upon: we are not joined naturally to Christ, nor he is not joined by nature unto us by our faith or Baptism. Naturally. It is the term naturally, which M. jewel denied at S. Paul's cross, and that te●…n D. Harding hath found to appertain to the Sacrament, as it shallbe be made most manifest. That term M. jewel would wrest to faith and Baptism. And for that terms sake he is almost become a wicked Arrian, or a natural. The second argument of the Arrians, is: He that planteth, & 23. he that watereth are one. Ergo, said they, the unity of will is in both them: and they meant of will only, and not any other unity. S. Hilary answereth, that they are one, because to them being 24. born again in one Baptism, one ministery or dispensation of the one Baptism, which doth regenera●…e, is granted. So that they are on●…, because they have one ministery, and not only because they 〈◊〉 of one mind. At the last S. Hilary giveth a general rule: qui per eandem 25. rem unum sunt, naturâ etiam unum sunt, non tantum voluntate. Those who are o●…e by the same thing, they are one by nature, and not only by will. The third argument of the Arrians, is: Exemplum unitatis 26. istius (saith S. Hilary) & caet. The Arrians have brought forth an example of this unity joan. 17. out of our Lords words also, to th'end all may be one: As thou O Father in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us. To this argument S. Hilary answereth, declaring now first 27. that, which M. jewel spoke of before out of place. Now first beginneth S. Hilary to show, how Christ dwelleth naturally in us, and we in him. And consequently, how we also dwell in his Father by the mean of him. To this matter should M. jewel have applied his solution. For upon the discourse made by reason of this argument, D. ●…ding did ground his proof of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament. What saith M. jewel to this matter? jewel. Thus it appeareth by S. Hilary, we may have Christ naturally The. 167 untruth. within us by three other sundry means: and therefore not only (as M. Harding holdeth) by receiving of the Sacrament. San. Thus it appeareth, say you, but I have showed that no such thing appeareth. For S. Hilary never said hitherto, that we were naturally in Christ. jewel. Like as Christ is naturally, corporally, and carnally in the 168. untruth. us, by faith, by regeneration, and by Baptism: even so and none otherwise, he is in us by the Sacrament of his body. San. First you begin with a thing not confessed, nor agre●…d upon, and thereof you conclude a manifest falsehood. Christ is in us by faith and Baptism, but not corporally in our bodies. But by the Sacrament of his body he is both in us, and in our bodies in the true and corporal substance of his own flesh & blood. Secondly you distinguish regeneration from Baptism, as The 169. 〈◊〉. though Baptism were not the Sacrament which doth regenerate us even by S. Hilaries own doctrine alleged before. N●…. 24. in t●…is 〈◊〉. Thirdly if Christ be none otherwise in us by the Sacrament of his body, then by faith or Baptism, why do you make it a several way from the other named before? Why is that counted by yourself a fourth mean of Christ's being in us, which disfer●…th not at all from the other three? At the length it is ty●…e that I prove out of S. Hilary (which thing you, M. jewel, dissemble and deny) Chrisles' body to be really present in the Sacrament. It is to be remembered, that whereas the Arrians had said a●… 28. vuitie of will to be only between God the Father and the son, as we likewise are one with Christ by will only (for so they said) The vnit●… of Chri ●…tes birth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Hilari●… doth not in that case rest upon this answer, that Christ by his birth is one with us in truth of flesh & blood, and therefore not in will and assent only (as the Arria●…s pretended, and as M. jewel did before go about to pro●…) S. Hilary, I say, rested not therein: because the unity of nature, which was made with mankind by Christ's Incarnation, ●…ight be thought to pertain no more to the good, then to the evil, whereas Christ prayed for the unity of good men alo●…e, that they might be one, joan. 17. as God the Father is in Christ, and Christ in him. Therefore S. Hilary seeking an other mean of our natural unity with Christ, The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of S. thereby proveth, seeing the faithful men are one with Christ not H●…ary. only by faith, or Baptism, but by natural conjunction, and by corporal partaking of his own substance, that much more Christ is one with his Father in nature, and not in will alone. S. Hilary then must prone, that we are one with Christ naturally. which thing he doth after this ●…ort. The word is verily made flesh, and we take verily the word 29. being flesh in our Lord's meat: therefore Christ is to be judged to tarry is in us naturally. Thus doth S. Hilari reason, as I The conclusion. have now showed. his conclusion is: that Christ tarrieth in us naturally. the mean to prove it is double: one because Christ hath true the prou●… flesh and blood, whereby it is showed to be possible, that he may dwell naturally in us: the other is to show, that Christ gave unto us, a●…d that we take verily the same word being flesh in our Lord's meat. whereby the flesh that was able to be given to us, (because it was really assumpted of Christ) cometh in deed Cibusdo minicus. really unto us by his gift▪ our Lord's meat whereof S. Hilary speaketh is the Sacrament of Christ's supper, wherein only he ●…ed us corporally with the word being flesh. therefore S. Hilary doth us to understand, that in the Sacrament we take the 〈◊〉. word made flesh. and so verily take it, as the word was verily made flesh▪ Pag. 343. jewel. That we verily and undoubtedly receive Christ's body T●…e 170. untruth. in the Sacrament, it is neither denied, nor in question. Sam. You said before. pag. 323. that Christ in his supper added an Confuse & contrary doctr●…. outward Sacrament to the spiritual eating named in S. John: which Sacrament you said, was commonly called a figure: and again you said the bread is a figure. Last of all, you said out of Rabanus, that the Sacrament is received with the mouth: but now you say, it is not denied, that we verily receive Christ's body in the Sacrament. whereof I say it must needs follow, that Christ's body is received with the mouth. For it is received in the Sacrament, as here you confess. and the Sacrament is received with the mouth, as you taught before: therefore by your doctrine Christ's body is received by mouth. which is against your third conclusion pag. 319. Who can tell where to find you? But to return Not: the word verè. to my purpose, the adverb, verily, doth signify in this place naturally, really & substantially. For as the word is made flesh●… really: so we take really the word being flesh in our Lord's meat. The word was not made flesh only by our faith, but in truth of his substance: therefore we take the word being flesh not by our faith only, but in truth of his substance. If M. jewel will have us receive Christ's body verily, and yet by faith only, it must be made flesh verily, and yet by faith only. Ivel. It is the bread of the heart▪ hunger thou within, thirst thou within. San. If Christ being in his divine nature took real flesh, and yet may be hungered within, & is much the better to us bread of the heart The 171. untruth. by natural flesh: right so it is extreme madness to make us believe, that Christ's body genen under the form of bread, is therefore the less hungered within, or the less the bread and food of the heart. jewel. The thing that is received in spirit, is received in deed. The 172. untruth. San. If it be to be received corporally as well as in spirit, (as Baptism and the Eucharist) than it is false and foolish to say, that it is received in deed, when the outward deed lacketh. This man will clothe the naked, and feed the poor in spirit: and yet he saith it is done in deed, albeit they die for cold. Spiritual receiving is true and good, when it shuldreth not out real receiving. as spiritual resurrection is good & true, but yet it is not all the truth of resurrection. S. Bernard is already answered, and S. Cyril. 344. The 173. untruth. jewel. It is a holy mystery, and a heavenly action, forcing our minds up into heaven, and there teaching us to eat the body of Christ, not outwardly by the service of our bodies. San. Is not verè sumimus, we verily take, spoken of taking by the service of our bodies? can it be otherwise meant? Again 30. it followeth in the same sentence, that Christ hath mingled the nature Under. of his flesh to the nature of everlastingness under a Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated unto us. Mark these words, M. jewel, which you passed over, as if you had been utterly blind. The nature of Christ's flesh is, I trow, real, it is communicated Sub. to us under a Sacrament. know you not, that sub, is under? is not the Sacrament received by the service of our bodies? did Before pag. 323. not yourself gra●…nt the Sacrament to be taken by mouth? If then the nature of Christ's flesh be under a Sacrament: when the Sacrament is received by the service of our bodies, the nature of Christ's flesh is received by our bodies, & not by faith alone. The 174 untruth. Iu. The truth hereof standeth not in any real presence, but as Hilarius saith, in a mystery, which is, in a Sacrament. San Whereas S. Hilarius said: We receive verily the flesh of 31. 〈◊〉 his body under a mystery, you report him to say, in a mystery. Is that no false dealing? Well: he saith we receive Christ's flesh under a mystery: and by your own confession a mystery is a Sacrament: therefore we receive the flesh of Christ's body under the Sacrament. And the Sacrament delivered in the last 323. lin. 30. 33. supper is by your confession also outward, and commonly called a figure: therefore we verily receive the flesh of Christ's body under an outward figure. and the outward figure is known by our eye to be the figure of bread: therefore under the figure of bread we receive the flesh of Christ's body, albeit by the figure you mean the substance of bread. jewel. Our regeneration in Baptism in a certain bodily sort The 175. untruth. teacheth us the purgation of the mind, as Dionysius saith: so it is in the Sacrament of Christ's body. San. Can you have the mind better tanght by an outward action, then if you eat the same flesh in body, which we do eat in faith? Is it possible to have a greater conformity, a more vehement figuring, and lively expressing of all truth? And albeit I have showed differences before between Baptism and the Eucharist, yet omitting y●, I will now say 〈◊〉 S. Augustin: then the body & blood De verb. Apo. ser. 2. of Christ shallbe lise to every man, if the thing which is visibly taken in the Sacrament, be eaten in the truth spiritually, and be drunken spiritually. M. jewel would have one thing ou●…wardly taken, and an other thing eaten inwardly. But S. Augustine saith, that must be eaten in the truth itself spiritually, which is visibly taken in the Sacrament. jewel. Although Christ be not bodily ●…resent, yet that doth not: The 176. untruth. hinder the substance of the mystery. San. The substance of the mystery must needs be hindered when it is absent. For it can be no mystery without the substance thereof. The substance of the mystery is the natural substance ●…2. of Christ under the Sacrament. therefore S. ●…ilarie saith: The natural propriety by the Sacrament is the Sacrament of the perfit unity. Of this place I have often times spoken, and I would gladly hear M. jewels mind in it. For than should I be sure to know, how I might dispute against him. I can not construe it otherwise, then thus: Naturalis proprietas, the natural propriety, Proprietas. which is to say, the natural substance, & he meaneth the substance of Christ. For S. Hilary useth the ward, proprietas, very much and oft for the substance or personal being of God or of Christ. Well then: Christ's natural substance: Per Sacramentum, by or through the Sacrament. est, is, Sacramentum the Sacrament, The word Sacrament is twice named. perfectae unitatis, of perfit unity. The substance of Christ is a Sacrament by or through the Sacrament. these words can have none other literal meaning, but this: the substance of Christ through the form of bread, wherein unity is figured, and under which it is, by that mean, I say, it is the Sacrament of perfit unity. how can else the natural substance of Christ be a Sacrament? Of itself alone it can be no holy sign, but by the form of bread it may be a Sacrament. and yet M. jewel can not find the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament in all S. Hilary. Moreover, S. Hilary making a preface, that we must not 33. joan. 6. speak otherwise in God's matters, than we have learned of him (who said: my flesh is verily meat) & that there is no place of doubting of the truth of flesh & blood, concludeth thus: For now both by Verè. the profession of our Lord himself, and by our faith, it is flesh in deed and blood in deed. Answer I pray you, M. jewel. What is flesh in deed? what is the nominatine case to, est, is? I know The thing taken into our mouth is flesh in deed. none other beside the word Sacramentum, the Sacrament, or some like word which doth import the Sacrament: as to say, that which the faithful receive at Christ's supper. For of that thing S. Hilary now speaketh. That then is verily flesh: and that is meant by S. Hilary of an outward thing: for he saith immediately Haec accepta, these things taken and drunk do bring it to pass, that both we may be in Christ, and Christ in us. Beside this, it followeth, Est ergo in nobis ipse per carnem. 34. Christ is himself in us by his ●…leshe: Note how he is in us, and By flesh. by what mean: not by the mean of bread and wine, but by the 35. By the mysterics. mean of his flesh. And afterward: he is believed to be in us by the mystery of the Sacraments: ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente. 36. Himself tarrying naturally in us, which is the effect of the Naturally. Sacraments. At the length he concludeth his chief intent against the third argument of the Arrians, saying: Si ergo nos naturaliter 37. fecundum carnem per eum vivimus, id est, naturam carnis The nature of his flesh. suae adepti, etc. If then we live naturally according to the flesh by him, that is to say, having obtained the nature of his flesh, how can he but have the father naturally in himself according to the spirit, seeing he liveth for the Father? Out of which place it appeareth, that as the substance of God the Father is really in the person of Christ: so S. Hilary meant, that Christ's natural substance by mean of the Sacrament received, is within our own persons. For the natural being of Christ through the Sacrament in us, is the mean to prove, that God the Father is naturally in Christ. But if Christ through the Sacrament were in us as only eaten by faith, God the Father should be proved to be in his son by faith only, and not by nature. which thing the Arrians would have concluded, whom M. jewel doth help all that he may, and hindereth the prouss of the consubstantiality of Christ with his father. But S. Hilary saith: By the Sacrament of flesh and blood the 38. propriety of natural communion is granted. Again: by the 39 son tarrying carnaliter, fleshly (to wit) in truth of flesh in us. Carnaliter. last of all, the mystery of t●…ue and of natural unity is to be 40. preached, in eo nobis corporaliter & inseparabilirer unitis: We 〈◊〉. being united in him corporally and inseparably. Thus S. Hilary hath proved most directly, and hath affirmed by diverse words of one meanig about twelve times, that Christ is joined to us by nature of his flesh: And not by the nature of faith or of baptism, (as M. jewel most desperately affirmeth) For Christ neither hath any faith in him, which may be of the nature of our faith: Nor any baptism of the same nature of forgiving sins, which our baptism is of. it is the nature of flesh and blood only whereby Christ is naturally, carnally, and corporal●…y joined unto the faithful men at what time they re●…aue his mysteries. This point so evident when M. jewel dissembled and forged an other, had he not done better if he had subscribed ten times? jewel. These words, that Christ corporally, carnally, and naturally The 177. untruth. is within us, in their own rigour seem very hard. San. They must needs seem hard to him who believeth not. a De verb. hard talk (saith S. Augustine) but to hard hearted men. incredible, Apostol. serm. 2. but to them who believe not. jewel. Hilarius saith: We are one with God the Father and the The 178. untruth. Son, not only by adoption or consent of mind, but also by nature, which according to the letter can not be true? San. Why bring you not the latin words where he saith it? will you now spit 〈◊〉 your poison of lying also against that blessed father S. Hilarius? He teacheth, that Christ and his Father are one nature, and likewise that we and Christ are one nature, because he took our flesh of the virgin Marie, and gave us the same flesh in the Sacrament, whereunto we being joined, prosiceremus ad unitatem patris, might go forward to the unity of the father. And again he saith, that he rehearsed these things (concerning our natural unity with Christ, because the here●…ikes falsely affirming the unity of will only between the father and the son, did Note all the words of S. Hilary. use the example of our unity to god, as though we were united to the son, and by the son to the father by obedience only and devout will, without any propriety of natural communion being granted to us by the Sacrament of flesh and blood: where both by the honour of the son of god given unto us, and by the son tarrying fleshly in us, and we being united in him corporally and unseparably, the mystery of true and natural union is to be preached & taught. It is answered therefore of us to the folly of suriouse men. Hitherto S. Hilary, where he teacheth in deed that we are Our joining is by the son. joined to the Father, but per filium manentem in nobis carnaliter, by the Son tarrying in us carnally, to wit, in truth of flesh: which thing he also teacheth to be do●…e per Sacramentum carnis et sanguinis by the Sacrament of flesh & blood. But that we are one with God the Father by nature, or one with God the Son in his divine nature, it is a most impudent lie forged upon S. Hilary: & you that do forget it, have passed herein all the bounds of honesty to accuse S. Hilary of so blasphemous a saying, as that had b●…ne. The 179. untruth. Iu. The Father's havebene fain to expound and to mollify such violent and excessive kinds of speech. San. Now you show yourself in your own colours, M. jewel. Whatsoever you have hitherto pretended, you think in your M jewels true mind of the Fathers. heart, that the Fathers do not speak well. for violent speeches be no good speeches, and excessive speeches be not literally true. You would not call them hyperbolical speeches, lest any man should think, you inteprete and excuse their words by a figure Hyperbole. o●…hetorike. But yet all is one to them which understand greek, to say, their speeches are more than true, and to say, they are excessive. But I must needs call you & account you a wicked man for such 〈◊〉 speaking. and I require you by the force of this confession of yours to subscribe. For it is enough that the Fathers do speak so plainly against you, that you are constrained to call it a violent and excessive speech. It standeth not now in you to say, that they spoke more than is true. You have promised to subscribe, if any one sufficient sentence were brought forth out of M. jewel hath yielded himself guilty. the first six hundred years. S. Hilary is near upon the first three hundred years. He saith, that Christ is naturally in us by his flesh communicated in a Sacrament, & received under a mystery, and carnally and corporally tarrieth in us. Therefore you must subscribe, not only through promise, but to save your soul from hell fire. But what say we? doth S. Hilary speak more than is true? Can the Arrians have wished a better Patron for their faction, then M. jewel is? or is not Christ much bound to M. jewel, whose diui●…e nature S. Hilary defending is said to speak excessively? Is not God the Father much beholden to M. jewel, who impugneth the Patron of his own son? Shall not M. jewel be sweetly rewarded for this gear, if he die in this excessive opinion? Hear, I pray you, what S. Hilary saith of his own doctrine in this very book: Cura est nobis ut primum. It is our care first to teach those things which are holy, and perfit, and sound, and that our talk not wandering by certain by turnings & windings, About the beginning of the 8. book. and suddenly appearing out of not haunted and creeping holes should rather show, then seek the truth. Thus did he profess to teach perfit and sound things and undoubted truths, which M. jewel calleth excessive, because they exceed the compass of his heresy, & contain the Catholic truth. And when S. Hilary cometh to the very matter, whereof we speak at this time, he doth not only say it is sound, perfice, holy, and true doctrine, but he saith he learned it of Christ himself: Even concerning this very point, that the natural verity of Christ is in us, for that he said: My flesh is verily meat. But all the Fathers, all the scriptures which resist M. jewels De doct. fancy, are hot, violent, exces●…iue. & as S. Augustine most truly Christ. l. 3. cap. 10. faith: If the opinion of any error hath first possessed the mind, whatsoever the scripture affirmeth otherwise, figuratum homines arbitrantur, men think it figurative. ¶ That the place of 〈◊〉 ●…erteineth to the Sacrament of Christ's supper. HArding. Gregory Nyssene speaking of the bread The 〈◊〉. Chapter. which came down from heaven, saith: by what mean shall a bodilesses thing be made meat to a De vita Moysis. body? jewel. Gregory Nyssene is newly set abroad with sundry corruptions. The 180. untruth. San. If this vain fable may be admitted, every man shallbe corrupted when it pleaseth you. If he be corrupted, he is corrupted by your faction. for his works have been no where so fully printed, as at Bale called in Latin Basilea, which is a city of your profession. 3. Moreover you very oft bring his authority: and how are you sure that he was not corrupted at all in those places, which you allege? 4. Yea farther you allege for your purpose this very treatise, and this very side of the leaf, whence D. Harding took this authority, and that as well before the words brought by D. Harding, as after. jewel. He speaketh not one word, neither of Christ's natural The 181. untruth. The 182. untruth. dwelling in us. 2. Nor of the Sacrament. San. Out upon this impudence, M. jewel: you have taken upon you the forehead of a harlot, & are without all fear, shame, or ho●…estie. Doth not Gregory Nyssene speak in that place one word of the Sacrament? he speaking of Moses' life, by occasion thereof cometh to show the wandering of the children of Israel In vita Moysis. in the desert: where he saith, after that they had drunk of the stone, all nourishment which they had brought out of Egypt failed them, Manna. and a simple meat to look unto, but di●…erse i●… taste, was reigned down to them. which thing did signify (saith he) that we must cleanse our minds by saith, by Baptism, by tra●…aile, by all virtue, by doctrine of the Gospel: so that all Aegiptia●…al kind of li●…ing, to wit, all the multitude of sins failing us, we must receive ●…oelestem cibum, quem nulla nobis satio agriculturae artibus The heavenly meat. produxit, the heavenly meat, which no sowing hath by the art of ploughing brought forth unto us. but it is bread prepared for us, without seed, without ploughing, without any other work of man. that bread flowing from above is found in the earth. Hitherto he hath said, that we have a true manna which we must receive. and how, I pray you, but as the children of Israel did receive their manna? and than we must receive it by mouth, as they did receive their manna by mouth. But what is our manna? Forsooth a meat which came down from heaven (as the old manna did) a meat not gotten out of the ground, but rainig from heaven? What raining is that? The Incarnation of jesus Christ who taking flesh of the virgin without the mean of the seed of man, came down from heaven, and was in the earth man among men. No (saith the heretic Ualentinus for example, or Manicheus) Christ took no true flesh of that virgin. Yes saith Gregorius Nissen: Panis enim, et caet for the bread which came down from heaven, The occ●… sion of Nyssen●… talk. which is the true meat, which is obscurely signified by this history (of Manna) is not a thing bodiless. Thus much he said against the heretics who denied the truth of Christ's body. well, go forth sir, I pray you. For the heretics will not admit your bare word. prove that which you say. Quo enim pacto res incorporea corpori cibus fiet? For by what mean shall a thing, which lacketh a body, be made meat unto the body? Here Gregory Note the point. Nyssen presuppo●…eth, that Christ incarnated is made meat unto our bodies, because he is our true Manna. But, saith he, that could not be so, if Christ had no true flesh. for a thing without a body can not be made meat unto the body: but Christ is so really made meat unto o●…r bodies, that thereby Nyss●…s proveth he had a true and real body: so that all the principal matter in that place is of this Sacrament, and of Christ's natural dwelling in our bodies. Therein Manna is fulfilled. Which Manna reigned from heaven 1. into the earth, as Christ came from his Father's bosom into 2. the virgins womb. The same Manna was afterward eaten by the jews corporally, as Christ after his incarnation was corporally eaten at his supper of the Apostles. Before the Jews 3. did eat Manna, they were prepared with passing over the red sea, with labour and with water of the rock. And before we come to Christ's supper, we are prepared by Baptism and good life and preaching. S. Gregory Nyssene doth make eating by faith a preparation 4. to eat the last supper worthily. Oportet fide, Baptismate, & caet. We must cleanse our souls by faith and Baptism, & demum and He speaketh not of eating by faith. so at the length with a purified mind receive the heavenvly meat. It is not eating by faith, M. jewel, that he speaketh of. Faith goeth before it, and the receiving of this heavenly meat is a farther kind of eating. This meat being the bread brought forth 5. of the virgin without tilling, is made meat unto the body. Do Corpori cibus fit. you hear, M. jewel? It is made meat unto the body. Not only to the understanding, but to the body. It is so really made meat unto the body, that of necessity thence it is deduced, that itself is 6. a bodily and corporal thing. Which argument were none, if it Note this discourse. were not corporally received into our bodies. For by faith God the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost dwell in us, and Ioa●…. 14. make their mansion in our hearts, as it were in houses, and our bodies are the temple of the holy Ghost. But such dwelling, as 2. Cor. 6. it proveth not God the Father or the holy Ghost to have bodies: so doth it not prove that Christ hath a body. But Christ is so made meat unto us, that the real truth of his body is proved thereby: There●…ore it is taught, that his body is made meat to our bodies in a corporal truth of his natural substance. This only is the discourse of S. Nyssenus. This meat savoureth to every man who receiveth it, as Manna 7. did. Therefore it is meant, that it is received to fulfil the figure of Manna, which can not be thoroughly fulfilled, without the self meat, which came from heaven being received into our mouths and bodies, give thence that spiritual taste & savour. Sap. 16. for Manna gave his sweet taste in the mouths of the Israelits. 8. This kind of bread which is able to be turned to all things, Nescit la befieri. and yet not able to be wasted, is no material bread, but the food which was born of the virgin. He that prepared this table was Christ, who never prepared 9 for us any table so literally, as at his last supper. Qui hanc nobis men same praeparavit. Yet all this to M. jewel is not one word concerning the dwelling of Christ naturally in us, or concerning his real presence in the Sacrament. Nay, here is not one word touching the Sacrament 10. at all, beside that where he nameth herbs and milk. For those words M. jewel thought meet meat for his divinity, and therefore spied them out, and uttered the same to destroy all the discourse of Gregory Nyssen: whereas they signify the effect of grace proceeding from the real flesh of Christ. Tell me, good Reader of thy conscience, if thou sawest a mad man running with a naked sword in the street which were full of children, slaying, and killing all that ever he could come by, tell me I say, would you not cry out to all men, to beware of him? Would you not run to save the poor babes? would you not, if need were, rather lame the mad man▪ than he should so destroy a number of persons? God is my judge, I have no quarrel to the person of M. jewel. But for as much as I see him run mad, and to M. jewel is mad. kill innumerable souls of poor men, with grief of heart I cry 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 shall we 〈◊〉? If wh●… he came to read Gregory 〈◊〉, he saw never a word of that which I have now declared, and which every man may see if he will open the book: If he (I say) saw not one word thereof, do you not 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉. perceive, that his eyes are poss●…ed with seem horrible spirit of blindness? Is not all reason and understanding taken from him? But if he saw all that which I have told, and therein found so many words spoken of the Sacrament, and those so effectual against his error: what shall we then think or say? Is it possible Extreme malice. that so great a malice may be in any man, as to delight in deceiving willingly poor and ignorant men, and to lead them all to infidelity? If such malice may be in man, whom shall we trust, and in what danger are the simple and 〈◊〉 people? Whether it be blindness or malice in him, take this rule to thy comfort against all 〈◊〉 that ever shall chance: Trust no A rule for the simple. one man alive. Trust no one generation of men, the beginning of whose doctrine thou hast known or heard of. Trust only the whole body of Christ, the whole Catholic Church, the whole cumpaine of the faithful, the whole succession of Bishops, of Ep. 118. insolentissimae insaniae. Priests joined also with the faithful forefathers. That which hath once pr●…led through all the known Church, that believe in Christ's name. For to dispute against it, S. Augustine saith it is the point of a most proud 〈◊〉. But the whole Church Math. 5. can not fail. It is a city built by God upon a hill, which can not be hid. It is the pillar of truth, as S. Paul saith. To that 1. Tim. 〈◊〉. universal practice and belief if thou commit thy soul, and do as it commandeth, it shallbe saved in that 〈◊〉 body of Christ, whereof only he is the Saviour. Leave jewel, Cranmer, Ephes. 5. Ridley, Latymer, leave all that tarry not in the tried faith, and stick only to that interpretation of God's word, which the Ca●… received and delivered even from the Apostles time to this day. jewel. The purpose of Gregory Nyssen was only to speak of The 183. untruth. Christ's birth. San. His purpose was to speak of the miracles done in the wilderness under Moses, of the which Mamna being one of the chief, Exod. 16 it did both signify the birth of Christ by the falling of it from heaven upon the earth, & the Sacrament of the altar, whiles it was afterward taken into the bodies of the Israelits, as we eat really the flesh of Christ which he took of the virgin. The 18▪ untruth. Iu. In like manner of speech S. Hierom saith: the wheat whereof the heavenly bread is made, is that, of which our Lord said, my flesh is meat in deed. San. I mar●…le what you mean to say the manner of speech is like, whereas by your assertion Gregory Nyssen speaketh only of Christ's birth. But S. Hierom speaketh not thereof, but of In Esa. cap. 62. Christ's body and blood, as it is received in the Sacrament. Thus you are against yourself. For in deed as S. Jerome 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: even so doth Gregory Nyssen speak as well of the supper as of the birth of Christ. Iu. And to this purpose saith Amphilochius, unless Christ had the 18●…. 〈◊〉. been borne carnally, thou hadst not been borne spiritually. San. To what purpose did he say it? For I see not how your words hang together, but only that you patch up a number of sent●…nces. as soon as one is done, you bring in an other, with M. Iu●… 〈◊〉 o●… 〈◊〉. a therefore, or in like manner, or to this purpose, or in this sense, and he saith: & so forth. But if they were particularly 〈◊〉▪ it is but a heap of words without order, dependence, or any good reason. To what purpose, I pray you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 Christ had been borne carnally, thou hadst not been borne spiritually? I see no●…e other purpose therein, but that Christ's birth is necessary to our salvation: and th●…t because if the birth had not gone before, we could not have eaten that body in the Sacrament, which had not been at all borne. The 186. untruth. Iu. As Nyssen saith, Christ is made our bread: so he saith, he becometh strong meat unto the perfit, herbs unto the weak. etc. San. Here you presuppose that Gregory Nyssen saith: Christ is made our bread, and nothing else. But I have showed you that he saith, how can a thing bodiless be made m●…ate unto the ●…ying. body? As for the words which you name, I find them not in Gregory Nyssen so uttered, as you report them. He saith Christ is bread, but D. Harding forced not his argument upon that word alone. For he may be bread, and herbs, and milk unto us both in the Sacrament, and without it. but he is bread, herbs and milk to us in our mouths, as Manna was unto the jews, only in the Sacrament. The 187. untruth. jewel. Gregory Nyssen holdeth, that we receive Christ's body otherwise then in the Sacrament. for he saith: who so hath abundantly drunk of the Apostles springs, hath already received whole Christ. San. You miss in your proof: For you should prove, that whoso drinketh of the Apostles spring, he receiveth Christ's body: & you prove, that he receiveth Christ. A man may receive Christ in his heart, and yet not have Christ's body in his body. Christ being the name of the person may be verified as well of the divine, as o●… the human nature. But there Gregory Nyssen spoke of his divine nature: which thing is most clear, because he speaketh of eating by faith so, as it agreeth to the whole Trinity. And therefore it followeth: I & my father will come unto him. joan. 14. Lo, he will come so as his father cometh, to wit, by his divine nature. But beside that, S. Nyssen speaketh of his birth, and of his being meat unto our bodies, which is o●…lie done in the Sacrament of the altar. The 188 untruth 〈◊〉 jewel. M. Harding reasoneth thus: Christ was borne, ergo his body is real in the Sacrament. San. O dissembler. he reasoneth clean contrary, with Gregory Nyssen. Christ is made meat to our bodies in the Sacrament: Therefore he was really born, as I have already showed. jewel. This conclusion is childish. The 189 untruth. San. Yours is childish: But D. Harding'S is so strong, that if the eating of Christ prove his birth, it will follow, that as he is born really, so much more he is eaten really. otherwise, if he were only eaten by faith, thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith: which is against Gregory Nyssenes' purpose. jewel. If he conclude not this, he concludeth nothing. The 190. untruth. San, If you speak as you think, you are beside your sell. For as by the real eating of Christ's flesh, his birth is concluded of S. Nyssen: so ●…y D. Harding the real eating is noted as a most known truth presupposed by S. Gregory Nyssen. ¶ That M. jewel hath not well answered the places of The 〈◊〉 Chapter. S Cyrillus. HArding. Cyrillus saith: when the mystical blessing is become to be in us, doth it not cause Christ to dwell in us corporally, by receiving of Christ's body in the communion? The same thing he saith in diverse other places. jewel. Cyrillus expoundeth himself natural union is nothing The 191. untruth. else, but a true union, we are by nature the children of anger, that is, in deed, and truly. San. The words, which you allege as out of Cyrillus, be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in him. His words are: Si naturalem unionem dixerimus, 〈◊〉 dicemus, If we call it a natural union, we shall call it a true 〈◊〉. But you have put in a certain phrase of your own, adding these 〈◊〉. words non aliud quàm none other thing but, that is nothing, M. jewel, but a little falsehood. There is odds whether it be said, a natural union is a true union, or else, a natural union is none other thing but a true union. For that which is natural, is true: but there is somewhat more contained in the name of nature, which the name of truth doth not express. We are the true sons of God, but we are not the natural sons of god. wheresoever thereforea thing Natural. is called natural, it is at the lest true, but not by and by, nothing else but true. That which you said of S. Augustine: Corporaliter, non umbraliter sed verè et solidè, I could not find it upon the 67. psal. But think you, M. jewel, that when S. tyr●…l teacheth Christ to be the natural son of god, he would be contented if an Arrian should slep forth and say, that to be the natural son of god, is nothing else but to be the true son of god? Which being once granted, he that is a child by adoption, is also the true son of god: Therefore the Arrian will conclude, that Christ is the son of god by adoption. But let us come near to the purpose. let natural dwelling stand for true dwelling. What of that? saith S. Cyril only that Christ is naturally united unto us? saith he not also, that the mystical blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in us? will that word, also, Corporal●…. be excluded by a true dwelling, or hath M. jewel an other phrase to answer it withal? jewel. S Paul saith: the Heathens are b●…come concorporal, and partakers of the promise in Christ jesus, in the same sense. Ephes. 2. San. In which sense, M. jewel? mean you, that as natural so The 192. ●…truth. likewise corporal con●…t̄iō meaneth nothing else, but a true con●…ction True in deed it is, but true in the truth of nature & of body, but not 〈◊〉 true in the truth of faith and speaking. S. Ephes. 2. P●…e saith: The Heathe●…s are concorporal with the patriarchs & Prophets, that is to say, of one body mystical, of one society & 〈◊〉: Theresore, saith M. jewel, when S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ to dwell corporally in us by reason of the holy communion, he meaneth, that Christ and we are all of one mystical body. Meant he nothing else, M. jewel? as though it went not before: Non negamus & caet. We deny not, but that we are joined spiritually Spiritually. to Christ by right faith and sincere love. Lo, there is the By faith. conjunction which maketh us one way members of that body, whereof Christ is the head. But S. Tyrill goeth to an other higher mean of the same conjunction, adding, that the mystical blessing (which is the Eucharist) maketh Christ to dwell also in us corporally Corporally als●…. by communicating his body. S. Cyril nameth dwelling, in comparison of joining: corporally, in comparison of spiritually: by communicating Christ's body, in comparison of these words: by right faith and sincere charity. Therefore it must needs be, that the corporal dwelling of Christ in us according to his flesh According to flesh. (which also S. Cyril nameth) is an other kind of union, than faith and charity love. But the gifts are corporal with the faithful jews not by faith alone, but as S. Hilary declareth, by the nature also of baptism, & by the nature of Christ's flesh. For they are grasted into the company of the elect by all these mean●…s which Christ provided for the end. they believe in the same God, are baptised in the same fount, are reconciled by the same Sacrament of penance, fed, nourished, and consummated by eating really the same flesh of Christ. What doth that word corporal help you now, M. jewel? It signifieth no more, but that the jews and Gentiles are of one fellowship. but the means of making them one remain notwithstanding to be declared. Iu By the words, corporally and naturally, a full perfit spiritual The 193. ●…ntruth. conjunction is meant, excluding all manner of fantasy. San. So that with you corporally and naturally doth signify nothing else, but not feignedly. How say ye then, when we are knit to God by right faith and sincere charity, is it a feigned coninnction, or no? If it be a true, & not a fantastical conjunction, than the words which affirm Christ to be joined also unto us corporally and naturally, being added over and above the ioyving by right faith and sincere love, must not only ●…ane a true joining (which was already made) but also an other manner of joinig, which is both true in effect (as y● joining by faith was) & also true in the corporal mingling of Christ's flesh to our flesh. Otherwise, what meant the adverb, quoque, also? We be joined Quoque. by faith, and also corporally. Is that (also) nothing? Furthermore, if corporally be nothing else to say, but truly and without imagination, how construe you these words of S. Paul? Colos. 2. All the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ? is it only to say, it dwelleth truly in Christ? well: but it may dwell truly in Christ, though Christ be not man: therefore by your exposition a phrase is found, whereby the truth of Christ's body may be wiped away, whensoever it pleaseth the Protestants. Consider, M. jewel, that you are not captain general of the whole army. Satan himself had taken that cure upon him, before you were borne. It is he that directeth all the soldiers of his camp. What place in his army do you occupy, I do not know. This I am sure of, your captain intendeth fully to displace Christ as much as lieth in him, not only from dwelling corporally in our bodies by the blessed communion, but also from taking real flesh of the blessed virgin. Satan himself would have an other Messiah to be prepared for. judge you, whether you help towards his coming, or ●…o. He coveteth to persuade, that corporally doth mean truly and nothi●…g else: wher●…ore it followeth, that corpus is latin for the truth and for nothing else: and seeing Christ took of our lady corpus a body, by you it is meant he took t●… truth of With M. jewel our lady, & nothing else. Or can you avoid the yoke, the ●…dance, corpus, is 〈◊〉 for truth. the mutual respect that is between body, & bodily, corpus, and corporally? Whatsoever one of those names, which are in one yoke, doth signify, the other doth signify after the same rate. If bonitas be goodness, bonus is good, & been is well▪ corporally is of the same yoke with, corpus, body. If bodily doth mean truly, corpus doth mean truth, so Christ took truth of our Lady: and what is that? forsooth it is whatsoever it pleaseth M. jewel. So that it be no fantasy, it may be then faith or charity, or else bones without flesh, or skin without flesh and bone. To this point M. jewels divinity leadethus. O miserable time, O corrupted manners. The noun corpus body, and the adverb corporaliter corporally do not only signify a truth, but a truth of body: and in Christ it signifieth a truth of flesh and of blood. jewel. Otherwise there must needs follow this great inconvenience, that our bodies must be in like manner corporally, naturally The 19●… untruth. and s●…eshly in Christ's body. For Hilarius saith we also are naturally in him. and Cyrillus: we are corporally in Christ. San. It is most true, that both we are in Christ corporally, and he in us during the time of the conjunction. For when a joining of twain is made, it must needs be, that y● one is joined to that other: which is no absurdity at all, because that twain, to wit, Ephes▪ 5. Christ and his Church, should be in one flesh. it is the doctrine of S. Paul. And as flesh is made one with him who really eateth and digesteth it: so is Christ joined most really to him, that worthily receiveth his body. jewel. That we be thus in Christ requireth not any corporal The 195▪ untruth. being. San. That were a fine kind of being, M. 〈◊〉, that Christ's body should be in us corporally, and yet the being should not be corporal. In deed the manner is not corporal. But if you exclude the truth also of corporal being, you speak contrary to the word itself. For the word corporally can signify no less than a corporal truth. jewel. It requireth not any local being. The 196. ●…ntruthe. San. It is a local being, in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place under the form of bread, which the substance of bread did occupy before. And when we have that kind of bread in us, even so Christ's being is local in us. jewel. Christ sitting in heaven is here in us, not by a natural, but The 197. untruth. by a spiritual mean of being. San. The being of Christ in us by spirit is also natural concerning the nature of his Godhead, which is every where. But conc●…rning the grace which is created in us, it is a spiritual being after the rate as every cause is in his effect. jewel. S. Augustine saith: After that Christ is ascended he is in Imperti●…nt. us by his spirit. And S. Basil, and again S. Augustine saith the like in diverse places. And Christ spoke in S. Paul, & caet. San. You are now in a common place, M. jewel. Who denieth but Christ being in heaven, is here in spirit? Will that take away his being here in body, when bread is turned into his body: Shall one truth always displace an other with you? These be souter's arguments to say, Christ is God: therefore he is not man. He is in heaven: ergo he is not in earth, etc. jewel. This conjunction is spiritual, and therefore needeth not The 198. ●…truthe. neither the circumstance of place, nor corporal presence. San. The conjunction is spiritual, but the 〈◊〉 of working it is brought to pass by the corporal substance of Christ. M. jewel hath forgotten that we now 〈◊〉, whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally, for th●…nd to make a spiritual coni●…ction by this mean of his own flesh, or no: as if a man to con●…t an heretic, do not only write unto him, but also do come himself and by disputation of mouth do persuade him, the conversion is spiritual, but the mean of working it, is by corporal pr●…sence. jewel. The conjunction that is between Christ and us, neither Evil vn●…. do●…h mingle persons, nor unite substances. But it doth knit our De coena Domin. affects together and join our wills, saith S. Cyprian. San. S. Cyprian in the same place expoundeth himself to mean●…e, that we are not made by this union, the second person in 〈◊〉: for (saith he) the only S●…e is consubstantial, or of the same substance with hi●… Father. But we by eating his real flesh in this Sacrament, are made 〈◊〉 unto the Son of God: Attaining thro●… the flesh usque ad participationem spiritus Ephes. 5. even to the 〈◊〉 of the ●…pirit of Christ. Again, whereas our union with Christ is 〈◊〉 in the holy Scriptures to the union w●…ich is in 〈◊〉: as in matrimony the wife & husband tarry ●…oth 〈◊〉 persons, and each of them keep their several substances, notwithstanding that ●…or a time they are united in flesh: right so is it in this blessed mystery, where Christ's flesh is joined to our flesh for a time only, 〈◊〉 ' ●…nd the spirit of Christ by so excellent a mean (as his own flesh is) may be more fully partaken. Thus it is clear, that S. Cyprian saith the same thing with us, who likewise de●…nd our union with God to be made in will, and heart: and not that we be at any time made consubstantial with the blessed Trinity. But the means of uniting us to God are not our 〈◊〉 only, but the nature of faith, the regeneration of Baptism, and the real flesh of Christ received under the form of bread, The which real presence of Christ's flesh S. Cyprian so plainly teacheth, that I can not su●…iclently m●…e at the ●…dencie of M. jewel▪ Who knoweth him, to teach, 1. That the bread is changed in nature, and not in form. 2. That under ●… 〈◊〉 Sactamento. Sacrament we eat the bread of Angels in earth, the which self same we shall eat more manifestly in heaven without a Sacrament. Sine Sa●…amēto. 3. That this doctrine came newly from Christ alone, that Christian men should drink blood, which thing was forbidden to the jews: and seeing it was not forbidden them to drink Christ's blood in faith, but only to drink common blood in their mouths, it followeth evidently, that the Christians by this new order of Christ, drink blood into their mouths also, & not by faith alone. All these arguments, beside many other which are in the same sermon, declare evidently, that S. Cyprian utterly abhorred from this blasphemous heresy of the Sacramentaries. jewel. The conjunction because it is spiritual, true, full, and perfect, The 199. untruth. is expressed by this term corporal. San. As though God because he is spiritual, true, full, & perfect, he might therefore be called corporal. Who ever heard of such divinity? Because it is spiritual, it is termed corporal. Because it is red, it is called green. because it is chalk, it is named cheese, need these words any confutation? Were not the writer of them worthy to be rebuked rather than to be refelled? jewel. Corporal conjunction removeth all manner light and accidental Contrary to himself. joining. San. If all accidental joining be removed, only substantial joining remaineth. A substantial joining requireth the substances to be present which are joined together. If then we are substantially joined to Christ's body, our bodies and his must be present. For the substance of our souls is not without the compass of our bodies: Neither can they be substantially joined to Christ's body, as long as they are absent from the real body of Christ. As for the joining which is made by faith or charity, it is made by an accident, and not by substance. jewel. It is utterly untrue, that we have Christ corporally within The 200. untruth. us, only by receiving the Sacrament. San. Never a Father by you named saith as you do. and therefore you speak of your own head, whom no man that wise is, will believe. For seeing we can not have him corporally within us, without his body be within us, and yet none other thing is his body beside the which is delivered at his supper, by that mean only he may be corporally in us. jewel, By M Harding'S construction, the child is damned, who The 201. untruth. dieth without receiving the Sacrament of Christ's body. San. Neither he, nor no Catholic teacheth so. Baptism sufficeth, as we believe, until a man come to the years of discretion. jewel. Without natural participation of Christ's flesh there is The 202. untruth. no salvation. San. If it be so, it is you that teach the damnation of all those who receive not the Eucharist. for only in the Eucharist we partake the nature and substance of Christ's flesh in itself. But we partake the grace thereof by faith and Baptism. jewel. S. Chrysostom saith: In the Sacrament of Baptism we The 203. untruth. are made flesh of Christ's flesh, and boan of his bones. San. Those words you have not in S. Chrisostom, Who in ●…hat place confesseth plainly, that those who are partakers of the holy mysteries can tell, how they are formed Germanè ac legitimè ex In epi. ad Ephes. hom. 20. ipso. properly and lawfully out of him. Moreover he giveth an other sense expounding ex ipso, for secundum ipsum according to him, saying: as Christ was born without the seed of man, so we are made the same thing in baptism. Thirdly he showeth that we were taken out of Christ's side, as Eve out of Adam. But the proposition that you have framed in his name, is not in him, but although it were in him, yet it is not to the purpose. For it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ, which may be meant of his mystical flesh, and an other thing to partake his flesh naturally. We are made of his flesh by spiritual means. For to be of his flesh it is to belong to his flesh, that is to say, to be members thereof by any mean at al. But when we speak of natural or cor poral partaking of flesh, we exclude all mystical flesh, and restrain the talk only to Christ's own real flesh, which he took of the virgin Marie. Last of all, the reason why certain places of holy scripture are interpreted sometime of baptism, & sometime of Christ's supper, is, because in the old time in many countries the Sacrament of Chrites body was given strait after baptism, as it may appear in. S, De eccl. Dionysius Areopagita, and in S. Ambrose: in so much that sometime Hierar. ca 2. & 3. these two Sacraments are so entreated of in S. Cyprian, Eusebius Emissenus, and S Augustine, as if they were one Sacrament, De Sacr. li. 4. ca 3. for that they were ministered together. But in so weighty a Ad Quir. li. 3. ca 25 hom. 5. epi. 106. matter as we now entreat of, it was not uprightly done of M. jewel to make a proposition of his own, and to set it out in the name of S. Chrysostom. jewel. M. Harding is not yet able to find, that Christ's body is The 204 untruth. either corporally received into our bodies, or corporally present in the Sacrament. San. It is you that are not able to find it. for D. Harding hath found it, and showed it many ways. and as I have showed it in S. Chrysostom, in S. Hilary, & in S. Gregory Nyssen: so would I show it at large out of Cyrillus, but that partly this book is grown already to great, partly a marvelous number of places in S. Cyrillus do prove, both Christ's body to be corporally received into our bodies, and to be corporally 〈◊〉 in the Sacrament. 1. Concerning us, he saith: It behoved this earthly body should 1. be brought to immortality cognato cibo. by meat of his own In joan. li 4. c. 14. substance. for so himself expoundeth the word afterward, saying: Ad Euo. anath. 11. that Christ's body is cognatum nostris corporibus, hoc, est consubstantiale. It is of kin with our bodies, that is to say, of the same substance. 2. As two waxes being melted are mingled together: so he 2. that receiveth Christ's flesh and blood, is mingled with Christ. Lib. 4 cap. 17 It is not possible to understand the mingling of two waxes to be other, then real and substantial. For wax hath neither faith nor spirit. 3. D. Harding hath alleged five or six most plain sentences, 3. which may ●…e seen in his book. To none of all which M. jewel Cyril. li. 10. ca 13. li. 11. c. 26▪ & 27. hath justly a●…swered, or scant said any word. read also S. Cyr●…l, in joan. li. 3. cap. 36. lib. 4. cap. 18. etc. Now touching the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, it is to be understanded, that S. Cyrillus calleth the Sacrament Benedictio. of Christ's body and blood, mysticam benedictionem, the mystical blessing. and therefore he exhorteth the faithful people to come to receive it, & to be partakers thereof, as the which In joan. li. 4. c. 17. putteth away both death and diseases. Of this benediction and Sacrament thus he writeth. 1. It differeth from Manna, because the benediction is verily 1. meat: whereas Manna was a figurative bread. But if the Sacrament Lib. 4. cap. 16. con●…sted of material bread, and were not Christ's flesh, it were no more the true bread, than Manna was. A little blessing (to wit a little piece of the consecrated food) draweth the whole man to it: Et sua gratia replet, and filleth him 2. with his own grace. Therefore the Sacrament hath grace of his Lib. 4. cap. 17. own, and is no common bread: because than it sho●…ld not draw us unto it, but it should be turned into us▪ but now the benediction, that is to say, the Sacrament draweth us to it: therefore itself in his own substance is the flesh of Christ. Ad Euo. anath. 11. He declareth the word of God to be life according to nature, & that it hath made his flesh able to give life. Et hac ratione facta est nobis benebictio vivificatrix. And by this mean the Sacrament is made of power to give us life. Mark the degrees: the life itself is first in the son of God, and afterward in the flesh assumpted, and so is the Sacrament able to give life. how hangeth this discurse? but only because he presupposeth it for an undoubted truth, that in the Sacrament the flesh of the son of God is really present. After he had showed that the Catechumevi can not partake of In joan. l. 12. c. 50 our mystical benediction, he saith: The ministers cry with a loud voice to those who come to the mystical blessing, Sancta sanctis, holy things for holy men. Meaning the touching & the sanctification of Christ's body to agree only to those, who are sanctified with the holy Ghost. He calleth the mystical blessing the body of Christ, and showeth, that those who come to it, do touch Christ: which is of necessity understanded by the mean of the form of bread, under the which Christ is. But if Christ were not really under that form of bread, why are the Catechumeni kept from it? For 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 of the faith. seeing they confess the faith with a loud voice (as there S. Cyrillus do●…h witness) and seeing they may by their faith ●…eed upon Christ in heaven, show me a reason, M. jewel (if you be able) why he that may eat Christ in faith, may not eat the bread (as you ●…i. 2. de peccat. me & re mis. c. 26 term it) which is the sign of him. Specially sith S. Augustine confesseth, that they also had a kind of hallowed bread (but not the body of Christ) given to them. We give this reason hereof, because in the Sacrament of the body of Christ, his own body is really present, which is of such honour, that no mean sanctification should su●…ise for the admitting thereunto. And for as much as the Catechumeni, who be not yet baptised, have not that grace of the holy Ghost which is given in baptism, they are not sufficiently prepared to receive this marvelous sacrifice, and dreadful my●…erie: which you not withstanding repute so vile, that you crumb your pottage dishes with it, & sometimes cast that, which is left in the cup of your own blessing, upon the ground, as I myself saw it done in king Edward's time at a communion in Gloceter shear. You make in words much of it, but your deeds do show your blasphemous hearts. Harding. The Catholic fathers sithence Berengarius, The 11. 〈◊〉. have used the terms really, substantially, etc. to exclude Metaphors and figures, and to confess a most supernatural union with Christ by mean of his natural flesh, really (though not locally) present. jewel. These Doctors lived within these three hundred years, The ●…50. untruth. and are such as M. Harding thought not worth the naming. San. He named none that were sithence the six hundred years after Christ, because he saw your impudent proclamation to have bound him to the tyme. But otherwise he neither lacked sufficient witnesses, elder than Berengarius, nor judged them unworthy the naming. And because by these your insulting words, you s●…e to look for some witnesses above three hundred years old, I will give you a taste even of the best that were from the first six hundred, until the last three hundred years after Christ. Within which time many notable fathers have lived. How think you by Damascene, who saith: the bread & wine Damasc. de Orth. ●…d. li 4. cap. 14. and water is superturally changed by the invocation and the coming of the holy Ghost into the body and blood of Christ. And that he proveth, because our Lord said: this is mi●… (not figure of body) but body, and (not figure of blood) but blood. in 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉. Saith not Theophilact, that the bread is with secret words by mystical blessing and coming of the holy ghost changed 26. in Matt. & in 6. joan. into our Lord's flesh? saith he not, it appeareth bread, but in deed is flesh? again, why doth it not appear flesh? because we should not abhor from the eating thereof. For if it had appeared flesh, w●… had been unpleasantly affected toward the communion. Is there any doubt, but he who telleth that the bread is changed into flesh, and showeth why yet it doth appear bread and not flesh, did verily believe the real presence of Christ's flesh under the form of bread? or is he not more impudent than any ha●…lot, who will stand in de●…nse, that Damascene & Theophilact believed not t●…ansubstantiation, as we do? and yet these two are not only above three hundred, but also above seven hundred years old. Saith not Haymo, licet panis videatut, in veritate corpus Christi in 1. Cor. 10. est, although it ●…me bread, it is in truth the body of Christ? Saith not ●…igius, that after consecration it seemeth bread and in Cano. Missae. in lib. de corp. D. in Sacra. wine, but in truth it is the body and blood of Christ? Saith not Paschasius, although the figure of bread and wine be h●…re, yet after consecration they are to be believed to be nothing at all, but the flesh and blood of Christ? What shall I speak of Lanfrancus, Ivo, 〈◊〉, Anselmus▪ Most of them wrote a●…st Be 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉, Algerus, Euthymius, who were all notable men for learning, and all above three hundred years old? I come to S. Bernard, whom you have alleged many ti●…s in this your Bernar. in s●…rm. de Sancto Martino Not car●…lly concerning the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉. work. Thus he writeth: Even to this day the same flesh is exhibited to us (which the Apostles had soon in his manhood) but yet spiritually forsooth, not carnally. For there is no cause why we should say either the apparition, which was made to the fathers of the old testament, either that presence of his flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles, to be d●…nied in these our days. For to them who faithfully consider the matter▪ it shallbe clear that neither of Carnis ipsius vera substan tia in Sacramento. both lacketh. For the true substance of the flesh itself is present now also to us no doubt verily but (that it is so) in the sacrament. Here is, M. jewel, the true substance of Christ's own flesh affirmed to be no less present (in a spiritual manner, but not in a carnal manner of being) as it was present to the Apostles who saw Christ in flesh. I omit Nicholaus Methonensis, and 〈◊〉, and Phot●…s Grecians, Albertus Magnus, Alexander de Ha●…s, I●…nocentius the third, with diverse more above three hundred years old. Iu. Their doctrine is without comfort. they hold that the body of The 〈◊〉▪ untruth. Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies, but only until the forms of the bread and wine begin to alter. San. That doctrine, M. jewel, is not without comfort, in so much as the Sacrament serveth as a mean to bring to us the body of Christ: which when it hath delivered unto our bodies, a conjunction is made by touching and eating Christ: out of which conjunction made by flesh▪ riseth a marvelous commodity to our spirit and soul. So that albeit when the forms of bread and of 〈◊〉 be altered, the body of Christ can not be affirmed to be corporally in our bodies any longer: yet a grace, virtue & strength is left still with us of inestimable operation toward life everlasting. If this do seem absurd to M. jewel, how thinketh he of all those Luc. 8. whom Christ healed by touching them with his flesh? was it not a corporal and real touching, because Christ ceased to touch any more, when the health was once procured? was not all Christ's Matt. 28. coming and walking in flesh, true, real, and corporal, because when the time of his humble dispensation ●…as 〈◊〉, he departed bodily out of our sight, and tarried with us in his godhead and power? Moreover I have said often times, our cō●…ton with Christ Ephes. 5. in this Sacrament is like the carnal copulation between the wife and husband, where twain are in one flesh. A great mystery saith S. Paul, in Christ & his Church. As, therefore the man and wife being corporally joined tarry not always together, but after a time depart a sunder, and yet for all that, of their conjunction i●…ue cometh, and they keep yet always the bond of wedlock and of love in each of them: so after that Christ hath united him to us under the form of bread, he departeth in bodily presence when those foormes cease to be, under which it pleased him to come to us: but the virtue of that conjunction tarrieth still. The 207. untruth. jewel. Some others say, that as soon as our teeth touch the bread, strait ways Christ's body is taken up into heaven. The words be these: Certum est quod quàm cito species dentibus teruntur, tam cito in coelum rapitur corpus Christi. San. Have you not yet done with gloss, M. jewel? I marvel not. For the greatest flower of your garden lieth in gloss and phrases. But yet if the gloss ●…e of themselves not at all times most wary (because they were made in grea●… security of the faith, the authors of them never thinking that such a desperate generation of ●…leuers should have sprung up) surely you ought not to make them 〈◊〉 trā●…ation. more odious than they deserve, by false and corrupt translation. You have englished now, teruntur, touched, and species, bread, for you say, as soon as our teeth touch the bread, the body is taken into heaven. But species, do signify the forms of bread & wine, teruntur doth signify, are wasted or consumed. The which word Terere. in Berengarius confession you could turn, by the word, grinded. thus at one time terere, is to grind with you, at an other time it is, to touch. Why M. glosser of gloss, is terere latin to touch & to grind? But you have a new kind of malice in your heart which can make new latin, new english, new Gospel, new faith and a new Church at your pleasure. Iu. Here a man may say unto M. Harding, as he did before to the The 208. untruth. Arrian heretic. San. You can not so speak to D. Harding, as he spoke to the Arrian heretic, to whom he spoke not by his own authority, but by the authority of S. Cyrillus, who disputing against an Arrian heretic, said unto him, as D. Harding may right well say unto you. An fortassis putas & caet. What troweth this Arrian Cyril. in joan. lib. 10. c●…. 1. heretic perhaps, that we know not the virtue of the mystical blessing? Which when it is become to be in us, doth it not cause Christ to dwell in us corporally also, by receiving of Christ's body in the communion? Thus far S. Cyril, whose words touched M. jewel a thousand years before he was borne, because his heresy is one in this behalf with the Arrian heresy, who taught us not be corporally joined by natural participation to Christ (as branches are joined to the vine) but ●…aughte, even as M. M. ●…uell agreeth 〈◊〉 the Arrians jewel doth, that we depend of Christ by faith, and none otherwise. And troweth M. jewel now, that he may talk to D. Harding by his own contemptible authority, as D. Harding talked to him out of S. Cyrillus? Bring, if you can, M. jewel, a saying of above a thousand years old, where D. Harding's doctrine may be accused of heresy. jewel. cometh Christ to us from heaven, and by and by forsaketh The 20●… untruth. us? San. As Christ at his incarnation came not from heaven by forsaking his glory, but by assupting flesh of the virgin: so now at the time of the consecration his body cometh not down from heaven, but the bread is changed into his body, and by that mean his body is present with us. and as after his resurrection he ascended into heaven: so after the communion the forms of bread and wine being consumed, Christ caeaseth to be corporally with us, to th'end we should again desire his presence, and well know these two chief points of our belief: the one, that the end of the joining consisteth in spirit, rather th●…n in flesh: the other, that the flesh of Christ really eaten is the mean, whereby we have access to the spirit of God with trust and confidence. jewel. Or that we eat Christ and yet receive him not? or hau●… The 210. untruth. him not? or that he entereth not, & caet. San. We eat him, and receive him, and have him, & he entereth into us. Who teacheth the contrary, but that your own shadow troubleth you? jewel. He saith, this presence is known to God only: than it followeth, The 211. unruthe. M. Harding knoweth it not. San. He said not, this presence, but the manner of the presence is known to God only: and so is it in deed. But why do you 〈◊〉 his words? jewel. So this article is concluded with an Ignoramus. The 212. untruth. San. Not so, because the question is not of the manner of Christ's presence, but of his real presence, though the manner be unknown. But did you call that an ●…gnoramus, if we know not how Christ Ignoramus is under the form of bread? I am sure, you know not how the union was made in the virgin's womb, are you therefore reproved as ignorant? In deed if ye bel●…ue not Christ's presence, ye Non credi●…us. have concluded this article with a Non credimus, which is a worse fault, than Ignoramus. For he that believeth not, shallbe Marc. 19 condemmed. jewel. The old learned Fathers never left us in such doubts. The 213. untruth. San. S. Cyrillus in this very matter, willeth us to give strong faith to the mysteries, but to leave the way and knowledge of his lib. 4 in 〈◊〉. c. 13. work unto god. the first part you have broken. The first and last D. Harding hath observed, and you shallbe concluded with a dam naberis, if ye repent not. S. Chrisostom saith, it is the part of a scholar, not to search out curiously the things which the master affirmeth, In ●…oā. hom. 45. but to here, and to believe, and to look for a convenient time of soiling the question. jewel. Emissenus saith. Christ is present by his grace. The 214. untruth. San. You have put a false nominative case. 〈◊〉 doth say, that Christ consecrated the Sacrament of his body and bl●…od to th'end: Perennis illa victima viveret in memoria, et semper praesens esset in gratia, that everlasting sacrifice should live in remembrance, and be always present in his grace. It is victima, the oblatio●… or sacrificed host which is present in grace. for in deed the act of crucifying is utterly passed, but the sacrifice is present in his grace: for so much as it is present in that flesh, which suffered death. Again, he saith not that it is present by his grace (as you have turned it) but in his grace. You would have grace to be the mean of presence: but it is not so. Grace is the effect of presence: But the mean of the grace in this Sacrament is the presence of Christ's own body. jewel. S. Augustine saith: Christ in us by his spirit. Impertinent. San. That is true also, when he is in us by his flesh: for in that flesh his spirit dwelleth. And he that denieth Christ to be in us by his own flesh, taketh away the chief way, by which the spirit of God may be in us. the 215. untruth. jewel. Ye shall not eat this body that ye see: it is a certain Sacrament that I deliver you. San. The words of S. Augustine are, I have commended or Comm●… davi. ps●…l 98. set forth a certain Sacrament to you, and not, I deliver you a c●…rtain Sacrament. For this was spoken of S. Augustine in Christ's person in respect of the talk had a●… Capharnaum: Where the Sacrament was commended, before it was delivered. But joan. 6. that which was commended at Cap●…naum, was only the same flesh which 〈◊〉 for us: Therefore that flesh must be delivered not in a visible and sensible manner, but yet in truth of giving by body, and of taking by body. For of such giving and taking Christ spoke, as by the last supper it may appear, where he per●…oormed Math. 26 his promise. But M. jewel was loath, that relation should be made to the talk had at Capharnanm. For than he saw, that the very real flesh must be the thing which should be delivered. again he would not have either the commendation past, or the gift to come: and therefor●… he turned, commendavi, into, trado. I have commended, into, I deliver. indeed, M. Iue●…, Christ delivered his flesh as well at Capharnaum, as at his supper by Falsi●…ying. your doctrine. But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel: Where the promise is showed to be made at Capharnaum, and the perfoormance at the last ●…upper. In which supper neither the body which the jew s saw was delivered, and much less bread or wine, which was not promised: but under the form of bread & wine, that flesh and blood was delivered, which at 〈◊〉 was promised. The 216▪ untruth. jewel. Thus the holy Fathers say: Christ is present, not corporally. San. Both S. ●…yril and S. Hilary have the word corporally, as I have showed, concerning the Sacrament. The 217. untruth. jewel. Not carnally. San. S. Hilary hath the word carnally in the 23. chapit. the number 37. of this book. The 218. untruth. jewel. Not naturally. In joan. li. 10. c. 13 & 11. c. 26 San. S. Hilary hath the term naturally diverse times, & S. Lyrill calleth it natural partaking, and natural union. jewel. But as in a Sacrament, by his spirit and by his grace. Impertinent. Sa●…. Here appeareth what stuff you have fed the reader with all in your whole book. For partly you deny a truth which is, that Christ is not corporally present, and that you do against the express word of God, and the Fathers, as I have showed: partly you prove that your heresy by an other truth, which rather stablisheth than hindereth the real presence. For Christ can not be better present in spirit and grace, than if he be present in his flesh, therein to convert to us his spirit and grace. for the cause of his taking flesh was, to make his flesh an instrument to deliver his spirit and grace to our flesh, to th'end no mean of providing for our salvation might be omitted by so loving a Father. In consideration whereof S. Ambrose saith: Ambros. lib. 6. de Sacram. cap. 1. Thou that takest his flesh, art made partaker of his divine substance in that food. Note that the spirit & substance of God cometh to us by taking Christ's flesh. ¶ The Conclusion. COnsider first, good Reader, that of more than twenty articles, there is but one answered, & that not the longest. wherein if above two 〈◊〉 faults and vntrut●…es (without curious searching) be 〈◊〉: what may a man think of the whol●… book of M. jewel? how many hundred, yea 〈◊〉 M. jewels k●…d of rea so●… thousand untruths may you think to be contained therein? who when he proveth his matter b●…t, and least of all abuseth himself, his proof is none other, then to say one thing is not true, because fo. 319. another is true. Thus he teac●…th Christ to be eaten by faith and 337. 324: spirit, and thinketh that thereof he may conclude, Christ is not eaten in the sacrament by mo●…th. Christ is corporally in heaven: 323. therefore his body is not under the form of bread. The Sacrament is a figure, & therefore by his judgement it is not the truth. As well he might say, a man hath a soul, and therefore no body: or Christ, is man and therefore not God. Abusin●… of the holy scriptures In disputing of the holy scriptures he never answereth to these words (which is given for you) being the most principal point of D. Harding'S answer: he never considereth the promise 316. made by Christ in the time to come, Dabo I will give: but talketh of it, as if it were past and present. He hath Englished non habebitis vitam, Ye shall have no life. He expoundeth that we are flesh 320. of Christ's flesh and bone of his bones by his nativity: whereas 320. thereby Christ is of us, because he took our nature, rather than we of him: except by faith we begin to depe●…d of him. Moreover he thereby maketh Christ the vine, and us the branches: after 341. which r●…te 〈◊〉 & judas are branches of the true vine which is Christ. For Christ's nativity pertaineth to their nature also. 341. He t●…neth out of Pri●…asius, in stead of, the bread which we break, the breaking of the bread: attributing that to the action of 343. breaking, which S Paul did attribute to the substance of the bread which we break. He bringeth late writers, to build his doctrine upon their 4. M jewels Doctors words, such as he hath refused to admit against himself, as S. 317. Bernard, Scotus, Nicolaus de Lyra, Bonaventure, D. Fisher, 319. B. Tunstall, D. Smith, and the gloss of the Cannon law: and 324. yet he lea●…eth so to their authority, that in the matter of church 156. service, he hath no higher doctors to prove that in the primitive church the prayers were in a known tongue, beside, S Thomas and Lyra, whose resolution notwithstanding he will not follow therein. 5. He setteth all divinity upon phrases of speech, thinking he Phrases of speech. hath answered sufficiently, if he can show a speech any thing 341. like, used in an unlike matter: by the which order he may disprove 342. the divine nature of Christ, because men are also called Gods. etc. 343. 344. And the unity of substance in the Trinity, because the faithful joan. 10. are called one, as Christ and his Father are one. He may defend the word to be none otherwise made flesh, than he granteth bread joan. 17. joan. 1. to be made Christ's body. And the water at Cana of Galilee none otherwise to be made wine, than he granteth the wine of Christ's 342. 425. supper to be made blood. To be short, he hath begun the high way to set all the mysteries of Christ only upon phrases. And consequently to bring the most healthful knowledge of divine matters, to a talk and manner of speech. But in handling his phrases he never maketh any discourse out of the Scriptures, to show like reason between diverse places by himself alleged: but as children in grammar schools pick Latin phrases out of Plautus, Terence, or Sallust, not being able to judge how y● one phrase differreth from the other: so hath he most ignorantly done in the Scriptures and in the Fathers. 6. He compareth the Eucharist to Baptism, both for like presence False come parisons. of Christ in both, and for like adoration of both, and would 341. have most things like between them: Whereas though in somewhat they agree, yet in most things they di●…fer excedig much, as I have declared. He allegeth phrases concerning the holy Chrism, 342. and yet he believeth not the phrase which himself bringeth. He misexpoundeth the sayings of the Fathers, interpreting spiritual 7. False comm●…ts. flesh (whereof S. Hierom entreateth) to be so named because it is the flesh of the Son of God, thereby denying (if that 332. interpretation be true) the flesh of Christ (as it was crucified) to be the flesh of God. For it is said of S. Hierom to differ (after that manner) from the spiritual flesh. He taketh the word flesh 342. in Leo, and the word body in S. Augustine, and the same word 320. body in Gregory Nyssen, for Christ's natural flesh, and natural 341. body, which were spoken of his mystical flesh and his body the Church. 8. He missenglisheth many words: Atteri at one time to be grinded, False translations into English. at another to be touched, Which is properly neither of both. Accedere, he calleth to reach. And in the same sentence he turneth 328. hoc corpus the body, because he would have it thought absent, 347. whereas it ought to be englished, this body: which pronoun 319. (this) doth declare, that S. Chrysostom spoke of the body which 341. was present upon the altar. Valet, he turneth, this is the use: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one nature, whereas it is of one planting, or pertaining to one nature. De meo est, it is of my body. Secundum quendam modum, after a certain phrase and manner of speech. He 326. reporteth of S. Hilary who said, sub mysterio, as if he had said, in a mystery: Whereas it is to be englished, under a mystery. but that sub, under, grieveth him to the heart, because it betokeneth the 344. presence of Christ so real, that it is under the mystery, which we Slaun●…ers. take into our hands and mouths at the holy communion. He slandereth us in saying we expound est, for erit, and erit, 9 for transubstantiabitur, and datur, for dabitur, benedixit, for, he 326. blessed it away, & in place of it, he putteth another substance. For we teach the changing, and not the putting away of a substance. 328. He burdeneth D. Harding with contradiction, which is none: 331. With Eutiches heresy, which heresy is directly against the which D. Harding defendeth. He saith D. Harding will have children condemned who receive not the Sacrament: which he never meant, nor said. 10. He calleth for Doctors before the time and place, and when ●…sting. they are come, he heapeth them altogether, and disputeth confusely 327. of their sayings: so that any man may perceive his evil conscience, 341. & vain bragging. For where the points are most easy, 342. there the stayeth longest, where they are mo●…t hard, there he juggleth, and runneth in and out, hoping to cast a mist before the Readers eyes. 11. He denieth adverbs taken of nouns to signify the substance Childish errors. of any thing, which is a childish ignorance: as likewise in the 326. words of Gregory Nyssen to begin the construction with corpus, and to make humana natura to follow the verb est, 341. whereas he should have done the contrary in his construction, though the words there be placed out of order. 12. He addeth words of his own between the Doctor's words, Cra●…y conve●…ce not only such as may expound things otherwise hard, but even 324. such as weigh down the question between us and him: which 344. & caet. thing is so common with him, that almost no long sentence escapeth a parenthesis of his own patching in. He missapplieth things, attributing that to the Sacramental 13. False applications eating, which S. Augustine spoke to an unfaithful Iew. not 319. regarding how he mingleth unlike things. & that which Cyrillus In joan. tract 26. & 50. spoke against the heresy of Nestorius, concerning that we eat the flesh of no bare man, but of God, he reporteth as if it had been a Catholic doctrine taught without disputation, and as if the sense were: we eat not by mouth at all the flesh of Christ. And that which S. Augustine speaketh either of the figures 318. of the old law, or generally of all signs, he maketh serve against the holy mysteries of Christ's supper, which do far exceed other sig●…es & figures. It were to much to reckon up, how oft he erreth in this behals: yet this may not be omitted, that he applieth the answer made by S. Hilary concerning the union between 346. ourselves by faith, as though he had said it of Christ's union with us. a matter of great weight is so shamefully belied. He writeth things expressly contrary, as that by faith Christ's 14. body dwelleth in our bodies really and corporally, and that Contradictions. Christ dwelleth in us not really or bodily, but because his faith 341. is in us. Again what contradiction is it to say, all accidental 344. 345. conjunction is removed, and yet not to gra●…nt a real and substantial 323. conjunction? to say, the Sacrament is taken with our 343. mouths, and that we undontedly receive Christ's body in the 319. 345. Sacrament: and yet that Christ's body is not received into our mouths really, but by faith only? That our conjunction with Christ is called corporal, because it is spiritual? 15. He useth a point of so great and shameful dishonesty, as one A most shameless shift. boy in schools would not use in reasoning against an other: Making D. Harding to reason so, as he never thought os: as to say, 321. 1. The Capharnaites mistoke Christ's words. 2. Christ speaketh 324. of his ascension. 3. We eat not the flesh that was crucified. 333. Upon every of which propositions, and many such like, he maketh D. Harding conclude, ergo Christ's body is really in the Sacram●…nt: Either falsifying the whole argument, or leaving out a principal part, or putting that in one part, which should have stood 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 will rather make his adversaries reasons stronger, and then answer them when they are at the worst, then to dissemble the strength of them, and only to blear men's eyes with defacing his adversaries strong argument by falsifying his proof. D. 324. & caet. Harding requireth only, that men of understanding will vouthsafe to read his words again, after M. jewel hath made his argument, and then to consider his unhonest report, a witness of his evil conscience. He falsifieth the doctors, by making them to say more, than 16. False additions to the Father's words. they do say. He putteth into S. Hierom these three words (into heaven) that, which do utterly change the sense. He reporteth that S. Augustine teach th' the old Fathers to have eaten the self same body that is received now of the faithful: all the which words are forged. In the words of Cyrillus he did put in these 324. 321. three words, non aliud quàm. He maketh S. Hilary to say, that 344. we are one with Christ by faith naturally. 346. He leaveth out certain words of the doctors, which were of 17. importance touching the principal question. The nominative Words of importance falsely left out in the doctors words. case in the B. of Rochester's words, conveying in also a false nominative case in steed of the true. In S. Augustine's words in one place he left out the genitive case unitatis, and, huius rei, and in the same place the verb, praeparatur in mensa Domini. In the 317. third place, the noun adjective spiritualem, wherein the whole 323. weight of the cause rested: in the fourth, the ablative case, in ipso 321. 320. eius corpore constituti. In Anacletus he left out Chrismati, putting 342. in oleo for it. In Alexander, he omitted Missarun solennia. In 342. 341. englishing the words of Bonaventure, he left out the adue●… essentially. 324. In S. Hieron he left out repellamus judaicas fabulas, which 336. would have showed whereof he spoke. In alleging ●…usebins Emissenus, he left out three linesin the mi●…dest, joining the foormer part with the later. He affirmeth Gregory Nyssen not to speak one word of the 18. 343. Sacrament, and therein formeth D. Harding'S argument: Christ Most im●…udēt lies is borne of the virgin, ergo his body is really in the Sacrment. whereas Gregory Nyssen said clean contrary: Christ is made meat to to the body, ergo he was borne of the virgin. and thereof D. Harding concluded, ergo he was as really made meat to our bodies in the Sacrament, as ever he was really borne, sith his being real meat proveth his birth. He saith, one john Scote and Bertram wrote openly against the real presence, with good contentation of the world. a more impudent lie was never uttered 329. by man. He disgraceth S. Hilary, and privily fathereth upon him a 19 great blasphemy: as though he taught that we are one with God False accusing of S. ●…ilary the Father and the son in nature of the Godhead: whereas his mind was nothing so, as I have declared before. 344. He calleth the Father's words, spoken in the matter which is 20. in question between D. Harding & him, hot, violent, rigorous, Guilty. excessive: therein plainly yielding himself guilty that he ought to 344. By this point he ●…eldeth himself guilty. subsribe, as who would not find fault with those three most learned and ancient Father's words, Hilary, Chrysostom, cyril, unless he clearly saw them to speak utterly against his doctrine. I beseech God to give him grace to amend these enormous faults. It is better, M. jewel, once to subscribe heartily, then to be damned for ever. Now to leave M. jewel, and to speak these few words to thee (good Christian Reader) I chose to speak so copiously of this 1. argument, partly because it is the safer way to offend in that side, partly because this one question is the ground of a great number ●…oe, which depend of it. For if the body and blood of Christ be really present under the forms of bread and wine (which thing now is most fully pro●…d) there is no doubt of transubstantiation, as the which is the most conue●…ient way to make the body 2. present. Again, wheresoever that body is, it can not be but a propitiatory sacrifice: sith it is the substance once bloodily sacrificed, wherein the merit of that sacrifice still remaineth. Thirdly, 3. seeing that body being risen from death, dieth no more, the whole must needs be under each soorme: and therefore albeit the consecration must be necessarily made in two kinds, to represent the death of Christ (where his blood was apart from his flesh) yet no less merit, virtue, & grace cometh to him, who receiveth worthily one kind alone, then if he received both together. Fourthly 4. there can be no doubt, but the body of the son of God both aught to be adored, & being present for us may be preserved for our necessity. So that all these truths and many more depend of this one, wherein the real body of Christ is proved to be present in the Sacrament. And seeing it is proved present by the word of God (as it hath been declared in the third, fourth, and fifth books) seeing it hath been taught to be adored (as it is declared in my sixth book) seeing it is 〈◊〉 to be taken into our 〈◊〉, mouths, and bodies, and to nourish our very flesh to resurrection, & to be made meat to our bodies, which have neither faith nor spirit, but only flesh and bones to receive it withal: seeing the doctrine taught by M. jewel and his fellows against the real presence is by the word of God found to be vain, false, wicked, and is directly confuted in the first, second, and seventh books: last of a●…l, seeing as in this one article M. jewels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are in part discovered, so 〈◊〉 many other they shallbe shortly (God willing) laid 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of all 〈◊〉: it remaineth that the whole Catholic faith so 〈◊〉 defended and justified, be most eruestly b●…leued, and according to the commandment of Christ, most strongly confessed, to th'end he that confesseth now this truth of Christ before men, may be acknowledged of Christ before his Father at the day of judgement, where God send us a comfortable sentence, that we may live with him in glory for ever, Amen. Approbatio septimi Libri. QVoniam Librum istum legerunt, & approbant 〈◊〉 Theologiae & idiomatis Anglici eruditissimi, quibus ego summam hac in re fidem deberi judico, tutò & utiliter emitti potest. Cunerus Petri, Pastor Sancti Petri Lovanij. 20. Decemb. Anno. 1565. A brief table of the whole work. 1. First, because the whole book doth concern specially the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, if the Reader will see any thing pertaining thereunto, he shall find it in the chapters which are prefixed before every book. 2. Secondly, of adoration it is entreated in the six first chapters of the sixth book. And that the Sacrament of the altar can be no idol. 292. 3. Of transubstantiation as occasion served, he shall find. fol. 234. etc. item 314. B. & 315. 4. Of the sacrifice of the mass, fol. 32. 33. 34. 197. 217. 216. 217. 223. usque ad 233. 5. Of reservation, 35. b. 36. 37. 6 How the Sacrament of the altar is a figure 59 60. usque ad 72. & 137. b. usque ad 146. & 280. 7. That evil men eat Christ's body in the Sacrament. 43. usque ad 50. & 276. 8. Of the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. fol. 260. usque ad 269. 9 Of the figures and prophecies of the old Testament. 214. b. usque ad 223. 10. The faith of the whole Church concerning the Sacrament of the altar. 316. b. usque ad 324. Faults. Fo. Pa. Li. Corrections. 〈◊〉, 5 1. 7. live. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 7 2 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean●…, 11 1 4 name is more like, 17 2 29 is it more like. above, 19 1 24 alone. doctrinethiss, 20 2 11 doctrine of this. a truth less, 21 1 21 a truth no less. ●…che, 28 1 24 such. ready by deed, 29 2 12 ready either by deed. divine, ibidem 31 living. saying, 50 2 13 saving. that filleth, 73 2 20 that he filleth. denieth par●…. 82 1 8 denieth any parcel. made meat, 86 2 9 made meet. now came, 87 1 9 now come. us ne●…, 89 2 15 us a new. manner prices eodem that the son, 18 other prices. 107 1 28 the which the son of his bread, 108 1 20 of this bread. be said, 112 1 5 be saved the ●…ycal, ●…15 1 2 mystical. with howhe 118 2 2 showeth that he. give the flesh, 120 1 16 give that flesh. of grace, 123 2 18 of glory. signa quo, 124 1 31 signa quae. mysteries 126 1 6 mysteries. Cyrillus beside that. beside, will give it. 127 2 29 I will give. but one, 128 2 11 spoke but once. but teach, 136 2 31 but they teach. out all quest 137 2 31 out of all question. old fashion, 143 2 5 old falsehood. word of life 147 2 17 wood of life. ●…tem lin 18. not to be 148 2 3 Christ to be. where yet, 167 2 ●… well yet. & of God, ibidem 15 and if it be the honour of God. hoc, that 172 2 24 hoc this. seem to stand, 177 1 15 seem to sound. this Hieru. ibid. 2 15 this is Jerusalem. they should 179 2 7 as they sound. and really 180 2 11 and real. Chrystom, 182 1 ●… Chrysostom. meaneth us, 184 1 5 moveth us. 〈◊〉, ibidem ●…2 to change. Faults. Fo. Pa. Li. Corrections. and gather, ibidem 25 and to gather. God man, ibidem 2 7 both God & man miraculoush 186 2 19 miraculously. under your, 191 2 7 unto your. miserable 194 1 4 miserable racking. taking. corpus 185 1 3 corporis. the cause, 198 2 4 the sense. faithful when 202 1 31 faithful. when cup is the 203 1 6 this cup the same member 209 2 6 same number. it is not, 211 1 7 is it not. by natural 212 2 3 supernatural. cord vos 227 1 24 certè vos of me and ibidem 30 of me to th'end in y● (deed ye may be mindful of me, and I say under 233 2 16 I say the body that died under. d●…edes that ●…34 2 13 deeds in that am a vine, 252 2 28 am the true vine. any mystical 266 1 12 only mystical. corpore uni. ibid. 25 capite uniretut▪ but in thee, 268 1 23 but by the. carnis Chri sti? ibid. 31 carnis Christi etc. his Church. 269 1 24 All the followeth from these words (and his church) to the end of the v. Chap. should come in at the end of th●… vi. chap. did it 272 1 8 so did it. was dead? ibidem 9 was dead. else past in, 273 1 19 else in. 〈◊〉 274 1 4 Christ. Certainly. by act, 180 1 31 by art. not once to, 299 1 3 not omit to. Corinthians was not, 300 1 4 Corinthians was▪ not. corpus 302 1 10 corpus est Chri sti. Christi, did all thee, ibid. 2 1 did not all the. in deed 306 1 18 in deed the things. things, that member, 317 1 12 that number. or believe 320 1 ●…9 or 〈◊〉 no. no▪ ●…aults. Fo. Pa. Li. Corrections. of a shape, ibid. 2 8 of a round shape. specially 322 2 31 specially twice. awise, very faut, 325 2 15 very fact. no leading, 333 2 1 no word leading. is a figure 332 2 15 is the sign. thee they 331 2 2 thee that they also. also, sixteenth cha. 334 2 9 tenth chap. yas, ibidem 10 say. yet we, 335 1 12 yet now we. the word ibid. 2 13 the wood. But it is 346 2 2 But is it. (or flesh) 356▪ 1 26 (or fleshly) to what, 359 1 31 to be what. Faults. Fo. Pa. Li. Corrections. the consecra 364 2 21 the consideratio●… tion, the vine, 365 2 14 the true vine. speak unto 381 2 2 spoke unto the Jews the. the, and drink, 382 1 30 and to drink. be common, 385 2 26 be the common. 〈◊〉 is be, 388 2 15 i●… it be. thereof it not▪ ibid. 17 thereof is not. more contra. 390 1 5 mere contradiction●… one union 392 1 15 of our union. God or. 405 1 2 God the father or. chariti love 412 1 21 charity alone. gifts are cor. ibidem the ethniks are concorporal▪ superturally 417 1 29 supernaturally. ¶ Other smaller faults in misplacing of letters & points, I leave to the judgement of the discrete Reader. LOVANII. Apud joannem Foulerum▪ Anno Domini 1566. Mense ●…anuar.